Congressman Mark DeSaulnier (CA-11) will host a town hall meeting at Concord High School on Wednesday, August 9th at 6:30 p.m. Since assuming office in 2015, Mark has hosted 46 town halls and mobile district office hours throughout Contra Costa County.

Congressman DeSaulnier invites residents to attend the town hall to listen to a presentation and legislative update. During the town hall constituents will have an opportunity to ask questions, share their opinions on actions taken by the Administration, and discuss issues important to their communities.

Concord Town Hall 
Wednesday, August 9, 2017
6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Concord High School, Multi-Purpose Room
4200 Concord Blvd.
Concord, CA 94521

Please RSVP online at www.desaulnier.house.gov/town-hall-rsvp or call 925-933-2660. For more information or to request ADA accommodations contact Congressman DeSaulnier’s office in Walnut Creek or Richmond.

Demand transparent, qualifications-based process to avoid conflicts of interest, secret deals

A press release issued on Friday, states “a community coalition of organizations and individual voters from Contra Costa County called on all candidates for the interim District Attorney position to complete a public questionnaire about where they stand on a variety of issues that matter to the organizations, ranging from bail practices and criminal justice reform, immigrant rights, worker and consumer protection to police accountability and the environment. The coalition issued the questionnaire after the Board of Supervisors failed to adopt a fully transparent and community-first process at their August 1 meeting. This coalition is also working with local organizations and volunteers to host a candidate forum on Saturday, August 12, in Concord.”

Of the twelve applicants, the Supervisors narrowed the field to five. (See related article, here).

The responses to the questionnaire will be made public before the forum.

View the questionnaire, here: CoCo Interim DA Community Questionnaire_FINAL

WHAT: Contra Costa Interim District Attorney Candidate Forum

WHEN: Saturday, August 12, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.

WHERE: Church of the Nazarene at 1650 Ashbury Dr., Concord, CA

WHO: The forum is co-hosted by the ACLU of Northern California; Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE); Contra Costa AFL-CIO Central Labor Council; Contra Costa County Racial Justice Coalition (CCCRJC); Courage Campaign; #cut50; Democratic Party of Contra Costa County; East County NAACP; Safe Return Project; and Smart Justice California

According to their website, the ACCE “is a grassroots, member-led, statewide community organization working with more than 10,000 members across California…dedicated to raising the voices of everyday Californians, neighborhood by neighborhood, to fight for the policies and programs we need to improve our communities and create a brighter future” such as raising taxes on businesses and individuals to increase funding for education, working to preserve and expand affordable housing, and “raise the floor on wages and benefits.”

On the CCCRJC website it states that the organization is opposed to the expansion of the West County Detention Center.

The Courage Campaign states on their website that it “fights for a more progressive California and country” by focusing on three priorities of economic justice, human rights, and corporate and political accountability.

The mission of #cut50 is to “making communities safer while reducing the number of people in our prisons and jails.”

The press release also states that, “at a public hearing on August 1, the coalition pleaded with the County Board of Supervisors to adopt an open and transparent selection process for choosing the interim District Attorney that includes a community selection committee. The coalition urged the Board to avoid conflicts of interest by revealing whether they have ever received an endorsement or monetary support from any of the candidates, and pressed the supervisors to develop a system for ranking the candidates based on their qualifications and alignment with local values, over a consensus-based decision-making model that could be swayed by backroom deals. The coalition had previously sent a letter requesting similar action to the Board on July 6th, which was never acknowledged.”

A spokesperson for the coalition, Director of Contra Costa County Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE) David Sharples, said, “We want a district attorney who reflects the values of Contra Costa voters. The selection process should focus on whether each candidate is qualified for the job, aligns with local values, has the highest level of ethical standards, and is ready to take on the challenges faced by our community, not the candidate who is the most well-connected. If the board won’t be transparent about this process, then we will go straight to the candidates so they have every opportunity to explain where they stand on the issues and why they are the best candidate.”

The coalition’s press release concluded with the following: “Contra Costa voters have bucked the position of their District Attorney and repeatedly voted for meaningful criminal justice reform over the last several elections. In 2012, 72 percent of county residents voted in favor of Proposition 36, which reformed California’s Three Strikes Law; in 2014, 66 percent of voters supported Proposition 47, which substantially reduced the penalties for several crimes; in 2016, 69 percent voted in favor of Proposition 57, which significantly expanded early parole opportunities for people serving time in California prisons; and 61 percent voted in favor of Proposition 64, which legalized marijuana and retroactively invalidated several types of prior marijuana-related criminal convictions.”

By Allen Payton

During their July 25 council meeting, three members of the council who were in attendance approved the 58-unit Almond Knolls multifamily residential housing project located on Worrell Road near the intersection of Lone Tree Way.

Community Development Director Forrest Ebbs offered a brief introduction to the project. (See the staff report, here: Almond Knolls Apts staff report)

“This is an interesting example of an in-fill project. We get a lot of requests and interest in these lots,” he stated. “It’s encouraging whenever we receive those inquiries because there are a lot of gaps in our city. To accommodate some of our housing demand within our developed environment and to take some of the blight that can happen with some of these empty lots off.”

The project will be gated and on a 2.9 acre, vacant parcel. It includes five, two- to three-story apartment buildings surrounded by a looped, private drive aisle.

It also includes 58 covered vehicle spaces, 30 uncovered spaces and 12 uncovered visitor parking spaces. (See the project drawings and plans, here: Almond Knolls drawings & plans-1 and Almond Knolls drawings & plans-2)

The complex will have multiple open space areas, and a recreation area with a picnic area, fire pit and bocce ball court. It also allows for conversion to condominiums for possible sale of the units, in the future.

Kyle Masters of the Grupe Company, developers of the apartments, spoke of the projected rents for the units and that they also have their own property management company.

“They go through that process of qualifying the individuals who actually are going to live there,” he said.

Each applicant that looks to qualify for one of their units would typically have a monthly income of 2.5 times the monthly rent.

“We’ve elected to increase that to three times for this project,” Masters explained. “So, we’re looking at rents for the one-bedroom around $1,800 a month and for the two-bedroom it’s probably going to be around $2,300 a month,”

“So, if you take that multiple of three you get your monthly income that would be required, and you can do the math and realize that’s a substantial income that would be necessary to qualify to live in these units,” he explained.

To view council meeting video, click here and scroll to 1:41:30 for the Almond Knolls project.

The council voted 3-0 to approve the project, with Mayor Pro Tem Lamar Thorpe and Council Member Monica Wilson absent.

Prevents new ones from opening in the city, with exceptions

By Allen Payton

With only three of the five members in attendance, the Antioch City Council during their July 25 meeting, voted to approve new regulations for smoke shops that sell cigarettes and drug paraphernalia, and voted to apply for a $10 million grant for a desalination plant. Both Mayor Pro Tem Lamar Thorpe and Council Member Monica Wilson were absent.

Due to the need for a 4/5’s vote to adopt, the council had to postpone the decision on an urgency item for a moratorium on the conversion of seniors-only mobile home parks to all-ages housing until the Aug. 8 meeting.

Smoke Shop Regulations

The council approved a new definition of tobacco product and what a tobacco and drug paraphernalia retailer is, amending the existing city ordinance. (Read the complete staff report and ordinance, here: Antioch Smoke Shop Ordinance new regs 07-25-17)

According to the city staff report by Community Development Director Forrest Ebbs, the action prohibits, “with a couple of exceptions, a general medical exception…there’s also an exception on convenient stores which are ancillary to gas stations, as long as less than 20% of their sales area is devoted to tobacco.”

“The current owner can operate it, but it would not be allowed to be sold and continue,” he explained. “Five years is the mark, giving someone ample time to recoup their investment.”

No members of the public spoke during the public hearing. However, letters were submitted by organizations representing the tobacco retailers.

“I’m glad we’re finally at this point on this ordinance,” said Council Member Lori Ogorchock. “Only a few people have reached out to me.”

“This ordinance is coming to fruition, I hope tonight because of the smoke shops and our children,” she explained. “I don’t believe these smoke shops should be allowed in our city. So, I’m happy to see this on the agenda.”

She then chided the tobacco retail business owners for not attending the meeting and speaking about the issue.

“I feel it’s every business owner’s responsibility to know what’s going on in this city,” Ogorchock stated. “I would hope and pray you would read the agenda packets. There’s five members on the council you can reach out to. Please don’t hesitate to reach out to us. Please know what’s going on in the city if you own a business in this city.”

“I appreciate the comments from my colleague, Councilwoman Ogorchock,” he said. “The only question is existing businesses. Are they grandfathered? How will this affect them?”

“This ordinance seems like it will give them more direction and understanding,” Tiscareno continued. He asked about “family member transferrable businesses. Those are things that kind of concern me. I agree we shouldn’t have any newer ones. It doesn’t deny those stores of selling their products. It’s just more keeping that corner neighborhood and our kids safe.”

“They’re given a certain amount of time if they decide to get out of it to have potential new owners…up to 2023 for an established business to get established with the new criteria,” he stated.

“It’s unfortunate that these store owners weren’t here to express their concerns. Shame on them, really for not being here,” Tiscareno said reiterating Ogorchock’s concern. “I think there was enough ample time for those folks to be here. I actually received calls an hour before city council for us to postpone this. I’m not going to delay this because of folks not looking at an agenda.”

He asked for clarification about the new regulations on existing businesses and potential family owners.

Ebbs responded with explanation of the aspects of the ordinance.

“I’ll speak to the two kinds of tobacco retailers that are probably important to you. The first is called the smoke shop which is a place that has more than 20% dedicated to the sale of tobacco. Those businesses, we counted 11…in the city. They may continue to operate. They don’t have to make any changes in their operation. They may sell their business to a new operator. But as of Jan. 1, 2023 they may no longer sell their business. So, that’s the restriction on those types of businesses.”

“Other tobacco retailers in the city, it’s a very similar case except for there’s no restrictions on them selling it,” Ebbs continued. “So, if you’re a corner market you sell groceries and all sorts of things, and you happens to sell cigarettes also, and you’re less than 5,000 square feet, you may continue to operate without restrictions. Five years come and go then you can sell it.”

“New operators coming in have, very restrictive,” he stated. “You have to be over 5,000 square feet or tied to a gas station. Other than that the city will not be entertaining new tobacco retailers of any sorts. Even a small mom and pop corner market types. That is what is written before you.”

Tiscareno asked about transfers of businesses to “inherited family members.”

“Interfamilial transfers would be protected,” said Interim City Attorney Derek Cole.

“The 20%, where did that number come from?” asked Mayor Sean Wright.

“It’s observed in other ordinances that we looked at,” Ebbs responded. “You’d be hard pressed to find a store with 20%. Those stores that have vertical storage of cigarettes, at least…the actual floor area is pretty small.”

“I should point out too that drug paraphernalia sales are not permitted at tobacco retailers going forward, on new operators,” he added.

“The amendments we made tonight answer the questions in those letters we received,” Ogorchock stated. “This is a safety issue for our children and a quality of life issue for the City of Antioch.”

Tiscareno asked about hookah lounges and potential cigar bars, brought up by Thorpe at the previous council meeting, and if they would be permitted.

“If a business did come up in the future that we felt was legitimate, council could hear that and amend the ordinance or is this it?” he asked.

“You could absolutely amend it,” Ebbs stated.

“We’re going to be pursuing a separate effort that relates to smoking…in parks, and certain types of flavored tobacco,” he added. There’s a lot of momentum and a lot of that happening in the county.”

The council adopted the ordinance on a 3-0 vote, but it must come back for a second reading at the next council meeting on Aug. 8, for a final vote.

Grant Application for Desalination Plant

The council voted to direct City Manager Ron Bernal “to submit a grant application, execute a funding agreement and certify funding disbursement to the California Department of Water Resources for grant funding up to $10,000,000 from the Proposition 1 Water Desalination Grant Program for the Brackish Water Desalination Project.”

Chichibu Sister City 50thAnniversary

The council also recognized the 50th anniversary of the Antioch-Chichibu, Japan Sister City relationship. Mayor Sean Wright recently returned from a trip to Japan, along with his family members and other members of the Sister City Committee.

Vice Chair Parsons pushes for gated, senior housing community

By Allen Payton

After making the surprising recommendation to the Antioch Planning Commission to table indefinitely the General Plan Update for the Sand Creek Focus Area, Forrest Ebbs, the city’s Community Development Director modified it. At the commission’s Wednesday night meeting, he announced that he had changed his recommendation to a continuance of the public hearing on the update to the plan, for the remaining 2,800 of 4,000 planned homes.

“I’d like to modify my recommendation…to merely continue without a date certain,” Ebbs said. He suggested the commission could “continue this item to Sept. 20.”

“We’re going to spend time with our city attorney and CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) expert,” he explained. “We will deliver to the planning commission that it either A, proceed with the original recommendation (of adopting the update with the Amended Environmental Impact Report (EIR)); B, pursue a Supplemental EIR; C, continue or table the update; or 4, some other option.”

That is in response to letters from attorneys for two environmental groups and the East Bay Regional Parks District stating the Amended EIR is inadequate and the update requires a Supplemental EIR. That could take another year to 18 months to complete.

“We’ll have a scoping meeting on Sept. 6 on The Ranch project,” Ebbs stated. “It will require an EIR.”

That is because the developer of that project, Richland Communities, is not waiting for the update to be finalized, and has submitted their plan under the existing Sand Creek Focus Area Specific Plan, included in the city’s General Plan, and EIR approved by the city council in 2003.

Planning Commission Vice Chair Martha Parsons asked for “clarification.”

“The Ranch is out there,” she said. “I understand the Albers property…may be out there. Knowing what it costs developers with infrastructure and time tables, how much does staff want to put this off? Is there anything that will guarantee those that are already in the pipeline…I’m really anxious to get a senior housing project. Everyone is begging for a senior housing project.”

Ebbs responded by saying “Albers Ranch – the Olive Groves – is just a preliminary plan submittal. The Ranch includes a General Plan Amendment.”

“Anyone who would like to see these plans can see them on our website,” he said, turning to the few members of the public in the audience.

Parsons followed up, stating “what we do tonight will affect developers, plans, people’s livelihoods.”

Ebbs replied, “Two projects are read to come out of the ground in the next year,” referring to the Aviano Farms and Blackhawk’s Vineyards projects that were approved by the city council, last year. “It will be 16 or 17 years before they build the homes on the hillsides,” referring to The Ranch and Albers’ projects.

Parsons stressed her desire for an active, senior adult residential project.

“The public is telling me what they want…we live in an aging community…people are asking ‘when are we going to get a gated, senior housing community?’”

Ebbs assured her that “this will not affect them at all,” if the commission chose to table the update, which they’ve been working on for over a year.

“They (the developers) can apply for a General Plan Amendment,” he said. “But that is not illegal.”

“The city council will have the opportunity to make a decision,” Parsons responded.

The commission votes are recommendations to the council, which has the final say on new development projects.

Commissioner Kerry Motts told Ebbs, “You took away all my talking points. We will look on Sept. 20^th at the Supplemental EIR or something else.”

Following the discussion, and with no new public comments on the matter, the commissioners voted 6-0, with Commissioner Ken Turnage II absent, to continue the public hearing to Wednesday, Sept. 20.

Ordinance on illegal Solid waste collection postponed

By Daniel Borsuk

With the field of interim Contra Costa County District Attorney candidates pared down from 12 to 5, Contra Costa County Supervisors on Tuesday are determined to select an interim DA by Sept. 19 even in the face of increasing public criticism over the selection process.

On a 5-0 vote supervisors selected for further consideration Contra Costa Judge Diana Beckton, Contra Costa Judge Daniella Douglas, Contra Costa Assistant District Attorney Tom Kensok, Contra Costa Senior Deputy District Attorney Paul Graves and Santa Clara Supervising Deputy District Attorney Patrick Vanier.

Candidates not making the cut were former Contra Costa prosecutor and current private attorney David Brown, San Francisco deputy district attorney John Delgado, Contra Costa Bar Association Criminal Conflict Program Attorney William Green, private attorney Richard Madsen Jr., San Francisco assistant DA since 1996 Michael Menesini, Stanislaus County Prosecutor Brad Nix, and 50-year prosecutor veteran with the Alameda and Los Angeles DA offices Michael Roemer.

With the two judges as candidates, supervisors learned there might be a potential legal barrier where Judge Beckton and Judge Douglas might be found in violation of a state conflict of interest ruling that a sitting Superior Court justice cannot simultaneously serve as a county DA.  The supervisors decided to have each judge weigh in on whether they are in violation of the state conflict of interest law during the upcoming August 15 finalist interviews.

Supervisors forged ahead showing scant concern that there could potentially be a court injunction filed blocking their process to fill the $258,181 a year DA post that was vacated in mid-June when then DA Mark Peterson resigned from office after pleading in Contra Costa Superior Court to 15 felony charges that he illegally spent $66,000 of campaign funds for personal use.

In exchange for a no contest plea Peterson was sentenced to three years probation.  State prosecutors dropped 11 other counts of perjury and one count of grand theft.  The State Bar of California took steps to disbar Peterson last week.

Critics accused supervisors of privately meeting or consulting with interim DA candidates and some opponents said it is pointless to appoint a short-term DA when county voters could be electing a new DA next year.

“There is no need for the board to appoint an interim DA within a year of an election,” protested Marcie Garrett of El Cerrito.

“The Democratic Party of Contra Costa County calls for the board of supervisors to delay action to another date,” said Maria Alegria, chair of the county Democratic Party.

Alegria said the board needs to do more work to screen candidates because of the county DA office’s history of misconduct.  She referred to the recent Peterson case and the 2008 rape case involving DA Michael Gressett, who was accused of raping a junior DA colleague that resulted in a $450,000 out of court settlement.

Mainly because of the DA office’s track record, Walnut Creek resident Julie Davis commented, “I prefer that you consider candidates not in the Contra Costa District Attorney Office.  I’d prefer candidates from outside.  Your selection process is long, yet needs more transparency.”

Concerned about the rising human trafficking situation in the county, Judith Tannenbaum pitched to supervisors that they need to select Contra Costa Office Deputy Senior DA Paul Graves because of his work combatting human trafficking.

Concord Police Chief Guy Swanger representing the Contra Costa Police Chiefs Association encouraged supervisors to select an interim DA who will cooperate with police departments.  “Whoever you choose make sure your choice will work with us,” he said.

District 4 Supervisor Karen Mitchoff of Pleasant Hill attempted to defended the transparency criticism lodged against the board.  “This is a transparent process the board is using.  Everything is online,” she said.

Mitchoff also said state law requires the board of supervisors to appoint an interim DA under the circumstances the county faces.

“This is a challenging situation and ultimately the people of Contra Costa county will have to decide who will be their DA,” said District 2 Supervisor Candace Andersen of Danville.

“We’re not going to please everyone, but I look for someone who will defend racial justice, is fair, shows leadership style, and can move forward,” Board Chair Federal Glover of Pittsburg added.

Supervisor Mitchoff was surprised to learn that the Bay Area Newspaper Group had filed in the past two days a public records request that the county disclose personal information that the five finalists provided in their applications.   The newspaper group had complained the county had redacted personal information and that it should now be public information.  That information will now be unredacted.

Ordinance on Illegal Solid Waste Collection Postponed

In other business, supervisors postponed action until their August 15 meeting on a proposed ordinance that would take aim at cracking down on the illegal solid waste collection and transportation operations in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County.

The county environmental health department has identified more than 41 illegal solid waste transfer stations located in both incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county and 32 of those operations have been closed down, since early 2015.

In order to regulate the solid waste collection industry, the Contra Costa Environmental Health Department has been developing an ordinance where persons engaged in this business in the county would be required to apply for permits, have collection and transport vehicles undergo inspections, and operators must post bond.