ANTIOCH – Open Day May 17th, Is Dollar Day at the 2018 Contra Costa County Fair. Gates Open at 12 noon, and everyone can enjoy the Fair for just $1 until 5PM. Also you can enjoy $1 Carnival Rides until 5PM. The Contra Costa County Fair has partnered with the Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano to bring $1 Day to the Fair. Pay $1 to get into the Fair, and donate $1 to the Food Bank, $1 can provide 2 Health Meals to a needy family in Contra Costa or Solano County.

We look forward to seeing you at the 2018 Contra Costa County Fair. For the complete program presented by the Antioch Herald, click here: 

For additional information about the 2018 Contra Costa County Fair visit our website at www.contracostafair.com, or like us on Facebook. The fairgrounds are located at 1201 West 10th Street in Antioch.

By Allen Payton

At their regular meeting on Wednesday, May 9, 2018, after over five-and-a-half hours of public comments, discussion and debate, the Antioch School Board of Trustees approved the charter petitions for both the East Bay Tech Middle School Academy and High School Academy on 3-2 votes. Board Vice President Crystal Sawyer-White and Trustee Walter Ruehlig were joined by Trustee Debra Vinson in approving the schools, while Board President Gary Hack and Trustee Diane Gibson-Grey voted no, as expected. Vinson was the swing vote, having opposed the Rocketship Charter Elementary School in November 2016. This time she voted in favor, forming a new pro-charter school majority on the Antioch board. Ruehlig voted in favor of Rocketship, his wife had previously served on the board of a charter school, and during her 2016 campaign Sawyer-White expressed her support for charter schools, so their votes came as no surprise.

The East Bay Tech Academies are sponsored by the Clayton Valley Charter High School, which was converted from a regular, public high school in the Mt. Diablo School District. The petitions were presented to the board at their meeting on March 14. (See related article.)

The meeting was held in the Lone Tree Elementary School multi-purpose room for an expected overflow audience, as occurred during the hearings on the Rocketship Charter School. On the Day of the Teacher – as honored by Superintendent Stephanie Anello – the meeting featured mainly teachers speaking against the charter petitions, and Hispanic and African American parents in favor, the same split as occurred during the Rocketship hearings.

At the request of Gibson-Grey, the hearings on the charter school petitions were moved up to the beginning of the meeting, to accommodate most of those in the audience who were there specifically for those agenda items. But, that didn’t prevent the meeting to last past midnight.

District Staff Recommends Board Denies Petitions

According to the staff report, the district staff recommended the board take action denying the petition establishing the charter school. Resolution Exhibit A Findings of Fact (EBT MS)

“The District’s staff, with assistance from legal counsel, reviewed and analyzed the petition and supporting documents for legal sufficiency, and analyze public information regarding the petitioners’ history of involvement with charter schools.  Based on that analysis we have identified numerous deficiencies in, and concerns related to, the petition and the proposed Charter School’s operations and determined that more than one of the legal grounds for denial exist.  Specifically, the petition does not provide a reasonably comprehensive description of several essential charter elements and the petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the proposed education program.”

Public Comments – Lead Petitioners Respond

Those speakers in favor formed one line and those against formed a separate line of speakers, with Hack alternating between the two sides to hear from the speakers.

The lead petitioner for the academies, Meagan Moilalen said “There is a matter of urgency. 79% of AA students and 77% of Hispanic students at Antioch High did not meet the English standards for last year’s CAP tests. We need urgent change, now.”

Co-petitioner and former Antioch Associate Superintendent Bill Morones said of the charter petition, “It’s exceptionally strong. It has been thoroughly supported and endorsed by the California Charter Schools Association.”

“The report is full of inaccuracies,” he continued. “You have our rebuttal…and it disputes all the information you have from your attorney. Parents and students in Antioch deserve a choice. Our petition is exceptionally strong.”

Board Members Debate, Discuss, Ask Questions of Petitioners

The district’s attorney gave reasons why the petition was inadequate, which was included in the staff report.

Gibson-Grey made a motion to deny the petition and Hack seconded it.

Ruehlig requested that the petition representatives be available to answer questions. “Yes, please”

Attorney for the district, the petition must be complete upon submission, then. Whatever they’ve submitted, today cannot be considered.”

Vinson, “what did you submit today?”

Moilalen said, “We submitted, today a response to the…inaccuracies in the charter petition.”

“It is an 18-page rebuttal,” Morones added.

Their then attorney said, “What is submitted to you, tonight is clarification of the elements of the charter petition. How those are interpreted are in the eyes of the beholder.”

Morones said, “we received the denial recommendation on Sunday.

Gibson-Grey then said, “and you handed them to us, tonight. But, you didn’t email them to us prior. Some board members have them, some don’t.”

Anello responded, “the agenda was sent out last Friday.”

Ruehlig then said, “The petition was submitted on Feb. 6. I want to know if there was any correspondence from the school district.”

“No, there was no correspondence from the school district,” Moilalen said.

Vinson asked, “did you make any attempts to reach out to the district?”

“No, I did not,” Moilalen responded.

Ruehlig, “When a charter petition is deemed this flawed it makes me wonder how much experience they have in submitting charter petitions.”

“This is a thoroughly vetted petition,” Moilalen responded. “We’re very confident it meets all the legal requirements to go forward. So, we were very surprised to receive the denial.”

Gibson-Grey was first to offer her reason for denying the petition, mainly reading her prepared remarks.

“School choice is not going away. It’s my obligation to protect and serve public school education, not charter schools,” she said. “Approving charter schools at the local level impacts local schools.”

She argued that the district staff time costs will exceed the 1% revenue from the charter schools. “I am imploring that we not get into that, again.”

“It can be approved anywhere along the line,” she continued. “It will not impact our remaining students if it’s approved anywhere along the line.”

“Charter schools in my single opinion should be approved at the county or state level,” Gibson-Grey concluded.

“I disagree,” said Sawyer-White. “I have an example. I’ve lived in four different states. I haven’t lived in Antioch all my life. I’ve attended private schools and public schools. I was not supported by Rocketship. I was supported by the Charter Schools Association” during the 2016 election.”

“My apologies,” said Gibson-Grey, who had brought it up in her comments.

“Rocketship is a full-on campus,” Sawyer-White said. “We want this school to have a full-on campus. I toured Clayton Valley campus. Before you consider, ‘no’ you should have toured the campus, first.”

“It’s not just about choice. Teachers are great. I’m a teacher. I’ve been a teacher since 2009,” she continued. “I’ve been in the trenches. I want our kids to be able to explore other options. I just think Antioch needs to move up to the 21st Century. Antioch Charter I voted for that. This isn’t Rocketship. It’s a whole other ballgame. So, I move to approve the charter petition.”

Vinson then said, “California, as a state has 1,184 charter schools educating 9% of public school students. She spoke of accountability. I too want more money per student. The issue isn’t only about money. It’s about school climate, relationship with parents.”

Vinson referred to the NAACP report referred to earlier, against charter schools.

“The bulk of this report is on the public schools,” she said. “African American students have the distinct experience of falling below on all aspects. We’ve made gains in Latino students in the district. But we’ve fallen behind with African American students.”

“Charter schools are public schools,” Vinson continued. “Are charter schools the answer? Not always. Rocketship in each city that they’re in they’ve taken eight to nine awards.”

“If you have only one parent out of 17,000 students championing the successes of the district, then we have a problem,” she said referring to one parent who spoke against the petition and who regularly attends school board meetings.

“I do know parents want choice,” Vinson stated. “We are a suburb. We are not going to be able to accommodate the number of charter schools as in Oakland or Richmond.”

“If the charter is denied here and is approved at the county, they can do whatever they want in our district,” she explained. “Is this the best petition before us? Probably not. But parents want a choice. Do we have excellent teachers? Yes, we do. We have to figure out a system that will benefit our children.”

“This Board approved RAAMP Charter. RAAMP Charter didn’t perform. They were able to revoke the charter,” Vinson pointed out.

The district’s attorney responded, “there can be approval with conditions. The state approves charters with conditions.”

“With all of my research and with all I’ve heard from the community, I’m going to approve this charter,” Vinson stated.

Hack said, “that is not on the table at this time.”

Ruehlig was next to speak saying, “One of the hardest decisions a trustee has to make…I was struggling with this, this afternoon. It’s a complex situation. Kind of the good, the bad, the ugly. About 41% of charter schools perform the same as the public schools in the area. 29% perform better. 30% perform worse. But, when charter schools succeed they succeed well.”

“How do I feel about charters, myself? Again, it’s a mixed bag. I’ve voted for two of them over my 10 years. I voted against two of them. I voted against the renewal of RAAMP,” Ruehlig. “But, I don’t feel I have the right to obstruct the wishes of hundreds, perhaps thousands of families. It’s not me and my personal decision or personal feeling. I do say I feel the law is flawed. I personally feel the law should be rewritten so a school district is compensated when a charter school moves into an area. I also agree…it would be fair to have the state reimburse. Sure, enough whether we approve it or don’t approve it. If we vote against it we’re spitting in the eye of the charter movement. But it won’t do a whit of good. In the history of charter schools there’s been one that’s been denied at the state.”

“I’ve been a supporter for 50 years of public schools. But, I’m not an obstructionist,” Ruehlig said. “To tell you the God’s honest truth, it was not a happy day in my life when I heard about this charter petition. I thought, ‘here we go again, so soon on the heels of Rocketship.’”

He read a quote from former President Barack Obama in support of charter schools from 2016.

“With a heavy heart, because of the impacts of the school district, I will be voting for this charter,” he stated.

Gibson-Grey then shared additional thoughts, saying “I will never have the eloquence of Debra or Walter. I want you to know I don’t have any problem with Rocketship. I’m only against the cost to the district for oversight. I’m not against parent choice. But, I’m elected as a public school trustee. That’s why I’ll be voting they way I am, tonight.”

Hack was last to speak saying, “I spent my entire life in public schools. I went to public schools. I’ve taught in public schools. I was the teachers’ union president…I’ve been on the board of public schools. I’m a purist, I know that parents, students and teachers make a difference in students’ lives. Will I approve a charter school by definition? No. I believe charter schools, for whatever reason harm public schools.”

Motion To Deny Petition Fails, New Motion Made.  RESO 2017-18-29 East Bay Tech Academy Antioch Middle School BOE 5.9.18

The motion to deny the charter petition failed 2-3 with Hack and Gibson-Grey voting yes.

The attorney then said “the board has to take action tonight, to be within the 60 days, unless the charter petitioner is willing to extend it.”

The staff only provided the board with a resolution for denying the petition, so a lengthy discussion ensued over what to include in a motion to approve it.

“If this is going to be approved then I recommend it be with conditions, with an MOU (memorandum of understanding),” the attorney continued.

He further advised that the board members of how to make a motion that addresses the deficiencies in the charter, “which may have already been corrected.”

“I would recommend a timeline,” he said. “Maybe something reasonable in summer.”

Anello suggested the early fall, perhaps the end of September to finalize an MOU.

Vinson then made a motion to approve the charter petition, with certain conditions for the petitioners to meet, and that they address certain finding of facts, and that the superintendent or designee negotiate the MOU by September 28.

The attorney kept pushing the district staff’s findings of fact for denial to be included in the motion and Gibson-Grey repeatedly attempted to get the board to postpone their decision for 30 days.

Vinson wasn’t having it.

“What I’m saying is…I’m a detailed person. I want to look at this. I may not have any questions at all. Then we will finish up with the budget. Then we will get it all organized and completed. So, I don’t see what the problem is,” she stated.

“The attorney works for us and we will be able to respond to him if there are any concerns,” Vinson continued. “But, they have said they’ve already addressed them. We’ve approved charters and the MOU comes later. They’re agreeing to have the MOU worked out.”

The petitioners wanted the MOU done in 30 days but Anello said that wouldn’t work with the graduations, school closings and reopenings about to occur.

Ruehlig asked, “Can you live with 45 days?”

Moilalen responded, “It didn’t take me very long to go through the points. The urgency is high. We’re trying to open two schools.”

The district’s attorney said, “I’m sure we can work it out. So, the 18th of June.”

Vinson then remade her motion to get the MOU done by June 18th.

Sawyer-White seconded the motion, again.

At 11:55 P.M. the motion passed 3-2 with Ruehlig joining the two ladies to approve the charter petition.

High School Academy Charter Petition Approved

Many people were still in attendance and some chose to speak, again repeating much of the same arguments on both sides during public comments.

Vinson then made a similar motion for the East Bay Tech Academy High School charter petition. Sawyer-White provided the second and it passed on another 3-2 vote at 12:40 A.M.

Tiscareno votes with “mi gente”, chooses the “diamond encrusted” choice

By Allen Payton

In a surprise move, Antioch Council Member Tony Tiscareno changed his expected direction from supporting the Quadrants C map for dividing the City into district elections and went with the Working Draft 1 map, pleasing what he referred to as “mi gente” meaning, my people. He was joined on the split vote by Mayor Pro Tem Lamar Thorpe and Council Member Monica Wilson in approving the map. Mayor Sean Wright and Council Member Lori Ogorchock wanting the other map, voted no. (See related article)

The council then voted 4-1 with Ogorchock voting no, to finalize their previous approval of changing to district elections, on the second reading.

Most people who spoke on the matter were in favor of the Working Draft 1 map, again and most were also Hispanic, one speaking in Spanish and using an interpreter. They argued for having one representative for the north side of the freeway who lived there. They stated there hasn’t been an elected council member from their area since the 1980’s.

The attorney who started it all by threatening the City with a lawsuit said, “This isn’t about racism. It is about race. There is a significantly different group of people north of the Four. There are blacks and Latinos in other parts of the city. But this is about under representation of minorities.”

Orgorchock asked for a stay until 2022, saying “The Census is going to be held in 2021. So, we’re going to have to redistrict at that time. Some of these maps won’t mean anything at that time.”

But Tiscareno responded with “I’m not going to support a stay at this particular point, because we have to move on with the process. I’m not happy with the way this process came about. Whatever map we choose…it doesn’t represent the 2018 (population) numbers.”

Interim City Attorney Derek Cole told the council, “Districts 1 and 4 have two-year terms, initially and 2 and 3 have four-year terms.”

Thorpe spoke next, saying “Alright, let’s convince Councilman Tiscareno…Working Draft,” to applause from the audience.  “The fact of the matter is, this is where we’re at, so we just got to finish the job.” He then asked Cole his views on the public sentiment on the maps.

Cole spoke of Working Draft 1. “The testimony the Council has received is overwhelming that that is a community of interest. I think both maps are Constitutionally valid and meet all legal requirements. If you had the diamond encrusted version…legally speaking that’s Working Draft 1. There has been testimony supporting Quadrants C. Legally speaking we’re only dealing with ensuring there is no racially polarized voting. We’re not obligated to geographic regions that might be underrepresented. Do you want a road dividing a community? A side of the tracks? Both maps meet legal standards. But if there is a Lexus or Porsche version…that’s Working Draft 1.”

Thorpe then asked City Manager Ron Bernal about results of a recent City survey.

Bernal responded, saying “the survey results were broken up between north Antioch, southeast Antioch, and…west Antioch. Their viewpoints are distinctly different…whether they feel they are being represented well by the council.”

Thorpe then said, “so, the people north of the freeway feel they’re being represented differently than people on the south side.”

Bernal responded, “working Draft 1 is set up to more closely represent those views.”

“Whether there was a freeway or not that wouldn’t affect those opinions,” Thorpe stated. “The Quadrants are the ones that drive the division through these communities. When you dig down…through the Census Tracts you see that. Working Draft 1 has a representative for each of the regions of the City. If we do go with Quadrants, I will continue to do my darned good job to represent the people of north Antioch.”

“No one has been up here trying to figure out where someone lives. We have worked to keep that out of the process. We’ll let the voters decide what happens with two of us,” he added.

Wilson spoke next, saying, “I keep coming back to…two speakers said it, today. If you go with Quadrants C…there will be a great possibility that your representative won’t live north of the freeway. I think it’s very important we look at the representatives within those quadrants. I just want to make sure we have equitable representation. Yes, we’re working of 2010 statistics, and we’ll have to go through this again in 2021. No lines are etched in stone. We can always move those. I’m still very much in favor of Working Draft 1.”

“So, the 2010 Census is…just over 100,000. Will we see drastic changes in where the lines will be?” Thorpe asked the consultant.

Consultant Karin Mac Donald of Q2 that drew the maps for the council, responded by saying, “I think that depends on what you wanted to do. There is no law…that says you must start with the districts drawn in the last process.”

Thorpe then stated, “So, we can start with a completely new…or go with what we have and try to adjust the lines accordingly.”

Ogorchock said, “From what I’ve heard there is equal views on both sides. I can’t accept the freeway to divide the city, again. It’s been there. But it’s very divisive. As for representation, I always feel two heads are better than one. It will be better to have two represent downtown Antioch. I am in support of Quadrants C. The…council needs to go with their heart and what’s best for the City.”

Cole then said, “What I recall was that a large amount, the majority of the comments we received online was what was then Working Draft 1. Quadrants C emerged. There was a Change.org petition. I think there was support for Quadrants C. The majority of comments online and here have been in favor of Working Draft 1.”

Wright spoke next, stating “When it comes to representation…in a city of 114,000 you have less than 200 people who have weighed in, and less than that. I could be wrong, there’s more than 100. It’s hard to base a decision on 114,000 people. That being said, I want this done, tonight. I want to get our staff back focused on benefiting our community. Whatever is decided, I’d like to see it chosen tonight and moved forward.”

“I’m not for districting. I don’t think it’s a good thing,” he reiterated. “What people are saying is we want someone who will fight for us. We’ve spent more money on north of Antioch than anywhere else. We are focusing our attention on the parks north of Antioch. We’ve spent more money on the roads in downtown Antioch. So, the concept that there’s underrepresentation… I know that we don’t necessary live there. When I’m deciding who to vote for, I don’t look up their address. Someone who is elected from Lake Alhambra won’t know what it’s like to live in Sycamore. They’re just not.”

“So, how do we create districts that create less division in our community,” Wright continued. Referring to the Quadrants C map he said, “there are solid lines You have A Street and Lone Tree and Putnam that are solid lines that put people in different areas. There are pockets of poverty north of the freeway and south, as well. Moving toward districts we are accomplishing much of what is asked for.”

“Quadrants give southeast two representatives, north two representatives,” he concluded.

Tiscareno, who asked to speak last, said “I have to do this for the betterment of what Antioch looks like at this particular point. First, it was about race. Now, it’s about numbers and how we can represent the entire city equally. Neither map does that as far as I’m concerned. It’s going to be a boondoggle out there. After…the 2020 Census you’re going to have to change the maps. We’re doing new developments in southeast Antioch, so the 2020 maps will have to look like what Quadrants C looks like anyway. The majority of the folks in favor of Working Draft 1, they’re “mi gente” they’re my people. I feel like I’m doing contrary when I’m talking about the other map. But that’s not what I’m doing. First, we are Latinos, but we are Antioch citizens.”

“I’m going to make a conscious decision,” he said. “This will be a temporary map. Any map we go with we’re going to have to have a couple council members run against each other. I respect the other council members up here. But, when it comes to elections we’re opponents. It doesn’t matter who’s sitting next to me during election time. They’re my opponent.”

Another thing that frustrates me, we have a community of 114,000 people here, but nobody comes to the council,” Tiscareno continued. “But you guys are speaking out and I respect you for that…people fighting for their cause. It’s something I used to do.”

He then made a motion, “I’m not doing it to please anybody. This is going to change in 2020. I probably won’t be part of that process, but that’s OK.”

“I move that we approve Working Draft 1,” Tiscareno said, to cheers from the audience. Thorpe offered the second and it passed on a 3-2 vote.

“Si se puede,” was the chant from some of those in the audience.

Numbering the Districts, Chooses Which Will Be Up for Two-Year Terms in 2020

The council then had to assign numbers to the districts to determine which ones were up for election in 2020 for two-year terms, initially and which would be for four-year terms. Then, in 2022 the two with two-year terms in 2020 will then be up for election again, for four-year terms.

Ogorchock suggested having one in the north and one in the south for two-year terms. She made that motion which was followed by Thorpe’s second.

The map has letters delineating the districts. The council’s decision made the district north of the freeway, labeled B as District 1; district C is now District 2, district D is now District 3 and district A is now District 4. So, the districts that will be up for election for two-year terms in 2020 will be the very north and very south districts, numbers 1 and 4.

Tiscareno lives in District 2, Wilson in District 4 and both Thorpe and Ogorchock live in District 3. No current council member lives in District 1 and the mayor will continue to run and be elected citywide.

There was no discussion by the council on the matter and the motion passed unanimously.

 

By Jimmy Lee, Director of Public Affairs, Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff

On Saturday, May 5, 2018, at approximately 2:11 PM, Contra Costa County Marine Patrol Deputy Sheriffs responded to a report of a body on the levee at False River near the San Joaquin River. Deputies arrived on scene a short time later and recovered the body.

The Coroner’s Division took custody of the male body. He was later positively identified as 39-year-old Johnson Ng of Daly City. Ng is the missing boater who fell from a vessel on April 28, 2018.

According to an ABC7 news report, “Initial reports from deputies said two men were on a boat trying to set an anchor to start fishing when a wake came along. The wake hit the boat, the men fell off and they did not have life jackets on, according to sheriff’s officials. A passing boat rescued one of the men.”

An autopsy will be held to determine the cause of death.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

By Interim Lt. John Fortner #3264, Antioch Police Field Services Division Patrol Watch Commander

On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 10:33 am, Antioch Police officers were dispatched to 3333 Deer Valley Road , near the Safeway store, on the report of an armed robbery. Witnesses reported that four armed suspects entered the T-Mobile business and stole several cell phones. Afterwards, the suspects entered a vehicle and fled from the area. Antioch officers located the vehicle westbound on Highway 4 and a vehicle pursuit ensued.

The vehicle was followed into the City of Oakland and was ultimately recovered on a surface street. The vehicle was unoccupied at the time officers located and contacted it. At this time no suspects have been arrested in connection with this crime. During the course of this incident no officers or civilians were injured.

The robbery is currently under investigation and no further information will be released at this time.

This preliminary information is made available by the Field Services Division. Anyone with information is asked to call the Antioch Police Department non-emergency line at (925) 778-2441. You may also text-a-tip to 274637 (CRIMES) using the key word ANTIOCH.

Calls it an abuse of the process; their plan protects environment, saves trees and open space

This past Friday, April 27, Richland Communities submitted an initiative to compete with one currently being circulated for signatures by the environmental community, both of which seek to stop the Zeka Ranch project from being developed on the western end of the Sand Creek area. Richland is the developer of “The Ranch” project with the planned 1,307 homes on 500 acres and is now proposing to reduce that by 130 homes. It will require the neighboring Zeka Ranch to become permanent open space. (See related article, here).

The Zeka Group, owners of the 640-acre Zeka Ranch property on which they plan to build a 400-upscale home community, responded to the latest attack against their property, their plans and their rights with the following statement:

The Zeka Group has been part of the ongoing growth and development plans for the City of Antioch since 1992.  The Zeka Group participated in the development and implementation of the 2003 General Plan and has been an integral participant and contributor to the development of Future Urban Area (FUA) #1 and the subsequent Sand Creek Specific Plan Study area, now known as the Sand Creek Focus Area, as well.

As a responsible developer and contributor to the Antioch Community the Zeka Ranch project was the first and only development which developed a footprint that was 1) sensitive to the preservation of trees, 2) maintained habitat zones for the Alameda Whip Snake, migration corridors and setbacks to Sand Creek and 3) focused on the preservation of predominate ridgeline elements.

The Zeka Group accomplished this desired planning technique by engaging H.T. Harvey and Associates Ecological Consultants, a well-known and respected firm, specializing in biological resource assessment and determination. H.T. Harvey prepared a full biological assessment (BA) for the entire Zeka Ranch project. The assessment was utilized as a planning tool to judiciously place the final development footprint to minimize and avoid biological assets identified within the final BA. The BA was generated at great cost to the Zeka Group, but their management team spearheaded by Louisa Kao felt that the unique setting and geography of the site warranted such consideration.

In addition, plans for the Zeka Ranch were created by the same architect and land planner that laid out the map for Blackhawk, Doug Dahlin of the Dahlin Group. The Zeka Group hired his firm to ensure the highest quality of new home development in Antioch, and which will contribute to the long-term success of the city. The plans have been reduced from 1,100 homes on the 640 acres.

“We are committed to Antioch’s success and environmental protection and have been since we first purchased the property from the Higgins family,” said Louisa Zee Kao, President of The Zeka Group. But, this must be a win-win situation. Instead, Richland wants a win-lose situation, where they win, and we lose.”

The Zeka Group has invested over $20 million into Antioch by purchasing the property, paying property taxes, developing plans, and paying city fees, all while following the guidelines as set down by the voters of the county, the voters of Antioch, city staff, the East Bay Regional Parks District, planning commissioners and city council members.

“This initiative by Richland is unfair, self-serving, mainly benefiting only one land owner, and at our expense,” Kao continued. “This is an abuse of the initiative process, and will result in the devaluation of our property, and all the surrounding properties, eliminating their voter-approved right to build the kind of homes Antioch needs for its future success and prosperity.”

Regarding the other initiative backed by the environmental groups, entitled “Let Antioch Voters Decide: The Sand Creek Area Protection Initiative,” it is mislabeled. (See related article, here). The voters of the county and of Antioch have already decided, twice and both times their vote has allowed for new home building in the Sand Creek area. Furthermore, Sand Creek will not be saved if the homes aren’t built, because it will remain on private property, inaccessible to the public. With the development plans, the City of Antioch is requiring setbacks to the creek, and an adjacent trail system that will connect to the Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve to the west of the Sand Creek Focus Area. The plans will allow public access to the Sand Creek watershed.

“Most importantly, these initiatives will not help fulfill the long-term economic plans the City of Antioch has had for over 20 years. The public should not be misled by either of them,” Kao concluded.

The Zeka Group looks forward to continuing its responsible development in the Antioch community as it continues to grow and flourish, with the development of Zeka Ranch.