Council also extends moratorium on evictions and rent increases to July 15

By Allen Payton

On two unanimous votes during their meeting Tuesday night, the Antioch City Council chose to postpone any decision on a location for the five FEMA trailers intended to provide temporary housing for homeless families with school children, and to support the November ballot measure limiting new home development in the Sand Creek Focus Area.

“The council can give the emergency shelter overlay designation to all three properties,” Community Development Director Forrest Ebbs said during his staff report on the trailer matter. He defended the Planning Commission’s decision to recommend placing them at the fairgrounds.

“Their reasoning is not what it sounds,” he explained. “They’re not opposed to a homeless shelter. They wanted a really nice site. They wanted to make sure we do the best we can.”

During public comments, Andrew Becker asked about the viability of the fairgrounds site, since it already had hookups and if the city had considered any showers were on-site. The Nick Rodriguez Center has showers.

Mike Stewart spoke next sharing concerns about the Fulton Shipyard Road location, “with a focus on safety for the children. The actual available area…about two acres. The balance of the sites is the city transfer facility…basically the city dump. Trucks moving in and out all day long. There is no grocery, no playground, no children near the Fulton Shipyard site.”

Anthony Fieros who owns a home on W. 10th Street across from one site said, “This is the middle of a residential area. It’s a terrible location next to the fire station, there. It’s noisy. It’s just a bare parking lot. No electricity, no water, no sewer. I’d encourage a no vote for everybody.”

Lucy Meinhardt supported the rezoning designation writing, “It’s past time to implement the recommendations of the homeless task force.”

Sherry Fitzpatrick wrote, “I do not believe the trailers should be placed in residential areas. This will not be temporary. It will be an ongoing expense to the city. It’s a nice, feel good idea, but the city should not be in the social services business. The trailers should be placed on Contra Costa County or state property with services. Emergency housing is 180 days or less. What then?”

Dawn Bright wrote, “I’m opposed to the…housing overlay for the three sites. The commission directed the staff to open a conversation with the agriculture board for using the fairgrounds. Please stand up and fight for Antioch.”

Susan Welsh in opposing locating the trailers on W. 10th Street wrote, “The property at 301 W. 10th Street is in the Downtown Specific Plan. It would reduce property values in the area. Plus, it’s a trailer park in a residential area. San Jose received trailers from the state…and is now returning them due to problems. It would be cheaper to rent five apartments in different areas of the city.” She supported considering locating the trailers at the fairgrounds.

Fire Chief Bouchard wrote, “The fire district has some significant concerns at 301 W. 10th Street. As you know, fire stations are 24-hour facilities. The proposed use…could draw many persons to the area. The additional vehicular traffic…could impede our fire services.”

Sheila Driscoll wrote against all three locations and in support of the fairgrounds’ location.

Mike Barbanica wrote about his concerns of placing them in residential areas. “Please do not place the trailers…specifically on Fitzuren Road.”

The final comment supported placing the trailers on the fairgrounds.

Mayor Pro Tem Joy Motts was the first council member to ask questions.

“Can you speak to the fairgounds site,” she asked City Manager Ron Bernal

“The idea of using the fairgrounds…the governor’s office identified…seven fairgrounds in the state and ours was not one of them,” Bernal responded. “I spoke with the fair manager…he said his property did not qualify and was being used for other purposes. It’s being used for longer-term tenants. The city council may want to pursue this at a higher level than just the fair manager.”

Motts then asked about the “amenities that would need to be added, such as safe, overnight parking” for the Fitzuren Road site.

City Manager Ron Bernal said the Fitzuren site would need “electrical hook-ups for four trailers” as well as “some grading, some gates…sidewalk, curb and gutter would need to be installed. A significant amount of work would need to be done.”

Councilman Lamar Thorpe then made a motion to the item.

“There are other options we’re looking at,” Motts said as she offered a second to the motion. “We are looking at Fitzuren as a safe, overnight parking spot. We have yet to find a safe place to do that. We do know that families are living in their cars overnight.”

While it costs money, she pointed out, “The cost to not do it far outweighs that. We’re spending millions of dollars to move people around. They’re affecting our drinking water. Fires are being set. They call 9-11 and ending up in our hospitals. I just want to promise the community that there are things being done. The bottom line is this is temporary. The goal has always been to get people into permanent housing.”

Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock then said, “The Fulton Shipyard is not a good area for any youth to be in. In listening to the comments. I don’t think the other two locations are viable, either. Then again, you have to look at these trailers. We thought they could help. But when you look at the 180 days you can stay in them…would the students be uprooted?”

Wright then called for the vote.

“I am for one of these properties,” Thorpe added. “But some recent conversations that we can follow up on…we may not even have to go in this direction.” He expected that to occur “by the end of the week.”

“I’ve had some conversations, too,” said Mayor Wright. “The conversation with the fairgrounds did not include the discussion of additional infrastructure such as five pads.”

With that the council voted 5-0 to table the matter.

Supports Sand Creek Area New Home Development Limits Ballot Measure

On another unanimous vote, the council adopted a resolution expressing its support for approval of the Let Antioch Voters Decide: The Sand Creek Area Protection Initiative to change General Plan designations within the Sand Creek Focus Area and permanently require voter approval of amendments to the city’s Urban Limit Line. Resolution supporting Sand Creek LAVD initiative

The initiative would prevent the development of homes west of Deer Valley Road and reduce the total number of units to 2,100 from 4,000 previously approved by the city council. Any additional development would require a vote of the people.

However, the initiative is challenged by new state law that prevents cities from downzoning property already zoned for residential development either by council vote or initiative.

The Zeka Group, owner and developer of the planned Zeka Ranch project on the west end of the Sand Creek Area, as well as adjacent property owners, are expected to file a pre-election lawsuit against the proponents and city.

The initiative was adopted by the city council in 2018 after enough signatures of Antioch voters were gathered to qualify for the ballot. But a judge, in response to a lawsuit by Zeka and another affected property owner, tossed out the council’s approval of the initiative and required they place the measure on the November 2020 ballot, instead.

Approve Use of, Application for $2.3 Million in Housing Grant Funds

In other council action, they approved on a 5-0 vote, the use of $2,365,410 in Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) grant funds. According to the staff report the funds are to be used “for the purpose of assisting persons who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness; housing rehabilitation and the development of accessory dwelling units; and creating homeownership opportunity for Antioch workers and renters earning from 80 percent to 120 percent of the area median income.”

The council also adopted a resolution authorizing the application for PLHA grant funds from the state.

“Is that $2.3 million guaranteed?” Mayor Sean Wright asked.

“As long as ACD accepts our proposal we are guaranteed to receive some amount of money, up to the $2.3 million… the first year up to $400,000,” said Teri House, the city’s housing consultant.

Wilson, I assume you applied for the maximum amount. Did you have a guideline of what kind of program you want to use this money for?

“Yes. The plan continues the plan that the CBDG sub committee has established over a decade of our housing successor funds…and homeless assistance,” House said. “This just continues those programs…that have been on going for at least a decade. And yes, we applied for the maximum.”
“Thank you. Good to hear,” Wilson responded.

Expires Moratorium on Evictions & Rent Increases, Antioch Covered by County Ordinance, State Orders

In final action, the city council voted 5-0 to expire the City’s rent increase and eviction moratorium. The action was taken because the county’s moratorium, approved by the Board of Supervisors and runs through July 15, applies to cities as well as unincorporated areas in the county. According to the city’s new urgency ordinance, the City Council finds that “residences and businesses…will continue to have protections from eviction and adequate ‘grace periods’ to repay unpaid rent…from the Governor’s Executive Orders, Judicial Council Emergency Rule, and the County’s Urgency Ordinance.” Urgency Ordinance on Eviction & Rent Increase Moratorium ACC062320

 

 

For school, community college and special districts in Contra Costa County

By Scott O. Konopasek, Assistant Registrar of Voters, Contra Costa County Elections Division

The candidate filing period for offices in school, community college and special districts is from July 13 to August 7, 2020 in order to appear on the November 2020 ballot. If an incumbent does not file by the August 7 nomination deadline, the seat is extended five calendar days until August 12, to non-incumbents only. The same dates apply to candidates for city offices who will file in their respective city, as usual.

In the past, filing for office has been conducted in the Elections Division office. This election however, as a result of COVID and social distancing requirements, filing for office will be conducted at the County Administration Building at 651 Pine Street in the Chambers of the Board of Supervisors.

Elections staff will issue documents and accept filings from 8:30 am – 4:30 pm daily. Appointments for filing the Declaration of Candidacy will be made at the time papers are issued.

“This is a safety measure to protect our staff and the public as the November election gets into gear. It is an example of the types of common sense protective measures we will employ throughout this election cycle.” said Debi Cooper, County Clerk-Recorder and Registrar.

To ensure the safety of all, candidates will wear face coverings and abide by social distancing protocols. Entourages will not be permitted into the Board Chambers, but may congregate outside or in the lobby of the Admin Building as long as public health rules are respected.

Download and view the Candidate’s Guide which gives you vital information on running for office, filing requirements, qualifications, deadlines, and more. The guide is for general information only and does not have the force and effect of law, regulation or rule.

To see the list of all offices up for election in November, including mayors, council members, city clerks and city treasurers, click here. Lists of candidates filing for office will be published twice daily at www.cocovote.us, at noon and at the end of each day. For more details on the November election schedule click, here.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

Editor:

Antioch needs to reform its overall sworn police and operations! The police operations and its personnel are generally carried out and handled properly, but there definitely needs some improvements with both. I speak from my personal, vast 50 plus years’ experience, education, training, investigations, and facts (not preconceived ideas or popular notions)! That is about 75,000 hours of my public safety related investigations work.

In many of my investigations the absurd and unrealistic Police excuses for abusing and/or killing individuals that they claimed presented a danger to the Police, included – an unarmed completely naked man killed, an unarmed person running away from the Police killed, an unarmed person pulling up his pants killed, an unarmed driver backing up shot several times in the back of his head, an unarmed man dancing severely beaten and the K9 also sicced on him, an unarmed man furtively moved killed, an unarmed man holding a cell phone killed, an unarmed man hiding next to a vehicle killed, etc. In each of these cases the officers’ police department, and D.A.’s Office, who jointly investigated (to include in Antioch’s) claimed that the officer(s) acted properly, and no accountability was required.

Along with other cities Antioch’s public safety operations and police operations fall short in some areas. Antioch’s police abuses, misconduct, and even unwarranted serious injuries and killings of some of our civilians over the years warrants an honest review and correction, long overdue. It is my belief that over 95% of our sworn Antioch officers are good, honest, hardworking, and deserving of our support and individual recognition. The rest deserve to be individually disciplined, removed from the police force where appropriate, and even criminally charged whenever warranted.

I have also thoroughly investigated some Antioch police-contact incidents where civilians were physically abused, their constitutional rights violated (decided by the court), some killed, and even some were lied about in court. When the police and administration were informed about such then the wheels of injustices and cover ups commenced, including with former Police Chief Cantando who did little to nothing about it. This included where an Antioch black male was arrested, charged, and later further victimized in trials by an officer! Fortunately, he was quickly acquitted by the jury, and won a civil settlement from the city. I also believed and reported that the officer perjured himself in the case several times. When complained to former Chief Cantando he did little about it. And, some of those who were complained of were thereafter even promoted, and some have retired afterwards with higher rank and its related increased retirement pay.

I believe that if appropriate, required, complete, and thorough internal Police investigations had been carried out then those responsible would have been held accountable via various levels of discipline and accountability. When some of those Antioch Officers responsible were asked at depositions they revealed that they were not even asked about what they did until years later – just before they appeared under subpoena! It was and is within the Police Chief’s responsibility and authority to have initiated such, but the former Chief Cantando did not. If he had spent more efforts and energy on his Chief’s responsibilities, and less on his reported then personal efforts, then perhaps Antioch’s police operations and personnel would not need as much current reviews and changes now required. Antioch’s citizenry deserves better and rightfully now have risen and have demanded needed changes!

I have worked through current Chief Tammany Brooks over the recent past concerning information that I had received about some criminal events and those involved, to include gang members’ operations, drugs and guns trafficking, and gang killings occurring in Antioch. Fortunately, the current Chief Tammany Brooks properly responded and acted on those pieces of information and facts. I encourage every member of our community to communicate with our police and its management in efforts to address Antioch’s public safety environment. This includes supporting hiring more police, not having less as is mistakenly suggested, and improving its overall police personnel accountability.

I stand by my many public written letters and personal appearances over the years before the city councils supporting the police overall, and still do about most of such. I believe that no one has publicly done so more than I have over the years. That is a fact. And, I still believe that we need more Police manpower, and their budgeting needs to be reworked also!

Ralph A. Hernandez

Antioch

Planning Commission recommends using state owned Contra Costa Event Center (fairgrounds) instead of one of three city owned properties.

By Allen Payton

During their regular meeting this next Tuesday night, June 23, the Antioch City Council will finally have the opportunity to decide where to locate the five Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) trailers donated by the state to help with the homeless crisis. The City received the trailers on March 2, just two weeks before the COVID-19 shelter-in-place order was issued by the county, which according to Mayor Pro Tem Joy Motts has delayed the matter. (See related article) The matter was also delayed because the council wanted to hear from the Antioch Planning Commission on the matter, first.

City staff has offered three different city owned properties for locating the trailers, including one on Fitzuren Road next to Highway 4, between Contra Loma Blvd. and G Street; one on W. 10th Street in the parking lot of the Rivertown Resource Center, and one on Wilbur Avenue in the industrial part of the city. However, the Antioch Planning Commission opposed each of them for various reasons. See full city staff report, here: Emergency Shelter Trailers Location Options ACC062320

The commissioners heard the matter on June 3 and according to the city staff report, “passed a resolution recommending that the City Council make the proposed text amendments but did not recommend that any of the proposed sites be rezoned to include the ES (Emergency Shelter) Zoning Overlay. The Planning Commission sited concerns about each of these properties. On the Fitzuren (Road) site, the Commission expressed concerns about the proximity to Highway 4 and the associated noise and pollution. On the (West) 10th Street site, the Commission was concerned about the loss of parking for the adjacent community center. At the Fulton Shipyard (Road) site, the Commission felt that the shared use with heavy City operations and the associated truck traffic was inappropriate for family housing, along with the lack of nearby services. The Planning Commission suggested that staff pursue use of the Contra Costa County Event Center (fairgrounds) RV Park for these trailers.” (See map and information on each location, below).

The City has issued a request for proposal to hire a non-profit organization to oversee the management of the trailer program and needs that contract in place before moving anyone into the trailers. The target population for the trailers are homeless families with children attending Antioch Unified School District schools.

The matter is item 6 on the agenda. The council meeting begins at 7 p.m. and can be viewed livestream on the City’s website or on Comcast Local Cable Channel 24. To submit a comment for this or any other item for Tuesday’s council meeting agenda, please use the form on the city’s webpage, here.

Will it affect the county’s planned Road Ahead reopenings?

By Allen Payton

Contra Costa County experienced the greatest one-day spike in COVID-19 cases since the beginning of the pandemic at 103 between Thursday, June 18 and Friday, June 19, 2020. According to CCHealth’s Coronavirus Dashboard, the number of cases increased from 2,146 on Thursday to 2,249 on Friday. There was another increase of 45 cases between Friday and Saturday for a total of 2,294 people who have tested positive for the virus in the county, to date.

That has some residents concerned that the county might pull back on some of the planned openings of businesses and activities that are scheduled for July 1st and 15th, as well as schools in July and August, as well. (See related article)

However, in addition to that statistic, the county had 2,457 residents get tested for the Coronavirus between Thursday, June 18 and Friday, June 19, which was also the greatest one-day statistic, in that category.

As of Sunday, June 21, 2020 at 11:30 a.m. there are currently 30 people in the hospital in the county who are infected. There have been a total of 62 deaths attributed to the Coronavirus, which is slightly more than one-tenth (1/10th) of one percent of those who have been tested in the county, which currently stands at 57,989. Also, of the 2,294 people who have tested positive, 1,734 have recovered or 75.6%. That means there are currently 468 people in the county with the virus who are quarantined at home.

Of those who have tested positive, 2.7% have died. That statistic, which has remained fairly constant and actually dropped by 1/10th of one percent in the last month, might alleviate the concerns by county health officials.

However, with residents wondering if the spike in cases could have been caused by all the people participating in protests in the county over the past few weeks, an email was sent Sunday to county health spokesperson, Kim McCarl asking that question. She was also asked if those who test positive are asked what activities they have participated in over the previous two weeks and if there are any concerns by County Health Officer Dr. Chris Farnitano and county health staff that the spike in cases could impact the Road Ahead schedule for reopening.

6/22/20 UPDATE: Will Harper, Media Relations Specialist for Contra Costa Health Services, responded, “We are closely monitoring recent increases in the number of COVID cases and hospitalizations in the county. We expected some increases as more businesses and activities reopened and as we expanded testing. Still, the upward trend is concerning and could affect our reopening timeline.

As people do venture outside their homes and back to normal social interactions, it’s important to do everything possible to reduce the risk for getting or spreading COVID-19. Wear a mask. Maintain six feet social distance. Wash your hands often. Stay home when you are sick.

Regarding the impact of protests: It is challenging to link cases to specific events, especially a gathering where you may not know anyone else who was there with you. We have a small number of reports tied to recent cases that did attend protests, but it is hard to attribute their presence at the protest with their infection versus other contacts they may have had in the past 14 days.”

Asked, again if people who get tested are asked about their activities over the previous 14 days, Harper responded “No, they don’t go back 14 days.” 6/24/20 UPDATE: He later clarified that statement writing, “we do contact investigation/tracing for contacts during the infectious period, which is defined as 2 days prior to symptom onset until patient is isolated (for symptomatic) and 2 days prior to COVID test date until patient is isolated (for asymptomatic).But we also ask where they may have been exposed 14 days from symptom onset/test date. This can be useful information, although keep in mind that we wouldn’t call people (ie close contacts) beyond the 48-hour infectious period mentioned above.”