Eubanks changes his mind; Tiscareno files papers for District 2 council seat

By Allen Payton

Two more candidates have jumped into the fray of Antioch politics, as Police Crime Prevention Commission Members Dr. Clyde Lewis, Jr. and Dwayne Eubanks have pulled their Nomination Papers to run for Antioch School Board in District 3 and city clerk, respectively.

According to the County Elections Office Wednesday afternoon report, Lewis will be challenging current Trustee Crystal Sawyer-White who is running for re-election to her second term on the board, after having said she wouldn’t run and would support Lewis.

This is his second attempt, having run for school board in 2018, placing fourth behind Mary Rocha, Ellie Householder and Jim Davis.

According to his LinkedIn profile, Lewis is the founder, and since 2014 has worked as Principal Consultant and Grant Specialist of ONESSIS International, LLC, and is currently leading the structuring of a program designed to support the re-entry of formerly incarcerated youth. He has previously worked in education, first as a lecturer at Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology and Keio University, as well as for Overseas Broadcasting, OBC in Tokyo, Japan. Then as a Graduate Research Assistant for San Francisco State, as well as for Skyline College. Lewis also worked for Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, and in job training and development including developing the Career Training and Employment Center (CTEC) Career Pathways program for Building Opportunities for Self Sufficiency (BOSS) as the Director of Workforce Development.

He earned both his Bachelor of Arts and Sciences degree with emphasis in Ethnic Studies, as well as his master’s degree in Educational Administration and Supervision with Higher Education emphasis from the University of Hawai’i at Manoa. Lewis earned his Doctor of Education degree in Educational Leadership, Administration, Social Justice and Matriculation from San Francisco State in 2016.

He is the president of the Kiwanis Club of the Delta-Antioch and also serves on the District Equal Employment Opportunity Advisory Committee for the Contra Costa Community College District.

Eubanks, changed his mind after announcing on his Facebook page last July that he was running for City Council in District 2. The map of the city council districts and his comment, “Running For Antioch Council Second District” still appears on his page, as of today. He will instead take on incumbent City Clerk Arne Simonsen, who is seeking his third term in the currently, part-time position.

According to his LinkedIn profile, Eubanks is a Senior Business Analyst for the Judicial Council of California. He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Business Administration and Sociology from Linfield College in 1975 and did some coursework toward an MBA at J.F.K. University in 2002 and 2003. Eubanks is active with the Antioch Historical Society and is an avid runner.

Simonsen faced no opponent four years ago and defeated Argentina Davila-Luevano in his first campaign for City Clerk in 2012. He previously served on the Antioch City Council having first been elected in 2000, placing second out of five candidates behind Brian Kalinowski, and re-elected in 2004 placing second out of seven candidates, again behind Kalinowski, but beating incumbents Reggie Moore and Manny Soliz. Simonsen lost his bid for re-election to his third term on the council in 2008 placing third out of three candidates behind Mary Rocha and Kalinowski.

In addition, former Antioch Councilman Tony Tiscareno filed his papers to run in District 2 and according to the daily report from Simonsen, is awaiting verification of signatures. Each candidate must submit the valid signatures of at least 20 registered voters in the district in which they plan to run.

The following Antioch residents have taken out Nomination Papers as of 5 p.m., July 24th or Qualified for the following City offices:

ANTIOCH CITY OFFICES

Council District 2

Tony Tiscareno – Former Antioch Councilman – Filed on 7/28/20 (awaiting signature verification)

Michael Barbanica

City Clerk

Arne Simonsen (I)

Dwayne Eubanks – Antioch Police Crime Prevention Commissioner

ANTIOCH SCHOOL BOARD

District 3

Crystal Sawyer-White – Antioch School Board Trustee

Clyde Lewis – Antioch Police Crime Prevention Commissioner

There were no other candidates to pull or file their Nomination Papers for any of the other city offices or school board seats. This list will be updated when additional registered Antioch voters take out Nomination Papers or become Qualified. To see the complete list of candidates for city offices and school board, and to see the 2020 election district maps visit www.antiochherald.com/election-2020.

Editor’s Note: If not provided by the candidates, the photos of them used by the Herald are the best and most recent photos available on the internet, usually from their social media pages. All candidates are encouraged to email their bio/resume/curriculum vitae and most recent photo to editor@antiochherald.com. Thank you.

“This blatant manipulation of the ballot label as well as the title and summary is in direct contravention of the Attorney General’s fiduciary duty to prepare impartial ballot material,” said Jon Coupal, President of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Today, July 29, 2020, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed a lawsuit against California Attorney General Xavier Becerra for his abject failure to produce impartial ballot material related to Proposition 15, the “split roll” attack that seeks the partial repeal of Proposition 13.

Past criticism of Becerra’s bias has been vocal but has now reached a crescendo. Just this past week, editorial boards and columnists have lambasted Becerra. In fact, the specific deficiencies of Prop 15’s ballot label as well as the title and summary are well identified in the media reports themselves:

• ​ ​“The ballot title on Prop. 15 begins by stating that it ‘increases funding sources for public schools, community colleges and local government services.’ It would do so, it states, by ‘changing tax assessment – not raisingtaxes-on commercial and industrial property.” (John Diaz, California attorney general loads language on 2 November measures, The S.F. Chronicle, July 26, 2020, https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/diaz/article/California-attorney-general-loads-language-on-2-15434094.php, emphasis in original.)
• ​ ​“The title and summary of Proposition 15 are not only tilted toward one side,​ ​they are less than fully accurate. Property in California is not taxed on ‘purchase price.’ It’s taxed on fair market value at the time of purchase, adjusted annually, for inflation with increases capped at 2 percent per year… To say property is currently taxed on ‘purchase price’ conveys an impression that property taxes do not rise at all, which is misleading in a way that favors the measure’s proponents who seek to raise taxes. It’s also misleading, if not completely false, to state that​ ​Proposition 15 ‘increases funding sources.’ It doesn’t add new sources, it increases taxes on existing sources: businesses in California.” (The Editorial Board, Editorial: Biased ballot measure titles and summaries distort our democracy, Southern California News Group + Bay Area News Group, July 22, 2020, https://www.ocregister.com/2020/07/22/biased-ballot-measure-titles​-​and-summaries-distort-our-democracy/.)
• ​  ​“California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has once again written a biased ballot title and summary, which deliberately misleads voters about Prop. 15…” “The attorney general contorts the English language to avoid using the word ‘tax.’ Unfortunately, he can’t call Prop 15 a revenue increase, since, as the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office says, some rural governments could lose money if Prop 15 passes.” (Katy Grimes, Prop. 15: Messy Title, Feud With Signer, and Ironic Zuckerberg Contributions, California Globe, July 27, 2020, https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/prop-15-messy-title-feud-with-signer-and-ironic-zuckerberg-contributions/.)
• ​  ​“Rather than simply describe Proposition 15 for what it does, Becerra’s official title summarizes it this way: ‘Increases funding for public schools, community colleges, and local government services by changing tax assessment of commercial and industrial property.'” (Dan Walters, Becerra slants two ballot measure titles, CALmatters, July 27, 2020, “https://calmatters.org/commentary/dan-walters/2020/07/california-becerra-partisan-ballot-measure-titles/.)

“This blatant manipulation of the ballot label as well as the title and summary is in direct contravention of the Attorney General’s fiduciary duty to prepare impartial ballot material,” said Jon Coupal, President of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

California voters are entitled by law to “a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure in such language that the ballot title and summary shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure.” Instead, Attorney General Becerra has bowed to the political power of special interests who seek to hide from the voters that the measure they have put on the ballot is the biggest property tax increase in California history.

 

Being held on No Bail Allowed; incident occurred at apartment complex on James Donlon Blvd.

By Sergeant James Stenger #3604, Antioch Police Investigations Bureau

The Antioch Police Department Investigations Bureau has been diligently investigating this case since May 18, 2020, the night 36-year-old Kenneth Lee McClain was shot and killed. Through the investigation it was determined that an argument started over a dice game between McClain and Vallejo resident, 27-year-old Alfonzo Lavell Blake. During the argument Blake shot and killed McClain and shot and injured an intentionally unnamed 23-year-old male victim. That victim was treated at a local hospital and later released. Blake robbed another partygoer of their gold chain and then fled the scene on foot. (See related article)

The Antioch Police Department requested an outside assist from the US Marshal Service to track and take Blake into custody. On July 27, 2020 at approximately 5:30 PM, the US Marshal Service tracked Blake to a residence in the 200 block of Cypress Avenue in Vallejo. The US Marshal Service served a search warrant at the Cypress Avenue residence and Blake was taken into custody without incident.

On July 29, 2020, this case was presented to the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office. Blake was charged with a special circumstance murder for committing a murder during the commission of a robbery (Penal Code 187(a) and Penal Code 190.2(a)(17)). Blake is currently being held at the County Jail in Martinez on a No Bail Allowed complaint.

On May 18, 2020 at approximately 1:33 AM, Antioch police officers were called to the Twin Creek Apartments, located at 1111 James Donlon Boulevard, on the call of gunshots heard near an apartment.

Numerous officers responded to the scene and located one male victim, down on the ground, on the back patio of an apartment unit. The 36-year-old male victim was suffering from at least one (1) serious gunshot wound. Officers immediately began providing first-aid and CPR to the victim until emergency paramedics arrived at the scene. The victim succumbed to his injuries and passed at the scene. Another adult male at the scene also sustained a gunshot wound and was transported by paramedics to a local area hospital, where he was admitted and listed in stable condition.

While at the scene, officers learned that there were several subjects inside the apartment when an altercation occurred. Shortly afterwards, a male suspect fired several gunshots and then fled the complex on-foot.

Antioch Police Department’s Crime Scene Investigators and Detectives with the Violent Crimes and Special Operations Units responded to the scene and took over the investigation. At this time, the suspect responsible for this shooting has not been located. Currently, the investigation is still active, and evidence is being collected.

Anyone with information is asked to call the Antioch Police Department non-emergency line at (925) 778-2441, or Detective Brogdon at (925) 779-6895. You may also text-a-tip to 274637 (CRIMES) using the key word ANTIOCH.

“You are not being inconvenienced that much.” – Supervisor Karen Mitchoff

• Half-Cent Sales Tax Ballot Measure Plans Hung Up in Sacramento

• Sheriff Continues Cooperation With ICE

By Daniel Borsuk

Over citizen objections, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors voted 5-0, Tuesday to approve fines for non-commercial and commercial public health violations in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic.

The new ordinance that goes into effect immediately requires citizens to wear face masks in the public and in commercial settings or one can be subject to a fine, or multiple fines.

Contra Costa County Health Services Director Anna Roth told supervisors the county needs an ordinance setting down fines because as of Tuesday the county’s COVID-19 caseload is still rising with 7,304 cases. In the county there have been 108 COVID-19 related deaths, she reported, of which 70 percent occurred in long term care facilities. County health officials have observed a sharp rise in COVID-19 cases since May. Roth pointed out the county is on the state’s COVID-19 Monitoring List.

Deputy County Health Director Randy Sawyer explained there is an “urgent need” for county supervisors to adopt an ordinance establishing fees so that county health enforcement officers can enforce public health orders especially during the current pandemic.  Citizens are not wearing masks and are not practicing social distancing, Sawyer said.

Sawyer said there are about 200 businesses that the county has ongoing public health complaint issues with the department.

Similar ordinances have recently been adopted in Marin and Napa counties, and the Contra Costa County ordinance requires persons to wear masks when engaged in noncommercial and commercial activities.  In Contra Costa, for the first noncommercial violation the fine is $100, $200 for the second violation and $500 for each additional violation within one year of the initial violation.

For commercial activity violations, the fine for the first violation is $250, $500 for a second violation, and $1,000 for each additional violation within one year of the initial violation. “If a violation continues to more than one day, each day is a separate violation,” the ordinance states.

Public Opposition to Mask Ordinance & Fines

Speakers opposing the ordinance said requiring persons to wear masks violates their Constitutional rights. “I oppose this ordinance because it violates our liberties, “said Dave Sutton. “It restricts our liberties.”

Similarly, Deborah Thompson said, “I oppose the ordinance because it is an abridgement of our liberties.”

Comments like those sparked District One Supervisor John Gioia of Richmond to say, “I am shocked by the lack of literacy and scant knowledge that people have.”

The supervisor said some people don’t understand that this virus is causing a public health crisis where this county “may soon run out of ICU beds and two thirds of the people who have died in the county lived in congregant living facilities.”

“We are out to get these numbers down,” Supervisor Karen Mitchoff of Pleasant Hill said in reference to the rising number of COVID-19 cases in the county. “A health order will do that. You are not being inconvenienced that much.”

Mitchoff, who noted Contra Costa County’s fines are less than other Bay Area county fines, said  the new ordinance will mean persons will now be required to wear a mask when they out of their house, even when they go to the fast-food drive thru. “If you don’t want to wear a mask then get used to wearing a ventilator,” the supervisor warned.

Richmond resident Edith Alderman supported the ordinance commenting,” I’m 100 percent in favor of the ordinance.  This can help get a handle on this disease.”

Speaking on behalf of the board, Chair Candace Andersen of Danville said “Many people are following the Health Order, but we need to increase our efforts together to slow the spread of COVID-19 in our community. To further our progress, to protect lives and reopen more local businesses and activities, we need a tool to send a fair message that everyone has to adhere to health orders to prevent the spread of the virus.”

“With a 14 percent unemployment rate, this is not the time for a sales tax hike” – Board Chair Candace Andersen

Half-Cent Sales Tax Ballot Measure Plans Hung Up in Sacramento

With the legislative clock ticking in Sacramento, the supervisors plan to meet at a special teleconferenced meeting next Tuesday in order to get a status report to waive the second reading on the supervisors’ resolution calling for a Nov. 3 half cent sales tax ballot proposal.

The special meeting was called because state legislators have not convened to act on proposed legislation, especially Contra Costa County State Senator Steve Glazer’s Senate Bill 1349, a transactions and use tax law, that the supervisors need the state Legislature to pass and Governor Gavin Newsom to sign by August 18 or the supervisors’ half cent sales proposal will not appear on the November ballot.

Deputy County Administrator Tim Ewell explained without passage of SB 1349, the county will  lose $800,000 to $1 million in state revenue to cover printing costs tied to the ballot measure, but the clock is ticking and the supervisors need to have SB 1349 passed in the legislature and signed by the governor by August 18.

“I want those funds,” said supervisor Mitchoff, “but it will only move forward if the legislature acts.”

Supervisors voted 4-1, with Chair Candace Andersen of Danville casting the lone opposing vote, to move forward to meet next Tuesday.

“I will not support it” said Andersen, who also opposed the tax increase proposal at the board’s July 14 meeting.  “With a 14 percent unemployment rate, this is not the time for a sales tax hike with such high unemployment rate.”

One of the few speakers opposing the proposal Tom Townsend of El Cerrito, said, “I am taxed to the limit and I oppose the half cent sales tax.”

“I am unsure if this ballot measure will pass,” warned District 3 Supervisor Mitchoff, but she voted in favor of it anyway.

Tax proponent Supervisor Gioia said a county resident would typically pay $60 to $80 a year should the tax measure pass in November.

The proposed language for the county tax measure reads:

“To keep Contra Costa’s regional hospital open and staffed; fund community health centers; provide timely fire and emergency response; support crucial safety-net services; invest in early childhood services, shall the Contra Costa County measure levying a ½ cent sales tax, exempting food sales, providing an estimated $81,000,000 annually for 20 years that the state cannot take, requiring fiscal accountability, with funds benefitting county residents, be adopted?”

Sheriff Continues Cooperation with ICE

Sheriff David Livingston ran into criticism from the public about how the Sheriff’s Office works with the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) but is not expected to change his policies.

“The Sheriff continues to respond to ICE notification requests,” said Melanie Kim, a staff attorney for Advance Justice – Asian Law Caucus. “These practices are especially cruel given that COVID-19 is running rampant inside ICE facilities.  People in ICE custody are vulnerable to grave illness or death.”

The sheriff told supervisors that because of the COVID-19 hygiene practices that his officers and the inmates use at the West Contra Costa facility in Richmond and Martinez jail, there have been no reported COVID-19 cases.

The sheriff reported that in the past year his office detained for ICE enforcement purposes, 72 were Hispanic prisoners, 18 were Asian prisoners, one was a Black prisoner, three were white prisoners, and two “other” prisoners.

Sheriff Livingston said of the 95 prisoners reported to ICE, 71 were charged for miscellaneous felonies, four for penal or murder, five for robbery, two for car jackings, and for 11 for assaults with deadly weapons.

While there were a number of critics of the Sheriff’s Office asking that the Board of Supervisors to reduce funding for the upcoming 2020-2021 fiscal year, Karen Clarkson was one of few backers of Sheriff Livingston’s department requesting that funding remain unchanged. “I support the Sheriff,” she said. “It is an unsafe practice to defund the Sheriff.”

“This county should be safe for everyone, whether they are documented or undocumented,” said Anisha Walker, who requested that supervisors cut funds to the Sheriff’s Office.

“I have no sympathy for those who break the law and are violent criminals, “said Supervisor Mitchoff. “I support the sheriff. And I support social justice and equality at a time we are in a COVID -19 pandemic.”

Earns high-performing rankings in two procedures/conditions

By Monique Binkley Smith, Sutter Health Communications Manager, News Bureau

Sutter Delta Medical Center, part of the Sutter Health not-for-profit, integrated network of care, achieved recognition as among the best hospitals in California for 2020-21 from U.S. News & World Report. The annual rankings rate top hospitals in the state and in major metropolitan regions according to their performance across 26 adult specialties, procedures and conditions.

Sutter Delta earned high-performing rankings in two procedures/conditions: heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This is the fourth consecutive year Sutter Delta was recognized as high-performing for these services.

“I am pleased to see our teams recognized once again for the hard work and dedication it takes to achieve these results. Our goal at Sutter Delta Medical Center is to provide safe, affordable, quality care that is readily accessible to our community members. This year’s recognition by U.S. News & World Report reflects that,” said Sutter Delta CEO Sherie C. Hickman.

“Safety and quality are in our DNA,” said Bill Isenberg, M.D., chief quality and safety officer for Sutter Health. “Recognitions like these honor our network’s doctors, nurses, clinicians and employees who compassionately care for patients and their families across Northern California.”

Sutter hospital campuses ranked among the top 50 in the state include:

• California Pacific Medical Center– Van Ness Campus* (High-performing in five procedures/conditions and four specialties)
• Sutter Medical Center, Sacramento(High-performing in six procedures/conditions and one specialty)
• Sutter Roseville Medical Center(High-performing in five procedures/conditions)

In addition to Sutter Delta, six other Sutter hospital campuses earned recognition as “high performers” in at least one adult specialty, condition or procedure, including:

• Alta Bates Summit Medical Center– Summit Campus in Oakland (High-performing in three procedures/conditions)
• Alta Bates Summit Medical Center – Alta Bates Campusin Berkeley (High-performing in two procedures/conditions)
• Memorial Medical Center(High-performing in two procedures/conditions)
• Mills-Peninsula Medical Center(High-performing in three procedures/conditions)
• Stanislaus Surgical Hospital(High-performing in one procedure/condition)
• Sutter Auburn Faith Hospital(High-performing in two procedures/conditions)

Sutter Health’s not-for-profit network set out to build a truly integrated system—one that offers comprehensive patient services and quality health programs tailored to the diverse communities it serves. Today, Sutter Health cares for more than 3 million patients throughout its Northern California network of physicians, hospitals, home health providers and other services. Its coordination and focus on standardizing best practices reduce complications in care, lower hospital readmission rates and bring down the total cost of care.

“For more than 30 years, U.S. News & World Report has been helping patients, along with the help of their physicians, identify the Best Hospitals in an array of specialties, procedures and conditions,” said Ben Harder, managing editor and chief of health analysis at U.S. News. “The hospitals that rise to the top of our rankings and ratings have deep medical expertise, and each has built a track record of delivering good outcomes for patients.”

The U.S. News & World Report Best Hospitals survey ranked hospitals according to risk-adjusted survival and readmission rates, volume, patient experience, patient safety, quality of nursing care, physician surveys and other care-related indicators.

For more information and complete rankings, visit U.S. News & World Report.

* Many of the services recognized had originally been performed at California Pacific Medical Center – Pacific Campus and are now located at California Pacific Medical Center – Van Ness Campus.

School Board Members Sawyer-White, Householder express their opposition

By Allen Payton

Following a presentation by Antioch Police Chief T Brooks and listening to over 100 comments mostly from students and recent graduates of high schools in Antioch opposing the placement of police officers on campuses, known as School Resource Officers (SRO’s), the Antioch City Council voted 3-2 to approve accepting a $750,000 federal grant to fund six SRO’s. Councilmembers Monica Wilson and Lamar Thorpe voted against the motion that included the condition the Antioch School Board agree to fund half of the cost.

But the decision will be left up to only three of the board members, as Trustees Crystal Sawyer-White and Ellie Householder, who is running for mayor, opposed placing the six SRO’s on Antioch school campuses. However, Sawyer-White supported having them at sporting events.

Mayor Sean Wright spoke first saying, “I would like to thank Chief Tammany Brooks for bringing this to council. This is something people in the community have been asking for, for a long time. But due to a downturn in the economy…part of the plan was as we increased the number of police on the force, with community policing there is an opportunity to put officers on campus. Not just for safety, but to build relationships.”

“Several students said they never saw cops, they didn’t have relationship with officers,” Wright continued. “Our youth need to understand our officers, and our officers need to understand our youth. That interaction…on campus. I have two children that attend Deer Valley High School. I think this is something that needs to be for us to approve, contingent upon the school board approving them, and that they want to help pay for them.”

In response to Wright’s comments Thorpe then said, “Like you I’m the only other one on here that currently has students in Antioch schools. When my daughter leaves Holy Rosary, I’m not going all the way to Carondolet. I want her going to high school in Antioch.”

“That’s not what I’m hearing from community members,” he said in regards to Wright’s comments. “What I have heard is that they want youth programs…that they’re wanting our youth directed into the right paths…gang intervention in our schools. I don’t want my daughter to go to school where there are police officers. With the work Chief Brooks is doing with community policing, stopping and playing basketball, that’s the kind of engagement.”

He said he was “particularly impressed” with the comments from all the youth.

“In the face of the $1.8 million cuts the school district recently made…counselors, bilingual aids for students that have language barriers. I’m all for funding positions at the school district,” Thorpe stated. “If we want to give police officers overtime to go to basketball games, I’m all for that. But I’m not for this as an African American parent, a Latino parent…with what’s going on in this country, today. I find it very very problematic that we’re going in this direction. I think we should postpone this until we find out from the district if they’re willing to fund this. And with the pandemic we don’t know when kids will be going back to school. This one gives me a lot of heartburn because this is against what a lot of people are demanding in our country, in our community, which are services.”

“I too have been listening to the youth,” said Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock asking of Antioch Police Chief Tammany Brooks, “Can you please tell us why you applied for this grant, Chief?”

“Since I’ve been chief, I’ve had residents asking me when I think I can put school resource officers back into the schools,” he responded.

“You have been working with AUSD on this grant, correct?” Ogorchock said.

“That is correct. We worked with the school district on applying for this grant,” Brooks replied.

“All my kids and the kids they grew up with didn’t have a fear of police, because they had relationships. I’ve heard loud and clear they want police at the schools and at the events,” Ogorchock stated. “I’m appreciative of the students commenting. But I also have to listen to the parents.”

“Chief can you use this grant for mental counseling or anything else?” she asked.

“No. This is a DOJ grant specifically for school resource officers,” Brooks explained. He then said the decision has to be made by August 9 and that AUSD Superintendent Stephanie Anello planned to have a special meeting, next week to discuss the issue.

“I support this,” Ogorchock concluded.

“You said something to the amount of training,” Wilson said to Chief Brooks.

“In the first six months there’s a mandatory 48-hour training course for school resource officers,” Brooks said. “That training is new training. This training is current…to benefit the relationship between the schools, the students and law enforcement.”

The training includes de-escalation and cultural awareness, he mentioned. “The grant pays for this specific training and advanced training.”

“I’m not one to use our police officers as mental health experts,” Wilson stated. “I heard from the 700 people who commented (at the council’s meetings in June) ‘our police officers are not social workers.’”

“How do we address the trauma our students are going through at home?” she asked. “Our council of teens are saying we need to address mental health. I just think if we’re going to invest…we need to invest more in mental health…tutors.”

“I think this needs a longer conversation and I’m surprised this didn’t go to the school district, first,” Wilson continued. “I’d like to learn what their plan is, first. It just doesn’t sit well with me to have officers in a role instead of mental health experts.”

“I just can’t vote for these six officers when these students are asking for the counselors,” she concluded.

Mayor Pro Tem Joy Motts then said, “First, I just want to make the comment that I wish we had more time to consider this. I think the chief received this June 25th, so we haven’t had the time to discuss this.”

She said she wished it could have been sent to the city council-school board subcommittee for discussion, first. Motts then suggested a rigorous interview process for the officers with parents and school staff.

“We have options, here,” she continued and asked for “Full support from the school board and there financial commitment of at least $250,000 and going forward the collaboration of all three agencies.”

“That’s really the only way to go forward with that,” Motts added.

Thorpe then said, “I think we need to ask the school district if they’re going to fund this entire thing. I also don’t accept this notion we can’t meet. Both the mayor and Diane Gibson-Gray, the president of the school board have the power to call meetings. So, there’s no excuse. The school-council ad hoc committee should have met on this issue.”

“Joy you did it as the president of the school board when they were trying to steal Dozier-Libbey Medical School,” he added.

Thorpe then made a motion that the school board pay for the entire amount. Wilson seconded the motion.

“Are you asking for them to fund the entire $754,000?” Motts asked.

“Yes,” Thorpe replied. “If they want this, they’ll pay for it.”

So, the amount he wanted the school district to pay for was the total amount except for the grant.

Ogorchock then offered a substitute motion to accept the grant and fund the six school resource officers.

“Part of the acceptance of this grant, we would then enter into an MOU with the school district,” Chief Brooks explained responding to a comment by Motts.

Motts then seconded Ogorchock’s motion.

“A substitute motion?” Thorpe asked. “That would require a four-fifths vote.”

“A substitute motion requires a majority vote,” City Attorney Thomas Smith responded.

“The motion is $750,000 contingent upon the balance from the Antioch School District,” Wright said.

“All six officers, the grant funds are there, and the school district picks up half,” Ogorchock repeated her motion.

“So, whatever we send to the schools, they could kick back to us with ‘no, we want to pay a lesser amount,’” Wilson said.

“To make it clear, all the current students, tonight they don’t have the resources to support our students,” Motts said. “To ask them to do something with the money they can’t do.

Brooks explained that Brentwood has three SRO’s and the district splits the cost fifty percent with the city. He also mentioned Pittsburg still has five SRO’s and the school district pays $550,000 toward their costs. However, Brooks shared that both Concord and Richmond which each had four SRO’s have stopped their programs.

The substitute motion passed 3-2 with Wilson and Thorpe voting no.

Support from local unions, no opposition from environmental community

By Allen Payton

The Ranch new home development project in the Sand Creek Focus Area, on the west side of Deer Valley Road across from the Kaiser hospital, returned for council approval for a second time in two years. Last time it was approved through the council adoption of a voter initiative. But after it was tossed out of court by a judge in 2018 in a lawsuit by neighboring property owners whose land was significantly downzoned and devalued.

This time The Ranch project, which consists of 551 acres and 1,177 housing units, was brought before the council as a Development Agreement, which the council members approved on a series of 5-0 votes.

According to the staff report, the Antioch Planning Commission recommended that the City Council take the following actions:

1) Adopt the resolution certifying The Ranch Project Environmental Impact Report, adopting findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations, and adopting the

mitigation monitoring and reporting program;

2) Introduce the ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the City of Antioch and Richland Planned Communities, Inc.;

3) Adopt the resolution approving a General Plan Amendment for purposes of amending the City of Antioch General Plan Land Use Map, General Plan Text, Circulation Element, and Housing Element (GP-20-01);

4) Introduce the Ordinance rezoning the property to Planned Development and adopting the development standards;

5) Adopt the resolution approving a Master Development Plan, Design Review adopting Design Guidelines, and a Resource Management Plan (MDP-20-01).

During the public hearing, Kyle Masters with Richland Communities spoke first, representing the project proponent, presented their plans.

“In 2016…we had a plan of over 1,600 units,” he shared. “That led up to 2018…we took our lessons learned…and took that with a collaborative process that included citizen and environmental groups and came up with a plan for 1,177 homes. That resulted in the West Sand Creek initiative…with thousands of Antioch residents.

What you see before you, today is the same exact plan as went through the initiative process,” Masters stated.

The plan includes land for an additional fire station and it’s construction.

“We’ll also participate in a new CFD (Community Facilities District) that the fire district is forming” in which the new homeowners will pay an annual fire district fee, he explained.

“We have almost 43% of the project that is in open space…which includes the creek corridor running through the spine of the project,” Masters said. “We also have five miles of trails.”

The project will be built in three phases. They will build the Dallas Ranch Road to Sand Creek Road at Deer Valley Road next to Kaiser.

Public Comments

Tom Lawson, the business manager of the Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 159 union, was the first member of the public to speak saying, “I’m here in support of the Planning Commission’s recommendation.”

“The Ranch will bring in millions of dollars to the city of Antioch and provide housing for first time buyers. The Ranch is a project all of Antioch can be proud of,” he stated.

Ellis Raskin of the Hansen Bridgett law firm spoke on behalf of The Zeka Group regarding the Zeka Ranch project planned for immediately west of The Ranch.

“The development proposals tonight do not meet the suitability of adjacent projects,” he said. “The proposed realignment of Dallas Ranch Road needs to be modified.”

“We would urge the city council to reconsider this proposal,” Raskin stated. “At the very least, the EIR should be circulated throughout the public.”

Environmental Group Doesn’t Take Position, Praises Project’s Improvements

Seth Adams, the Land Conservation Director for Save Mt. Diablo, praised the project. (See his complete comments, here: Seth Adams SMD comments Antioch City Council 07-28-20)

“Save Mt. Diablo has been involved in Antioch for more than 20 years, and in this project since late 2014, when we raised concerns on issues ranging from the unit count to the size of the buffer around Sand Creek, to the Project’s effect on some of Antioch’s most prominent hills,” he said. “Richland has had extensive communication with the community. They have not backtracked on their commitments.”

“Save Mount Diablo is not taking a specific position on The Ranch project, in support or against,” Adams said. “However, we are pleased with improvements to the project that Richland has made since 2018, such as that the unit count for The Ranch has been reduced by 30%; the footprint has been changed to avoid development impacts to the hills on-site and includes 250 acres of parks and open space; a wide creek-buffer to protect the Sand Creek riparian corridor has been incorporated into the Project. That creek buffer is wider than in previous Sand Creek development projects, ranging from a 250’ minimum to over 1000’ in width. It is a great precedent.

In addition to protecting the hills in that 250 acres of parks and open space, they have protected a buffer along Empire Mine Road and the strip of historic heritage-sized eucalyptus trees found there

They have proposed a robust trail system through the project and along Sand Creek, and a staging area for East Bay Regional Park District along Empire Mine Road. Over 7 miles of new public trails.

In addition to 250 acres of parks and open space within the project , the parcels proposed as mitigation for the Project’s biological impacts, just a mile away, total 1,040 acres, support rare wildlife species and would connect the Black Diamond Mines and Deer Valley Regional Preserves, enhancing wildlife corridors and increasing the long-term viability of wildlife in the region.

The Ranch Project has been substantially improved since we first engaged on it. Most of our suggested improvements have been adopted. The proposed mitigation area is exceptional. Overall, these changes would yield a net conservation benefit for the natural resources of Antioch and the Diablo region.”

Anthony Sorrell, a member of UA Local 159 Plumbers and Steamfitters spoke next in support of the project.

“It will allow myself and many of my peers to work closer to home. I’m also excited about the first-time homebuyers,” he continued. “This is just something good all around for everyone. It will hire local construction workers, put money into the community and make Antioch a stronger place to live.”

A representative of the East Bay Regional Park District commented saying it has a long-term interest in the Sand Creek area where the project is located. They appreciated the trail connection, among other matters.

James Corioli commented next by writing, “Antioch does not need more urban sprawl.”

Anthony Solac spoke in favor of the project because it will “accommodate multi-generational needs” and called it a “win-win”.

A member of the public opposed the project because of impact to public safety, pollution and traffic impacts.

Another member of the public, a member of IBEW also spoke in favor of the project.

Another member of the public wrote that he opposed the project because the voters of Antioch and Brentwood already opposed it. “How do you even know you will be able to fill this housing, slash commercial area?” he asked. “The Antioch City Council should do the hard work of dealing with the current projects.”

Another member of the public also wrote, “If memory serves me correctly the voting public of Antioch already voted against this.”

However, that’s incorrect. No vote of the project by the public was held. The public voted twice to allow for new home development in the Sand Creek area. The council approved the project in 2018, following an initiative being submitted by voters in Antioch instead of placing it on the November 2018 ballot.

Antioch resident Gil Murillo wrote, “it appears that our mayor has been taking heavy donations from the developers of The Ranch project…as much as $20,000.” He spoke of a conflict of interest by those council members who have accepted campaign contributions from the developer and called for the council to delay a decision on the project until February 2020 after the November elections.

Lucille Meinhardt wrote, “I propose the project should be postponed until a later date. I think the voters should have a say about the project.”

Another union member wrote in favor of the project.

Applicant’s Rebuttal

Craig Cristina, the Senior Vice President for Richland Communities spoke in response to the public comments.

“As you’ve heard tonight, so much has gone into the design of The Ranch project,” he said. “It really does end up with a community we can all be proud of.”

“We had numerous stakeholder meetings…we got close to the environmental community along the way, as well as the fire district,” Cristina shared. “Over 9,000 Antioch voters supported our initiative.”

“We balanced the economic needs…but doing it in a thoughtful manner, balancing the housing needs, the environment, the fire department, the trails,” he continued. “We stayed true to the lower-density plan. We do stand behind our original commitment and that’s our commitment to Antioch.”

Council Discusses Then Approves Project

Councilman Lamar Thorpe asked about a timeline.

“We’re looking at coming in with tentative maps next year,” Masters responded. They expect to start construction in three to five years.

“I’m glad we’re at the point we are, now,” Councilwoman Monica Wilson said. “I’m really happy about the project labor agreement.”

“This has been a long time coming,” said Councilwoman Lori Ogorochock. “It’s nice to see as much open space as you have left.”

She then asked about the age restriction homes, requesting a senior day care center on site.

Mayor Pro Tem Joy Motts commented on the CFD for the fire district and the project labor agreement, as well as “the community benefit…is an example for future development.” She encouraged Richland to continue their conversation with the school district.

“It looks like a fantastic project,” Motts added.

“This is going to be a gem of a project, an incredible use of the Sand Creek, really opening of the Sand Creek for the public to enjoy…to connect to the East Bay Regional Parks,” Mayor Sean Wright said. “What an opportunity for us to build some necessary housing but to open up that open space.”

The council then took five separate votes to approve the recommendations by the Planning Commission, all on 5-0 votes.

Non-commercial activities: $100, $200 and $500 fines

Commercial activities: $250, $500 and $1,000 fines.

If a violation continues for more than one day, each day is a separate violation. 

By Susan Shiu, Director, Office of Communications and Media, Contra Costa County

(Martinez, CA) – On July 28, 2020, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors used its emergency powers under state law to pass Urgency Ordinance No. 2020-21 that establishes administrative fines for violations of public health orders pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Board unanimously determined the ordinance, effective immediately, is necessary to provide an alternative to criminal enforcement of public health orders that will augment the ability of the County and other local agencies to ensure compliance with public health orders and combat the spread of COVID-19.

“Many people are following the Health Orders, but we need to increase our efforts together to slow the spread of COVID-19 in our community,” said Board Chair, Supervisor Candace Andersen. “To further our progress to protect lives and reopen more local businesses and activities, we need a tool to send a fair message that everyone has to adhere to health orders to prevent the spread of the virus.”

For health order violations involving non-commercial activities, the amount of the fine is $100 for a first violation, $200 for a second violation, and $500 for each additional violation within one year of the initial violation. For violations involving commercial activity, the amount of the fine is $250 for a first violation, $500 for a second violation, and $1,000 for each additional violation within one year of the initial violation. If a violation continues for more than one day, each day is a separate violation.

Throughout this pandemic, Contra Costa leaders and law enforcement have encouraged “educational enforcement” before issuing penalties. Before issuing a Notice of Fine, an enforcement officer can first issue a Notice of Violation, which gives a person or business up to two days to correct a violation. In cases where the enforcement officer determines that issuing a Notice of Violation is unnecessary or ineffective, the enforcement officer can immediately issue a Notice of Fine.

Because Public Health Officer orders apply countywide, this ordinance also applies countywide under Government Code section 8634. The ordinance may be enforced in cities and special districts by officials designated by those agencies to enforce the ordinance.

For more information, read Ordinance No. 2020-21 (PDF) available on the County website.