By Allen Payton

After waiting more than 10 years to build a new housing project, planned for the south side of Antioch, next to Dozier-Libbey Medical High School, Aviano Farms, LLC, a partnership of DeNova Homes and Mike Serpa, was successful in obtaining council approval on a 5-0 vote, at Tuesday night’s meeting.

The development agreement, the council approved, includes 533 homes and will provide the needed improvements to the sewer line that serves the adjacent high school. The council approved the Use Permit for the first phase of the project, which consists of 127 homes. The council also changed the designation of the project from Adult Community Planned Development to a regular housing development, in which anyone can purchase a home.

Serpa spoke at the August 25th council meeting about the Sand Creek Master plan, which includes ballparks, and how his project is “the major infrastructure provider.”

“Dozier-Libbey [Medical High School] was a result of this project,” he stated.

He pointed out that they have already spent $4 million for species and environmental mitigation, and will be spending $2.5 million to extend Sand Creek Road and Hillcrest Avenue, which will both serve the new development, as well as the new sewer line.

“We’re asking you to reapprove a project that is not substantially different,” Serpa added. “This project is a good one. It’s done its civic duties.”

Also at the August 25th meeting, Tim Forrester, Associate Superintendent for Business and Operations for the Antioch Unified School District, spoke about both the land Serpa had set aside for Dozier-Libbey, as well as the sewer line.

“We started working with Mike Serpa in 2004 on Dozier-Libbey and was able to open in 2008,” he stated. “It brings us back about $1 million to pay us back. The temporary sewer line is failing. It’s running on propane.”

“The economy downturn did not allow us to finish the infrastructure,” Forrester continued. “We’re very amicable in our agreement with Aviano Farms. It will benefit Kaiser, as well, giving us a second way into a hospital.”

The public hearing was closed at the August 25th meeting, but not before a few residents spoke in favor of the project.

“I’ve lived in Antioch for 26 years,” said Robert Laxner. “I like this project.”

He mentioned the project’s 350 offsite acres set aside for open space.

Aaron Hodess, the Business Manager of the Plumbers and Steamfitters union, Local 159, said “We look forward to finally work in our city. I”ve got every confidence this will be a quality project.”

He also spoke of “opportunities for our youth and careers through apprenticeship.”

Kevin Van Buskirk read his statement, saying he lived in Antioch for 30 years and was concerned about the impact on police services. But, now he supports the project.

No one spoke against the development.

But, there was disagreement over three issues at the August 25th meeting. So, the council voted to give city staff and the developer two weeks to work out agreements on the police fee, the owner-occupation issue and a city requested hold-harmless indemnity clause in the development agreement.

The council, in approving the development agreement at Tuesday’s meeting, imposed an annual police services fee of $445 per home, which is a new requirement, never before imposed on a development in Antioch. They also required the formation of a homeowners association.

While the City wanted to require that no more than 30 percent of the homes be available for rent at any time, according to the staff report “following more thorough research, City staff no longer endorses this as a function of the City, but encourages the applicant to pursue any reasonable and lawful means to encourage greater owner occupancy.”

During Tuesday night’s meeting, Interim City Attorney Derek Cole said “the time for public challenge has come and gone.”

However, public comments were allowed.

Antioch resident Terry Ramus was the only one from the public to speak on the item. He spoke about development agreements, and how in the past the city had forgotten some things.

“I had hoped we have learned from our history,” Ramus said. “The times have changed. So, on this police services agreement, is that tight?”

“Perfect is not really what I’m asking for you to do,” he continued. “I’m asking for you to look at it with a fine-tooth comb and if you’re not comfortable with it, don’t vote for it tonight.”

Mayor Wade Harper responded.

“After a couple years, now of fine tooth combing and everything else, the matter is now before council.”

Councilwoman Mary Rocha added her thoughts.

“It will bring employment, better service for our schools, it will improve the road system,” she said. “This one is bringing us some extra items that will benefit the schools and city.”

“I am very comfortable that all parties have come to an agreement,” said Councilman Tony Tiscareno.

He then asked about the police fee.

Cole explained that the developer agreed to a Community Services District that levies a special tax, which is a Mello-Roos tax for police.

“Development must be revenue neutral and provide the 1.2 to 1.5 officers per thousand,” he stated. “One way or the other, the standard of providing police protection will exist. This developer has done everything they can to work with us, to date.”

“I like the variety of sizes of homes,” said Mayor Pro Tem Lori Ogorchock. “There are 5,000 square foot lots up to 10,000 square foot lots. I just want to make sure the infrastructure goes in.”

“I wanted to make sure we have enough money to pay for police, going forward,” said Harper. “That was important to me. This will be a wonderful, clean and safe neighborhood. If I could I would give the Aviano folks credit for working so well with the school district. I’m glad you’re getting this project done and thanks for being in our city.”

Rocha mentioned a possible local hire.

Then the council voted unanimously to approve the development agreement which lasts through 2029. The developer will have three years to form the Community Services District to pay for more police.

Each week, Antioch City Manager Steve Duran posts, on the city’s website, his Weekly Report and each month he provides his Monthly Report on city activities and accomplishments, from each city department.

To read Duran’s Weekly Report, dated September 4, 2015, click here.

You can also subscribe to receive the city manager’s weekly and monthly reports in your email, by clicking here.

By Allen Payton

Time is running out to stop SB 350, which would impose a 50-percent reduction in on-road petroleum fuel use in California by 2030. With just one week left before the state legislature ends its session, lawmakers are working to pass the legislation.

It sets a goal of 50% electricity from renewables in the state, includes boosting the energy efficiency of buildings by 50%, by then, as well. The legislation the three-point plan Governor Jerry Brown laid out, earlier this year, to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions in the Golden State.

The California Driver’s Alliance, which describes itself as “a program of the Western States Petroleum Association, [that] represents fuel users and providers, on matters related to mandates impacting fuel costs and availability,” is working to defeat the legislation.

They claim the “law will limit how often we can drive our own cars. The state will also be collecting and monitoring our personal driving habits and tracking how much gas we use. They’re now reviewing regulations to force automakers to include data monitoring systems in all cars so that regulators will be able to penalize and fine us if we drive too much or use too much gas.”

According to a fact check article in the Sacramento Bee, “The legislation does not spell out how the state will achieve that level of petroleum reduction. Instead, it maintains the California Air Resources Board’s existing, broad authority over vehicle emissions and fuel standards. And it does not call for an ‘up or down’ vote on ARB regulations.”

Two of those who represent Antioch and East County in the legislature, have voted in favor of the bill, so far. State Senator Steve Glazer voted in favor of the bill, when it came before the full Senate on June 3, and passed by a 24-24-1 vote, before sending it to the Assembly.

Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla voted in favor of it, when it was before the Utilities and Commerce Committee, of which she is a member.

Assemblyman Jim Frazier, who represents Antioch, has yet to vote on the bill.

The bill is currently in the Assembly, where it has been amended.

To read the current text of the bill, click here.

By Luke Johnson

Antioch High School’s superstar running back Najee Harris has inserted himself into the record books again by rushing for 396 yards off 22 carries against Milpitas, at home Friday night, breaking a school record which he already possessed. In addition, he had two receptions for 94 yards, five touchdowns all together (three rushing and two receiving). The amazing part is he sat out the entire fourth quarter.

Harris did not know he passed his own mark until after the game in which Antioch was victorious 47-22. Once he was informed, the only thing he could think about was Antioch’s game at San Leandro next week.

“Nothing really,” he said when asked what was going through his mind now knowing he set a new record. “Just worried about San Leandro. That’s it… Nothing really special is going through my mind.”

Last year, in the first round of the North Coast Section Playoffs at San Leandro is when Harris originally broke the record with 371 rushing yards in a 50-26 win for Antioch. He passed Joe Madrigal’s mark from 1981 when he rushed for 308 yards. The record was originally set by Carl Maxwell, who rushed for 304 yards in 1953.

Harris now has 31 career touchdowns on varsity, and is approaching Brian Boccio’s record of 32 set back in 1992-93. With 3,011 career rushing yards, Harris already has the record previous held by Madrigal (2,103) set in 1980-81.

In Friday night’s matchup, Antioch trailed 16-8 late in the second quarter. On third and long, quarterback Numan Najib scrabbled outside the pocket and flung a short pass to Harris, who caught it just inches above the ground and ran 76 yards to the end zone; breaking five or six tackles along the way. On the second play of the ensuing drive, Antioch’s defense fell on a fumble behind the line of scrimmage, and Najee Harris scored a 30-yard touchdown run the very next snap through wide open space created by his offensive line. That sequence swung the momentum into Antioch’s favor with a 20-16 lead at halftime.

The team dominated from there, outscoring Milpitas 20-0 in the third quarter, propelling the Panthers to a 2-0 record to start the season.

“We knew coming in that this team was going to be hard [to beat],” Harris said. “I just told us to compete. I guess those little-big plays gave our team some momentum, and we never looked back.”

By Allen Payton

In response to questions from the public about the City of Antioch’s nice, new brochure that was mailed out to both residences and businesses, this week, Herald staff asked City Manager Steve Duran about it. He responded via email, today.

“Regarding your question as to how much the City Report cost:

It cost $12,695 for production and $6,132 to mail to every residence in Antioch, for a total cost of $18,8270. That’s approximately 17 cents per resident, using 108,298 population from State Dept. of Finance.”

Duran explained the reasoning behind the mailer.

“Excerpt from Strategic Plan (page 20):

The City conducted a series of Community Café’s and Focus Groups over a number of months to get community input and prioritize the efforts of City government. What was evident throughout the Café’s was that, in addition to effective administration, the City needs to improve communications with the community in order to build greater trust.

Strategy L-1: Improve community communications and trust in City government and keep the community well informed as to the activities of the City departments.”

Additional copies will be used to promote the city, as well.

“We have about 2,500 copies on hand for economic development purposes,” Duran added. “We plan to do this once a year to update the entire community on the status of key activities.”

The cost is about 50 cents per household and business in Antioch, based on approximately 37,000 postal customers in the city.

That’s not a bad price for a full-color, eight-page, coated stock brochure that’s mailed citywide.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY – The County is seeking individuals who are interested in serving on Contra Costa County’s Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The Commission’s role and responsibilities are to:

– Formulate land use policies that restrict the development of lands to assure compatibility with planned operations of public use airports;

– Review the general plans of local agencies for consistency with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; and

– Review proposed modification to the airport master plans for consistency with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

Commission members are expected to attend at least one meeting a month. Regular meetings of the ALUC are held on the fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Zoning Administrator Meeting Room, 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553. Background study, occasional filed trips and extra meetings are sometimes necessary. Members shall serve without compensation. During the term of office, each member shall reside or work in Contra Costa County.

There are seven members on the ALUC. The current vacancy is for one commissioner that is an At-Large position representing the general public and appointed by the other six members of the Commission. Appointed members are required to comply with the Conflict-of-Interest reporting requirements in State law. The term of office of each member is four years and until the appointment and qualification of his or her successor.

An application form may be obtained from the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors by visiting the County webpage at www.cccounty.us or by calling (925) 335-1900. Completed applications should be returned to the Department of Conservation & Development, 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553 postmarked by Friday, September 25, 2015.

For further information, please call Jamar Stamps, with the Department of Conservation & Development, Community Development Division, at (925) 674-7832.

By Allen Payton

The opportunity for a park and event center on a downtown lot is dead, for now. Just two months after Antioch residents pushing for the project thought they had a victory with a council vote and comments giving them the opportunity to pursue it, their hopes were dashed at Tuesday night’s (Aug. 25) council meeting. At the beginning of the meeting, Interim City Attorney Derek Cole reported the council had voted during closed session, earlier in the evening, to give direction to City Manager Steve Duran to negotiate with one developer for the purchase of that parcel and eight others, instead.

The agenda item, entitled “Conference with Real Property Negotiatiors.”included a list of parcels and the City Manager Steve Duran as the City and Agency Negotiator. Also listed under the agenda item was “Other Parties Negotiators: Seeno Homes, Inc., Albert Seeno Jr.; Lewis Operating Corporation, Doug Mull; City Ventures, Phil Kerr; Celebrate Antioch Foundation, Wayne Harrison. Under negotiation: price and terms of payment.”

The city attorney stated that the council had voted to give City Ventures the exclusive opportunity to negotiate the purchase of all the parcels listed under the agenda item, including the old Antioch Lumber Company lot, that’s been the site of the proposed park and event center.

A variety of citizens spoke in favor of the downtown park and event center and with disappointment in the vote, with Connie Komar pointing out that some council members had lived here all their lives, and named Council Members Mary Rocha, Tony Tiscareno and Mayor Pro Tem Lori Orgochock. Celebrate Antioch Foundation Treasurer Joy Motts, who has been a leading proponent of the park and event center, expressed her disappointment during public comments, as well, ending with the promise of a referendum on the council’s vote.

However, it wasn’t until the end of the meeting that the city attorney shared how the council members voted.

“On the closed session item, it was a 4-1 vote,” he said, with Ogorchock dissenting.

Harper reverses position

Following the meeting, Mayor Wade Harper gave his reasons for his vote, which differed from what was stated at the June workshop on the Downtown Specific Plan update and the impression left with the park proponents at the June 23rd city council meeting. (See article)

“I can say certain things about what we desire,” he stated. “But, we had to go along with what the council majority wanted.”

“We voted for mixed use,” he added.

However, at the June 23rd council meeting, Harper thanked the community for all of their input, but said, with reference to designating Site 5 a park, “I would want to know how you’re going to pay for it.” Even so, he said, “I’m going to choose 1B, and I would like to give the community the opportunity to find out how we’re going to pay for it.”

Celebrate Antioch Foundation submitted a proposal that included a financial plan, but it was never discussed that they would have to buy the land in order to build the park and event center, according to Motts.

She explained that over the past several weeks members of CAF have said they’ve been meeting with potential funding sources, including a private foundation. But, according to Motts, they needed a commitment from the council in order to secure the funding.

Rocha had offered group hope, twice.

In response, both Rocha and Ogorchock at the August 11th meeting asked to have the matter on the August 25th meeting agenda. Duran responded that it was a matter for closed session. In spite of that, Ogorchock still pushed to have it on the agenda giving a specific list of items she wanted discussed as part of the matter, including giving CAF a date certain to return to the council with preliminary plans, the first right of refusal to pursue the park and event center, without competing with other development interests, and waiving the requirement for them to go through the Request for Qualifications/Request for Proposal process that the council had adopted, last year, for developers.

But, the item, which is set by both the mayor and city manager, was only agendized for the closed session and not the public meeting.

During the June 23rd meeting, in which the council voted to change the zoning of the empty lot to mixed use, allowing for opportunity of a park and event center, there, Rocha said that there should be a set amount of time in which to develop a park, because other opportunities exist right now.

“The timing is important,” she said, but also said she supported the Mixed-Use designation, but with the understanding that, at least initially, a park would be on the site.

Rocha explains her reversal

However, after Tuesday’s council meeting Rocha said “If they [CAF] had a plan to pay for it,” then maybe she would have considered their proposal.

She then responded to questions about her vote in favor of the development.

When asked if the council members had seen the information package that CAF had submitted to Duran, Rocha responded “They didn’t bring in anything.”

When asked if the council members were shown packages from any of the groups, she stated, “We didn’t see any package from anyone.”

She then explained her vote.

“You remember the last time that property was for sale,” Rocha stated. “The CRAWDADS [citizens group] opposed it. I couldn’t take that chance anymore.”

“This is my last round,” she added.

Motts shared her thoughts

Also, following the meeting, Motts offered additional thoughts on the council’s vote, via text and was under the impression Rocha had voted with them until she learned of the city attorney’s statement at the end of the meeting.

“Right before the meeting, Mary Rocha came up to us and told Wayne Harrison, CAF President they voted against us.”

“The city attorney reported out of closed session that City Ventures was given the DA, development agreement, for all the parcels listed…Thereby completely dismissing CAF without ever a discussion or a meeting and completely reversing on their statements of June 23^rd.”

Ogorchock says council got package

Following the meeting, Ogorchock stated, “I voted against it, that’s all I can tell you” since it was a closed session.

When asked if she ever saw the package that CAF had submitted to Duran, she replied, “I don’t know if what she gave the city manager is the same that Joy handed out at a council meeting.”

Council and staff were given CAF’s proposal CAF Event Center BDC DRAFT 0.2 – Proposal for City

Motts commented on the package they submitted to Duran in July.

“We submitted a detailed, specific proposal that was an excellent business plan, that detailed our fund raising and marketing plan…coming from a local non-profit, and obviously a grass roots effort,” she stated via text. “We are not an anomaly, many community efforts have gone forward in other cities, just recently in Martinez.”

She had also previously mentioned the privately funded improvements to the playground at City Park located at the corner of West 10^th and A Streets.

CAF’s concept was the same, to privately fund a public park and event center.

There’s also another precedent in Antioch, the city-owned Lone Tree Golf & Event Center which is operated by a private, non-profit organization.

“We wanted to try and work together on this vision,” Motts stated. “Based on the comments made at the June 23rd meeting where the mayor apologized for not listening to us, and how they would give us an opportunity, we worked with a local attorney in developing an initial proposal. Wayne [Harrison] submitted that proposal during public comments at the council’s return from vacation at the July 8th council meeting.”

Motts vows referendum

“We are all absolutely furious,” Motts stated. “I am meeting with City Clerk Simonsen tomorrow [Wednesday] about 12:30, city hall to gather the information to start a referendum or initiative to stop the development.”

“We believe when the citizens of all of Antioch are presented with a choice of 18 town homes or a community event center, it will be overwhelming support for the latter, just as we have shown them through petition, forums, emails and public comments,” she shared.

“This is going to be a battle and we need to pull out all stops to stop them,” Motts added.

By Allen Payton

At Tuesday night’s Antioch City Council meeting the council members opposed the idea of community courts on a 4-1 vote and unanimously agreed to seek input from the public on renaming A, L and West Second Streets which lead to and run through downtown.

Community Courts

Chief Allan Cantando and Captain Tamany Brooks presented the idea of having community courts in Antioch, in response to an effort by Mayor Pro Tem Ogorchock and a letter from the County Grand Jury asking for input from the cities in the county.

The courts have already been implemented and in use in Pittsburg, Concord, Walnut Creek and San Ramon.

They operate locally and allow people charged with misdemeanors to avoid having their case sent to the District Attorney. The individual meets with and pays for a mediator, to have their case heard. Then if found guilty they pay a fine, which is collected by the city, and do some type of community service. The intent is to reduce repeat offenders.

But, Cantando gave his reasons why the courts shouldn’t be implemented in Antioch.
“There are issues we have to address,” he said. “Staffing is obviously an issue. It would be cost prohibitive from doing.”
He also mentioned a problem with the perception of the public.

“Translation is an issue,” Cantando continued. “There is no recording mechanism. The police departments are actually picking which cases go before an arbitrator. There’s concern over liability on the city for not turning over the case to the DA.”

Councilwoman Mary Rocha was the first council member to respond.

“I was going back and forth on this,” she said. “My concern is the one-time offender. I’m in that in-between stage.”

Councilwoman Wilson asked Cantando, “You don’t agree with the Grand Jury report? What changes would you want to see?”

“I would want some kind of recording mechanism,” he replied. “A court certified interpreter. A lieutenant or captain would have to go through the misdemeanor cases, redact [sensitive information], oversee the handling of the cases and make sure the fees are paid.”

A court stenographer costs $35 per hour with a two-hour minimum and an interpreter costs $160 per hour with a two-hour minimum, Cantando shared.

“It’s a moneymaker,” he stated. “But we’re spending money out the back end.”

“The cases are the weaker cases the DA wouldn’t file on, anyway,” Cantando added.

Then he provided statistics about the cases his department sent to the District Attorney and what happened with them.

“In 2014 Antioch sent 2,895 cases to the DA. Of those 1,234 no complaints were filed. They filed on 13.5% of our felonies. There’s a one in five chance they’re going to file,” he explained.

Brooks offered his input, after having sat in on some community court cases in other cities.

“Was there evidence to support an arrest beyond a reasonable doubt?” he asked. “Many of the cases were like that.”

Then he spoke about the language problems he encountered.

“The secretary there was having difficulty coming up with the terms being used,” Brooks said.

Ogorchock was the only council member who spoke in favor of having community courts.

“I found it intriguing and I spoke to other cities that have them,” she said. “They combine punishment and have offenders pay back to the community.”

However, Mayor Wade Harper gave his reasons for opposing the courts.

“I don’t support this at this time,” he stated. “It puts an extra burden on police. Right now, I want more traffic officers, more resource officers in the schools.”

“It’s not just for first-time offenders. It’s for misdemeanants,” he added. “We are transferring the burden to local agencies and local police departments.”

“I don’t think the benefits monetarily outweigh the costs,” said Councilman Tony Tiscareno. “If it works in other cities, fine. But, I don’t think it will work for our city at this time.”

In the only public comment, which was submitted in writing by Iris Archuletta, read by Harper, she stated “There are issues with due process.”

Cantando mentioned a current diversion program for youth, in Antioch.

“We work with REACH for diversion with youth,” he shared. “We’re trying to keep the juveniles out of the system.”
Then explaining another problem with the community courts, Cantando said “The arrest stays on their record. But, if they pay this fine, that does not.”

The council then voted 4-1 with Ogorchock opposed, to approve the recommendation of Chief Cantando and to have the mayor sign the letter letting the Grand Jury know Antioch would not be participating in the community courts program.

Renaming streets

As part of the city’s Downtown Specific Plan update, earlier this year, they approved renaming of streets leading to downtown. Now, the council is seeking the public’s input on what the names should be for A, West Second and L Streets. The City of Antioch 1996 Economic Development Plan included plans to rename A Street to Rivertown Drive and L Street to Marina Way. Since then, A Street was connected to West Second Street.

Downtown business owners, including this writer, took an informal vote at a meeting, earlier this year to support the renaming of the streets, which included changing both A and West Second Streets to Rivertown Drive and L Street to either Marina Blvd. or Way.

Two members of the public spoke.

First, Lori Cook, who hosts the Facebook page “Cleaning Up Antioch, One Home At a Time” said “Personally, I do not have an opinion either way. We, the city need to clean up these streets before anything else.”

If we had more Code Enforcement Officers “it could change this city overnight,” she added.

This writer then spoke in favor of the idea, for “permanent marketing for downtown” letting people know on the freeway that “there’s a river down there, a marina down there.” At the request of Duran, this writer also suggested the council rename A Street to Rivertown Drive and West Second Street to West Rivertown Drive, as there are potentially conflicting addresses between 6th Street and the Hobin & Hobin Law Office on A Street, which is located between 10th and 11th Streets.

The street name could change to West, as the road crosses 6th Street.

“I really would like the city to reach out to the businesses,” Wilson stated. “I need more information.”

“I think it’s time to change the name and give the residents enough time,” said Tiscareno.

Ogorchock said “I think we need to reach out to the people on A Street. But, I agree with Lori Cook.”

“This will be a great push for our marina and the ferry,” Rocha said. “Let’s bring it back in October.

Harper ended the council comments by stating, “We need to clean the area up, not just change the name.”

The council then voted unanimously to take 60 days to hear from the public, and specifically the businesses on A Street, about which names they would prefer and then bring it back for a vote.

Water Park open Fri & Sat nights

In other business at the meeting, during the community presentations and public comments, it was announced that the Antioch Water Park is open Friday and Saturday nights through the end of the season on September 7th.

Special thanks

Councilwoman Mary Rocha gave a special “Thank you to Betty Smith for her leadership at Delta 2000.”

Fire Department report

Also, ConFire Battalion Chief Bob Atlas gave what he said will become a regular report on fire department activities in Antioch.

They handled a total of 795 calls for service in the past month, a total of which were 692 Code 3 calls. They included 32 calls for outside aid, nine structure fires with one significant fire, which was on Sycamore, last week; 21 vegetation fires, 136 mistaken fire alarms.

This placed Antioch “number one in all cities the fire district is responsible for and number one in terms of fire loss,” Atlas stated.

The fire in the Sycamore area on August 5th “displaced 30 residents,” he said. He praised the American Red Cross for their help in dealing with them.

Committee & Commission Vacancies

City Clerk Arne Simonsen announced there was a resignation on the Measure C Oversight Committee. Applications would be online and at the City Clerk’s office, starting Wednesday, August 11. (Click here)

Proposed City Transportation Fee

A proposed transportation impact fee was discussed. The council heard a presentation on a draft study on imposing a one-time fee on both new residential and commercial development.

The presentation by the representative of Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., projected a total of 10,700 new homes and 17,500 more jobs in Antioch by 2040.

The funds generated from the fee would pay for capital facilities, such as road improvements and any other transportation projects directly impacted by the new residents or businesses, in Antioch. The fee would be in addition to the regional fee for transportation already imposed on new development in East County. The cost for that in Antioch is $15,000 per new home.

Oakley, Pittsburg, Brentwood and Concord already have their own local transportation fees ranging from $7,124 to $14,015 per single family home, $2,624 to $8,550 per multi-family unit and $1.38 to $8.81 per square foot for commercial development.

Councilwoman Mary Rocha asked if the funds could be used to pay for the ferry system. A station is planned for downtown Antioch.

The consultant responded “you could include certain capital items,” as long as they were for “new riders associated with new development.”

It can’t be used for operations and maintenance.

She asked if the funds could be used for Tri Delta Transit, which runs the bus system in East County, or A Street and L Street.

Antioch Public Works Director Ron Bernal responded to that.

“It would probably be a very small cost,” he said. “We could look at bus turn-outs. But, not for funding operations.”

The fee, if adopted by the council, would be kept in place over 25 years.

Street repairs

The council also unanimously approved an additional $210,000 from Gas Tax funding for pavement plugs and base repairs for streets throughout the city, bringing the total project cost to $2,220,757.11.

“Great job,” Rocha said to city staff. “The streets look beautiful. The people are happy.”

“I’m getting a lot of comments from people,” Harper said. “They are very appreciative of it. So, good work.”

Possible desalination plant

The council also unanimously approved a consulting contract for the Phase 1 Initial Planning for a possible desalination plant to treat brackish water from the river.

“This is an exciting opportunity,” said Lou Carella of Carollo Engineers. “Water is the new oil, these days. To take advantage of your pre-1914 water rights on the river is paramount.”

“It could be a very expensive project,” he added.

Bernal added his thoughts.
“It wouldn’t be able to supply all of our water needs,” he said. “But, it would decrease our reliance on CCWD.”

This year, the city is buying 95% of its raw water from the Contra Costa Water District, which costs the city money, instead of being able to draw water from its pumps in the river, due to the high salt content as a result of the drought.

The consultants will pursue low-interest state loans and Proposition 1 funds, in competition with other cities and agencies.

Councilman Tony Tiscareno mentioned possible “future manufacturers that can use this water and generate revenues” then asked about future expansion.

“We’re just looking at current capacity,” Bernal replied. “We have to use our water rights within our city limits.”

Babe Ruth loan forgiveness

The council voted unanimously to forgive a loan to Antioch Babe Ruth baseball in the amount of $792 which benefits their ball fields on Auto Center Drive.

Transportation priorities

The council also discussed the city’s priorities for transportation funding from regional sources, such as a proposed extension of Measure J, the county’s half-cent sales tax for transportation.

Staff’s recommendations include the L Street corridor project; the ferry system with a terminal in Antioch’s downtown; the TriLink project which is a four lane freeway and transit line between East County and Tracy, connecting the end of what was known as the Highway 4 Bypass and Interstates 205 and 5; the I-680 and Highway 24 interchange in Walnut Creek, and improvements to the interchange of Highways 4 and 242 in Concord.

“The ferry is already included in the East County Plan,” said Duran.

But the council wanted to place it at the top of the city’s list of priorities.

“I would like to put a major emphasis on the ferry,” Tiscareno said. “I believe it will be a one-time shot. The ferry system is an important part of our vitality.”

On a motion by Rocha to make the ferry the city’s number one transportation priority for regional funding, and include the rest of the projects on the list, the council voted 5-0 to approve.

Council committees and appointments

In response to Ogorchock’s request to review the various committees to which council members are appointed, and which ones still need to exist, the council had a lengthy discussion about the matter.

“If they don’t met why have them?” she asked.

Rocha shared her concerns about the Committee on Aging.

“Is it East County or the seniors at Nick Rodriguez [Center], which is a non-profit?” Rocha asked. “I’ve gone to both but I don’t know where I fit.”

Wilson asked about the City/School Relations Committee.

“It’s met twice, then abruptly stopped meeting,” she stated.

Duran explained his understanding of the reason why.
“A standing committee required Brown Act [state open meeting law] compliance,” he said. “The school side wasn’t agreeing with the way our attorney was saying the meeting should be run. So they stopped meeting.”

“I heard that second hand,” Duran added.

Harper told the council members “you can meet as much as you want on your committees.”

“At least have a meeting before deciding not to have a committee,” he directed them.

Rocha also asked about the Historic Preservation Committee.

That’s something the Planning Commission can handle, Duran explained.

Wilson warned, “We have to be careful of not duplicating efforts.”

Regarding one of his committee appointments, the Graffiti Committee, started by the late Councilman Gary Agopian, Tiscareno said “I’m suggesting we put more teeth into it.”

The council then unanimously approved a motion to eliminate the following committees and appointments: International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, Historic Preservation Committee, Quality of Life Forum Committee and the Committee on Aging.

Downtown park and event center discussed

Joy Motts, of the Celebrate Antioch Foundation, made an emotional appeal to the council to have specifics about the downtown park and event center her group has proposed for the old lumber company lot, on the agenda for the August 25th meeting.

In response, during council communications, Rocha asked for the matter to be on the next agenda. However, Duran said it would be a closed session item as part of a real estate negotiation.

Ogorchock then offered a list of items regarding the project that needed to be clarified.

“There was not a clear, concise message sent to the Celebrate Antioch Foundation,” she stated. “I feel we need an MOU [memorandum of understanding] agendized.”

Then she read a list of items she wanted included.

At one point Harper cut in and asked “You want this on the agenda?”

“Yes,” she replied. “I’m sharing everything I want in it.”

Following is the list from notes Ogorchock provided following the meeting.

1. We need implementation language to be clear and concise direction to staff and the Celebrate Antioch Foundation of what is allowed and required to fulfill their goal.

2. The RFQ/RFP process is not a requirement for this type development as they are not a developer. But, they do have to go thru the same steps as a developer. They are required to work w/staff for normal project approval, paying normal staff fees, etc..

3. We need to give them a date certain, for them to bring back to the council a preliminary plan with engineering and architectural renderings.

4. They need to show the financials of how is the event center being financed and how do they plan to maintain the event center. Is this a privately operated public asset?

5. We need to give them first right of refusal during the preliminary plan process, which can be extended upon direction from council.

6. Finally, they need to understand this is not a commitment to build an event center but the opportunity to pursue one.

During his comments Harper mentioned the Super Bowl 50 being held at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara and how it will be labeled the San Francisco Bay Area Super Bowl and how Antioch can participate in the promotion and celebration of it.

Then a request to have the homeless issue agendized for discussion was mentioned.

Rocha asked Cantando how many officers we currently have.

“89” was his response.

The next Antioch City Council meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 25 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at West Second and H Streets in downtown. It can be viewed on Comcast Channel 24 or via live stream on the city’s website at www.ci.antioch.ca.us.