The Moderate Growth proposed land use map for the Sand Creek Focus Area.

Information to clear up confusion on details of Sand Creek Focus Area Specific Plan Update

By Mayor Pro Tem Lamar Thorpe

I understand that as a city government, we have horrible track record of not meaningfully engaging residents in determining our future. This has fueled a lot of uncertainty and misunderstanding in recent weeks about potential housing developments, particularly in the area south of Lone Tree Drive. Many residents have asked me, “Why is the Antioch City Council approving a 4,000 unit housing development within the Sand Creek area?!” The short answer—we’re not. However, a proper answer requires more explanation.

First, I want to reiterate what I said during my campaign. I’m still a huge proponent of fair and equitable smart-growth policies, preserving open-space and land-locking Antioch to place pressure on developers to reinvest in the city’s older communities. We’re already seeing this happen. Right now, the city is reviewing two mixed-use development projects near BART, Highway 4 and Delta Fair Blvd – an area that desperately needs reinvestment.

That being said, the last major portion of developable land in Antioch is what we in City Hall call the Sand Creek Focus Area (SCFA). According to our general plan (the city’s blueprint for development, mandated by state law), the SCFA is a large-scale planned community that balances housing and employment opportunities. Below is an image of the SCFA, which extends from the Brentwood border to East Bay Regional Parks. This is about the distance between Lowe’s and the Contra Loma Regional Park entrance.

Right now, there’s a lot of talk about what will happen in the SCFA, but the area itself has been a focus of the city for decades. In 2003, the city council then determined that up to 4,000 housing units would be allowed within the SCFA. They also determined that 280 acres of the SCFA would be dedicated for job generating uses, such as business parks, mixed-use medical facilities, and commercial space. The construction of Kaiser Hospital and Dozier Libbey Medical High fulfilled a portion of this goal. For those of us concerned with over-development, the 4,000 number was actually an improvement. Before 2003, the city envisioned 8,000 new housing units for the area.

Of those 4,000 new housing units, the previous city council, (under former mayor Wade Harper), already approved about 1,200 units for two developments east (going towards Brentwood) of Deer Valley Road: Vineyards at Sand Creek, is a 641-unit, upscale, gated community that will be serviced by Brentwood Union School District; and Aviano Farms, a single-family market rate community of 533 residential units to be served by Antioch Unified School District. Aviano Farms was initially approved in 2005 (yes, 12 years ago) as an adult community, but the previous city council re-designated the project. For the record, I didn’t like this change. We need senior housing in Antioch to balance our youth population—plus senior housing has less impact on traffic, schools and police services.

Together, these projects constitute 1,174 new residential housing units, or roughly 30 percent of the 4,000 allowable housing units in the SCFA. Keep in mind, both these communities will be either adjacent or very close to the Brentwood border. It is estimated that 75 percent of sales taxes paid by future Vineyards residents will go to the City of Brentwood because of its proximity to Sand Creek Road, which includes popular attractions like the Streets of Brentwood.

That means there’s only about 2,800 allowable units left in the SCFA, not 4,000. Which brings me to present day and what the Antioch City Council is considering.

The council is not being asked to approve a project. On February 14, we only reviewed recommendations by city staff to update the general plan, so we could specifically deal with the remaining 2,800 housing units. This update also includes the percentage of open space, preservation of hillsides and hilltops, and how to fairly distribute the remaining housing units. Please understand, updating a city’s general plan happens every five years or so. Antioch’s general plan has not seen any major changes since 2003.

At the Feb. 14 meeting, the council directed staff to bring back this matter at a later date so that we could have time to hear from the community.

Following the meeting, Save Mt. Diablo and other environmental groups held a February 23 event at Prewett Community Park to address projects that have been proposed but have not yet been approved for the SCFA. I attended this event and listened to the concerns of residents. I was impressed with how many turned out to this event.

However, there seems to be some confusion, which is why I wrote this article and invite you to attend my listening forums so that I can get feedback from you about the proposed Sand Creek Focus Area updates. In addition, I’ll be posting the presentation by our Community Development Director, Forrest Ebbs, on my Facebook page so that you can see his presentation and offer me feedback using social media starting on March 16th.

Thursday, March 16th, 7-8:30pm

Saturday, March 18th at 10-11:30am

Lone Tree Elementary School, 1931 Mokelumne Drive, Antioch

I look forward to hearing from you.

Editor:

Contra Costa County will be in direct coalition to Community Choice Energy (CCE) a sustainable choice to cleaner energy usage. They are pleased to announce their plans to bring more unionized jobs that will benefit the CCCounty.

This local renewable build out scenario, would involve a significant number of mostly unionized and non-union hires.  Also, a potential for 40% of the local build out will be near the Northern Waterfront in Concord area. In return this will be a huge deal for those looking to get hired in today’s economy. As the plans are underway to figure out the details there will be more to come on this future project.

Keep posted for more information regarding the Community Choice Energy (CCE) unionized jobs for hire and their announcements.

Lynette Robinson

San Pablo

Dear Editor:

I was really impressed by the strong emphasis the Antioch City Council members put on job creation and local renewable energy production in the questions they asked after the presentation this week of Community Choice Energy programs. Antioch has it all: alert elected council members, residents who want clean jobs, acres of land that can be developed, and a huge electrical load (usage) as a bargaining chip.

Carol Weed

Walnut Creek

Following is the letter submitted by a coalition of supporters of the Community Choice Energy program:

The CCE Draft Technical Study and the Need for Fuller Consideration of All Studied Options

Dear Members of the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors:

We, the undersigned, represent organizations that have been following the progress made by the cities and County of Contra Costa as they decide how to implement Community Choice Energy. We do not share a preference for any one of the three options outlined in the Draft Technical Study, but we do share the following concerns about the adequacy of that study and the public process that has unfolded in its aftermath.

1) We are highly critical of the current Draft Technical Study prepared by MRW, as well as the very cursory presentations made by the county and the consultants. Neither the study nor the presentations include enough necessary information or the specificity of detail required in order for the cities and the County to make fully informed decisions with lifelong consequences. To cite one such example, when addressing the very basic question of risks associated with the startup costs, the study actually neglects to mention that to date, all CCEs in California have paid back their loans in less than a year.

2) We are, moreover, extremely troubled by the premature decision of the Board of Supervisors on January 17, 2017, to eliminate the stand-alone Community Choice Energy option, which the draft study identified (in Table ES-5) as offering the “greatest” amount of local governance and local economic benefit. The decision to exclude the in-county (stand-alone) option unnecessarily limits the choices offered to residents and businesses in unincorporated areas of the County, and preempts input from leaders, residents, and businesses in the incorporated cities before they have had the opportunity to question and comment on the study. Seven cities contributed to the study’s cost and are entitled to one that fully addresses the impacts to their respective cities—e.g., what amount of buildout is reasonably possible in the Concord Naval Weapons Depot over a ten-year period, and what its economic impact would be. We therefore urge you to reconsider your decision to remove the in-county option from consideration.

3) We would like to know why neither the Contra Costa study nor the presentations have answered this fairly simple question: Why did the study for Alameda County done by the same MRW Consulting firm give a much more robust analysis of the economic benefits of local buildout?

4) We would also like to know why, if the technical studies of six other Bay Area counties (Sonoma, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Yolo) show the stand-alone option to be superior, this would not also be the case in Contra Costa.

5) Unfortunately, the Draft Feasibility Study does not enable the reader to determine which option, in the choice between MCE and EBCE, might result in the greater buildout and job development within Contra Costa. In fact, the study does not indicate that any such buildout or job development will occur by joining either MCE or EBCE. We strongly encourage the county to communicate with both MCE and EBCE about these issues.

Attached is a letter from Scott Rafferty addressing in much more detail some additional concerns about missing or misrepresented facts in the current Contra Costa Draft Technical Study, including the paucity of current information about MCE. This is not an attempt to indicate that MCE is a bad choice, but rather to point out that relevant information about MCE that is available to the public is not included in the draft study. We understand that information about both a stand-alone option and EBCE is necessarily limited because neither yet exists.

Here are some of the points that Scott Rafferty makes:

a) He agrees with MCE’s criticisms that the analyst provides “scant analysis of MCE’s operational program,” and “no analysis” of MCE’s local renewable program, customer-sited solar, job creation, and other benefits. But despite some impressive claims about past performance, MCE doesn’t really provide much insight into its forward-looking plan. He suggests that MCE may bring more legacy costs than synergies to our county.

b) MCE wants credit for $4.6m in subsidies from the CPUC for energy development (that have already been fully committed to programs in Richmond or outside CCC). An independent CC-CCE program would probably be better positioned to seek equivalent subsidies from CPUC than MCE would be in getting them increased proportionally, which MCE does not suggest is likely.

c) He argues that the Supervisors have relied too heavily on the consultant’s analysis of the more obvious “first order” effects of piggybacking on MCE—less “effort” and greater risk on “start-up costs,” which the consultant concedes are small. The risk to which the BOS is averse, therefore, might be political. If things go awry, they can share responsibility with the existing local bodies.

d) He also rejects MCE’s notion that El Cerrito and Richmond have an identity of interests with the rest of CCC or that there will be brand confusion. On the contrary, they share the climate and rate structure of Marin and Oakland, which is very different from the rest of Contra Costa County and Alameda east of the I-680.

e) Neither MCE nor, at this stage, our BOS has clear direction on how to weigh competing objectives—low electric rates, GHG mitigation, progressive rate design (including low-income and residential preferences), job creation and economic benefits, worker and public safety and service reliability. MCE is self-regulating and subject to very significant shifts in voting power.

f) The jury is still out on MCE’s effectiveness in dealing with regulators. It settled very quickly with PG&E in a pending rate case, with limited concessions for clean energy or consumer rate relief. At the state level, two voices will likely have more clout than one—a statement MCE itself has made.

g) As the Governor’s attempts at CAISO regionalization have made clear, larger geographic scale does not always increase the GHG benefits. Neither MCE nor the consultants have yet developed a measure of environmental benefit that accurately accommodates displacement to PG&E and other utilities.

For all the above reasons, we strongly urge the Board of Supervisors to reconsider what we believe was a premature narrowing of the choices. We request that more complete information be shared in future presentations, especially as regards the potential for local buildout and the economic benefits of each of the three proposed CCE choices, and that the final technical study include far more concrete information which the cities will need to make a truly informed choice.

Very sincerely yours,
Peter Ericson
Contra Costa Clean Energy Alliance
Lynda Deschambault
Generation Green / Contra Costa County Climate Leaders (4CL)
Peter Dragovich
Contra Costa Progressives
Bill Pinkham
350 Bay Area
Shoshana Wechsler
Sunflower Alliance
Péllo Walker
Pleasant Hill Chamber of Commerce Green Group
Carol Weed
Contra Costa Chapter Organizing for Action
Jan Warren
Interfaith Climate Action Network of Contra Costa County

Contra Costa’s Urban Limit Line was established in 1990 and strengthened in 2004.  Its purpose was to prevent urban sprawl into virgin agricultural land and preserve for the county’s citizens open space for their enjoyment.

A developer is now petitioning the county’s supervisors to approve a so called 30-acre development that breaks the ULL and will build 125 homes in rural Tassajara Valley. In 2006, Contra Costa voters approved Measure L that further strengthened the ULL by requiring an election and a majority vote of the county’s voters to approve any development outside the ULL.  An exception was granted to allow the supervisors to approve developments not exceeding 30 acres and if one of seven named exceptions could be cited.

It is very important that this development be stopped.  The developer is offering the county a check for $4 million and to dedicate another 500 acres for non-urban use.  While enticing, this offer should be rejected by our supervisors.  If the county accepts this “deal”, it will establish a precedent for other developers to “break the line”.  The blueprint of a $4 million check and land donation will have been established.

Measure L required five year reviews by the county’s Department of Conservation and Development to determine if the ULL needed to be adjusted for reasons that included population growth and the availability of land for development within the ULL.  This department concluded in their December 20, 2016 report to the supervisors that there was sufficient developable land within the ULL through the year 2036, i.e., no need to build outside the ULL.

Our supervisors, Federal Glover of District 5 and Diane Burgis of District 3 have good environmental records.  Indeed, supervisor Glover has consistently supported the ULL.  In a May 2016 interview by another news source, Glover stated: “I have always contended that the Urban Limit Line was necessary so that our region would not grow more than what our infrastructure could handle.  Traffic, police services and schools are the main services that suffer when growth happens too fast.” The recently elected District 3 supervisor, Diane Burgis, has strong environmental credentials having established them in her position as executive director of Friends of Marsh Creek Watershed.

The proposed development, “Tassajara Parks”, will be coming soon before the Board of Supervisors for a vote.  While this development is not in the eastern portion of our county, the precedent that this development would set will make all lands outside the ULL susceptible to development.  Write or E-mail your supervisor and make your voices heard.  Tell them not to compromise, reject this development project and protect the ULL.  Our supervisors will listen to us, the voters.  E-mail Supervisors Glover and Burgis at district5@bos.cccounty.us and dist3@bos.cccounty.us.   More information is available at tassajaravalleypa.org.

Gretchen Logue

Richard Fischer

Tassajara Valley Preservation Association

Tassajaravalleypa.org

Dear Editor:

For forty years I have dedicated my professional life to helping the mentally ill, the homeless, substance abuse addicts and low income families with children.

ACA – Affordable Care Act has saved thousands of lives.  I know because many of those lives are my clients. Without ACA, those with drug addictions will be on the streets, trying to survive through stealing, breaking in to homes or stores, and other criminal acts that make our community unsafe. With ACA, my clients are in residential treatment programs and practicing full recovery.  My homeless or mentally ill clients have full medical support, getting their prescriptions so they are not delusional or dangerous.  Our clinics and hospitals need ACA to keep their doors open to our citizens, our families and the children. People will die without ACA.

Please contact your Congressman or Senator and urge them to vote to keep ACA or comparable health care for our citizens. You can contact Daily Action call 1-844-241-1141 (user friendly and free) and you will be directly connected with your Representative.

Jerri Curry, PhD Forensic Psychologist 27385, Licensed Family Therapist 19776, Certified Drug Addiction Specialist, Formerly with Contra Costa County

Benicia

I enjoyed Allen Payton’s vision for 2017.  We need imaginative thinking and bold ideas to shake off stagnation.

The New Year brings new visions. With the imminent opening of a widened Highway 4 and the not too distant inauguration of the Hillcrest e-BART Antioch sits on a crossroads of promise. We all hope that it might depart its’ media image as a kicking post of bad news and instead fulfill its promise of a ‘destination’ city.

As a child I had the privilege of growing up in such a town, Great Neck, Long Island, a town depicted in Fitzgerald’s ‘Great Gatsby’. Though we lived on the modest side of town, nevertheless, we would periodically open the door of our small Tudor to find a stranger’s note asking us to kindly call them should we ever decide to move. The town was that desirable, principally because it was rated in the top ten school districts nation-wide. Case in point; my German teacher spoke nine languages and would quote from memory long passages from Goethe.

Today, we all know that the two main drivers of real estate prices are safety and the quality of local public education. At this point what Antioch needs to boost its’ profile is more targeted housing that appeals along the Trilogy senior homes model; or the Blackhawk estates that bring in the wealthy and influential. That crowd brings disposable income, businesses and, crucially, voice. This is needed in a town long the butt of media ridicule and the long standing step-child of County government attention.

Antioch is poised as it has some substantial building blocks in place. How many towns can boast the likes of the former Humphrey’s Restaurant and an elegantly restored El Campanil Theatre sitting on the Delta? How many are recipients of the Delta breeze?  Who else can count the service of AMTRAK and over two dozen parks? These include a magnificent swimming and fishing reservoir and Black Diamond Mines.

How many other places have their version of a Miracle Mile, with a medical office complex, hilltop church, community center, library (one of two in town) and swim park? And here’s one we oft forget; how many towns can claim as many un-chopped hills and not boxed, but curving, undulating streets that make neighborhoods and driving interesting.

Yes, Antioch has its pressing problems of safety, jobs, downtown revival and, yes, an academic achievement gap. There is, though, much that we can be grateful for, plenty we can build on.

We have a corps of talented and dedicated public school teachers; a cutting edge network of ten career themed academies, including the award-winning Dozier-Libbey Medical High School and law, engineering and green energy programs, to name a few; a vibrant independent learning program; terrific choice with Montessori and now Rocketship, a recently approved third charter school; and a rich tradition of Christian schools like Cornerstone, Holy Rosary, Golden Hills and Seventh Day Adventist.

Granted, too often we have a two tier system of educational proficiency haves and have-nots. My son, Joshua, as example, prospered at Deer Valley High taking Advanced Placement classes where there he experienced seeing few discipline distractions or time-consuming struggling students. He went on to Cal Poly at San Luis Obispo and within three days of graduating college got a job as an environmental engineer.

Others, though, get left behind; too often children of color or students that are homeless, latchkey, transient, special needs or English language learner. Distressingly, only 19% of our students score proficient in math. That, simply, is not tolerable. We need to solve this puzzle of bringing along all kids. That calls for bold action by school administrators instituting aggressive interventions like the after-school individualized Math Intensive program that has had such success building fundamentals.

Fact is, once you fall behind it gets harder and harder to catch up. Since nobody wishes to be labeled a failure kids pretend they don’t care and act out. Cutting class, looking tough, being defiant all speak to frustration. You can’t do algebra when you don’t know your multiplication tables or how to do long division.

This, then, also calls for help from the parents staying in the loop. Education, after all, is a three legged stool– students, teachers and parents all working together, communicating and supporting and encouraging.  Televised meetings could also help keep people on board.

My New Year goal is that one day we can all open our doors and see a note asking for us to call should we decide to move. For that to happen, It takes the will to change. With resolve we can become that destination city where we number more reasons to stay in Antioch than to go.

Walter Ruehlig

President, Antioch School Board

By Allen Payton

As we enter a new year, hopes and expectations are high as we have new local and will soon have new national leaders. They made many commitments during their campaigns and we expect them to work to fulfill them.

Thinking about the new year and all its possibilities, I have a list of the things I hope and expect will and can happen.

First, I hope that our new mayor and mayor pro tem will have the help of the rest of the council, as they lead Antioch to greater safety and less crime, with a fully staffed police department of 111 sworn officers, as we were promised in 2013.

Second, I hope the new school board member, working with the new president and vice president, will ensure greater transparency by televising and live streaming their meetings, so that we the people can better know what’s going on with our government for the benefit of our students in our schools.

Third, I hope and pray the City can finalize the agreement for the lease or sale of Humphrey’s restaurant and breathe life back into that waterfront facility with its awesome location and views.

Fourth, I hope the County will fund the completion of the final two lanes of L Street between 10th and 18th Streets to complete the four-lane entrance from Highway 4 into Rivertown.

Then, I hope the Council will finally rename L Street to Marina Way and give the restaurant an address of 1 Marina Way. Plus, rename A and West 2nd Streets to Rivertown and West Rivertown Drive to provide permanent marketing of Antioch’s historic downtown.

Next, I hope the Council will approve the kind of upscale homes Antioch needs, like Walnut Creek, Brentwood and the San Ramon Valley already have, which will attract executives and business owners to town, who will bring their companies with them and employ our people locally.

My hope is that the Contra Costa Transportation Authority creates a new funding plan that includes Route 239, the long-proposed four-lane freeway between Brentwood and Tracy, which will secure East County’s economic future.

I also hope the Council will place the proposal for a downtown park and event center on the ballot to decide the issue once and for all, then get moving in whichever direction the public votes.

I wish the City would contract out the operations of the water park to make it profitable or at least break even.

Finally, I hope the Council will move forward on the plans for a deep water port along Wilbur Avenue to bring high-paying, clean technology and manufacturing jobs to Antioch.

Thank you for reading the Herald and following us on Facebook and Twitter, this past year. Have a safe and Happy New Year! God bless you, God bless Antioch and may it be successful and prosperous for all of us.