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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

On Wednesday, May 3, organizers for the Sand Creek Area Protection Initiative issued the following statement in response to the new, competing initiative backed by Richland Communities, the developer of the project known as “The Ranch” project in the Sand Creek Focus Area on the south side of Antioch: (See related article, here.)

As you know we’re collecting signatures for our “Let Antioch Voters Decide: The Sand Creek Area Protection Initiative,” to give Antioch residents a voice in what takes place on the southern edge of the city between Kaiser and Black Diamond Mines.  We hope to complete our signature gathering in the next 3-4 weeks but will continue collecting until we’re sure we have enough signatures. (See related article, here.)

Yesterday, Southern California developer Richland Communities, “The Ranch” project developers, announced that they’ve submitted a “West Sand Creek” Initiative to the City of Antioch for title and summary.  Their efforts do not change our coalition’s efforts to gather signatures and qualify our “Let Antioch Voters Decide: The Sand Creek Area Protection Initiative.”

• Richland’s initiative is a complicated measure which will take some time to review. We’ll tell you more about it before long.
• Typically competing initiatives are meant to confuse voters.
• It changes and scales back Richland’s 1300-house project somewhat but, if approved, would also approve their project with a development agreement and before environmental review is completed.
• It would invalidate our “Let Antioch Voters Decide: The Sand Creek Area Protection Initiative” which is more protective.

Media reports suggest that Richland expects to begin signature gathering immediately. In fact, it may be several weeks before they can begin.  The initiative was stamped “received” by the City Clerk April 27, 2018, three days ago.  The City Attorney has 15 days to provide title and summary which the City Clerk conveys to the proponent. For our initiative, they took the full 15 days. Then a legal notice must be printed in a newspaper of record, and initiative petitions printed.

It’s now even more important that we continue and speed up our efforts to gather signatures for our “Let Antioch Voters Decide: The Sand Creek Area Protection Initiative.” Signature gathering will get more complicated when the Richland initiative is on the street.

Proposed ballot measure scales back “The Ranch” project by 10%, bans hillside and ridgeline development, permanently protects additional open space areas on adjacent and surrounding properties, and offers funds for high-school athletic and performing arts facilities

A proposed initiative that would protect two-thirds of Antioch’s Sand Creek Focus Area west of Deer Valley Road from future new home development has been submitted to the City by three Antioch residents, as the first step in its qualification for the November 2018 ballot. It was proposed and is backed by Richland Communities, the developer of the project known as The Ranch. Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition rcvd 4-27-18

The measure would preserve approximately 1,244 acres of hillsides and natural open space and approve a 10% smaller master-planned project known as The Ranch compared to what has been under consideration by the City of Antioch. Instead of 1,307 homes, the project would include 1,177 homes instead. (Read the entire 143-page document, here:  Initiative Text Part 1 of 4  Initiative Text part 2 of 4  Initiative Text Part 3 of 4 Initiative Text Part 4 of 4 )

“We are listening to the citizens of Antioch and substantially revising our project so that it includes fewer homes and protects the hills, ridgelines, and valuable open space and environmentally sensitive areas around Sand Creek,” said Matt Bray, CEO of Richland Communities, the company that is proposing The Ranch project. “We see ourselves as a community partner and want to do the right thing.”

The local proponents of the initiative are Antioch residents Terry L. Ramus, a former Mello-Roos Board Member and Antioch Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs Committee Chairman, former Antioch Mayor Pro Tem and Councilman Manny Soliz, Jr. and Matthew Malyemezian. They were each approached by Richland’s consultant, former Antioch Mayor Don Freitas and political campaign consultant, Mary Jo Rossi, to sign on to the effort.

The initiative will affect the adjacent property owners, including the land formerly known as the Higgins Ranch, owned by the long-time Antioch family that founded Higgins Funeral Home on A Street. Now known as Zeka Ranch, that project is also a planned, upscale and executive home community, scaled back from 1,100 homes in the 1990’s to about 400, on 200 of the 640 acres of land west of Empire Mine Road. It was purchased from the Higgins family by The Zeka Group in the 1990’s following the county-wide vote which adopted the original Urban Limit Line, which allows for new home development in the entire Sand Creek area. It also affects the land owned by three other property owners south of The Ranch property, as well as all the single-family home owners along Deer Valley Road. The initiative will only allow The Ranch project and the flat land on the properties south of Richland’s property to be developed.

With the scaled-down project now proposed in the initiative, voters will have the opportunity to support:

• Protection of approximately 1,244 acres at the western and southern boundaries of the Sand Creek Focus Area west of Deer Valley Road on adjacent property owners land, from future home development by designating the land for open space, agriculture and rural uses.
• Protection of approximately 250 acres within The Ranch from future development, including a development ban on hills.
• Investment of at least $1 million in high school sports and performing arts facilities from an additional $1,000 contribution from each new home in The Ranch, including a proposed initial project at Deer Valley High School to fund installation of a synthetic turf field in the football stadium.
• Establishment of an open space corridor for Sand Creek averaging 430 feet in width instead of the 300 feet, currently in the plan before the City.
• Preservation of at least 98 percent of trees in The Ranch, including oaks and eucalyptuses.
• Establishment of a 300-foot open-space buffer within The Ranch along its western boundary at Empire Mine Road.
• Restriction of development to only flatter terrain within Antioch’s voter-approved Urban Limit Line in the Sand Creek Focus Area west of Deer Valley Road and east of Empire Mine Road.
• Voter control of any amendments to the Urban Limit Line.
• Developer funding of additional public safety services, as was required on the two previously approved projects in the Sand Creek Focus Area.
• Developer construction of Sand Creek Road from Dallas Ranch Road to Deer Valley Road.
• In addition to reducing The Ranch’s development footprint, the initiative would remove about 130 previously proposed homes from the project.

“This is a total win for Antioch,” said Ramus. “With the scaled-back version of The Ranch project, we get more hillside and open space protections, and the initiative substantially limits future development around Sand Creek.  The funding of at least $1 million for long-needed capital improvements at Deer Valley High School is an additional bonus.”

The Ranch is a proposed master planned residential community that is proposed to include a mix of housing types – including Antioch’s first large-scale age-restricted community for residents 55 years of age or older – along with new commercial and retail services, a trailhead and staging area for East Bay Regional Parks District, a fire-station site, six miles of new public trails and 22 acres of park facilities.

The initiative needs 5,104 valid signatures to qualify for the November 2018 ballot, and signature gathering on the measure is expected to begin immediately.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

But two seats up in 2018 will only be for two-year terms; citizens commission proposed

By Allen Payton

After multiple meetings on changing to district elections for the four council members, hearing hours of comments from the public, and spending more hours discussing it among themselves during the past two months, the Antioch City Council at their April 10th meeting effectively kicked the can down the road. They voted unanimously to approve by-district elections, but instead of implementing it for this November’s elections, chose to postpone it until 2020. However, they also voted to change to two-year terms those seats which are up for election this year and are currently held by Council Members Tony Tiscareno and Lori Ogorchock. That means winners in November’s council race will have to run again in 2020. (See related article)

Then, that year, all four council seats and the mayor will be up for election, and two of the council seats will also be for two-year terms with the other two for four-year terms. But those who are elected to the two-year terms may not be able to run again in 2022, because a new map will have to be drawn and adopted for the 2022 elections, following the 2020 Census and redistricting in 2021. The only thing that won’t change is the four-year term for mayor.

What the council members still have yet to decide is which of the two final maps to choose, which thy must at their meeting on May 8. At a workshop earlier in the evening, prior to the regular council meeting, the council members made some alterations to one of the two final maps and produced what is now known as Quadrants C map. No changes were made to the map labeled Working Draft 1.

Interim City Attorney Derek Cole Explained the Process

“What you have before you now, is the legal mechanism…that will create the districting system,” he said. “Ordinances must be read twice. You can waive the reading. We don’t have to read the ordinance line by line. You have to consider the ordinance twice and the council, in effect has to take two votes on the ordinance. We have scheduled May 8th for the final discussion. This is the eighth or ninth time we have called this particular item of districting.

It does require a majority vote of the council. If the council introduces this ordinance, it will codify…and say we will be become a district election city. There are two options. Option 1 would be to try and introduce the district elections this year. The two council members who were elected at large in 2016 must be allowed to continue their terms through 2020. We can run two districts, if you create the four districts with this ordinance, you can choose to run those two, this year and run the other two in 2020. That will create the stagger. The mayor will also be up for election in 2020.

The other option which I believe creates a more orderly transition is start the districts in 2020. That will allow an interface with the county elections office…so that there won’t be extra work. I shared with the council a letter from the County Clerk about the challenges with the cities converting to district elections in 2018. It would give us time for clean up elections.

Our vice mayor is elected on an at large system. If we’re going to districting elections that will have to be cleaned up.

We would have to select two seats that would be up for election in 2020 for two-year terms who would then be up for election in 2022.

If you implement it this year you will have to select which districts are up for election, this year.”

Public Comments

“We have 25 speakers and we have to allow for five minutes for each speaker,” said Mayor Sean Wright. “If you all move your five minutes, we will not be able to get to the entire agenda.”

Most speakers supported the Working Draft 1 map, which creates a single district north of Highway 4. Some were high school students, many who chose not to speak, and Wright read their comments. Several in favor of Working Draft 1 were repeats from previous council meetings on the matter, and most were members of the East County Regional Group.

Scott Rafferty, the attorney who threatened the lawsuit against the city, sparking the entire process, spoke during public comments.

“I am the out of town lawyer,” he said. “I’m here to listen. I think the process is very compressed. I have given two extensions to the city. I’m not going to apologize for the California Voting Rights Act. For a city this size I think it’s a very good idea. I think the polarization is actually stronger here. When you get into southeast Antioch…you have extraordinary council members who are minority members and live in racially integrated communities. That doesn’t mean that north of the 4 there’s an underrepresented population. The city will be stronger…when those people have someone who is closer to them and more representative of their views on the council. The most remarkable thing is the trust that the five of you command from the people back here. It makes me want to ask the three of you that have some reservations about this to consider that you have been elected and you think of the whole city. But, that’s because the voters of Antioch…that is a very important value. I don’t think that’s going to change. I really don’t. Another really neat thing about this process, I’m going to have to say some really nice things about your council. I was concerned about getting this done, now. Having all of this happen in 2020 and I think this is a great idea. It’s a structural change. It’s not about getting rid of incumbents. It allows the whole community to get used to this all at once. I was hoping the school district would do this, too. I would ask you not use a random process. If you can get them synced into the presidential process, that will be helpful.”

Former Councilman Ralph Hernandez pointed out that “You already have division that has begun. It’s already starting. It’s not going to get any better with district elections if you change to that.”

Council Discussion

The Council then took up the matter for discussion, first deciding to convert to district elections and when to implement them.

Mayor Wright said the council was deciding whether or not to move forward with districting and

“Seeing that no one wants to go first, I will go first,” he said. “I hope you understand how hard this is, there is not a soul up here…that is not thinking of Antioch, first. There may be disagreements on what is best for Antioch. But it’s not a lack of care for you, for your area. I hope as we go forward you understand that.”

“I have looked, since we started, for reasons and ways we could fight this, because I don’t think it’s best for Antioch,” Wright continued. “But if we fight it we will lose and that’s not best for Antioch. The way the law is written, you don’t have to prove harm. You have to prove racial polarization…it’s real easy to prove. None of that in this law matters. Then we’re confused, once you accept that you’re racially polarized, as you divide the lines you’re not allowed to look at diversity. It defies all logic. We have legislators in California that made stupid law. In adopting this ordinance I am going to support it because I don’t want the city to get sued. I support implementing this in 2020.”

Councilman Tony Tiscareno spoke next saying, “I’m not totally opposed to districting. I’m angry about the way it came about. We’re basing our information, data on 2010 Census. It kind of skews the numbers on the map. It doesn’t give a true representation of what Antioch is. I wouldn’t even have a problem with waiting for 2020 Census numbers. It’s very frustrating that we’re being rushed into something…we’re not prepared for this. At this particular point I just don’t see it. As an at large council I do believe we represent the city entirely. As far as the Rivertown, downtown we have been focusing a lot of attention and dollars. Doing a district that might change somewhat. I wouldn’t have a problem fighting this. I’m not afraid of a lawsuit. But, it could cost us a lot of money and I don’t want to take that risk. I want to take some time. I was one who proposed getting it done, now. But that was just out of frustration. I think we should study this a little bit longer. If we’re going to be forced…I truly thing we could prevail if we had to go through this. I’m not sure the rest of the council would want to take a chance. So, I want to wait until 2020.”

Mayor Pro Tem Lamar Thorpe then said, “I’m for whatever option…2018 staggered or 2020. Whatever’s the pleasure of us, here. I’m open and amenable. I don’t have a particular preference.

Councilwoman Monica Wilson said, “I feel like the rest of the council members that I don’t like being rushed. What section goes in what order I can’t make a decision about that now. Whether we go with 2018 or 2020. I want to do this right. I was hoping to hear more from the public on that. This is tough. This is tough for us. This is a hard one. We want to make sure we get this right. We all are trying to be thoughtful.”

Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock whose seat is up for election in November said, “The attorney Rafferty said it himself how the council is working together. This is unbelievably rushed. I want to do it in 2020. But, to move it off to 2022 when we have our true numbers. The maps are the maps, and we’ll decide those on May 8th. But I’m probably going to vote against this. I agree we do. But it’s really hard when you don’t have true numbers to do this. I’m sorry. I understand about the lawsuit. This is starting to push my buttons tonight. It’s already dividing our city. It’s not healthy.”

Wright weighed in, saying, “In closing, I honestly did not know where Mayor Harper lived. Where Mayor James Davis lived. Where Mayor Don Freitas lived. Until I ran for council I did not know where these council members lived. Where you live in elections, I didn’t know it mattered. I thought we were voting for great leaders. It’s interesting to me that we’re focusing on where everybody lives.”

Thorpe then said, “No one looks at where people live. But it’s something to be said that the most people you interact with in your daily life…there’s something to be said about where you live. You’re most likely to run into folks where you live.”

Thorpe asked the other council members if they were for 2020.

Tiscareno said, “I like what Councilwoman Ogorchock said” regarding waiting until 2022.

Thorpe then added to the discussion saying, “I had reached out to the city attorney about moving this forward. I do agree that there should be an independent commission looking at this and working with the consultants. We can adopt an ordinance. But then we can put these two maps on the November ballot and that can then be ratified at the end of the day.”

Cole responded saying, “I would modify that. The council would have to approve a map. They can then give to the public the selected map, and then offer an alternative map. I would ask that you would complete this process, first. Then you can call an election.”

City Clerk Arne Simonsen agreed saying, “The map does have to be adopted at the same time as the ordinance. It can be part of the ordinance.”

Wright, struggling with what to say, stated, “I could go 2020, but I could also go 2022. If we’re going through all that effort into a map that’s only going to be good for one year…I could be talked into going for 2022.”

Cole then warned, “I don’t think we would be exempt from someone seeking relief for the 2020 election. If you want to kick this to 2022…after 2020 you will have a census, and that map would never be used in an election. You’re creating a remedy, but you’re forestalling that remedy and you’re not avoiding a lawsuit.”

Thorpe said, “I’m not open to the 2022 election. It’s silly to adopt a map and then hold off. I’m perfectly fine if we went with 2018. If you push it back to 2020, what’s the point?”

Cole interjected, “If you wait until the 2020 election you could go to a citizen commission. You would have an election in 2020 under the map that you adopt on the 8th. My goal is to complete the process now, so you no longer have the CVRA (California Voting Rights Act) liability.”

Tiscareno then said, “I’m adamantly opposed to even doing this. But I don’t want to be involved in a costly litigation. I’ll go ahead and support option two with the 2020 and if it’s a possibility of putting this before a commission and the voters.”

Thorpe responded, “When I was saying 2018, I was referring to sending the two maps to the voters.” He then asked, “Do we have to adopt a map? Can we do the example of a sliced bread map so that voters have a choice between two maps that are not biased by us?”

Cole responded, “Typically you have to do a yes, no on an initiative. The council would adopt a map. My request is we do introduce the ordinance and we do adopt a map.”

Thorpe then said, “I’m not an elections expert. Personally, I’m fine with sending it to the voters.”

Wright then asked, “How much money are we talking about for asking the voters?”

Simonsen responded, “Adding a ballot measure…the cost you’re probably adding another 10 to 25%. The base for the election is $155,000 on the low side, right now.”

Wright then stated, “To me we’re talking about a lot of cost. If we were talking about ten years, that would be one thing.”

Simonsen offered to “come back at the 24th meeting with more information. But, as the city attorney said you will have to adopt a map. It doesn’t preclude you from going to the voters.”

Wright then said, “What we need to decide tonight is if we go forward with a map and what year.”

Thorpe stated, “We’re just throwing out ideas. Does it cost money? Absolutely. That’s the price of the democratic process. It costs money. If there were another initiative the council were going to put on the ballot…would it increase the cost?”

Simonsen said for the November election it will cost less. He estimated it will cost 20% more, giving an example of a previous election of “$4.00 per voter and we have 56,000 voters in Antioch.”

Wright said “it might be a reduced cost. This discussion is not agendized and it needs to be agendized. What we need done tonight is the adoption of an ordinance and the timeframe.”

Motion to Adopt Includes Two Year Terms for This Year’s Council Elections

With that Thorpe made a motion to adopt the ordinance changing to by-district elections and waiting until 2020 to implement it. But he also chose Option 2 which requires that the two seats up for election in November, Tiscareno’s and Ogorchock’s seats, will be for only two-year terms.

After a brief delay, Tiscareno seconded the motion.

Ogorchock then said, “In D on option two it talks about districts two and three. We must remove the district numbers. We don’t know what district it’s going to be.”

Cole responded, “the problem is we can’t amend this ordinance.”

Wright then explained “we can number the districts however we want. We haven’t numbered the districts, yet.”

Simonsen added, “that’s correct.”

Wright continued, “that can be decided when we accept the districts and number them, then.”

Tiscareno then said, “The way I’m reading it you’re giving a suggestion.”

Cole responded, “tonight you’re introducing the text that you’re codifying into law. And it has to have the same exact text that you’re going to introduce.”

Thorpe offered a further explanation to Ogorchock, saying, “We’re not married to the maps. We can decide which district will be associated with which number.”

Ogorchock then replied, “We’re going to number the maps the way we want to.”

Mayor Wright then called for the vote.

Four council members cast their votes. Someone said, “Lori, vote.”

“I’m thinking,” she replied to laughter from the audience, then went ahead and voted in favor.

The motion passed on a 5-0 vote.

By Allen Payton

During the special workshop of the Antioch City Council on the maps for the district elections on Tuesday evening, April 10, they made changes to the Quadrants B map. It also got a bit contentious among the council members at the end. Fewer than 25 members of the public were in attendance.

The council considered realigning the Quadrants B map along the current congressional district boundaries. Councilman Tony Tiscareno and Mayor Sean Wright offered the most proposals for moving the lines to that map.

There was a discussion about the population growth since the 2010 Census, which the council must use for the basis of dividing the city into districts. One argument was that the population grew more on the south side of Highway 4. However, Mayor Pro Tem Lamar Thorpe disagreed.

“We can’t assume all the growth went to south and southeast Antioch,” he said. “I don’t put a lot of stock in the difference between 102,000 and 114,000 population. Many of the homes were empty.”

Interim City Attorney Derek Cole said, “Quadrants A would address the issues of illegally diluted voting. It didn’t really respect communities of interest.”

Wright offered some changes to the quadrants map, which the consultants from Q2 made.

Councilwoman Monica Wilson said, “It seems to be the changes that were made…we’re splitting communities of interest.”

Tiscareno said “I’ve gotten many calls.”

Thorpe said, “I’ve gotten many calls over on Hillcrest and Deer Valley. People looked at me like I was crazy when I proposed the quadrants.”

Cole then suggested the council rename the revised Quadrants B map to Quadrants C.

The revised map uses major thoroughfares on the south side of Highway 4 as the dividing lines, such as Putnam Drive, Lone Tree Way and Deer Valley Road, as well as the Delta DeAnza Trail on the west side of the city.

Public Comments

Marty Fernandez was the first member of the public to speak.

“I favor that C, now in the districting,” he said. “If one council member is good for downtown, two would be better, right, Lamar? No one has mentioned how this would affect Viera Lane. How many people live out there? How much is this going to cost the city? Let’s have some transparency, here.”

Garry Holman introduced himself as “a former two-term member of the city’s Economic Development Commission.”

“The city government has promoted or professed to promote a common interest,” he said. “Avoid the creation of a wrong side and a right side of the tracks, namely Highway 4. I don’t think Antioch is big enough for district elections.”

Holman said it will create “clear balkanization.”

“I oppose Working Draft 1,” he stated. “Working Draft 1 will only codify the right side and wrong side of town.” He concluded his remarks saying he supported the quadrants map giving downtown two council members.

Former Councilman Ralph Hernandez said he opposes districting and submitted a letter about his views.

“This started out as a racial threat, based on the Latino vote of other cities,” he said. “It does not represent Antioch. I’m very angered that the Latino community is being used for a lawsuit against Antioch. “

Former Councilwoman Norma Hernandez spoke next, saying “Looking at the maps to me that’s gerrymandering. The city attorney can only advise you. The decision is your own and the consequence is your own.”

“This totally disenfranchises the voters of Antioch,” she added. “A house divided against itself you know that can’t stand.”

Jeffrey Klinger was the last to speak saying, “I haven’t heard anything that’s changed my opinion of districting. It’s difficult to feel good about it as a citizen. But you had my sympathies.

My personal preference would be Quadrants C. I have a visceral reaction to using Highway 4 as the dividing line.”

Cole said the council will bring back the final decision on May 8 and you would bring back two maps.

“What I need tonight is do you want one map or two maps? he asked. “We have to publish these maps in the paper. We’re kind of at a critical juncture, here.”

Accusations of Self-Serving Gerrymandering by Councilmembers

The council members then discussed the matter, and it got a bit heated.

Thorpe said “this is costing us something and the public should know how much. Marty, I would agree with you that North Antioch deserves two council people. When you look at B section what you see there’s a lot of people who live in that area. If you’re an incumbent in that area you won’t be going anywhere for a very long time. The voting pattern…dilutes the voting power for north Antioch. What these maps don’t do, in any of these maps, it doesn’t create a Latino majority district. We won’t be creating a majority minority district. We’re a pretty integrated community. Your comments about downtown Antioch I couldn’t disagree more. I think it’s interesting how everyone uses Highway 4, uses this as a demarcation line. The survey we took the people north of the freeway are very unsatisfied with the city of Antioch. Two-thirds of the people in southeast Antioch were satisfied. People are not happy in north Antioch. Some of that has been caused by the continued expansion in south Antioch. We didn’t look at other cities, we looked at Antioch and that’s how we learned of the racially polarized voting.”

Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock said, “I too went out and walked. I went to the C Street area…showing them the maps. Most of them didn’t know we were doing the districting. I left over there and went to Beede Park. The majority of them I got signatures wanted Quadrants B. Several of them from C Street wanted Quadrants B. We are listening to what everyone is saying. We got several emails that were boilerplate emails. They’re talking about the school districts. They’re going to have five districts. So, what the school district does has nothing to do with what the city does. I know it’s a hard thing. We talk about Rivertown. It’s not everything below Highway 4.”

Tiscareno then said, “This is a very difficult situation. I had the pleasure to meet with some of the constituents, especially those who support Working Draft 1 and heard their stories. A lot of people did get a hold of me in regards to the Quadrants map. There are three maps that we’re looking at. This was really rushed…put toward us in a manner we might be making rash decisions. I thought we were going to have an ordinance on this. Putting forth a map before we have an ordinance is an oxymoron to me. We’re back down to two. If that’s what we’re doing, then I would love to hear from the public. The ones who are adamant…I heard you. But there’s 116,000 people in the community and I want to hear from others. Working Draft 1 and Quadrants C.”

Wilson then said, “I haven’t put out my preference. I haven’t touched any of the maps. I’m uncomfortable with C because I feel like a little gerrymandering was going on. I too have been out in the community. The majority is Working Draft 1. At the end of the day moving the line there’s a preference to you.”

Wright weighed in saying, “I’m still against this. But we’ve been told by our attorney that if we fought this we would probably lose. We have to be responsible with the fiscal. How do we keep Antioch the best that we can over the long-run. I’m OK with Quadrants C.”

He then defended the changes he made to the quadrants map saying, “When you gerrymander you draw crazy lines to make sure you have the people in your district. When drawing the lines, I went down the major thoroughfares. I didn’t look at which family is where. I’m in favor of Quadrants C going forward and Working Draft 1.”

Thorpe said, “she’s not referring to the changes that Mayor Wright was doing. She was referring to the area over here (pointing to the change in lines between Districts A and D of the Quadrants map). This is why I hate this process. It shouldn’t be in the hands of politicians. Don’t dismiss the people who are trying to participate in the process. Whether they are signing a petition or signing someone else’s letter. I find that particularly unfortunate.”

Tiscareno was not happy saying, “when pointing toward the Gentrytown are, when looking at Working Draft 1 or Quadrants B the Gentrytown area remains intact. Quadrants B or C go against me. Working Draft 1 actually benefits me. But I’m doing this for the benefit of the community. I do take some offense that (others were saying) gerrymandering is taking place.”

Cole then said, “either Working Draft 1 or Quadrants C, legally speaking either map would be sufficient if enacted…in compliance with the Voting Rights Act. I feel I have direction from council to move forward with Working Draft 1 and Quadrants C.”

The workshop adjourned and the council went into regular session.

The council meeting for deciding on which map the council will adopt was moved to May 8 from the special meeting that was previously scheduled for Monday, April 23. According to City Manager Ron Bernal the council can’t adopt an ordinance at a special council meeting and the City Attorney got permission from the other attorney threatening the lawsuit to extend the deadline to complete the process.

By Allen Payton

On Tuesday night, April 10, 2018 the Antioch City Council will hold a special workshop at 5:30 p.m. prior to their regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. to consider finalizing the drawing of the map for district elections. The council is considering two maps, one which creates a district north of the freeway known as Working Draft 1 and a second, known as the Quadrants which splits the north side of the freeway into two different districts.  The council will make efforts to redraw the Quadrants map but decided at their last meeting to leave the Working Draft 1 map as it is. Please see related article, here.

During their regular meeting, the council will hold a public hearing on and vote whether or not to even move forward with district elections. See complete agenda by clicking, here.

If so, then at a special meeting on Monday, April 23 the council will vote on which map they will use and finally, whether to implement district elections in 2018 or 2020.

The meeting is held in the Council Chambers at 200 H Street in Antioch’s historic, downtown Rivertown. It can be viewed on local TV channel or via livestream on the city’s website at http://www.ci.antioch.ca.us/CityGov/citycouncilmeetings.htm.

Will hold another workshop at 5:30 p.m. on April 10th to make changes to “quadrants” map; final vote at special meeting on Monday, April 23rd

By Allen Payton

After two-and-a-half hours of hearing vary disparate comments from the public, and a lively debate and discussion by council members, the Antioch City Council voted to narrow down the number of draft maps for the council district elections from four two to. The two final maps, referred to as Working Draft I and Quadrants B offer very different options and the public comments reflected those differences. Some speakers still advocated against changing to district elections, saying it will divide the city and cause council members to compete for tax dollars for projects just in their districts.

(To watch the complete council meeting, click here: http://www.ci.antioch.ca.us/CityGov/CouncilMeetings/032718/)

Interim City Attorney Derek Cole mentioned he had received emails prior to the council meeting and that “six emailers…want to preserve a community of interest above Highway 4, a Change.org petition with 52 signers of wanting to “Designate Hillcrest/Deer Valley Corridor as a Community of Interest during districting.”

Working Draft I Map

The Working Draft I map creates a single district on the north side of Highway 4 and that was supported by most of the speakers, many of whom live in that area of the city. The arguments were that there hasn’t been an elected city council member from the north side of the freeway since the 1980’s and the people there want someone who lives in that part of town to represent them. It was pointed out that appointed Council Member Martha Parsons lives in the north part of town and served on the council in the last decade. However, she was not elected when she ran at the end of her appointed term.

Most of the speakers in favor of Working Draft I were Hispanic, members of the East County Regional Group, and live in that part of the city, two of whom spoke in Spanish and used a translator. Another speaker in favor of the Working Draft I map was former Antioch School Board Member Joy Motts, who lost for re-election in 2014 and lost for election in 2016 and is the only candidate for city council who has filed paperwork declaring her intention to run this November.

That map garnered the support of Mayor Pro Tem Lamar Thorpe and Councilwoman Monica Wilson. Thorpe only wanted to advance that map for a final vote at the council meeting on April 10th. He argued that Motts couldn’t get re-elected because people on the south side wouldn’t vote for her and viewed her “as old Antioch and dismiss  her.” Wilson echoed Thorpe’s comments, giving what sounded like an endorsement of Motts’ candidacy. However, Mayor Sean Wright pointed out that Antioch School Board Member Diane Gibson-Gray lives on the north side of town and was able to get elected.

Quadrants B Map

The Quadrants B map had the apparent support of Wright, and Councilmembers Lori Ogorchock and Tony Tiscareno, who agreed with the public speakers in support of it, that it would allow two council members to represent portions of the north side of Antioch. The speakers in favor of that map, including former Antioch Mayor Don Freitas, argued that in order to get something accomplished it takes the votes of three council members and with two representing the north side of town, that area will have more advocates on the council, making it easier to get to three votes.

However, there was an effort at the end of the hearing by Wright to make some changes to the Quadrants B map, to accommodate some of the concerns expressed by members of the public. As the hour was getting late, the consultants said any change to one district would cause a ripple effect among the other districts from a population standpoint, and there were still three items on the agenda that staff said needed to be dealt with, it was decided to hold one more workshop, prior to the April 10th council meeting, at 5:30 p.m. that same evening.

Interim City Attorney Derek Cole explained to the council that they have three things to decide at their meeting on April 10. First, they must vote whether or not to move forward with district elections, and if so which map to use and when to implement them, either this year, or wait until 2020 to do so.

The council voted unanimously to support moving forward both maps. They also agreed to hold a special meeting on Monday, April 23 to accommodate Ogorchock’s schedule, as she will be out of town on April 24, and to ensure they complete the process in the legally proscribed time frame to avoid facing the threatened lawsuit, which started the entire process, in court.

Public Comments

Former Antioch Councilwoman Norma Hernandez was the first member of the public to speak saying, “I can’t believe this is the United States of America and this is happening in the City of Antioch. This is the worst thing that could happen to our city.

“We’re putting people against each other. At the same time, we’re disenfranchising the voter. They can only vote for the mayor and one member. They’ll only have two people beholding to them. I can’t believe this man who has come to our cities and is going to other cities is getting away with this.

“You represent the whole city. You will only represent one district. The sharing, behind door deals, with sharing the money. The whole community gets ripped off. Just because the state of California is running games it doesn’t mean we have to go along with it. I want to be able to come to my city council and if I don’t like you, I want to be able to recall you. I’m totally against this. Don’t let the State of California change the United States of America.”

Former Antioch Councilman Ralph Hernandez said, “First off, I am opposed to the district elections. I think we should keep it here in Antioch the way it is. I don’t want you guys to be scared. The city gets a lot of lawsuits. You hire consultants and help to fight those lawsuits. This is something you as a city council as a whole to fight this. Governor Brown made it easy to where you don’t have to go to the community if they want district elections. You should have gone to the community and asked if we want district elections. I understand the lawsuits. I understand the threat. The attorney and whoever is behind this. They’re making money off this. Why should Antioch be the stepchild to this attorney. You need to stand up. You need to show the community you really care about the community. How many of you decided not to represent a particular area or a particular group of people? You all agreed to represent each and every person who lives in Antioch equally. If you’ve since decided not to you should sit down and let someone who wants to represent everyone take your place. Segregation is something that America has gone through for many, many years. This is segregation. It’s discrimination. That’s really what is going to be accomplished. You’re pitting areas of our community against each other.”

Joette Milano Wright said, “I am in support of working Draft #1. I don’t want to see the old Antioch divided.”

Donald Bright said, “I was opposed to districting…but since we are forced into this situation, I am in favor of Working Draft 1.”

Brenden Olaski said, “I am a member of the East County Regional Group. We trust a new system will not change you representing all of Antioch. It will ensure the demographic challenges facing Antioch. North Antioch has a large immigrant community. It is critical that it has its own district. We have not had a council member from north Antioch since the late ‘80’s. I ask you to form one district in north Antioch and support Working Draft 1.”

Ellie Householder said, “I felt like I just had to speak. I am in full support of the districting. I was born and raised in Antioch. Proposed, Working Draft 1 makes the most sense. D Street is not a logic place to split that up. People have issues with isn’t Highway 4 a divider? But it is a cultural divide. It’s not about segregation it’s about representation. That 3/10 council meeting was the first one I’d ever gone to. I just think that representation is a good thing. Being from the north part of Antioch, I’m confident that who ever I vote for will represent all of Antioch. There are things in each neighborhood that everyone cares about. My part of Antioch hasn’t been active as far as registration goes. I think we’ll get a lot more engaged voters.”

Antioch Planning Commissioner and brother of Joy, Kerry Motts said, “None of us are too happy the way this came about…under threat of a lawsuit. I believe the two quadrant maps are inherently political…and dilute representation north of Highway 4. I believe council members as a whole will represent all of Antioch. Working Draft #1 is best. I think this should be done for 2018.”

Christine Clark said, “I am…a member of East County Regional Group. I do live in the Rivertown community and support creating one district north of Highway 4. It also creates a more democratic Antioch that reflects our values. Working Draft 1…is the best plan for a strong Antioch.”

Deborah Polk said, “I am in support of creating one district north of highway 4. I am in opposition of splitting this are into two or more districts…diminishing the capacity to be represented. Working Draft 1 is the only reasonable, viable and equitable decision.”

Tina Price said “I am here for the Change.org petition, put together with Ms. Walker,” referring to designating the Hillcrest/Deer Valley corridor as a community of interest. She then read from the petition, which can be seen at the link, above.

Susana Williams said, “I too support of the first map. First and foremost, this has nothing to do with segregation this is about representation. None of you when elected said you were going to only represent your neighborhood. It’s just much fairer representation. We’re not talking about the numbers of people who live in these areas. North Antioch has gotten the short-end of the stick in so many ways because the focus has been on new part of Antioch. No city has won that has fought this. It’s a colossal waste of money. I would definitely like to see this happen.”

Ellen Ramirez spoke in Spanish and used a translator. “We need to make sure his process is fair. I value democracy…in the drawing of districts. At this time unfortunately, this is not the case because low income people don’t have representation on the city council. It is difficult for all residents to have a say in important decisions. I believe this is important to support a community north of Highway 4 because it represents communities of need. I think you should form a single district north of Highway 4. It will help a child of a poor neighborhood as a child in a neighborhood with more resources.”

Evelyn Lopez said, “I am also a member of the East County Regional Group and a resident of Antioch. Ask you to vote for Working Draft 1. We need our own district and our own representative.”

Sylvia Angeles, who spoke in Spanish using a translator, said, “I am a member of East County Regional Group and I have been a resident of Antioch for many years. She wanted to make sure “the maps are fair.”

“I am a resident of the community north of Highway 4,” she said. “As a mother I am concerned about the crime…especially on 18th Street where I live. I feel powerless because there is no representation for my neighborhood. Volunteer work is not enough. We need to work together in Antioch…to find the solutions to the problems of our community. This person will understand our needs. We all have the same needs north of Highway 4…with one representative on the city council… Today I come to speak out for the first time because this issue is important. I ask you to support Working Draft 1 to create a single district.”

Verlyn Leon said, “A resident of Antioch for more than 15 years. I greatly value having a democratic process and I support creating a single district north of Highway 4. Has different needs than other parts of Antioch. An accessible representative. Someone who lives our realities. That is democracy and is how you make our city strong. If you divide north Antioch it will create more inequality…we run the risk of being a minority. It is fair, it is democratic and the right thing to do.

East County Regional Group Vice Chair Freddie Leon said he and his wife were celebrating their 19th anniversary, which garnered applause from the audience. “This is more important,” he said. “I have lived in Antioch for more than 15 years. I want my city to be a safe and secure place to raise my kids. Many people living north of Highway 4 are immigrants and people of color. The community is strong. They go to church and try to improve the community. I know it’s a really hard task but they are trying. North of Antioch above Highway 4 needs to be one entity. I support working Draft 1. It is the only one that is fair.

Samson Knight said, “I am just your average community member. I was at the special meeting on March 10^th. Some of the comments made against districting kind of disgusted me. Many of these supporters backed the quadrant system to keep the council responsible to the average needs of our community. If anything, the balkanization of Antioch will be created by ignoring these differences. We need reasonable…districting. The 4 is not an arbitrary boundary…albeit man made.”

Antioch Economic Development Commissioner Tim McCall said, “I sat out there and listened to many people speak about…dividing the downtown area. That is exactly what we’re doing to the City of Antioch. Are we really dividing our city into four areas? I guess we are. If you divide into the four sections, no matter how you did it, you’re going to have a problem with new development and redevelopment. He suggested a “sliced bread” approach…making all council members responsible for each part of Antioch. I’m wondering if any of the council members are thinking about voting for one or more of these plans because you can’t have two people in one district…people will begin voting for self, not for city. I ask you to not rush this through…but delay it until 2020.”

Dr. Terry Ramus said, “Our family has lived here for 33 years, in our current house for 28 years. I was at the mapping meeting…I am opposed to this entire process. My caution is that sometimes you might get what you wish for. Folks are saying keep all of the area north of Highway 4 in one district. But, you have one vote. You still have to get two more votes. I have been coming here for years” speaking for things in the north side of the freeway.

“Is Beede Park more related to the Madill area than say the Putnam area?” he asked. “The idea that everything north of Highway 4 is the same…these are false differences. The one that I support is to unite the city. Many of us have worked to reduce that problem. Either quadrant is fine, frankly. It causes the city to try to work more together. The one I would pick is the point.”

Jennifer Hughes said, “I’ve lived in Antioch since 1995. The second home I’ve bought is in the downtown. I walk the dog I go down by the river. I’ve listened to the entire city council meeting. I thought about it a lot. I’m in favor of districting. I’m in favor of Working Draft #1. Because it’s not working now. I really do think that each section of town will be better served by separate representatives. Each of you would be a specialist for your area.  You can’t be fully informed of all the needs of the city. Specializing is a good thing and I think it gives us the representation the way it should be. The quadrants are keeping things the same.”

Warren Lutz said, “This is the first time I’ve been up here. I think the districting is great. I also support Working Draft #1. I live off of Hillcrest and Laurel. Working Draft 2 splits my neighborhood unnecessarily. I’m appalled to hear there’s been no representation north of Highway 4 since 1994. That would be one representative more than they have now.”

Karen Johnson said, “When I first read about the districting my heart dropped. I moved here in 1994. Most of my activities have been north of Highway 4. I’m from the Midwest. Antioch reminded me of where I came from. One town. Regardless of what side of Highway 4 you lived in. I’m hearing a lot of artificial excuses of why we should split up. We’re all experiencing crime. I never experienced or saw anyone who was representing Antioch that wasn’t thinking of the whole city. We have the low-income homes in Rivertown. There’s always been an effort here to address the needs of everyone. I don’t think we need to get in this mindset that we’re different because of what part of Antioch we live in. We don’t really have real differences here that we can’t address. Let’s face it someone decides to sue us because we don’t have districting it’s like the devil trying to push us into dividing ourselves when it doesn’t have to be that way.”

Antioch Planning Commissioner Ken Turnage said, “Personally I like Quadrant B if we’re going to do this. I can talk to any of you, right now. If this goes through I got only one person to talk to. Growing up here, I actually moved to Antioch in 1972. What I hear in here, are communities of special interest. Are we looking to have…quadrants that work together…or pitted together like I’m hearing, tonight? I want people who are going to vote for what the entire city needs. If we divide this out by our special interests…then we are going to have nothing but fighting. I believe people will once again look out for what their area is because they want to get reelected. Let’s not look at special interests, let’s look at communities of interests.”

Janet Costa said, “I’m here tonight to ask council to support Working Draft 1…and only advance this one, tonight. I’m excited about the possibility of a district devoted to north of Highway 4. I understand that this change does not mean my needs will not be met. I would like to say on behalf of all of the Regional Group we have worked with the council for more than a decade. This is not personal toward the council. It gives them a chance to participate in the electoral process in a more equitable way.”

Francisco Nazario said, “I’ve been a resident of Antioch for a short four years, but I’ve had the opportunity to visit parts of Antioch. The United States was created as a representative republic…which is made up of districts, which is also echoed at the state level. It’s a question of the size of population. Change is a process. It’s human nature to resist it. Cities have tried fighting it. Get used to it. It’s coming. Make the best of it. I think Working Draft 1 makes the most sense from kind of a historical perspective. Each group would like to have a person to represent their area. They have someone directly to go to…and if they don’t do a good enough job they elect someone else. Antioch will continue to grow. Get used to it it’s coming. I think everyone on the council has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the finances of the city. I think we need to focus on implementing this districting and focus on the best job you can do as a council and we can do as citizens.”

Former Mayor Don Freitas said, “Well I’m 63 years of age and I was born in the city of Antioch. I was born in the hospital on 6th Street. I also had the great fortune of representing Antioch both locally and regionally. A lot of people, you’re always going to think of Antioch’s best interests. I absolutely hate this districting plan is being shoved down the throats of the people of Antioch. You can fight it or we can create four different districts. The decision you make is going to last forever. It’s critical for every decision for each census when we have to move the lines. Two things are critical. Shape and balance.

“I absolutely do not like this alternative (Working Draft I). Politically you will isolate the downtown area. Be careful what you ask for you might get. You might have a representative in this schematic.

“Quadrant B…in this case you will have potentially two representatives.

“I strongly encourage you start in 2020. Alternative one does not provide balance. It does allow one person to rant and rave about the needs of the downtown area.

“The Antioch Council spent approximately $25 million uniting…A Street to 2nd Street in downtown. We wanted to prepare the downtown for growth. I would suggest the first one and Quadrant two be the options to go forward. The first alternative is going to bring back that war full force. Please, God, don’t embrace that alternative.”

Joy Motts was the last to speak saying, “I was also born on Sixth Street in the same hospital (as Freitas). I couldn’t disagree with you more. We already have the situation of have and have nots. Although this isn’t a panacea. Clearly the people of the community are speaking out saying they want to keep the north part of Antioch together. I agree. One of the reasons I ran for school board was because…Antioch High School was falling apart. I lived in north Antioch…I knew the needs there. It’s only because I brought that forward…we brought it before the people and they supported it. I’m just saying this is going to work. I have trust in you. We’re all adults. We’re one community, one Antioch. But we need representation for those communities. Your Quadrant map literally divides the (Rivertown) Preservation Group. Keep north Antioch together. It won’t divide this community. It will empower this community.” (Editor’s Note: The Quadrant B map does not divide Rivertown, which is bordered from 10th Street north to the river. The section divided by that map is south of W. 10th Street).

Council Discussion

Mayor Wright said, “We allowed every person to speak for their full five minutes because of the passion. At the next meeting we may cut your time down.”

Mayor Pro Thorpe was next to speak saying, “This is a big issue and you know Antioch has gone through a lot of change. There’s a lot of change happening very rapidly. I don’t like this process. This should have gone to the voters. But, as I’ve maintained throughout this process…I have a difficult time with these quadrants. I’m not a big fan of them. Population…I go beyond that and look at voting patterns. The quadrants do a disservice. There are just some claims that are made that are not accurate. It is true the last person to be elected to the Antioch Council was in the 1980’s. But the last person to serve was Martha Parsons. That will be the same. Because southeast Antioch has grown. I wish Joy Motts was still on the school board. But, she’ll never get elected because people in south Antioch look at her as old Antioch and dismiss her. This is not dividing up the city but creating legislative districts. Some folks made some claims there will be some infighting and back room deals. I picked up the phone and called Berkeley…and they said the divisions of…the hills and the flatlands have always been there. The same for Elk Grove.

“You find there is infighting but it’s because of personalities not because of districts. For anyone to call this a special interest…this is a community advocacy group. The special interests are the ones financing our campaigns…who focus on growth in southeast Antioch. Because that’s how you get elected in Antioch. It’s through single member districts that you can raise enough money from your neighbors…so you don’t have to hitch a ride with developers, Realtors or unions.

I’m not supporting any of the quadrants because they don’t fulfill the purpose.

“The city council did not advance them. Two city council members advanced these quadrants… these arbitrary lines that we’re coming up with these quadrants.”

“The Brown Act still exists,” he added. “You can still only talk to one other council member, now. It will be the same under the district system. It’s arguments about nothing.”

Councilman Tony Tiscareno was next to share his thoughts saying, “I’ve been actively opposed to districting. The reason why is because we have been submitted by force which shouldn’t been submitted to the city. People have been talking about geographic. It was submitted on another nature, with which I disagree. For the last 15-20 years that I can count we’ve had a diverse city council. I’m quite upset with the way it came about. I don’t like any of the maps. I want to represent…the entire city. I understand and agree there’s a lack of representation on the north side of the city. It’s why I’m listening to the districts, right now. I’m kind of offended…I kind of feel bad. I’m only a block away from the freeway so I’m kind of representing the north waterfront. I’ve always felt I’ve represented that part because that’s where I grew up. The true part of Antioch has always been the north side…You do in some respect have someone who cares about the older part of Antioch. If we’re going to entertain this sort of thing, I want to respect the people. So, I’m willing to consider Working Draft 1. But, I’m not saying I’m going to vote for it. The quadrants seem to be something that is fair. I seem to think that if you have two representatives for one particular area it’s better than one.”

Wright said, “One of the things I may propose…is how do you adhere to what the letter dictates, how do we go about not getting sued. We have a census in 2020. One of my problems is we’re using numbers from 2010. So, these lines that are being drawn are not based on true numbers. We’re going to wait until 2020 after the Census occurs. I’m not sure if that will satisfy the lawsuit.”

Cole responded, “The Census will be done in 2020. But the numbers will not be out until after the November 2020. I feel comfortable if we phase in…because of the systemic change involved, because we have Latino representation on the council. But…we would have to get past two election cycles to get to the Census.”

Tiscareno said, “Then I’m going to suggest another extreme and that’s to have the elections in 2018. Which map, it really doesn’t matter. In my mind when we’re running to represent all of Antioch. You implement whatever map is supported by the council, you have everybody run so there’s no hard feelings of who will run.”

Cole responded with, “By law we cannot abridge their terms. If you do implement in 2018 those two council members would be allowed to serve until 2020. Do you want to phase in the two districts you want to run this year…then you have to choose which districts they will run in. Or you choose to phase in at-large elections for two years, then everyone runs in 2020.”

Tiscareno then said, “At least narrow it down to two maps. I’m willing to vote no on this right now. I’m willing to stay at large. Quadrant B with some possible tweaks to that. If we implement in 2018 or 2020 I really don’t care.”

Councilwoman Monica Wilson was next to speak saying, “Thank you to everyone for reaching out to me. Joy, yes you did some wonderful work on the school board. You’re probably the hardest working person north of Highway 4. Why aren’t you on the school board? It’s because of the dilution of vote north of Highway 4.”

“Going forward with this districting…I am for it. Draft Map #1 seems to be the most popular one so that’s what I’m going with. I’m leaning toward Draft 2 because I want to keep north of Antioch together. Quadrant B divides Rivertown Preservation Society.”

Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock then said, “I don’t like this idea. It’s probably a good thing in the long run but the way it’s going I don’t agree with. The people I hear from are the people that have heard what we’ve said. When they hear us talking about it…I hear lots of people saying they don’t like the downtown being in one district. If you have the quadrants you have two people representing the downtown. I kind of like the idea of the quadrants. People came up and said they don’t like the idea of one vote for the downtown. I grew up in downtown. The freeway did divide the town. What made it worse was the ZIP Codes. It made it ten times worse. It is one town. We have to listen to everybody. Communities of interest are being listened to.”

Wright then said, “the idea that you can’t win if you live downtown is just not true. I don’t know where they all live. I don’t look at where they live when I’m voting. I look at if they’re going to do a good job. Looking at Quadrant Map B, I have some issues with the lines. Is there a reason A Street isn’t the divide?”

Q2 consultant Jaime Clark responded, “That was for population and to respect communities of interest. To keep the C Street group COI in tact and not cut through these smaller neighborhoods.”

Wright then asked, “Do we just ignore that there are 15,000 people in southeast Antioch that aren’t being accounted for?”

Clark said, “We have to use the 2010 Census.”

“So, we’re just ignoring those 15,000 people,” Wright stated. “The C Street area, they’re closer to downtown. So, I think they should be part of downtown. He then suggested some changes to the Quadrants B map.”

Clark then switched over to a live map to draw changes.

Tiscareno then said, “the concern I have is the numbers we’re using the 2010 Census really don’t reflect what we’re looking at now. I’m also looking at Congressional districts to stay within a community of interest.”

Cole said the council could hold another workshop.

Wright said, “there’s a motion to move forward Working Draft 1 and Quadrant B.”

Cole responded, “I can draft an ordinance that adopts a four-district system. I can also provide two options that implements districts in 2018 or 2020. You only have to introduce an ordinance at your next meeting. I will work with the consultant to make some changes.”

Consultant Clark then shared, “I don’t feel I have enough information from council offline without specific, detailed input.”

Cole explained to the council, “If you want to look at Quadrants C…then we can bring that back at the next meeting.”

Q2 consultant Karin MacDonald said, “The problem is any changes she makes to one district will have a ripple effect. So, we’re going to need your input. I’m not sure if this is possible to do this quickly at the beginning of the next meeting.”

Tiscareno said, “Maybe we start three or four hours earlier. I think it’s going to take more than an hour. The meeting is going to be packed. We’re going to have community input. It’s going to take some time.”

The council then decided to start the workshop at 5:30 p.m. following a closed session at 5:00 p.m. on April 10th.

Cole then pointed out, “The maps have to be published, but right after the 10th we can have them in the newspaper right after that. The reason we have to finalize the map at the first meeting in April is because we have to advertise it in the paper seven days before the meeting.”

Ogorchock said, “I will not be at the 24th meeting. So, we have to get it done.”

The council then settled on a special meeting on Monday night, April 23rd.

On April 10th 5:30 p.m. the council will have a workshop on the final map. At the 7:00 p.m. meeting they will take initial votes on the matter.

On April 23rd the council will consider the adoption of the final map.

Wright then said “we’re going to come back with Working Draft 1 and Quadrants B. And we’re going to work on those changes that night.”

By Allen Payton

At their meeting on Tuesday night, March 27, the Antioch City Council will consider narrowing down the choices from four to two of the alternative maps for creating the new council districts in time for this November’s elections.

At the March 10th meeting held at the Nick Rodriguez Community Center in downtown, which lasted three hours, the council took input from the public and added two alternative maps to the two developed by the consultant. (To watch the video of that meeting, click here – http://www.ci.antioch.ca.us/CityGov/CouncilMeetings/031018/) (To see the staff report for that meeting, click here: ACC031018 Districting)

One idea and alternative map of increasing the number of council seats from four to six, for a seven-member council including the mayor, was rejected at that meeting.

According to the staff report for that meeting by Interim City Attorney Derek Cole, the council can decide to implement the district elections in one of two ways. That read as follows:

Timing of lmplementation of District Elections

A separate issue for which Council direction is necessary is on when to have the district elections begin. To this end, I include correspondence from the County Registrar of Voters, who has expressed concerned about his office’s ability to implement district elections in the upcoming general election this November (which is the first available election in which Antioch could switch to by-district elections.) I question whether the Registrar has the authority to not implement districting elections starting this year, but I did want to convey his statement to the Council for your consideration.

I note that two councilmembers have been elected for terms through 2020. Consistent with Government Code section 34873, it does not appear these terms can be abridged. Thus, the options appear to be to partially implement district elections starting in 2018 or to implement districting all at once beginning in 2020. Possible scenarios could include the following:

Staggered rollout of district elections starting this year. In this scenario, the City would keep the two at-large seats of the councilmembers whose terms do not expire, and it would implement two of the four districts for this November’s election; then in 2020, the City would replace the two remaining at-large seats with the two other districts. This would keep the current staggering of elections in which two councilmembers are up for election each election cycle.

Implement districts all at once in 2020: With this option, the city would start all district elections in 2020, but provide that half of the districts would initially be for 2-year terms, while the other half would be for full 4-year terms. Then, in 2022, the districts for which 2-year initial terms were held would convert to 4-year terms. This would allow for the Council to maintain a staggered election system. (What this would mean for the two council seats that are up this year is that those would still be elected on an at-large basis in November, but they would only provide for terms of two years.)

County Registrar of Voters’ Concerns

County Clerk-Registrar of Voters Joe Canciamilla said that the best way to implement the district elections, this year would be for the maps to be drawn using existing precinct lines. According to Jaime Clark of Q2 in her presentation at the March 10th meeting, less than five precincts in Antioch have been split in Map 1.

At their April 10th meeting, the council will first decide to approve switching to district elections and then, if so, which map to approve for the 2018 and 2020 elections. Finally, they will decide whether to have a staggered rollout in 2018 or implement district elections all at once in 2020. If the council approves district elections, whichever map they choose will last until 2022, after the next census in 2020 and redistricting in 2021 when a new district map will have to be created.

The council meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 200 H Street in downtown or it can be viewed on local cable access channel or via live stream on the city’s website at http://www.ci.antioch.ca.us/CityGov/citycouncilmeetings.htm.