Council Members wanted someone who could “hit the ground running”

By Allen Payton

During a special session of the City Council before their regular meeting on Tuesday night September 11, 2018, on a unanimous 4-0, the Antioch Council appointed former Antioch Mayor Jim Davis as the interim City Treasurer through 2020. Davis will fill the position left vacant by Donna Conley who stepped down when she and her husband Jim moved out of state in July. Council Member Lori Ogorchock was out of town at a city-related conference.

Davis is also running for the Antioch School Board which was a concern by some of the council members. He was one of three Antioch residents applied for the position, each of whom spoke before the council, offering their background and credentials, in the order of the numbers they drew. As each applicant spoke, the others remained outside of the council chambers.

City of Antioch employee Shelley Richardson was the first applicant to speak to the council.

“I have never done this, before. I’m not political,” she said. “It’s not because I’m bored. I am a city of Antioch employee. A payroll specialist since January 2017. Prior to that she was a payroll specialist for the East Bay Regional Park District. Before that she worked for Cypress Meadows senior living community in Antioch.

Former Antioch Mayor Jim Davis was next, saying, “I’ve been up there for 14 years in three different seats, as Mayor Pro Tem, as Council Member, and the last four as Mayor. I spent many personal hours and vacation time away from my day job to lobby for money for this city. I worked with Federal Advocates, our lobbyists, in Washington D.C. for funds for Highway 4 and eBART. I’m a 60-year resident of Antioch. I’m semi-retired. I don’t commute, and I have the time to donate to this position. I have the knowledge and experience to fulfill this position.” He spoke of his 30-year banking background and the various financial transactions he handled as part of his experience for the position. “I can start tomorrow morning…I have nothing going on,” he stated.

Former downtown business owner Kym Kelley was the third and final applicant to speak to the council.

“I’m a 14-year resident and homeowner of Antioch, active in my church…and a former business owner in downtown Antioch,” she stated. “I’d now like to continue to serve my city…and become active in my community. I believe with my financial background and knowledge I will be a good candidate to fill this seat. In my career I’ve managed up to $300 million in assets…in the banking and loan industry. I feel I’m offering a bright, new perspective for the city and this position.”

“I’m not a politician,” Kelley concluded with a chuckle.

The council members then had the opportunity to ask questions of each of the applicants.

Mayor Pro Tem Lamar Thorpe asked Richardson if she saw the position as having an oversight role.

She said she wanted to be a team player, but that she didn’t know. “I know what the position requires. I want to do that.”

Council Member Monica Wilson asked Richards, “is it legal for you to have both of these roles (of city employee and City Treasurer)?”

“Is it a conflict of interest? I’ve called Cal-PERS. It’s actually two different positions,” Richardson responded. “I’ve looked at every different avenue. The Treasurer cannot sign the checks. That would have to change. (City Finance Director) Dawn Merchant would have to sign the checks. It’s a completely separate position.

City Attorney Derek Cole interjected his thoughts. “I believe the candidate is correct there are some internal control issues. There are some changes that have to be made. Other than that, there are no legal issues. The candidate is an employee. She’s not holding two elected positions. There is not a conflict of interest if she’s selected.”

Council Member Tony Tiscareno said he concern with “a public perception issue.”

Thorpe asked the same question of Davis regarding his view of the oversight role of the position.

Davis mentioned Measure C and the upcoming Measure W and the need for oversight.

Thorpe, “I think the City Treasurer does have oversight. He is the overseer of revenue…on behalf of the public, not of city staff.”

Davis responded to Thorpe’s question about the role, saying, “Report out at a council meeting or to the public. It is incumbent upon the person who holds this position, now to be more active.”

“I think the person in this position…needs to be in the public eye and not sit behind a desk and come to the council meeting every three months…so the public can confront you, good or bad,” Davis added. “I would be involved. I won’t be a silent treasurer by any means.”

Thorpe, “One of the things that I’ve grown frustrated with the City Clerk’s office, I don’t like how they engineer certain things for certain results. I would hope the City Treasurer wouldn’t do that.”

Wilson asked about the fact Davis is also running for the Antioch School Board. “That would be two elected positions.”

Davis responded, “It’s two separate entities. Two separate elected bodies. It’s a part-time position as City Treasurer. It’s the same on the school board. I’m semi-retired. I have the time. If there was a conflict of interest on either body I would recuse myself.  They are two separate, two years apart elections. I’m very comfortable I can do both.”

Cole offered his views on the issue, stating, “There is…a problem with incompatible offices. If it is found a person occupies incompatible offices, they would have to resign one of the positions. It is rare that the City cuts a check to the school district. So, we couldn’t see any conflict between the school district and this position.”

Davis said, “The Treasurer position has no vote.”

Tiscareno said “I truly believe you have some good qualifications being in the banking business, overseeing your customer’s money. That expertise is important to me. But, I have the same concern…that you’re running for school board. You somewhat addressed that, and I’m satisfied with your answers.”

“We had a very good treasurer, but she wasn’t as active as I would have like to see,” he stated.

“What would you do differently to make this position more transparent and visible to the community?” Tiscareno asked.

“I would be at every council meeting, sitting in the back,” Davis responded. “I’ll give monthly report of whatever I’m doing. Participate in community events. Speak at non-profit organizations. Attend training…become an active member. It wouldn’t be a simple, 9-5 one day a week. You would see me involved and participating.”

The council members then asked questions of Kelley.

Thorpe asked her the same question he asked the others about the oversight role of the position and her vision for it.

“Basically, from the research and the phone calls that I’ve made I feel like this position basically oversees that everything is in compliance…and to reconcile the books,” she responded. “This position…does not report to anyone directly, but you work with others.”

“Are you familiar with the Measure C Oversight Committee?” Thorpe asked.

“Not as familiar as you are,” she replied.

“OK. We’ll skip that” he said.

Wilson asked how Kelley could translate her background and experience into the position.

Kelley mentioned her advocacy on behalf of her father during his final days, and oversight and making sure no one is

Tiscareno asked “can you give me a little insight in how you can do a smooth transition into this position?”

“I’ve already read the budget and looked into the travel policy…to get prepared for the position,” she responded.

Mayor Sean Wright said all the questions he had for each applicant had already been asked.

One member of the public offered a written comment in support of Richardson, which Wright read.

The council then discussed and deliberated on the item.

Thorpe said, “I only have two concerns, the first one is, the idea of serving, if former Mayor Davis gets elected to the school board, him serving in both capacities. I don’t think that looks good. The same concern is with Shelley who works for the city. I understand the legalese. We have to be concerned with perception. I think all the candidates bring good qualities.”

Tiscareno shared his thoughts, stating, “I do share those concerns, as well. One may be more conflicted as the other, because one is a city employee. It would be difficult to present that to the public when running for election. Mr. Davis has the right to run. But, my reasoning for looking at a specific candidate is someone who can come in and do the job, have the knowledge of our city. Kym is very qualified, as well. Her answers to questions as she prepared to the job at hand. I’m going to make my decision with an individual who can start from day one and get going. I think you kind of know where I’m going with that.”

Wilson stated, “I do have the same concern with Shelley…the public perception. This is an oversight role. Will she be overseeing for the city or for the public? Kym, I really think you gave some good answers and we need someone to hit the ground running. Mayor Davis, you have some good answers, too. So, I’ve pretty much made up my mind, too.”

Mayor Wright ended the discussion by stating, “We have the opportunity to have an appointee who can hit the ground running with an applicant who has looked at our finances during our city’s darkest times.”

Tiscareno moved to appoint Davis as City Treasurer, seconded by Wilson.

Thorpe said, while I will support the pleasure of the council, I would hope, Jim you would rethink the school board thing, because I don’t think it looks good that people are serving in two separate offices or that we’re recycling the same people.”

“This was not a foregone conclusion, all of you have certificates that were prepared to be signed,” Wright assured the other two applicants.

Davis was then given the oath of office by Mayor Wright and he assumed his new role as the Antioch City Treasurer.

Davis then signed the official proclamation and the council and audience offered their applause.

Editor:

As the Antioch Police Chief for six years, I worked often with Mary Rocha, then City Councilwoman.

I saw her work tirelessly for our City. She was experienced, but not jaded; extremely knowledgeable, but a team member; and she was caring – never “calling it in.” Most importantly, Mary is not beholding to special interest groups and will base her votes on what is best for the children, families and staff rather than on a personal agenda.

These are the exact qualities the Antioch Unified School District Board of Education needs right now. With three of the five trustees foolishly pushing through for-profit charters, which will result in massive layoffs and program reductions, this is the time for proven leadership. Additionally, with some current Board Members frequently showing displays of unprofessionalism from the dais and in the community, Mary’s sensibility and experience is much needed. Our school staff, teachers and, especially, our students need her clarity, heart, and integrity. (Editor’s Note: All the charter schools in and approved for Antioch are non-profit, public charter schools.)

Anyone who knows or has met Mary knows she has spent decades supporting the youth and families in our communities. This election is critical, and we need a proven champion for children like Mary to help lead the AUSD.

As the father of an eight-year-old, I know the importance of strong leadership in schools – and, it must begin at the top with the Board of Education.

Some of my favorite duties as Chief of Police were to visit Antioch schools, sit down with the students, talk with teachers, and engage with staff who represent the “boots on the ground.” AUSD is filled with incredibly talented students, supportive families, and a dedicated hard-working staff. All of these constituents deserve knowledgeable people making wise decisions that affect the AUSD.

I have so much respect for Mary and her commitment to our community. We need a leader with experience, proven integrity, and a heart for children and this community. Mary Rocha cares because she understands that our schools matter.

Thank you,

Allan Cantando

If adopted would cost $65.4 million in fees, and $2.4 million in future annual, net city tax revenue; prohibit any more homes in Sand Creek Focus Area, eliminating proposed gated, senior home community

By Allen Payton

At a previously scheduled, special meeting on Tuesday, August 21, the Antioch City Council will consider the staff report on the Let Antioch Voters Decide: The Sand Creek Area Protection Initiative, put forward by a variety of environmental groups in the county in coordination with Antioch residents. The initiative effort gathered enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. City Staff Report on Sand Creek Initiative

As a result, the council had three choices at their July 24th meeting, to either adopt the initiative, place it on the November 2018 ballot, or send it to staff to study for up to 30 days and return with a report. They chose the last option, with the result that if they don’t adopt the initiative, places it on the March 2020 ballot, at the soonest.

The council, instead chose to adopt the competing West Sand Creek Initiative, known as The Ranch Initiative, put forward by Richland Communities, which owns the land where the 1,177-home project was proposed. The council’s action approved the Development Agreement, which by law, goes into effect next Thursday, August 23, the 30-day mark following their vote on July 24. (See related article)

The council will have the option, at their next regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, August 28, to either adopt the environmental groups’ initiative (The Sand Creek Initiative), including those provisions which don’t conflict with The Ranch Initiative, or place it on the ballot in 2020 for the voters to decide. According to the report, “only those provisions (of the General Plan) outside of The Ranch Development Agreement area would be amended.”

Loss of 1,900 Units

The report states, “The Sand Creek Initiative imposes severe land use restrictions throughout the western portion of the Sand Creek Focus Area and also reduces the overall development capacity of the Sand Creek Focus Area from 4,000 units to 2,100 units. This change along with the differing language regarding constitutionality are the most prominent elements of The Sand Creek Initiative. If adopted, the Sand Creek Initiative would have a profound effect on the Sand Creek Focus Area and would halt all future residential development. Other non-residential uses may still be feasible.”

Loss of Fees and Future City Tax Revenue

In addition, adopting The Sand Creek Inititiative would have future, negative financial impacts on the city, with “a loss of 1,900 units and all of the associated costs and revenues” including, “property tax, sales tax, property transfer tax, property tax in lieu of vehicle license fee, and the Citywide Police Services Community Facilities District.”

“The effect of this action is a reduction in annual ongoing revenue of $3,160,315,” the report states. “The value of this revenue would be offset by the costs of $740,289 to provide increased services to the new development. In total, the net annual ongoing benefit (and net loss) would be $2,420,026 or $1,274 per unit.”

If The Sand Creek Initiative is adopted, it would also mean a loss of pass through and regional fees of $65,411,015 or $34,427 per unit, including $18 million less for Antioch schools and almost $36 million less for regional roads, according to the report.

The report further states that, “alternate sources or increased fees elsewhere may be required.”

Prohibits Senior Home Community

Furthermore, the report states, “The City of Antioch previously approved two residential projects in the Sand Creek Focus Area – Vineyards at Sand Creek with 641 units and Aviano with 533 units. With the recent approval of The Ranch with 1,177 units, the current number of approved units in the Sand Creek Focus Area is 2,351. Since The Sand Creek Initiative would limit the total number of residential units to 2,100, any future development anywhere in the Sand Creek Focus Area, including east of Deer Valley Road, would be absolutely prohibited.”

The result of that would mean the proposed 301-unit, gated, senior home community, known as The Olive Groves as well as Albers Ranch, planned for east of Deer Valley Road, south of the Kaiser medical center, Dozier-Libbey Medical High School and the actual Sand Creek, could not be built. (See related article). It is the only other project on the east side of Deer Valley Road currently proposed that has not been approved.

Also Reduces Zeka Ranch from 256 Units to 8

The report also addresses the effect on the proposed Zeka Ranch project, west of The Ranch and Empire Mine Road, stating, “The General Plan Land Use Designation for Zeka Ranch was approximately 40% Hillside and Estate Residential (256 acres) and 60% Open Space (384 acres). The Hillside Estate Housing designation in the General Plan Land Use Element allows development at a rate of one dwelling unit per gross developable acre…this would allow an absolute maximum of 256 single family homes on the Zeka Ranch property.”

However, some of the land in the Zeka Ranch is not on hillsides and the proposed project includes between 320 and 400 units, which was reduced from the original plan for over 1,100 homes. (See related article).

The report concludes, that, “with the passage of The Ranch Initiative, the development potential of Zeka Ranch was reduced to one unit per eighty acres, which results in a maximum development potential of eight homes. The Sand Creek Initiative applies an identical density and would result in a maximum of eight homes as well.”

Takings Provisions Allow Legal Challenges

However, both initiatives have provisions which allow for a challenge by a landowner who believes their rights were violated due to a “taking” of their property.

The report states that, “Under State and Federal laws, a government agency may not simply ‘take’ a person’s private property and the down-zoning of property has been, and may be, interpreted by courts to constitute a form of unlawful ‘taking’. Presumably, a landowner would need to prove with substantial evidence that the initiative had the unintended effect of unconstitutionally taking their property through the diminishment of development rights, etc.”

The difference between the initiatives is who gets to decide what constitutes a “taking”.

The report states, “Whereas, The Ranch initiative allowed the City Council to determine the validity of a takings grievance and take proper steps towards restitution, The Sand Creek Initiative would require that courts determine that the terms of the initiative violate the law. The Sand Creek Initiative would impose a higher and costlier standard to resolve a takings dispute, should one arise.”

The council meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 200 W. Third Street. It can also be viewed via livestream on the city’s website at www.ci.antioch.ca.us/CityGov/citycouncilmeetings.htm. Since it’s a special meeting, it will not be televised live on local cable access channels.

By Allen Payton

Former Antioch mayors Jim Davis and Mary Rocha, and five other candidates, have filed papers to run for the two seats on the Antioch School Board in the November election.  Both incumbents, Walter Ruehlig and Debra Vinson, chose to not run for reelection and instead will be challenging Jeff Belle for county school board. (See related article).

The four other candidates for Antioch School Board include 2018 Dozier Libbey Medical High School graduate and Antioch Youth of the Year Shagoofa Khan, who is running a joint campaign with former Antioch Measure C Citizens’ Oversight Committee Vice Chair Ellie Householder; education administrator Dr. Clyde H. Lewis, Jr., business owner Janice E. Lipnisky, who is a parent of a special needs student, and Candida Gonzalez-Amigo whose ballot designation includes financial representative.

Rocha has served in local office, both on the school board and on the city council for a total of 32 years, including four as Mayor of Antioch from 1996-2000. She lost her run for reelection to the city council in 2016.

Davis, who served on the council from 1998-2012, and mayor for his final four years, was the final candidate to file his papers and did so on Wednesday. That was the deadline which had been extended five days since at least one of the incumbents didn’t file for reelection.

In his campaign statement he said, “as of 2017, Antioch schools met basic, state literacy standards of only 22.35% and basic math standards of 14.19%.  That’s unacceptable. We owe our students better. How can we properly prepare them for a positive future if we continue business as usual?”

Davis further stated that school safety and financial responsibility and accountability are his top two priorities, to ensure Antioch students get a better education.

Householder worked for two years as a Research Analyst contractor for the school district on their Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP). She is beginning a master’s degree program in Public Policy, this fall. Khan is a college student and works in sales according to her ballot designation.

Lewis earned a master’s degree in educational administration, and his doctorate in education leadership. He currently works as the Director for Workforce Development at Building Opportunities for Self Sufficiency (BOSS). He has two children in district schools. In his ballot statement, he wrote, “I believe that Antioch schools must provide the best for our children, support our dedicated teachers and staff, and create graduates ready for college or careers. We must push our schools to provide better choices for parents, and to reach for higher standards. Quality schools are essential to maintaining a wonderful community.”

Lipnisky initially pulled papers to run for city council, but changed her mind as she cares more about education and children’s issues, having dealt with the district regarding her son’s educational needs. She is the 2018 Ms. Antioch Plus Size and volunteers with the Junior Giants  youth baseball program in Antioch.

Candida-Gonzalez has served on the PTSA’s and School Site Councils for both Dallas Ranch Middle and Deer Valley High Schools and applied for the appointment to the board in 2016 which was given to Alonzo Terry, to replace Trustee Claire Smith who had resigned.

Please check back later for updates to this report.

Nine candidates pull papers, only six file

By Allen Payton

As of the filing deadline for the Antioch City Council elections in November, six candidates had filed, including the two incumbents, Council Members Tony Tiscareno and Lori Ogorchock whose seats are up for just two years. The four challengers include former Antioch School Board Trustee Joy Motts, Antioch Parks & Recreation Commission Chairman Rodney McClelland and Member Nora Foster, and Caroleve Prudence Capelle.

Three other candidates pulled papers, including Janice Lipnisky, who was in the July 4th parade as Ms. Antioch Plus Size 2018 and showed up to city hall wearing her sash and crown, Howard Kinsel and Sandi Mauricio. According to Antioch City Clerk Arne Simonsen, Lipnisky told him she has decided to run for the Antioch School Board instead, Kinsel chose not to run due to health issues, and Mauricio did not complete the filing process.

When asked why she decided not to run, Mauricio responded, “I’m going to support another candidate who would like to see the same changes in Antioch. I will run when I have more time to commit to my campaign.”

Motts announced her campaign in February when she filed an intent to run and was the only candidate to do so. (See related article.)

Nora Foster

In a response to emailed questions, Foster stated, “I have decided to run for City Council because for the last 4.5 years, I have called Antioch home. I have always wanted to make a difference in the community in which I live. I love my home, my community, and my City. My goal in running is to contribute to making Antioch a place to be envied. A place where its residences are feel safe and proud to call home.

Although there are many issues that needs attention, my main issues are:

1) Reducing/Eliminating Crime in this City,

2) Bringing businesses to our City (more than just corner stores but big businesses even high tech.),

3) Saving our hiking trails and open spaces.

I am currently a commissioner of Antioch’s Department of Park & Rec. and serving on Contra Costa County’s FACT (Family And Children Trust) committee; however, my term will expire this September. I would like to think that my role as a Park & Rec. commissioner and a committee member of these boards have helped to benefit the City and the County.

I currently hold an undergraduate degree (BS) in Organizational Behavior and a minor in Telecommunications. Additionally, I have a Master’s Degree in Social Work and have worked in the field of Child Welfare for over 10 years.”

Rodney McClelland

McClelland was one of the three leaders of the recent referendum effort to stop the city’s cannabis business district. Although it failed to get the necessary 5,100 signatures within 30 days, they did gather over 3,000 signatures from registered voters in Antioch.

When reached for comment about his background he said, “I’ve been involved with Delta Youth Soccer League and served on the Antioch Youth Sports Complex Board of Directors, as well. Interacting with the city and obtained financial aid for some of the kids. I was involved with the development of the back fields and the maintenance plan.”

In addition, McClelland said he works in sales for a wholesale distributor of parts and supplies to refrigeration, heating and air conditioning contractors.

Asked why he’s running, McClelland responded, “I was born and raised in Antioch and have seen it go through a lot of changes, both good and bad. I’m not happy with some of the decisions the current council has made, specifically with Measure C, and the cannabis issue was not well thought out and planned. I believe the police department is what we should go after for improvements. I know they’ve spent some money from Measure C. But, it’s not enough. We still don’t have enough police officers for a city our size of 119,000 people.”

“During the referendum, I met a lot of folks who were retired, and some were elderly. The greatest concern of most of them was that they don’t feel safe to leave their homes in the evening,” he shared. “It’s not that the police officers we have aren’t doing their job, it’s that we just don’t have enough officers to do the job we need them to do.”

“We need to clean up our city to improve economic development and bring in businesses in the empty spots that we have in order to thrive,” McClelland continued. We need to find more career type jobs, not just retail jobs. Everything hinges on the reputation of our city and what they see when they come into our city.”

“We need to do a better job of making Antioch more attractive to businesses and future homeowners, and current homeowners, which goes without saying,” he said. “We have all this landscaping throughout town. Maybe we need to look at something that requires less maintenance and water, and longer lasting. Something more thought out.”

“One of the other things is, we should continue to refurbish our parks. We’ve done a good job at improving our parks with the First 5 Regional Group, including Prosserville Park, Contra Loma Estates Park, and the Antioch Disk Golf, all-access playground and splash playground at Prewett Park,” McClelland stated. “We need to do more of that and bring more programs into our parks. The more programs, the more community engagement you’ll have. We need something for every age group.”

Tony Tiscareno 

In Tiscareno’s campaign announcement on August 1st he said, “When I ran for election four years ago, I promised to work hard to improve crime prevention efforts, revitalize city services and make Antioch fiscally sound. I have made a positive impact in these and other areas that I care deeply about.”

In the last four years, his announcement continued, Antioch has hired more than 50 new police officers, the city ended employee furloughs and City Hall is open full time.  Staff has been hired to improve city services, including code enforcement.  And, funding was found to provide more youth and senior activities.

“My focus in the next two years is to expand Antioch’s economic growth and attract new businesses and jobs, continue to support our public safety services and hire more police officers, continue to reduce crime, and responsibly manage our budget,” he added.

Tiscareno and his wife have lived in Antioch for almost 50 years. He is a local Realtor.

Lori Ogorchock

After filing her papers on Thursday, Ogorchock made a brief statement in a video on her Facebook page saying, “Hi, Lori Ogorchock, here. I just made it official. Went inside and filed my papers to run for the Antioch City Council for 2018. I need your vote on November 6th. I’m so excited to run for my seat, again. To celebrate I walked down to RiverTown Sweets to get my cookie with everything on it. I look forward to talking and walking with you, this year. Thank you.”

8/17/18 UPDATE: Ogorchock sent out an announcement about her campaign on Thursday, Aug. 16 stating, “Serving you on the Antioch City Council is my greatest honor. I’m a 45-year Antioch resident, a graduate of Antioch High and a local businesswoman. Together, little by little, we are making a difference to improve Antioch’s quality of life. We’ve hired 55+ police officers, balanced our budget, working to create a facility to support victims of domestic violence. We’ve brought BART to Antioch – now we need to lobby BART for more parking at the new station. There is much more work to do. I would be honored to earn your vote this November.”

Ogorchock is also a local Realtor.

Prudence Capelle

8/19/18 UPDATE: Capelle has worked as a Realtor and manager of 12 apartment buildings until she retired in 2012, when she moved to Antioch after having purchased a home in Rivertown in 2010. She has served on the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Public Advisory Committee, and as a volunteer at the Senior Center, teaching the Beginners’ Exercise Class. She is a painter and some of her work has been displayed at the Lynn House Gallery, Antioch Historical Society Museum and Antioch Library.

Capelle said, “I decided to run as a result of seeing a flyer about two seats on the Council at the Antioch Senior Center and felt that as an elder and a woman in our community, I could be a valuable addition to the City Council.” Her main issues are “the lack of cohesion and vision on the Council” and supports support the “Save the Yard” and “Stop the Tunnels” campaigns and is “very interested in community building and addressing solutions to what we can do about global warming/climate change in our city.”

The election will be held Tuesday, November 6. Any candidates who are elected will have to run for reelection, in the district where they live, in the 2020 election.

Council warned by taxpayers association that the funds will be used to pay pension liability

By Allen Payton

During a fourth special meeting of the Antioch City Council to place a sales tax increase measure on the November ballot, on Thursday, August 9, 2018, the two members who voted against the proposal during Tuesday’s meeting, reversed course and joined the other three for a unanimous vote.  (See related article). The issue was the addition of a 20-year termination, or sunset clause, for the tax and inclusion of continuing the citizens oversight of the use of the funds from the measure. Both Mayor Pro Tem Thorpe and Council Member Monica Wilson who developed the tax measure in their ad hoc committee, had opposed the inclusion of those two items. But, since state law requires a two-thirds vote of the council to place a sales tax measure on the ballot at least one of them had to switch their vote to get the necessary four votes.

The measure, if passed by the voters, will double the half-cent sales tax from Measure C passed by the voters in 2013, to a full one cent on each dollar of taxable sales in Antioch. It will increase the revenue from approximately $7 million to about $14 million per year from the additional tax.. (See related article).

Following Interim City Attorney Derek Cole’s explanation for the need of a fourth meeting and apologizing for the oversight during Tuesday’s meeting, he said, “as long as you have four votes, it can be placed on the ballot.”

Thorpe then made a motion to reconsider the council’s action from Tuesday night, and it was seconded by Wilson.

That had to pass, first or the ballot measure could not be placed on the ballot and according to Cole, “It has to come from the prevailing side, which in this case was those who voted ‘no’.”

The motion passed unanimously. Then, the council heard comments from the public

Mayor Sean Wright read a comment by Jeffrey Klingler emailed earlier in the day.

“I’m very disappointed that this resolution is again before the city council because of a technical oversight,” he wrote. “Moreover, I am particularly frustrated at how we got to this point. Because this resolution and ballot language was presented to the city council at the last minute there was limited time for open discussion and consideration of public comment (for which the structured environment of polling is not a substitute). Nonetheless, the numerous special council meetings have allowed for the necessary discussions to take place and the meeting of August 7th should have brought this issue to closure.”

“The ad hoc committee has been working for many months on the quality of life initiative and it is bewildering this issue could not have been considered much earlier,” Klinger continued. “As such, I believe the obligation for passage lies with the members of the ad hoc committee to strike the appropriate compromise. I am confident that will be the outcome.”

“I look forward to a ballot measure that will help our city move forward with the critical funding necessary for its success,” he concluded.

Resident Fred Hoskins spoke next.

“I’m going to say, unfortunately for you I only have three minutes, because I could express a lot of ideas,” he said. “I am extremely disappointed in every one of you. I can’t believe it has been initiated in the first place. I was never surveyed for anything.”

“How can we jam down the throats of the citizens of Antioch another half-cent sales tax? That’s what this is about,” Hoskins stated.

He said that he campaigned against Measure C.

“I said this is not going away. I was right,” he continued. “I have never seen an objective process or projects for the advancement of this city…the land use of downtown has been put on the shelf because they’re too political. No improvements have been made to the waterfront. We have Humphrey’s that’s going to be Smith’s Landing. Great. I hope they’re successful.”

“You offer no solutions, so you as a council look for ways to tax us,” Hoskins said. “You’re sure kicking the can down the road and 20 years is a joke. It ought to be six months and you figure out how to find the revenue.”

Hal Bray, representing Contra Costa Taxpayers Association spoke next.

“We believe that you’re not being completely honest with the people of Antioch about the uses of the revenue from this sales tax,” he stated. “Your pension costs…will double in the next five years. We believe you’re already using tax revenue meant for other services, for pension costs.  We believe you need to put in place a plan to deal with these rising costs. Other cities have put in place plans, such as a 115 Trust and contracting out services.”

Regarding employee pension contributions Bray said, “We believe the cost should be shared 50-50” with employees paying half the cost of their pensions and the city paying the other half. “You could have $4.5 million more for services if you split the costs with your employees.”

“The average Social Security pension is $16,000. The average CalPers pension of a full-time worker is $70,000 and for public safety officer it is $104,000,” he shared. “We believe it’s unfair for the residents of Antioch, so the people can be paid five to six times what the average retiree gets paid. We are ready to meet when you are.”

Antioch Economic Development Commissioner Tim McCall offered the final public comments in favor of the measure.

“First, to Ms. Wilson and Mr. Thorpe, to all the staff who worked on this…I know you all worked very hard. I appreciate your hard work,” he said. “Mrs. Ogorchock, thank you for your conviction and sticking by it. Mayor Wright, thank for being willing to compromise. Mr. Tiscareno, thank you for standing strong on the 20-year sunset.”

“This will not unite Antioch. It is dividing Antioch. We need to pass this,” McCall stated. “Mr. Thorpe, I do agree with you that the original wording would be a feel good. But, the leaders have spoken and said they want a sunset clause. We’re just going to have to campaign harder. I will help you campaign.

“This city needs to be united. The council needs to be united tonight,” he continued. “Let’s not revisit this in nine years. There will be lots of discussion about how to spend this money. It would be a benefit to start that united.”

The council then took up the issue with Thorpe saying, “Thank you Mr. City Attorney for taking responsibility for this small mishap. I believe Councilwoman Wilson and I believe our votes, last time were symbolic…recognizing that we did work hard…and that we were standing by our work. Although we voted no, the next day we were right back at it, working hard to figure out how to pass it.”

He then made a motion to include the 20-year sunset and citizens oversight in the measure. It was seconded by Wilson and the council voted unanimously to place it on the November ballot.

The final ballot language is as follows:

Antioch’s Quality of Life Measure. To maintain Antioch’s fiscal stability, police patrols, 911 emergency response, youth violence prevention programs; ensuring water quality/safety; repairing streets; cleaning up parks/illegal dumping; restoring youth afterschool/summer programs; other essential services; shall the measure be adopted approving an ordinance to renew the sales tax at the one-cent rate, raising approximately $14,000,000 annually,  expiring in twenty years, with mandatory annual independent financial audits, and independent citizens oversight?

The election will be held on Tuesday, November 6 and the measure requires a simple majority of votes to pass.

Claim the two initiatives were the same; defend providing false information to voters; want council to adopt not “Let Antioch Voters Decide” their initiative

Following is an email message sent out Thursday by the Antioch Community to Save Sand Creek whose “Let Antioch Voters Decide: the Sand Creek Area Protection Initiative”, backed by environmental groups, was not placed on the November 2018 ballot by the Antioch City Council as the backers wanted. Instead, the council voted unanimously to adopt the competing initiative by Richland Communities which approved their 1,177-home development, known as “The Ranch” and postponed dealing with the environmental groups’ initiative for 30 days, delaying its appearance on the ballot until March 2020. (See related article).

Email message:

City Council Adopts Richland Developer Initiative, Orders 30-day Study on Our Let Antioch Voters Decide Initiative

Council Can Adopt Our Initiative on Tuesday August 28th (7pm; 200 H St)

This past Tuesday night, with many members of Antioch Community to Save Sand Creek, in attendance, the City Council adopted the initiative backed by Richland developers and ordered a 30-day study on ours.

What Does This Mean? 

In short, three things:

1) more than 1,200 acres of beautiful Antioch scenery, endangered species habitat and creek corridor west of Deer Valley Rd have increased protection,

2) ‘The Ranch’ project (about 1,200 units) is now approved, unless challenged in the next 30 days, and

3) Antioch voters will get to decide if they want any more development west of Deer Valley Rd besides the development envelope associated with ‘The Ranch’. 

This Is A Major Indirect Victory! But How, if the Developers Got Their Initiative Adopted? 

To understand that, first know that the developers would never have done their initiative if we had not drafted, filed, and collected signatures for our own initiative. 

Recognizing they had made a major blunder in not taking us seriously and realizing they had to make some major changes, they basically copied our initiative with one major change: allow an improved version of their project. 

They changed their project to reduce the number of units, provide a wide creek-corridor buffer around Sand Creek, leave the hills alone and buffer Empire Mine Rd so their project doesn’t lead to more development further west. 

So right now, an improved (as described above) ‘The Ranch’ project has been approved, and about 70% of the Sand Creek area west of Deer Valley Rd has development restricted on it. That includes the Zeka Ranch, which is more than 640 acres west of Empire Mine Rd that is surrounded on three sides by East Bay Regional Park District land, the southern hills and Sand Creek. 

What Happens With Our Initiative?  

On Tuesday the Council ordered a 30-day report, also known as a 9212 Report (from the Elections Code) on our Initiative. It’s a purely informational report that basically describes how our Initiative would affect the City’s General Plan, if at all.

Our Let Antioch Voters Decide: the Sand Creek Area Protection Initiative, will be taken up again by the City Council on Tuesday August 28th. 

They will have two options: 1) Adopt it, or 2) put it on the 2020 ballot. 

Since the Richland initiative has a built-in development agreement that takes effect after 30 days, and it was adopted on Tuesday, the Council adopting our Initiative on August 28th wouldn’t affect the approval of ‘The Ranch’.
We want them to adopt our Let Antioch Voters Decide Initiative. It would save the City the expense of having to put it on the ballot and add protections to the Sand Creek Area.

Addressing Council’s Criticism of Antioch Community to Save Sand Creek Member Organizations  
During the discussion of our Initiative by the Council on Tuesday there was a lot of criticism lobbed at Antioch Community to Save Sand Creek members, specifically Save Mount Diablo. Much was made of Councilmembers’ experience that signature gatherers told Antioch residents that there could be 4,000-8,000+ houses approved in the Sand Creek area, and in some cases 50,000 new houses in Antioch overall. The Council thought these were false and misleading claims. There was also criticism related to a member organization, Greenbelt Alliance, not sending a representative to the meeting that night. 

We want to address these claims directly. The below paragraph is from our Frequently Asked Questions sheet, which from the very beginning we made available digitally and in hard-copy. 

Amount of Possible Housing Stated To Public – 4,000-8,000 Units

Before our Initiative, more recent planning attempts and the City’s current General Plan suggested 4,000 units in the Sand Creek Area. But, for each project so far, the city council has amended the General Plan to allow even more houses. The Sand Creek Focus Area includes 2,783 acres. The approved Aviano and Promenade projects east of Deer Valley Rd include 1,183 houses on 281 acres east of Kaiser. There are two other active development applications: At the time, ‘The Ranch’ proposed 1,307 on 552 acres.  ‘Olive Grove’ east of Deer Valley Rd proposes 301 units on 97 acres. In total that’s 2,791 units on 930 acres, just a third of the total acreage. If the city continued to ignore the General Plan at the same pace, that equals 8,352 units on 2,783 acres. So we used a range of 4,000 units suggested in the General Plan and 8,000, suggested by what’s actually taking place.

Paid Signature Gatherers – 50,000 Houses?

As for the 50,000 house claim, Tuesday was the first we’ve heard of it. This is a good point to bring up the fact that about 85% of the official signatures we collected to qualify our Initiative for the ballot were collected by volunteers and staff from member organizations. They were informed about 4,000-8,000 range and communicated this to the public. Towards the end of the signature drive, it became necessary to use paid signature gatherers to get over the last signature hurdle. It’s possible that some of these individuals inflated numbers in the hopes it would yield more signatures, but we hope this was not the case.
Richland’s 50+ Paid Signature Gatherers Confused The Situation

We noted that on Tuesday the Council publicly criticized what they called the misleading claims of some of our signature gatherers, while saying nothing about the Richland initiative, which unlike us, relied entirely on paid signature gatherers. We agree that we witnessed paid signature gatherers saying whatever they thought would get someone to stop and sign. 

Deal Between Save Mount Diablo and Richland?

One Councilmember suggested there was a deal between Save Mount Diablo and Richland. In fact, the Let Antioch Voters Decide initiative is sponsored by a coalition of organizations and individuals. Save Mount Diablo is one member of the coalition, but certainly a significant one.  We have had discussions, tours and all kinds of conversations with Richland for over 3 years before we drafted our initiative, in hopes they would make their project better. By the same token, we’ve had conversations about the same issues with every city council member.  In our opinion, they didn’t make their project better and so we drafted our initiative.
After our initiative was filed we continued meeting with Richland (and separately with every city council member), hoping at the simplest to keep them from going nuclear on our volunteer signature gatherers for as long as possible.  Our efforts are always toward the best conservation outcome we can achieve. During the signature drive, we submitted comments on Richland’s The Ranch project Environmental Impact Report—and the city slowed down the environmental review. When Richland began qualifying a competing initiative, they clearly copied much of the substance of our own initiative, hoping we would not oppose theirs. They also changed their project, making it smaller and including many of the suggestions the public and Save Mount Diablo had made over the previous 3 years. That made things a lot more complicated.
We had plenty of discussions with Richland, but the only deal we had was that neither of us would legally challenge the others’ initiative. Each initiative sponsor would continue pursuing their initiative’s qualification and attempts at getting the City Council to adopt our measures.

Greenbelt Alliance

And finally, regarding the absence of a Greenbelt Alliance representative at the meeting on Tuesday, Greenbelt Alliance is a highly valued partner. The East Bay Field Representative position is currently vacant. Greenbelt Alliance is facing a very high workload with less staff than they normally would have available. Having communicated directly with Greenbelt Alliance, we can confirm that their absence on Tuesday was simply a bandwidth issue and in no way related to any disagreement or controversy related to the Initiative.
Moving On

We hope this puts to rest any questions, concerns or accusations that the Council or anyone in the Antioch community has regarding Antioch Community to Save Sand Creek member organizations, specifically Greenbelt Alliance and Save Mount Diablo. We look forward to constructive relationships in the future with not just the City Council, but all people in Antioch. After all, we still have work to do next month.

Our Next Step Is…Ask Council to Adopt Our Initiative on Tuesday August 28 (7pm; 200 H St)

Please come to the meeting, fill out a speaker card and ask the Council to adopt the ‘Let Antioch Voters Decide: Sand Creek Area Protection Initiative’. If you can’t be there in person, call or email the City Council (list below) and ask them to adopt the Let Antioch Voters Decide Initiative.

Hundreds of volunteers and thousands of Antioch residents who signed helped us get this far. Let’s make the next step a reality!

Antioch City Council Contact Info:
Mayor Sean Wright
(925) 757-3309 – swright@ci.antioch.ca.us
Mayor Pro Tem Lamar Thorpe
(925) 978-4663 – lthorpe@ci.antioch.ca.us
Council Member Lori Ogorchock
(925) 628-7764 – logorchock@ci.antioch.ca.us
Council Member Monica E. Wilson
(925) 628-0749 – mwilson@ci.antioch.ca.us
Council Member Tony G. Tiscareno
(925) 234-3639 – ttiscareno@ci.antioch.ca.us 
THANK YOU!!!

Who We Are

A coalition of Antioch residents and environmental groups, including Save Mount Diablo, California Native Plant Society, Greenbelt Alliance and Sierra Club. We want to keep our community informed about what’s going on. You can unsubscribe from these messages at any time (below). But if you want to influence things and take action, you should join us. Thanks!

— End of email message.

Sends environmental group’s initiative to staff to study for 30 days

By Alexandra Riva

During their meeting on Tuesday, July 24, the Antioch City Council adopted the initiative sponsored by Richland Communities, approving their 1,177-home project in the Sand Creek area, while sending the competing Let The Voters Decide initiative, sponsored by environmental groups, to city staff to study for 30 days.  City staff report on West Sand Creek initiative 072418

The council had three options for each initiative that had garnered enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. They could have either adopted one or both of them, sent them to the November ballot, or send them to staff to study for 30 days and return with a report. Then within 10 days they would still have the options of adopting or sending to the ballot. City staff report on Let Antioch Voters Decide initiative 072418

The first initiative discussed was for ‘The Ranch’ project in the Sand Creek area, that scales back the proposed project by 10% from 1,307 to 1,177 homes and requires the developer to donate $1.2 million to Deer Valley High School for their sports programs. The item was passed unanimously by the council.

Discussed second was an initiative to restrict development in portions of the area which, with five affirmative votes by the council, was sent to staff who must return with a report at a special meeting on August 21. They will then decide at their regular meeting on August 28 whether to adopt it or send it to the ballot for the March 2020 election. Richland’s development agreement will be effective on August 23, 30 days after Tuesday night’s council action. So, if the council adopts the other initiative, although it has conflicting language, it will have no effect on and cannot stop The Ranch project from being built.

Both initiatives restricted development on neighboring Zeka Ranch project, which included between 300-400 homes on 200 of their 640 acres. That has been the target of the environmental groups since the beginning of the planning for the Sand Creek Focus Area, formerly known as Future Urban Area-1.

Both of the issues were hotly debated at the meeting by members of the public who packed the council chambers, for a standing room only audience.

A presentation made by Craig Christina, Richland’s vice president, urged the council to approve the development plan for ‘The Ranch’ project, based on the fact that this would ensure balanced development of the West Sand Creek area. Additionally, he explained that the development of ‘The Ranch’ would create hundreds of local construction jobs and would create a surplus of funds, around half a million dollars or more, for the city.

Many members of the public agreed with what he had to say, including representatives of construction trades unions, the Antioch Chamber of Commerce and the Delta Association of Realtors, citing a need for more housing options in Antioch and how this project will help the city grow, and create local jobs.

However, others asked to have both initiatives sent to staff to study for 30 days, to avoid having them on the November 2018 ballot. One of those was Louisa Zee Kao, president of the Zeka Group, which bought their land located to the west of old Empire Mine Road and The Ranch project, in 1992, saying they had spent millions of dollars and worked with the city in the years, since.

Lawyers representing The Zeka Group has submitted a letter challenging the legality of both initiatives, pointing out flaws in each, to the city and each council member on Monday. Andrew Bassak of the Mannat law firm in San Francisco, spoke to the council expressing his client’s concerns. In addition, former Antioch Council Member and Herald publisher Allen Payton challenged the council about the private property rights of Mrs. Zee Kao. Manatt Letter to Council

In response, Council Member Tony Tiscareno asked Acting City Attorney Derek Cole about the impact on The Zeka Ranch if they adopted Richland’s initiative.

Cole explained that the initiative has a takings exemption clause, stating that if one of the four neighboring property owners feels their property has been devalued, thus taken, they have the opportunity to challenge that and the council will decide. The other initiative has a similar clause, but that one leaves it up to a judge to decide. That satisfied the councilman’s concerns.

Antioch Mayor Sean Wright expressed sentiments about the voting process and how long this issue has been up for debate.

“This has been a frustrating process,” he said. “I think this process stinks. We talk about it going to the voters and that’s where it’s gone. What I’ve learned through this is that ultimately a referendum can stop anything and it’s frustrating. How many times do we have to vote about this land?”

In response to the impending approval of the development plan, which would result in 1,177 more homes for the city, Mayor Pro Tem Lamar Thorpe expressed discontent with the decision.

“I’ve been kind of turned off by all of this…One of the things that I think my friends in the environmental community have always made an issue of are concerns about the environmental sensitivities on [the] property,” he said. “I’ve found it disingenuous the way signatures have been gathered to make this ranch project the focal point, when that was never the intent. And I also found it disheartening that in my discussions leading up to this with Save Mount Diablo, that they didn’t come up here and share their vantage point.”

The leaders of the environmental groups’ initiative, including Seth Adams of Save Mount Diablo, were not in attendance at the meeting, leading some to speculate that a deal had been cut between Richland and the environmental groups. Thorpe specifically mentioned their absence in his comments.

The “Let Antioch Voters Decide” initiative to restrict development in the Sand Creek area west of Deer Valley Road and make the city’s Urban Limit Line permanent. If the council adopted that initiative, it would essentially undo the development of ‘The Ranch’, which had just been approved in the meeting. It was decided that would be sent back to staff for review for 30 days.

One of the three local proponents of that initiative, Michael Amorosa was in attendance at the meeting, but did not speak on either issue.

Many community members against the urban development of the Sand Creek area still came out to share their disapproval and asked the council to adopt the initiative to restrict development.

“We are very proud that together with hundreds of supporters in Antioch and our allies at Greenbelt Alliance, California Native Plant Society, and Sierra Club, we are able to form the Antioch community to save Sand Creek and collect nearly ten thousand signatures, almost 6,000 of which were officially submitted to the city and county to qualify our ‘Let Antioch Voters Decide: Sand Creek Area Protection Initiative’ for the ballot,” said Juan Pablo Galvan, from Save Mount Diablo.

Further, Galvan asserted that by rejecting the development plan, and adopting their initiative, Antioch’s natural resources and scenery would be protected, as well as reducing traffic in the area.

Tiscareno spoke out against the initiative to restrict development in the Sand Creek area, after public comment ended.

“I am, to be honest with you, most angry about this particular one,” he said. “And, it’s not the citizens of Antioch, I truly believe that they are trying to do good things and try to preserve some of the beautiful hills out there but what I’ve heard and what I’ve experienced in the last several months has really disturbed me.”

Tiscareno continued, “…I did come across some of the petitioners. Some of them were good, but a lot of them were misinforming the public. I personally was approached and asked, ‘do you want to see 50 thousand homes built in the city of Antioch’ and I asked them were they got the information.”

He went on to explain that none of the petitioners he encountered could tell him where they got their information, but simply urged him to sign the petition. But, Tiscareno then clarified that not all of the petitioners he spoke with did this.

Council Members Monica Wilson and Ogorchock also shared similar stories, commenting that they had heard that anywhere between four to fifty thousand homes were to be developed in the Sand Creek area, which is false. Ogorchock then called some of the efforts to thwart development by the petitioners ‘deceiving’.

Ultimately, the major decision at the meeting was to go the adoption of ‘The Ranch’ initiative and approval of their project, and to prevent the environmental groups’ initiative from appearing on the November 2018 ballot. It will return to the council for their August 21 and 28 meetings for a final decision.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.