ANNOTATED AGENDA
Antioch City Council
REGULAR MEETING
Including the Antioch City Council acting as
Housing Successor to the Antioch Development Agency
Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2024
Time: 5:15 P.M. – Closed Session
7:00 P.M. – Regular Meeting
Place: Council Chambers
200 ‘H’ Street
Antioch, CA 94509
City Council meetings are televised live on Comcast channel 24, AT&T U-verse channel 99, or live stream (at www.antiochca.gov). Please see the inside cover for detailed Speaker Rules.
PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES BEFORE ENTERING COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
Lamar A. Hernandez-Thorpe, Mayor Ellie Householder, City Clerk Monica E. Wilson, Mayor Pro Tem (District 4) Lauren Posada, City Treasurer Tamisha Torres-Walker, Council Member District 1
Michael Barbanica, Council Member District 2 Kwame P. Reed, Acting City Manager Lori Ogorchock, Council Member District 3 Thomas Lloyd Smith, City Attorney
ACCESSIBILITY: In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and California law, it is the policy of the City of Antioch to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to everyone, including individuals with disabilities. If you are a person with a disability and require information or materials in an appropriate alternative format; or if you require any other accommodation, please contact the ADA Coordinator at the number or address below at least 72 hours prior to the meeting or when you desire to receive services. Advance notification within this guideline will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. The City’s ADA Coordinator can be reached @ Phone: (925) 779-6950, and e-mail: [email protected].
ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL -1- AUGUST 27, 2024
Notice of Availability of Reports
This agenda is a summary of the actions proposed to be taken by the City Council. For almost every agenda item, materials have been prepared by the City staff for the Council's consideration. These materials include staff reports which explain in detail the item before the Council and the reason for the recommendation. The materials may also include resolutions or ordinances which are proposed to be adopted. Unless otherwise noted, City Council actions include a determination that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply. The Council meets regularly on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month at 7:00 p.m., with Closed Sessions often occurring before or after the regular meeting. City Council Agendas, including Staff Reports are posted onto our City’s Website 72 hours before each Council Meeting. To be notified when the agenda packets are posted onto our City’s Website, simply click on this link: Notifications – City of Antioch, California (antiochca.gov) and enter your e- mail
address to subscribe. To view the agenda information, click on the following link: City Council – City of Antioch, California (antiochca.gov) . Questions may be directed to the staff member who prepared the staff report, or to the City Clerk's Office, who will refer you to the appropriate person.
N
otice of Opportunity to Address Council
The public has the opportunity to address the City Council on each agenda item. To address the Council, f
ill out a Speaker Request form and place in the Speaker Card Tray near the City Clerk before the meeting begins. This will enable us to call upon you to speak. Comments regarding matters not on this Agenda may be addressed during the "Public Comments" section. No one may speak more than once on an agenda item or during “Public Comments”. The Speaker Request forms are located at the entrance of the Council Chambers. Please see the Speaker Rules on the inside cover of this Agenda.
5:15
P.M. ROLL CALL – CLOSED SESSION – for Council Members – Council Members District 2 Barbanica, District 3 Ogorchock, Mayor Pro Tem
(District 4) Wilson, and Mayor Hernandez-Thorpe
[Council Member District 1 Torres-Walker – Absent]
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PUBLIC COMMENTS for Closed Session
CLOSED SESSION:
1) CO
NFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION –
pursuant to California Government Code section 54956.9: Susana Shippam v. City of Antioch, Superior Court of California Contra Costa County (Case No.
C22-01129).
City Council voted to approve to settle case in the amount of $85,000, 5 /0
2) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION, Initiation of litigation pursuant to California Government Code section 54956.9(c): Three Cases.
Direction provided to City Attorney
3) PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: ACTING CITY
MANAGER. This closed session is authorized pursuant to California Government Code section 54957(b)(1).
No reportable action
ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL -2- AUGUST 27, 2024
CLOSED SESSION – Continued
4) PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: CITY
ATTORNEY. This closed session is authorized pursuant to California Government Code section 54957(b)(1).
No reportable action
5) A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT: CITY MANAGER. This closed session is authorized pursuant to California Government Code section 54957(b)(1).
B. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS – pursuant to California Government Code section 54957.6. City designated representatives:
Human Resources Director Ana Cortez and City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith. Employee Organization: Unrepresented Employee – City Manager Candidate.
No reportable action
5:29
P.M. MOTIONED TO ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
7:10
P.M. ROLL CALL – REGULAR MEETING – for City /City Council Members acting as Housing Successor to the Antioch Development Agency – All Present
P
LEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITY ATTORNEY TO REPORT OUT ON CLOSED SESSION
1. INTRODUCTION OF NEW CITY EMPLOYEES
2. PROCLAMATIONS
• International Overdose Awareness Day, August 31, 2024 • Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, September 2024
Approved, 5/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council approve the proclamations.
ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL -3- AUGUST 27, 2024
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF CIVIC AND COMMUNITY EVENTS
T HE “YOCH” TEEN VOLUNTEER PROGRAM – Visit: antiochca.gov/Youth MAYOR’S APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM (MAP) – Visit: antiochca.gov/MAP
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF BOARD AND COMMISSION OPENINGS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MOSQUITO & VECTOR CONTROL BOARD
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
P
UBLIC COMMENTS – Members of the public may comment only on unagendized items.
The public may comment on agendized items when they come up on this Agenda.
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COMMUNICATIONS
MAYOR’S COMMENTS
5. CONSENT CALENDAR for City /City Council Members acting as Housing Successor to the Antioch Development Agency
A. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 23, 2024 Approved, 5/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council approve the Meeting Minutes.
B. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 13, 2024 Continued, 5/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council continue the Meeting Minutes.
C. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL WARRANTS
Approved, 5/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council approve the warrants.
D. APPROVAL OF HOUSING SUCCESSOR WARRANTS
Approved, 5/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council approve the warrants.
ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL -4- AUGUST 27, 2024
CONSENT CALENDAR for City /City Council Members acting as Housing Successor to the Antioch Development Agency – Continued
E. APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSAL FROM LILYPAD EV UTILIZING THE SOURCEWELL COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT NO. 04221 -CPI FOR PHASE 1 OF THE ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE TRANSITION PROJECT (P.W. 690-1)
Reso No. 2024/118 adopted, 5/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution:
1) A pproving the proposal from Lilypad EV to purchase twelve (12) electric vehicle chargers supplied by ChargePoint in the amount of $195,895 utilizing the Sourcewell Cooperative Purchasing Agreement No. 04221-CPI for Phase 1 of the Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Project; and
2) Authorizing the Acting City Manager to execute the cooperative purchasing agreement.
F. CONSIDERATION OF BIDS FOR THE JACOBSEN PARK RENOVATIONS (P.W. 59-P2) Reso No. 2024/119 adopted, 5/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution awarding the construction agreement to the lowest, responsive, and responsible bidder, Frontline General Engineering
Construction, Inc., for the Jacobsen Park Renovations in the amount of $595,830.55 with an additional $100,000 contingency for a total project budget of $695,830.55 and authorizing the Acting City Manager to execute the construction agreement.
G. FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE MAINTENANCE SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH DC ELECTRIC GROUP INC. FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGER INSTALLATIONS Reso No. 2024/120 adopted, 5/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution:
1) Approving the first amendment to the Maintenance Service Agreement with DC Electric Group Inc. extending the contract term for an additional two years and amending the scope to include electric vehicle charger installations increasing the agreement by $145,000 and a 20 percent contingency in the amount of $29,000 for a total increase amount of $174,000, bringing the total agreement amount to $2,174,000; and
2) Authorizing the Acting City Manager to execute the
amendment to the agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney.
ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL -5- AUGUST 27, 2024
CONSENT CALENDAR for City /City Council Members acting as Housing Successor to the Antioch Development Agency – Continued
H. APPROVAL OF THE REPLACEMENT PURCHASE OF A CATERPILLAR WHEEL LOADER MODEL CAT 914 UTILIZING A SOURCEWELL COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT WITH PETERSON CAT AGREEMENT NO. 011723-CAT
Reso No. 2024/121 adopted, 5/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution:
1) Approving the replacement purchase of one (1) new 2024 Caterpillar Wheel Loader Model CAT 914 utilizing a Sourcewell Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Peterson Cat
Agreement No. 011723- CAT in the amount not to exceed
$209,152; and
2) Authorizing the Acting City Manager to execute the Sourcewell cooperative purchasing Agreement No. 011723 with Peterson CAT in a form approved by the City Attorney.
I. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING COMPLETED IMPROVEMENTS, AUTHORIZING FILING A
NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF BONDS FOR AVIANO SUBDIVISION PHASE 3 IMPROVEMENTS NOT PREVIOUSLY ACCEPTED WITH CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2023/142, TRACT NO. 9489 (P.W. 676-3) Reso No. 2024/122 adopted, 5/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution accepting completed improvements, authorizing the Acting City Manager or designee to file a notice of completion and authorizing the release of bonds for Aviano Subdivision Phase 3, Tract No. 9489 (P.W. 676-3) Aviano Phase 3 improvements not previously accepted per City Council Resolution 2023/142.
ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL -6- AUGUST 27, 2024
CONSENT CALENDAR for City /City Council Members acting as Housing Successor to the Antioch Development Agency – Continued
J. RESOLUTION APPROVING PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT AGREEMENT NO. HSIPSL - 5038(029) TO ADMINISTERING AGENCY -STATE AGREEMENT NO. 04 -5038S21 FOR
STATE FUNDS FROM THE HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP) AND APPROVING A FISCAL YEAR 2024/25 BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF HAWK SIGNALS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS (P.W. 282-25)
Reso No. 2024/123 adopted, 5/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution:
1) Authorizing the Acting City Manager or designee to execute the Program Supplement Agreement No. HSIPSL- 5038(029) to
Administering Agency -State Agreement No. 04- 5038S21 for State funds from the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) for the Installation of Hawk Signals at Various
Locations; and
2) Approving an amendment to allocate $70,000 in the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Traffic Signal Operating Budget for preliminary engineering for the Installation of Hawk Signals at Various Locations.
PUBLIC HEARING
6. INTRODUCTION OF THE JUST CAUSE EVICTION ORDINANCE
To September 10, 2024, for adoption incorporating two amendments, 5/0 Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council introduce by title only and waive further reading of the Ordinance Adding Chapter 6 of Title 11 of the Antioch Municipal Code Providing Just Cause Eviction Protection within the City of Antioch.
COUNCIL MEMBER BARBANICA RECUSE D HIMSELF PRIOR TO THE DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #7.
7. GOOD CHANCE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PRE2023-0004) Council consensus to not approve.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council provide feedback to the applicant and staff regarding the proposal and provide direction to the applicant for the entitlement submittal.
COUNCIL MEMBER BARBANICA RETURNED TO THE DAIS AFTER PUBLIC HE ARING ITEM #7
ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL -7- AUGUST 27, 2024
PUBLIC HEARING – Continued
8. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE: APPROVING COUNCILMEMBER INCREASES IN SALARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH S ENATE BILL 329. THE COUNCIL PAY WILL INCREASE FROM $1,604 PER MONTH TO $1,900 PER MONTH AND WILL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL IS SEATED AFTER THE NOVEMBER 2024 ELECTION.
To September 10, 2024, for Adoption, 4/1 (Ogorchock – No) Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council introduce by title only and waive the further reading of the ordinance increasing
councilmember compensation to one thousand nine hundred dollars ($1,900) per month for a total of twenty-two thousand eight hundred dollars ($22,800) per year.
COUNCIL REGULAR AGENDA
9. APPOINTMENT OF BESSIE M. SCOTT AS CITY MANAGER AND APPROVAL OF AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH BESSIE M. SCOTT FOR CITY MANAGER
SERVICES
Appointed Bessie M. Scott as City Manager for a term of two years with an annual salary of $263,880 (Salary Schedule Step B); and approved reimbursement of additional moving expenses up to $20,000, 3/2 (Barbanica, Ogorchock - No) Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council
1) A pprove the Agreement appointing Bessie M. Scott as City Manager for a term of two years with an annual salary of $________ (Salary Schedule Step __);
2) A pprove reimbursement of additional moving expenses up to __________; and
3)
Authorize the Mayor to sign the Agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney.
ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL -8- AUGUST 27, 2024
COUNCIL MEMBER TORRES-WALKER MADE A MOTION TO TABLE ITEM #10, 11, AND 12 TO THE SEPTEMBER 10, 2024, COUNCIL MEETING TO BE HEARD, APPROVED 5/0
COUNCIL REGULAR AGENDA – Continued
10. 2023 ANNUAL MILITARY EQUIPMENT REPORT
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the 2023 Annual Military Equipment Report.
11. RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 2405, “CHALLENGES FACING THE CITY OF ANTIOCH”
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution to approve the response to the Grand Jury report: “Challenges Facing the City of Antioch” and authorize the Mayor to sign it.
12. DESIGNATION OF A VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE DELEGATE FOR THE
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND AUTHORIZATION FOR ASSOCIATED CONFERENCE EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $2,238 PER PARTICIPANT
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council appoint a Voting Delegate and Alternate Delegate for the 2024 League of California Cities Annual Conference. It is further recommended that the Council authorize the associated conference expenses for one participant in an amount not to exceed $2,238.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS – Council Members report out various activities and any Council Member may place an item for discussion and direction on a future agenda. Timing determined by Mayor and Acting City Manager – no longer than 90 days.
MOTION TO ADJOURN – After Council Communications and Future Agenda Items, the Mayor will make a motion to adjourn the meeting. A second motion is required, and then a majority vote is required to adjourn the meeting.
Motioned to adjourn meeting at 11:09 p.m., 5/0
INTERNATIONAL OVERDOSE AWARENESS DAY
August 31, 2024
WHEREAS, the City of Antioch affirms and acknowledges the harm and hardship caused by drug overdose;
WHEREAS, the purpose of International Overdose Awareness Day is to remember loved ones lost to overdose and to end the stigma surrounding substance use disorder (“SUD”)
and drug-related deaths;
WHEREAS, we aspire to play our part in reducing the toll of overdose in our community, which continues to claim the lives of Antioch community members every year and forever affects those who loved and cared about them; and
WHEREAS, the people affected by overdose are sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, and deserving of our love, compassion, support and remembrance.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, LAMAR A. HERNANDEZ-THORPE, Mayor of the City of Antioch, along with the Contra Costa County MEDS Coalition and other community partners hereby proclaim that August 31, 2024 is International Overdose Awareness Day throughout the City of Antioch.
AUGUST 27, 2024
______________________________________
LAMAR A. HERNANDEZ-THORPE, Mayor
2.01 08/27/24
CHILDHOOD CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
September 2024
WHEREAS, childhood cancer is the leading cause of death by disease in children. One in 285 children in the United States will be diagnosed by their 20thbirthday; WHEREAS, 46 children per day or 16,790 children per year are diagnosed with cancer in the United States. The average age of diagnosis is 6 years old; WHEREAS, 80% of childhood cancer patients are diagnosed late and with metastatic disease.
On average there’s been a 0.6 percent increase in incidence per year since the mid 1970’s resulting in an overall incidence increase of 24 percent over the last 40 years;
WHEREAS, two-thirds of childhood cancer patients will have chronic health conditions as a result of their treatment toxicity, with one-quarter being classified as severe or life-threatening.
In the last 30 years, only six new drugs have been approved by the FDA to specifically treat childhood cancer;
WHEREAS, approximately one-half of childhood cancer families rate the associated financial toxicity due to out-of-pocket expenses as considerable to severe. The National Cancer Institute recognizes the unique research needs of childhood cancer and the associated need for increased funding to carry this out; WHEREAS, hundreds of non-profit organizations at the local and national level are helping children with cancer and their families cope through educational, emotional, and financial support; and
WHEREAS, researchers and healthcare professionals work diligently dedicating their expertise to treat and cure children with cancer. Too many children are affected by this deadly disease and more must be done to raise awareness and find a cure.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, LAMAR A. HERNANDEZ-THORPE, Mayor of the City of Antioch, hereby proclaim that September is Childhood Cancer Awareness Month and support finding a cure for the cause that so deeply impacts families in every community across our country.
AUGUST 27, 2024
______________________________
LAMAR A. HERNANDEZ-THORPE, Mayor 2.02
08/27/24
BOARD / COMMISSION / COMMITTEE
VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENTS
Phone: (925) 779-7009 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK200 H Street/P.O. Box 5007 [email protected] Antioch, CA. 94531-5007
https://bit.ly/COA-BC23 AntiochIsOpportunity.com
The City of Antioch urges residents to become involved in their local community! One way to do so is to serve on the various Boards,
Commissions, and Committees. Any interested resident is encouraged to apply for the vacancies by :00
p.m. on
CONTRA COSTA MOSQUITO & VECTOR CONTROL BOARD
o One (1) vacancy, expiring April 2026
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
o Two (2) vacancies, expiring June 2025
o Three (3) vacancies, expiring June 2027
o One (1) Chamber of Commerce vacancy, expiring June 2027 To be considered for the vacancy position(s) listed
above, please fill out an application available on
the City’s website at https://bit.ly/COA-BC23.
Printed applications are also available at Antioch
City Hall, 200 H Street, Antioch, CA.
Please return the completed application by the
deadline date listed above, by email to:
[email protected]. You can also drop off the
application (Attn: City Clerk), in the water billing drop- off box outside Antioch City Hall.
Your interest and desire to serve our community can make a difference.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MOSQUITO &
VECTOR CONTROL BOARD OF TRUSTEES
One (1) Vacancy, expiring April 2026
Extended Deadline Date: By 5:00 p.m.,, 2024
The City of Antioch encourages residents to become involved in their local community.
One way to do so is to serve on various commissions, boards, and committees. Any interested resident is encouraged to apply.
Purpose:
The Board of Trustees are officials appointed by their respective city councils to govern the Mosquito and Vector Control District knowledgeably and effectively. They serve without compensation for a term of two to four years and are highly dedicated to this community service.
Additional information regarding the responsibilities and duties are available online at www.contracostamosquito.com.
Qualifications:
To be eligible, you must be an Antioch resident and a Contra Costa County taxpayer who is at least 18 years old and interested in any of the following areas: public health, public policy, wetlands, farming, community education, finance, personnel, or land development.
Meetings:
Board meets on the second Monday of every other the month starting January at 7:00 p.m., and occasionally, it may be necessary to hold a special Board meeting.
Location:
Meetings are to be held at the District Office address, located at 155 Mason Circle, Concord If you are interested in pursuing volunteer positions with the City of Antioch, please complete an application and submit it via email to [email protected], or mail/deliver it to the Office of the City Clerk, by the deadline date mentioned above.
Applications must include your responses to the Questionnaire to be considered.
Applications are available on the City’s website at:
https://bit.ly/COA-BC23, and at the City Clerk’s Office.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Two (2) Vacancies, expiring June 2025
Three (3) Vacancies, expiring June 2027
One (1) Chamber of Commerce Vacancy, expiring June 2027 Deadline Date: By 5:00 p.m., , 2024
The City of Antioch encourages residents to become involved in their local community. One way to do so is to serve on various commissions, boards, and committees. Any interested resident is encouraged to apply.
Purpose:
Economic Development Commission serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council in matters pertaining to economic development issues within the City and makes recommendations to the City Council and staff regarding policies, regulations, marketing, development strategies and planning activities designed to enhance the City’s economic base and create quality jobs.
Committee Seats:
Seven (7) Members, 4-year terms.
o At least five (5) members shall be Antioch residents/electors. Non-resident members shall own or operate a business in the City of Antioch.
o Members with backgrounds in commercial real estate, marketing or investment banking are strongly preferred.
o Antioch Chamber of Commerce shall recommend one member.
Meetings:
Regular meetings are held at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 200 H Street, Antioch CA.
First Tuesday in February, April, June, October, and December.
Third Tuesday in July.
First Tuesday on an as-needed basis only, in March, May, and November.
No Meetings are held during January or August
Additional Requirements:
Commissioners are required to submit the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) Form 700 (Statement of Economic Interests) upon assuming office, and every year thereafter.
Commissioners are required to complete a 2-hour online AB1234 Ethics training course within one year of their appointment.
Newly appointed and reappointed members are required to take an Oath of Office administered by the City Clerk.
To be considered for these volunteer position(s), a completed application must be emailed to:
[email protected], or mailed/delivered to the Office of the City Clerk, by the deadline date listed above. Applications are available on the City’s website at: https://bit.ly/COA-BC23, and at the City Clerk’s Office.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
INCLUDING THE ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL
ACTING AS HOUSING SUCCESSOR
TO THE ANTIOCH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Regular Meeting July 23, 2024
7:00 P.M. Council Chambers
6:00 P.M. - CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Hernandez-Thorpe called the Closed Session to order at 6:01 P.M., and City Clerk Householder called the roll.
Present: Council Members District 1 Torres-Walker, District 2 Barbanica, District 3 Ogorchock and Mayor Hernandez-Thorpe
Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Wilson
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Hernandez-Thorpe led the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL EXISTING LITIGATION pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9: William Butcher v. City of Antioch, et al. United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No.: 3:23-cv-04328).
2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS pursuant to California Government Code section 54956.8; Property: 275 W. Tregallas Road, Antioch, CA; Agency Negotiation: City of Antioch Negotiators: Kwame P. Reed, Acting City Manager and Thomas Lloyd Smith, City Attorney; Negotiating Parties: Richard Hobin, Esq.; Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment.
3. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RECRUITMENT OF CITY MANAGER. This closed session is authorized pursuant to California Government Code section 54957(b)(1).
PUBLIC COMMENTS None
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Hernandez-Thorpe adjourned to Closed Session at 6:03 P.M.
7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Hernandez-Thorpe called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. in honor of Volunteer Police Reserve Officer and Volunteer in Police Service (VIP) Frank Rupani, and City Clerk Householder called the roll.
Present: Council/Agency Members District 1 Torres-Walker, District 2 Barbanica, District 3 Ogorchock and Mayor Hernandez-Thorpe
Absent: Mayor Pro Tem (District 4) Wilson A
08-27-24
ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL
HOUSING SUCCESSOR
Regular Meeting
July 23, 2024 Page 2 of 10
Mayor Hernandez-Thorpe led a moment of silence for Frank Rupani.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Hernandez-Thorpe led the Pledge of Allegiance.
volunteer, professional and military
service.
CITY ATTORNEY TO REPORT OUT ON CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Smith reported the City Council had been in Closed Session and gave the following report: #1 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL EXISTING LITIGATION, City Council authorized a settlement in the amount of $99,000, by a 4-0 vote, #2 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS, Direction given to Acting City Manager and City Attorney; and, #3 PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RECRUITMENT OF CITY MANAGER, no reportable action.
1. INTRODUCTION OF NEW CITY EMPLOYEES
Mayor Hernandez-Thorpe recognized the Springboard Interns in attendance this evening.
Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer Buenting introduced Dylan DeOliveira, General Laborer and Zachary Lang, Collection Systems Worker I who stated they looked forward to serving the citizens of Antioch.
Director of Public Safety and Community Resources Johnson introduced Joshua Harrison, Community Engagement Coordinator who was not in attendance this evening.
Finance Director Merchant introduced Shameka Shavies, Accountant I, who stated she looked forward to serving the citizens of Antioch.
Interim Police Chief Addington introduced Hunter Whitson, Ryan Tryner, Richardo Mayorga Esquivez and Pedro Morales-Diaz Police Officers and Sara Martin, Police Dispatcher who stated they looked forward to serving the citizens of Antioch.
Interim Police Chief Addington administered the Oath of Honor to the new Antioch Police Department (APD) employees.
2. PROCLAMATION
Japan
On motion by Councilmember Ogorchock, seconded by Councilmember Barbanica the City Council members present unanimously approved the proclamation.
ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL
HOUSING SUCCESSOR
Regular Meeting
July 23, 2024 Page 3 of 10
Acting Assistant City Manager/Director of Parks and Recreation Helfenberger gave a history of the Sister City Program and thanked the host families. He introduced members of the Sister City Delegation from Chichibu, Japan, who gave introductory comments.
The Sister City Delegation presented gifts to the City Council and staff.
Mayor Hernandez-Thorpe thanked the host families for accommodating the Sister City Delegation.
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF CIVIC AND COMMUNITY EVENTS
Members of the Antioch Springboard Internship Project thanked Council for the creation of their program and announced the following civic and community events:
ANTIOCH YOUTH SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS
Back 2 School Bowling August 6, 2024, at Delta Bowl
Tutoring Program - August 19 December 18, 2024
Sustainable Leaders in Action Presents: Green Dreams: Imagining a Sustainable Tomorrow Summer Art Contest Now through July 31, 2024
Acting Assistant City Manager/Director of Parks and Recreation Helfenberger announced the following civic and community events:
ANTIOCH RECREATION CENTER SPECIAL EVENTS
Multicultural Festival August 10, 2024 - Williamson Ranch Park Summer Concert Series August 8, 15, and 22, 2024 - Prewett Family Park Hillside
Councilmember Ogorchock announced the Rotary Cornhole Tournament would be held on July 27, 2024, at Prewett Park.
Mayor Hernandez-Thorpe highlighted the value of the Springboard Internship Program.
4. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF BOARD AND COMMISSION OPENINGS
City Clerk Householder announced the following Board and Commission openings.
Economic Development Commission
Parks and Recreation Commission
Contra Costa County Mosquito & Vector Control Board
open positions on the
Antioch Police Crime Prevention Commission.
ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL
HOUSING SUCCESSOR
Regular Meeting
July 23, 2024 Page 4 of 10
Acting City Manager Reed responded that at a previous meeting Council had directed staff to prepare a resolution for the formation of an ad hoc committee to propose the future mission and purpose of a Public Safety and Community Resource Commission, in lieu of the Antioch Police Crime Prevention Commission.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Madison Fordyce - Silva, Dozier Libby Medical High School Student/Springboard Intern and Leslie May discussed the importance of addressing long-term solutions for the unhoused.
Dominic Washington, Antioch High School Student/Springboard Intern, discussed environmental issues in Antioch.
Ralph Hernandez, Antioch resident, announced the passing of former City employee William B.
Davis and requested Council agendize recognition of Mr. Davis.
Patricia Granados requested Council provide a zoom option for public participation at Council meetings. She questioned what was delaying the investigation of the APD.
Krystle Law Brooks discussed her outreach efforts and the needs of the unhoused community.
Tachina Garrett expressed concern regarding the actions of a homeless individual in downtown Antioch and discussed the needs of the unhoused community.
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COMMUNICATIONS
Councilmember Torres-Walker reported on her attendance at the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Standing Committee meeting and announced a Cannabis Standing Committee would be held soon. She thanked Interim Police Chief Addington, City Attorney Smith and Acting Assistant City Manager Helfenberger for assisting her with the civil standby policy. She discussed services the City provided unhoused residents and spoke in support of Antioch taking additional actions to assist the unhoused.
Councilmember Barbanica discussed the importance of improving customer service in Antioch.
Councilmember Ogorchock announced SB-1 funds had been released and encouraged the City advocate for those funds.
Mayor Hernandez-Thorpe announced he would be attending a Tri Delta Transit meeting on July 24, 2024, and the Mayors conference next week.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR for City /City Council Members acting as Housing Successor to the Antioch Development Agency
ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL
HOUSING SUCCESSOR
Regular Meeting
July 23, 2024 Page 5 of 10
A. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JUNE 25, 2024
B. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL WARRANTS
C. APPROVAL OF HOUSING SUCCESSOR WARRANTS
D. REJECTION OF CLAIM: A.J. JACKSON
E. ORDINANCE NO. 2239-C-S SECOND READING ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 4 TO TITLE 4 (PUBLIC SAFETY) OF THE ANTIOCH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO: ORGANIZING, ADVERTISING, AND BEING A SPECTATOR AT STREET RACING, SIDESHOWS, AND RECKLESS DRIVING EXHIBITIONS (Introduced on June 25, 2024)
F. RESOLUTION NO. 2024/97 AWARD OF A WEBMASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH DIGITAL SERVICES
G. RESOLUTION NO. 2024/98 AWARD OF A WEBSITE CONTENT MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM AGREEMENT WITH CIVICPLUS FOR WEB CENTRAL
H. RESOLUTION NO. 2024/99 SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KLEINFELDER, INC. FOR MATERIAL TESTING AND
SPECIAL INSPECTION SERVICES RELATED TO THE CONTRA LOMA ESTATES PARK RENOVATION (P.W. 298-P3)
I. RESOLUTION NO. 2024/100 ROAD MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION ACCOUNT (P.W. 707)
J. RESOLUTION NO. 2024/101 PART-TIME OFFICE ASSISTANT
K. RESOLUTION NO. 2024/102 -
SELECTION OF RUBICON PROGRAMS AS THE THIRD-PARTY PROVIDER FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE MAP AND AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR UP TO $340,000
L. RESOLUTION NO. 2024/103 APPROVAL REAPPROPRIATING UNSPENT FISCAL YEAR 2024 YOUTH NETWORK SERVICES CONTRACTUAL SERVICES TO FISCAL YEAR 2025
On motion by Councilmember Ogorchock, seconded by Mayor Hernandez-Thorpe, the City Council members present unanimously approved the Council Consent Calendar with the exception of Item E, which was removed for further discussion.
Item E Ralph Hernandez spoke in support of Council approving the ordinance and offered suggestions for strengthening penalties.
ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL
HOUSING SUCCESSOR
Regular Meeting
July 23, 2024 Page 6 of 10
Alexander Broom spoke in support of Council approving the ordinance and suggested defining spectators/participants.
Councilmember Ogorchock requested staff determine if the following items could be added to the ordinance at a later date: impounding vehicles until court date, increasing fines and establishing fines for the use of City resources.
In response to Councilmember Torres-Walker, Interim Police Chief Addington provided an overview of sideshow activities in response to those events.
City Attorney Smith commented that the fines collected would not be delivered to the City.
Councilmember Torres-Walker stated the City would not be receiving any physical benefits by passing this ordinance.
On motion by Councilmember Barbanica, seconded by Councilmember Ogorchock the City Council approved Item E. The motion carried the following vote:
Ayes: Barbanica, Ogorchock, Thorpe Abstain: Torres-Walker Absent: Wilson
PUBLIC HEARING
6. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONFIRM AND LEVY OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS FOR STREET LIGHT AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS 1 - HILLCREST; 2A -ANTIOCH/CITY WIDE; 4 - DOWNTOWN; 5 - ALMONDRIDGE; 9 - LONE TREE WAY; AND 10 - EAST LONE TREE WAY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024/2025 (P.W. 500)
Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer Buenting presented the staff report dated July 23, 2024, recommending the City Council adopt a resolution ordering improvements and levying annual assessments for Street Light and Landscape Maintenance Districts 1 - Hillcrest; 2A - Antioch/City Wide; 4 - Downtown; 5 - Almondridge; 9 - Lone Tree Way; and 10 - East Lone Tree Way for Fiscal Year 2024/2025.
Mayor Hernandez-Thorpe opened the Public Hearing.
Ralph Hernandez opposed the levy of annual assessments for the Street Lighting and Landscape Maintenance Districts. He questioned where the funds would be allocated.
Leslie May discussed safety concerns related to the lack of sufficient lighting and landscaping in downtown Antioch.
An unidentified speaker discussed safety concerns related to the lack of sufficient lighting and landscaping throughout Antioch.
Mayor Hernandez-Thorpe closed the Public Hearing.
ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL
HOUSING SUCCESSOR
Regular Meeting
July 23, 2024 Page 7 of 10
Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer Buenting explained the revenues from these assessments went towards maintenance in the Street Lighting and Landscape Maintenance Districts and the General Fund also subsidized these districts. He commented that only four districts changed with three having slight increases to cover costs. He noted this was a necessary levy and fell in line with past practice.
Councilmember Torres-Walker explained that lighting and landscaping improvements could be addressed through the CIP or budget process.
Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer Buenting stated there was a streetlight replacement project within the CIP and they addressed any reported issues whenever possible.
Mayor Hernandez-Thorpe commented that the City had invested in improving landscaping throughout Antioch.
RESOLUTION NO. 2024/104
On motion by Councilmember Barbanica, seconded by Councilmember Ogorchock the City Council members present unanimously adopted a resolution ordering improvements and levying annual assessments for Street Light and Landscape Maintenance Districts 1 - Hillcrest; 2A - Antioch/City Wide; 4 - Downtown; 5 - Almondridge; 9 - Lone Tree Way; and 10 - East Lone Tree Way for Fiscal Year 2024/2025.
COUNCIL REGULAR AGENDA
7. CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY BILL (AB) 844: GREEN EMPOWERMENT ZONE
Acting City Manager Reed introduced Economic Development Program Manager Sweet who presented the staff report dated July 23, 2024, recommending the City Council adopt a resolution representative who shall serve a two (2) year term.
An unidentified speaker current representative had not pursued an affordable housing project and stated he did not recommend Mayor Hernandez-Thorpe be nominated for this committee.
Mayor Hernandez-Thorpe clarified that this body was in the initial research phase of exploring job opportunities in the green industry.
Councilmember Ogorchock suggested appointing a representative who was not up for election this year.
RESOLUTION NO. 2024/105
ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL
HOUSING SUCCESSOR
Regular Meeting
July 23, 2024 Page 8 of 10
On motion by Councilmember Ogorchock, seconded by Mayor Hernandez-Thorpe the City Council adopted
Empowerment Zone and appointed Councilmember Torres-Walker as the representative who shall serve a two (2) year term. The motion carried the following vote:
Ayes: Barbanica, Ogorchock, Thorpe Abstain: Torres-Walker Absent: Wilson
8. KWMA COLLECTIVE: REVIEW AND POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
PROPOSED CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP
Assistant City Attorney Kundinger presented the staff report dated July 23, 2024, recommending in ownership.
In response to Councilmember Ogorchock, City Attorney Smith explained the delay in bringing this item to Council was attributed to staff waiting for supporting documents.
A motion was made to by Councilmember Ogorchock and seconded by Councilmember Torres- Walker to consider adopting the resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 2024/106
A substitute motion was made by Councilmember Ogorchock, seconded by Councilmember Torres-Walker to
ownership. The motion passed unanimously by the Councilmembers present.
9. RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE DECOMMISSIONING OF THE ANTIOCH-PITTSBURG
SAN JOAQUINS PASSENGER STOP (AMTRAK STATION)
Acting City Manager Reed presented the staff report dated July 23, 2024, recommending the City Council adopt a resolution opposing the decommissioning of the Antioch-Pittsburg San Joaquins Passenger Stop (Amtrak Station) in Antioch.
Leslie May, Eddie Gums ACCE Antioch and an unidentified speaker spoke in support of the resolution opposing decommissioning of the Antioch Amtrak Station.
An unidentified speaker gave a history of rail service to Antioch and discussed the negative impacts of decommissioning the Antioch Amtrak Station.
In response to Councilmember Ogorchock, Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer Buenting explained that the 2nd Street improvements within the CIP had been reassigned to Amtrak Station Improvements. He clarified that he had made the original change since the Amtrak Station was going to be decommissioned so the improvements could remain in the area.
RESOLUTION NO. 2024/107
ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL
HOUSING SUCCESSOR
Regular Meeting
July 23, 2024 Page 9 of 10
On motion by Councilmember Ogorchock, seconded by Councilmember Torres-Walker the City Council members present unanimously adopted a resolution opposing the decommissioning of the Antioch-Pittsburg San Joaquins Passenger Stop (Amtrak Station) in Antioch.
10. CITY COUNCIL REQUESTED DISCUSSION ITEM: POTENTIAL OF CREATION OF
DIVERSITY, EQUITY, INCLUSION, AND BELONGING (DEIB) OFFICER POSITION
Chima Luo, Springboard Intern, spoke in support of the creation of a Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging Officer position.
Councilmember Torres-Walker explained that she had brought this item forward for Council consideration at the request of an employee who had expressed a need for this position. She also requested Council consider establishing an Ad Hoc Committee to create policies around human rights and racial equity. Lastly, she requested an update from staff regarding this position.
Acting City Manager Reed reported that he had been working with staff to develop an RFP for an assessment on how to formulate policies that could be implemented by the City.
Following discussion, Council consensus directed staff to continue to pursue an assessment with the creation of this position.
11. CITY COUNCIL REQUESTED DISCUSSION ITEM: POTENTIAL OF CREATION OF
HEALTH AND SAFETY ANALYST POSITION FOR THE HUMAN RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT
Councilmember Torres-Walker explained that she had brought this item forward for Council consideration at the request of a staff member who had expressed a need for this position. She requested this item be tabled to allow time for additional conversations with Acting City Manager Reed.
On motion by Councilmember Torres-Walker, seconded by Councilmember Ogorchock the City Council members present unanimously tabled the item.
PUBLIC COMMENT
An unidentified speaker expressed concern about limited hours and capacity issues at the Antioch Animal Shelter. He urged Council to reach out to him to discuss housing developments for the unsheltered.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Acting City Manager Reed thanked Acting Assistant City Manager Helfenberger and the Park and Recreation staff for their work on City events during the month of July.
City Attorney Smith thanked the Springboard Interns for their attendance this evening.
ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL
HOUSING SUCCESSOR
Regular Meeting
July 23, 2024 Page 10 of 10
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Torres-Walker thanked the public for their comments this evening. She requested an update on the Tobacco Ordinance. She discussed accusations against Councilmembers and encouraged everyone to think critically.
Councilmember Barbanica commented that the Tobacco Ordinance would be coming back to Council in the future.
Mayor Hernandez-Thorpe stated it was good seeing everyone this evening and wished everyone a good night.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Mayor Hernandez-Thorpe, seconded by Councilmember Torres-Walker to adjourn the meeting in honor of Frank Rupani.
A substitute motion was made by Mayor Hernandez-Thorpe, seconded by Councilmember Torres-Walker to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 P.M. in honor of Frank Rupani and Sonya Massey.
The motion passed unanimously by the Councilmembers present.
Respectfully submitted:
Kitty Eiden
KITTY EIDEN, Minutes Clerk
- -2
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE:
TO:
SUBMITTED BY:
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDED ACTION
FISCAL IMPACT
DISCUSSION
ATTACHMENT
5C_________
5D_________
6 Agenda Item #
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting on August 27, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
SUBMITTED BY: Kevin W. Kundinger, Assistant City Attorney KWK APPROVED BY:Thomas Lloyd Smith, City Attorney TLS
SUBJECT: Public Hearing Item: Introduction of the Just Cause Eviction Ordinance
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council introduce by title only and waive further reading of the Ordinance Adding Chapter 6 of Title 11 of the Antioch Municipal Code Providing Just Cause Eviction Protection within the City of Antioch.
FISCAL IMPACT
Adoption of the Ordinance would include increased future workloads for the City Attorney’s Office related to new inquiries and requests for services from tenants and landlords. We anticipate this would include costs associated with tracking notices that would be sent to the City, administration of systems necessary to ensure compliance with the Ellis Act, preparation of forms that would be available for landlords and tenants, and potential legal action that would be taken by the City against violators or the Ordinance.
This would require at minimum an administrative analyst position to manage tracking the notices and the implementation and upkeep of an Ellis Act program, along with the possibility of also requiring a deputy city attorney to handle enforcement of the Ordinance.
However, the ultimate financial impact of this Ordinance cannot be fully assessed at this time.
BACKGROUND
On March 26, 2024, the City Council discussed proposing a Just Cause Eviction Ordinance (“Ordinance”) for rental properties within the City of Antioch. The City Council directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance modeled on the City of Bell Garden’s ordinance and incorporating particular concerns raised by the Antioch City Council.
On April 23, 2024, the City Council was presented a summary of the draft Ordinance, which received public comment and was reviewed by the City Council. After the comment period and the subsequent review, the Councilmembers provided staff with direction regarding specific provisions of the draft Ordinance and directed staff to produce an updated draft Ordinance that addressed the City Council’s concerns.
Antioch City Council Report
August 27, 2024 Agenda Item#6 2
On May 15, 2024, the City Council directed staff, through coordination with the Mayor, to meet with stakeholders to develop draft language to present to City Council. The City Attorney’s Office and the Mayor met with stakeholders on June 7, July 11, and August 6, at which time the Mayor directed staff to meet with shareholders to finalize the draft language that is being brought forward as this meeting. On August 21, the language was finalized.
SUMMARY
State law requires “just cause” for a landlord to evict a tenant who has continuously and lawfully occupied a residence for at least 12 months.1 The California Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (“TPA”) limits rent increases and places restrictions on landlords’ ability to evict tenants, unless the eviction is as a result of a “just cause” that is defined by state law. The TPA also imposes certain notice and language requirements.2 “Just cause” includes “at-fault” evictions for wrongful or malicious conduct by tenants and “no-fault” evictions, such as when a property owner or their immediate family move into an otherwise occupied unit, remove a unit from the rental market, or when a landlord intends to demolish or “substantially remodel” a unit. Section 1946.2 also provides protections against evictions that do not meet the “just cause” standard as well as remedies that tenants can avail themselves of when evicted without “just cause.”
Notwithstanding the protections afforded by state law, there are still many tenants who are not covered by the existing provisions of the TPA and thus are at risk of unnecessary or unjust evictions. Potentially foreseeing this outcome, the State Legislature drafted Section 1946.2 to preempt all local “just cause” eviction ordinances that were less protective than provided for in that section.
The Ordinance has changed from the draft presented at the May 15, 2024 meetings in the following ways:
Tenants now have an absolute right of first refusal to return to a unit when evicted for substantial repairs or renovations (AMC Section 11-6.04(A)(2)(b)(i).) The elements of the Ellis Act (Cal. Gov. Code Section 7060 et seq.) have been incorporated into the Ordinance language (AMC Section 11-6.04(A)(2)(d).) The language relating to evictions for Owner Move has been clarified to better express the conditions that must be met for valid evictions. (AMC Section 11-
6.04(A)(2)(a)(i).)
Minor timing changes relating to notice periods.
These changes were incorporated based on feedback from shareholders as well has input from Mayor Hernandez-Thorpe. A redline of the Ordinance is attached as Attachment B.
1 California Civil Code section 1946.2 (amended by Senate Bill 567, which took effect April 1, 2024). 2 The California Tenant Protection Act of 2019 went into effect in 2020 and was enacted as California Civil Code sections 1946.2 and 1947.12.
Antioch City Council Report
August 27, 2024 Agenda Item#6 3
ANALYSIS
A municipality may subject residential real property to “just cause” eviction requirements that are more protective than what is required under State law (Section 1946.2). To do so, the ordinance must: (i) have “just cause” eviction criteria that are consistent with Section 1946.2; (ii) further limit the reasons for termination of a residential tenancy, provide for higher relocation assistance amounts, or provide additional tenant protections that are not prohibited by any other provision of law; and (iii) be accompanied by a finding that the ordinance is more protective than the provisions of Section 1946.2.
The Ordinance meets all the requirements to comply with Section 1946.2. The “just cause” eviction criteria are consistent with those in Section 1946.2. The Ordinance provides for relocation payments higher than required by Section 1946.2. Furthermore, the Ordinance provides protections that do not exist under current state law such as requirements for tenant buyout agreements, a decrease in the amount of time a tenant must live in a rental unit to gain eviction protection, and an increase in the overall proportion of tenants that would be eligible receive tenant protections.
The Ordinance now incorporates the provisions of the Ellis Act, which opens up new protections afforded by California State law.
The Ordinance mitigates excessive evictions without being excessively burdensome on landlords. The Ordinance does not significantly limit the rights of landlords when it comes to evictions beyond limitations created by Section 1946.2. Instead, the Ordinance provides additional protections for tenants who experience unlawful evictions including additional financial assistance, assistance with securing alternate housing arraignments, and tools to contest unlaw eviction actions through administrative or court hearings.
The Ordinance creates an avenue for tenants who have been evicted in order for a landlord to renovate or repair a rental unit to return to the same unit at a rate similar to that which they paid at the time of their eviction. Additionally, the Ordinance expands the opportunity granted to tenants to move back into renovated or repaired unit they had once inhabited without suffering inordinate rental price increases.
The Ordinance enables the City to effectively monitor evictions in the City of Antioch and to prevent or deter unnecessary or unlawful evictions. The Ordinance deters landlords from unjustly evicting lawful tenants, which is important given the housing crisis in Antioch and across the State of California.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Just Cause Eviction Ordinance Draft
1 ORDINANCE NO. 2024-X-X
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANTIOCH ADDING CHAPTER 6 TO TITLE 11 OF THE ANTIOCH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
TENANT EVICTION PROTECTIONS
WHEREAS, The City Council finds that the just cause for termination of residential tenancy requirements authorized by this chapter is consistent with California Civil Code section 1946.2;
WHEREAS, The City Council further finds that the provisions of this chapter are “more protective” than the provisions of California Civil Code Section 1946.2; WHEREAS, this chapter regulates evictions for certain tenancies, requires landlords to provide relocation assistance for certain no-fault evictions, prohibits retaliation and harassment, and provides for the implementation and enforcement of this chapter;
WHEREAS, the intent of this chapter is to incorporate the provisions of the California Government Code Sections 7060 through 7060.7, otherwise known as the Ellis Act;
WHEREAS, the intent of this chapter is to provide eviction protections the day a rental agreement becomes effective until the day the landlord-tenant relationship is terminated;
The City Council of the City of Antioch does ordain as follows:
TENANT EVICTION PROTECTIONS
Sections:
11-6.01 Purpose and applicability.
11-6.02 Definitions.
11-6.03 Exemptions
11-6.04 Termination of tenancy.
11-6.05 Right to Replace Departing Tenant
11-60.6 Relocation assistance.
11-6.07 Tenant buyout agreements.
11-6.08 Retaliatory eviction and harassment prohibited. 2 11-6.09 Notices to tenants.
11-6.10 Enforcement.
11-6.11 Remedies.
11-6.12 Waiver.
11-6.13 Severability.
11-6.01 Purpose and applicability.
A. The City Council finds that the just cause for termination of a residential tenancy requirements authorized by this chapter is consistent with California Civil Code section 1946.2.
B. The City Council further finds that the provisions of this chapter are “more protective” than the provisions of California Civil Code section 1946.2.
C. This chapter shall apply to any building or part of a building that is used for residence and that is rented to a tenant as a dwelling place, except those units exempted by Section 11-
6.03. D. This chapter regulates evictions for certain tenancies. It requires landlords to provide relocation assistance for certain no-fault evictions, prohibits retaliation and harassment, and provides for the implementation and enforcement of this chapter.
E. The intent of this chapter is to provide eviction protections starting the day a rental agreement becomes effective until the day the Landlord-Tenant relationship is terminated. 11-6.02 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise, the following definitions shall apply:
“Buyout agreement” means a written agreement between a landlord and a tenant as provided in section 11-6.06 by which a tenant, typically in consideration for monetary payment, agrees to vacate a rental unit.
“Ellis Act” means California Government Code Sections 7060 through 7060.7. “Landlord’s family member” means a spouse, domestic partner, child, grandchild, parent, or grandparent of a landlord who is a natural person whose name is on the title of the property.
11-6.03 Exemptions
The following rental units are exempt from the restrictions and requirements of this chapter:
(A) Rental units by any hospital, skilled nursing facility, or health facility. (B) Rental units in a nonprofit facility that has the primary purpose of providing short term treatment, assistance, or therapy for alcohol, drug, or other substance abuse and the housing is provided incident to the recovery program, and where the client has been informed in writing of the temporary or transitional nature of the 3 housing at its inception and is licensed for such purposes where such license is required.
(C) Rental units in a nonprofit facility that provides a structured living environment with the primary purpose of helping homeless persons obtain skills necessary for independent living in permanent housing and where the occupancy is restricted to a limited and specific period of time and not more than 24 months, and where the client has been informed in writing of the temporary or transitional nature of the housing at its inception and is licensed for such purposes where such license is required.
(D)Rental units exempted from California Civil Code Part 4, Title 4, Chapter 2 by section 1940(b) (transient occupancy in hotels/motels), or successor statute, unless either the landlord offers for rent or rents the rental unit for a period of 30 days or more, or the landlord violates California Civil Code section 1940.1, or successor statute, to avoid tenancy status.
11-6.04 Termination of tenancy.
A. The landlord shall not terminate the tenancy without just cause, which shall be stated in the written notice to terminate. Just cause shall comprise of the following reasons for eviction:
(1) At-fault just cause, which is any of the following:
(a) Tenant’s failure to pay rent to the landlord.
(b) Tenant’s breach of a material term of the rental agreement, including, but not limited to, a violation of a provisions of the rental agreement after Landlord has notified tenant of the breach in writing and given Tenant 3 days to cure the breach. (c) Maintaining, committing, or permitting the maintenance or commission of a nuisance of as described by California Code of Civil Procedure section 1161(4), after the Landlord has notified the Tenant of the nuisance in writing and given Tenant 30 days to abate the nuisance.
(d) Committing waste as described by California Code of Civil Procedure section 1161(4).
(e) Tenant is criminally convicted of using or permitting a rental property to be used for any illegal purpose, including but not limited to any criminal violations of the California Health and Safety Code, California Penal Code, California Business and Professions Code, or any provisions of this Code.
(f) Tenant, Tenant’s agent, or any person directed by a Tenant, makes a criminal threat as defined by Cal. Penal Code section 422 that is directed at Landlord or any agent of Landlord
(g) Tenant has refused to execute a written extension or renewal of a rental agreement upon expiration of a prior rental agreement, after written request or demand 4 from the Landlord, but only if the provisions are substantially similar and the additional term is of similar duration to the prior written rental agreement, and is consistent with federal, state, and local laws. For the purposes of this subsection, the Landlord’s written request or demand must be received no later than 60 days before final day of tenancy of the prior rental agreement.
(h) Tenant continually refuses, after Landlord has provided a written request, to allow the landlord to enter the residential real property for the purpose of making necessary repairs or improvements in accordance with California Civil Code Sections 1101.5 and 1954 and California Health and Safety Code Sections 13113.7 and 17926.1. (i) Failure to vacate rental property when Tenant was employed by the landlord to serve as a resident manager or other employee, was provided with the rental unit as part of or as a condition of the employment and the employment has been terminated. This provision shall not apply to any tenant whose tenancy in the building or complex housing the rental unit commenced prior to assuming managerial responsibilities or whose status as a tenant commenced prior to their status as a resident manager. (j) Tenant fails to timely deliver possession of the rental unit after: (1) providing the Landlord written notice as provided in Civil Code Section 1946 of the tenant’s intention to terminate a lease; or (2) making a written offer to surrender, that is accepted in writing by the Landlord, but the time specified in that written notice as described in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161(5) has expired.
(k) Tenant has assigned or sublet the rental unit in violation of the rental agreement, as provided in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161(4), unless as provided for in Subsection 11-6.05.
(2) No-fault just cause, which can be any of the following:
(a) Landlord seeks in good faith to repossess rental unit to allow Landlord or Landlord’s family member to occupy the rental unit. The Landlord or Landlord’s family member must occupy the rental unit as their principle residence within 90 days and must continue to reside in the rental unit for at least two years, unless extenuating circumstance exist. Reliance on this subdivision for a no-fault just cause eviction shall be subject to the following:
(i) If the rental agreement was entered into on or after the effective date of this chapter, this subsection shall apply only if the tenant agrees, in writing, to the termination, or if a provision of the rental agreement allows the Landlord to terminate the rental agreement if the Landlord, or Landlord’s family member, unilaterally decides to occupy the rental unit.
(ii) A Landlord must provide the tenant 60 days’ written notice when ordering for an eviction for the purpose of a Landlord or Landlord’s family member to occupy the unit pursuant to Cal. Civil Code section 1946.2. The same information must also be disclosed to the City.
5 (iii) The City may, in its own discretion, contact Landlord during the two- year occupancy time frame to confirm that the Landlord or Landlord’s family member continues to occupy the rental unit as their primary residence, or request written verification of residency.
(iv) If the Landlord or Landlord’s family member fails to move into the rental unit within 90 days or fails to reside at the unit for at least two years, the Tenant who was evicted from the rental unit is entitled to receive notice and right of first refusal for the unit at the same rental price previously charged plus any annual rent increases allowed under Chapter 11.
(v) A Landlord may not terminate a tenancy under this subsection if any of the following apply unless there is a showing that the incoming tenant or proposed incoming occupant is also meets one of the requirements outlined in the following subsections (A)-(C):
(A) Any Tenant in the rental unit has continuously and lawfully resided in the rental unit for at least five years, and a member of the Tenant’s household is either: elderly as defined by California Welfare and Institution Code section 15610, disabled, as defined by California Government Code section 12955.3 or handicapped as defined by California Health and Safety Code section 50072;
(B) Any Tenant in the rental unit is terminally ill as certified by a treating physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of California. (C) Any Tenant in the rental unit has continuously and lawfully resided in the rental unit for at least five years, and a member of the Tenant’s household is a low-income tenant as defined by California Health and Safety Code section 50079.5
(b) Landlord repossesses rental unit to demolish or substantially remodel the rental unit pursuant to the requirements of Cal. Civil Code section 1946.2(a)(2)(D)(ii). Landlord shall obtain all necessary permits and/or have gone through the process of hiring a contractor for work not requiring a permit prior to issuing Tenant an eviction notice pursuant to this subsection.
(i) The Tenant who was evicted from the rental unit is entitled to receive notice and right of first refusal for the unit at the same rental price previously charged plus any annual rent increases allowed under Chapter 11.
(c) Landlord seeks in good faith to repossess rental unit to comply with one of the following:
(i) an order issued by a government agency or court relating to habitability that requires vacating the rental unit
(ii) an order issued by a government agency or court to vacate the rental unit 6 (iii) an ordinance pursuant to this Code that requires vacating the rental unit. (d) Landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession of all rental units on a parcel of land to permanently withdraw the units from the rental market or for demolition so long as the withdrawal is permitted by the Ellis Act (Cal. Gov. Code section 7060 et seq.). The Landlord must have fulfilled all requirements of this Chapter and all regulations passed by the City initiating the procedure for withdrawing rental units from rent or lease, with the intention of completing the withdrawal process and going out of the rental business or demolishing the rental units. Tenants shall be entitled to a minimum of 120-days’ notice of termination of tenancy. If a tenant is at least 62 years of age or disabled, the notice period shall be one year if tenant has provided required notice of eligibility and has lived in the unit for at least one year. Notice times may be increased by regulation if state laws allows for additional time. The following shall apply to a unit where the landlord recovers possession pursuant to this Subsection.
(i) If the rental unit is offered again for rent or lease for residential purposes within two years of the date the rental unit was withdrawn from rent or lease, the following shall apply:
(A) The landlord of the rental unit shall be liable to any tenant who was displaced from the property by that action for actual and punitive damages. Any action by a tenant pursuant to this paragraph shall be brought within three years of the withdrawal of the rental unit from rent or lease. However, nothing in this paragraph precludes a tenant from pursuing any alternative remedy available under the law. (B) The City may institute a civil proceeding against the landlord or punitive damages for displacement of tenants. Any action pursuant to this paragraph shall be brought within three years of the withdrawal of the rental unit from rent or lease. (C) The landlord shall first offer the unit for rent or lease to the tenant displaced from that unit by the withdrawal pursuant to this Chapter, if the tenant has advised the landlord in writing within 30 days of the displacement of the tenant’s desire to consider an offer to renew the tenancy and has furnished the landlord with an address to which that offer is directed. That tenant or former tenant may advise the landlord at any time during the eligibility of a change of address to which the offer is to be directed. (D) If the tenant has advised the landlord of a desire to consider an offer to renew the tenancy, then the landlord shall offer to reinstate the rental agreement or lease on terms permitted by law to that displaced tenant. This offer shall be deposited in the United States mail, by registered or certified mail with postage prepaid, addressed to the displaced tenant at the address furnished to the landlord as provided in Subsection 11-
6.04(A)(2)(d), and shall describe the terms of the offer. The displaced tenant shall have 30 days from the deposit of the offer in the mail to accept the offer by personal delivery of that acceptance or by deposit of the acceptance in the United States mail by registered or certified mail with postage prepaid.
(ii) If the rental unit is offered again for rent or lease for residential purposes within five years of the date the rental unit was withdrawn from rent or lease, the rental unit 7 shall be offered and leased at the lawful rent in effect at the time any notice of intent to withdraw the rental unit is filed with the City, plus any lawful allowable rent increases. The provisions of this paragraph shall apply to all tenancies commenced during either of the following time periods:
(A) the five-year period after any notice of intent to withdraw the rental unit is filed with the City, whether or not the notice of intent is rescinded or the withdrawal of the rental unit is completed pursuant to the notice of intent.
(B) the five-year period after the rental unit is withdrawn This subsection shall prevail over any conflicting provision of law authorizing the landlord to establish the rental rate up initial hiring of the rental unit. (iii) A landlord who offers a rental unit again for rent or lease within 10 years from the date on which it is withdrawn shall first offer the unit to the tenant displaced from the unit by the withdrawal, if that tenant requests the offer in writing within 30 days after the landlord has notified the City of an intention to offer the rental unit again for residential rent or lease. The landlord of the rental unit shall be liable to any tenant who was displaced by that faction for failure to comply with this paragraph, for punitive damages in the amount which does not exceed the contract rent for six months, and the payment of which shall not be construed to extinguish the landlord’s obligation to comply with this Subsecgtion.
(iv) If the rental units are demolished, and new rental units are constructed on the same property, and offered for rent or lease within five years of the date the rental units were withdrawn from rent or lease, the newly constructed rental units shall be subject to the system of control established in this Chapter, at which time they would be offered at the rent that was paid at the time the prior tenancy was terminated under Subsection 11-
6.04(A)(2)(d), notwithstanding any exemption from the system of controls for newly constructed rental units.
(v) When a landlord withdraws rental units from rent or lease pursuant to Subsection 11-6.04(A)(2)(d), the requirements of Subsection 11-6.04(A)(2)(d) shall apply to all successors in interest. The City shall record a notice with the county recorder which shall specifically describe the real property where the rental is located, the dates applicable to the constraints and the name of the landlord of record of the real property. The notice shall be indexed in the grantor-grantee index. The City shall charge a fee for the processing of evictions pursuant to Subsection 11-6.04(A)(2)(d).
(vi) A landlord who seeks to demolish or withdraw a rental unit from the rental market under Subsection 11-6.04(A)(2)(d) must provide the City with a notice, that states under the penalty of perjury:
(A) the number of rental units withdrawn;
(B) the address or location of those rental units;
8 (C) the name or names of the tenants of the rental units; (D) the lawful rent applicable to each rental unit.
The name or names of the tenants, the rent applicable to any rental unit, and the total number of rental units, is confidential information and for purposes of this Chapter shall be treated as confidential information for purposes of the Information Practices Act of 1977 Chapter 1 (commencing with section 1798) of Title 1.8 of Part 4 of Division 3 of the California Civil Code).
(vii) The landlord must record with the county recorder a memorandum summarizing the provision, other than the confidential provisions, of the notice in a form which shall be prescribed by the City, and will require a certification with the notice that actions have been initiated as required by law to terminate any existing tenancies. (viii) The landlord must notify the City in writing of their intention to re-offer the rental unit for rent or lease.
(ix) The date on which the rental unit is withdrawn from rent or lease for purposes of this Chapter is 120 days from the delivery in person or by first-class mail of the notice of withdrawal to the City. However, if the tenant is at least 62 years of age or disabled, and has lived in the rental unit for at least one year prior to the date of delivery to the City of the notice of intent to withdraw, then the date of withdrawal of that tenant shall be extended one year after the date of delivery of that notice to the to the City, provided the tenant gives written notice of their entitlement to an extension to the landlord within 60 days of the date of delivery to the City of the notice to withdraw. (x) If a tenant notifies a landlord of their right to an extension pursuant to Subsection 11-6.04(A)(2)(d) in writing within 60 days of the City receiving the notice of intent to withdraw the rental unit, the following provisions shall apply:
(A) The tenancy shall be continued on the same terms and conditions as existed on the date of delivery to the City of the notice of intent to withdraw, subject to any adjustments otherwise available under this Chapter. (B) no party shall be relieved of the duty to perform any obligation under the lease or rental agreement.
(C) The landlord may elect to extend the tenancy on any other rental unit within the rental property up to one year after the date of delivery to the City of the notice of intent to withdraw, subject to paragraphs (A) and (B). (D) Within 30 days of the notification by the tenant to the landlord of their entitlement to an extension, the landlord shall give written notice to the City of the claim that the tenant is entitled to stay in their rental unit for one year after the date of delivery to the City of the notice of intent to withdraw. (E) Within 90 days of the date of delivery to the City of the notice of intent to withdraw, the landlord shall give written notice of the landlord’s election to extend 9 tenancy under paragraph (x) and the revised date of withdrawal to the City and any tenant whose tenancy is extended.
(F) The date of withdrawal for the rental unit as a whole, for purposes of calculating any time-periods in this Chapter, shall be the latest termination date among all tenants within the rental unit, as stated in the notices required by paragraphs (A) and (B).
A landlord’s further voluntary extension of a tenancy beyond the date stated in the notices required by paragraphs (A) and (B) shall not extend the dates of withdrawal. (xi) The landlord must notify any tenant displaced pursuant to Subsection 11-
6.04(A)(2)(d) of the following:
(A) That the City has been notified pursuant to subsection Subsection 11-6.04(A)(2)(d).
(B) That the notice to the City specified the name and amount of rent paid by the tenant as an occupant of the rental unit.
(C) The amount of rent the landlord specified in the notice to the City. (D) Notice to the tenant of their rights under Subsection 11-
6.04(A)(2)(d).
(E) That if the tenant is at least 62 years of age or disabled, and has lived in their rental unit for at least one year prior to the date of delivery to the City of the notice of intent to withdraw, then tenancy shall be extended to one year after date of delivery to the City of the notice of intent to withdraw, provided that the tenant gives written notice of their entitlement to the landlord within 60 days of date of delivery to the City of the notices of intent to withdraw.
(F) That the extended tenancy shall be continued on the same terms and conditions as existed on date of delivery to the City of the notice of intent to withdraw, subject to any adjustment otherwise available under this the Chapter.
(G) That no party shall be relieved of the duty to perform any obligation under the lease or rental agreement during the extended tenancy.
(xii) Not later than the last day of the third and sixth calendar months following the month in which notices is given to the City, and thereafter not later than December not later than December 31 of each calendar year for a period of five years, beginning with the year in which the six-month notice is given, the landlord of any property which contains or formerly contained one or more rental units which a tenant or tenants vacated pursuant to Subsection 11-6.04(A)(2)(d) shall notify the City, in writing, under the penalty of perjury, for each such rental unit:
10 (A) Whether the unit has been demolished;
(B) If the unit has not been demolished, whether it is in use; (C) If it is in use, whether it is in residential use;
(D) If it is in residential use, the date the tenancy began, the name of the tenants, and the amount of rent charged.
If the rental unit has been demolished, and one or more new units constructed on the lot, the landlord shall furnish the information required by items (B), (C), (D)for each new unit.
The City shall maintain a record of notices received under this subsection for each rental unit withdrawn from the rental market pursuant to this Chapter. (xiii) The City shall notify each person who is reported as having become a tenant in a vacated or new rental unit subject to the reporting requirements of Subsection 11-
6.04(A)(2)(d) that it maintains the records described in Subsection 11-6.04(A)(2)(d) and that the rent of the rental unit may be restricted pursuant to Subsection 11-6.04(A)(2)(d). (xvi) The City shall maintain a register of al rental units withdrawn from rent or lease under Subsection 11-6.04(A)(2)(d) and the rent applicable to each unit at the time of withdrawal. The City shall inform tenants displaced from units withdrawn from rent or lease at the address provided by the tenant, when the landlord notifies the City that the rental unit or replacement unit will again be offered for rent or lease within ten years of the date of withdrawal.
(xv) The City may investigate whether a rental unit that was withdrawn from rent or lease has been again offered for rent or lease, and whether the landlord has complied with the provisions of Subsection 11-6.04(A)(2)(d).
B. When terminating a tenancy either for at-fault or no-fault just cause, unless otherwise provided by this Chapter, a landlord must comply with all of the following:
1. The Landlord must serve a written notice to the Tenant in accordance with California Civil Code Sections 1946 through 1946.5 that states the Landlord will terminate the tenancy, indicates at least one at-fault or no-fault just cause reason pursuant to for termination pursuant to this Chapter, and includes any other information required by federal or state law; and
2. The Landlord has not accepted and will not accept rent or any other consideration in return for the continued use of the rental unit beyond the term of the terminated tenancy in compliance with California Civil Code Sections 1946 through 1946.5; and
3. The Landlord qualifies the termination as at-fault or no-fault, as specified in this section; and
4. If the termination is a no-fault termination, the Landlord has provided the Tenant with the notice of relocation assistance required by Chapter 11; and 11 5. The Landlord has submitted to the City, within five days after service of the notice of termination on the Tenant, a true and accurate copy of the Landlord’s written notice of termination, and proof of such service, signed under penalty of perjury, on the Tenant.
The Landlord shall maintain proof of service to the department as evidence that the Landlord has complied with this section.
11-6.05 Right to Replace Departing Tenant
When two or more Tenants enter into a rental agreement with a Landlord, and one of those tenants exits the rental agreement and vacates the rental unit for any reason, the remaining Tenant or Tenants shall have the right to replace the departing Tenant or Tenants on a one- for-one basis. A Landlord shall have the right to approve or deny the prospective replacement Tenant, provided the owner does not unreasonably withhold approval. The Landlord shall reply to any request to replace a departing Tenant in writing. Any denial of a request to replace a departing Tenant must contain a description of the reason or reasons for the denial. Failure to reply to a request to replace a departing Tenant shall be treated as an approval for the proposed replacement Tenant.
11-6.06 Relocation assistance.
A. Permanent Relocation Assistance.
(1) Tenants who are evicted from their rental unit pursuant to Subsection 11-
6.04(A)(2)(a) are entitled to relocation assistance from the Landlord in accordance with this section. The Landlord must provide written notice to the Tenant of the Tenant’s entitlement to permanent relocation assistance at the same time the Landlord serves a notice of termination of tenancy.
(a) The Landlord shall pay a relocation assistance amount equal to two times the Tenant’s monthly rent in effect when the Landlord served the notice to terminate the tenancy.
i. If any Tenant residing in the rental unit from which the Tenants are to be displaced includes a qualified tenant, then all Tenants living in the rental unit are collectively entitled to additional relocation assistance as follows:
A. The Landlord shall pay an additional relocation assistance amount equal to one times the Tenant’s monthly rent in effect when the Landlord served the notice to terminate the tenancy.
b. For purposes of this subsection, “qualified tenant” means any Tenant who:
i. Is elderly as defined by California Welfare and Institution Code section 15610, disabled, as defined by California Government Code section 12955.3 or handicapped as defined by California Health and Safety Code section 50072; ii. Has one or more dependent children under the age of 18, who is in the custody of the Tenant, residing in the rental unit;
12 iii. Meets the income limits for a “lower-income household” as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5; or
iv. The Tenant shall notify landlord within 10 days of receiving the termination of tenancy notice, if any of the Tenants living in the rental unit from which the Tenants are to be displaced includes a qualified tenant, along with any reasonable proof of eligibility.
(c) Permanent relocation assistance payments must be paid directly to the tenant. (d) Landlords shall pay tenants moving expenses equal to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Polices Act – Residential Moving Expense and Dislocation Allowance Payment Schedule as published by Federal Highway Administration.
(e) Not withstanding this section, Tenants who are found to have caused the issue requiring eviction pursuant to Section 11.6-04(A) shall not be entitled to relocation assistance or moving expenses.
B. Temporary Relocation Assistance.
(1) A Landlord must provide temporary relocation assistance to Tenants of a rental unit who are temporarily displaced due to repairs, rehabilitation of a rental unit, health and safety violations, or other work or activities that will make the rental unit an untenantable dwelling, as defined in California Civil Code Section 1941.1, or will expose the tenant to toxic or hazardous materials, or that cannot otherwise be completed while the tenant remains in the rental unit, and for which said repairs will take less than 30 days. The following are acceptable forms of temporary relocation assistance:
(a) A per-diem payment. The amount of the payment shall be based on the Federal General Services Administration per-diem rate for lodging in the county of Contra Costa, which is updated on a yearly basis, unless otherwise agreed up by the Landlord and Tenant.
Per-diem payments shall be made on a pro-rata basis to the eligible Tenant household. (b) Where the Landlord owns other rental units in the City of Antioch and any such rental unit is vacant and available, and habitable, at the time of the written notice of the temporary relocation, the Landlord may notify the Tenant and allow the Tenant to reside in said rental unit during the pendency of the temporary relocation at the same terms as outlined in the original rental agreement entered into between the Tenant and Landlord. (c) Where the Landlord owns other rental units in the City of Antioch and any such rental unit is vacant, available, and habitable at the time of the written notice terminating tenancy, the Landlord may offer Tenant a new rental agreement for said rental unit at a rental price not exceeding the rental price in the original rental agreement between the Tenant and Landlord.
(d) The Landlord may provide Tenant with temporary hotel or motel accommodation. If relocation is to a hotel or motel, the Landlord must provide a hotel or 13 motel accommodation which is safe, sanitary, and, unless otherwise agreed upon by the Landlord and Tenant, within a reasonable distance of the Tenant’s rental unit. (e) The temporary displacement and relocation of a Tenant pursuant to this subsection shall not terminate the tenancy of the displaced Tenant. The displaced Tenant shall have the right to reoccupy his or her rental unit upon the completion of the work necessary for the rental unit to comply with housing, health, building or safety laws or any government order and the tenant shall retain all rights of tenancy that existed prior to the displacement.
(f) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as authorizing a Landlord to require a tenant to vacate a unit, except as permitted under federal, state, or local law.
2. A Tenant cannot waive his or her right to receive relocation assistance required by this chapter.
3. Any action brought by a tenant for a violation of this section must be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction. No administrative remedy need be exhausted prior to filing suit pursuant to this section.
11-6.07 Tenant buyout agreements.
A. At the time a proposed buyout agreement is provided, the Landlord shall provide each tenant in the rental unit a form written disclosure, published by the City form notice of in English and other frequently spoken languages, that shall include all of the following:
(1) A statement that the Tenant has a right not to enter into buyout negotiations or a buyout agreement;
(2) A statement that the Tenant may choose to consult with an attorney before entering into a buyout agreement;
(3) A statement that the Tenant may rescind the buyout agreement for up to 30 days after it is fully executed;
(4) A statement that the Tenant may contact the department for information about other buyout agreements in the Tenant’s neighborhood and other relevant information; (5) Any other information required by the department consistent with the purpose and provisions of this section; and
(6) A space for each Tenant to sign and write the date the Landlord provided the tenant with the disclosure.
B. The buyout agreement shall:
(1) Be in writing in English and the language in which the buyout agreement was negotiated if other than English translated at the Landlord’s expense. The Landlord shall give each tenant a copy of the proposed buyout agreement at least 5 days before it is executed by the parties.
14 (2) Include the following statement in bold letters in at least 12-point boldface type in close proximity to the space reserved for the signature of the Tenant:
(a) “You may cancel this buyout agreement in writing at any time before the thirtieth (30th) day after all parties have signed this buyout agreement.” (b) “You have a right not to enter into a buyout agreement.” (c) “You may choose to consult with an attorney before signing this buyout agreement.”
C. A Tenant shall have the right to rescind a buyout agreement for up to 30 days after its execution by all parties. To rescind a buyout agreement, the Tenant must hand-deliver, email, or send by certified mail return receipt requested, a statement to the Landlord indicating that the Tenant has rescinded the buyout agreement.
D. The Landlord shall provide the tenant a copy of the fully executed buyout agreement within 10 days of execution. Landlord shall also file with the City a copy of the executed buyout agreement, along with proof of service to the tenant of the disclosure notice as required in this section, within 10 days after the buyout agreement is executed by all parties. 11-6.08 Retaliatory eviction and harassment prohibited.
A. Any and all acts of retaliation pursuant to Chapter 4 of this title or acts of harassment pursuant to Chapter 5 of this title are prohibited.
B. Findings that the Landlord violated of this section shall result in the following:
(1) The Landlord’s eviction action being deemed void.
(2) Any other remedies allowed by Title 11 of this code and any other applicable state and federal laws.
11-6.09 Notices to tenants.
A. Landlords must provide to each Tenant, prior to or at the time of agreeing to rent or lease a rental unit, a notice of Tenant rights under this chapter. The City shall publish a form notice of tenant rights in English and other frequently spoken languages. Landlords must provide the form notice in the following circumstances:
1. When entering into a rental agreement, by including a copy of the form notice as an exhibit or attachment to the written rental agreement;
2. When renewing a rental agreement, by including a copy of the form notice as an exhibit or attachment to the written renewal agreement.
B. If the rental agreement is negotiated or written in a language other than English, the Landlord must also provide the form notice of tenant rights in English and the language in which the rental agreement was negotiated or written, at the cost of the Landlord. 15 11-6.10 Enforcement.
A. Enforcement Authority. The City is authorized to take appropriate steps it deems necessary to administer and enforce this chapter.
B. The City Attorney, or designee, may develop and publish procedures and guidelines to aid in the implementation of this chapter.
11-6.11 Remedies and Penalties.
A. Criminal penalty. A violation of any provision of this chapter is punishable as an infraction or a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor conviction under this article shall be punished by not more than $1,000 for each offense or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than six months or both, as determined by the court.
B. Civil action. Any aggrieved person, or any person, organization, or entity who fairly and adequately represent the interest of an aggrieved tenant(s) under this chapter, or the city may institute civil proceedings as provided by law against any landlord violating any of the provisions of this article and any person who aids, facilitates, and/or incites another to violate the provisions of this article, regardless of whether the rental unit remains occupied or has been vacated due to harassment. The burden of proof in such cases shall be preponderance of the evidence.
C. Injunction/equitable relief. Any person who commits an act or engages in any pattern and practice that violates this chapter may be enjoined therefrom by a court of competent jurisdiction. A court may issue other equitable relief as appropriate. An action for injunction under this section may be brought by an aggrieved person, by the City Attorney, or by any person or entity who fairly or adequately represent the interests of the protected class.
D. Penalties and other monetary awards.
(1) Any person who violates, or aids or incites another person to violate, the provisions of this chapter is liable in a court action for each and every such offense for money damages of not less than three times actual damages suffered by an aggrieved tenant (including damages for mental or emotional distress), or for the minimum damages in the sum of $2,000, whichever is greater, or whatever other relief the court deems appropriate, and shall be liable for such attorneys' fees and costs as may be determined by the court. In the case of an award for damages for mental or emotional distress, said award shall be trebled only if the trier of fact finds that the landlord acted in knowing violation of or reckless disregard of this chapter.
(2) Any person who violates, or aids or incites another person to violate, this chapter shall be liable for an additional civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each offense committed against a person who is disabled within the meaning of Cal. Gov’t Code § 12926, et seq. or successor statute, or aged 65 or over. A tenant prevailing in court under this article may be awarded compensatory damages, rent refunds for reduction in housing services, tenant relocation costs, imposition of civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation depending upon the severity of the violation or history of violations of this chapter by the landlord, and other appropriate relief, as adjudged by the court.
16 (3) The court may also award punitive damages to any plaintiff, including the city, in a proper case as defined by Cal. Civil Code § 3294 or successor statute. The burden of proof for purposes of punitive damages shall be clear and convincing evidence. (4) A prevailing defendant in a civil action under this section shall be entitled to an award of attorneys' fees only if it is determined by the court that the action was devoid of merit and brought in bad faith.
E. Affirmative defense. A violation of this chapter may be asserted as an affirmative defense in an unlawful detainer action.
F. Additional enforcement; nonexclusive remedies and penalties. This chapter may be enforced as provided in Chapter 2 of Title 1 of this code in addition to the remedies provided herein.
The remedies in this chapter shall be in addition to any other existing remedies which may be available.
11-6.12 Waiver.
Any waiver of rights under this chapter shall be void as contrary to public policy. 11-6.13 Severability.
If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person, property, or circumstance, is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this chapter that can be given effect without the invalid provision(s) or application, and to this end, the provisions of this chapter are declared to be severable.
* * * * * * * 17 I HEREBY CERTIFYthat the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Antioch, held on the 27thday of August 2024, and passed and adopted at a regular meeting thereof, held on the ___ day of ___________, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
_________________________________
LAMAR A. HERNANDEZ-THORPE
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ANTIOCH
ATTEST:
__________________________________
ELIZABETH HOUSEHOLDER
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANTIOCH
7_
Agenda Item #
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of August 27, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
SUBMITTED BY: Kevin Valente, Contract Planner
Raney Planning & Management, Inc.
APPROVED BY: Kevin Scudero, Acting Community Development Director SUBJECT: Good Chance Preliminary Development Plan (PRE2023-0004)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended the City Council provide feedback to the applicant and staff regarding the proposal and provide direction to the applicant for the entitlement submittal.
FISCAL IMPACT
The development of the Good Chance Project would be fully funded by the applicant, Good Chance Management, LLC. The City will incur no costs in the development.
DISCUSSION
Request
The applicant, Good Chance Management LLC, request s a Preliminary Development Plan review of a proposal to construct 13 residential units over 16.15 -acres on Somersville Road, south of James Donlon Boulevard near the entrance of the Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve Park (APN 076 -021-006). The proposed project includes a conventional single -family home with a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on each of the proposed 13 residential units . Primary site access would be from Somersville Road from a new 56 -foot-wide internal roadway that leads to a cul -de-sac.
The applicant's project description is provided as Attachment A.
Environmental
Preliminary Development Plan review is a non -entitlement action and does not require environmental review. The future project application review would require compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
KV
KS
Antioch City Council Report
August 27, 2024 Agenda Item #7
Background
The project site is 16.5 -acres of natural open space with a General Plan Land Use Designation of Open Space (OS) and an existing zoning of R-6 (Single-Family Residential). As part of the review, the project was routed to City Departments and outside agencies for review. Planning and Engineering staff, Contra Costa Environmental Health, East Bay Regional Park District, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conse rvation District, Republic Services, and PG&E have provided comments on the proposed project (see Attachment D).
Location Map
The purpose of a Preliminary Development Plan is to gather feedback from the Planning Commission, City Council, and others in order for the applicant to become aware of concerns and/or issues prior to a General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone, Final Development Plan/Tentative Map, Use Permit, and Design Review submittal. As standard practice, preliminary plans are not conditioned; rather a list of needed items, information, and issues to be addressed is compiled for the applicant to address prior to submitting an entitlement application.
ANALYSIS
The Good Chance Project site consists of the Assessor Parcel Number 076 -021-006.
Surrounding existing land uses include single -family residences to the east and west, undeveloped land to the north, and the Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve Park to the south.
Project Location
Antioch City Council Report
August 27, 2024 Agenda Item #7
The applicant is proposing to construct conventional single-family homes with detached ADUs on each of the proposed 13 residential lots . In addition to the 13 residential lots, the proposed project would include a cul-de-sac, photovoltaic solar array, and stormwater detention basin. The proposed project would have an overall density of 1.24 dwelling units per acre.
Project Site Map
Consistency with the General Plan and Zoning
The Open Space (OS) General Plan land use designation is intended to preserve lands in their natural condition to protect environmental resources, public health and safety, agriculture, and active or passive recreation. Therefore, the proposed project would require a General Plan land use amendment OS to Medium Low Density Residential (MLDR). Areas designated as MLDR are typically single -family homes located on level terrain with no, or relatively few, geological or environmental constraints in typical subdivision developments . A MLDR land use designation allows for a maximum of 6 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) which would be consistent with the sites existing R -6 zoning designation. The proposed density of the project is 1.24 du/ac, which was calculated using the entire proje ct site, nearly half of the project site would remain undeveloped. The General Plan section 4.4.1.1 Residential Land Use Designations states that, “Density is assumed to accrue only on lands that are ‘developable.’ Developable acres are those that are not encumbered by prior dedications of easements or rights -of-
Antioch City Council Report
August 27, 2024 Agenda Item #7
way and are not so steep (generally over 25 percent), unstable, flood-prone or subject to other hazards as to be unable to support new development.” Given the steep terrain of the site, an analysis of the developable area of the site would need to be made to ensure the project does not exceed the density allowed in the MLDR designation. Per State law, ADUs do not count towards a project’s density.
The existing R -6 zoning allows for single -family medium low density residential development. R -6 Single -Family Residential Districts are the standard single -family zones allowing a maximum of six dwelling units per gross acre. As stated above, the General Plan designation is currently OS, while the existing zoning is R-6. In the case of a General Plan and zoning inconsistency on a property, the General Plan takes precedence. Therefore, a General Plan Amendment is required, despite having residential zoning.
The applicant is requesting a rezone to Planned Development (PD). PD districts are intended to accommodate a wide range of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses which are mutually supportive and compatible with existing and proposed developments on surrounding properties. Once established, the PD district would establish the specific development standards, including lot size, yard setbacks, and building height requirements for the project site.
The proposed project currently identifies 25 -foot front yard setbacks, 10 -foot side yard setbacks, and 26 -foot building heights, which are all consistent with the citywide R -6 zoning district regulations.
Staff recommends that the City Council consider whether a General Plan land use amendment from OS to MLDR to allow residential development is the most appropriate for the site or if they would prefer the site to remain as open space.
Site Layout and Design
In August of 2023, the City of Antioch adopted citywide single-Family and Missing Middle Residential Objective Design Standards relating to all aspects of residential projects including building siting, architectural style, parking, and landscaping. The submittal of an Objective Design Standards Checklist would be required at the time of the Design Review application to illustrate compliance. The Objective Design Standards Checklist would need to include relevant guidelines, how the project complies with them, and a detailed discussion o f the issues. Basic architectural elevations were provided but appear to provide some differentiation in plane along the front elevation and a variety of materials, which are both required in the Objective Design Standards. Without more detailed elevations and colors and materials, staff cannot provide detailed comments on the proposed architecture.
Site access is provided by a proposed interior roadway leading to a cul -de-sac from Somersville Road. The proposed roadway would be 56-feet-wide, with two 18-foot travel lanes with sidewalks and landscaping on both sides of the street. A proposed bioretention Antioch City Council Report
August 27, 2024 Agenda Item #7
basin is shown at the northwest corner of the site, close to Somersville Road and the project’s access road. A full stormwater control plan is required at entitlement submittal to verify the design and engineering of the basin. The solar array is proposed to the west of the homes, slightly downslope from the backs of the western lots. Further design details, including access to the solar array would need to be provided in the full submission.
The Objective Design Standards also include sections related to neighborhood design, including providing an attractive neighborhood entryway to create a neighborhood character and friendly neighborhood access, and common open space design. Given the current proposed entry road and its relation to Somersville Road, staff recommends that the applicant review the entry design standards to ensure the standards can be met with the roadway design and terrain. Currently, the plan does not include any common open space or recreational areas for the residents.
Agency Comments
City Engineering reviewed the proposed plans and provided concerns regarding the amount of grading required for development, as well as, utility locations, street width and slope, and drainage. While a Preliminary Development Plan is by nature less detaile d than the entitlement submittals, the Engineering comments called out the need to resolve possible boundary discrepancies between the project plans and title report, the need to ensure that the grading and site design is in compliance with the City of Ant ioch’s standards.
Republic Services provided a comment letter with access concerns for their garbage trucks.
The Contra Costa County Health Department identified the project site as a former unpermitted landfill site. The comment letter, and subsequent quarterly inspection report, detail that there are areas of erosion and partial collapse of the access roadways at the site, which are considered a violation. The inspection report includes photographs of the erosion. The comment letter includes concerns that further grading or structures added to the top of the site would exacerbate the instability of the site.
The East Bay Regional Park District submitted comments which identified concerns, including the project’s impact on the entry into the Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, cultural resources, erosion of the former landfill site, and the steep slope of the project site.
Pacific Gas and Electric, the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District also provided standard comment letters. All agency comment letters are provided in Attachment D.
Antioch City Council Report
August 27, 2024 Agenda Item #7
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
On July 17, 2024, the Antioch Planning Commission held a public hearing and provided comments and feedback to the applicant regarding the Preliminary Development Plan.
The Planning Commission expressed strong concerns for the proposed project and stated they generally would not support the proposed General Plan Amendment from OS to MLDR due to its location and the safety concerns of future residential development on steep slopes and the previous non-permitted landfill use. The commissioners addressed a lack of nearby services and the potential for the actual project density and population to be higher due to the collective sum of single -family homes, ADUs, and JADUs . One Planning Commissioner expressed that they could support residential development at this location if all the aforementioned environmental issues were appropriately addressed.
Public Comments
Members of the public also spoke on the project, expressing concerns for the potential biological impacts to the nearby Markley Creek , as well as the potential wildfire risk and the added traffic congestion to the existing entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve Park.
Additional written public comments regarding the project were received after the Planning Commission meeting. These comments are found in Attachment E.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the City Council provide the applicant feedback concerning the proposed project, as well as other areas of concern on the preliminary development plan for the project. Specifically, staff recommends feedback on the following items:
• Proposed General Plan land use amendment from OS to MLDR to allow residential development.
• Residential development on a former landfill site.
• The amount of grading required for residential development at this location.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Applicant’s Project Description
B. Project Plans
C. Site Photos
D. Agency Comments
E. Public Comments Received
Milani & Associates
2655 Stanwell Drive, Suite 105
Concord, CA. 94520 PH: (925) 674-9082
1 Job No. 1351.5
August 204, 2023
Mr. Kevin Scudero
Senior Planner
Community Development – Planning Division
City of Antioch
200 H Street
Antioch, CA 94509-1285
Re: Good Chance Management LLC – PDP Application – APN 076-021-006 – James Donlin Boulevard Dear Kevin,
The Good Change Management Development team has compiled a PDP submittal package for consideration by the City of Antioch Community Development Department - Planning Division.
Background Information:
The subject parcel is assigned a General Plan Land Use (GPLU) Designation of Open Space (OS) consistent with the current 2003 City General Plan (GP) that is currently in effect. The property has been assigned a zoning designation of R6. The R6 zoning designation is not supported under the current GP land Use Designation of Open Space. The assigned General Plan Land Use Designation overrides the current Zoning Designation of R6 creating a GP/Zoning inconsistency. The owner and the Good Change Management development team are seeking a resolution to this land use inconsistency.
As discussed in the past, the City’s current PDP review process appears to be the optimum process to seek direction from Community Development Staff, Planning Commission and City Council as to the appropriate use of the subject property. The owner/applicant desires to change the Land Use designation from Open Space to Medium Low Density Residential (6Du/acre), which is a Land Use Designation that supports the current designated R6 Zoning. This would result in a compatible GPLU/Zoning assignment which is also compatible with existing surrounding developments. The application/owner is also seeking direction from staff, Planning Commission and City Council if there is any desire from the City’s position to densify the project to provide more housing units and assist the City meet its future RHENA requirements.
Site Development Footprint:
The subject parcel is subject to unique existing topographic relief. Development of the property is limited only to a development footprint that occupies the existing flat pad area reflected on the PDP Submittal documents.
ATTACHMENT A
A1
Milani & Associates
2655 Stanwell Drive, Suite 105
Concord, CA. 94520 PH: (925) 674-9082
2 The application is a standard PDP Submittal, consistent with the City’s current submittal requirements. The purpose of the PDP application comprises two (2) primary goals and objectives:
1. Obtain objective direction from Planning Staff, Planning Commission and City Council that a General Plan Amendment Application could be supported by Planning Staff, Planning Commission and City Council, subject to appropriate findings, CEQA compliance and final Conditions of approval under a GPA application.
2. Obtain objective direction from Planning Staff, Planning Commission and City Council relating to options to densify the project under a General Plan Designation of Medium Density Residential (10 du/acre) and High Density Residential (up to 20 du/acre). Under this objective the development footprint would not change from the development footprint reflected for the proposed R6 Zoning option.
On behalf of the Property owner, I and all members of the Good Chance Development team look forward to collaborating with you, Planning staff and both the Planning Commission and City Council Members in undertaking this challenging task.
I trust this provides you with the documentation that you require. If you need any additional information, please contact me at this office.
Sincerely Yours,
Michael Milani
Michael Milani
Project Manager – Milani & Associates
MEM:
Enclosures: PDP Application with supporting documentation Cc: Denise Chng
Benjamin Tarcher
A2
NO.BY REVISIONSAPP DATE
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANR.C.E. No. 35121 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 9-30-25 MICHAEL E. MILANI
DESIGN: RK
DRAWN: RK, LML
CHECKED: MEM
DESIGNED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
CALIFORNIA
DATE
JOB NO: 1351.5
SCALE: AS SHOWN
DATE: AUGUST 2023
OFSHEETS
9 SHEET
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
P.L.S. No. 5311 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 12-31-23
CITY OF ANTIOCH
APN 076-021-006
C1
OVERALL PROJECT SITE PLAN
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CITY OF ANTIOCH, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIOFRNIA
GOOD CHANCE LOTS
BENCHMARK
THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS PROJECT ARE TWO FOUND
STREET MONUMENTS ALONG MALLARD WAY AS SHOWN ON THE
MAP OF SUBDIVISION TRACT 6921, FILED NOVEMBER 4, 1988 IN BOOK 327 OF MAPS AT PAGE 27, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
RECORDS. BEARING TAKEN AS NORTH 01° 13' 16" WEST.
BASIS OF BEARINGS
THE BASIS OF ELEVATION FOR THIS PROJECT IS A BRONZE
DISK SET IN A CONCRETE POST AT THE TOP OF A SMALL
RISE 0.2 MILES NORTH OF THE ARATA RANCH, 39.5 FEET
WEST OF CENTERLINE OF SOMERSVILLE ROAD, 1.8 FEET
NORTHWEST OF A WITNESS POST, 0.5 FEET EAST OF A
FENCE, AS SHOWN ON CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
BENCHMARK SHEET "BM #1060". ELEVATION TAKEN AS
232.631 FEET.
TITLE SHEET
VICINITY MAP
N
ATTACHMENT B
B1
NO.BY REVISIONSAPP DATE
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANR.C.E. No. 35121 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 9-30-25 MICHAEL E. MILANI
DESIGN: RK
DRAWN: RK, LML
CHECKED: MEM
DESIGNED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
CALIFORNIA
DATE
JOB NO: 1351.5
SCALE: AS SHOWN
DATE: AUGUST 2023
OFSHEETS
9 SHEET
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
P.L.S. No. 5311 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 12-31-23
CITY OF ANTIOCH
APN 076-021-006
C2
PROJECT SITE PLAN
B2
SEE SHEET 5
SEE SHEET 6
(GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN)
(STREET PROFILE)
NO.BY REVISIONSAPP DATE
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANR.C.E. No. 35121 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 9-30-25 MICHAEL E. MILANI
DESIGN: RK
DRAWN: RK, LML
CHECKED: MEM
DESIGNED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
CALIFORNIA
DATE
JOB NO: 1351.5
SCALE: AS SHOWN
DATE: AUGUST 2023
OFSHEETS
9 SHEET
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
P.L.S. No. 5311 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 12-31-23
CITY OF ANTIOCH
APN 076-021-006
C3
PROJECT INDEX MAP
B3
NO.BY REVISIONSAPP DATE
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANR.C.E. No. 35121 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 9-30-25 MICHAEL E. MILANI
DESIGN: RK
DRAWN: RK, LML
CHECKED: MEM
DESIGNED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
CALIFORNIA
DATE
JOB NO: 1351.5
SCALE: AS SHOWN
DATE: AUGUST 2023
OFSHEETS
9 SHEET
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
P.L.S. No. 5311 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 12-31-23
CITY OF ANTIOCH
APN 076-021-006
C4
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
B4
NO.BY REVISIONSAPP DATE
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANR.C.E. No. 35121 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 9-30-25 MICHAEL E. MILANI
DESIGN: RK
DRAWN: RK, LML
CHECKED: MEM
DESIGNED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
CALIFORNIA
DATE
JOB NO: 1351.5
SCALE: AS SHOWN
DATE: AUGUST 2023
OFSHEETS
9 SHEET
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
P.L.S. No. 5311 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 12-31-23
CITY OF ANTIOCH
APN 076-021-006
C5
PRELIMINARY GRADING & UTILITY PLAN
B5
NO.BY REVISIONSAPP DATE
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANR.C.E. No. 35121 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 9-30-25 MICHAEL E. MILANI
DESIGN: RK
DRAWN: RK, LML
CHECKED: MEM
DESIGNED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
CALIFORNIA
DATE
JOB NO: 1351.5
SCALE: AS SHOWN
DATE: AUGUST 2023
OFSHEETS
9 SHEET
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
P.L.S. No. 5311 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 12-31-23
CITY OF ANTIOCH
APN 076-021-006
PRELIMINARY PLAN & PROFILE- STREET 'A'
6 B6
NO.BY REVISIONSAPP DATE
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANR.C.E. No. 35121 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 9-30-25 MICHAEL E. MILANI
DESIGN: RK
DRAWN: RK, LML
CHECKED: MEM
DESIGNED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
CALIFORNIA
DATE
JOB NO: 1351.5
SCALE: AS SHOWN
DATE: AUGUST 2023
OFSHEETS
9 SHEET
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
P.L.S. No. 5311 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 12-31-23
CITY OF ANTIOCH
APN 076-021-006
C7
SITE LAYOUT
B7
NO.BY REVISIONSAPP DATE
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANR.C.E. No. 35121 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 9-30-25 MICHAEL E. MILANI
DESIGN: RK
DRAWN: RK, LML
CHECKED: MEM
DESIGNED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
CALIFORNIA
DATE
JOB NO: 1351.5
SCALE: AS SHOWN
DATE: AUGUST 2023
OFSHEETS
9 SHEET
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
P.L.S. No. 5311 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 12-31-23
CITY OF ANTIOCH
APN 076-021-006
C8
SITE LAYOUT
B8
NO.BY REVISIONSAPP DATE
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANR.C.E. No. 35121 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 9-30-25 MICHAEL E. MILANI
DESIGN: RK
DRAWN: RK, LML
CHECKED: MEM
DESIGNED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
CALIFORNIA
DATE
JOB NO: 1351.5
SCALE: AS SHOWN
DATE: AUGUST 2023
OFSHEETS
9 SHEET
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
P.L.S. No. 5311 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 12-31-23
CITY OF ANTIOCH
APN 076-021-006
C9
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CITY OF ANTIOCH, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIOFRNIA
GOOD CHANCE LOTS
PRELIMINARY ARCHITECTURE
B9
1 [Date]
Good Chance Properties
Preliminary Development Plan
Site Photo Log
James Donlon Blvd.
APN 076-021-006
(Refer to Site Photo Exhibit)
ATTACHMENT C
C1
2 [Date]
Photo 1
C2
3 [Date]
Photo 2
C3
4 [Date]
Photo 3
C4
5 [Date]
Photo 4
C5
6 [Date]
Photo 5
C6
7 [Date]
Photo 6
C7
8 [Date]
Photo 7
C8
9 [Date]
Photo 8
C9
10 [Date]
Photo 9
C10
11 [Date]
Photo 10
C11
12 [Date]
Photo 11
C12
13 [Date]
Photo 12
C13
14 [Date]
Appendix
(Site Photo Exhibit)
C14
15 [Date]
C15
16 [Date]
C16
Memorandum
Date: April 16, 2024
To Zoe Marideth, Antioch planning manager.
From: Kevin Van Katwyk, Senior Civil engineer, Interwest group Re: Review of Good Chance Properties Project at Somerville Road.
Dear Zoe,
This is our engineering completeness and engineering issues review of the following Good Chance Properties Project at Somerville Road in Antioch.
Incompleteness
The following items we found to be incomplete with the submittal.
1. The project is not in compliance with County and State clean water C3 requirements.
The applicant needs to provide documentation that he has completed the standard preliminary analysis of impervious and pervious surfaces and introduced clean water measures and details that his project will clean water by various methods. The submittal did not contain any calculations showing compliance to C3 requirements of the sizing of the proposed retention basin nor did it provide a detail of the basin showing how it will clean the water from the roadway of oils and sediments.
2. Need a Geotechnical investigation Included with the submittal. Included with the submittal of this residential project must provide a recent copy of soils report documenting the characteristics of natural soils located on the project is compatible with the proposed development plan. This project is located close to an existing landfill, and we need to see the limits of the existing landfill and will this landfill have any influence on the location of the proposed residential lots and proposed location of the homes and utilities to be constructed. The stability of the slopes should also be verified by a professional soil engineer and that the parcel is safe to build the proposed residential homes on the property.
Please provide a soils investigation with this application.
3. The boundary shown on the plans differs from the boundary of the parcel shown on the title report. The applicant does not clearly identify the existing boundary of the project parcel in the plan submittal and nor does the boundary shown on the maps agree with parcel lines shown on the title report. Please provide a record of the survey to clarify the parcel boundary issues (See below). The boundary shown on the development plans must match the boundary on the record of survey.
4. Need a Record of survey completed with the County. Due to legal description of the record boundary, the widening of the access road, the construction of a cul-de-sac at the end of Somerville Road, the ROW is not correctly shown on the submitted maps nor is the ROW identified on title report. The development maps do not show any physical monuments that were surveyed. The Record of Survey needs to be completed that will also
ATTACHMENT D
D1
show the locations of existing water utilities located in the existing parcels that are not shown. There is much evidence of physical changes and that there are material discrepancies with the boundary of existing parcel information provided in this submittal that the record boundary needs to be cleared these issues with the county surveyor. Please prepare and file a record of survey of this existing parcel by a professional surveyor that is verified by the County surveyor. The city requires a record of survey of this parcel to be completed and signed by the county surveyor before the parcel will be considered for the application of a subdivide. on per the land surveyors act (section 8762).
5. Need a tentative map included with submittal. For the subdivision of this original parcel to be subdivided into smaller residential lots, the applicant must file a tentative map labeled “tentative map subdivision XX” with a subdivision map number provided by the county of Contra Costa in accordance with the local county map act. This submittal is complete until it has a plan labeled tentative map with a map number per the requirements of the county subdivision map act.
Engineering Issues
C-1
• Provide a preliminary design of the driveway entrance to the subdivision shown on maps. • Provide annotation of the record boundary of the project with dimensions and annotations of adjacent public right of ways, monumentation based on actual surveyed information of the project parcel shown on the map. This map must file a record of survey with the county before it will be considered for a planning application.
C-2
• Need to document the location of the existing landfill areas of the site. Need to identify document the location of all underground ventilation pipes that will need to be maintained.
• Please annotate the existing parcel boundary on every sheet so we can verify that it is shown correctly on each sheet.
• The plan requires significant amount of grading on top of the hill of the project that may not be in compliance with the City of Antioch General plan that requires newly graded lots to blend into the natural hillside.
• The alignment of a new sewer trunk line from this project to flow cross country to connect to existing sewer main located a public main that crosses Markley Creek is not feasible and not acceptable. There is an existing sewer main located closure to the project at the intersection of James Dolan Blvd and Pintail Drive than what is shown. • Recommend relocation of the pump station and wet well to the driveway entrance to the subdivision so the pump station will have easy access from the public street. Please reroute the sewer truck line from the wet well to the sewer manhole at the intersection of James Dolan and Pintail Drive.
D2
• Recommend the solar array be relocated to the roofs off all the private residents located within the development instead of maintained by the HOA.
C-3
• Provide at least 4 cross sections of the public street into the subdivision of the shown on the plan markups.
• Provide at least two cross sections through the entire subdivision in each major direction so the City Council and commissioners can see what this hillside development will look like from the various directions.
C-4
• Provide annotation of existing ROW of Somerville Road with dimensions of the width of the existing pavement at many locations.
• As stated earlier, please provide the annotation of the existing project parcel boundary.
• Please identify on this sheet the extent of the existing landfill.
C-5
• Provide on the plan all retaining walls on both sides of Street A that need to be constructed with the grading of the main access drive to the subdivision. • Provide expanded corner bulbs so two full six pickup trucks can turn the corner in each direction and not have a conflict.
• Please provide a layout of the driveway of the access drive at the cul-de-sac. • Please provide fencing details and location of the proposed fences of the subdivision.
• Provide a 3’ wide concrete drainage ditch along the existing east side fence line with catch drains located at the base of the hill and drainage line to the closest drainage line.
• Per the City grading ordinance, existing uphill lots should not drain into lower neighboring residential lots.
• Please remove all sharp corners of contour lines. This is not practical. • Please install more drainage swales so lots do not drain onto neighboring properties.
• Per city standards please provide sidewalks on both sides of the street. • Complete the grading of the cut and fills of the grading of this whole project.
C-6
• As previously stated, provide the design of all hillside retaining walls. • Provide details of the proposed outfall of a 15’ storm drain line to City Creek. • As stated previously, provide the design of driveway entrance to the access road to the subdivision.
D3
• The length of the 50’ long vertical curves is too short for access drive into this subdivision. The vertical curves should be a 75’ minimum or more for crest and curves.
• The grade of 13.01% street slope is too steep for normal cars and trucks for access to the residential development. Please present some options.
D4
NO.BY REVISIONSAPP DATE
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANR.C.E. No. 35121 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 9-30-25 MICHAEL E. MILANI
DESIGN: RK
DRAWN: RK, LML
CHECKED: MEM
DESIGNED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
CALIFORNIA
DATE
JOB NO: 1351.5
SCALE: AS SHOWN
DATE: AUGUST 2023
OFSHEETS
9 SHEET
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
P.L.S. No. 5311 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 12-31-23
CITY OF ANTIOCH
APN 076-021-006
C1
OVERALL PROJECT SITE PLAN
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CITY OF ANTIOCH, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIOFRNIA
GOOD CHANCE LOTS
BENCHMARK
THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS PROJECT ARE TWO FOUND
STREET MONUMENTS ALONG MALLARD WAY AS SHOWN ON THE
MAP OF SUBDIVISION TRACT 6921, FILED NOVEMBER 4, 1988 IN BOOK 327 OF MAPS AT PAGE 27, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
RECORDS. BEARING TAKEN AS NORTH 01° 13' 16" WEST.
BASIS OF BEARINGS
THE BASIS OF ELEVATION FOR THIS PROJECT IS A BRONZE
DISK SET IN A CONCRETE POST AT THE TOP OF A SMALL
RISE 0.2 MILES NORTH OF THE ARATA RANCH, 39.5 FEET
WEST OF CENTERLINE OF SOMERSVILLE ROAD, 1.8 FEET
NORTHWEST OF A WITNESS POST, 0.5 FEET EAST OF A
FENCE, AS SHOWN ON CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
BENCHMARK SHEET "BM #1060". ELEVATION TAKEN AS
232.631 FEET.
TITLE SHEET
VICINITY MAP
N
D5
NO.BY REVISIONSAPP DATE
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANR.C.E. No. 35121 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 9-30-25 MICHAEL E. MILANI
DESIGN: RK
DRAWN: RK, LML
CHECKED: MEM
DESIGNED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
CALIFORNIA
DATE
JOB NO: 1351.5
SCALE: AS SHOWN
DATE: AUGUST 2023
OFSHEETS
9 SHEET
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
P.L.S. No. 5311 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 12-31-23
CITY OF ANTIOCH
APN 076-021-006
C2
PROJECT SITE PLAN
D6
SEE SHEET 5
SEE SHEET 6
(GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN)
(STREET PROFILE)
NO.BY REVISIONSAPP DATE
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANR.C.E. No. 35121 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 9-30-25 MICHAEL E. MILANI
DESIGN: RK
DRAWN: RK, LML
CHECKED: MEM
DESIGNED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
CALIFORNIA
DATE
JOB NO: 1351.5
SCALE: AS SHOWN
DATE: AUGUST 2023
OFSHEETS
9 SHEET
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
P.L.S. No. 5311 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 12-31-23
CITY OF ANTIOCH
APN 076-021-006
C3
PROJECT INDEX MAP
D7
NO.BY REVISIONSAPP DATE
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANR.C.E. No. 35121 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 9-30-25 MICHAEL E. MILANI
DESIGN: RK
DRAWN: RK, LML
CHECKED: MEM
DESIGNED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
CALIFORNIA
DATE
JOB NO: 1351.5
SCALE: AS SHOWN
DATE: AUGUST 2023
OFSHEETS
9 SHEET
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
P.L.S. No. 5311 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 12-31-23
CITY OF ANTIOCH
APN 076-021-006
C4
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
D8
NO.BY REVISIONSAPP DATE
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANR.C.E. No. 35121 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 9-30-25 MICHAEL E. MILANI
DESIGN: RK
DRAWN: RK, LML
CHECKED: MEM
DESIGNED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
CALIFORNIA
DATE
JOB NO: 1351.5
SCALE: AS SHOWN
DATE: AUGUST 2023
OFSHEETS
9 SHEET
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
P.L.S. No. 5311 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 12-31-23
CITY OF ANTIOCH
APN 076-021-006
C5
PRELIMINARY GRADING & UTILITY PLAN
D9
NO.BY REVISIONSAPP DATE
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANR.C.E. No. 35121 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 9-30-25 MICHAEL E. MILANI
DESIGN: RK
DRAWN: RK, LML
CHECKED: MEM
DESIGNED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
CALIFORNIA
DATE
JOB NO: 1351.5
SCALE: AS SHOWN
DATE: AUGUST 2023
OFSHEETS
9 SHEET
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
P.L.S. No. 5311 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 12-31-23
CITY OF ANTIOCH
APN 076-021-006
PRELIMINARY PLAN & PROFILE- STREET 'A'
6 D10
NO.BY REVISIONSAPP DATE
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANR.C.E. No. 35121 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 9-30-25 MICHAEL E. MILANI
DESIGN: RK
DRAWN: RK, LML
CHECKED: MEM
DESIGNED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
CALIFORNIA
DATE
JOB NO: 1351.5
SCALE: AS SHOWN
DATE: AUGUST 2023
OFSHEETS
9 SHEET
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
P.L.S. No. 5311 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 12-31-23
CITY OF ANTIOCH
APN 076-021-006
C7
SITE LAYOUT
D11
NO.BY REVISIONSAPP DATE
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANR.C.E. No. 35121 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 9-30-25 MICHAEL E. MILANI
DESIGN: RK
DRAWN: RK, LML
CHECKED: MEM
DESIGNED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
CALIFORNIA
DATE
JOB NO: 1351.5
SCALE: AS SHOWN
DATE: AUGUST 2023
OFSHEETS
9 SHEET
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
P.L.S. No. 5311 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 12-31-23
CITY OF ANTIOCH
APN 076-021-006
C8
SITE LAYOUT
D12
NO.BY REVISIONSAPP DATE
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANR.C.E. No. 35121 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 9-30-25 MICHAEL E. MILANI
DESIGN: RK
DRAWN: RK, LML
CHECKED: MEM
DESIGNED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
CALIFORNIA
DATE
JOB NO: 1351.5
SCALE: AS SHOWN
DATE: AUGUST 2023
OFSHEETS
9 SHEET
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
P.L.S. No. 5311 REGISTRATION EXPIRES 12-31-23
CITY OF ANTIOCH
APN 076-021-006
C9
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CITY OF ANTIOCH, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIOFRNIA
GOOD CHANCE LOTS
PRELIMINARY ARCHITECTURE
D13
1 Villagrana, Monique
From: Lam, Kimberly <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 3:28 PM
To: Villagrana, Monique; Merideth, Zoe
Subject: RE: City of Antioch Project Routing for Good Chance Property (PRE2023-0004) Attachments: PF596-215-New-Enclosure Dimensions-Clearances-Information-Sheet-v9A.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hi Zoe and Monique,
Thank you for sharing the Good Chance Property plans (13 residential units).
It looks fairly straightforward for us – we would just like the architect to confirm and show that our trucks will be able to turn around at the end of the court:
All units will have to have 3 carts each (landfill, recycle, organics) at the curb for weekly service.
See attachment, truck turning radius is on page 2.
Thanks!
Kimberly Lam
Municipal Manager
441 N Buchanan Circle
Pacheco, CA 94553
e [email protected]
c 925-457-5546
w RepublicServices.com
D14
2 From: Villagrana, Monique <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2024 1:30 PM
Subject: City of Antioch Project Routing for Good Chance Property (PRE2023-0004)
Good Afternoon, The City of Antioch Pla nning Division is requesting your review of the proje ct information a nd plans contai ned in the attached document. Pleas e provide feedback on av ailability of servic es, pote ntial design or code c onfli cts, ZjQcmQR YFpfptBa nnerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
ZjQcmQR YFpfptBa nner End
Good Afternoon,
The City of Antioch Planning Division is requesting your review of the project information and plans contained in the attached document.
Please provide feedback on availability of services, potential design or code conflicts, requirements for additional permits and draft conditions of project approval.
Responses are requested at your earliest availability, by or before April 4, 2024, to Zoe Merideth at [email protected].
Thank you in advance for your time and collaboration.
Monique Villagrana
Community Development Technician | Planning Division
: (925) 779-6163 (Direct)
: (925) 779-6159 (Main)
: (925) 779-7034 (Fax)
: [email protected]
: www.antiochca.gov
Community Development Department | 200 ‘H’ Street, Antioch, CA 94509-1005
D15
2120 Diamond Blvd. Suite 100 | Concord, CA 94520
Phone: 925-608-5500 | Fax : 925-608-5502
cchealth.org
March 20, 2024
City of Antioch
Planning Division
Attn: Zoe Merideth
P .O. Box 5007
Antioch, CA 94531
RE: PRE2023-0004 – Preliminary Development Plan Good Chance Property aka Antioch Disposal Svc LF – Lynch Site SWIS #07-CR-0005
Somersville Road, Antioch, CA
APN: 076-021-006
Facility Number: FA0012256
Record IDs: SR0022644, PR0013375
Dear Ms. Merideth:
Contra Costa Environmental Health (CCEH) has received a request for agency comment regarding the above referenced project. The following are our comments:
1. CCEH is designated by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) as the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) for solid waste facilities, including landfills. The LEA’s primary concern with this project is that this site is a closed landfill.
Any changes to the site’s post closure land use must be approved by the LEA, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control District. Additional concerns in relation to this proposed land use are:
• A change to the postclosure land use of the site will require the landfill to comply with all the requirements of California Code of Regulations Title 27, Division 2, Subdivision 1, Chapter 3, Subchapter 5, Article 2, including, but not limited to, increased landfill gas monitoring system requirements.
• This site currently has an existing, outstanding violation for a slope failure that damaged the site access road and the stormwater drainage system, indicating there are already significant slope stability issues.
• The site is filled with decomposing and unstable waste and will continue to settle for an indefinite time into the future. This instability will only be exacerbated if D16
2 structures are added on top of the facility which will substantially add weight compressing the fill and cover of the facility
• During the most recent inspection of the facility, the LEA measured methane gas levels in the landfill as high as 77.5% by volume. This would pose a significant hazard to any structures built or activities conducted on the site. In addition, the added weight from structures and/or soils for grading could force increased landfill gas migration. This could potentially create a hazard for the existing homes located to the West of the facility.
• Grading on the site has the potential of exposing the buried waste.
Other general concerns CCEH has in relation to development projects are as follows:
2. A permit from CCEH is required for any well or soil boring prior to commencing drilling activities, including those associated with water supply, environmental investigation and cleanup, or geotechnical investigation.
3. Any abandoned wells (water, environmental, or geotechnical) must be destroyed under permit from CCEH. If the existence of such wells are known in advance or discovered during construction or other activities, these must be clearly marked, kept secure, and destroyed pursuant to CCEH requirements.
4. It is recommended that the project be served by public sewer and public water.
5. Substantial construction and demolition (C & D) waste could result from this project.
Hazardous construction and demolition materials should be separated from those that can be recycled or disposed.
6. Debris from construction or demolition activity must go to a solid waste or recycling facility that complies with the applicable requirements and can lawfully accept the material (e.g., solid waste permit, EA Notification, etc.). The debris must be transported by a hauler that can lawfully transport the material. Debris bins or boxes of one cubic yard or more owned by the collection service operator shall be identified with the name and telephone number of the agent servicing the container.
7. Non-source-separated waste materials must not be brought back to the contractor’s yard unless the facility has the appropriate solid waste permit or EA Notification.
These comments do not limit an applicant’s obligation to comply with all applicable laws and regulations. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (925) 608- 5549.
D17
3 Sincerely,
Tim Kraus, REHS
Supervising Environmental Health Specialist
cc: Muizz Mohammed, Contra Costa Environmental Health
TK:kf
D18
D19
D20
D21
D22
D23
D24
D25
D26
D27
D28
D29
D30
D31
D32
D33
April 4, 2024
Zoe Merideth, Planning Manager
City of Antioch
P.O. Box 5007, Antioch, CA 94531
Sent via email to: [email protected]
Re: Good Chance Property | PRE2023 -0004 | Draft Conditions of Approval, Comments, Additional Requirements
Dear Ms. Merideth:
The East Bay Regional Park District (Park District) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments for the Preliminary Development Plan application for the proposed Good Chance Property residential development (Project) in Antioch, CA. This Project is on an approximately 16-acre site at the northern boundary of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve (Black Diamond Mines or park) near the intersection of Somersville Road and James Donlon Boulevard . The Project proposes building a roadway at the present entry gate to Black Diamond Mines to a cul-de-sac at the top of the property, where there will be built 13 single family homes, each with an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), for a total of 26 residences. The project also includes a large solar array on the western slopes of the Project, facing the entrance to Black Diamond Mines. The developer is requesting that Antioch change the property’s land use designation from Open Space to Medium Low Density Residential, so that it is compatible with the current R-6 Zoning Designation.
At 8,538 acres, the adjacent Black Diamond Mines is one of the largest regional parks in the Park District and contains several rare and endemic plant and animal species and it was the site of California’s largest coal mining operation, the Mount Diablo Coal Field, in the 1800s. The park is listed on the California Register of Historical Resources and the National Register of Historic Places, and is habitat for several rare, threatened, and endangered species. Park programs allow visitors to explore underground mine workings while 60 miles of trails allow residents to recreate and explore nature nearby. Black Diamond Mines is a significant asset and draw to East Contra Costa County and is enjoyed by thousands of Antioch residents every year.
As an adjacent landowner and manager of one of the largest parks in the region, the Park District has several concerns related to the Project site’s topography, past use history, proximity to Black Diamond Mines’ sensitive natural and cultural resources, and lack of information provided in the Project description and plans. These concerns are detailed below:
• Road Alignment / Park Entry. The park entry and Somersville Road will be impacted by the Project.
Somersville Road was built in the late 1800s to connect Antioch with the town of Somersville and the other 19
th century coal mining towns, and it is part of Antioch’s earliest history. Today, it is the main entry into the park and includes an entry gate, park signage, and landscaping. Somersville Road, south of James Donlon, follows its original 1800s alignment and could be considered a cultural resource.
D34
2 | Page
Good Chance Property, PRE2023-0004
EBRPD Comments
According to the Project designs, the east half of Somersville Road at the park entry would be removed to make room for a private neighborhood road, destroying this section of roadway and public right -of- way. It may not be possible to realign Somersville Road and the park entry any farther to the west because of the steeply sided Markley Creek Canyon which is already very near the west edge of the road. The Project will need to include in its analysis any impacts to the existing roadway, park entry signage, landscaping, as well as impacts to the viewshed and aesthetics. Furthermore, if the roadway needs to be realigned, the Project proponents should include that in the Project elements.
• Impacts to Cultural Resources. The Project could impact either previously recorded or not -yet- identified cultural resources. The Project analysis should examine the potential to impact any significant resources within the Project footprint. Given the nearby historic property, the Project, especially due to the installation of the solar array, has the potential to affect historic-age built environment resources and the rural historic setting. Therefore, a viewshed study should be conducted. The study should include the analysis of the type, scale, and location of the proposed development and the Project’s potential effect on historic-age built environment resources that may be affected visually, as well as the potential to affect a rural historic setting.
• Former Landfill Use. The proposed Project is on the site of the former Antioch-Lynch Landfill which was active until the mid-1970s. In March 2023, landfill materials were exposed and washed down toward Somerville Road, along the main entry and exit to Black Diamond Mines , and Markley Creek. Eroding landfill material not only creates a visual and physical impact, but it could expose wildlife and the public to health risks.
• Topography. The Project is on a small but steeply sloped parcel. The building of a roadway to the top would require significant earth modifications and construction of retaining walls along Somersville Road, which runs immediately west of and just below the proposed Project. As mentioned previously, p ark staff report that in March 2023 there was a landslide from the subject property onto Somersville R oad, which exposed landfill material. The Park District reached out to the property owner , Good Chance, shortly thereafter, and they requested the Park District provide a list of contractors to do grading work and repairs, but they have been non- responsive to follow-up correspondence and the work has yet to be completed. More erosion issues and exposure of buried landfill materials could be exacerbated by the Project.
• Insufficient Information in Project Plans. The Park District requests that the plans clearly show the existing conditions of the project vicinity, including current road and sidewalk footprints, the park entry gate, landscaping, and signage to Black Diamond Mines. It is not readily apparent in the submitted plans just how much the Project would impact the entry and exit to Black Diamond Mines. The Park District also requests that the Project Description be updated to include mention of the property’s former use as a landfill and the location of monitoring wells and to clarify that the Project site is not on Black Diamond Mines property but is adjacent to it.
As stated, the Park District has several concerns with the proposed Project because it could significantly impact the adjacent park . Furthermore, a careful and comprehensive environmental review of the project under the California Environmental Quality Act needs to consider impacts from the project t o aesthetics, geology and soils, recreation, utilities, hazardous materials, cultural resources, and public services.
Furthermore, the Park District requests that the City condition any development of the property on the grant from the applicant to the Park District of the following: 1) a public access and utility easement over the eastern D35
3 | Page
Good Chance Property, PRE2023-0004
EBRPD Comments
side of Somersville Road located within the property and 2) a landscape easement in the northwestern corner of the property. For background, in the 1980s the County vacated their rights to Somersville Road in the vicinity of the Project meaning that ownership of Somersville Road on either side of the centerline fell to the adjacent property owners, which is currently Good Chance on the east and the City of Antioch on the west. The Park District plans to improve the entrance into Black Diamond Mines by installing enhanced signage and landscaping, developing a new staging area, and enhancing public access into the Preserve. For approximately eight years, the Park District has been working with the applicant, unsuccessfully, to obtain these rights. The Park District has already obtained a public access and utility easement from the City of Antioch which owns the western side of Somersville Road in the vicinity.
Thank you for your review and consideration of our comments on the Project designs and description. The Park District looks forward to further discussions with the City about the proposed Project and how we can best protect valuable natural and cultural resources and recreational open space while serving the needs of Antioch residents. Please feel free to contact Eddie Willis at [email protected] or 510-544-2621 if you have any questions or would like to discuss further.
Sincerely,
Eddie Willis, Planner
Cc: Brian Holt, Chief of Planning, Trails, and GIS
Becky Bremser, Chief of Land Acquisition
D36
Plan Review Team
Land Management
[email protected]
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 1
Public
March 19, 2024
Zoe Meredith
City of Antioch
200 H Street
Antioch, CA 94509
Ref: Gas and Electric Transmission and Distribution
Dear Zoe Meredith,
Thank you for submitting the PRE2023-0004 plans for our review. PG&E will review the submitted plans in relationship to any existing Gas and Electric facilities within the project area.
If the proposed project is adjacent/or within PG&E owned property and/or easements, we will be working with you to ensure compatible uses and activities near our facilities.
Attached you will find information and requirements as it relates to Gas facilities (Attachment 1) and Electric facilities (Attachment 2). Please review these in detail, as it is critical to ensure your safety and to protect PG&E’s facilities and its existing rights.
Below is additional information for your review:
1. T his plan review process does not replace the application process for PG&E gas or electric service your project may require. For these requests, please continue to work with PG&E Service Planning: https://www.pge.com/en_US/business/services/building- and-renovation/overview/overview.page.
2. If the project being submitted is part of a larger project, please include the entire scope of your project, and not just a portion of it. PG&E’s facilities are to be incorporated within any CEQA document. PG&E needs to verify that the CEQA document will identify any required future PG&E services.
3. An engineering deposit may be required to review plans for a project depending on the size, scope, and location of the project and as it relates to any rearrangement or new installation of PG&E facilities.
Any proposed uses within the PG&E fee strip and/or easement, may include a California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) Section 851 filing. This requires the CPUC to render approval for a conveyance of rights for specific uses on PG&E’s fee strip or easement. PG&E will advise if the necessity to incorporate a CPUC Section 851filing is required.
This letter does not constitute PG&E’s consent to use any portion of its easement for any purpose not previously conveyed. PG&E will provide a project specific response as required.
Sincerely,
Plan Review Team
Land Management
D37
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 2
Public
Attachment 1 – Gas Facilities
There could be gas transmission pipelines in this area which would be considered critical facilities for PG&E and a high priority subsurface installation under California law. Care must be taken to ensure safety and accessibility. So, please ensure that if PG&E approves work near gas transmission pipelines it is done in adherence with the below stipulations. Additionally, the following link provides additional information regarding legal requirements under California excavation laws: https://www.usanorth811.org/images/pdfs/CA-LAW-2018.pdf
1. Standby Inspection: A PG&E Gas Transmission Standby Inspector must be present during any demolition or construction activity that comes within 10 feet of the gas pipeline. This includes all grading, trenching, substructure depth verifications (potholes), asphalt or concrete demolition/removal, removal of trees, signs, light poles, etc. This inspection can be coordinated through the Underground Service Alert (USA) service at 811. A minimum notice of 48 hours is required. Ensure the USA markings and notifications are maintained throughout the duration of your work.
2. Access: At any time, PG&E may need to access, excavate, and perform work on the gas pipeline. Any construction equipment, materials, or spoils may need to be removed upon notice.
Any temporary construction fencing installed within PG&E’s easement would also need to be capable of being removed at any time upon notice. Any plans to cut temporary slopes exceeding a 1:4 grade within 10 feet of a gas transmission pipeline need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work.
3. Wheel Loads: To prevent damage to the buried gas pipeline, there are weight limits that must be enforced whenever any equipment gets within 10 feet of traversing the pipe.
Ensure a list of the axle weights of all equipment being used is available for PG&E’s Standby Inspector. To confirm the depth of cover, the pipeline may need to be potholed by hand in a few areas.
Due to the complex variability of tracked equipment, vibratory compaction equipment, and cranes, PG&E must evaluate those items on a case-by-case basis prior to use over the gas pipeline (provide a list of any proposed equipment of this type noting model numbers and specific attachments).
No equipment may be set up over the gas pipeline while operating. Ensure crane outriggers are at least 10 feet from the centerline of the gas pipeline. Transport trucks must not be parked over the gas pipeline while being loaded or unloaded.
4. Grading: PG&E requires a minimum of 36 inches of cover over gas pipelines (or existing grade if less) and a maximum of 7 feet of cover at all locations. The graded surface cannot exceed a cross slope of 1:4.
5. Excavating: Any digging within 2 feet of a gas pipeline must be dug by hand. Note that while the minimum clearance is only 24 inches, any excavation work within 24 inches of the edge of a pipeline must be done with hand tools. So to avoid having to dig a trench entirely with hand tools, the edge of the trench must be over 24 inches away. (Doing the math for a 24 inch D38
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 3
Public
wide trench being dug along a 36 inch pipeline, the centerline of the trench would need to be at least 54 inches [24/2 + 24 + 36/2 = 54] away, or be entirely dug by hand.)
Water jetting to assist vacuum excavating must be limited to 1000 psig and directed at a 40° angle to the pipe. All pile driving must be kept a minimum of 3 feet away.
Any plans to expose and support a PG&E gas transmission pipeline across an open excavation need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work.
6. Boring/Trenchless Installations: PG&E Pipeline Services must review and approve all plans to bore across or parallel to (within 10 feet) a gas transmission pipeline. There are stringent criteria to pothole the gas transmission facility at regular intervals for all parallel bore installations.
For bore paths that cross gas transmission pipelines perpendicularly, the pipeline must be potholed a minimum of 2 feet in the horizontal direction of the bore path and a minimum of 24 inches in the vertical direction from the bottom of the pipe with minimum clearances measured from the edge of the pipe in both directions. Standby personnel must watch the locator trace (and every ream pass) the path of the bore as it approaches the pipeline and visually monitor the pothole (with the exposed transmission pipe) as the bore traverses the pipeline to ensure adequate clearance with the pipeline. The pothole width must account for the inaccuracy of the locating equipment.
7. Substructures: All utility crossings of a gas pipeline should be made as close to perpendicular as feasible (90° +/- 15°). All utility lines crossing the gas pipeline must have a minimum of 24 inches of separation from the gas pipeline. Parallel utilities, pole bases, water line ‘kicker blocks’, storm drain inlets, water meters, valves, back pressure devices or other utility substructures are not allowed in the PG&E gas pipeline easement.
If previously retired PG&E facilities are in conflict with proposed substructures, PG&E must verify they are safe prior to removal. This includes verification testing of the contents of the facilities, as well as environmental testing of the coating and internal surfaces. Timelines for PG&E completion of this verification will vary depending on the type and location of facilities in conflict.
8. Structures: No structures are to be built within the PG&E gas pipeline easement. This includes buildings, retaining walls, fences, decks, patios, carports, septic tanks, storage sheds, tanks, loading ramps, or any structure that could limit PG&E’s ability to access its facilities.
9. Fencing: Permanent fencing is not allowed within PG&E easements except for perpendicular crossings which must include a 16 foot wide gate for vehicular access. Gates will be secured with PG&E corporation locks.
10. Landscaping: Landscaping must be designed to allow PG&E to access the pipeline for maintenance and not interfere with pipeline coatings or other cathodic protection systems. No trees, shrubs, brush, vines, and other vegetation may be planted within the easement area.
Only those plants, ground covers, grasses, flowers, and low-growing plants that grow unsupported to a maximum of four feet (4’) in height at maturity may be planted within the easement area.
D39
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 4
Public
11. Cathodic Protection: PG&E pipelines are protected from corrosion with an “Impressed Current” cathodic protection system. Any proposed facilities, such as metal conduit, pipes, service lines, ground rods, anodes, wires, etc. that might affect the pipeline cathodic protection system must be reviewed and approved by PG&E Corrosion Engineering.
12. Pipeline Marker Signs: PG&E needs to maintain pipeline marker signs for gas transmission pipelines in order to ensure public awareness of the presence of the pipelines.
With prior written approval from PG&E Pipeline Services, an existing PG&E pipeline marker sign that is in direct conflict with proposed developments may be temporarily relocated to accommodate construction work. The pipeline marker must be moved back once construction is complete.
13. PG&E is also the provider of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs which may endanger the safe operation of its facilities.
D40
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 5
Public
Attachment 2 – Electric Facilities
It is PG&E’s policy to permit certain uses on a case by case basis within its electric transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) provided such uses and manner in which they are exercised, will not interfere with PG&E’s rights or endanger its facilities. Some examples/restrictions are as follows:
1. Buildings and Other Structures: No buildings or other structures including the foot print and eave of any buildings, swimming pools, wells or similar structures will be permitted within fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) areas. PG&E’s transmission easement shall be designated on subdivision/parcel maps as “RESTRICTED USE AREA – NO BUILDING.”
2. Grading: Cuts, trenches or excavations may not be made within 25 feet of our towers.
Developers must submit grading plans and site development plans (including geotechnical reports if applicable), signed and dated, for PG&E’s review. PG&E engineers must review grade changes in the vicinity of our towers. No fills will be allowed which would impair ground-to- conductor clearances. Towers shall not be left on mounds without adequate road access to base of tower or structure.
3. Fences: Walls, fences, and other structures must be installed at locations that do not affect the safe operation of PG&’s facilities. Heavy equipment access to our facilities must be maintained at all times. Metal fences are to be grounded to PG&E specifications. No wall, fence or other like structure is to be installed within 10 feet of tower footings and unrestricted access must be maintained from a tower structure to the nearest street. Walls, fences and other structures proposed along or within the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) will require PG&E review; submit plans to PG&E Centralized Review Team for review and comment.
4. Landscaping: Vegetation may be allowed; subject to review of plans. On overhead electric transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s), trees and shrubs are limited to those varieties that do not exceed 10 feet in height at maturity. PG&E must have access to its facilities at all times, including access by heavy equipment. No planting is to occur within the footprint of the tower legs. Greenbelts are encouraged.
5. Reservoirs, Sumps, Drainage Basins, and Ponds: Prohibited within PG&E’s fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) for electric transmission lines.
6. Automobile Parking: Short term parking of movable passenger vehicles and light trucks (pickups, vans, etc.) is allowed. The lighting within these parking areas will need to be reviewed by PG&E; approval will be on a case by case basis. Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by at least 10 feet.
Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer’s expense AND to PG&E specifications. Blocked-up vehicles are not allowed. Carports, canopies, or awnings are not allowed.
7. Storage of Flammable, Explosive or Corrosive Materials: There shall be no storage of fuel or combustibles and no fueling of vehicles within PG&E’s easement. No trash bins or incinerators are allowed.
D41
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 6
Public
8. Streets and Roads: Access to facilities must be maintained at all times. Street lights may be allowed in the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) but in all cases must be reviewed by PG&E for proper clearance. Roads and utilities should cross the transmission easement as nearly at right angles as possible. Road intersections will not be allowed within the transmission easement.
9. Pipelines: Pipelines may be allowed provided crossings are held to a minimum and to be as nearly perpendicular as possible. Pipelines within 25 feet of PG&E structures require review by PG&E. Sprinklers systems may be allowed; subject to review. Leach fields and septic tanks are not allowed. Construction plans must be submitted to PG&E for review and approval prior to the commencement of any construction.
10. Signs: Signs are not allowed except in rare cases subject to individual review by PG&E.
11. Recreation Areas: Playgrounds, parks, tennis courts, basketball courts, barbecue and light trucks (pickups, vans, etc.) may be allowed; subject to review of plans. Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by at least 10 feet. Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer’s expense AND to PG&E specifications.
12. Construction Activity: Since construction activity will take place near PG&E’s overhead electric lines, please be advised it is the contractor’s responsibility to be aware of, and observe the minimum clearances for both workers and equipment operating near high voltage electric lines set out in the High-Voltage Electrical Safety Orders of the California Division of Industrial Safety (
https://www.dir.ca.gov/Title8/sb5g2.html), as well as any other safety regulations.
Contractors shall comply with California Public Utilities Commission General Order 95 (http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/gos/GO95/go_95_startup_page.html) and all other safety rules. No construction may occur within 25 feet of PG&E’s towers. All excavation activities may only commence after 811 protocols has been followed.
Contractor shall ensure the protection of PG&E’s towers and poles from vehicular damage by (installing protective barriers) Plans for protection barriers must be approved by PG&E prior to construction.
13. PG&E is also the owner of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs that may endanger the safe and reliable operation of its facilities.
D42
Plan Review Team
Land Management
[email protected]
Public
April 4, 2024
Zoe Merideth
City of Antioch
200 H Street
Antioch, CA4509
Re: PRE2023-0004
Good Chance Property
Dear Zoe Merideth,
Thank you for providing PG&E the opportunity to review the proposed plans for PRE2023-0004 dated 3/14/2024. Our review indicates the proposed improvements do not appear to directly interfere with existing PG&E facilities or impact our easement rights.
Please note this is our preliminary review and PG&E reserves the right for additional future review as needed. This letter shall not in any way alter, modify, or terminate any provision of any existing easement rights. If there are subsequent modifications made to the design, we ask that you resubmit the plans to the email address listed below.
If the project requires PG&E gas or electrical service in the future, please continue to work with PG&E’s Service Planning department:
https://www.pge.com/cco/.
As a reminder, before any digging or excavation occurs, please contact Underground Service Alert (USA) by dialing 811 a minimum of 2 working days prior to commencing any work. This free and independent service will ensure that all existing underground utilities are identified and marked on-site.
If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact the PG&E Plan Review Team at [email protected].
Sincerely,
PG&E Plan Review Team
Land Management
D43
D44
D45
From: Thao Nguyen
To: Merideth, Zoe
Cc: Michelle Cordis
Subject: RE: City of Antioch Project Routing for Good Chance Property (PRE2023-0004)--Log-in, and if so, to whom? Date: Monday, April 1, 2024 9:19:33 AM
Attachments: image005.png
DA 55 Fee - Good Chance Property.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hello Zoe,
The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (FC District) has reviewed the Request for Comments for the Good Chance Property project (APN 076-021- 006) in the City of Antioch, CA 94509. We submit the following comments:
1. This project is located within Drainage Area 55, for which a drainage fee is due in accordance with Flood Control Ordinance Number 2002-23.
By ordinance, all
building permits or subdivision maps filed in this area are subject to the provisions of the drainage fee ordinance.
Effective Jan 2024, the current fee in this drainage
area is $1.13 per square foot of newly created impervious surface.
The drainage
area fee for this lot should be collected prior to filing the final map.
2. The District is not the approving local agency for this project as defined by the Subdivision Map Act.
As a special district, the District has an independent authority to collect drainage fees that is not restricted by the Subdivision Map Act.
The
District reviews the drainage fee rate every year the ordinance is in effect and adjusts the rate annually on January 1 to account for inflation.
The drainage fee
rate does not vest at the time of tentative map approval.
The drainage fees due
and payable will be based on the fee in effect at the time of fee collection.
3. The DA55 fee for this project is estimated to be $110,625 calculated based on the proposed areas of 13 lots and the ADUs as shown on the Preliminary Development Plan Site Layout (Sheet C8/9) prepared by Milani & Associates, dated August 2023.
Please see the enclosed spreadsheet for our drainage fee calculation.
4. We recommend that the City condition the developer to design and construct storm drain facilities to adequately collect and convey stormwater entering or originating within the development to the nearest adequate man-made drainage facility or natural watercourse, without diversion of the watershed.
D46
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
5. The developer should be required to submit hydrology and hydraulic calculations to the City that prove the adequacy of the in-tract drainage system and the downstream drainage system.
We defer review of the local drainage to the City.
6. We recommend that the City condition the developer to contact the appropriate environmental regulatory agencies such as the State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and State Regional Water Quality Control Board to obtain all the necessary permits for this project or show that such permits are not necessary.
7. The applicant should be required to comply with the current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements under the City Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinances and the C.3 Guidebook.
We
support the State's goal of providing best management practices to achieve the permanent reduction or elimination of stormwater pollutants and downstream erosion from new development.
We appreciate the opportunity to review plans involving drainage matters and welcome continued coordination. Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Thao Nguyen Nguyen | Staff Engineer
Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553
[email protected] | Office: 925-313-2197
From: Villagrana, Monique <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2024 1:30 PM
Subject: City of Antioch Project Routing for Good Chance Property (PRE2023-0004)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good Afternoon,
The City of Antioch Planning Division is requesting your review of the project information and plans contained in the attached document.
Please provide feedback on availability of services, potential design or code conflicts, D47
requirements for additional permits and draft conditions of project approval.
Responses are requested at your earliest availability, by or before April 4, 2024, to Zoe Merideth at [email protected].
Thank you in advance for your time and collaboration.
Monique Villagrana
Community Development Technician | Planning Division
(
:
(925) 779-6163 (Direct)
(:
(925) 779-6159 (Main)
6:
(925) 779-7034 (Fax)
*:
[email protected]
:: www.antiochca.gov
Community Development Department
| 200 ‘H’ Street, Antioch, CA 94509-1005
D48
Good Chance Property Date: 20-Mar-24 LOT #
076-021-006 Fee Schedule: 202 4 Ordinance: 2002-23 1 35 69 55 Building Subdivision 2 36 70 Unit Price QTY Amount Unit Price QTY Amount 3 37 71 Commercial/Industrial/Downtown 46,466 $ - 49,912 $ - 4 38 72 Office (Medium) 39,821 - 44,499 - 5 39 73 Office (Light) 33,324 - 37,561 - 6 40 74 7 41 75
Building Subdivision 8 42 76 Multifamily Residences Unit Price QTY Amount Unit Price QTY Amount 9 43 77 Less than 2,500 square ft of land 36,612 $ - 36,612 $ - 10 44 78 2,500-2,999 (square feet per unit) 2,170 - 2,170 - 11 45 79 3,000-3,999 2,486 - 2,486 - 12 46 80 4,000-4,999 2,893 - 2,893 - 13 47 81 5,000-5,999 3,311 - 3,311 - 14 48 82 6,000-6,999 3,718 - 3,718 - 15 49 83 7,000-7,999 4,113 - 4,113 - 16 50 84 8,000 + 4,317 - 4,317 - 17 51 85 18 52 86
Building Subdivision 19 53 87 Single Family Residential Unit Price QTY Amount Unit Price QTY Amount 20 54 88 4,000-4,999 (square feet per unit) 3,040 $ - 4,870 $ - 21 55 89 5,000-5,999 3,175 - 5,074 - 22 56 90 6,000-6,999 3,311 - 5,277 - 23 57 91 7,000-7,999 3,447 - 5,481 - 24 58 92 8,000-9,999 3,650 - 5,774 - 25 59 93 10,000-13,999 4,057 - 6,362 4 25,448.00 26 60 94 14,000-19,999 4,735 - 7,322 4 29,288.00 27 61 95 20,000-29,999 5,853 - 8,780 4 35,120.00 28 62 96 30,000-39,999 7,266 - 10,486 1 10,486.00 29 63 97 40,000 + 8,712 - 12,080 - 30 64 98 - - 13 100,342 31 65 99 FALSE 32 66 100
Unit Price Amount # 33 67
34 68
QTY
### FALSE FALSE 250,575 <2,500 -
FALSE Total Area (Acres): 5.752 #REF! 34 34 2,500-2,999 - 3,000-3,999 -
n/a Comments: 4,000-4,999 -
#### 5,000-5,999 -
6,000-6,999 -
Comments: $0.00 7,000-7,999 -
8,000-9,999 -
10,000-13,999 4
14,000-19,999 4
20,000-29,999 4
30,000-39,999 1
40,000 + -
\\pw-data\grpdata\fldctl\CurDev\CITIES\Antioch\3055-06\APN 076-021-006, Good Chance Property\[DA 55 Fee - Good Chance Property.xlsx]Worksheet Print Date: Print Date: April 1, 2024 Mark box to add mitigation fee
April 1, 2024 \\pw-data\grpdata\fldctl\CurDev\CITIES\Antioch\3055-06\APN 076-021-006, Good Cha Total Area (ft2):
This fee estimate is based on charges for 13 individual single-family residential units' lot sizes and the combined impervious area of the ADUs as shown on the Preliminary Development Plan Site Layout (Sheet C8/9) by Milani & Associates, dated August 2023.
Based on Ordinance 2002-233 of DA 46: This project is eligible for 100 SF deduction for each of the ADU units. Therefore, new impervious surface = (800SF - 100SF) * 13 ADU units = 9100 SF Prepared by: Thao Nguyen
-
15,447 - - - 14,510
- - - - -
-
Lot Closure
- 35,447
(square feet)
- -
- -
23,462
-
21,999
13,506 - - - -
- -
-
-
- -
-
-
-
- -
- 25,287
- - 12,502 Summary of Drainage Fees
Development #:
APN:
- 15,638 - -
13,919 - - 12,199 -
Drainage Area:
- - - - - 29,304 17,357 - - -
- -
- -
-
-
- -
- - - -
- -
- - - -
-
-
-
- -
- - - - -
-
-
- - - -
-
-
AREA (SF)
- -
$110,625.00 - Area of impervious surface of the ADUs:
(Amount Below to be added to the total.)
TOTAL:
1.13 10,283.00$
Calculate DA 130 fee if checked
Sqr Ft.
9,100
D49
Good Chance Property Date: 20-Mar-24 LOT #
076-021-006 Fee Schedule: 202 4 Ordinance: 2002-23 1 35 69 55 Building Subdivision 2 36 70 Unit Price QTY Amount Unit Price QTY Amount 3 37 71 Commercial/Industrial/Downtown 46,466 $ - 49,912 $ - 4 38 72 Office (Medium) 39,821 - 44,499 - 5 39 73 Office (Light) 33,324 - 37,561 - 6 40 74 7 41 75
Building Subdivision 8 42 76 Multifamily Residences Unit Price QTY Amount Unit Price QTY Amount 9 43 77 Less than 2,500 square ft of land 36,612 $ - 36,612 $ - 10 44 78 2,500-2,999 (square feet per unit) 2,170 - 2,170 - 11 45 79 3,000-3,999 2,486 - 2,486 - 12 46 80 4,000-4,999 2,893 - 2,893 - 13 47 81 5,000-5,999 3,311 - 3,311 - 14 48 82 6,000-6,999 3,718 - 3,718 - 15 49 83 7,000-7,999 4,113 - 4,113 - 16 50 84 8,000 + 4,317 - 4,317 - 17 51 85 18 52 86
Building Subdivision 19 53 87 Single Family Residential Unit Price QTY Amount Unit Price QTY Amount 20 54 88 4,000-4,999 (square feet per unit) 3,040 $ - 4,870 $ - 21 55 89 5,000-5,999 3,175 - 5,074 - 22 56 90 6,000-6,999 3,311 - 5,277 - 23 57 91 7,000-7,999 3,447 - 5,481 - 24 58 92 8,000-9,999 3,650 - 5,774 - 25 59 93 10,000-13,999 4,057 - 6,362 4 25,448.00 26 60 94 14,000-19,999 4,735 - 7,322 4 29,288.00 27 61 95 20,000-29,999 5,853 - 8,780 4 35,120.00 28 62 96 30,000-39,999 7,266 - 10,486 1 10,486.00 29 63 97 40,000 + 8,712 - 12,080 - 30 64 98 - - 13 100,342 31 65 99 FALSE 32 66 100
Unit Price Amount # 33 67
34 68
QTY
### FALSE FALSE 250,575 <2,500 -
FALSE Total Area (Acres): 5.752 #REF! 34 34 2,500-2,999 - 3,000-3,999 -
n/a Comments: 4,000-4,999 -
#### 5,000-5,999 -
6,000-6,999 -
Comments: $0.00 7,000-7,999 -
8,000-9,999 -
10,000-13,999 4
14,000-19,999 4
20,000-29,999 4
30,000-39,999 1
40,000 + -
\\pw-data\grpdata\fldctl\CurDev\CITIES\Antioch\3055-06\APN 076-021-006, Good Chance Property\[DA 55 Fee - Good Chance Property.xlsx]Worksheet Print Date: Print Date: April 1, 2024 Mark box to add mitigation fee
April 1, 2024 \\pw-data\grpdata\fldctl\CurDev\CITIES\Antioch\3055-06\APN 076-021-006, Good Cha Total Area (ft2):
This fee estimate is based on charges for 13 individual single-family residential units' lot sizes and the combined impervious area of the ADUs as shown on the Preliminary Development Plan Site Layout (Sheet C8/9) by Milani & Associates, dated August 2023.
Based on Ordinance 2002-233 of DA 46: This project is eligible for 100 SF deduction for each of the ADU units. Therefore, new impervious surface = (800SF - 100SF) * 13 ADU units = 9100 SF Prepared by: Thao Nguyen
-
15,447 - - - 14,510
- - - - -
-
Lot Closure
- 35,447
(square feet)
- -
- -
23,462
-
21,999
13,506 - - - -
- -
-
-
- -
-
-
-
- -
- 25,287
- - 12,502 Summary of Drainage Fees
Development #:
APN:
- 15,638 - -
13,919 - - 12,199 -
Drainage Area:
- - - - - 29,304 17,357 - - -
- -
- -
-
-
- -
- - - -
- -
- - - -
-
-
-
- -
- - - - -
-
-
- - - -
-
-
AREA (SF)
- -
$110,625.00 - Area of impervious surface of the ADUs:
(Amount Below to be added to the total.)
TOTAL:
1.13 10,283.00$
Calculate DA 130 fee if checked
Sqr Ft.
9,100
D50
1 From: Valerie Randolph < >
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 4:04 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
ATTACHMENT E
E1
2 They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
Valerie Randolph
Antioch, California 94509
E2
3 From: Bo Dash < >
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 4:07 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
E3
4 They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
Bo Dash
Antioch, California 94509
E4
5 From: Deborah Cullen < >
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 4:13 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
E5
E6
7 From: Samantha S >
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 4:30 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
E7
8 They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
Samantha S
Brentwood, California 94513
E8
9 From: Kristy Jardim < >
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 4:36 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
E9
10 They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
Kristy Jardim
Antioch, California 94509
E10
11 From: VINCE AUGUSTA < >
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 5:00 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
E11
E12
13 From: Mark Murray < >
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 5:35 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
E13
14 They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
Mark Murray
Antioch , California 94509
E14
15 From: Sally de Becker < >
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 5:43 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Cities must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts.
This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
E15
16 Sally de Becker
Berkeley, 94703
E16
17 From: Laurence White < >
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 6:30 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
E17
18 They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
Laurence White
Antioch, California 94509
E18
19 From: Nati Flores paniagua < >
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 6:47 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
E19
20 They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
Nati Flores paniagua
Antioc, California 94531
E20
21 From: Denise Baquing < >
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 7:16 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
E21
22 They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
Denise Baquing
Antioch, California 94509
E22
23 From: Carol Kuhn < >
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 8:50 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
E23
24 They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
Carol Kuhn
Antioch , California 94509
E24
25 From: Yensi Kaplan < >
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 9:46 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
E25
26 They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
Yensi Kaplan
Antioch, California 94531
E26
27 From: Wilmetta Silva < >
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 11:34 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
E27
28 They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
Wilmetta Silva
Antioch, California 94509
E28
29 From: Dennis Daigle < >
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2024 2:27 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
E29
30 They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
Dennis Daigle
Antioch, California 94531
E30
E31
32 They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
steven amaral
antioch ca.94531
ANTIOCH, California 94531
E32
33 From: Sandra Fuentes
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2024 5:28 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
E33
34 They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
Sandra Fuentes
Antioch, California 94509
E34
35 From: Rosanne Carey < >
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2024 6:36 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
E35
36 They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
Rosanne Carey
Antioch , California 94509
E36
37 From: Kirin White < >
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2024 6:49 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
E37
38 They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
Kirin White
Antioch, California 94531
E38
39 From: Bernabe Leiva < >
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2024 8:29 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
E39
40 They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
Bernabe Leiva
Antioch, California 94531
E40
41 From: Johanna Leiva < >
Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2024 8:30 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
E41
42 They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
Johanna Leiva
Antioch, California 94531
E42
1 From: Lizbeth Gutierrez < >
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 5:02 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
E43
2 They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
Lizbeth Gutierrez
Pittsburg , California 94565
E44
3 From: Lisa Florez < >
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 4:16 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
E45
4 They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
Lisa Florez
Antioch, California 94509
E46
5 From: Karen Spangler < >
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 4:05 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
E47
6 They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
Karen Spangler
Antioch, California 94509
E48
7 From: Sierra Asnicar < >
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 6:03 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
E49
E50
9 From: Joe Sousa < >
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 4:18 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
E51
10 They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
Joe Sousa
Antioch, California 94509
E52
11 From: mike hopkins >
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 5:19 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
E53
12 They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
mike hopkins
Antioch, CA 94531
ANTIOCH, California 94531
E54
1 From: Nicole Geeting < >
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2024 7:48 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
E55
2 They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
Nicole Geeting
Antioch, California 94509
E56
3 From: Jake DeSoto < >
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2024 5:44 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
E57
4 They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
Jake DeSoto
ANTIOCH, California 94509
E58
5 From: Noelle Ochinang >
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2024 11:52 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
E59
6 They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
Noelle Ochinang
Antioch, California 94531
E60
7 From: Marcel Saunders < >
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2024 9:40 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
E61
8 They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
Marcel Saunders
Antioch, California 94509
E62
1 From: Taneshia Jackson < >
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2024 8:37 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
E63
2 They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
Taneshia Jackson
Antioch, California 94509
E64
3 From: Joan Scotto < >
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2024 4:56 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
E65
4 They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
Joan Scotto
Antioch, California 94509 5150
E66
5 From: < >
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2024 10:40 AM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
E67
6 They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
Antioch, California 94509
E68
From: Nicole Armstrong
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! Date: Friday, August 9, 2024 4:45:22 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
Nicole Armstrong
E69
Pittsburg, California 94565-4428
E70
From: Mozell Quarles
To: City Clerk
Subject: Keep our open spaces protected, and oppose the project next to Black Diamond Mines! Date: Wednesday, August 7, 2024 2:19:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
City Clerk Ellie Householder,
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Should the project come before you, please do not support the proposal to build houses at the entrance of Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve.
On July 17, the Antioch Planning Commission reviewed a project from Good Chance Development to develop 13 lots on 16 acres on the hill along Somersville Road, just north of and next to Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve and south of James Donlan Boulevard.
The developer seeks a general plan amendment to change the zoning from open space to low-density or medium-density residential development.
I want to voice my concerns about this proposal should it come before the Antioch City Council, which are shared by local agencies, and note that all Antioch Planning Commissioners raised objections to this project.
Our city must buffer the parks and protected open space areas we have from negative impacts. This project from Good Chance Development would do the opposite.
Planning Commissioners, local agencies, and Antioch residents have expressed concerns about the proposed project's fire risk, steep slopes, proximity to Markley Creek, impacts on Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve, and the additional planned accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs (and potential evacuation difficulties with only one way out for that many people).
They have also raised concerns about the site’s history as an unlicensed dump, citing methane emissions as well as public health, erosion, landslides, and subsidence risks.
In light of these concerns, I urge you to join the Antioch Planning Commission and the community in opposing this development. Protecting our open spaces and ensuring the safety and well-being of our residents should remain top priorities.
Thank you,
Mozell Quarles
E71
Antioch, California 94531-8633
E72
8 Agenda Item #
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of August 27, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
SUBMITTED BY: Thomas Lloyd Smith, City Attorney TLS
SUBJECT: Introduction of Ordinance: Approving Councilmember Increases in Salary in Accordance with Senate Bill 329. The Council Pay will Increase from $1,604 Per Month to $1,900 Per Month and Will Not Take Effect Until the Next City Council is Seated After the November 2024 Election
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council introduce by title only and waive the further reading of the ordinance increasing councilmember compensation to one thousand nine hundred dollars ($1,900) per month for a total of twenty-two thousand eight hundred dollars ($22,800) per year.
FISCAL IMPACT
If this ordinance is adopted City Council salaries as well as the salaries of the City Clerk and the City Treasurer, in accordance with the City’s municipal code (sections 2-1.701 and 2-1.702), would increase to one thousand nine hundred dollars ($1,900) per month for a total of twenty-two thousand eight hundred dollars ($22,800) per year. The effective date of the increase in salaries would be planned for December 10, 2024.
The current salaries of city council members, the City Clerk, and the City Treasurer are $1,600.04 for each elected official per month with a total monthly salary of $11,200.28 per month for all elected officials. If this ordinance is adopted, the increase in salary per elected official would be $299.96. The total monthly increase for all elected officials would be $2,099.72 (7 elected officials at $299.96 per elected official). Therefore, the fiscal impact of adopting this ordinance for the remainder of FY 2024-25 would be additional salary of $14,698.04 for all elected officials.
DISCUSSION
On June 29, 2023 Governor Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 329 (“SB 329”), which increases the compensation that councilmembers of general law cities may receive for their work.
Antioch City Council Report
August 27, 2024 Agenda Item#8 2
1. Why Did the State of California Increase the Councilmember Compensation Limit? The State Legislature found and declared the following reasons for adopting Senate Bill 329 to increase the compensation limits for City Councilmembers:
(a) The compensation schedule for general law cities has not been adjusted since 1984, meaning that city council compensation has not kept pace with inflation. (b) Allowing cities to adjust their compensation for inflation since 1984 may help city councils become more diverse because increased compensation can help individuals from across different income levels receive sufficient income from their service to help ensure that they can continue to serve the public and support their families.
2. What is the Compensation Limit for the Antioch City Council? How is it determined?
Senate Bill 329 amends Government Code section 36516 to increase the maximum salaries identified in the schedule. The maximum salary per city is determined by each city’s population. The City of Antioch is included in the bracket cities over 75,000 up to and including 150,000 in population, which may compensate councilmembers up to and including one thousand nine hundred dollars ($1,900) per month totaling twenty-two thousand eight hundred dollars ($22,800) per year. 1
Senate Bill 329 also authorizes the salary of council members to be increased beyond the specified maximum to an amount not exceeding the greater of either 5% for each calendar year from the effective date of the last adjustment of the salary or an amount equal to inflation since January 1, 2024, based on the California Consumer Price Index (not to exceed 10% per calendar year).
3. What is the Process for a City Council to Increase its Compensation? Government Code section 36516 authorizes a city council to enact an ordinance providing each member of the city council a salary, within a maximum limit based upon the population of the city in accordance with a specific schedule. Salary increases cannot exceed 5% for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary that is in effect when the increase is enacted.
SB 329 requires the City Council to pass an ordinance increasing council member compensation. The City Council must consider the adoption of an ordinance to increase compensation in open session during at least two regular meetings of the City Council.
At the first meeting, the City Council must present the proposed ordinance and it must include findings demonstrating the need for the increased compensation. At the second meeting, the City Council may consider whether to adopt the ordinance. A majority vote of the entire Antioch City Council is required. If the ordinance passes, it will become effective 30 days after the date of adoption.
1 Government Code 36516(a)(1)(D)
Antioch City Council Report
August 27, 2024 Agenda Item#8 3
SB 329 went into effect on January 1, 2024. In accordance with Government Code section 36516.5, any council salary increase takes effect when at least one member of the City Council commences a new term. Therefore, if the Antioch City Council adopts an ordinance concerning this matter and the ordinance becomes effective prior to the November 2024 election, the councilmember salary increases would become effective upon the commencement of new councilmember terms following the November 2024 election.
An ordinance cannot be enacted or amended to provide automatic future increases in salary. Any retirement, health and welfare, federal social security benefits, or reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses are not included for purposes of determining salary under section 36516.
4. City Council Direction to Staff
On June 11, 2024, City Council gave direction to staff to prepare an ordinance for consideration that would increase City Council salaries to the current limits established by Senate Bill 329.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Proposed Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANTIOCH AMENDING SECTION 2-1.206 OF THE ANTIOCH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
COMPENSATION FOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 36516 (§36516) establishes limits on the amount of compensation that city council members may receive for their service as elected officials;
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 329 (SB 329), signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on June 29, 2023, increases the maximum base tiers for city council salaries, based upon the population of a municipality, that may be approved by a city council by an ordinance or amendment thereto;
WHEREAS, the California Legislature passed SB 329 as acknowledgement of the important work of local governments, as well as the time and dedication that elected public service requires;
WHEREAS, in considering SB 329, the California Legislature found that city council compensation has not kept pace with inflation;
WHEREAS, the California Legislature determined that allowing cities to adjust their compensation for inflation may help city councils become more diverse because increased compensation can help individuals from across different income levels receive sufficient income from their service to help ensure that they can continue to serve the public and support their families;
WHEREAS, in addition to establishing revised maximum base tiers for city council salaries, SB 329 continues to provide that salaries for council members may be increased by either by an amount not to exceed 5 percent for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary in effect when the ordinance or amendment is enacted, or by an amount equal to inflation since January 1, 2024, based upon the California Consumer Price Index (CCPI), which shall not exceed 10 percent for each calendar year applied, whichever applied formula is greater; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Antioch (“City Council”) wishes to modify the salary compensation for all members of the City Council in accordance with the newly established maximum under SB 329.
The City Council of the City of Antioch does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals.The above recitals are incorporated by reference as though set forth in full in this section.
SECTION 2. Amendment.Section 2-1.206 of the Antioch Municipal Code, “Council Member Salary; Operative Date”, shall now read as follows:
§ 2-1.206 COUNCIL MEMBER SALARY; OPERATIVE DATE.
Pursuant to Cal. Gov’t Code § 36516, the salary for each member of the City Council is hereby set at $1,900.00 per month. The provisions of this section shall become operative on December 10, 2024.
SECTION 3. CEQA. The adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), which provides that CEQA only applies to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be determined that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, the project is not subject to CEQA. This Ordinance increases the salary of City Council members, and does not propose nor authorize any action or specific project that would have the potential to cause a significant adverse effect on the environment.
SECTION 4. Severability.Should any provision of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable, or otherwise void, that determination shall have no effect on any other provision of this Ordinance or the application of this Ordinance to any other person or circumstance and, to that end, the provisions hereof are severable.
SECTION 5. Publication; Effective Date.This Ordinance shall take effect within thirty (30) days from and after the date of its adoption by the City Council at a second reading and shall be posted and published in accordance with the California Government Code. * * * * * * * I HEREBY CERTIFYthat the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Antioch, held on the 27thday of August 2024, and passed and adopted at a regular meeting thereof, held on the ___ day of September 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
_________________________________
LAMAR A. HERNANDEZ-THORPE
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ANTIOCH
ATTEST:
__________________________________
ELIZABETH HOUSEHOLDER
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANTIOCH
10 Agenda Item #
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular meeting of August 27, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
SUBMITTED BY: Joseph Vigil, Police Captain
APPROVED BY: Brian Addington, Interim Chief of Police
SUBJECT: 2023 Annual Military Equipment Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the 2023 Annual Military Equipment Report.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact in accepting this report.
DISCUSSION
Assembly Bill 481 (AB 481), approved on September 30, 2021, by Governor Gavin Newsom (codified as Chapter 12.8 of the California Government Code and commencing with section 7070 et seq.), requires all local law enforcement agencies obtain approval from the applicable governing body (City Council) via adoption of a “military equipment” use policy by ordinance prior to requesting, seeking funding, acquiring, collaborating with other jurisdictions about the deployment of military equipment, or using military equipment.
Section 7072 of the Government Code requires departments to prepare an annual equipment report. Section 7071 requires agencies submit reports to their governing bodies annual detailing the following:
1. A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use.
2. A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment.
3. The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the military equipment use policy, and any actions taken in response.
Antioch City Council Report
August 27, 2024 Agenda Item#10 2
4. The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the annual military equipment report.
5. The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment.
6. If the law enforcement agency intends to acquire additional military equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment. (a) Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing an annual military equipment report pursuant to this section, the law enforcement agency shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the general public may discuss and ask questions regarding the annual military equipment report and the law enforcement agency's funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.
On June 17, 2024, the Antioch Police Department presented the Annual Military Equipment Report to the Antioch Police Oversight Commission.
The police department worked with commission members to clarify wording in the report as well as define separate heading sections. A clear process, specific for military equipment, was created for community members to ask questions, express concerns, and make complaints.
On August 5, 2024, the 2023 the Annual Military Equipment Report was presented and approved by the Antioch Police Oversight Commission.
ATTACHMENTS
A. 2023 Annual Military Equipment Report
ANTIOCH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Brian Addington, Interim Chief of Police
300 L Street, Antioch, CA 94509
Phone: (925) 779-6900 / Fax: (925) 779-6905
www.antiochpolice.com
1 2023 ANNUAL MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE REPORT
Introduction
On September 30, 2021, the Governor of the State of California approved Assembly Bill 481 (codified as Chapter 12.8 of the California Government Code) requiring law enforcement agencies to have a military equipment use policy approved by the City Council prior to requesting, seeking funding, acquiring or using items that it defined as military equipment. Assembly Bill 481 allows the governing body to approve the policy within its jurisdiction only if it determines that the military equipment meets specified standards.
On May 24, 2022, the Antioch City Council approved Ordinance 2213-C-S, approving Antioch Police Department Policy #706: Military Equipment Use Policy. On May 23, 2023, the Antioch City Council accepted the APD Military Equipment Report for 2022 and approved the continued use of that equipment.
As required by Assembly Bill 481 and the Ordinance, annually, the Antioch Police Department must prepare a report on the use of each type of military equipment approved in the Policy over the last year. Subsequently, the City Council must then review the Ordinance, Policy and Annual Report, and determine whether the Department’s use of the defined military equipment in the past year complied with the Policy, and whether to continue the Ordinance and Policy, take action (by ordinance) to modify the Policy or repeal the Ordinance.
As the Policy outlines, the Antioch Police Department retains and employs limited equipment that falls under this legislation and subsequent law to safeguard its community.
Antioch Police Department officers, certified instructional staff, and specialized units receive training throughout the year on the use of this equipment approved under the Policy.
This annual report outlines the Antioch Police Department’s military equipment inventory and usage and community complaints over the use of military equipment from January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023. It also outlines the proposed purchase of new and/or replacement equipment during 2024. In the future, the Department will submit its Military Equipment Annual Report to the City Council in May of each year in compliance with AB481.
Antioch Police Department Military Use Policy (706)
Antioch Police Department’s Military Use Policy (706) requires the Police Department to present an annual report to the City Council. The annual report, as mandated by Government Code sections 7071 & 7072, requires the police department to present the following:
1. A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use.
2. A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment.
ANTIOCH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Brian Addington, Interim Chief of Police
300 L Street, Antioch, CA 94509
Phone: (925) 779-6900 / Fax: (925) 779-6905
www.antiochpolice.com
2 3. The results of any internal audits, information about military equipment use policy violations, and any actions taken in response.
4. The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the annual military equipment report.
5. The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment.
6. If the law enforcement agency intends to acquire additional military equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment.
Summary of Use
The Antioch Police Department used military equipment in two incidents described below:
APD Case # 23-1863
March 15, 2023
Summary of Incident: The Antioch Police Department SWAT Team served an arrest and search warrant related to an armed robbery and carjacking investigation.
Type of Military Equipment Used: Armored Rescue Vehicle, Unmanned Aerial Systems, and Mobile Command Center. Precision Rifles and appropriate ammunition were deployed, but not fired during this operation. Additionally, noise and flash distraction devices were deployed during this operation.
APD Case # 23-6185
August 15, 2023
Summary of Incident: Officers responded to a domestic violence incident where a man was reported to be armed with a firearm. The man was uncooperative and would not comply with orders to get on the ground. Officers feared he was armed with a firearm, so an officer deployed a less-lethal kinetic energy projectile that shot a sponge round at the man’s abdomen. The sponge round hit the man and had no effect. The officer fired a second CS sponge round and again struck the man in the abdomen, prompting him to comply. No firearm was located.
In addition to the two incidents listed above, officers used Unmanned Aerial Systems (drones) numerous times on various calls throughout the year. Usage ranged from crime mapping, area checks, locating suspects, victims, witnesses, and lost individuals to checking and clearing large spaces and closed spaces and checking areas over the city’s waterways. The flight time related to use was approximately 44 hours.
ANTIOCH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Brian Addington, Interim Chief of Police
300 L Street, Antioch, CA 94509
Phone: (925) 779-6900 / Fax: (925) 779-6905
www.antiochpolice.com
3 Complaints and Concerns
An audit of the 2023 complaints found no complaints regarding deploying or using the listed equipment.
Internal Audits
Internal audits of the listed equipment regarding deployment and use did not yield any policy violations or deployment concerns.
Inventory and Annual Costs
1. Armored Rescue Vehicle
International, NAVSTAR, MAXXPRO M1224. Quantity 1
A. Fiscal Impact
Annual maintenance cost of approx. $2000
B. Training
All drivers of the MAXXPRO attend formalized instructions and are trained in the operation and driving of this vehicle.
2. Command and Control Vehicle (Mobile Command Center)
2008 Chevrolet Kodiak 5500Box Truck (custom built) vehicle. Quantity 1 A. Fiscal Impact
Annual maintenance cost of approx. $2000.
B. Training
Drivers complete a closed course training block of instruction annually.
3. Unmanned Aerial Systems
a. Da-Jaing Innovations (DJI) Mavic 2 Enterprise Advanced, cost $6500.00, Quantity 6 b. DJI Mavic 2 Dual, cost $2,759.00, Quantity 2
c. DJI Mavic Enterprise Zoom, $2,495.00, Quantity 2
d. DJI Air 2, $1.998.00, Quantity 4
e. DJI Mini 2, $600.00, Quantity 2
f. DJI Mini Pro, cost $1,737.00, Quantity 1
g. DJI M-30, cost $14,657.00, Quantity 1
h. DJI Avata Pro, cost $2,856.00, Quantity 2
i. DJI Mavic 3E, cost $3628.00, Quantity 1
A. Fiscal Impact
Annual maintenance and battery replacement cost is approx. $7,500.00. 3 Older model DJI Mavic were traded in for 2 DJI Mavic 2 Duals and the DJI M-30.
B. Training
All UAS operators are licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for UAS operations. The training for this certification is 40 hours for the basic certification. The advanced operation certification class is 20 hours, and the night certification is a 30-hour class. All drone
ANTIOCH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Brian Addington, Interim Chief of Police
300 L Street, Antioch, CA 94509
Phone: (925) 779-6900 / Fax: (925) 779-6905
www.antiochpolice.com
4 training classes the police department uses are POST-certified. You must be certified to operate the drones for duty use.
4. Specialized Firearms and Ammunition
A. Colt ArmaLite Rifle (AR)-15 rifle. Quantity 41
B. M4 AR-15 rifle. Quantity 6
C. Colt Commando Short Barrel (SB) rifle. Quantity 10 D. Heckler & Koch (H&K) UMP. Quantity 5
E. Remington 700 bolt action rifle. Quantity 5
F. Federal brand .223 caliber rifle ammunition. Quantity 250 cases.
G. Ruag brand .308 caliber rifle ammunition. Quantity 2 cases.
B. Fiscal Impact
Annual maintenance is approx. $50 for each rifle. Ammunition purchased as needed, $1000- $5,000.00 depending on order size.
C. Training
Officers must attend a POST-certified rifle course or the FBI-certified rifle course to use a rifle.
Both courses are 16 hours in length, and officers must requalify annually.
5. Kinetic Energy Projectile Launch Platforms and Projectiles a. Penn Arms Model L140-4. Quantity 20.
b. Remington 870 Less lethal Shotgun. Quantity 2
i. Both have orange stocks and foregrips and are identified as non-lethal munition launchers.
c. Projectiles
i. Combined Tactical Systems (CTS) direct impact sponge round. Quantity 200 ii. CTS Frangible CS round. Quantity 60
iii. CTS Ferrett round. Quantity 100
iv. CTS LC5 Launching Cups. Quantity 4
v. CTS 2600 12-gauge launch cartridge. Quantity 100
A. Fiscal Impact
The L140-4's annual maintenance costs are approximately $50.00 each, and the purchase of new munitions costs approximately $900- $2000 annually.
B. Training
40 mm instructors attend a POST-certified instructor’s course and then instruct officers within the department on its use and capabilities. The POST-certified instructor course is 16 hours, and the officer user course is 4 hours.
6. Diversionary Devices (Flashbang)
a. TS Flashbang (single use) #7290, Cost $ 50.00. Quantity 60 b. CTS Flashbang (triple single) #7290-3, Cost $104.00. Quantity 4 A. Fiscal Impact
ANTIOCH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Brian Addington, Interim Chief of Police
300 L Street, Antioch, CA 94509
Phone: (925) 779-6900 / Fax: (925) 779-6905
www.antiochpolice.com
5 No annual maintenance, purchased as needed approx. $1239.00 - $2500.00.
B. Training
Officers must attend the 16-hour POST-certified Diversionary Device Instructor course to deploy diversionary devices.
7. Chemical Agent and Smoke Canisters
a. CTS CS Baffled Grenade #5230B. Quantity 35
b. CTS CS Smoke Canister #8230. Quantity 60
c. CTS Smoke Canister #5230 Quantity 45
B. Fiscal Impact
No annual maintenance costs, purchased as needed $770.00-$2000.00.
C. Training
Officers using the abovementioned equipment must attend a 40-hour POST-certified course on chemical munitions.
Conclusion
APD does not intend to acquire additional military equipment. However, future attempts to obtain new equipment will include adhering to procedures outlined in our department policy and remaining consistent with the Military Equipment inventory list, policy, and department budget, previously approved by the City Council.
There are some cases when military equipment is used or displayed that may cause concerns or raise questions from community members. In those instances, there is a process where community members can ask questions, express concerns, and make a complaint about the equipment’s use.
These questions, concerns, and complaints can be directed to the police department through the complaint process on the police department’s website (https://www.antiochca.gov/comment- forms/police-comments-complaints-recommendations/) or directly to the Chief of Police at [email protected].
End of Report
Agenda Item #
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of August 27, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
SUBMITTED BY: Kwame P. Reed, Acting City Manager
SUBJECT: Response to Grand Jury Report No. 2405,
“Challenges Facing the City of Antioch”
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution to approve the attached response to the Grand Jury report: “Challenges Facing the City of Antioch” (Attachment B, Exhibit 1) and authorize the Mayor to sign it.
FISCAL IMPACT
Responding to the Grand Jury report required staff time. Fiscal impacts of implementing the recommendations in the report are not yet identified.
DISCUSSION
Early in California’s history, the California Constitution established grand juries in each county. The California Penal Code § 933(c) includes provisions on the formation of grand juries and the powers and duties of grand juries. With respect to public agencies, grand juries are authorized to “investigate and report upon the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments, functions and the method or systems of performing the duties of any such city or joint powers agency and make such recommendations as it may deem proper and fit.” (Cal. Penal Code § 925a) Within 90 days after the grand jury submits a report regarding the operations of any public agency, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control the governing body.
In June 2024, the City of Antioch received the attached Grand Jury report entitled, “Challenges Facing the City of Antioch”. Due to the nature of the report, City staff contacted each Councilmember to provide input into the attached response. Input into the attached response has been provided by Mayor Hernandez-Thorpe and Councilmember Ogorchock.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution
B. Civil Grand Jury Report 2405 - Challenges Facing the City of Antioch C. City Response to Grand Jury Report (Exhibit 1)
ATTACHMENT “A”
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANTIOCH AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO FORWARD A RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 2405-
CHALLENGES FACING THE CITY OF ANTIOCH
WHEREAS, the City of Antioch received Grand Jury Report No. 2405 – “Challenges Facing the City of Antioch”;
WHEREAS, a written response to the Grand Jury is required under California Penal Code § 933.05 (b); and
WHEREAS, a written response to the Grand Jury has been drafted and submitted to the City Council for review and approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Antioch hereby:
1. approves the written response to the Grand Jury Report No. 2405, “Challenges Facing the City of Antioch” (Exhibit 1) and
2. authorizes the Mayor to sign the written response to the Grand Jury Report No. 2405, “Challenges Facing the City of Antioch”, which is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit 1.”
* * * * *
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Antioch, at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 27th day of August 2024 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
____________________________________
ELIZABETH HOUSEHOLDER
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANTIOCH
Contra Costa County 2023-2024 Civil Grand Jury Report 2405: “Challenges Facing the City of Antioch”
ATTACHMENT C
“Exhibit 1”
August 27, 2024
The Honorable Terri Mockler
Presiding Judge of Contra Costa County Superior Court
725 Court Street
PO Box 431
Martinez, CA 94553-0091
Re: City of Antioch Response to 2023-2024 Contra Costa Civil Grand Jury Report No. 2405: Challenges Facing the City of Antioch
Dear Judge Mockler,
On behalf of the City of Antioch City Council, this letter is in response to Contra Costa Civil Grand Jury Report No. 2405 – Challenges Facing the City of Antioch. The City Council approved this response at its meeting on August 27, 2024. Pursuant to California Penal Code § 933.05, the City of Antioch has responded to the applicable findings and recommendations.
Findings
F1. Antioch's City Manager has broad responsibility to ensure the efficient operation of the city, including supervision of an approximately $ 100 million general fund budget and an authorized staff of over 400 employees.
Response The City agrees with this finding (Mayor Hernandez-Thorpe (“MHT” & Councilmember Ogorchock (“CMO”).
The City’s overall budget including general operations and capital improvements is $146 million (Acting City Manager).
F2. The city began the process of recruiting a new permanent City Manager in January 2024. As of June 10, 2024, no hiring decision has been announced.
Response The City agrees with this finding (MHT & CMO).
F3. As outlined in both the City Manager job description and in city recruitment materials, the City Manager position requires a qualified and experienced individual.
Response The City agrees with this finding (MHT & CMO).
Contra Costa County 2023-2024 Civil Grand Jury Report 2405: “Challenges Facing the City of Antioch”
F4. There has been a lack of continuity in City Managers in Antioch, with six City Managers or Acting City Managers since December 2013.
Response The City partially disagrees with the finding (MHT).
The City agrees with this finding (CMO).
The Antioch City Council has appointed five (5) city managers since December 2013. Human Resources Director, Ana Cortez, was delegated the authority and responsibilities of the city manager position by a former city manager prior to him being placed on administrative leave. Ms. Cortez fulfilled those responsibilities for a period of two (2) days bridging the period between the city manager being placed on administrative leave and the City Council appointing an Acting City Manager. Ms. Cortez was not appointed Acting City Manager by the City Council (Acting City Manager).
F5. Under city ordinances the City Council, including the Mayor, has no direct authority to direct, supervise, hire, or fire any city employees, other than the City Manager and City Attorney (Ordinance 246-A). Response The City agrees with this finding (MHT & CMO). F6. The Mayor and City Council members have on occasion overstepped their authority in seeking to make personnel decisions, including terminating the then Public Works Director in December 2022, in ways not permitted by city ordinance (Antioch City Code § 2-2.06 and § 2-2.10). Response The City disagrees with this finding (MHT). The City agrees with this finding (CMO). F7. The Mayor and City Council members have on occasion sought to conduct meetings with City Staff without the approval or involvement of the City Manager, as required by city ordinance (Antioch City Code § 2-2.10). Response The City disagrees with this finding (MHT). The City agrees with this finding (CMO). Staff is under the direction from the City Manager to always inform him of these conversations once they have occurred. There has been a history of Council working with staff on topics including Measure W, salary studies, ad hoc committees and standing committees. Committee topics have included matters such as Contra Costa County 2023-2024 Civil Grand Jury Report 2405: “Challenges Facing the City of Antioch”
cannabis businesses, social equity and racial justice, unsheltered people, and the Rivertown/Downtown area (Acting City Manager). F8. Antioch's city government had a 21.6% employee vacancy rate as of February 2024, roughly four-times the national average for government agencies. Response The City agrees with this finding (MHT). As of February 15, 2024, the City-wide vacancy rate was 21% (Acting City Manager). F9. In the absence of a permanent City Manager since March 2023, the city has deferred hiring new department heads when openings occur. Response The City agrees with this finding (MHT & CMO). F10. The Police, Public Works and Community Development departments currently are without permanent department heads. Response The City agrees with this finding (MHT & CMO). F11. Seven of the eleven most senior positions in Antioch city government are currently held by acting or part-time personnel, including City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Directors of Community Development, Police Services, and Public Works (all acting) and the Directors of Economic Development and Recreation (both part-time).
Response The City agrees with this finding (MHT & CMO). The Economic Development Director is currently serving as Acting City Manager. He is not performing “part-time” duties for the Economic Development Department. The role of the Acting City Manager does not allow for any instance of not performing those duties 100% of the time (Acting City Manager). F12. The employee vacancy rate is above the city-wide average in the Public Works Department (26% vacancy rate) and Community Development Department (35% vacancy rate), both of which currently do not have permanent directors. Response The City partially disagrees with this finding.
Contra Costa County 2023-2024 Civil Grand Jury Report 2405: “Challenges Facing the City of Antioch” Not knowing when the Grand Jury sourced the staffing information for the abovementioned departments, the City cannot verify the information. As of June 30, 2024, the Public Works Department had a 17% vacancy rate, and the Community Development Department had a 25% vacancy rate (Acting City Manager). F13. Recruitment and retention of staff has been impacted by the absence of a permanent City Manager and the lack of permanent department heads in multiple city departments. Response The City disagrees with this finding (MHT). The City agrees with this finding (CMO). F14. The Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office conducted an investigation into alleged Brown Act violations by Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe and Council Members Tamisha Torres-Walker and Monica Wilson, which was forwarded to the Grand Jury. Response The City agrees with this finding (MHT & CMO). F15. The District Attorney's Office noted serious concerns that noncompliance with the Brown Act may have occurred, however, there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt intentional violations of the statute occurred. Response The City agrees with this finding (MHT). The City partially disagrees with this finding (CMO).
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Grand Jury recommends that:
R1. The Mayor and City Council should follow through on the ongoing process of hiring an experienced and qualified City Manager. Response The City agrees with this recommendation (MHT & CMO). R2. The Mayor and City Council should abide by city regulations (Antioch Contra Costa County 2023-2024 Civil Grand Jury Report 2405: “Challenges Facing the City of Antioch”
City Code § 2-2.06 and § 2-2.10) that preclude the Mayor and City Council from having any direct authority to direct, supervise, hire or fire any city employee, other than the City Manager and City Attorney. Response The City agrees with this recommendation (MHT & CMO). R3. The new City Manager should, within 6 months of their appointment to the position ofCity Manager, recruitand appoint permanent department heads to fill current department head vacancies. Response The City agrees with this recommendation (MHT & CMO).
R4. By 1/1/2025 the City Council should direct the City Manager to undertake a study to determine the factors leading to the city's high employee turnover and vacancy rates. Response The City agrees with this recommendation (MHT & CMO).
R5. By 1/1/2025 the Mayor and City Council should consider directing the City Manager and City Attorney to organize an annual training session focused on Brown Act requirements and compliance for the Mayor, City Council members, relevant city employees and members of city boards and commissions.
Response The City agrees with this recommendation (MHT & CMO).
On behalf of the City of Antioch, we are committed to working in partnership with Contra Costa Board of Supervisors in acknowledging of both the Civil Grand Jury findings and recommendations. We trust the Grand Jury will find these responses extremely helpful to its future endeavors.
Sincerely yours,
Lamar A. Thorpe
Mayor, City of Antioch
Contra Costa County 2023-2024 Civil Grand Jury Report 2405: “Challenges Facing the City of Antioch”
Cc: Joanne Sarmento, 2023-2024 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury Foreperson Antioch City Council
Kwame P. Reed, Acting City Manager
Thomas Lloyd Smith, City Attorney, City of Antioch
1 Agenda Item #
STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of August 27, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
SUBMITTED BY: Kwame P. Reed, Acting City Manager
SUBJECT: Designation of a Voting Delegate and Alternate Delegate for the League of California Cities Annual Conference and Authorization for Associated Conference Expenses Not to Exceed $2,238 per Participant
RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the Council appoint a Voting Delegate and Alternate Delegate for the 2024 League of California Cities Annual Conference. It is further recommended that the Council authorize the associated conference expenses for one participant in an amount not to exceed $2,238.
FISCAL IMPACT
The League of California Cities Annual Conference is being held at the Long Beach Convention Center from October 16 through October 18, 2024. The registration, hotel accommodations, and flight for one participant estimated total cost is $2,238 (registration, flight, per diem, and hotel accommodations).
DISCUSSION
The League’s 2024 Annual Conference is scheduled for October 16 – October 18, 2024, at the Long Beach Convention Center. An important part of the Annual Conference is the Annual Business Meeting (during the General Assembly), scheduled for Friday, October 18, 2024. At that meeting, the League membership considers and acts on resolutions that establish League policy.
To vote at the Annual Business Meeting, the City Council must designate a Voting Delegate. The City may also appoint up to two alternate Voting Delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated Voting Delegate is unable to serve in that capacity.
The attached Voting Delegate form must be completed and returned to the League’s office no later than Wednesday, September 25, 2024. This allows the League’s office time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference.
Antioch City Council Report
August 27, 2024 Agenda Item # 2
ATTACHMENTS
A. League of California Cities’ Letter dated July 10, 2024 Annual Conference General Assembly Guidelines
2024 Annual Conference How it Works: Cal Cities Resolutions and the General Assembly
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org
DATE: Wednesday, July 10, 2024
TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Clerks, and City Managers
RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES
League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Oct. 16-18, 2024 Long Beach Convention Center
Every year, the League of California Cities convenes a member-driven General Assembly at the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo. The General Assembly is an important opportunity where city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy.
Taking place on Oct. 18, the General Assembly is comprised of voting delegates appointed by each member city; every city has one voting delegate. Your appointed voting delegate plays an important role during the General Assembly by representing your city and voting on resolutions.
To cast a vote during the General Assembly, your city must designate a voting delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. Voting delegates may either be an elected or appointed official.
Action by Council Required. Consistent with Cal Cities bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone.
Following council action, please submit your city’s delegates through the online submission portal by Wed., Sept. 25. When completing the Voting Delegate submission form, you will be asked to attest that council action was taken. You will need to be signed in to your My Cal Cities account when submitting the form.
Submitting your voting delegate form by the deadline will allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference and provide pre-conference communications with voting delegates.
Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. Conference registration is open on the Cal Cities website.
Council Action Advised by September 25, 2024
For a city to cast a vote, one voter must be present at the General Assembly and in possession of the voting delegate card and voting tool. Voting delegates and alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the voting delegate desk. This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit the voting delegate into the voting area during the General Assembly.
Please view Cal Cities’ event and meeting policy in advance of the conference.
Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the General Assembly, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official.
Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.
The voting delegate desk, located in the conference registration area of the Long Beach Convention Center in Long Beach, will be open at the following times: Wednesday, Oct. 16, 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. and Thursday, Oct. 17, 7:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m. On Friday, Oct. 18, the voting delegate desk will be open at the General Assembly, starting at 7:30 a.m., but will be closed during roll calls and voting.
The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo.
Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city’s voting delegate and alternates.
Once again, thank you for submitting your voting delegate and alternates by Wednesday, Sept. 25. If you have questions, please contact Zach Seals at [email protected].
Attachments:
General Assembly Voting Guidelines
Information Sheet: Cal Cities Resolutions and the General Assembly
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org General Assembly Voting Guidelines
1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to Cal Cities policy.
2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the voting delegate form provided to the Cal Cities Credentials Committee.
3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the voting delegate desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the voting delegate desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the General Assembly.
4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city’s voting card by providing a signature to the credentials committee at the voting delegate desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution.
5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in their possession the city's voting card and voting tool; and be registered with the credentials committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate nor alternate.
6. Voting Area at General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.
7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the credentials committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the General Assembly.
Sixty days before the
Annual Conference
and Expo, Cal Cities
members may submit
policy proposals on
issues of importance
to cities. The resolution must
have the concurrence of at least
individual members.
How it works: Cal Cities
Resolutions and the General Assembly
General Assembly
General Resolutions Policy Committees
Developing League of California Cities policy is a dynamic process that engages a wide range of members to ensure Cal Cities represents cities with one voice. These policies directly guide Cal Cities’ advocacy to promote local decision-making, and lobby against statewide policies that erode local control.
Cities policy. Here’s how resolutions and the General Assembly work.
The petitioned
resolution is an
alternate method
to introduce policy
proposals during
the annual conference. The
petition must be signed by
voting delegates from 10% of
member cities, and submitted to
the Cal Cities President at least
24 hours before the beginning
of the General Assembly.
Petitioned Resolutions
The Cal Cities
President assigns
general resolutions
to policy committees
where members
review, debate, and recommend
positions for each policy proposal.
Recommendations are forwarded
to the Resolutions Committee.
Who’s who
The Resolutions Committee
includes representatives
from each Cal Cities
diversity caucus, regional
division, municipal
department, and policy
committee, as well as
individuals appointed by
the Cal Cities president.
Voting delegates
are appointed by each
member city; every city
has one voting delegate.
The General Assembly is a
meeting of the collective
body of all voting
delegates —one from
every member city.
Seven policy committees
meet throughout the year
to review and recommend
positions to take on bills
and regulatory proposals.
Policy committees include
members from each Cal
Cities diversity caucus,
regional division, and
municipal department,
as well as individuals
appointed by the Cal
Cities president.
During the General Assembly, voting delegates
debate and consider general and petitioned
resolutions forwarded by the Resolutions
Committee. Potential Cal Cities bylaws
amendments are also considered at this meeting.
Cal Cities policy
development is a member-
informed process,
grounded in the voices and
throughout the state.
For more information visit www.calcities.org/general-assembly Prior to the Annual Conference and Expo
Resolutions Committee
The Resolutions
Committee considers
all resolutions. General
Resolutions approved1 by
either a policy committee
or the Resolutions Committee are next
considered by the General Assembly.
General resolutions not approved, or
referred for further study by both a
policy committee and the Resolutions
Committee do not go to the General
Assembly. All Petitioned Resolutions
are considered by the General
2 During the Annual Conference and Expo
1 The Resolution Committee can amend a general resolution prior to sending it to the General Assembly. 2