MEETING MINUTES

August 10, 1999
7:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers

Pursuant to Government Code Section '54952.2, the City Council Agenda for August 10, 1999 was posted on the door of the City Council Chambers, Third and AH@ Streets on August 5, 1999.

CLOSED SESSION:  PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. City Attorney. This Closed Session is authorized by Government Code '54957.

Elvin Scott gave a brief update on his organization=s work in protecting pensions for all people, noting he had been talking to FOX News and other organizations who have offered their help. He then noted a website was under construction and would soon be available.

2. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY'S MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY FOR THE STATE ROUTE 4 EAST CORRIDOR (PW 638)
   

Public Works Director Brandt presented the staff report dated July 30, l999, recommending the City Council adopt the resolution accepting the findings and recommendations contained in the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's Major Investment Study (MIS) for the State Route 4 East Corridor, urge the CCTA to proceed with the next stage of the project development, and continue to cooperate and assist the CCTA in the next stage of project delivery.

Norma Hernandez stated the Franchise Agreement with the State of California and the toll road company was still in force, and stated any taxpayer money put into this project could be seized by Caltrans after the road was built and given to the toll road company. She felt Council should obtain a release from the toll road people stating they have no interest in this Franchise Agreement before moving forward.

Council Member Freitas agreed the Franchise Agreement still existed; however, he stated the alignments and the MIS were two unrelated items. He noted there was no reference of the toll road in the study, because there was absolutely no connection between the improvements outlined in the Major Investment Study and the toll road.

Public Works Director Brandt clarified the study Council was discussing dealt with Route 4 from Bailey Road to Route 160. He noted the segment of road Mrs. Hernandez was referring to is the Highway 4 Bypass and was not a part of this discussion.

City Attorney Galstan noted this issue had been debated several times, and suggested Council add a paragraph to the resolution stating they were not in support of the concept of a toll road. He further noted there would be plenty of opportunity before that portion of the road is constructed for Council to express an opinion as to whether or not it should be built, based on the possibility of being taken over by a private company.

Council Member Sudario stated the addition of a paragraph to the resolution describing their opposition would not change the legalities of the Franchise Agreement.

Allen Payton urged the Council to adopt the resolution so the project could move forward and receive Federal monies for construction. He stated Caltrans had sent out a letter stating the Bypass was not a toll road, and could not be taken over by the toll road company.

Jean Kuberra expressed her concern regarding the validity of the Caltrans agreement with the toll road company and felt for the protection of the Highway 4 rights-of-way, Council should obtain court validation ensuring the toll road company could not seize the bypass. She further raised the issue of the French Bank mentioned in the study, noting that it was the headquarters bank for Bank of the West, and questioned a possible conflict of interest with Council Member Davis, an employee of Bank of the West.

Council Member Sudario stated it was irrelevant how many roads were built, traffic would not improve because there was neither the capacity nor the money to improve the roads to an adequate level of service. She further stated that she believed the Bypass would be a toll road, and stated this road had taken $70 million away from funding that could have been used for widening Highway 4. She emphasized Council should send a letter to Caltrans to notify the toll road company, so the City could be released from the Franchise Agreement.

City Attorney Galstan stated Council Member Davis could feel comfortable voting on this item based upon the fact this study does not deal with the Bypass area, therefore it would not be a conflict of interest.

RESOLUTION NO. 99/101

On motion by Council Member Soliz, seconded by Council Member Freitas, the Council adopted the resolution. The motion was carried by the following vote:

AYES: Davis, Soliz, Freitas, Rocha
NOES: Sudario

3. PROPOSED COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE HOMEOWNERS CONCERNS WITHIN THE LONE TREE GLEN SUBDIVISION

Council Member Freitas requested City Attorney Galstan determine the party legally responsible if in fact the homeowners properties did suffer long term effects from over irrigation. City Attorney Galstan suggested putting the landscape company on notice of the possibility of a claim, so their insurance carrier would be aware of the situation.

Public Works Director Brandt assured Council Member Sudario that the Public Works Department did not sign off on faulty deferred improvements, the infrastructure was installed according to City requirements. He stated the findings of the investigation linked the excess water to the landscape maintenance company and over irrigation.

Margaret Elmer presented a timeline and pictures of the area depicting the accumulation of water. She noted the homeowners were not notified their control meters were being manipulated by the landscape companies. She further noted there were two landscape companies attempting to work out the water schedule. She stated the homeowners were in receipt of a letter from Landscape Care stating DNS, the landscaper for Davidon Homes, had reset the water controllers, therefore Landscape Care felt they were not responsible for any water damage.

Barbara Corris, stated while she lived in an area that had not experienced water problems, she sympathized with her neighbors. She noted during walks in the area she had seen algae growing in the streets where water had accumulated, and expressed her concern for the problems of standing water and mosquitoes.

Norma Hernandez felt a subcommittee should be formed and involve all the affected homeowners.

On motion by Council Member Freitas, seconded by Council Member Davis, the Council voted unanimously to form a subcommittee, within 30 days a notice be sent to all affected property owners in Lone Tree Glen informing them of a community meeting to include experts in water damage for an all inclusive discussion and, a report brought back to Council on September 28, 1999.

Mayor Rocha declared a recess at 8:23 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:30 P.M. with all Members present.

Council Member Sudario called a "Point of Order" stating when a subcommittee was formed, the candidates must be voted on. Mayor Rocha stated the Council would come back to this issue.

7. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING INTERIM REPORT REGARDING METHADONE CLINICS AND THEIR IMPACTS ON SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS AND FINDING SUCH CLINICS POSE A SIGNIFICANT RISK TO OTHER PERSONS WHEN NEAR RESIDENTIAL ZONING USES

Mayor Rocha opened the public hearing.

City Attorney Galstan presented the staff report dated August 4, l999, recommending the City Council adopt the resolution accepting the interim report and make a finding that methadone clinics located within 500 feet of residential uses pose a significant threat to the health and safety of others. He then introduced Nicolás C. Vaca, Litigation Counsel for the City.

Nicolás C. Vaca, Litigation Counsel, gave a summary of the findings discovered during this phase of the study. He included a history of the litigation, gave an overview of a similar clinic located in a residential area in Fresno, along with a brief overview of current plans for the future.

PROPONENT:

Carla Mann stated her Organization CPR (Citizens for Property Rights) was working with Supervisor Canciamilla to determine whether or not the Pittsburg patients would be allowed to remain in Pittsburg until this issue was resolved.

Ralph Hernandez noted his years of involvement in law enforcement and knowledge of drug users and methadone maintenance patients led him to believe there were both positives and negatives to such programs. He felt Council should consider whether or not this action would discriminate against the people on this maintenance program, and felt Council should not make any brash decisions.

Jean Kuberra stated she was opposed to the methadone clinic being located in her neighborhood. She referred to the report given by Mr. Vaca and felt there was no demographic relationship between Fresno and Antioch, and questioned the credibility of academic studies in Federal Court.

Amitai Schwartz, Attorney for BAART, stated he was not here to argue the lawsuit, but asked Council to wait and hear the presentation on August 30, l999, as he felt it would be a more comprehensive, highly educational presentation. He noted when the lawsuit was over and if BAART were to move into the proposed location, they would be willing to work with the neighbors, city officials and the police department to ensure there was a smooth transition, and all concerns were addressed. He felt the City should temper their position, should the clinic be allowed to move in they didn't want the City to have fanned the flames of prejudice and fear. In response to questions from Council Member Soliz as to why the clinic was still seeking this particular site instead of looking for another suitable site, Mr. Schwartz stated the other sites shown to BAART by City staff were not as suitable as the Sunset Drive site. He noted they had not entirely closed the door on alternate sites, but at this time they find the Sunset Drive site to be the ultimate location.

City Attorney Galstan stated Mr. Vaca had recommended Council not make a finding at this time, and the appropriate action would be to receive and file the report.

OPPONENT:

Norma Hernandez felt the word methadone should not be used when adopting the Ordinance. She felt the wording should encompass all drug rehabilitation clinics so as not to discriminated against methadone maintenance patients.

Jennifer Lent stated her home was in the court directly behind the proposed site, and expressed concern for the safety of her children and the other children in the surrounding neighborhood. She discussed her personal experience with methadone users, noting methadone was not a cure. She felt if the methadone clinic was allowed to move into the proposed location, it was a violation of her rights and those of her neighbors as people and homeowners to feel safe in their own neighborhood. She thanked the Council for their work and efforts to protect their neighborhood.

Mayor Rocha closed the public hearing.

On motion by Council Member Freitas, seconded by Council Member Sudario, the Council unanimously received and filed the report.

3. PROPOSED COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE HOMEOWNERS CONCERNS WITHIN THE LONE TREE GLEN SUBDIVISION
   

On motion by Council Member Soliz, seconded by Council Member Sudario, the Council unanimously appointed Council Member Freitas and Mayor Pro Tem Davis to the subcommittee to investigate homeowners concerns within the Lone Tree Glen Subdivision.

Mayor Rocha declared a recess at 9:32 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 9:39 P.M.; City Clerk Martin called the roll with all members present except Mayor Pro Tem Davis who arrived at 9:40 P.M.

4. ANNUAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH COMPLIANCE, AND DETERMINATION THAT FURTHER REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS WILL BE CONDUCTED ONLY UNDER EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS
   

1. Centex Homes (Nelson Ranch)
   
2. Ponderosa Homes (Deerfield)
   
3. Davidon Homes (Lone Tree Estates)
   
4. Western Pacific Housing (Diablo East)
   
5. A.D. Seeno (Meadow Creek Village)
   
6. A.D. Seeno (Mira Vista Hills, Units 11 & 13)
   
7. A.D. Seeno (Mira Vista Hills, Units 14, 15 & 16)
   
8. Arcadia Development (Hidden Glen)
   

9. Silveroak Development/ William Lyon Homes, Inc. (Diablo West)

10. Kiper Development (Bear Ridge)

11. Richland/Meritage Homes (Black Diamond Estates/Black Diamond Knolls)

12. Richland Development/Woodside Homes (Ti Chien Ho)

13. Sierra Vista, Inc. (Sierra Vista)

14. Kaiser Foundation Hospital (Kaiser)

15. McBail Company (Sand Creek Ranch)

Director of Public Works Brandt presented the staff report dated August 4, l999, recommending the City Council approve the resolutions finding the listed subdivisions to be in good faith compliance with the requirements of their development agreements and approve the resolution directing staff to bring these agreements back for review only under extraordinary conditions.

City Attorney Galstan stated should Council find a development agreement was not in compliance, Council would need evidence of an obligation in the agreement the developer had not met, otherwise the City could be subject to challenge in court. He did not feel the City had any realistic justification to ignore or set aside the development agreements.

Council Member Sudario stated the City would not be able to provide basic City services such as adequate police protection, proper sewage treatment, adequate water supply, schools, or the health and safety issues required by additional growth.

In rebuttal to Council Member Sudario's comments, Council Member Soliz stated there were no facts or information to indicate a problem with drinking water in this area. He further noted Superintendent Jenkins had stated while school crowding was an issue, they had the capacity to deal with it.

Larry Howard read portions of the staff report presented by Director of Public Works Brandt, which he felt were questionable interpretations of the law. City Attorney Galstan rebutted Mr. Howard's statements, noting the City was in compliance with state law, and concurred with Mr. Brandt's interpretation of the law as outlined in the staff report.

Norma Hernandez discussed the problem of overcrowding in our schools, and felt the schools and highways were in an emergency situation. She stated the real problem was Council's failure to properly implement the General Plan and Measure "C."  She noted City Attorney Galstan was to "check out" a police fee prior to FUA #2 coming on line. Referring to the Municipal Services Fee discussed by Mrs. Hernandez, City Attorney Galstan reminded Council the fee would have to be adopted by an ordinance before the City could proceed with the validation action.

Council Member Sudario requested the issue of adopting an ordinance for the Municipal Fee be agendized. Council Member Freitas reminded the Council they had decided to deal with the issue of all of the municipal fees when dealing with the Measure "U" provisions.

Council Member Sudario felt the development agreements were not in compliance because the City was not following the General Plan and felt the development agreements should be reviewed at least once per year.

1. Centex Homes (Nelson Ranch) RESOLUTION NO. 99/102

2. Ponderosa Homes (Deerfield) RESOLUTION NO. 99/103

3. Davidon Homes (Lone Tree Estates) RESOLUTION NO. 99/104

4. Western Pacific Housing (Diablo East) RESOLUTION NO. 99/105

5. A.D. Seeno (Meadow Creek Village) RESOLUTION NO. 99/107

6. A.D. Seeno (Mira Vista Hills, Units 11 &13) RESOLUTION NO. 99/106

7. A.D. Seeno (Mira Vista Hills, Units 14, 15 & 16) RESOLUTION NO. 99/108

8. Arcadia Development (Hidden Glen) RESOLUTION NO. 99/109

9. Silveroak Development/William Lyon Homes, Inc.(Diablo West) RESOLUTION NO. 99/110
   
10. Kiper Development (Bear Ridge) RESOLUTION NO. 99/111
    
11. Richland/Meritage Homes (Black Diamond Estates/

Black Diamond Knolls) RESOLUTION NO. 99/112

12. Richland Development/Woodside Homes (Ti Chien Ho) RESOLUTION NO. 99/113
    
13. Sierra Vista, Inc. (Sierra Vista) RESOLUTION NO 99/114
    
14. Kaiser Foundation Hospital (Kaiser) RESOLUTION NO. 99/115
    
15. McBail Company (Sand Creek Ranch) RESOLUTION NO. 99/116

RESOLUTION NO. 99/117

On motion by Council Member Freitas, seconded by Council Member Soliz, the Council adopted the above resolutions denoting good faith compliance and the resolution determining further review of development agreements will be conducted only under extraordinary conditions by the following vote:

AYES: Davis, Soliz, Freitas, Rocha
NOES: Sudario

5. DISCUSSION OF CITY'S RESPONSE TO LAFCO SURVEY REGARDING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE CHANGES TO BE CONSIDERED AT A LATER TIME
   

Community Development Director Ward presented the staff report dated August 5, l999 recommending the City Council provide direction regarding comments to LAFCO and modify the response provided to LAFCO by City staff dated, April 29, l999 to reflect the August 3, l999 City Council action on the Urban Limit Line.

On motion by Council Member Freitas, seconded by Council Member Soliz, the Council voted to modify the response provided to LAFCO by City staff dated, April 29, l999 to reflect the August 3, l999 City Council action on the Urban Limit Line. The motion was carried by the following vote:

AYES: Davis, Soliz, Freitas, Rocha
NOES: Sudario

6. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION FOR THE PLACEMENT OF THE URBAN LIMIT LINE

1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES:  July 13, 1999

2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL WARRANTS

3. REJECTION OF CLAIM
   1.  Loren A. Bianchini 98/99-1083

4. ORDINANCE NO. 960-C-S DELETING AND RE-ADOPTING SEVERAL PROVISIONS OF TITLE 8 OF THE ANTIOCH MUNICIPAL CODE, PERTAINING TO THE ADOPTION OF THE 1997 EDITIONS OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODES

   RESOLUTION NO. 99/118 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT FROM THE TRANSPLAN COMMITTEE TO ADD THE CITY OF OAKLEY AND TO CHANGE FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PROPORTIONAL TO FLAT FORMULA

Mayor Rocha adjourned from the Council meeting and convened the Antioch Development Agency.

9. AGENCY CONSENT CALENDAR

1. APPROVAL OF AGENCY MINUTES: July 13, 1999

2. APPROVAL OF AGENCY WARRANTS

On motion by Agency Member Soliz, seconded by Agency Member Davis, the Agency unanimously approved the Agency Consent Calendar.

10. RESOLUTION REFERRING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE ANTIOCH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANTIOCH FOR REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (REINSTITUTION OF THE EMINENT DOMAIN POWER)

Mayor Rocha adjourned from the Antioch Development Agency, and reconvened to the City Council.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Allen Payton, who had left the meeting for another engagement, left a written comment for Council Member Sudario stating his campaign statement was that he would "rather have a toll road than no road."

Norma Hernandez referred to Council Member Freitas' comment concerning FUA #2 and the Municipal Services Fee being tied to Measure "U," and stated the developer agreements for FUA #2 were exempt from Measure "U." She further stated Council had decided two years earlier City Attorney Galstan was to go to court to determine whether or not the City could legally add these fees to any future housing without an existing developer agreement. City Attorney Galstan stated FUA #2 would not be exempt from Measure "U."

Council Member Sudario stated she was appalled Council had tabled Agenda Item #6 Request for Reconsideration for the Placement of the Urban Limit Line item she had requested be agendized. She discussed the Urban Limit Line, noting she had requested the item be agendized because she had received new information and had felt Council should be informed.

Council Member Freitas, stated as a Member of the CCTA, he was in receipt of a staff report regarding the proposed Senate Constitutional Amendment #3. He further explained that if it passed the Legislature and was signed by the Governor it would be on the November 2000 ballot. He noted it essentially extends the 1/2 cent sales tax for an additional 20 years.

Council Member Soliz stated he had attended the meeting with Supervisor Canciamilla today regarding the Urban Limit Line. Supervisor Canciamilla agreed to put a 30-day continuance on bringing the issue of the ULL to the Board for a decision, in order to allow Brentwood and Oakley an opportunity to review newly approved lines and offer some last minute suggestions.

Mayor Rocha congratulated Quail Lodge on their grand opening. She then requested any Council Member with questions regarding the City's current school situation, to please take the time to speak with Superintendent Jenkins that they might have a real understanding of the current situation with the School District.

None

With no further business Mayor Rocha adjourned the meeting at 10:45 P.M. to the next scheduled meeting of August 17, l999.

Respectfully Submitted:

L. JOLENE MARTIN, City Clerk

Home Page || Council Meeting Directory