Present: Council Members Freitas, Davis, Sudario, Soliz, and Mayor Rocha.

Mayor Pro Tem Davis led the Council and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.

On motion by Council Member Freitas, seconded by Council Member Davis the proclamation was unanimously approved.

Jean Kuberra announced her show on Cable Channel 26, on February 14, 2000, and the first week of March regarding Roger Henry's guest commentary in the Daily Ledger on January 27, 2000.

Don Peckham presented the City Council with a letter requesting they postpone the improvement of East Eighteenth Street until the recently approved development could be coordinated with the street construction. He expressed concern for the construction of the concrete islands noting the towing companies would have to relocate if they are constructed.

Tom Rood, Antioch Police Commission, stated one of the most prevalent causes of burglary is an open, unlocked, or unattended garage door. He advised the community to be aware of the situation and urged the citizens to join a Community Neighborhood Watch group by calling 779-6980.

Jean Kuberra felt public comments on Item #5 should be five minutes as it was noticed as a public hearing. She presented the City Council and staff with a request for on site review of records pertaining to the Thomas Nokes and Donahue Schriber items.

Elvin Scott discussed his Internet website and information regarding pension funds.

City Attorney Galstan noted a Negative Declaration does not require a public hearing and the City Council could choose to allow 5-minute speaker time, and conduct Item #5 as a public hearing. Council Member Sudario requested Item #5 be agendized as a public hearing as noticed.

Paul Heller, Administrative Analyst, presented the staff report dated February 2, 2000, requesting the City Council review the ABAG Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) and give staff direction for proceeding.

Guy Bjerke representing the Home Builders Association, noted the ABAG formula for allocating these units to local communities only factored in job growth at the rate of 10%. He stated they have been advocating to ABAG to change their methodology to give a greater weight to job growth.

Terry Ramos stated Antioch could not build at the rate required by ABAG due to the lack of infrastructure to support it and encouraged the City Council to inform ABAG they could not meet the housing numbers.

Norma Hernandez felt the infrastructure in the City was inadequate for the number of houses ABAG suggests. She noted the City has Measure "C" and the General Plan and could only build more homes after the current needs were met.

On motion by Council Member Soliz, seconded by Council Member Freitas, the City Council unanimously directed staff to send a strongly worded letter to ABAG stating their report is unacceptable, the allocation for Antioch should be approximately half their suggested number, and to reference the new home construction cap of 500 units per year.

2. LEGISLATION AND ADVOCACY

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

11. COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR

On motion by Council Member Freitas, seconded by Council Member Soliz, the Council unanimously approved the Consent Calendar, with the exception of Items C, F, J, and L, which were removed for further discussion.

ITEM C - On motion by Council Member Sudario, seconded by Council Member Soliz, the Council unanimously approved Consent Calendar Item C.

ITEM F - In response to Council Member Freitas, City Manager Ramsey stated the Computer Technician would be reporting to the Information Services Director John Pavlicek.

On motion by Council Member Freitas, seconded by Council Member Soliz, the Council unanimously approved Consent Calendar Item F.

ITEM J - Council Member Sudario requested a list of Parks and Recreation Commission members residing in the Mello Roos District. She expressed concern of not having proper Mello Roos resident representation on the Board.

On motion by Council Member Soliz, seconded by Council Member Freitas, the Council approved Consent Calendar Item J. The motion carried the following vote:

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

ITEM L - Council Member Sudario stated she would not support the motion noting developers should start paying for road improvements.

Norma Hernandez felt gas tax and Measure "C" money could not be used for mitigating impact upon existing streets within the City.

On motion by Council Member Freitas, seconded by Council Member Soliz, the Council approved Consent Calendar Item L by the following vote:

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

Mayor Rocha declared a recess at 8:00 p.m., the meeting reconvened at 8:12 p.m., with all Members present.

Community Development Deputy Director Carniglia presented the staff report dated February 1, 2000, recommending: A) Motion to introduce the Ordinance by title only; B) Motion to introduce the Ordinance adding Section 8-14.02 to the Antioch Municipal Code, dealing with closures for new residential units; and C) Motion to adopt the Resolution establishing language for new residential disclosures regarding traffic and school capacity.

It was noted the disclosure would be available for new homes only.

Mayor Rocha opened the public hearing.

Jim Conley suggested the notification recommend the public contact the School District directly for information. He noted the disclosure should only state facts and should be required in all real estate offices in Antioch.

Terry Ramos stated this disclosure should apply to new home sales, noting it was not necessary to regulate all real estate agents.

Allen Payton stated a positive approach should be taken and suggested requiring the new home sales representatives to attend a seminar sponsored by the City that would inform them on issues of parks, open space, and future development to allow them to give correct and accurate information to new home buyers.

Gordon Gravelle, representing Suncrest Homes, stated he supports the disclosure. He expressed concern the disclosure addresses only two issues and was not being handled on a citywide base.

Norma Hernandez voiced her support of the disclosure and suggested distributing the disclosure to potential buyers before they sign closing documents.

Jean Kuberra suggested additional issues she felt should be addressed in the disclosure. She requested the City Council consider the items addressed by previous speakers.

Mayor Rocha closed the public hearing.

Council Member Sudario's motion to approve the document with changes, died for a lack of a second.

Council Member Sudario stated she could not support the following motion. She noted the disclosure should not be for all new homes within the City of Antioch.

On motion by Council Member Freitas, seconded by Council Member Davis, the Council continued the public hearing on Items 3A and 3B to March 14, 2000 with direction to amend the Ordinance to apply to all residential sales within the City of Antioch and an annual presentation to all realtors selling both new and existing homes providing them with information on traffic, schools, and other relevant issues. The motion carried the following vote:

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

On item 3C, the City Council directed staff to work with the East County Realtors Association as well as the School Board staff and return to Council on March 14, 2000 for consideration.

4. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FEE KNOWN AS THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES FEE (Continued from 1/25/00, Public Hearing Open)

Community Development Deputy Director Carniglia presented the staff report dated February 8, 2000 recommending the City Council: A) Introduce the Ordinance by title only; and B) Introduce the Ordinance adding Chapter 12 to Title 3 of the Antioch Municipal Code, adopting the Ordinance establishing the Municipal Services Fee.

Following the break the public speakers unanimously agreed to a 5 minute speaker time.

GENERAL

Norma Hernandez stated she would like each developer to be charged an individual fee depending on the impact of the development. She felt the proposed fee was inadequate to cover the impacts of development. She further noted Measure "C" addresses the true impact growth has on the community.

Ralph Hernandez stated he was in favor of a Municipal Services Fee. He noted if Measure "C" and the General Plan requirements were properly used there would be no need for the fee. He suggested the City Council look at some offsets.

Douglas Tokes stated the fees charged to the developers would get passed onto the homebuyers and noted he felt it was unfair to the consumer.

Allen Payton stated the City should be looking at an offset fee for the impact of growth on existing homes and expressed concern for the length of time of the fee.

William Leroy felt the fee was illegal and new development had impacted all neighborhoods.

PROPONENTS

Tom McNell stated he was in favor of the Municipal Services Fee to address some of the shortfall created by residential growth. He expressed concern for the delay in implementing the fee and urged the City Council to approve this fee tonight.

Terry Ramos stated the alternative to this fee was the City covering the shortfalls and providing less services to the community. He urged the City Council to approve the Municipal Services Fee for the 40-year time frame with the City maintaining the ability to modify it.

OPPONENTS

Guy Bjerke, representing the Home Builders' Association, reviewed his letter outlining concerns the Association had with the proposed fee. He urged the City Council to reject the Municipal Services Fee.

Merle Gilliland voiced Richland Development Corporation's support of the Home Builders Association's letter. He presented the City Council with a letter regarding Richland's position on the Municipal Services Fee.

Don Lapidus, representing A.D. Seeno Construction Company, presented a letter to the City Council in opposition to the fee. He supported the position of the Home Builders' Association and urged the rejection of the fee.

Jean Kuberra discussed the nexus of every home in different subdivisions noting the breakdown is inflexible.

Matt Innes representing Warmington Homes, did not wish to speak but presented the City Council with a written letter in opposition stating they felt the Municipal Services Fee violated their development agreement with the City.

Mayor Rocha closed the public hearing.

Community Development Deputy Director Carniglia clarified Measure "C" was specifically for capital facilities not services.

City Attorney Galstan clarified the preemption regarding AB1600 noting staff had gone through the requirements and they have the methodology and the nexus finding in the Ordinance. He further noted staff was aware if the developer was required to build a piece of infrastructure this fee would not maintain the infrastructure provided by the developer. He stated validation was the same process as litigation. He noted the General Plan stipulates police staffing is based on population.

Council Member Soliz noted the issue of applying this fee to existing development agreements was discussed during an earlier meeting. He suggested a five-year sunset clause as part of the motion that is adopted.

Council Member Sudario discussed Measure "C" requirements pertaining to development and services. She felt the fees charged by the City were not adequate to cover services within the community.

Community Development Deputy Director Carniglia clarified that Measure "C," as written and approved by the voters, does not allow service costs.

Council Member Sudario stated she did not support the Municipal Services Fee noting the fee is too small compared to the impact in the City, the fee could be raised or lowered at any time and the funds were not separated out to pay for specific services.

Council Member Freitas suggested using Table 2B contained in the staff report with a funding period of 20 years and noted his support of the City not collecting this fee until or unless this Ordinance was validated by a court of law.

Following are verbatim excerpts of Council's discussion preceding the motion:

Soliz:...during the public hearings that were held before about the fee not applying to projects with approved development agreements, the first argument I agree with completely about the fact that there are existing development agreements that I believe restrict our ability to levy new fees, on the next page I know you tried to address the other possibility brought into play here, the discussion of 218 and the City not being aware that was going to pass, that is true, however I don't think that is a strong enough argument to use to apply the fee retroactively, in fact I still think it would be successfully challenged and we would find that we would not be able to apply it. At the last public hearing we had about this the issue came up and Mr. Gilliland was one of a couple of folks that talked about that and the concerns around that and at least one comment that I recall making was I didn't believe that we were talking about applying it retroactively, but I think when you look at it in the context of what's written here I can certainly see where someone would draw that conclusion. But I still believe, but at least in regard to existing development agreements there are some restrictions about that. I will say though, where this came up, perhaps applying them to existing agreements was specifically in the context of us reopening negotiations on existing development agreements that will be expiring in about a year. That it will happen. In the course of the time table, there are thousands of building permits that have not been pulled but yet there are legal rights to that have been granted through the development agreements, at least to the point of which we were talking about that, there was discussion about possibly talking about whether or not some of our developers would be adopting this fee in exchange for perhaps an extension of those deadlines. That I think is yet to be worked out...

On motion by Council Member Soliz, seconded by Mayor Rocha, the City Council: A) Introduced the Ordinance by title only; and B) Introduced the Ordinance adding Chapter 12 to Title 3 of the Antioch Municipal Code, establishing a Municipal Services Fee. The fee will have a five-year sunset, using Table 2B contained in the staff report with a funding period of 20-years and not be implemented until after it is validated by the court. The motion carried the following vote:

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

Council Member Davis excused himself from the dais due to a possible conflict of interest.

Economic Development Director Sainz presented the staff report dated February 3, 2000, recommending the City Council adopt the Resolution approving the Negative Declaration and the Blight Abatement and Tax Rebate Agreement. City Attorney Galstan noted the remaining issue to be resolved references sales taxes from auto related businesses being included as part of the rebate.

Mayor Rocha opened the public hearing.

Thomas Nokes discussed his vision for the Auto Center in Antioch. He stated the construction of the Center would create higher paying jobs, draw consumers, and generate higher sales tax revenue for the city. He noted the importance of the street name change and the electronic reader board to the project. He urged the Council to approve the project.

Charles Klinedinst, attorney representing Thomas Nokes, discussed the importance of the Auto Mall to the City and Pittsburg's previous proposal to bring the Auto Mall to their City. He supported the electronic reader board and street name change noting it was critical for a strong identification in the area.

George Avanessian, architect for the project, reviewed the design of the proposed project noting his support of the freeway sign and street name change to Auto Center Drive.

Allen Payton stated his support of the project noting it was good for the community and urged the City Council to vote in favor of this project.

Christin Halstad, Business Manager for Antioch Auto Center, felt the project would bring additional business and revenue into the City and urged support of the project.

Norma Hernandez expressed concern regarding the freeway sign and the possibility of toxic waste on the site. She noted she did not support the return of sales tax and suggested the City research the practice of sales tax returning to businesses.

Mark Lynds, Environmental Incorporated, tenant of the proposed property noted the property owner had not maintained it causing blight to the property. He expressed concern that his business would suffer a hardship with a relocation of his business. He urged the City Council to compensate Environmental Incorporated for having to relocate their business.

City Attorney Galstan noted the City is not acquiring the property and Mr. Lynds was not entitled to any relocation benefits. He stated separate from this agenda item there was an Economic Development Fund that businesses can utilize.

Mr. Nokes noted he had owned the property for six months and Mr. Lynds was notified at the close of escrow his lease would not be renewed.

Jean Kuberra discussed the Negative Declaration issues on this item.

William Leroy stated he felt the label of blight was being used excessively by the City.

Council Member Sudario expressed concern for the risk the City was taking by subsidizing this project with the community's tax dollars, and the effect of changing the street name for the existing business.

City Manager Ramsey clarified the Antioch Redevelopment Agency was not involved with the project.

Discussion ensued regarding the street name change from Somersville Road to Auto Center Drive beginning at State Highway 4 to Fourth Street with possible suggestions of both names on the street signs or the name change to begin at the railroad tracks.

RESOLUTION NO. 2000/09

On motion by Council Member Freitas, seconded by Council Member Soliz, the Council adopted the resolution approving the Negative Declaration and the Blight Abatement and Tax Rebate Agreement with an amendment to the Blight Abatement and Tax Rebate Agreement Page 4, Item 4 the last paragraph to read: NOKES acknowledges that he may require State of California Department of Transportation approval for the sign; if so, he will obtain appropriate permits; Page 4, Item 6, the third sentence to read: No messages of a political nature shall be permitted on the sign at any time with the exception of encouraging residents to register to vote; and Page 10, Item 18, to read: City shall, immediately following execution of this Agreement, use its best efforts to change the name of Somersville Road to "Auto Center Drive," and will use its best efforts to have appropriate signage placed on Highway 4. The motion carried the following vote:

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

6. RESOLUTION APPROVING AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANTIOCH, THE ANTIOCH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND DONAHUE SCHRIBER FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE OLD KMART SITE ON SOMERSVILLE ROAD

Economic Development Director Sainz, with the use of overheads, presented the staff report dated February 3, 2000, recommending the City Council adopt the Resolution approving the Owner Participation Agreement between the City of Antioch, the Antioch Development Agency, and Donahue Schriber for the Redevelopment of the Old Kmart Site on Somersville Road.

Michael Hassen, Attorney representing C. L. Holdings, expressed concern that the Development Agreement and Owner Participation Agreement all tie into the public necessity and interest issues and those deal with the eminent domain issue with the Antioch Development Agency covering any shortfall. He noted the ground lease rent was below fair market value at $.31 a square foot. He requested the City Council continue this item until more information could be obtained.

Ralph Hernandez, Chairperson for the Citizens for Democracy, stated they were against this project's financing plan that benefits the rich on the backs of the taxpayers. He noted the City Council was not provided information regarding the Donahue Schriber Group.

Douglas Tokes stated there should be a formula if the ground lease is raised and they should get less money from the City to give them their rate of return.

Jack Parelli, speaking on behalf of Thang Luu, Cost Rite Furniture, stated Mr. Luu has three years left on his five-year lease with a five-year option and supports his family and employees from the income of his furniture store. He further noted the location, adequate parking, and good lease were important for him to keep his business. He urged the City Council to vote against the eminent domain.

Lamont Campbell, Manager of the Hospice Thrift Store, presented the Council with a handout of store comparisons based on figures he had worked out for relocation costs. He noted he would appreciate any consideration the Council could give to Hospice so they could continue to serve the community.

Norma Hernandez felt the property owner should be responsible for clean-up of the property and expressed concern of the affect this business would have on the existing businesses in Antioch. She further noted any tax increments received would belong to the Redevelopment Agency.

Steven Filios, representing VFCW Local 1179, noted the owner of the property was responsible for the blighted condition.

Roger Henry voiced support for the project and encouraged the Council to move forward. He expressed concern tenants get paid fair economic value for their relocation costs.

Written comments were received from Allen Payton noting businesses should be treated equally and there should be no government imposed monopolies.

Lynette Shahraz expressed concern for the eminent domain powers, the increase in traffic to the area, living wage, and taking business from Pittsburg.

William Leroy commented on the Redevelopment Agency within the City.

Council Member Freitas expressed concern for the proposal as it would require the City to assume the risk over and above the $900,000.00 cost.

Mr. Deck noted they were not willing to assume 100% of the risk.

Economic Development Director Sainz clarified the language had changed stating the cutoff had been established at year 15 and based on the budget, there would be approximately $400,000 left in the budget to pay off the two existing leases. She noted eminent domain action was based on market value.

City Manager Ramsey stated as the Agreement was currently structured the risk ultimately could be the City's. He suggested possibly capping this at an acceptable level of additional risk.

Discussion ensued regarding the rate of return on the risk profile of the investment.

Council Member Sudario stated she saw nothing for Antioch's taxpayers to gain from this proposal and the City should not be getting into the development business between Lowe's and Donahue Schriber.

Mayor Rocha stated she could support this item if the City could confirm the 200 people employed would be receiving a prevailing wage and the City needed to be comfortable with the amount the Agency would be paying.

A motion by Council Member Sudario to table this item failed due to lack of a second.

Council requested more information and clarification on this item regarding the open-ended nature of the Cities risk of eminent domain and repayment.

Council consensus was to continue the item and Items  7-10 to the next regular City Council meeting of February 22, 2000.

PUBLIC COMMENTS -- None

COUNCIL REPORTS/COMMUNICATIONS --  None

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS -- None

Respectfully submitted:

JANET CHALK, Deputy City Clerk