By Captain Matthew Koch #3018, Antioch Police Field Services Division
The Antioch Police Department is investigating a shooting that injured an 18-year-old woman believed to have been an unintended victim.
On Sunday, August 2, 2026, at 10:36 p.m., Antioch police officers responded to reports of gunfire in the area of Sycamore Drive and Peppertree Way. When officers arrived, they located 26 spent shell casings in the roadway and secured the scene while searching for evidence and interviewing potential witnesses.
During the investigation, officers learned that the woman had been struck by gunfire and was receiving treatment at a nearby hospital.
The preliminary investigation determined the victim had just exited a business in the Sycamore Square shopping center when the shooting occurred. Investigators believe she was not the intended target and was inadvertently struck by gunfire.
The victim was treated for non-life-threatening injuries and has since been released from the hospital.
The investigation remains active, and no additional information is being released at this time.
Acting Antioch Manager Ana Cortez and District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker. Official photos source: City of Antioch
Followed 72-hour required noticing process
“…this is disheartening.” – Councilwoman Torres-Walker in an email to Acting City Manager Cortez
By Allen D. Payton
During the Antioch City Council meeting on Tuesday, July 28, 2026, District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker was absent but unable to attend remotely via Zoom as allowed by state law. That’s in spite of her following the required process to do so. Complaints were made during the meeting by members of the public that staff had made a mistake with one going so far as to call it “sabotage” as it prevented Torres-Walker from participating in and voting on the matter of the Homekey+ program at the Antioch Inn & Suites. The councilwoman was the one who pushed the matter and encouraged the City to pursue the state grant of $34.9 million.
Torres-Walker called in both during public comments on the agenda item to offer her input, then again, at the end of the meeting when she said, “In advance of the meeting, I submitted all the necessary documents to participate,” she said. “It speaks to the disfunction. This is in no way a sleight to Acting City Manager Cortez. So, I don’t blame Ms. Cortez for not posting my location within 72 hours before the meeting.”
Emails released on Friday by Cortez confirm what the councilwoman claimed and show Cortez’s inaction prevented Torres-Walker from participating in and voting on the matter, and all other agenda items during the meeting. The acting city manager called it an “oversight.”
Process for Official’s Remote Participation in Meetings
The agendas for public meetings must be publicly posted at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. According to California Government Code section 54953 (b)(3), “If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference locations. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public.”
In addition, under subsection (c)(2) “A member of a legislative body participating in a meeting by remote participation pursuant to this subdivision shall do both of the following: (A) The member shall participate through both audio and visual technology; (B) The member shall disclose at the meeting before any action is taken, whether any other individuals 18 years of age or older are present in the room at the remote location with the member, and the general nature of the member’s relationship with any of those individuals.”
Torres-Walker provided the location where she would be during the meeting and that was supposed to be included in the meeting agenda posted on the City’s website by Saturday, July 25th. City staff usually posts regular council meeting agendas by Friday afternoon prior to the Tuesday night meeting. The agenda for the July 28th meeting did not include Torres-Walker’s planned location which is what prevented her from participating remotely.
Email Exchange, Cortez Admits to “Oversight”
On Thursday, July 23, 2026, at 9:36 AM Torres-Walker sent Cortez an email informing her “I will be out of town and I need a zoom link to join close session and the council meeting” on July 28th. Then at 9:38 AM, Cortez acknowledged receipt of the email and responded, “As soon as I have it from our IS department, I will share with you.”
Then, in response, at 10:29 AM, Torres-Walker provided the location where she planned to be during the July 28th meeting. She wrote, “Here is the address where I will be zooming in from. Homewood Suites by Hilton San Jose Airport-Silicon Valley, 10 W Trimble Rd, San Jose, CA 95131, USA.”
But no response from Cortez acknowledging receipt of that email was provided.
On Friday, at 5:33 PM, Assistant City Clerk LaTonia Peoples-Stokes emailed all City employees, the city clerk and bcc’d the council members with “the link…for the City Council Meeting Agenda and Staff Reports for July 28, 2026,” and that, “The Agenda Packet will be available on the City’s Website shortly.”
On Monday, Torres-Walker informed Cortez she would have to cancel a “check-in” meeting planned for 1:00 p.m. that day. Cortez responded until 7:08 PM that night. But nothing was mentioned about the councilwoman’s location during the meeting missing from the agenda.
Then on Tuesday morning at 10:43 AM Cortez emailed Torres-Walker that she had left voicemails for the councilwoman on her work and personal phone the day before and wrote, “Unfortunately, your request to participate in tonight’s meeting via Zoom cannot be accommodated. Under the Brown Act, there are specific requirements for a Councilmember to participate remotely. The meeting agenda must include notice of the remote participation location, and the agenda must also be posted at that location. These requirements are subject to the Brown Act’s 72-hour noticing timeline, which cannot be met for tonight’s meeting.
“Additionally, with the new public comment procedures, the City would need to provide two separate Zoom links—one for members of the public providing comments and a separate link for Councilmember participation. Please note the Zoom link I shared with you has been set up for public comment participation. We would need to issue a new link for Councilmember participants.
“If you would like to discuss this further, please let me know and I would be happy to talk with you.
“We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.
“Thank you.”
At 11:17 AM Torres-Walker responded, copying City Attorney Lori Asuncion and asking Cortez why her remote location wasn’t included in the council meeting agenda. The councilwoman wrote, “Hello, Acting City Manager Cortez. I provided my location, and when I noticed it wasn’t included on the agenda, I knew it would be a challenge. Who overlooked this?”
Cortez responded at 12:30 PM, also copying Asuncion, admitting it was her mistake writing, “This was my oversight, and I take responsibility for it. While I was aware of your location, I did not identify the Brown Act requirements for remote participation in time to ensure the agenda included the required information and that the posting requirements could be met within the 72-hour noticing period.
“I apologize for the oversight. Going forward, I will ensure these requirements are identified and communicated in advance.
“Please let me know if you would like to discuss this further.
“Thank you for your understanding.”
————-
Torres-Walker responded to Cortez at 4:39 PM, again copying Asuncion, writing, “Hello, Acting City Manager Cortez. “I did my part.
“1. Requested to participate in the meeting via Zoom in advance of the meeting
“2. I provided the location
“3. I posted the agenda in the lobby 72 hours in advance
“I understand that we are understaffed and that the Clerk’s Office is in a learning position, but this is disheartening.”
—————- No additional communication between the councilwoman and acting city manager was provided.
Mayor Ron Bernal and the other three council members allowed the item regarding the Homekey+ program at the Antioch Inn & Suites to be discussed and voted on that night. During her called-in public comment, Torres-Walker said, “If I was there tonight and had the opportunity to vote, I would vote to move forward.”
The matter ended with a 3-1 vote to rescind the prior authorization for the funding and withdraw from the project, with District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson the only one opposing. So, Torres-Walker’s absence did not affect the outcome.
Con Fire, Walnut Creek Police Bomb Squad, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives assist
By Lt. William Whitaker #6155, Antioch Police Investigations Bureau
Following an investigation that began at 10:00 AM on Tuesday, July 28, 2026, the Antioch Police Department served a search warrant on Thursday July 30th at a residence in the 4000 block of South Royal Links Circle as part of an ongoing investigation involving possible homemade explosive devices.
To ensure the operation was conducted safely, the Antioch Police Department coordinated with specialized law enforcement partners. The Department thanks Con Fire, the Walnut Creek Police Department Bomb Squad, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for their professionalism, expertise and assistance throughout this investigation.
The scene has been secured, and investigators have determined there are no ongoing public safety concerns.
This remains an active and ongoing investigation. To protect the integrity of the investigation, no further information will be released at this time.
The Antioch Police Department appreciates the community’s cooperation and patience during this operation. Anyone with information related to this investigation is encouraged to contact Antioch Police Detective Shaffer at (925) 779-6944 or by email cshaffer@antiochca.gov.
Councilmembers Monica Wilson (top) and Tamisha Torres-Walker and then-City Manager Ron Bernal participate in a council meeting remotely Feb. 26, 2021, during COVID. The practice ended in Feb. 2023. Now a maximum of two council members can participate remotely, and the public can offer comments remotely, as well. Herald file video screenshot.
Requires policy for handling technology disruptions, misconduct
Also, changes rules for officials’ remote participation in meetings and on social media, reporting of compensation for top staff
By Allen D. Payton
Just like during COVID, members of the public again have the opportunity to participate remotely in city council and other government meetings, either by phone call or online via videoconferencing. Passed in 2025 and signed into law last Oct. 3, Senate Bill 707 modernizes the Ralph M. Brown Act, California’s open meeting law, went into effect July 1, 2026, and lasts until January 1, 2030. It requires that “all open and public meetings include an opportunity for members of the public to attend via a two-way telephonic service or a two-way audiovisual platform.” In Antioch, the law applies to all public meetings “of the City Council and all eligible subsidiary bodies as directed by the City Council,” such as commissions, boards, committees and council subcommittees.
In addition, the law requires, “an eligible legislative body, on or before July 1, 2026, to approve at a noticed public meeting in open session a policy regarding disruption of telephonic or internet services occurring during meetings subject to these provisions, as specified, and would require the eligible legislative body to comply with certain requirements relating to disruption, including for certain disruptions, recessing the open session for at least one hour and making a good faith attempt to restore the service.”
The new law also requires “that the eligible legislative body take specified actions to encourage residents to participate in public meetings.” District 3 Councilman Don Freitas suggested at the meeting on Tuesday, July 28th, that the council make an effort to inform the public of the new, remote process.
Source: City of Antioch
During their meeting on April 14, 2026, the Council was provided a presentation on SB707 (agenda Item 13) which included various changes to the state’s open meeting law.
Orderly Conduct – Mayor Can Cut Off Disruptive Remote Participants
The new law “Clarifies statutory authority to remove disruptive remote participants to maintain the orderly conduct of the meeting” for proper decorum. “The Chair must issue a specific warning before muting or disconnecting a disruptive user” to prevent “Zoom Bombers” as occurred during COVID with comments that included profanity and racial epithets by some who called in during public comments. The Council must also “Establish clear conduct rules (e.g., time limits, profanity) and apply them neutrally to all speakers.”
Technology Disruptions
The City Council approved Antioch’s policy regarding technology disruptions during their meeting on May 12, 2026 (See agenda Item 9). According to the staff report on the policy, it “ensures transparency, public participation, and continuity of government during technology disruptions if the City Council finds the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote public access.”
If a technology disruption occurs, “the meeting must remain in recess for up to one hour or until remote access is restored, whichever occurs first. If service is restored within that time, the Council will reconvene and proceed with the agenda.”
According to the April 14th presentation, technology disruptions require a:
Mandatory Pause: If remote access service fails, the legislative body must recess to attempt to restore the connection before adjourning;
Public Notification: Staff must immediately post real-time status updates on the meeting webpage and announce the delay on all available social channels.
Physical Access to Meeting Room: The physical meeting room must remain open and accessible to the public during the entire recess period.
The “Public Interest” Finding:If remote service is not restored after one hour, the Council may make a formal finding that the “public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the lack of remote access.” This finding must be adopted by a recorded roll call vote before any further business occurs.
Meetings of Other City Legislative Bodies
The presentation explains that meeting of other eligible city boards, committees, commissions and council subcommittees “include bodies that serve exclusively in advisory capacities, cannot take final action and do not have primary subject matter jurisdiction. (Example: APOC – Antioch Police Oversight Committee). These can include bodies constituted with elected officials. (Example: Cannabis Subcommittee).”
However, “the City Council must formally direct these bodies follow two-way requirements. To do so, the Council must find that circumstances justify use of two-way communication, such communication would enhance public access, and would promote attraction, retention and diversity of the bodies’ memberships. Findings would have to be made by resolution of the City Council.”
Finally, “if two-way communication is required, there must be one physical meeting location, at least one board and staff member must be present there and the present board member must appear on camera. Special standards apply if any member appears via teleconferencing.”
More Reasons & Opportunities for Officials’ Remote Participation in Meetings
SB707 also adds more reasons why public officials can participate in meetings remotely and increases from two to a maximum of five uses per year. Valid reasons labeled, “Just Cause” and “Emergency Circumstances”, now include family medical emergencies, childcare or caregiving needs, military service and contagious illness.
Members must “provide notice and public disclosure at the start of the meeting in accordance with local procedure” and
“explicitly disclose if any individuals over the age of 18 are present in the room with them, and state their relationships…during roll call.”
“The City is required to publish a member-by-member utilization report annually to ensure accountability,” the presentation added.
But a majority of the members must be present in-person to have a quorum to conduct a meeting.
Officials’ Participation on Social Media
The law also changes how public officials can engage with the public on social media. According to the April 14th presentation, officials may now engage with the public’s posts on city matters (e.g., answering questions on a resident’s post, but it includes a strict prohibition that “officials cannot respond to, like, share, or repost other council members’ content on the same topic to avoid ‘serial meetings’” of a majority of members outside the setting of a publicly noticed meeting.
Reporting of Staff Compensation Before Council Vote
Also, according to the presentation, the new law requires that the Council provide, “An oral report…in open session before taking final action on compensation” for all department heads not just for executives such as the City Manager and City Attorney. “The verbal report will include the position title, a summary of compensation elements, and any contract changes.”
Antioch Virtual Speaker Rules& Procedure
According to the Speaker Rules published in each council meeting agenda, “The public has the opportunity to address the City Council on each agenda item. No one may speak more than once on an agenda item or during ‘Public Comments’.
“To provide oral public comments during the meeting, please click the following link to register in advance to access the meeting via Zoom Webinar:
“You will be asked to enter an email address and a name. Your email address will not be disclosed to the public. After registering, you will receive an email with instructions on how to connect to the meeting. When the Mayor announces public comments, click the “raise hand” feature in Zoom.
“When calling into the meeting using the Zoom Webinar telephone number, press *9 on your telephone keypad to ‘raise your hand’. Please ensure your Zoom client is updated so staff can enable your microphone when it is your turn to speak. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak.
“When you are called to speak, please limit your comments to the time allotted. The City cannot guarantee that its network and/or the site will be uninterrupted.”
Florence “Chickie” Rundall’s family, including husband Dennis and sons (center), were joined by the city council members and city clerk following presentation of the proclamation on July 28, 2026. Photo by Allen D. Payton
By Allen D. Payton
During their meeting on Tuesday, July 28, 2026, the Antioch City Council honored honor the late and former City Clerk Florence “Chickie” Rundall who passed away on June 11th. Mayor Ron Bernal read the proclamation approved unanimously then presented it to Rundall’s family members, including her husband Dennis, who were in attendance. Her oldest son spoke and thanked the council who then took photos with the family.
PROCLAMATION IN MEMORY OF FLORENCE “CHICKIE” VIRGINIA RUNDALL FORMER CITY CLERK
WHEREAS, the City of Antioch and the community lost a deeply cherished community member, with the passing of Florence “Chickie” Rundall on June 11, 2026;
WHEREAS, Florence “Chickie” Rundall born October 1, 1940, in Miami Beach, Florida, dedicated her life to public service;
WHEREAS, Florence “Chickie” Rundall faithfully served the City of Antioch, first as Deputy City Clerk and later as City Clerk, where her integrity and exemplary work ethic contributed significantly to the transparent operations
of municipal government for nearly 25 years;
WHEREAS, Florence is remembered as a distinguished individual whose devotion to civic responsibility has set a lasting standard of excellence for all who follow;
WHEREAS, beyond her professional accomplishments, Florence was a loving mother, wife, grandmother, and devoted community member, leaving behind a legacy of kindness, warmth, and cherished memories shared among her family, friends, and colleagues; and
WHEREAS, the City of Antioch honors Florence, and memorializes her dedication and commitment to the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, RON BERNAL, Mayor of the City of Antioch, hereby recognize the significant contributions of Florence “Chickie” Virginia Rundall over the course of her distinguished career and join the community in mourning her passing.
Source: Joy Motts for Antioch City Council District 1 2026
To hold nomination papers signing event Thursday
By Allen D. Payton
In a post on her campaign Facebook page on July 26, 2026, former Antioch councilwoman and school board trustee, Joy Motts, announced a third run for city council against District 1 incumbent Tamisha Torres-Walker. Her slogan is, “A Fierce Advocate for Antioch.”
The post reads, “It’s official! Joy Motts is running for Antioch City Council, District 1. A fierce advocate for Antioch, Joy is committed to building a safer, stronger and thriving community for everyone. She’s ready to lead, listen and work hard for all District 1 residents. Choose Joy. Choose progress. Choose a brighter future for District 1.”
Motts also posted a video announcing her campaign in which she said, ““I’m ready to lead and to listen and to work hard.”
Motts previously served on the Antioch City Council from 2016-2020 and the Antioch School Board from 2010-214. She lost her re-election bid against Torres-Walker in 2020, then lost again in 2022 challenge by just four votes following a recount.
Motts also announced a “Tacos with Joy” nomination papers signing event to be held tomorrow, Thursday, July 30th, at Celia’s Mexican Restaurant, where residents can “learn more about her vision for a safer, stronger and thriving District 1.”
The candidate has also served the community as the long-time president of the Celebrate Antioch Foundation which organizes events throughout the city, each year and has led the effort for the RiverTown Square event center project proposed for the former Antioch Lumber Company lot in downtown.
For more information about Motts and her campaign visit her website, which has not yet been updated for this year, at https://joymotts.org.
UPDATE 1: So far, she is one of two potential challengers in the race for the election on Tuesday, Nov. 3rd. Former Antioch School Board Trustee Diane Gibson-Gray announced on her personal Facebook page on July 25 that she too had pulled papers for a second run to replace Torres-Walker. The incumbent has yet to announce a run for re-election but the website from her last campaign is still up as does Gibson-Gray. UPDATE 2: However, Gibson-Gray later shared that she had actually posted on the home page of her website seven months ago, “Diane Gibson-Gray Antioch City Council District 1 November 2026.”
As of Wednesday, July 29th all three have pulled nomination papers yet none have yet filed them. The filing period closes at 5:00 p.m. Friday, August 7, 2026.
Map of CRPC’s 35-mile Union Island Pipeline of which 8.5 miles runs through Antioch. Source: CPRC
Mentions opportunity to negotiate new franchise agreement
Company’s attorney refutes City staff’s portrayal of continued operation during litigation
By Allen D. Payton
During their meeting on Tuesday, July 28, 2026, the Antioch City Council voted 4-0 to deny the Encroachment Permit Appeal of California Resources Pipeline Company, LLC (CRPC), owner of the low-pressure, natural gas pipeline that runs under the city and has been shut off since 2021. (See related articles here, here and here)
In introducing the public hearing on the matter, under item #6 on the agenda, Antioch Public Works Director and City Engineer Scott Buenting said, “An Encroachment Permit is not the appropriate process.”
Dean Persinger,Vice President of Operations and Ester Brawley, VP of Technical Operations for California Resources Pipeline Company (CPRC) provided the company’s presentation.
He said the company applied for the Encroachment Permit “to maintain the right-of-way.”
Assistant City Attorney Kevin Kundinger spoke on behalf of the City saying, “The City requests the city council denies the appeal and uphold the decision of the City Engineer.”
“An encroach permit is not the appropriate approach for this long-term encroachment…for a project of this magnitude. It’s normally used for a short time and limited scope,” he explained. “They wanted to continue to pump gas…when before in order to do that they had to through the franchise agreement process.”
Kundinger also pointed out the company continued to operate the pipeline although the city council majority in 2021
“Even if you were to find the process is appropriate, CRPC failed to comply with the code,” Kundinger added. “This was an end route around” the council’s decision to not renew the franchise agreement, he stated.
Public Comments
During public comments, resident Harry Thurston spoke of his concerns about safety as the pipeline runs near homes and Sutter Delta Medical Center.
Bob Brown spoke next “on behalf of the Western States Petroleum Association” about the “safety and jobs” and that “The pipeline is safe and well-maintained. “Safe and reliable energy are essential” and asked the council to allow it to resume operations.
Resident Mark Jordan said, “This is a situation where both sides are right and both sides are wrong. The last council and a group of people decided we didn’t want petrochemicals running through our city. If it’s not organic, it’s not stone…it has petrochemicals in it. To believe that we don’t need pipelines is wrong.
“We’ve been told that they ran gas through that pipeline after they were denied. That’s disconcerting,” he continued.
“Where you are is, the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. You’ve been in court running up bills,” Jordan stated. “You want it solved? You put them in a room with a representative from the city and mediator. I’ll do it.”
“They’re going to have to pay a penalty for using that pipeline after they no longer had a franchise agreement,” he continued. “I support giving them a franchise agreement. The way to go is ‘what’s in it for us’? They’ll pay, because they want it and because they make $3 billion a day (as an industry). We need petrochemicals and they need their pipeline. They can just load up a thousand trucks and run them down our street and there’s nothing you can do to stop them? What’s the better way to move the petrochemicals?”
“He wants to cut a deal. Let’s do it,” Jordan concluded.
Timothy Jeffries spoke on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers saying, “I’m here as a worker…maintaining this infrastructure. It supports high-quality jobs, family-supporting wages…right here in this city.”
Resident Jan Warren said, “I want to support Harry Thurston’s comments. I hear these same stories at the Air District, the legislature bill sessions. I don’t believe any job is being created here in Antioch by that 8.5-mile pipeline.”
“Thank you, City Attorney and City Manager for saying, ‘no’ when they didn’t follow the rules,” she continued. “They’re trying to work their way around. It’s time to deny…this appeal.”
Former Councilman Ralph Hernandez said, “I’m with the City, the appeal should be denied” claiming it’s “a very dangerous transportation of natural gas. Don’t let a big corporation come here and basically bribe you with what they want. I don’t know what the potential danger these pipelines create. Think of the city and its safety and whether it’s a good thing or not.”
Mark Hughes said by Zoom (which is now allowed by state law), “I’m the Executive Director of the Industrial Association…in the Bay Area…in support of the encroachment permit.” He also mentioned, “California has the strictest…regulations in the nation and the world.”
“It actually results in an overall increase in greenhouse gas emissions,” he added.
Resident Frank Sterling, also speaking via Zoom, said, “I’m going to speak out against the pipeline.” He referred to the explosion of the pipeline in San Bruno. “I’m just against it.”
APOC Vice Chair Devin Williams said, “I’m against this pipeline, as well. I actually live in District 4 and there’s a pipeline running through my community.”
Resident Andrew Becker spoke last during comments saying, “I’ve lived next to this pipeline for the past 30 years…and what I really think about is…the only thing I’ve really seen changed is the sidewalks lift and cracked, yet there’s yellow stakes telling us there’s a pipeline undergound. I can assume it’s being maintained.”
He mentioned his appliances being gas powered and said, “Should this pipeline go away and other pipelines go away, my bill’s just going to go higher and higher.”
“Somebody in this city is not negotiating properly. Along with maintaining the pipeline, maybe they can plant some flowers,” Becker concluded.
CRPC Attorney Refutes City Staff’s Comments on Continued Use of Pipeline
The proponent had five minutes for a rebuttal comment in which their attorney used it to explain the company’s continued use of the pipeline after the council denied the renewal of the franchise agreement for its use in 2021.
Michael Mills, outside counsel to CRPC mentioned “a letter sent to staff and council, yesterday. Most importantly, it’s been now, almost five years, that the prior council decided to reject the franchise agreement. Since then, there’s been litigation.”
“The company negotiated a series of extensions to continue to operate the pipeline,” he explained. “The judge invited the City to enjoin the company from operating the pipeline during the legal challenge, but it did not do so.”
“Up until the point the company lost the legal challenge to the denial the company operated the pipeline. It wasn’t correctly stated in the staff report,” Mills pointed out.
“The company very much wants to work out something with the City,” the company’s attorney stated. “That’s the entire reason we’re here asking you for this permit.”
Council Discussion and Decision to Uphold Staff Denial
During council discussion, District 3 Councilman Don Freitas said, “The issue for the council is on the recommended action. Is an Encroachment Permit appropriate? The answer is ‘no’.”
“It’s simply about whether an Encroachment Permit is the proper process,” Kundinger said.
“I do think it’s creative,” Freitas stated. “Let’s not make it difficult. Let’s not bring in these other issues.”
“The company is not precluded from asking the city to sit down and discuss a franchise agreement,” he continued.
“The company has not been operating the pipeline for several years,” Freitas stated.
“I cannot confirm or deny if they have been using it. I have no personal knowledge,” Kundinger responded.
“How much in mitigation fees would we get?” District 4 Councilwoman Wilson asked.
“I believe the original was $75,000,” Kundinger said. That was from 2016-21. “Those were amounts fixed by agreement.”
“If a franchise agreement were in place, then an encroachment permit would be appropriate?” Mayor Ron Bernal asked.
“Permission could be given through a franchise agreement, yes,” Kundinger responded.
The motion by Freitas to uphold the city staff denial of the encroachment permit passed 4-0.
Antioch District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson announced on her official Facebook page, Tuesday, July 28, 2026, that she will run for a fifth term. First elected in 2012, she is currently the longest-serving member of the council. Wilson, currently in her fourth, or rather third-and-a-half term as she was re-elected in 2016, then in 2020 for a two-year term following the City’s move to district elections, then again in 2022 for another full, four-year term.
Wilson also posted the above campaign flier with the slogan, “Proven Experience. Trusted Leadership.”
In her announcement Wilson wrote, “I’m proud to announce that I am running for re-election to the Antioch City Council.
“Antioch is at a critical moment. We face real challenges, but we also have important opportunities to strengthen our neighborhoods, support families, and build a more stable and resilient local economy.
“As your Councilmember, I have always believed in collaborative leadership, transparent decision-making, and practical solutions that deliver real results for Antioch residents. I’m proud of the work we have done together, and I know there is more work ahead.
“When I was first elected, I made history as Antioch’s first African American woman to serve on the City Council. Today, I remain just as committed to serving this community with integrity, experience, and a deep belief in Antioch’s future.
“I’m running for re-election because Antioch needs steady, proven leadership focused on results, stability, and long-term progress.
“I would be honored to continue serving the residents of District 4 and working every day to move Antioch forward.”
UPDATE: The election for council districts 1 and 4 will be on Tuesday, Nov. 3rd. So far, Wilson faces one potential opponent, former Antioch Police Crime Prevention Commission Chair Sandra White, who announced her third campaign against Wilson, local homeless advocate Andrew Becker and newcomer Metty Mathews Alappat, neither of whom have announced nor yet have websites or social media for their campaigns. According to her LinkedIn page, Alappat was a Senior Technical Account Manager for Amazon Web Services until July 2025. All four have pulled nomination papers but none of the four have filed as of Wednesday, July 29th. The filing period closes at 5:00 p.m. Friday, August 7, 2026.
