Inclusionary Housing Ordinance will require developers to privately-subsidize housing bysetting aside 15% of new units for low-income buyers/residents or pay a $200K per unit fee
Will also establish affordable Inclusionary Housing Trust Fund requiring more City staff
Building Industry says ordinance not state required, will have opposite effect
“The higher the inclusionary requirement, the fewer market-rate homes are constructed” – UC Berkeley, UCLA joint study
Participants might not be allowed to keep increase in equity, but share it with City instead
By Allen D. Payton
During their meeting tomorrow night, Tuesday, March 10, 2026, the Antioch City Council will require new home developers to set aside 15% of housing units for Very Low-Income, Low-Income, and Moderate Income households. Although it’s not required by the state and opposed by the Building Industry Association of the Bay Area, on February 4, 2026, the Planning Commission voted 4-0, with two members absent, to recommend the City Council adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO). The IHO would apply to both single-family homes and both for rent and for sale multi-family projects.
Antioch would be only the eighth city out of 19 to approve such an ordinance.
Program Participants Might Not Get to Keep Equity Growth or Must Share it With City
The lower-income homebuyers who would participate in and benefit by the program would be able to purchase the same home as their neighbors but at a much lower price. Yet, when they sell the home, they might only be allowed to keep the amount of their original downpayment but not receive any of the increase in equity as the home must be resold to another buyer who qualifies, whenever the sale occurs “in perpetuity”. The other option would be the seller would have to share the increase in equity with the City.
Section 3.3 DISPOSITION REQUIREMENTS of the Financial Feasibility Analysis for the ordinance reads:
“An inclusionary ordinance will likely require that households purchasing an affordable unit qualify based
on income and that the sales price qualify as affordable to that household. The program will also have to identify what restriction, if any, will be applied to future resales of these affordable units. Different state and federal programs have different requirements.
We recommend that the city’s ordinance restrict future resales so that the purchasing household also be income-qualified and the sales price represents an affordable housing payment for the purchasing household. We further recommend that this restriction be enforced by a deed restriction for a period of 45 years. This would be consistent with some federal affordable housing programs, but it is worth noting that it is unlikely that federal funding would be involved with mixed-income inclusionary housing projects.
As an alternative, Antioch could consider using provisions similar to the State Density Bonus Law. The original purchaser would still have to be income-qualified and the sales price would have to be qualified as affordable to the purchasing household. The purchasing household would not be restricted from selling the property in the future at then market-rates or to selling to households that are not qualified as low income. However, there would be an equity sharing agreement, and the city would receive the amount of the original sales price write-down and a proportional share of any appreciation in value. Antioch could then use its share of the sales price to support other affordable housing projects and programs.”
However, the proposed ordinance in Section 9-5.4308 – Ongoing Affordability and Occupancy reads, “A. Ongoing Affordability of For-Sale Units. In order to maintain the availability of For-Sale Inclusionary Units constructed pursuant to this Article, the affordable sales prices of for-sale Inclusionary Units shall be restricted in perpetuity, and reset upon resale of the unit(s), as documented through an Inclusionary Housing Agreement, as prescribed in Section 9-5.4305.F, recorded against the property.”
Program Details, Previous Findings Stated Antioch IHO “Not Warranted…Not Reasonable”
According to the City staff report for the agenda item, #8, an IHO is a zoning tool that requires developers to allocate a percentage of housing units in market-rate developments as “affordable”, or below-market rate (BMR) units. Many HOs include the option of paying a fee (“in-lieu” fee) rather than building the required affordable units onsite.
Inclusionary ordinances require that a specific percentage of units in market-rate development projects be offered at below market rates, typically to Very Low-Income (VLI), Low-Income (LI), and Moderate Income (MI) households (see below for definitions). These percentages are known as inclusionary requirements.
Developers would be given the option to instead pay an in-lieu fee, which is proposed at $202,500 per unit, and the City would collect the fees and be deposited into an Inclusionary Housing Trust Fund (IHTF) to be used for affordable housing purposes. The purpose of the IHTF is to assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing in the City of Antioch for the benefit of extremely low, very low, low and moderate-income households.
The staff report also explained that Antioch has considered adopting an IHO since approximately 2009. Past City leadership concluded that market rate housing in Antioch was already adequately affordable. In 2016, the Contra Costa Grand Jury released a report titled Where Will We Live: The Affordable Housing Waiting List Is Closed. The report recommended that Antioch should consider adopting an IHO. The City responded to this recommendation on August 9, 2016, stating that the City, assuming 2000-2009 home values, “already provides a diversity of housing options and is accessible to households of all income levels…” Therefore, an IHO was “not warranted and is not reasonable.”
IHO Income Levels
The Area Median Income (AMI) per household in Contra Costa County is $159,800. The three categories of affordable housing typically accommodated in IHOs are:
Very Low-Income (VLI) Housing. Units affordable to households earning 0-50% of the Area Median Income (AMI).
Low-Income (LI) Housing. Units affordable to households earning 51-80% of AMI.
Moderate Income (MI) Housing. Units affordable to households earning 80-120% of AMI.
The State also recognizes Above-Moderate Income Housing, which are units affordable to households earning more than 120% of AMI. However, this affordability level is not provided for in IHOs.
Proposed Ordinance Applies Citywide Including New Sand Creek Area Subdivisions
The proposed City of Antioch Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is composed of the following basic regulations:
Applicable Geography. The proposed IHO requirements apply to Residential Development Projects citywide.
Affordability Term. The proposed IHO requires all BMR units to be affordable in perpetuity.
Threshold Project Size. The proposed IHO requirements apply to all Residential Development Projects consisting of five or more units.
Income and Affordability Requirements. As proposed, 15 percent of all new Residential Development Projects shall be affordable to VLI and LI incomes.
Specifically:
Ten percent of the BMR units shall be affordable to VLI households.
Five percent of the BMR units shall be affordable to LI households.
The first BMR unit shall be affordable to VLI households, the second unit shall be affordable to LI households, and so forth for all the BMR units in the project.
Affordability Standards. The proposed IHO includes standards to ensure that affordable units are of the same quality as Market Rate Units. Per the IHO, all affordable units shall:
Be built in the same proportion as the Market Rate Units.
Have an average square footage of at least 90 percent of Market Rate Units with the same bedroom count.
Be developed with the same bedroom count ratio as the Market Rate Units.
Have the same quality of exterior design and overall quality of construction as the Market Rate Units.
Have the same quality and type of interior finishes and features as the Market Rate Units.
Meet all site, design, and construction standards included in the City’s Building Regulations, Planning and Zoning.
Only seven other cities out of 19 in the county, plus, the County have IHO’s. Source: City of Antioch
Planning Commission Recommendations
During the Feb. 4th Planning Commission meeting one member of the public opposed the IHO with six members of the public representing coalitions of housing advocates spoke in favor. A letter in support was submitted by Joey Flegel-Mishlove, East Bay Housing Organizations, on behalf of California Center for Movement Legal Services, Contra Costa Budget Justice Coalition, East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy, East Bay Housing Organizations, Ensuring Opportunity Campaign to End Poverty in Contra Costa County, Hope Solutions, Lift Up Contra Costa County, Monument Impact, Multi-Faith ACTION Coalition, Public Advocates, Rising Juntos and United Latino Voices of Contra Costa County. They wanted to set “the IHO’s overall inclusionary rate at 20%.”
The Commission provided recommendations and requested that the City Attorney review them prior to the City Council reviewing the IHO including:
That the housing units created with the IHTF shall be prioritized for residents of Antioch.
However, the City Attorney responded, “the City of Antioch generally cannot lawfully adopt a broad resident-priority rule for assistance funded by inclusionary in-lieu fees, particularly for homebuyer subsidies. California law strongly protects statewide housing objectives and fair housing principles, and such a preference would likely conflict with those goals.”
That the IHO and IHTF gives preference to local unions.
But the City Attorney responded, “the City of Antioch cannot lawfully require private developers to give priority to union labor over non-union contractors on inclusionary housing projects. Such a requirement would first be preempted by federal law under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which governs private-sector labor relations and occupies the field to the exclusion of most local regulation.”
Developers’ Share Concerns
According to the staff report, during a December 2024 workshop, local housing developers “stressed that the difficulty of qualifying for home loans may impede the function of an IHO. Per participants, lower income households in Contra Costa typically face severe economic barriers to mortgage qualification, including an adequate down payment. As such, requiring the construction of for-sale units for very low-income or low-income households may be an unproductive path toward privately subsidized affordable housing.”
Building Industry Says IHO’s Aren’t State Required, Don’t Work, Benefits “Lucky” Few
In a letter to the council members and commissioners for the study session during the Planning Commission meeting on April 16, 2025, the Eastern Division of the Building Industry Association of the Bay Area submitted a letter opposing the ordinance saying they aren’t required by the state and they don’t work, making the cost to build the market rate housing to high.
The letter reads, “the California Housing & Community Development staff informs us that no jurisdiction is required to study the feasibility of an inclusionary ordinance or adopt such a program as part of the housing element review process.”
The BIA letter also includes a policy brief published in 2019 and updated in 2021by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University which “found that none of the six major studies of inclusionary programs show that they increase the housing supply or lower prices. Instead, much of the research comes to the opposite conclusion: Except for a very small number of people lucky enough to secure one of the affordable units, inclusionary programs cause overall housing prices and rents to rise, further reducing affordability for everyone else.”
“‘Relying on new housing construction to provide subsidized units is not a strategy that can lead to more housing that’s affordable for more people,’ wrote research fellow Emily Hamilton. ‘In cases where inclusionary zoning raises house prices generally, the costs of the policy fall hardest on the lowest-income.’”
An IHO “improves housing affordability for a few at the risk of worsening affordability for many, and it taxes precisely the activity needed to ameliorate the housing shortage and bring down rents: development.”
The BIA letter also states, “a 15 percent inclusionary requirement is infeasible for all single-family large lot developments and only partially feasible for single-family small lot and townhome developments. On the rental side, only high-density multifamily projects are fully feasible for very low, low and moderate income households. The market for very dense rental housing in Antioch is limited, at best. Overall, adopting a 10 or 15 percent inclusionary requirement will result in fewer homes being built in Antioch.”
The BIA requests City “staff to work with the development industry on alternative incentive-based approaches.”
Local Real Estate Broker Says IHO “Unnecessary”, “Built on…Fundamentally Socialist Ideology…Failed Model”
In a letter to the Commission, local real estate broker, Mark Jordan wrote, “an inclusionary housing ordinance is unnecessary, unsupported by current case law, and of questionable constitutional validity. Adoption of this ordinance would expose the City to avoidable legal and financial risk.” His letter cited a successful lawsuit against City of East Palo Alto and as a result, “significantly modified its inclusionary housing ordinance” and possibly paid the man who sued that city.
In a previous email to the City Council dated Sept. 15, 2025, Jordan wrote, “Though rarely stated outright, the lnclusionary Housing Ordinance is built on a fundamentally socialist ideology-one that demands others pay the price for systemic outcomes beyond their control. But socialism, like Marxism, is a failed model. It doesn’t uplift communities; it burdens them and eventually collapses under its own weight.
“If life hasn’t turned out the way we want, the answer isn’t to demand others pay the price. The answer is to adapt, to work harder, to upskill, to disengage from distractions-and to pursue our own happiness through self-reliance.
“In closing, I urge you to table this ordinance. It is ill-timed, legally risky, economically unwise, and ideologically misguided.”
Antioch Housing Already Affordable, Hundreds of Units Already Approved or in Approval Process
The City is already meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements for very low- and low-income housing. A total of 1,248 new housing units are required in those categories. Yet, as previously reported, over 2,000 apartment units have either been or can be approved by staff through the 10 Commercial Infill Housing Overlay Districts about by the City Council in 2022, many of which will be affordable, including in the extremely-low, very-low and low-income housing categories.
In addition, according to Redfin.com, “The housing market in Antioch, CA, is currently competitive, with homes selling for a median price of $603K. The market is somewhat competitive, with homes selling in about 40 days on average. The median sale price per square foot is $306, down 3.2% since last year. In December 2025, Antioch home prices were down 1.2%.”
Finally, according to Realtor.com, “The housing market in Contra Costa County, CA, presents a range of home values and prices. As of February 2026, the median price for a single-family home is $780,000, with a median AVM value of $801,000 for properties sold in the last year.” According to RocketMortgage.com, AVM value is “an estimated property value generated by an Automated Valuation Model using algorithms and real estate data.”
Questions for Mayor, Council Members
An email was sent to the mayor and four council members Monday afternoon, asking questions about the ordinance:
They were asked, “since it’s not required by state law why do you feel an IHO is necessary in Antioch, since our city is already going to have at least five if not 10 more affordable housing apartment complexes as part of the Commercial Infill Housing Overlay Districts?”
They were also asked, “why does the proposed ordinance apply citywide and therefore include the remaining Sand Creek Focus Area developments that have yet to be approved, when those homes have long been intended to be the more upscale, higher priced homes for that end of our housing mix?”
Finally, they were asked, “why use this option to achieve the RHNA requirements when Antioch homes are less expensive than the average throughout the county?”
No responses were received to the email and further efforts to contact each of the council members were unsuccessful prior to publication time. Please check back later for any updates to this report.
Council Meeting Details
The Council meeting begins with a Closed Session at 4:30 p.m. for a Conference with legal counsel regarding “significant exposure to litigation.”
That will be followed at 5:00 p.m. for a Special Meeting/Study Session on the fiscal year 2026-27 budget and an update on the Code Enforcement Division’s progress and operations.
The regular meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. The latter two meetings will be held in the Council Chambers at 200 H Street, or can be viewed via livestream on the City’s website or on Comcast cable TV channel 24 or AT&T U-verse channel 99.
Antioch Police Lt. John Fortner has retired. Photos: Antioch PD
Began career with Sheriff’s Office, then with APD as volunteer Reserve Officer in 2000
By Antioch Police Department
After 25 years of dedicated service in law enforcement, Lieutenant John Fortner has officially retired.
John began his career with the City of Antioch Police Department on August 20, 2001. Prior to joining APD, he served with the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office at the Martinez Detention Facility and also volunteered his time as an Antioch Police Reserve Officer beginning in January 2000.
Before entering law enforcement, John proudly served in the United States Air Force from 1990–1998, receiving an Honorable Discharge.
During his career with APD, Lieutenant Fortner served in numerous roles including Patrol Officer, Field Training Officer, SWAT Team Member and Team Leader, Special Response Unit member, and Detective in the Violent Crimes Unit. He also served as both a Department Firearms Instructor and SWAT Instructor, helping train and mentor the next generation of officers.
John supported and supervised several important programs throughout his career, including the Reserve Officer Program, SWAT proactive patrol operations, the Explorer Post, Special Events, and community initiatives such as the Northern California Special Olympics Torch Run and Tip-a-Cop events.
His dedication and service were recognized with both the Medal of Valor and the Meritorious Service Award.
Thank you, John, for 25 years of commitment, leadership, and service to the Antioch community.
Please join us in congratulating him and wishing him a long, healthy, and well-deserved retirement!
Include Assessor, Auditor-Controller and County Superintendent of Schools
By Allen D. Payton
Because the incumbent didn’t file to run for re-election in the June 2nd primary by Friday, March 6, the filing period has been extended five business days in three county-wide offices.
According to the Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder’s Office Elections Division the deadline for filing nomination documents has been extended (to non-incumbents only) to March 11, 2026, for the following County offices: Assessor, Auditor-Controller and County Superintendent of Schools.
Local military veterans’ leader, J.R. Wilson enters the Grocery Outlet store on Buchanan Road in Antioch, Saturday, March 7, 2026. Photo by Allen D. Payton
Company announced this week underperforming stores will close this year
By Allen D. Payton
Emeryville-based Grocery Outlet announced this week that they plan to close 36 of their 536 stores across the United States this year. Nineof the stores are located in California. However, it was learned Friday, that the Antioch store is not on the list.
Net sales for the year increased by 7.3% to $4.69 billion, gross profit increased 7.4% versus 2024 to $1.42 billion and gross margin was 30.3% compared to 30.2% in 2024. But the company’s operating loss was $221.7 million and net loss was $224.9 million compared to net income of $39.5 million, in 2024. Adjusted net income was $75.2 million compared to $76.3 million the previous year.
“We made progress on our strategic priorities in 2025; however, our fourth-quarter results made clear that we have more work to do, and we’re moving quickly,” said Jason Potter, President and CEO of Grocery Outlet. “Consumer pressure intensified, federally funded benefits were delayed, and competition grew more promotional in the fourth quarter. In response, we have begun to sharpen our focus on what matters most: delivering clearer value and a better in-store experience. We’re intensely focused on restoring the opportunistic mix to rebuild value perception with the customer and advancing our store refresh program, and we’re already seeing early, measurable improvements. At the same time, we’re closing underperforming stores, reshaping our new store growth strategy and reallocating resources to strengthen operating results and returns on capital. We are confident that we have identified the core challenges and now have the right plans in place and the right team to execute them.”
Optimization Plan and Restructuring Plan
As a result, the company announced those plans as follows:
“To strengthen long-term profitability and cash flow generation, improve operational execution, optimize our existing store footprint and align with our disciplined new store growth strategy, in the first quarter of fiscal 2026 we conducted a strategic, financial and operational analysis of our store fleet. Following that review, on March 2, 2026, our Board of Directors adopted the Optimization Plan that provides for the closure of 36 financially underperforming stores, including the termination or sublease of the applicable store leases, the termination or sublease of a lease for a distribution center facility that we are no longer utilizing, and the termination of operator agreements with independent operators (‘IOs’) for the applicable store locations as well as certain other store locations. These actions under the Optimization Plan are expected to be substantially completed during fiscal 2026.”
Grocery Outlet Partners with Independent Owner/Operators
According to the company’s website, “Since 1973, Grocery Outlet has partnered with retail leaders to operate their expanding locations. Our Independent Operators have considerable local-decision making autonomy over store operations including hiring, merchandising, marketing and more. You hire, train, and lead your team, doing what you do best, and then we share the profits of your retail store according to our commission structure. We each assume different risks but share the rewards.
“We support our Independent Operators with training, mentorship, marketing, finance and accounting professionals to assist with any questions or issues that come up.”
Antioch Store on Buchanan Road Not Closing
Kyle Noble, Grocery Outlet’s Senior Director of Marketing was asked if it is correct that stores in California are closing and if so, whether or not Antioch is included.
He was also asked since no list has apparently yet been publicly provided, when it will be, how long will the current owner/operators be given to prepare for their closures or if they have already been informed. Noble did not respond before publication time.
However, a store employee, who chose not to be identified, informed the Herald on Friday that the Antioch store located on Buchanan Road will not be closing.
Open since Nov. 12, 2015, the current owner/operators are Fadi Fayad and Kelly Talaie.
According to a report on Patch, the nine California stores to close are in Azusa, Brawley, El Cajon, Kerman (near San Jose), La Habra, Ontario, Patterson, Poway and Ridgecrest.
24 Stores to Close on East Coast
According to a KRON4 news report, “While no announcement has been made as to which stores will close…According to a report in the grocery industry trade publication, Grocery Drive, 24 of the stores set to close are on the East Coast.”
The company “currently operates around 17 stores in the Bay Area” and “more than half of Grocery Outlet stores are in California,” according to the report.
About Grocery Outlet:
Based in Emeryville, California, Grocery Outlet is a growth-oriented extreme value retailer of quality, name-brand consumables and fresh products sold primarily through a network of independently operated stores. Grocery Outlet and its subsidiaries have more than 560 stores in California, Washington, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Idaho, Nevada, Maryland, Ohio, New Jersey, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Delaware, Kentucky and Virginia.
Please check back later for any updates to this report.
Contra Costa County Assessor Gus Kramer in 2022. Source: Contra Costa County
Announces retirement after 40 years in public office effective Dec. 2026 at end of current term
Supports Assistant County Assessor Vince Robb as his replacement
ByRobin Cantu, Assessor’s Customer Services Coordinator, Contra Costa County Assessor’s Office
On Friday, March 6, 2026, Contra Costa County Assessor Gus Kramer announced he would not run for re-election to a ninth term. He first served in public office as the Martinez City Clerk when he was elected in 1986.
The announcement reads, he “will retire from his position as County Assessor in December 2026, concluding more than three decades of dedicated public service to the residents of Contra Costa County
“First elected in 1994, Kramer has been entrusted by the voters of Contra Costa County for eight consecutive terms over the past 32 years. During that time, he has overseen significant modernization and improvements within the Assessor’s Office, working to ensure that property assessments are conducted with fairness, transparency, and efficiency.
“It has been the honor of a lifetime to serve the people of Contra Costa County,” said Kramer. “I am deeply grateful to the voters who placed their trust in me eight times over the past three decades. Their confidence and support have meant a great deal to me throughout my career.”
Kramer also emphasized the contributions of several key members of his leadership team who have played an essential role in strengthening the office’s service to the public. He expressed special appreciation to Vince Robb, Assistant County Assessor; Peter Yu, Assistant County Assessor; and Robin Cantu, Assessor’s Customer Services Coordinator, for their outstanding dedication and leadership.
“Vince Robb and Peter Yu have been exceptional partners in managing the complex responsibilities of the Assessor’s Office, bringing professionalism, expertise, and a strong commitment to public service every day,” Kramer said. “Robin Cantu has also been instrumental in ensuring that our office maintains a high level of responsiveness and service for the public.”
Kramer noted that their leadership—along with the dedication of the entire Assessor’s Office staff—has helped bring the efficiency, professionalism, and public service of the office to an all-time high level.
“I want to thank every member of the Assessor’s Office, past and present, who has worked so hard to serve the residents of Contra Costa County,” Kramer added. “Together we have worked to make the business of property value assessment as simple, transparent, and accessible as possible for the public.”
As he prepares for retirement, Kramer said he is proud of what the office has accomplished and grateful for the opportunity to serve the community.
“Public service has been a privilege, and I will always be thankful for the trust placed in me by the people of Contra Costa County,” Kramer said.
Supports Assistant County Assessor Vince Robb
Asked on Friday if he had groomed someone to take his place, Kramer said, “The Assistant County Assessor, Vince Robb, in my office is a good choice. The other two have never appraised a single property. Nobody has experience or credentials like Vince. He has 20 years’ experience in the Assessor’s Office.”
He was referring to Nick Spinner, whose ballot designation is Senior Systems Engineer in the Contra Costa Elections Division list of candidates for the June 2nd primary election, and Kismat Kathrani, whose designation is Software Technology Entrepreneur.
About Kramer
In the bio on his campaign website which is still up as of Saturday, March 7th, Kramer wrote, “I was born in Contra Costa and raised in East County. My high school was Pacifica High in West Pittsburg (Go Spartans!) and I graduated in 1968. Back then the area was called West Pittsburg, but now it is called Bay Point. It was a small high school but we played hard in local sports and competed well against larger central county schools. It closed in 1976 and is now Riverview Middle School on Pacifica Ave. Having a high school of our own, rather than sending kids to Concord or Pittsburg, was a real anchor for the community.
“After high school I attended DVC for a year, then went to mortuary school in San Francisco. Working in mortuary and funeral services is a very specific calling. It is not for everyone, but for those that answer the call it can be fulfilling. It taught me a deep respect for life, caring for the living, and humbleness in the face of the awesome hereafter. Working as an embalmer introduced me to the CC Coroner’s office, and I worked there for several years. It might be how I keep my sense of humor when things are gloomy. I continued my education at USF studying public administration at night, while I worked for the county. This began my career in public service.
“I settled and raised my family in Martinez, the County Seat of Contra Costa. the adopted home town of environmentalist John Muir and the birthplace of baseball hero Joe DiMaggio. I still live there today.
“Bitten is a strong word for it, so maybe I was nipped by the political bug in the mid-80s in Martinez. I wanted to be involved in my community, give back, and continue to serve. I ran for City Clerk and won. As clerk I was not voting on issues like the city council, but I was part of the process and aware of the machinations of local government. As city clerk I donated my monthly salary to provide scholarships to local students. Education helped my rise up and build a foundation, and I wanted to give back to the community rather than take from it.”
Official County Bio
According to his official 2022 bio on the Contra Costa County website, “Gus grew up in Bay Point, California, and is a graduate of the San Francisco College of Mortuary Science and the University of San Francisco.
His public career in Contra Costa County began in 1974. Kramer embarked on his tenure with the County at the Contra Costa County Sheriff Coroner’s Office, later moving to the Contra Costa County Probation Department, and finally to the Contra Costa County Public Works Department until 1994 when he was elected to the position of County Assessor. In addition to his service to Contra Costa County and its residents, Kramer was also elected to the position of Martinez City Clerk in 1986.
“As County Assessor, Kramer has overseen remarkable improvements to streamline the operations of his office, eliminate backlogs, and achieve higher levels of public service, all while operating substantially under budget.
“The State Board of Equalization acknowledged his office as one of the best managed assessor’s operations in California. Gus Kramer is a member of the California Assessors’ Association and the International Right of Way Association and has more than 43 years as a licensed real estate salesperson.”
He now has 47 years as a licensed real estate agent, Kramer said.
During his work for the County Public Works Department real estate division he shared, “I valued commercial and residential real estate to be purchased for public works projects.”
Future Plans
Asked what his plans are for the future, Kramer exclaimed with a laugh, “I gotta find something to do!”
Seriously, he said he will find something where he can apply his skills, knowledge and experience, probably in real estate.
The suspect was driving a tan 2000 Toyota Avalon. Photo: Antioch PD
By Lt. Michael Mellone, Antioch Police Department
The Antioch Police Department is seeking witnesses and possible additional information related to an indecent exposure incident reported on Tuesday, March 3, 2026, at approximately 8:00 a.m. near a bus stop at Buchanan Road and Delta Fair Boulevard.
An 18-year-old woman reported that a tan 2000 Toyota Avalon drove past her multiple times as she walked to the bus stop. After she arrived, the driver parked nearby, sat on the bench next to her, and exposed himself while masturbating in her presence.
Antioch police officers identified the suspect as Armando Cruz Castro, 54, of Pittsburg.
Officers later located Castro and arrested him for a violation of California Penal Code section 314.1 (indecent exposure/masturbation in public).
Investigators believe there may be additional witnesses or individuals who experienced a similar encounter but have not yet reported it. Anyone who witnessed this incident, observed the vehicle in the area between approximately 7:45 a.m. and 8:15 a.m., or experienced a similar encounter with this individual in Antioch or nearby areas is encouraged to contact Officer Kyle Smith at (925) 778-2441 or ksmith@antiochca.gov.
Suspect description: Hispanic male wearing a light-colored baseball hat, orange zip-up sweatshirt, gray shirt, and blue/green plaid pajama pants.
Range from $37,500 to $725,000 paid to 18 plaintiffs last year, but lawsuit not finalized; two who received large payouts are serving 19 and 20 years in prison for voluntary manslaughter
By Allen D. Payton
While one portion of the class action civil rights lawsuit against the City of Antioch, specific police officers and former chiefs was settled for just attorney’s fees, 23 plaintiffs also settled their claims last year with 18 receiving payouts costing millions.
During a press conference held on Friday, Dec. 19, 2025, John Burris, civil rights attorney for the plaintiffs, called the settlement “historic” and a “win-win” and explained, “There were two parts of the case, one involving the individuals, which we settled, 23.”
Although the settlement announced that day only cost the City plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees for close to $155,000, the City paid out $5,210,000 in 18 of the 23 settled cases that were never announced publicly, nor information provided until now. Some of the cases were past the statute of limitations so those plaintiffs received a lesser payout.
On Monday, February 9, 2026, the City responded to a Public Records Act request submitted by the Herald on Dec. 20, for all of the settlement documents related to the class action civil rights lawsuit against the City showing the names of the parties, how much each was paid including the City’s portion versus the amounts paid by the insurance pool to which the City contributes. In addition, City Manager Bessie Scott’s prepared remarks offered at the press conference were also requested.
Oakland civil rights attorney John Burris and associates filed the lawsuit in April 2023, naming five then-current and former officers, for their racist and other offensive texts and mistreatment of citizens, plus, three past police chiefs, the City of Antioch and Does 1-100. (See related articles here and here)
As previously reported, on March 9, 2021, Terryonn Deshawn Pugh, Trent Allen, Eric James Windom and Keyshawn Malik McGee engaged in a shooting in the City of Antioch wherein they discharged firearms at a vehicle in a residential neighborhood. The barrage of bullets killed Arnold Marcel Hawkins and injured another person.
The four defendants were charged on a six-count felony complaint with enhancements in November 2021 and on May 6, 2024, the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office reached a resolution in the 2021 murder of Hawkins and the attempted murder of Aaron Patterson.
In resolving the case, the four defendants entered pleas of no contest to the following:
Terryonn Pugh: No contest on two counts of attempted murder and voluntary manslaughter – with an additional punishment for the use of a firearm. He was sentenced on May 8th, 2024, to 20 years in state prison.
Trent Allen: No contest on one count of attempted murder and voluntary manslaughter — with an additional punishment for the use of a firearm. He will also serve a concurrent term for an unrelated robbery. Allen was sentenced on May 10th, 2024, to 19 years in state prison.
Eric Windom: No contest on one count of attempted murder and voluntary manslaughter — with an additional punishment for the use of a firearm. He will also serve a concurrent term for a robbery that is unrelated to this case. Windom was sentenced on May 8th, 2024, to 19 years in state prison.
Keyshawn McGee: No contest on one count of attempted murder and voluntary manslaughter — with an additional punishment for the use of a firearm in both the murder and voluntary manslaughter charges. McGee was sentenced on May 10th, 2024, to 13 years, 8 months in state prison.
The four were part of the arrests of 48 gang members and associates during a complex, six-month investigation involving 24 agencies, for murder, attempted murder and illegal guns. The effort removed 40 firearms, including 15 “ghost guns” off the streets and over $100,000 in cash. (See related article)
City Manager’s Press Conference Comments
During the press conference on Dec. 19, 2025, City Manager Scott said, “I want to start by acknowledging what this period has meant for people in Antioch. The last few years have been difficult and, for many residents, deeply unsettling. Trust was strained. Confidence in institutions took a serious hit. Many in our community have carried that weight in ways that don’t show up in headlines.
“Today reflects the culmination of a long, demanding process. It has taken ongoing effort, patience, and a willingness to stay engaged even when it was uncomfortable. I want to recognize the people who kept showing up and kept working.
“I’m grateful to John Burris and his team. We have approached this from different sides, but there was a shared understanding that Antioch needed a path forward that is durable and serious. That kind of alignment does not erase differences. It makes progress possible.
“I also want to thank our City staff and legal team for moving this work forward with discipline and care, and I want to recognize the community, residents, advocates, and neighborhood voices who insisted the City meet a higher standard and kept that expectation in front of us.
“I appreciate the Antioch Police Oversight Commission and City leadership for supporting forward movement, and for the decision to hire a Chief who reflects the values this moment requires. Leadership sets the tone and over time, it shapes culture.
“Today is about refusing to let the City remain defined by the failures and controversy that brought us to this point. Antioch deserves a government that listens, adjusts, and delivers. It deserves public service that is fair, professional, and consistent across every neighborhood and every interaction.
“As we move into the next chapter, our focus is steady execution, staying transparent about progress, and earning trust through sustained performance and measurable improvements.”
On February 9th, the day the PRA request was partially fulfilled, an email was sent to City Manager Bessie Scott, Mayor Ron Bernal and all four council members, Assistant City Attorney Kevin Kundinger who worked on the settlements, City Clerk Michael Mandy and City PIO Jaden Baird.
They were asked to provide the breakdown of how much was paid by the City for each of the 18 settlements and how much was paid by the insurance pool.
They were also informed that during the press conference attorney John Burris said there had been 23 cases settled and asked for the information about the other five.
The PDF’s of each of the 18 settlements provided were incomplete as they do not include the signatures of the City’s legal representative on the settlements showing the dates each was finally settled. The final versions with the signatures and dates signed by the City’s legal representative were requested.
They were also asked why the City didn’t announce each of the settlements when they occurred last March, April, May, June and July based on the dates the agreements were signed by the plaintiffs and a representative of John Burris’ law firm; why did they wait so long to provide the details to the public and only after a PRA request was made and how is that being transparent.
Finally, they were asked why the lawsuit is still referred to as “Existing Litigation” and was discussed during the Closed Session of the City Council meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 10th if it’s all been settled.
Since no response was received from any of the city council or staff members, an email with the same requests and questions was, again sent on Feb. 24 and included City Finance Director Dawn Merchant in hopes she could share the amounts the City paid out on each of the 18 settled lawsuits and how much was paid by the insurance pool.
A meeting was then held with City Clerk Michael Mandy on Feb. 25th in another attempt to get the PRA request completely fulfilled. But still, no response was received.
Finally, all five council members and aforementioned City staff were emailed again on Feb. 26th, and included then-Interim City Attorney Derek Cole and Assistant City Clerk Christina Garcia.
Interim City Attorney Says Lawsuit Settlement “Not Currently Finalized”
On Friday, February 27, 2026, Cole responded, “In response, I note that much of what you ask about in your email are questions for comment, not requests for records under the Public Records Act. This consolidated lawsuit remains active as the settlement agreement is not currently finalized and executed. Therefore, neither our office nor City Administration believe it is appropriate to comment on your questions at this time.
“Further, to the extent you have stated proper requests for public records, we note that the City does not have an obligation until after the litigation has concluded to produce any response records. (See Gov. Code sec. 7927.200(a).)
“We do note that, to date, the City’s employment risk manager has paid nearly all of the legal fees and litigation costs for the consolidated action. The City will have to reimburse these expenses after the conclusion of the consolidated action, but as of this time, the City does not have information it can share on what its ultimate share of the litigation expenses will be.
“We also note that the City has agreed to pay the plaintiff’s attorney fees for this case and we do provide a copy of the order the parties entered into to effectuate that agreement. The amount of the attorney fees to be paid is stated in the order.”
The order entitled, “Attorneys’ Fees Agreement” and dated Jan. 8, 2026, shows the City paid Plaintiffs’ counsel attorneys’ fees in the amount $154,902.50 to Burris Nisenbaum Curry & Lacy, LLP.
