First-of-its-kind measure to help build and preserve more than 70,000 homes
Contra Costa County would receive $1.9 billion
By John Goodwin, Assistant Director of Communications & Rebecca Long, Director, Legislation & Public Affairs, Metropolitan Transportation Commission
The Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) on Wednesday, June 26, 2024, adopted a resolution to place a general obligation bond measure on the November 5 general election ballot in each of the nine Bay Area counties to raise and distribute $20 billion for the production of new affordable housing and the preservation of existing affordable housing throughout the region. BAHFA is jointly governed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)’s Executive Board and by the BAHFA Board, which is comprised of the same membership as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).
The bond could create 72,000 new affordable homes – more than double what would be possible without a bond. Without more funding, only about 71,000 affordable homes will be built or preserved in the Bay Area over the next 15 years – a status quo that is failing to meet the needs of the people who live and work here.
Currently, the Bay Area doesn’t have enough homes for the people who live here. As a result of the region’s housing shortage:
In 2022, 37,000 people were unhoused in the Bay Area.
1.4 million people—23% of Bay Area renters—spend over half their income on rent.
High rents and home prices force people to live far from work, making congestion and pollution much worse, and putting a major strain on working families.
Too many Bay Area residents live in overcrowded and unsafe housing.
Vital employees and community members are leaving the area.
Wednesday’s unanimous vote by the BAHFA Board marks the final discretionary step in the process to place the measure on the November ballot. Under state law, each Bay Area county will now take a non-discretionary, ministerial vote to place the measure on the ballot in that county, in accordance with election deadlines.
The BAHFA bond measure currently would require approval by at least two-thirds of voters to pass. Voters throughout California this November will consider Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1 (ACA 1) — which would set the voter threshold at 55 percent for voter approval of bond measures for affordable housing and infrastructure. If a majority of California voters support ACA 1, the 55 percent threshold will apply to the BAHFA bond measure.
“Today’s vote is the culmination of so many years of effort by so many people all around our region,” observed BAHFA Chair and Napa County Supervisor Alfredo Pedroza. “The Bay Area’s longstanding housing affordability problems affect all of us, our friends, our neighbors and our family members. This vote is about preserving opportunity for everyone.”
Source: BAHFA
The proposed BAHFA bond measure calls for 80 percent of the funds to go directly to the nine Bay Area counties (and to the cities of San Jose, Oakland, Santa Rosa and Napa, each of which carries more than 30 percent of their county’s low-income housing need), in proportion to each county’s tax contribution to the bond. In consultation with its cities and towns, each county would determine how to distribute bond funds to best meet its jurisdictions’ most pressing housing needs. These distributions would include:
Contra Costa County: $1.9 billion
Alameda County: $2 billion
Marin County: $699 million
Napa County: $118 million
San Francisco County: $2.4 billion
San Mateo County: $2.1 billion
Santa Clara County: $2.4 billion
Solano County: $489 million
Sonoma County: $553 million
City of Napa: $246 million
City of Oakland: $765 million
City of San Jose: $2.1 billion
City of Santa Rosa: $242 million
The remaining 20 percent, or $4 billion, would be used by BAHFA to establish a new regional program to fund affordable housing construction and preservation projects throughout the Bay Area. Most of this money (at least 52 percent) must be spent on new construction of affordable homes, but every city and county receiving a bond allocation must also spend at least 15 percent of the funds to preserve existing affordable housing. Almost one-third of funds may be used for the production or preservation of affordable housing, or for housing-related uses such as infrastructure needed to support new housing.
Source: BAHFA
The California Constitution currently does not allow bond funds to be used for tenant protections such as rental assistance, but planned investments in new housing and affordable housing preservation will protect tens of thousands of low-income renters and vulnerable residents.
The BAHFA Board also adopted, on Wednesday, resolutions approving the Authority’s Business Plan and its Regional Expenditure Plan, which explain the prioritization for use of the funds that would be directly administered by BAHFA.
Oversight and accountability provisions to be included in the BAHFA bond measure include the creation of a special bond proceeds account; establishment of a Citizens’ Oversight Committee that would review the expenditure of bond proceeds and report to the BAHFA and ABAG Executive Boards on whether the funds were spent appropriately; an independent annual performance audit; a requirement that all bond-projects be consistent with state laws on labor standards; a requirement that administrative costs not exceed the amount prescribed in state law; and a prohibition against any public official who voted to send the ballot measure to the voters bidding on any work funded with proceeds from the bond.
The ABAG Executive Board voted unanimously at its April meeting to adopt a resolution approving BAHFA’s Business Plan and its Expenditure Plan, as well as to endorse placement of the bond measure on the November ballot. In her remarks preceding the vote, ABAG President and Napa County Supervisor Belia Ramos noted, “This is a remarkable milestone moment for our region. Housing stability is essential for our community to thrive, and this proposal is a once-in-a-generation opportunity.”
The Antioch Water Park presents Water Park After Dark each Friday night in July.
First, enjoy Carnival Night on July 5th, followed by Christmas in July on July 12th. Then enjoy Country Night on July 19th and finally All Star Night on July 26th.
Pre-Sale tickets are $11 per person and $13 at the door or purchase an After Dark Pass for all four nights for just $35 per person at AntiochWaterPark.com.
The Antioch Water Park is located inside Prewett Family Park at 4701 Lone Tree Way.
President Antonio Hernandez explains one of the votes on the resolution to censure him, as the other trustees and Acting Superintendent Dr. Rob Martinez listen, during the Antioch School Board meeting on June 26, 2024. YouTube video screenshot.
Audience members disrupt Trustee Mary Rocha’s efforts with cat calls, chants
“I’m not a process person. I’m a people person. This is keeping the same status quo,” – Hernandez
Trustee Jag Lathan claims the process was “reenacting oppression and White supremacy”
“they want to uphold systems of oppression” – resident Devin Williams
By Allen D. Payton
Following the fire in the hills south of Antioch Wednesday afternoon, June 26, 2024, there was also fire in the board room during the meeting of the Antioch School Unified District Trustees when the resolution to censure Board President Antonio Hernandez was discussed and subsequently tabled indefinitely. He faced the action for claims of 12 violations of board policies and bylaws, the state’s Brown Act open meeting law and federal HIPPA law. (See related article)
After hearing every resident who spoke against the resolution during public comments and raucous behavior by some of them, four of the board members voted to table the resolution with only Vice President Mary Rocha who sought the censure offering the lone no vote.
At the beginning of the regular meeting, Hernandez said there was nothing to report out from the Board’s closed session held earlier, which included two items, 2A. Public Employment (Gov. Code section § 54957, subd. (b)(1)) Title: Interim/Acting Superintendent and B. Public Employee Performance Evaluation Title: Superintendent. However, Superintendent Stephanie Anello was not in attendance as she is only back on a half-day work schedule.
“I’m sorry I have to bring this up, but…I felt the need to discuss what was going on,” Vice President Mary Rocha stated about the censure resolution. “I wanted the board to vote yes or no.”
Before publicly reading the resolution and the 12 violations Hernandez was accused the board heard from members of the public.
Public Comments
During public comments, many of those who often speak during Antioch City Council meetings spoke on the proposed censure resolution, and all were opposed.
Frank Sterling spoke first saying, “I don’t think this is really necessary. When someone says there is bullying…that’s something that we want to deal with and take seriously.” He compared it to what the police under investigation by the FBI did and mentioned former Police Chief Allan Cantando who is married to Anello.
Take the bullying seriously and also denounce any support of the APOA. I know some of you, Mary, have the endorsement of the APOA. Let’s just drop this item while you still can…and take this kind of action to the bullies.”
Patricia Granados, who said she is a Latina, claimed Rocha was racist for the censure.
Resident Gavin Payton spoke next saying, “If you guys make this decision you will highly affect the voters. You say you’re champions for youth. Prove it right here in this moment.”
His mother, Dr. Kimberly Payton, Vice President of the NAACP East County Branch said, “I have to say I’m really disappointed this is up for discussion. I’m disappointed about the Black and brown students who are failing in the school district. I’m disappointed that another member of the Black and brown community is censuring a member of the Black and brown community.”
She then spoke about the superintendent saying, “Where’s her yearly observation? She continues to get annual raises. Isn’t your job…to work with the superintendent for education for all? I encourage all of you, right now, stop calling the youth of this district students and start calling them scholars. This right here…this is a crap show.”
Antioch resident Mary Lutz who said she has children in the school district spoke against the resolution to censure the board president during the AUSD board meeting on June 26, 2025. YouTube video screenshot.
Resident Mary Lutz spoke next saying, “We’ve been in the district for 10 years, I’ve seen three people of color…censured by the board. Those are typically people I’m voting for, people who are trying to make change. I’m not hearing anything except from Antonio Hernandez and Jaz trying to help students improve. I did come to the meeting at which we were going to talk about Stephanie Anello…and you didn’t show up at all. The people still should have had the opportunity to speak, discuss and decide for ourselves. We did have a meeting. It was public. I’m a parent. I’m not on anyone’s team. I don’t have an agenda.”
She was referring to the special board meeting called by Hernandez for which no other trustee showed, yet he remained, listened to and spoke with the members of the public in attendance, instead of adjourning the meeting, leaving the board room and speaking with those in attendance outside, in violation of the Brown Act.
Lutz then raised her voice saying, “We need to know what’s going on. We have two people who talk to us,”
She then calmed down and said in conclusion, “The people you are hurting are students and those are the people who are voting real soon.”
An emotional Daniel Hernandez said, “I will speak about my brother.” He then spoke in Spanish, then switched back to English speaking about the board president’s educational accomplishments.
“This hurts. I heard the name Rocha growing up and I thought, she’s a Latina,” he stated. “I don’t even think you know what’s in that resolution. He is committed, he is dedicated, and he wants to do right by this community. But it doesn’t feel like that. It feels like we want to keep going with what we have.”
He has started this change, today and we want to keep going,” the brother concluded.
Their sister, Beatriz Hernandez, then spoke against the resolution saying her brother, “acted in the best interest of students and our community. It would send a discouraging message…to those committed to change.”
She said Rocha had also called for Hernandez’s resignation as board president but, “Only the censure has ended on the agenda” which Beatriz labeled, “Ill-founded,” citing “the misapplication of HIPPA which does not apply to school districts. We should be supporting him in trying to steer the school district. Focus on what really matters…building a more inclusive district for generations to come.”
Olga Smith shared her thoughts saying, “I openly express my dismay with this resolution…when we have two out of every 10 third graders reading at grade level…when we are here talking about the censure of Board President Antonio Hernandez. I hope the whole board would function with diplomacy. There are bigger fish to fry.”
Frances Green of the NAACP East County Branch said, “Mary, I’m very sad that you have this fight. I hope you won’t do this.”
Devin Williams spoke next saying, “This is unacceptable. The fact that this whole bullying thing took place and the fact that now you’re being censored…now you’re one of the bullied in our school district. We all know people have agendas and they want to uphold systems of oppression. You all ought to be ashamed of yourselves if you vote for this and censure someone who called out people. You’re not acting like adults. Press the button and push the right one…when you decide on this man’s position, tonight. This man is trying to change things. This woman is trying to change things (referring to Trustee Jag Lathan) and you aren’t allowing this to happen.”
“You’re going to do this, Mary Rocha against someone who is young and up and coming?” Williams asked.
Board Discussion and Votes
Trustee Dr. Clyde Lewis was the first board member to speak saying, “This is a tough situation. HIPPA doesn’t apply to education. That’s absolutely true. But there are rules that govern how information is shared. I’m a process guy. I’m going to leave it at that.”
“I admire this man,” Rocha began saying before being interrupted by chants from some in the audience of “Hey hey, ho ho, Mary Rocha has got to go.”
Hernandez then gaveled them down and said, “I stand by all of my actions and I’m willing to hear out what they’re going to say and give them their space.”
“I appreciate this individual, and I’m impressed with his future,” Rocha then stated. “It took me a while to have the guts to come up here.”
She then began reading the accusations against Hernandez included in the resolution as some people in the audience continued making cat calls.
“This is only one of seven pages and that is the reason I brought it forward,” Rocha continued. “We have rules and policies we have to follow. If we don’t, we have chaos,” to more yelling from the audience.
Trustee Gary Hack then said, “there’s only one word. It’s called process. We have books and we have rules to go buy. This whole thing went off the rails. There are very different ways to look at issues. My concern initially…what I’m saying to you is process is very important and the process was ignored.”
The audience continued to call out.
Trustee Jag Lathan then said, “I am really disappointed and while process is huge for me, as well and I understand process sometimes means you’re reenacting oppression and White supremacy. It feels like the duties we are trying to do. Trustee Hernandez did the same thing and that was be public about public issues. We are not to do business in private and behind closed doors. Additionally, emails are public information in our position. I appreciate the work you’ve done, President Hernandez.”
However, that’s not completely correct if the emails regard district employees, complaints against them or their possible discipline.
“I know we’re electeds, but we were elected to do the work of the people,” she continued. “We tend to follow processes that the majority wants and when you don’t want to follow other processes you don’t.”
“It all started with our employees saying they were bullied and now we’re ending with saying you have to be silent,” Lathan stated. “When we know what we saw with our eyes and know what we heard with our ears form our employees but we’re moving on that’s unacceptable. I’m sorry this is happening. But I’m sure in a few years you will look back…and say ‘we did the right thing.’”
“Who wrote this resolution?” Hernandez then asked.
“All you had to do was pick up from the book and see the violations,” Rocha responded, then said, “I had help in getting it written.”
“Did this cost our district money?” Hernandez asked.
“No,” she said.
“This is absolutely so far beyond me,” a fired-up Hernandez stated. “This is about the direction of our district and our community. We know this is absolutely in malice and sloppy, quite frankly.”
He then read from the accusations and pointed out from a board policy cited in the resolution, “the Board shall not prohibit public criticism of elected officials or staff.”
“It’s the HIPPA Act not the HIPAA Act clearly showing they lack the understanding of the process they claim to covet,” the animated Hernandez exclaimed. “This is the public’s school district. This is the public’s building. You all have every right to use it. To say you can’t…you’re missing the point.”
“I’m not a process person. I’m a people person,” he stated. “And that’s what brings this back to what this is all about. This is about changing what is failing our students, failing our employees. This is keeping the same status quo.”
Some in the audience started chanting again saying in response-style, “What do we do? Stand up, fight back. No justice. No peace” and again, “Hey hey, ho ho, Mary Rocha has got to go.” Hernandez finally gaveled them down and said, “I appreciate the chants.”
He then made a motion “to table the resolution indefinitely.”
“I call for the motion,” Rocha said.
Hernandez then allowed a vote on calling the question following parliamentary procedures, “to take the vote and stop all discussion.”
Trustee Gary Hack abstained, Lathan voted no, Lewis abstained, Rocha voted yes and Hernandez voted no.
“So, the motion fails,” Hernandez said. “The motion before us is to table this.”
Hack seconded the motion.
Then he, Lathan, Lewis and Hernandez voted to table the motion with Rocha voting against.
View the Board meeting on the District’s YouTube channel.
Rendering of Hope Solutions’ Hope Village tiny-home project in Walnut Creek.
Reallocates excess funds from Downtown Roadway Project, $550,000 were originally slated for housing
By Allen D. Payton
During their meeting on Tuesday, June 25, 2024, the Antioch City Council approved spending $6.4 million of federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and state funding on affordable housing and homeless services, including 102 units on the properties of two churches to serve close to 300 residents in the city. District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker was absent for the meeting.
At the beginning of the regular meeting Assistant City Attorney Brittany Brice reported out of closed session that on the civil rights lawsuit by Trent Allen, et al vs. City of Antioch and on the recruitment of the city manager there was “no reportable action”.
Besides approving the sideshow ordinance on a 4-0 vote, which outlaws organizers, advertisers and spectators, the council approved spending funds for affordable housing and services for Antioch’s homeless residents.
Housing Successor Funding allocated by the Antioch City Council on June 25, 2024. Source: City of Antioch
Based on the funding recommendations of the CDBG Committee, consisting of Torres-Walker and District 3 Councilman Mike Barbanica, it includes $4,050,000 in Local Housing Successor funding from the City’s former redevelopment agency for homeless services and the development of affordable housing with 80 units on the property of Grace Bible Fellowship of Antioch on Oakley Road,
Another $610,896.19 was reallocated from excess funds that weren’t needed for the Downtown Roadway Project, for the development of affordable, supportive housing for extremely low-income and homeless households. It will be used for 22 housing units on a 2.17-acre parcel located at 3195 Contra Loma Blvd. in Antioch, purchased from First Family Church, through Hope Solutions.
An additional $6,454,180 of funding to address identified high priority needs of lower income residents in Antioch was approved for spending by the council. That amount includes $879,893 in CDBG entitlement funds, $610,896 in reallocated CDBG funds, $184,970 in previously approved CDBG-CV (Covid) funds, $4,050,000 in Local Housing Successor funds, $645,614 in Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funds, and $82,807 in Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) funds.
Agenda Item 10 was a public hearing on the spending and included amending the FY 2024-25 Budget. The council first heard from Public Safety and Community Resources Department Director Tasha Johnson who introduced Teresa House, the City’s housing and homeless consultant, to provide the staff presentation.
“It’s been quite some time since we’ve had an allocation this large and it’s exciting,” she stated. “It’s the plan we present to the federal government for the block grant funds.”
House mentioned the Hope Village project, which is a planned “22-unit housing development on church land” and “Grace Commons. They are partnering with Grace Bible Fellowship…for 80 units. The cost is $50,871” per unit from the City’s grant funds.
However, the total cost is estimated to be $45-50 million for the project.
The cost per home for the Hope Village units will be $27,768 from the City’s grant funding out of a total of $17 million budgeted for the project.
House said this was “the first affordable housing project (of its type) to come before the city or the county in over 15 years.”
Source: City of Antioch
Reallocation of Excess CDBG Funds for Downtown Roadway Project
Regarding the reallocation of the Downtown Roadway Project funds for affordable housing, House said, “These were not in any way negligently unspent. These were residual funds waiting for their next allocation.”
“The Downtown Roadway Project received an extra $550,000 by dissolving the rotating housing loan funds,” she continued. “HUD does not allow cities to hold on to monies. If we have excess funds on hand we’re sanctioned by HUD. It’s very necessary we spend the funds.”
“We’re recapturing that $550,000 and additional funds, and spending them on affordable housing, which they’d like to build in our community,” she explained.
No one spoke as the proponent for the public hearing, but resident Andrew Becker spoke as the opponent.
“It’s concerning because we see the growing need in our community and the impact we see as we drive these streets and talk with our community members who speak about the cost of housing,” he said. “We can’t find within our General Budget the funds for shelter housing beyond what we have. We say we don’t have dollars. We ask what it would cost to house the people on the street, but no one can give us those numbers because no one is working on it.”
“Our Point-In-Time Count went up. We know there are more people on the street,” Becker continued. “Instead, we choose to allocate dollars to housing rehabilitation in our community.”
PLHA is money that’s supposed to go to rapid deployment solutions,” he stated. “What is the cost of putting up 50 pallet shelters instead of paying a hotel operator $100,000 a month for 30 rooms?”
“You didn’t even choose to have that conversation. I don’t understand why I have to hear from our housing consultant that, ‘I don’t have enough time.’”
“What are we doing here besides paying that consultant a lot of dollars when what she’s developed doesn’t meet the community’s needs?” he asked. “And some of you don’t even want to sit down and talk with me.”
“We have such few dollars. As far as the millions of dollars going into these developments. What’s concerning when I show up to these CDBG meetings, the developer doesn’t even show up. There should have been the opportunity for council members to ask the developer questions,” Becker complained. “I feel like, as much as staff is right the County is saying we want to see local commitments, there are grey areas of concern.”
“There could be $50 million in costs,” he stated. “Sometimes developers…see these dollars as free money. It’s almost $7 million and when you look at the true intent of what a Housing Successor Agency does…and the misuse of those dollars, you see the cycle continue in a different model unless we have leaders who are responsible who say, ‘I’m not comfortable in giving $1 million in taxpayer dollars.”
“It’s a large cost so I really hope those questions
“I don’t want to see a 80-unit project go up on a church that doesn’t know what kind of waters it’s stepping into,” Becker stated. “If you’re going to ask the people for the dollars, it’s got to make sense.”
Grace Commons
According to the city staff report, the Grace Commons three-story housing project will include 80 units serving 200+ people for an estimated cost of $45-50 million. Funding is coming from capital campaign by church which has been successful for all structures on the property, County, State applications, federal, large tech companies.
Pastor Kirkland Smith spoke about the project planned for his church’s property saying, “This…goes back to 9-11. I’s the dream Grace Bible Fellowship has had for this community.”
He then shared about other services the church provides for the community including “Grace House Sober Living Home on our campus, Grace Closet, Grace After School Tutoring Program…and Midnight Basketball.”
“We’ll provide wrap-around services that will come into Grace Commons. Chalk is the name of the service provider,” Smith explained.
“Antioch is the number one for unhoused in Contra Costa County,” he pointed out.
“When we commit to a project…it’s going to happen. It’s going to come to pass,” Smith assured the council.
“I’m a 29-year resident of Antioch. I’m invested in this community,” the pastor shared. “I’m excited about the opportunity and I will focus on the work and not those who are trying to frustrate the work.”
Hope Village
According to the city staff report, Hope Solutions is proposing 22 doors/households for an estimated 95 residents maximum to be named Hope Village. The city money will be used for development of the units. Total costs are $17 million in budget with a capital campaign, plus, they will be going back next year to the County and will pursue other sources.
Jasmine Tarkoff, a representative of Hope Solutions spoke about the organization saying they had, “a long history of service in this county for close to three decades. We serve 3,500 individuals with our…services.”
“We spoke to dozens of people in Antioch, house and unhoused about Cottage Communities on faith-owned land” she stated and said the 22-unit project would consist of one-, two- and three-bedroom manufactured homes.
“Hope Solutions will serve as the professional service provider,” Tarkoff continued. “In addition, we will provide the professional property management services on site…every single day.”
“Hope Solutions has launched a capital campaign to raise private funds to couple with this project,” she added.
Antioch resident Louise Greene spoke next saying, “There’s talk, ‘we’re going to build this and they’re going to move in.’ No, they’re not. Those aren’t normal homeless people. They’re unstable.”
“By law you can’t force anyone into a program. It’s not just building a box. It’s building a home,” she continued. “It cost us $17,000 over three years to help my sister. There’s no instant solutions and the cost is a lot. If you can’t give them back their dignity that’s not the right program.”
“Along with these services they’re looking to build, is family help for the whole wrap,” Green stated. “The people on the street have the final say of what kind of housing, what kind of program they want to go into.”
“I’d love to know, with Grace, if you have to be a church member to receive housing or with Hope Solutions,” shared another woman who said she had been homeless twice.
Ralph Hernandez was the last public speaker on the matter, saying he agreed with the comments made by Andrew Becker.
“All of that money going to that private hotel, the City didn’t end up having any ownership in it,” he stated. “They had their…motel rooms improved and upgraded.”
“It was a drug haven, and you had some prostitutes going there and being run by thugs,” Hernandez continued.
“The City has to know what you are spending and giving public monies for. You’re supposed to evaluate what the money is going to. These groups have plans to have this housing…it’s great. But you, as the City should have some ownership…not just give taxpayer money out and say, ‘you own it. 100%.’”
“Now, what I’m reading is the City won’t have enough money to continue that program, there,” he stated. “Is the City going to throw more money into it? You’ll still have no ownership.”
Source: City of Antioch
Council Discussion & Unanimous Votes
During council discussion on the use of the funds, Barbanica spoke first asking questions of Ms. House.
“There is some concern with the public that we’re shorting projects that are out there for curbs, gutters, roadways with these monies moving from one fund to another.”
“Are we shorting something, now?” he asked.
Acting Public Works Director Scott Buenting said, “The answer is no. There is nothing being worked on, currently that these monies would be spent on.”
“How much are we spending to hand over to these two groups?” Barbanica then asked.
“That is $4 million and some change,” House responded.
“Just so the public understands. This is not money coming out of our General Funds,” the councilman stated.
“CDBG and Housing Successor Funds,” House explained. “That money is all a loan. We’re not giving anyone anything. It’s bringing $70 million coming from elsewhere.
“This will help 250 people to get off the streets,” he said.
“That’s correct,” House responded.
“Where will the public get the most out of it? This is permanent, long-term housing,” Barbanica stated. “It’s not just bridge housing.”
“It’s a loan. We have recourse to go after the property,” he explained. “I support the project.”
“The agreement for affordability with the City, it must remain for 55 years,” House added.
“For Hope Solutions, the purchase will most likely be from CDBG funds,” she said in response to a question from Ogorchock. “The Housing Successor funds won’t be available until 2025.”
“The timing for Hope Solutions is 2026 and the other one, 2027,” Ogorchock stated.
“That timetable was if they got funding from the County. They did not…so that timetable will get pushed out,” House explained and added that another project “took nine years”
“There is not one way into homelessness and there’s not going to be one way out of homelessness,” Hernandez-Thorpe stated. “To think there’s one magic bullet…is a ridiculous notion. While homelessness increased overall in the county, imagine if we didn’t have these programs in place.”
Barbanica made the motion to approve the expenditure of the $4 million in CDBG funds for the two projects. It was seconded by Ogorchock and passed 4-0.
Barbanica then moved approval of the reallocation of the remaining Downtown Roadway Project funds of $611,000 for the use of development of affordable housing for extremely low-income households. Ogorchock seconded the motion and it also passed 4-0.
Finally, Barbanica made the motion to approve spending CDBG funds, including Coronavirus funds and Housing Successor funds for affordable housing. Ogorchock seconded the motion and it passed 4-0.
“Congratulations to you both,” Barbanica said to the representatives of the organizations building the housing projects.
During their meeting on Tuesday, June 25, 2024, the Antioch City Council on a 4-0 vote passed an ordinance banning organizers and advertisers of and spectators at sideshows. The matter was finally dealt with after discussing the matter since last fall and holding two previous votes, one which adopted an ordinance without targeting spectators and the follow up vote, for which none of the three council members present supported it. (See related articles here, here, here and here)
Most of the residents who spoke during public comments on the agenda item were opposed to including a ban on spectators citing possible constitutional issues and profiling by police, and concerns that those stuck in their cars could be cited.
Before hearing from residents during the public hearing, Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe said, “The city attorney would have acted as the proponent” but was absent from the meeting. The mayor then asked who would be the opponent, resident Alexander Broom volunteered and was given 10 minutes to speak.
“There are some large concerns I have with Attachment A which goes after the spectators,” he said. “I don’t think there’s a crime that I could be a witness to and be guilty of a crime. I think there are some constitutional issues there.”
“Anyone who is found to be within 200 feet witnessing or observing a sideshow,” he pointed out as one example.
“There are multiple instances that I would go to part of car culture, then you have people who show up and ruin the event,” he stated. “Me just being present doesn’t mean I’m a participant. This ordinance…is far too broad. I would encourage you to not include the spectator portion.”
“I had one of my friends come out to one of these events and a car show broke out. He was profiled,” he stated. “I could face up to six months in jail for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.”
“There are so many other routes you can go after spectators for this disturbance,” he said. “I think this opens up the city to more lawsuits…to more civil rights violations.”
“I’m open to compromise. I’d rather see the second ordinance go forward that doesn’t include spectators,” he concluded. “This is far too broad.”
Ralph Hernandez said, “These car culture violators should figure out how to lawfully and peacefully cruise. You should keep option 1 to include spectators.”
These are not really spectators. They’re encouraging bad conduct In law, that’s aiding and abetting,” he continued. “I think the police are smart enough…to make differentiation who is a spectator. How do those people claim they’re merely parked there?” he asked. “Come on you have to sell that to someone else.”
“The 200-feet limit, it’s appropriate because these sideshows take up a lot of space,” Hernandez continued. “Is that car culture? They’re violators of the law…by those actively participating, drivers, blockers. If they don’t want to be considered a violator they should not go there.”
“Their cell phones should also be confiscated,” he added. “It’s dangerous. It’s not a football game.”
Teshina Garrett, ACCE Antioch asked, “Who or what is considered a spectator?” and then spoke of her experience being stuck due to a sideshow. “We took photos…of people doing stupid stuff in the middle of the street. Does that make us a spectator?”
“Use these drones, Take their license plates, confiscate their vehicles,” she added.
Resident Dr. Kimberly Payton, Vice President of the NAACP East County Branch, spoke next about her own experience of getting stuck in traffic due to a sideshow. “Therefore, I don’t understand how you can tell a spectator and someone who is stuck. I just encourage you to consider the definition of a spectator if that’s the route the council is going.”
Andrew Becker also shared about “a sideshow that popped up. Within two minutes there were 200 people there. They were jumping on my car. I understand there’s a subjective component there. I also understand you have to have these tools. It’s the individuals…who are driving these things. I’m wondering if…an individual who is cited, they can have it reviewed by the Oversight committee. I think that would be monumental. It might alleviate some of the concerns here.”
Gavin Payton asked, “Some of the sideshows are actually dangerous for cars and for pets, the next day because they’re throwing bottles and the glass is breaking on the curbs and the bushes. Is there going to be some kind of action for that, as well?”
A resident named Devin said, “We really need to determine what a spectator is. We all know that the definition that some will use is not fair to everyone. People can determine who’s participating in these things, who’s taking videos and advertising these things. This is a problematic issue we are having in this city. But the language…people being accused of being a spectator, but they weren’t. Two hundred feet…that’s not fair.”
A woman named Laura said, “I am not an expert on car culture but I’m an excellent driver…and I am a parent. I think it’s dangerous to include spectators …because…systemic racism is a thing. So, I don’t think spectators should be included in this.”
Louise Green spoke last saying, “Using the simple word spectator is scary to everyone. I think this is more targeted to spectator participants. It’s a game they play. They were throwing T-shirts over their license plates. They’re actually throwing their bodies into the cars. You’ll have to put the spectator clause in there. Unless you can get real specific on the language, they are spectators, but a participant spectator. They have racing guns that they signal when the police are coming. There were maybe five people on the sidewalk. But the 200 were spectator participants. They get out of their vehicles. If I’m trapped in my car, they’re going to know, they’re not part of it. We do have to include them because they’re part of the problem.”
Council Discussion
Barbanica spoke first saying, “We’re talking, here about active participants. Not someone sitting in their cars. There’s also a big difference with someone videoing, when an officer rolls up. They say, officer, ‘here’s my phone.’”
“They leapfrog ahead to the next sideshow. It’s very detrimental to the community,” he stated. “This has terrorized the community long enough.”
“These are roving sideshows that are very organized. We have to go after people who are active participants,”
“These sideshows are getting more and more frequent and they’re roving around the city,” Ogorchock stated. “I would ask the city attorney’s office if we can increase the penalties not just $1,000.”
“A San Joaquin Sheriff would not release the cars from a sideshow until the participants’ court dates,” she shared. “These cars are part of evidence.”
“I think we should also look at reimbursement for the use of our resources,” Ogorchock continued. “As we as community members, these are our dollars. These people, the majority of them are coming from outside the community.”
“This is a quality-of-life issue,” she stated. “If we can’t add these to the ordinance toight
Wilson said, “I’m going to steal the term spectator participant. These spectator participants…they’re filming and livestreaming it to let their friends know where they are. We need to hold those participants accountable along with the organizers and advertisers.’
“I betcha there are people from inside our community,” she added.
“We need to start talking about why is this happening. What’s the root cause?” Wilson asked. “We definitely need to include something about the spectators.”
Hernandez-Thorpe spoke last saying, “this doesn’t necessarily stop sideshows. These are tools that once sideshows are happening they can be used. These aren’t preventative. What actually prevents sideshows is determining who is starting them. But unfortunately, our traffic division has been decimated.”
“I’m all for all of them, spectators, organizers and those who advertise,” he stated. “If we pass something tonight it will come back late July and will go into effect 30 days later, at the end of the summer months. If we need to make changes, we do it in the fall.”
“The technology in the police department in my opinion allows them to differentiate between a spectator,” the mayor shared. “Let’s pass something now, tonight and build on it and not let perfection be the enemy of progress.”
Ogorchock then made a motion saying, “I’m going to add” then read the ordinance that included banning spectators, “including not releasing vehicles until court dates and reimburse costs of resource.”
The Assistant City Attorney said, “I think there are some concerns…that we can’t address tonight” in response to a question from Barbanica.
No one seconded the motion.
Barbanica then moved approval of the ordinance including spectators as written. It passed 4-0.
Ogorchock then asked, “that we come back with the two proposals.” But both Barbanica and Wilson had already left the dais, so the mayor said, “Uh, no. There’s no consensus. Everybody left.” They then took a two-minute recess.
She tried again following the break but none of the other council members supported her proposals.
Ordinance Details
The ordinance adopted includes the following:
City Council introduced the proposed ordinance adding Chapter 4 to Title 4 (Public Safety) to the Antioch Municipal Code, which prohibits organizing, advertising, and being a spectator at street racing, sideshows, and reckless driving exhibitions;
Organizing or Advertising Street Races, Sideshows, and Reckless Driving Exhibitions Prohibited
It is unlawful for any person to knowingly organize a street race, sideshow, reckless driving exhibition, or exhibition of speed conducted within the City on a public street, highway, or in an offstreet parking facility.
B. It is unlawful for any person to advertise, within the City, a street race, sideshow, or exhibition of speed conducted or to be conducted in the City on a public street, highway, or in an offstreet parking facility.
C. It is unlawful for any person to advertise online, including on social media, a street race, sideshow, or exhibition of speed conducted or to be conducted in the City on a public street, highway, or in an offstreet parking facility.
Spectators at Sideshows, Street Races, and Reckless Driving Exhibitions Prohibited
It is unlawful for any individual who to be knowingly present as a spectator, either on a public street or highway, or on private property open to the general public without the consent of the owner, operator, or agent thereof, at an illegal motor vehicle sideshow, street race, or reckless driving exhibition.
B. It is unlawful for any individual to be knowingly present as a spectator, either on a public street or highway, or on private property open to the general public without the consent of the owner, operator, or agent thereof, where preparations are being made for an illegal motor vehicle sideshow, street race, or reckless driving exhibition.
C. Local law enforcement shall have the authority to cite any spectator in violation of this Chapter with an administrative citation.
D. An individual is present at the illegal motor vehicle sideshow, street race, or reckless driving exhibition if that individual is within two hundred (200) feet of the location of the event, or within two hundred (200) feet of the location where preparations are being made for the event.
Enforcement
A. Any person who violates this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a maximum of six (6) months in jail, a fine of $1,000, or both, unless at the discretion of the district attorney or a court of competent jurisdiction, the violation is reduced to an infraction.
Antioch School Board Vice President Mary Rocha (right) reads a prepared statement during the May 22, 2024 board meeting calling for a vote to censure President Antonio Hernande. Source: AUSD YouTube video screenshot
Resolution claims Antonio Hernandez committed 12 violations of board policies and bylaws, federal HIPPA law and Brown Act open meeting law cited
By Allen D. Payton
During the Antioch School Board meeting on Wednesday, June 25, 2024, Board President Antonio Hernandez faces a vote to censure him proposed by fellow Trustee and Board Vice President Mary Rocha for publicly divulging personnel and closed session matters and to the media, among other reasons. It occurred while he spoke with an NBC Bay Area TV about the accusations by district employees of bullying by a supervisor and called for Superintendent Stephanie Anello’s resignation for not handling the situation they way he would have preferred.
At the end of the May 22nd board meeting, Rocha read a statement calling for the censure to be placed on the next board meeting agenda. However, Hernandez pointed out that Area 3 Trustee Dr. Clyde Lewis would be absent for that meeting, so the item was placed on Wednesday night’s meeting agenda. (See 3:10:00 mark of the meeting video)
Under Resolutions for Immediate Action, agenda Item 15F reads, Resolution No. 2023-24-57 Censure of Board President Antonio Hernandez. It outlines 12 times he violated board policies and bylaws, federal HIPPA law and the state’s Brown Act open meeting law which includes:
Board President Hernandez divulged confidential, privileged information regarding personnel matters with members of the media;
Board President Hernandez divulged confidential, privileged information regarding closed session matters with members of the media;
Board President Hernandez violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (HIPPA) Act by divulging confidential health-related information of a District employee to the media;
Board President Hernandez, violated Board Policy 9200, by speaking out of turn, in public, regarding private and confidential personnel matters, appearing to take on an administrative role;
Board President Hernandez, violated Board Policy 9200, by acting in an administrative capacity to resolve complaints;
Board President Hernandez, sought to evaluate the Superintendent in a public forum, outside of the closed session arena in violation of Board Policy 2140;
Board President Hernandez, used his public Facebook account to post confidential correspondence from a District paid for legal counsel, breaking the confidentiality of the document posted, and posting confidential correspondence to the Board of trustees, which was directed to a closed session item in violation of Board Bylaw 9012;
Board President Hernandez attempted to schedule two Special Board Meetings, while also being told that there would not be a quorum for the meeting;
Board President actually commandeered the Board Room to hold an unsanctioned meeting with members of the public, placing members of the administration in potential jeopardy of violating California’s Open Meeting Law (the “Brown Act”);
Board President Hernandez usurped the authority of the Board by appearing to speak on behalf of the Board or Trustees in media news reports, via his Facebook posts, and in public meetings in violation of Board Bylaws 9010 and 9012;
Board President Hernandez, failed to implement Board Bylaw 9121, when a local media reporter verbally attacked the Superintendent during a Governing Board Meeting;
the Governing Board hereby finds and determines that Board President Hernandez’s conduct is unacceptable, unprofessional, and a violation of the Board Bylaws and State Laws cited above.
The proposed resolution concludes with four resolutions and orders including:
“NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED and ORDERED that the Governing Board of the Antioch Unified School District hereby finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct.
…that based on these recitals, the Governing Board of the Antioch Unified School District hereby formally censures Board President Hernandez and proclaims publicly that this Board disapproves of the aforementioned conduct and finds it to be a violation of the Board Bylaws and State Laws and constitutes unacceptable behavior that shall not be tolerated.
…that Board President Hernandez shall treat fellow Board members and all District staff with dignity and respect at all times and in all forums, and that he refrains from any further violation of Board Policies and Bylaws.
…that any further violations of Board Policies and Bylaws by Board President Hernandez may result in his removal as Board President.”
The school board meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the board room at the Antioch Unified School District office building at 510 G Street in Antioch’s historic downtown Rivertown. It can be viewed live on the District’s YouTube channel.
Of 764 city employees Antioch’s highest paid was a police sergeant at $349,993
SACRAMENTO — State Controller Malia M. Cohen has released the 2023 self-reported payroll data for cities and counties on the Government Compensation in California website. The data covers 517,358 positions and a total of more than $40.72 billion in 2023 wages.
Users of the site can:
View compensation levels on maps and search by region;
Narrow results by name of the entity or by job title; and
Export raw data or custom reports.
The newly published data includes 462 cities and 52 counties. The City of Hayward had the highest average city employee wage in California, followed by Atherton, Pleasant Hill, and Beverly Hills. The counties with the highest average employee wages were Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, Monterey, and Ventura. The city employee with the highest total wages in California was a police officer for the City of Santa Monica, while the top 20 highest-paid county employees work in health care professions.
For the City of Antioch, the data show a total of 764 employees worked sometime during the year who were paid $44,888,017 in wages and $13,815,659 in retirement and health contributions. The highest paid employee was a police sergeant who earned total wages of $349,993 which included $165,795 in regular pay, $126,573 in overtime and $57,625 in other pay, listed as car allowances, meeting stipends, incentive pay, bonus pay, etc.
California law requires cities, counties, and special districts to annually report compensation data to the State Controller. The State Controller also maintains and publishes state and CSU salary data. Five counties and 20 cities failed to file or provided incomplete or late information. San Francisco is both a city and a county; the website reports San Francisco as a city.
Since the website launched in 2010, State Controller’s Office has published pay and benefit information on more than two million government jobs in California, as reported annually by each entity.
As the chief fiscal officer of California, Controller Cohen is responsible for accountability and disbursement of the state’s financial resources. The Controller has independent auditing authority over government agencies that spend state funds. She is a member of numerous financing authorities, and fiscal and financial oversight entities including the Franchise Tax Board. She also serves on the boards for the nation’s two largest public pension funds. Follow the Controller on X at @CAController and on Facebook at California State Controller’s Office.
Examples of newly installed bicycle turnouts at Mount Diablo State Park. Source: CA State Parks
By Clint Elsholz, Superintendent, Diablo Range District, CA State Parks
California State Parks, in partnership with the California State Parks Foundation, Mount Diablo Cyclists, and community donors, began construction on June 3, on 22 new bike turnouts at Mount Diablo State Park (SP). Once completed, these new turnouts will bring the total turnouts in the park to 67. Turnouts allow bicyclists, who move at slower speeds as they pedal uphill, to pull out of the main traffic lane into their own lane so that vehicles can pass safely.
“State Parks is very excited to implement these critical safety measures with our partners,” said Diablo Range District Superintendent Clint Elsholz. “Each turnout can provide our visitors with a safer and more enjoyable park experience.”
Project construction is expected to be completed by fall 2024. Here is what the public can expect during construction:
The three park roads receiving new turnouts (South Gate Road, Summit Road and North Gate Road) will be closed on weekdays, from 8 a.m. on Monday through 2 p.m. on Friday. The park will be fully open on the weekends during the project.
This work will be done in three phases, with the first phase beginning on June 3, on South Gate Road. Southgate Road will remain closed on weekdays for approximately five weeks until the project moves to Summit Road and then to North Gate Road.
Vehicles, bicyclists, equestrians, and hikers will be prohibited on the closed roads until the project is completed.
Camping will only be allowed on Friday and Saturday nights in campgrounds along closed roads.
All trails and fire roads will remain open throughout the project.
At the completion of this important road safety project, California State Parks and its partners will plan a celebration event to commemorate these safety improvements and recognize contributors to the project. Road closures updates and celebration event information will be provided at parks.ca.gov/MountDiablo.
Public safety at this popular destination remains a priority for State Parks. Over the past few years, several safety enhancements have been implemented, such as double yellow line striping on the roads, designating passing areas, repaving portions of the road, improving safety signage, and installing designated bike turnouts. To date, State Parks has installed 45 bike turnouts at Mount Diablo SP. Along South Gate Road, there are a total of 17 turnouts, 16 along North Gate Road, and 12 along Summit Road.
Visitors to Mount Diablo SP are encouraged to share the road. Here are some tips to keep your visit safe and enjoyable:
All Users
Check the weather, bring water, and wear layers.
Don’t forget sunscreen.
Obey park rules.
Park in designated areas.
Tell someone where you are going and when you plan on returning.
Help us keep animals wild by viewing them from a safe distance. Do not touch or feed them.
Drivers and Cyclists
Observe posted speed limits.
Stay in your lane on blind curves and do not cut corners.
Do not pass on double yellow lines and until you have a clear view of oncoming traffic, and it is safe to do so.
Wearing headphones that cover both ears is illegal. Wear only one headphone if you must.
Hikers
Use the “buddy system” – hike with a friend or family member.
Drink and carry plenty of water (a minimum of 1 quart every 2 hours).
Wear sturdy, comfortable, closed-toe shoes to help prevent injury.
Stay within designated trails. Do not walk off-trail or enter closed areas.
Equestrian Riders
Check the weather, bring water, and know where to find water. Bring snacks for you and your horse.
Know your level. Trails can be beginner, intermediate, and advanced.
Groom and condition your horse before leaving the barn.
Bring your own first aid kit and cell phone. Attach it to your body, not your horse or saddle.
Ride with a buddy.
Wear a helmet and protective clothing.
Carry a compass and a trail map.
Although the rule is that cyclists and hikers yield to horses, be prepared for that not to happen.
If your horse kicks, tie something red in its tail.
Make sure to leave enough distance between horses. You should be able to see the hooves of the horse in front of you.
California State Parks provide for the health, inspiration and education of the people of California by helping to preserve the state’s extraordinary biological diversity, protecting its most valued natural and cultural resources, and creating opportunities for high quality outdoor recreation.
