Postpones, will study resuming security services for downtown

“This is one thing that unites people that don’t usually get together.” – resident Frank Sterling about support for the proposed downtown park

“We do not have $250,000 to spend to maintain this park. If we do, every other park is going to have a reduced level of maintenance.” – Mayor Ron Bernal

Freitas envisions a hotel with conference center on the former Beede Lumber Yard site

By Allen D. Payton

In spite of impassioned comments from a broad spectrum of residents in favor of using state funds for a new park on the site of the former Beede Lumber Yard in downtown, to their chagrin, during the regular meeting on Tuesday, August 11, 2026, the Antioch City Council voted 4-1 to apply for the grant to benefit City Park. Only District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha voted against the motion. Most of the public speakers spoke in favor of the proposed, new downtown park, including representatives of two groups of residents, one wearing blue shirts with the message, “Rivertown Square Yes!” printed on them and the other from Rising Juntos wearing green shirts, and others who aren’t usually allied on the same side of major issues. (See related article)

During Council deliberations on the matter, both Councilmembers Tamisha Torres-Walker, in whose District 1 both sites are located, and Don Freitas hemmed and hawed in their willingness to support the Rivertown Square project before ultimately voting to pursue the funds for City Park, instead.

Public Comments

Before the vote on item #8 on the agenda, members of the public spoke mainly in favor of using the state grant funds for the Rivertown Square.

“I’ve watched cities that have grown their downtowns…and I think, ‘why not us? Why not Antioch?’” said one downtown resident. “Downtown once had a green space at Barbara Price Marina Park and we were promised a replacement.”

“Please choose the Yard,” she added.

“This is our neighborhood. I have been fighting for The Yard…this is one of the longest fights I’ve been doing,” said resident Frank Sterling. “This is one thing that unites people that don’t usually get together. I feel like you all should be bold. I’m in favor of The Yard being our downtown…community space.”

Resident Michael Simpson, wearing one of the blue shirts compared it to Concord’s Todos Santos Plaza, Oakley’s Civic Center and Brentwood’s downtown City Park, as well as Pittsburg’s Old Town park.

“We should…create something for future generations,” he stated.

Barbara Price Marina Park was six acres, and the Beede Lumber Lot is just under two acres, one third the size, so, the maintenance costs will be less, another resident pointed out.

“We have waited long enough. This community has spoken. Please don’t let maintenance be the issue. Please honor the commitment. Please apply for the grant to be at the Rivertown Square,” she concluded.

“Antioch shouldn’t be the city people drive through but the city people drive to,” another resident wearing one of the blue shirts in support of the Rivertown Square stated.  

Former Planning Commissioner Kerry Motts, also wearing a blue shirt in support of the project for which his sister, former councilwoman and current District 1 council candidate, Joy Motts has helped lead the effort, said, it “would provide for enhanced economic vitality of Rivertown. This has been a stated goal…for 40 years.”

A leader of Rising Juntos East spoke “in support of developing the Beed Lumber Yard park.”

“Please vote yes for the families of north Antioch,” she added.

“Children and families need safe spaces to thrive,” another representative of Rising Juntos said in support of the Rivertown Square. “We envision not just a park but a cultural hub.”

“Why is it taking so long?” she asked. “Making the lot a park would make the downtown more walkable and enjoyable. It’s right across the street from the Senior Center. They could enjoy it.”

Another member of Rising Juntos said, “City Park needs investment and our community absolutely needs to see it improved. But one park should not be sacrificed at the expense of another.”

Alexander Broom, Vice Chair of the Antioch Parks and Recreation Commission, said, “I think it should be Beede Lumber Yard or bust. I believe we should put all of our eggs in this basket.

District 4 Council candidate and local homeless advocate Andrew Becker spoke last with a completely different idea saying, “My concern is that the intent of Prop. 4 is to…preserve or create open space for individuals and I keep hearing, tonight it’s a once in a lifetime opportunity. In the 1940’s, homes were built along Cavallo (Road). There’s still no parks within a-half a mile.”

Council Discussion & Decision for City Park

During council discussion Acting Community Development Director Steve Scudero was asked by Mayor Ron Bernal about the vacant downtown lot, “How is that property zoned?”

“Mixed use which allows for commercial residential and public spaces,” Scudero responded.

“If we wanted to sell that property as a surplus property…” Bernal began.

“We would have to make it available to an affordable housing builder…giving a sixty-day notice of availability… before selling the property,” Scudero stated.

District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha spoke next saying, “Both parks are important. I believe City Park does need investment. But we have a downtown area that many of us…for enrichment would see where people could come together and bring some economic development.”

“It’s unfortunate we have to pick just one. It looks like both projects meet the criteria for the process,” he continued. “Whatever we decide tonight won’t determine what would happen to the other.”

“Probably the one thing I’ve been most impressed with…over the years I’ve heard about The Yard, the Town Square,” Rocha stated. “I’m inclined to support The Yard because of the engagement that’s bringing people together. This may be four years down the road even if we get the funding.”

“I understand the value of bringing people together. I could support both. But I’m going to support the Beede Lumber Yard because of all the engagement,” he added. “I don’t think there’ll be a problem with getting the people behind you.”

District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson said, “Both are good. But I want to put one in that’s most competitive and going to get the dollars.”

Alex Gibbs, Grants Director of Townsend Public Affairs, the City’s consultant on the grant process, said, “There will be a lengthy process…that will include site visits from the state…most likely in April next year. You’re looking at really a difference of five or six points. There are fewer people living near the Yard…given the location of the lot near the river. But the state takes that into consideration. That’s the reality we’re living in. I’m confident that either case…we can write a very competitive application. The only thing you’re going to lose out on is the number of people living in poverty and nearby park land.”

Wilson asked about the Cavallo Road area saying, “That space we don’t own. It’s not a park,” referring to an empty, privately-owned lot on the southeast corner of Cavallo Road and E. 18th Street.

“I’m not aware of any land we own in that area,” Scudero stated.

District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker, participating remotely from a resort and spa in Santa Cruz, then said, “I keep saying, don’t put housing there. I also don’t agree that housing should be the priority for this site.” She then said, “I keep hearing, it’s been 15 years they’ve had the commitment to replace the Barbara Price park that they lost. That seems to be a theme I continue to hear…that people have been waiting…for something.”

“I definitely want us to award whatever can bring revenue to the City of Antioch and I’m hearing the Beede Lumber Yard could bring revenue and even cover its maintenance costs,” Torres-Walker continued. “This is potentially an $8 million grant. We could submit one application or two applications.”

“Anything is possible,” said Recreation Department Director Shahad Wright. “Whatever money we have…we’ll make sure the contingency fund will be enough to cover.”

“It will be a city park not a neighborhood park so it would include restrooms,” Torres-Walker stated.

“That will be part of the design process,” Wright responded.

“If Beede Lumber lot is selected tonight, there will be a design phase, a community engagement phase, restrooms. What would be the follow up for City Park?” she asked.

“I will pivot and figure out how to fix the rest of the parks in the city,” Wright stated. “You have up to four years to spend the grant funds.”

The councilwoman then mentioned “downtown business owners” dealing with “parking issues and unhoused folks who actually live along the waterfront” and giving enough time for the City to deal with those issues.

District 3 Councilman Don Freitas said, “We’ve talked a lot about history. Some of us have intimate knowledge of history. I want to go back to 1978 and 1979. I was the Executive Director of the Antioch Chamber of Commerce and most of our members were in downtown. Because at that time it was still one of the economic hubs of the community.”

“I told them, ‘the downtown could survive if we had residents moving into the downtown and…sustained economic development,’” he continued.

“We needed to improve the circulation pattern in the downtown area. As mayor…from 2000-2008, whe number one project was to finally connect A Street to Second Street,” Freitas stated. “That was probably one of my greatest achievements as mayor. Because downtown finally had circulation.”

“So, on the issue of the Beede Lumber Yard…and this has been an issue for over 40 years, my vision for Beede Lumber was that we need to make downtown a destination, and we needed to generate revenue,” he explained. “I’ve seen many people say on social media that Freitas wants to build apartments. Freitas has never been for building apartments” on the vacant lot.

“My vision was to build a Sheraton Inn like in Concord…that Antioch would own the property and reach out to owners of hotels…two to three stories with a rooftop garden,” Freitas shared. “I wanted to have a situation where we would have a 35-year lease. I never wanted to sell that property…and each and every year we would generate revenue.”

“We have more than 118,000 people in this town. There is no hotel in this town for us to offer conferences or seminars or anything. So, part of my argument was, let’s build one,” he continued. “If you’re there for two to three days, what are you going to do? You’re going to walk up the street. We could have a jazz lounge. We would have restaurants there.”

“You say you’ve been disappointed for 15 years. I’ve been disappointed for over 50 to 60 years,” Freitas exclaimed. “You say this is going to produce revenue. To do that you’d have to be using this facility every day. That’s not going to happen. Excluding the 4th of July, you’re going to get a couple hundred people. Very few people come out of District 3 to the downtown because there’s nothing there for them.”

“We have Williamson (Park). What’s the problem? There’s no parking,” he asked and answered. “If Beede goes through, the problem is going to be parking.”

“I have seen your schematics. Very interesting. But it’s not going to sustain itself,” Freitas stated. “But you’ve done a very good job coming together and advocating. I think I can count the votes. I think we’re going to probably engage Beede. But be under no delusion. The best bet is not Beede. The best bet in my opinion is City Park.”

“But I’m going to challenge every single one of you here. There’s going to be community meetings. You’ve said, ‘we can raise money through non-profits…through other means.’ Don’t wait,” he said. “That’s been the problem with this city. I challenge you, start figuring out how to pay for this on a long-term basis.”

“We are in a deficit. We’ve reduced it dramatically,” Freitas pointed out. “Your organization is great…you have another part of the job. Don’t abandon us. Stay with us. I challenge you. Where are all these other monies going to come in? Because the city doesn’t have it.”

Mayor Ron Bernal spoke next reiterating Freitas’ last point saying, “The Council chose to remove this project from the Capital Improvement process because we didn’t have the funds for maintenance. If this goes through, we still won’t have the money for maintenance. We do not have $250,000 to spend to maintain this park. If we do, every other park is going to have a reduced level of maintenance.”

“We have deferred maintenance coming out of our ears,” he stated. “I am not in favor of adding another expense…as much as people would love to have this park built in downtown,” he continued.

“We’re talking about one point being the difference in getting this funding. We don’t have five points,” Bernal explained. “And that (City) park won’t be improved and we won’t have Beede, either.”

“The new areas are fully paying for the maintenance of their parks. The downtown area parks, the General Fund is paying for their maintenance,” he continued.

“We do need to improve our downtown…have places for people to gather. I’m for all of that,” Bernal said. “This is an example of everyone coming together. But we don’t have the…wiggle room in this process. So, I’m going to be in favor of City Park.”

Torres-Walker than said, “I didn’t hear that we only had to submit one application. I heard we could do two applications. Was that correct?”

Gibbs of Townsend said, “That is correct. There is no limit to the number of applications the City can submit.”

“Would the Council be against submitting two?” she asked.

“I would be opposed to that,” Freitas said. “I think Townsend has made the case not to do that.”

“I think there would be a staff issue in running two processes. How well would you be able to run two processes?” Bernal asked.

“It’s a heavy lift,” Director Wright said. “We’re already understaffed and two facilities down. How well can we do in this small timeframe?”

Freitas asked, “What is in the best interest of Antioch?” then said, “I’m going to move that we do apply for this grant for City Park.”

Bernal seconded the motion.

Torres-Walker than stated, “For Townsend said, ‘this takes a while to bring this process around.’ I’ve been for bringing grants to the City. Do you see there will be opportunities in the future…can there be a commitment to pursue grant funding for parks?”

“I can commit to purse the best grant application as possible…I commit to not leaving any stone unturned…be it state, federal or other,” Gibbs said.

The motion then passed on a vote of 4-1 with Rocha voting against.

In response, one member of the audience could be heard yelling out, “There are elections coming up.”

Postpones Resuming Downtown Security Services Until September to Study Issue

Two residents spoke during public comments on the item, #9 on the agenda, local homeless advocate and District 4 Council candidate Andrew Becker said, “I managed a private security company…for years. I think…the biggest question is…what’s very alarming is staff puts out the report that includes the security logs. But there’s no results. ‘We as staff are doing a good job…that the work should continue in downtown.’ It’s staff’s responsibility to monitor and maintain contracts.”

“I went through all of the security logs,” he continued. “It speaks to a high volume of emergency calls…I think you see four or five very low instances in the hundreds of logs put out. The contract is for City-owned parking lots. If that’s the case, then why are the photos…of properties the City doesn’t own in downtown? Or pictures of properties that aren’t even in downtown….a shopping center in a newer development? Where are these guards and who are we paying and what is the relationship of this company to the City?”

Keith Butler, CEO and Founder of Elite Defense Security Solutions said he had, “ties to prior law enforcement. I’m a retired law enforcement officer of 18 years.”

“Without getting into the particulars of the current company…it’s not who’s providing the security, it’s what does the security look like. You need to look at what that security can do,” he continued.

“I have to agree with the previous speaker,” Butler stated. “There were a lot of items on there that don’t look to be parking lots.”

He then offered to help the City draft a new RFQ (request for quote).

Council Discussion & Decision to Postpone After Meeting with Downtown Businesses, City Staff

During Council discussion, Freitas spoke first saying, “I think that when we initially did this, we did focus on the City-owned property. If we want to put together a work group…we didn’t receive any input from the Police Department…Code Enforcement, the Antioch Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Antioch Association. We need to ask questions…be proactive rather than reactive.”

Rocha then said, “One key strategy identified…is to act as a visible deterrent…and properly report incidents to the Antioch Police Department. When you read the comments from the survey…the key strategy is to be visible when people don’t even know they’re there. Maybe this is misleading the way the key was written.”

“I think the merchants and restaurant owners are wanting to have a relationship…that didn’t happen with this particular vender,” he continued. “I do think we need to have community members meet together. I think there needs to be dialogue. I’m not prepared to approve this contract.”

Wilson then said, “We didn’t include any measurables…around patrol hours…how to communicate with the police. I think if we have this committee we figure out the performance measures. That’s the problem with the RFQ. I think we really missed it on this one.”

Finance Director Dawn Merchant, serving in the role of acting city manager for the meeting (or Acting Acting City Manager she jokingly said) then shared, “One of the difficulties I do recall being discussed was how can the City pay for extra security for businesses in downtown when they don’t for another challenged area in the City. That’s why it was focused on the City-owned parking lots. That’s how this evolved.”

Torres-Walker mentioned, “the businesses saying, ‘we need more support from the City.’ The police saying, ‘we can’t just commit officers to downtown’. We couldn’t justify doing it for the businesses. We asked if there were other City-owned parking lots throughout the city.”

“What is being often overlooked is…it just provided patrol for City-owned parking lots in downtown not the businesses,” she continued. “When I looked at this report…at least one property outlined in here that is way over by Deer Valley. How did they end up all the way over in District 4?”

“The survey was completed by seven respondents…out of fifty or more in downtown,” Torres-Walker stated. “You have 71% of the respondents said they would support the City continuing security services in downtown. It is very telling. The majority of businesses that responded felt like security services were needed for weekdays and the evenings and special events.”

“Asked how often they see security services downtown it was pretty spread out. You never had ‘never or occasionally.’ Although you had one outlier say they had seen the security company several times a week,” the councilwoman shared.

She then mentioned the only cannabis retail location in downtown and that, “they’re supposed to have 24-hour armed security.”

“I do want to add patrolling for downtown businesses,” Torres-Walker stated. “Most municipalities have a downtown overlay district where the businesses pay for additional police patrols” and mentioned using “CSO’s (Community Service Officers) driving around in marked cars.”

She concluded by suggesting forming a “police district in the waterfront.”

“This could be a collaborative effort of the City and downtown businesses that they pay for this,” Freitas said. “I think it’s in their best interest. I just think we should try to get them together…with the City Attorney. It’s an idea to move forward. Because we don’t have the services right now, the question to the police department is, are there other personnel that can be used such as VIPS. I think we need to be a little creative.”

Rocha agreed with using CSO’s.

Antioch Police Captain Matt Koch jokingly said, “In the words of Director Wright, ‘anything is possible.’”

“We’ve already increased our presence over there with officers and CSO’s during all hours of the day and night that are scheduled,” he stated. “I went 42 days before and 42 days after and there’s been a 23% increase in calls for service to the police department. It’s about three-and-a-half to four-and-a-half calls for service per day. I think having them there…with the lights flashing is a deterrence. It is a great service and a force multiplier for us.”

“There are some residences besides the businesses that are affected there,” Koch continued. “At my request they were taking pictures and providing them to the department.

“So, you see the security as a benefit overall,” Bernal asked.

“Overall, yes,” Koch responded.

“As they’re driving different routes between the parking lots there’s nothing that precludes them from making calls if they see something,” Bernal said.

“Yes,” Koch stated.

“I would like to see something done in the month of August,” Bernal stated. “I just think we need to do something quickly.”

“I do think we need to pursue another request for qualifications,” Torres-Walker added.

There will be a DAA meeting on the 19th at El Campanil Theatre,” the mayor stated. Torres-Walker said she will be attending that meeting.

Rocha said he will speak with the Chamber of Commerce. Bernal suggested Freitas do so, as well.

The council members agreed to have representatives from the Antioch Police Department, Code Enforcement meet and downtown business owners to discuss the needs for private security.

Watch council meeting video.

Mentions opportunity to negotiate new franchise agreement

Company’s attorney refutes City staff’s portrayal of continued operation during litigation

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting on Tuesday, July 28, 2026, the Antioch City Council voted 4-0 to deny the Encroachment Permit Appeal of California Resources Pipeline Company, LLC (CRPC), owner of the low-pressure, natural gas pipeline that runs under the city and has been shut off since 2021. (See related articles here, here and here)

In introducing the public hearing on the matter, under item #6 on the agenda, Antioch Public Works Director and City Engineer Scott Buenting said, “An Encroachment Permit is not the appropriate process.”

Dean Persinger,Vice President of Operations and Ester Brawley, VP of Technical Operations for California Resources Pipeline Company (CPRC) provided the company’s presentation.

He said the company applied for the Encroachment Permit “to maintain the right-of-way.”

Assistant City Attorney Kevin Kundinger spoke on behalf of the City saying, “The City requests the city council denies the appeal and uphold the decision of the City Engineer.”

“An encroach permit is not the appropriate approach for this long-term encroachment…for a project of this magnitude. It’s normally used for a short time and limited scope,” he explained. “They wanted to continue to pump gas…when before in order to do that they had to through the franchise agreement process.”

Kundinger also pointed out the company continued to operate the pipeline although the city council majority in 2021

“Even if you were to find the process is appropriate, CRPC failed to comply with the code,” Kundinger added. “This was an end route around” the council’s decision to not renew the franchise agreement, he stated.

Public Comments

During public comments, resident Harry Thurston spoke of his concerns about safety as the pipeline runs near homes and Sutter Delta Medical Center.

Bob Brown spoke next “on behalf of the Western States Petroleum Association” about the “safety and jobs” and that “The pipeline is safe and well-maintained. “Safe and reliable energy are essential” and asked the council to allow it to resume operations.

Resident Mark Jordan said, “This is a situation where both sides are right and both sides are wrong. The last council and a group of people decided we didn’t want petrochemicals running through our city. If it’s not organic, it’s not stone…it has petrochemicals in it. To believe that we don’t need pipelines is wrong.

“We’ve been told that they ran gas through that pipeline after they were denied. That’s disconcerting,” he continued.

“Where you are is, the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. You’ve been in court running up bills,” Jordan stated. “You want it solved? You put them in a room with a representative from the city and mediator. I’ll do it.”

“They’re going to have to pay a penalty for using that pipeline after they no longer had a franchise agreement,” he continued. “I support giving them a franchise agreement. The way to go is ‘what’s in it for us’? They’ll pay, because they want it and because they make $3 billion a day (as an industry). We need petrochemicals and they need their pipeline. They can just load up a thousand trucks and run them down our street and there’s nothing you can do to stop them? What’s the better way to move the petrochemicals?”

“He wants to cut a deal. Let’s do it,” Jordan concluded.

Timothy Jeffries spoke on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers saying, “I’m here as a worker…maintaining this infrastructure. It supports high-quality jobs, family-supporting wages…right here in this city.”

Resident Jan Warren said, “I want to support Harry Thurston’s comments. I hear these same stories at the Air District, the legislature bill sessions. I don’t believe any job is being created here in Antioch by that 8.5-mile pipeline.”

“Thank you, City Attorney and City Manager for saying, ‘no’ when they didn’t follow the rules,” she continued. “They’re trying to work their way around. It’s time to deny…this appeal.”

Former Councilman Ralph Hernandez said, “I’m with the City, the appeal should be denied” claiming it’s “a very dangerous transportation of natural gas. Don’t let a big corporation come here and basically bribe you with what they want. I don’t know what the potential danger these pipelines create. Think of the city and its safety and whether it’s a good thing or not.”

Mark Hughes said by Zoom (which is now allowed by state law), “I’m the Executive Director of the Industrial Association…in the Bay Area…in support of the encroachment permit.” He also mentioned, “California has the strictest…regulations in the nation and the world.”

“It actually results in an overall increase in greenhouse gas emissions,” he added.

Resident Frank Sterling, also speaking via Zoom, said, “I’m going to speak out against the pipeline.” He referred to the explosion of the pipeline in San Bruno.  “I’m just against it.”

APOC Vice Chair Devin Williams said, “I’m against this pipeline, as well. I actually live in District 4 and there’s a pipeline running through my community.”

Resident Andrew Becker spoke last during comments saying, “I’ve lived next to this pipeline for the past 30 years…and what I really think about is…the only thing I’ve really seen changed is the sidewalks lift and cracked, yet there’s yellow stakes telling us there’s a pipeline undergound. I can assume it’s being maintained.”

He mentioned his appliances being gas powered and said, “Should this pipeline go away and other pipelines go away, my bill’s just going to go higher and higher.”

“Somebody in this city is not negotiating properly. Along with maintaining the pipeline, maybe they can plant some flowers,” Becker concluded.

CRPC Attorney Refutes City Staff’s Comments on Continued Use of Pipeline

The proponent had five minutes for a rebuttal comment in which their attorney used it to explain the company’s continued use of the pipeline after the council denied the renewal of the franchise agreement for its use in 2021.

Michael Mills, outside counsel to CRPC mentioned “a letter sent to staff and council, yesterday. Most importantly, it’s been now, almost five years, that the prior council decided to reject the franchise agreement. Since then, there’s been litigation.”

“The company negotiated a series of extensions to continue to operate the pipeline,” he explained. “The judge invited the City to enjoin the company from operating the pipeline during the legal challenge, but it did not do so.”

“Up until the point the company lost the legal challenge to the denial the company operated the pipeline. It wasn’t correctly stated in the staff report,” Mills pointed out.

“The company very much wants to work out something with the City,” the company’s attorney stated. “That’s the entire reason we’re here asking you for this permit.”

Council Discussion and Decision to Uphold Staff Denial

During council discussion, District 3 Councilman Don Freitas said, “The issue for the council is on the recommended action. Is an Encroachment Permit appropriate? The answer is ‘no’.”

“It’s simply about whether an Encroachment Permit is the proper process,” Kundinger said.

“I do think it’s creative,” Freitas stated. “Let’s not make it difficult. Let’s not bring in these other issues.”

“The company is not precluded from asking the city to sit down and discuss a franchise agreement,” he continued.

“The company has not been operating the pipeline for several years,” Freitas stated.

“I cannot confirm or deny if they have been using it. I have no personal knowledge,” Kundinger responded.

“How much in mitigation fees would we get?” District 4 Councilwoman Wilson asked.

“I believe the original was $75,000,” Kundinger said. That was from 2016-21. “Those were amounts fixed by agreement.”

“If a franchise agreement were in place, then an encroachment permit would be appropriate?” Mayor Ron Bernal asked.

“Permission could be given through a franchise agreement, yes,” Kundinger responded.

The motion by Freitas to uphold the city staff denial of the encroachment permit passed 4-0.

Will also end five-year lawsuit against City; but City staff claim company continued unauthorized use of pipeline

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting tonight, Tuesday, July 28, 2026, the Antioch City Council will vote on the Encroachment Permit Appeal of California Resources Pipeline Company, LLC (CRPC), owner of the low-pressure, natural gas pipeline that runs under the city and has been shut off since 2021.

As previously reported, after operating for 30 years without incident, the 35-mile-long pipeline, including the 8.5-mile section through Antioch, that run from Union Island in the Delta to Pittsburg and serves the Chevron oil refinery in Richmond, the CRPC’s Franchise Agreement expired on February 7, 2021. On or about February 10, 2021, CRPC applied to renew the Franchise for an additional 10-year term that would run from February 7, 2021, until February 7, 2031. On September 28, 2021, the City Council voted 2-3 not to approve the proposed ordinance that would have granted CRPC’s requested 10-year renewal and the Franchise Agreement remained expired. Current Councilmembers Monica Wilson and Tamisha-Torres Walker were joined by then-Mayor Lamar Thorpe in voting against renewing the franchise agreement. Then Councilmembers Lori Ogorchock and Mike Barbanica voted to renew the franchise agreement.

The 12.75-inch pipeline, buried at a minimum of four feet, carried 1.8 million cubic feet of natural gas daily which is enough to supply about 9,000 homes. It’s one of many natural gas pipelines that run through the city.

In the past, the council’s renewal votes had been non-controversial, and the annual franchise fee only generated $16,871.90. Wilson led the effort in Antioch following the lead of Brentwood Councilwoman Jovita Mendoza. Their council, also on a 2-3 vote, opposed renewing that city’s franchise fee renewal in May 2021, even though only a small portion of the pipeline runs through their city.

Torres-Walker claimed, “Environmental injustices exist all around us and they impact frontline communities the most,” as a reason to oppose the franchise agreement renewal. She also called the pipeline, “dangerous” even though, “The pressures are 50% below the allowable pressures” and “The volumes are very low” a CRC representative explained.

Increased Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Also, as previously reported, shutting down the pipeline actually increased greenhouse gas emissions as 50% of gas now supplied to CRPC’s customers in Contra Costa originates in Canada as much as 3,500 miles away instead, about 80% is from fracking and some of the gas has to be transported via truck.

Tuesday Night’s Agenda Item

Under Item 6 on Tuesday night’s agenda, City staff are recommending “that the City Council affirm the City Engineer’s denial of the Encroachment Permit Application submitted by…CRPC in June 2022.”

According to CRPC’s presentation to the council:

• On or about June 29, 2022…CRPC’s predecessor-in-interest, California Resources Production Corporation, applied for an encroachment permit to maintain its existing Union Island Pipeline within the City’s public right-of-way.

• CRPC’s application included all information required by the City’s form, including necessary renderings, a surety bond, and proof of relevant liability and property insurance.

• On May 15, 2023, the City Engineer denied the application solely on the basis that two years prior the City Council had voted to deny CRPC’s franchise extension application.

• On May 22, 2023, CRPC timely appealed the City Engineer’s decision.

• Because the City Engineer did not have substantive comments or technical conditions to place on the permit application as a basis for rejection, the City Engineer had a duty to grant the permit.

• The Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (“PHMSA”) audits pipeline records, inspection programs, safety protections to prevent leaks or overpressures, operating procedures, training, and emergency response programs. The UIP inspections demonstrated:

• 2015 – No findings or violations.

• 2018 – No findings or violations.

• 2024 – No findings or violations.

• 2022: Independent consultants, Bear, INC., at the direction of the City of Brentwood, conducted a safety assessment of the pipeline. The assessment involved evaluating previous pipeline inspections and concluded: “Overall, this pipeline is well maintained, in good condition, and has had more inspections than the average pipeline, and the inspections were sufficiently thorough.”

“Without UIP, the Richmond refinery must import its natural gas, making California’s fuel supply more expensive,” the CRPC presentation concludes.

City Claims CRPC Continued Unauthorized Use of Pipeline

However, the staff report claims, “The City Engineer did not err in concluding that CRPC’s Encroachment Permit Application was in conflict with the City’s Encroachment Regulations. Specifically, as detailed in the May 15, 2023 written denial letter provided to CRPC, CRPC continued to use the Union Island Pipeline on City owned and/or controlled property without authorization after the expiration of CRPC’s Franchise with the City on February 7, 2021.

“This use continued after the City Council voted not to extend the Franchise on September 28, 2021 – and thus after the City expressly declined to re-authorize CRPC to use the City’s rights of way for the purpose of operating the Union Island Pipeline. This use also continued after the City Engineer sent a notice of termination informing CRPC that it was excluded from further use of the public highways, streets, alleys, and public places which it was previously granted permission to use under the Franchise Agreement. The City Engineer knew that CRPC’s continued use of the Union Island Pipeline was the subject of ongoing litigation between the City and CRPC wherein the City contends CRPC’s continued use of the City’s property is an unauthorized encroachment.

“As such, the City Engineer fairly concluded that denial was warranted because CRPC’s Encroachment Permit Application – submitted while CRPC was encroaching on the public right of way and did not have the City’s consent – was in conflict with the City’s Encroachment Regulations, and in particular with Antioch Municipal Code sections 7-2.204 and/or 7-2.304.”

Council Options

The current council majority can either vote to approve the appeal and renew the franchise agreement or deny the appeal, continue being sued by CRPC and keep the pipeline shuttered.

Meeting Details

Following the 6:00 p.m. Closed Session meeting, the regular meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. inside the Council Chambers at City Hall, 200 H Street in Antioch’s historic, downtown Rivertown. It can be viewed livestream on the City’s website or the City’s YouTube channel.

Deadline for donations: July 17

By Debbie Blaisure

Calling all Antioch businesses and residents! We are asking for your donations or support of a fundraising opportunity for the DAA!

Gladys Torres of Timeless Elegance Vintage Store (at 204 G Street) and Alliance Estate Sales has offered to coordinate this online auction, and others will be assisting with the tasks of taking pictures and gathering items. We are looking for 50 or more items by Friday, July 17th which will bring interest to the auction.

They can be vintage or collectible items, gift certificates, raffle baskets, services, luncheons with City leaders, etc.

Please message Debbie Blaisure or Gladys Torres with any items or questions or let us know in the comments what you might want to donate to coordinate with us. Half of the proceeds of the item can go to the donor or you may donate the full amount to the DAA!

Let’s work together to raise funds for future events by the DAA. For more information visit https://downtownantioch.com.

Thank you for your support!

^{Paid advertisement}

Willow Park Mercantile is located at 205 G Street, corner of W. 2nd in Antioch’s historic, downtown Rivertown. For more information visit willowparkmercantile.com.

^{Paid advertisement.}

Public speakers – not all from Antioch – name four companies the City should divest from or not invest in claiming they’re part of Israel’s “genocide” in Gaza; if investments sold now there would be a loss

Work group to bring back proposed policy additions in 6 months with progress report in 3 months, as world’s two largest investment firms abandon them

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, the Antioch City Council unanimously agreed to move forward for future consideration liberal activist or “woke” practices in the City’s investment policy. The proposal was brought back after the council members failed to adopt the current investment policy on a 2-2 split vote during the June 9th Council meeting. Mayor Ron Bernal and Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas voted in favor, Councilwomen Monica Wilson and Tamisha Torres-Walker voted against, and District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha was absent.

Referred to as Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) or Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Investing, the practice would, according to the City staff report for the item, #8 on the agenda, “filter out and exclude sectors and/or companies the City does not want to invest in. The current Policy includes two such prohibitions in Section V.3:a. which reads, ‘The City will not invest in any companies that produce alcohol for public consumption or tobacco products.’”

During the June 23rd meeting, the council directed staff to meet with a group, that has labeled itself Divest Contra Costa, to further develop proposed language, despite the world’s top two investment firms moving away from the practice that limits in which companies they can invest.

The group, which has no website, social media presences or a list of members, proposed the following language it wants added to the City’s investment policy:

“The City of Antioch will strive to invest its funds in ways that promote the wellbeing of our communities and our environment, favoring investment in entities that support the needs of peacetime daily life, in companies that offer renewable energy and other climate mitigation strategies, in companies with a strong environmental, labor, and social records, or in socially responsible community projects within our City.

“The City will refrain from investment in harmful industries such as tobacco, fossil fuels, mass incarceration or immigrant detention, and weaponry of any kind, or in companies with a consistent record of direct involvement in severe human rights violations such as slavery and prison labor, war crimes, illegal military occupation, racial segregation or apartheid.”

The challenge is how each of those categories will be defined and by whom, and the effort has specifically been to divest from companies based in Israel as the Left considers that country’s actions in Gaza an “illegal military occupation.”

In addition, space related companies use fossil fuels to power their rockets, and the Left is opposed to the world’s first trillionaire, Elon Musk, the founder of SpaceX, which just issued its first public offering. Such a policy could prevent the City from investing in that or other similar companies and enjoying returns on investment from its growth.

According to the National and Legal Policy Center (NLPC), the world’s largest asset manager, “Blackrock was one of the pioneers of ESG investing, but in early 2025 abandoned “the ‘woke’ policies.” It was “the biggest sign yet that the vibe has shifted against liberal activism in the private sector.” In addition, NLPC reported in May 2026, “Vanguard, the second-largest index fund manager with approximately $10 trillion in assets under management, has similarly retreated in public posture while its index funds.”

According to the City staff report, while “there is no cost to adopt the draft policy attached, should the City choose to adopt an ESG investment practice, additional investment advisory fees could be incurred.

Public Comments

During Public Comments, all who spoke supported adding such language to the City’s investment policy, with some wearing black-and-white checkered Palestinian and other keffiyehs, which are traditional head scarves worn in the Middle East and North Africa. They offered more details about the companies they don’t like, “in solidarity with Palestinians” and spoke against Israel’s military actions in Gaza as well as the U.S. military industrial companies that manufacture the arms being used. Others in the gallery held a Palestinian flag and wore a shirt with Palestinian flag colors. Three people held up a large poster showing a photo of children with the words, “Stop Investing in Our Genocide.” A speaker, who said his “family came from the West Bank where they currently reside” and runs a non-profit for Palestine, claimed those in the photo were in an orphan camp in Gaza.

“As a concerned world citizen, I have an obligation to stand up to injustice,” another speaker said.

A resident, who said he was “of Palestinian decent,” spoke of “specific exclusions” and mentioned companies he claimed “are tied to harm” that include some based or with operations in California: aerospace and defense contractor Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of construction and other equipment, Caterpillar, BP (British Petroleum) and Chevron, which relocated its headquarters from San Ramon to Houston, Texas at the end of 2024, due to the unfavorable government policies and opposition from those on the Left. He said his group wants the City instead “investing in” other projects such as the Homekey homeless hotel. That project will actually cost the City money and offer no return on investment for its portfolio.

The final man to speak and for a second time on the item, said he was from Concord and implored, “I think you need to realize that the litmus test for our humanity is what’s happening in Gaza and we’re funding it as well as Israel. Antioch has the choice…the chance the lead the way.” He said the Concord City Council “voted it down right away.”

Council Discussion and Decision

Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas asked staff about the amount the City receives from its investments. He mentioned a little over $2.1 million that the City will be receiving from “investments and rentals” in Fiscal Year 2027.

“That’s just in the General Fund,” City Finance Director Dawn Merchant responded. “All funds have investment income. But…every month the City Treasurer submits a Treasurer’s Report that lists all the investments, the security transactions and interest for that month, and a presentation twice a year from our investment advisor that gives portfolio earnings…year-to-date and from inception.”

“So, anyone who wants very detailed information about our investments they can look at our agenda, tonight?” the councilman asked. “Yes,” she stated.

District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker then asked about the current investments in three of the companies mentioned during Public Comments.

“The total, I assume this is cash value…Caterpillar, Chevron and Lockheed Martin…if the investments were sold there would be a loss. What is the total amount the City is making from these three investments…would it be a significant loss?” she asked.

“That’s the market value versus what the trade value would be,” Merchant responded. “There would be a loss.”

“There are two specific holdings for Caterpillar,” said the City’s investment advisor, Justin Resuello, Institutional Sales and Relationship Manager of PFM Asset Management (PFMAM). “The par value of both is…a little over $1.6 million and those mature in August 2028 and February 2029. Those currently present losses of approximately $1,274 and $17,103.”

“The two Chevron positions…both have a part of a little over $1.3 million,” he continued. “One matures Feb. 2028 and August 2028.” If sold now the City would lose about $500.

“The last position is one holding with Lockheed Martin that matures August 2028 with a par of about $600,000 and a current unrealized loss of about $5,000,” Resuello shared.

“So, these are all in that three-year end strategy. We’re pretty close to maturity,” he explained. “Our preference is still that the holdings are not sold at a loss. But…if that is what the Council wishes to do, we’ll act on your decision.”

“These amounts can change daily,” Finance Director Merchant interjected.

Torres-Wallker then said, “I think the question is, is the loss significant enough to not consider.”

“That’s up to Council discretion,” Merchant responded. “Any loss no matter what the amount, especially in our financial position. However,..if Council doesn’t want these investments…then that’s what we’re going to do.”

Torres-Walker then asked, “Is it possible to add additional language” to the section already prohibiting investments in tobacco and alcohol manufacturers. “I think this has already come up that we will not invest in companies that are involved in war crimes.”

“For the analytics that is used by investment companies, there’s no metric to say this company is involved in war crimes,” Merchant explained. “The language…that talks about apartheid, there’s not metric where they would be able to identify that. So, that’s where it gets a little bit tricky.” She then stated that the council could add sections from the proposed restrictions to the policy.

“As explained, this is not something that happens overnight. It’s taken some agencies up to a year to dial down on these investment strategies,” Merchant shared. “So, I don’t want to assume what the council majority will decide tonight.”

“I’m not saying that would be the direction of the council because it’s been a year people have been coming…asking,” Torres-Walker responded. “Your recommendation is that we take more time to develop a p policy. People are asking we immediately divest.”

“The recommendation would be to include language that investments that…fall from an exclusions list are either held until there is no loss or maturity, whichever occurs first,” Merchant stated.

Freitas then repeated what a member of the public said, who, “articulated what I think is part of the challenge for the city council…to adopt a clear, ethical investing policy, that we need to establish standards, that we need to have accountability. The word that I would use is making it doable.”

The councilman spoke of serving on the Contra Costa Water District Retirement Committee “back then in the “70’s, 80’s and 90’s apartheid was the issue. We needed to develop a policy…that can be followed…for accountability.”
“Sometimes, one person’s opinion is not necessarily factual,” Freitas stated. “The investor needs to have clear, articulated standards so that he or she does not get crosswise with the council. Time and time again, people would come with their interpretation of some of the things. Some are very easy to understand what the situation is.”

“This is not an easy policy,” he continued. “It’s not finger pointing and saying, ‘no,’ to you and ‘yes,’ to you.’ It’s much more difficult. Because as a city council we have a legal and a fiduciary responsibility with regards to investments.”

“So, frankly, I believe…adopting a clear, ethical investing policy that has standards and accountability and from my perspective, doable…that should be the direction to City staff, to PMF (PFM) and I think Divest should identify two or three people on a periodic basis that there are discussions, so we hear some of the concerns…and those are taken into consideration…to develop a policy that we can live with.”

“I do think this is a situation that we need to take a look at. But we should not do it quickly,” Freitas stated. “I think we should do it methodically, I think it should be inclusive. I think this is a very, very important issue.”

District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson asked, “Can you add to that, a working group?”

“Two weeks ago, I suggested the City Manager, the Director of Finance, PFM and representatives from Divest,” Freitas responded. “That was, to me, a working group…so, they know what’s happening, questions can go back and forth and I have to believe a good, workable policy will have to come back to the City of Antioch.”

District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha said, “I think the City Treasurer should be part of this collaborative.”

“I agree,” Freitas said.

“I would like to know…what makes the most sense for the City of Antioch and what aligns with what we heard tonight,” Rocha continued. “There’s the SRI option and…the ESG option. One’s more complex than the other.”
“What was suggested to me, was that we adopt the Treasurer’s Report, but that we are open to hearing, looking into and adopting some of the policies that have been discussed tonight. So, I think we would want to do a blend.”

Mayor Ron Bernal then asked City Treasurer Jorge Rojas, Jr., “to give us his thoughts on the policy.”

Rojas said, “We have the two options from PFM. We never said anything regarding potentially adopting an ethical investment policy. Pretty much Council is the one that makes that decision. We either wait for maturity dates, take the loss right now and go from there.”

Bernal asked him, “What would be your recommendation?”

Rojas responded, “My recommendation would be to adopt the policy that was recommended, last meeting, the investment policy, and like Louie was saying, take a look at it. Get back to it, revise it, perhaps…have that committee, take a look it perhaps every six months or so and then go from there.”

Torres-Walker then said, “I’m also getting the sense from the community, we’re under the gun, we need to pass this right now. I believe the council was made to believe there would be some outside penalties and that was clarified there are not any outside penalties and we do have discretion.”

“I do agree that the language we really want, and I hope the community agrees with this, and that is we do move forward with the recommendation, and we pass the (existing) policy,” the councilwoman continued. “Because it’s the City’s ordinance and we can change it any time.”

“There’s a legal requirement by the State that we have a Statement of Investment Policy with guidelines that meet State mandates,” Merchant explained.

“I do agree with putting some group together,” Torres-Walker stated. “I also agree with passing the policy as is while this group works together. But I will say government often pacifies people with ad hoc committees and work groups that lead nowhere. We can be back here in a year, two years, three years with still no…ethical investment language…no…policy and with no intent to ever have done so and that is not a process that I want to agree to tonight, if it is not something that City staff is going to commit to move forward and actually work with the community on because it would be doing a disservice to the residents and the public who showed up here, tonight.”

“So, I guess I’m curious to understand is there an intent to come back with a timeline…that things will start to move?” she asked. “So, that this is not just a way to get them out of the room.”

Freitas responded, “Let me just take a crack it” and made a motion to adopt a resolution to approve the Statement of Investment Policy, form the committee to start developing an ethical investment policy, and the council receives quarterly reports and at the end of six months, it comes back as a presentation to the city council, “where are we at, what are the issues and how do we move forward.”

Torres-Walker then asked to add to the motion, “I hear six months.”

“Quarterly, that’s what I meant,” Freitas said.

Rocha then seconded the motion.

“Select your three folks, and immediately, I mean tomorrow morning send an email saying these are our representatives that we would like to meet. Do not let this sit,” Torres-Walker implored those in the audience.

Without further discussion, the motion passed unanimously to applause from the public.

See complete Agenda Item 8.

Watch from the 3:32 mark of Council meeting video.

During the annual Independence Day Celebration