Michael Mandy will serve until special election in November 2026

By Allen D. Payton

During a special meeting on Tuesday, September 23, 2025, the Antioch City Council interviewed five candidates for City Clerk and appointed, on a 4-1 vote, Michael Mandy, an AT&T Premises Technician, who will serve until a special election next November. Voters will then decide who to elect for the remainder of the four-year term. The vacancy was created by the sudden departure on July 30th of Melissa Rhodes who was elected last November.

Before appointing Mandy, District 3 Councilman Don Freitas thanked all those who applied and said, “We really, truly appreciate you stepping forward and this isn’t the last time we see you. We have boards and commissions that need you.”

Mayor Pro Tem and District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha then said, “Because this is a one-year appointment…there will be an election. This is a temporary appointment.” He then said, “Based on experience and what I wrote down. I make a motion to recommend Lori Ogorchock to the position and fill the term. Mayor Ron Bernal seconded the motion which died on a 2-0-3 vote, with Councilmembers Monica Wilson, Tamisha Torres-Walker and Freitas voting to abstain.

Then, Freitas made a motion to appoint Mandy which passed 4-1 with Rocha voting against.

Mandy Immediately Sworn In, Thanks Council, Goes to Work

Mandy was then joined by his wife Aurora as Bernal administered the oath of office. The new City Clerk then thanked the council and said, “I hope to make you proud for your selection. I appreciate it very much. Thank you very much.”

“This is very emotional. Thank you,” he added with laughter from him and the audience.

Following a brief council meeting recess, Mandy took his seat at the dais and a sign with his name was placed in front of him.

Mandy’s Background from his Application

In his application for the appointment Mandy provided information about his background. He wrote, “My name is Michael Mandy, and I am writing this letter to be considered for the position of City Clerk of the city of Antioch, California. (See application)

“n May, 1994 my wife and I moved into our house, which is near the southern end of Hillcrest Avenue. So I have been a resident of Antioch for over 30 years. We raised our two children here, and they both attended Diablo Vista, Dallas Ranch, and Deer Valley High schools.

I am very proud of the City of Antioch. I have spent many hours hiking at Black Diamond Mines and the adjacent Reservoir. My family loved the Rivertown Jamboree (RIP), 4th of July fireworks over the Delta, and recently attended the Rivertown Wine Walk & Artisan Faire this last May.

My family has lived in the San Francisco Bay Area for 3 generations. My father was an Independent Insurance Agent, and his office was in San Carlos. After school I would sit for hours in his office, doing office-type jobs, such as answering the phones, taking messages, organizing paperwork, typing and using the Copy machine. I learned professionalism, courtesy, and posess [sic] a high work ethic.

In 1995 we moved the family Insurance office from San Carlos to my home in Antioch. I was in business here until I sold the agency in 2013 to pursue other opportunities. Since then, I have been a Premises Technician for AT&T. My job duties have been going into peoples’ homes and installing High-speed Internet and climbing telephone poles to upgrade the telephone lines to Fiber.

I was also an active member in our Union, CWA District 9, Local 9417. Since 2013 I have been our garage’s Union Representative, and in 2019 was elected to serve on our Local’s Executive Board. My duties included attending all meetings, coordinating and assisting in our Local Elections, and approving budgets and company records.

I am Detail-oriented, as I love desk work. I excel at inputting data on computers, paperwork, and following up to make sure everything gets done and gets filed correctly. I am also very adept at dealing with the public, as my previous jobs involved face-to-face interactions.

I am very proud of my city and I would be thrilled to work with the City Administrators and help to contribute to the success of my city of Antioch. I believe that I would be very successful as a City Clerk.”

About the City Clerk’s Office

The City Clerk is the official keeper of the municipal records and is sometimes referred to as the historian of the community. City Clerk responsibilities include:

• Acting as the official custodian of records for the City and is responsible for all City Council agendas, minutes, ordinances, resolutions, and legal publications
• Coordinating Fair Political Practices Commission filings including the Statement of Economic Interests and Campaign Disclosures
• Acting as the service agent for the City regarding claims, subpoenas, and summons
• Overseeing the City’s records management, legislative history, bids, contracts, archives, election activities, and board/commission/committee programs

Communications directed to the City, its legislative bodies, and their members (i.e., City Council, Planning Commission) or City staff are public records and are subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act and Brown Act unless exempt from disclosure under the applicable law.

The City Clerk’s Office is located on the Third Floor of City Hall at 200 H Street, Antioch, Monday–Friday, between 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM. For more information email cityclerk@antiochca.gov or call (925) 779-7009.

DeNova Homes proposes 129-unit Slatten Ranch Townhomes Project, next to J.C. Penney store and 159-unit Wildflower Station Townhomes 2 Multifamily Residential Project on Hillcrest Avenue near Deer Valley Road

By Allen D. Payton

During their regular meeting beginning at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, Sept. 23, 2025, the Antioch City Council will consider approving two new housing projects proposed by developer DeNova Homes whose co-founder and vice-president son accused of allegedly bribing a council member believed to be former Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe.

As previously reported, on Tuesday, April 22, 2025, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California announced an indictment for alleged bribery of an Antioch Councilmember by the father and son, former and current, leaders of the Concord-based company. 

While the project applicant is Kathryn Watt, with DeNova Homes Inc., Dave Sanson is CEO Emeritus and a Co-Founder of the company, with his wife, and their son Trent is the company’s Vice President for Land Acquisition and Entitlements. Dave’s attorney Winston Chan claims his client had nothing to do with the alleged bribery, writing, “We are confident the facts will show that Dave is innocent, and that he was unfairly targeted.”

According to the company’s Chief Legal Officer, Dana Tsubota, “While Mr. (Dave) Sanson has been an important figure in the company’s history, he semi-retired in 2020 when he moved to Montana and he is no longer involved in the leadership or daily operations.”

In the indictment, the terms “he” and “him” are used to describe the unnamed councilmember, which could refer to either former Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe or former Councilman Mike Barbanica.

The alleged bribe was related to a previous project in Antioch, known as Aviano, a multi-phase, 533-unit single-family home residential development in the Sand Creek area on the south side of the city.

Slatten Ranch Townhomes Project

The first DeNova Homes project the Council will consider Tuesday night is the 129-unit Slatten Ranch Townhome Condominium Project. The application includes a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for 17 residential lots for the 17 condominium buildings.

According to the City staff report for the agenda item, #4, the proposed 6.41-acre vacant project site is located north of Wicklow Way, east of Slatten Ranch Road, and west of Empire Avenue. The project site is located within the East Lone Tree Specific Plan (ELTSP), is designated as East Lone Tree Specific Plan Focus Area in the City of Antioch General Plan and the site is zoned

High Density Residential District (R-25) allowing for the development of multifamily housing with a density of 20 to 25 dwelling units (du)/acre.

Although the land was part of 200 acres designated by the City Council in 1998 for employment and commercial and development purposes, in February of 2023, the City of Antioch adopted the Housing Element EIR, which analyzed adoption and implementation of the City’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element Update (2023-2031), including the adoption and implementation of rezoning and General Plan amendments to accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), requiring 3,016 more housing units in Antioch between 2023 and 2031.

Each residential unit would include a two-car garage, and the centrally located play area would include 19 additional vehicle parking spaces. The 129 residential units would consist of a mix of two- and three-bedrooms units, ranging in size from 1,293 to 1,791 square feet.

The Row Townhome buildings include entryways with covered porches at the front elevations and garages at the rear elevations. The Back-to-Back (B2B) Townhome buildings will include entryways with covered porches and garages at both the front and rear elevations. Each building would have either five, six, eight or 10 units. Three Row Townhome floorplan types would be offered with two- and three-bedrooms, ranging in size from 1,432 to 1,791 square feet. Two B2B floorplan types would be offered with two- and three-bedrooms ranging in size from 1,293 to 1,414 square feet.

The proposed project would include a total of 1.77 acres of landscaping and open space, consisting of a 0.34-acre open play area, dog park, and open space for bio retention.

The project was submitted in 2023 as a Preliminary Housing Application under SB330 (The Housing Crisis Act of 2019). Through the Preliminary Application process put in place under SB 330, housing developments may only be subject to the ordinances and objective standards in effect at the time when a completed Preliminary Application is submitted.

Wildflower Station Townhomes 2

The second DeNova Homes project the Council will consider is a 159-unit townhome-style condominium development, known as Wildflower Station Townhomes 2 Multifamily Residential Project. It is planned for the four-parcel, 10.35 acre vacant property near the intersection of Hillcrest Avenue and Deer Valley Road and bordered by Wildflower Drive to the east and the road next to the KFC restaurant in the Hillcrest Crossroads shopping center which also serves the existing condo development.

According to the City staff report for the agenda item, #5, the proposed project consists of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to create 19 residential lots for 19 three-story buildings, containing 159 new townhome condominiums in two different building styles: “back-to-back” and row townhome-style. Both styles of townhomes include individual one-car or two-car garages with the living areas primarily on the second and third levels above the garage parking.

The proposed project would include a total of 2.8 acres of landscaping and open space, consisting of two open play areas and open space for bioretention. The play areas would include 25 additional parking spaces with another 57 surplus shared parking spaces with the adjacent Wildflower Station development. The 159 residential units would consist of a mix of two- and three-bedrooms units, ranging in size from 1,135 to 1,381 square feet.

The project site was part of the larger 23-acre Wildflower Station project that includes 22 single family homes (on the ridgeline above), the 98-condominium stacked flat homes immediately adjacent and planned commercial development that was entitled in 2018. The single-family homes and condos were built, but the commercial parcels along Hillcrest Avenue (the current project site) weren’t and the land sat undeveloped.

In 2023, the City Council revised the General Plan and rezoned the four parcels to High Density Residential District (R-25). The proposed project would result in a density of approximately 20 du/ac.

The project was also submitted in 2023 as a Preliminary Housing Application under SB330.

Meeting Information

The Council’s regular meeting will be preceded by a Closed Session meeting beginning at 4:00 p.m. during which the Council will consider the use of the City-owned parking lot at the north end of G Street by developer Sean McCauley, owner of the adjacent property at 113 G Street, which is planned to be a restaurant. (See related article) That will be followed by a Special Meeting at 5:30 p.m. to appoint a new City Clerk. (See related article)

The meetings will be held in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 200 H Street, in Antioch’s historic, downtown Rivertown. They can also be viewed via livestream on the City’s website and the City’s YouTube Channel, on Comcast Cable Channel 24 or AT&T U-verse Channel 99.

Efforts to reach media representatives in the U.S. Attorney’s Office to verify if the investigation is ongoing or if settled, the disposition of the case were unsuccessful prior to publication time. Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Just like the deck at Monica’s Riverview; similar to previous lease to Sean McCauley of City-owned land next to Smith’s Landing for new patio

Will also discuss two ongoing lawsuits

By Allen D. Payton

During a Closed Session meeting beginning at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, Sept. 23, 2025, the Antioch City Council will consider the use of the City-owned parking lot at the north end of G Street by Sean McCauley, owner of the adjacent property at 113 G Street, which is planned to be a restaurant. The area for the proposed outdoor dining deck, like the one he built at Monica’s Riverview, is approximately 1,275 square feet.

Smith’s Landing Patio

Previously, the Council approved the rental of land near the Antioch Marina adjacent to Smith’s Landing Seafood Grill to McCauley for an outdoor dining patio for that restaurant. It is also approximately 1,300 square feet in size.

He said the “concept for the Smith’s Landing Patio took over three years to approve and plans were submitted for permits earlier this month. We are excited about it and wanted to share it with the public.”

“We are planning to open the patio in spring of 2026,” McCauley added.

G Street Parking Lot Needs Improving

“It will cost about $100,000 to improve the G Street parking lot,” he shared. The costs of the deck are separate and part of the restaurant improvements.

“There will still be parking there,” McCauley explained. “We’re only taking five stalls.”

The council previously rejected his proposal during their meeting on Aug. 9, 2025, he said.

Interim City Attorney Derek Cole reported out from that Closed Session meeting simply that “Direction was given to the City’s negotiators.”

Will Discuss Two Lawsuits

The Council will also discuss two lawsuits during the Closed Session meeting, including one by the California Resources Pipeline Corporation v. City of Antioch regarding use of the natural gas pipeline which was blocked by the previous council majority. The case is being heard in Superior Court in Contra Costa County. The other, a federal lawsuit against the City, six cops and former police chiefs, was brought by murder suspect Trent Allen and others. The case is labeled Trent Allen, et al. v. City of Antioch, et al., and is being heard in U.S. District Court Northern District of California.

Public Comment will be received on all three meeting agenda items before the Council adjourns into Closed Session. That meeting will be followed by a Special Meeting at 5:30 p.m. to appoint a new City Clerk and the Council’s regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. The meetings will be held in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 200 H Street, in Antioch’s historic, downtown Rivertown. They can also be viewed via livestream on the City’s website and the City’s YouTube Channel, on Comcast Cable Channel 24 or AT&T U-verse Channel 99.

Will interview former councilwoman, former county supervisor’s chief of staff, AT&T technician, parking enforcement officer and barber

By Allen D. Payton

During a special meeting beginning at 5:30 p.m. Tuesday night, Sept. 23, 2025, the Antioch City Council will interview five applicants and appoint one to fill the vacant City Clerk position for a little more than one year. An election will be held in November 2026 to fill the remaining two of the four-year term.

As previously reported, on July 30, 2025, City Clerk Melissa Rhodes, elected last November, submitted her written resignation effective immediately. At its meeting of August 12, 2025, the City Council directed that the vacancy be filled by appointment rather than by special election. State law requires that the appointment be made within 60 days of the vacancy, or no later than September 30, 2025. Then during it’s Aug. 26th meeting, the Council adopted the appointment process with applications due Thursday, September 11.

According to the City staff report for the agenda item #SM-1, a total of 14 Antioch voters picked up the application packet; two withdrew. As of the close of the application period, the City received five applications…submitted by (in alphabetical order by last name):

• Michael J. Mandy, an AT&T Premises Technician and 31-year Antioch resident;

• Vincent Manuel, the former Chief of Staff, Contra Costa County Supervisor Federal Glover, who worked for four months as an Administrative Analyst in the Antioch City Clerk’s Office and is a 35-year Antioch resident. He also has served on the Antioch Planning Commission, as Chair of the Antioch Police Crime Prevention Commission and on the Antioch Board of Administrative Appeals.

• Eric Bao Xuan Nguyen, a Parking Enforcement Officer and six-year Antioch resident;

• Lori Ogorchock, former three-term Antioch Councilwoman, a retired, self-employed real estate agent, and 54-year Antioch resident; and

• Jerome Terrell, a barber and 12-year Antioch resident.

See complete applications.

Staff is recommending that the City Council take the following action to fill the City Clerk vacancy:

1. Receive applicant presentations (up to five minutes). Each applicant will be called up (in alphabetical order) and given the opportunity to speak.

2. Once each applicant has spoken, the applicant will be escorted to the HR interview room.

3. Applicants will be called back into the chamber in alphabetical order to take

questions from the Council.

4. Each councilmember will ask one question, as indicated below.

5. After the conclusion of Council questions, public comment will be opened.

6. Upon conclusion of public comment, the Council will deliberate and will select a candidate upon motion approved by a simple majority.

7. The City Council will adopt the resolution appointing [name of appointee] as City Clerk through November 2026.

Proposed Interview Questions

Staff is suggesting is that, during the interviews, each Councilmember and the Mayor ask one question of each candidate. The following are five questions the City Council may consider asking:

• How does the applicant view the role of City Clerk?

• What knowledge does the applicant have of computer systems and electronic platforms that might be used in the City Clerk position?

• What is the specific role of the City Clerk under the Brown Act, California Government Code, and California Elections Code?

• How would the applicant balance outside interests, including other civic, community, and political interests, with their work as City Clerk?

• What assurance can the applicant provide that they will timely carry out their duties for the remainder of the term?

Following this question-and-answer period, the City Council should then open the matter for public comment. Upon the conclusion of public comment, the matter shall be before the City Council for its consideration and a vote.

The special meeting will be preceded by a Closed Session meeting at 4:00 p.m. and followed by the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. The meetings will be held in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 200 H Street, in Antioch’s historic, downtown Rivertown. They can also be viewed via livestream on the City’s website and the City’s YouTube Channel, on Comcast Cable Channel 24 or AT&T U-verse Channel 99.

By Allen D. Payton

On Monday, Sept. 22, 2025, at 7:30 AM the Antioch City Council will hold a special, closed session meeting on the recruitment of a permanent City Attorney. The new hire will replace current Interim City Attorney Derek Cole who has been serving in the position since Thomas L. Smith resigned the position in January, following a two-and-a-half hour Closed Session meeting by the council.

The meeting will begin in the Council Chambers at 200 H Street in Antioch’s downtown Rivertown and public comments will be heard before the Council adjourns to closed session. The Council will later return, and Cole will publicly state any reportable action.

The public sessions of the meeting can also be viewed via livestream on the City’s website and on the City’s YouTube Channel.

See meeting agenda.

Bring your own chair.

Months after investigation completed; Council pays out $190K to Steve Ford who sought more than $500K to settle complaint over email sent by estranged-wife 15 months after he left department and released by then-Mayor Hernandez-Thorpe

Ford saw leak as political retaliation for endorsing Bernal for mayor and costing him permanent chief position

“The main thing for me was to clear my name. None of this was true.” – Steve Ford

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting on August 12, 2025, the Antioch City Council voted unanimously in closed session, to settle a complaint by former Police Chief Steve Ford over leaked information from his estranged wife alleging misconduct with a City staffer. It includes $190,000 and a public apology through the local media that reported on the matter last year, including the East Bay Times, which broke the story, and the Antioch Herald.

According to the Dec. 5, 2024, report by the Herald, “An email from Ford’s estranged wife, Julia, who is pursuing a divorce, was sent to District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker about the allegations, who in turn informed City Manager Bessie Scott who then began an investigative process. It was confirmed…that the email…was sent by Scott only to Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe after he asked her to put in writing details about the matter.”

The investigation was regarding “possible misconduct by…Ford with a subordinate city employee during his brief tenure in the position. Ford was hired as interim police chief in April 2022 and was appointed to the permanent position that October. He retired from the position effective August 11, 2023.”

According to the settlement, on Feb. 18, 2025, “the City issued a private memorandum to Ford confirming the investigation had concluded and that the allegations were unfounded.” But the City did not inform the media clearing Ford’s name until after he filed a complaint in April and it was settled in late August.

Complaint

According to the complaint, “Mr. Ford was subjected to an internal investigation by the City of Antioch in November 2024, based solely on an unverified accusation from his estranged spouse. On November 27, 2024, City Manager Scott summarized the unsubstantiated allegation in a confidential email sent only to then-Mayor Thorpe. That email was leaked to the press, causing widespread public damage to Mr. Ford’s reputation. The City’s negligent or intentional failure to secure confidential personnel information, as required by Penal Code § 832.7, directly caused the unauthorized disclosure, and its refusal to publicly retract the allegations amplified the reputational damage. This breach of the City’s statutory duty to safeguard personnel records directly enabled the harmful disclosure.

“At no time prior to the media leak did the City of Antioch notify Mr. Ford that he was under investigation or that such allegations had been made. He was not provided an opportunity to respond or to participate in the process. Indeed, Mr. Ford first learned of the allegations—and the City’s internal investigation—only after they had been disclosed through the media.

“Further, Mr. Ford was not provided with a copy of the investigation findings until after the undersigned attorney contacted the City to address the publication of false and defamatory information. Only then, on February 18, 2025, did the City issue a written memorandum confirming that its internal investigation had concluded and that the allegations against Mr. Ford were unfounded. However, this communication was preceded by inconsistent representations by the City. On February 12, 2025, the undersigned attorney contacted the interim City Attorney, seeking confirmation that no internal investigation was pending, noting that Mr. Ford had received no notice, was never interviewed, and had been separated from the City for over one year. After receiving no response, a follow-up message was sent on February 19. On February 24, the interim City Attorney replied that an investigation was ‘open and pending,’ documentation of which is available upon request. Mr. Ford did not receive the February 18 letter, which confirmed the investigation was closed with a finding of ‘Unfounded,’ until February 27, 2025. The City’s inconsistent communications, including falsely stating on February 24, 2025, that the investigation was ‘open and pending’ after it had concluded, demonstrate bad faith and aggravated harm to Mr. Ford. This bad faith and the City’s negligent or intentional disclosure of confidential information form a pattern of misconduct that aggravated Mr. Ford’s injuries.

“Despite privately acknowledging the allegations were unfounded, the City’s failure to publicly retract the accusations perpetuated the damage to Mr. Ford’s professional standing.

“Shortly thereafter, Mr. Ford was informed that he had not been selected as Antioch Police Chief, despite reaching the final interview stage. Mr. Ford had publicly supported then-candidate Ron Bernal, who defeated Mayor Thorpe in the November 2024 election, raising serious concerns that the City’s conduct and failure to repair the public damage were motivated, at least in part, by political retaliation. Discovery will clarify whether former Mayor Thorpe or other officials were aware of Mr. Ford’s endorsement and acted with retaliatory intent.”

Ford alleged the following legal violations:

• Defamation (Libel per se)
• False Light.
• Invasion of Privacy (Public Disclosure of Private Facts).
• Breach of Confidentiality (Penal Code § 832.7). This breach of the City’s statutory duty to safeguard personnel records directly enabled the harmful disclosure.
• Violation of Peace Officer Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA) (Gov. Code §§ 3300 et seq.). The City violated Gov. Code §§ 3304 and 3305 by failing to notify Mr. Ford of the investigation, denying him an opportunity to respond, and improperly disclosing personnel information. These POBRA protections apply to Mr. Ford, to the extent applicable, as a former officer, given the investigation’s impact on his personnel record and reputation.
• Political Retaliation (California Constitution, Art. I §§ 2, 3).
• Violation of California Labor Code §§1101 & 1102.
• Failure to Hire in Retaliation.
• Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED).
• Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.

He also claimed the following injury and damages:

• Severe reputational harm in the law enforcement and broader community
• Loss of past and future employment opportunities
• Emotional distress, humiliation, and mental anguish
• Economic damages, including lost wages, future income, and attorneys’ fees
• Continuing harm to career prospects, public image, and professional standing

Specifically, the complaint alleged, “The amount of damages is currently unliquidated but exceeds $500,000. This includes general and special damages, such as lost wages from the Antioch Police Chief position, emotional distress damages from public humiliation, attorneys’ fees, and statutory penalties where permitted, subject to proof at trial.”

The complaint also included copies of the articles published by the Times and Antioch Herald as supporting documentation.

Ford Sought Relief in Four Ways:

• Monetary damages (economic and non-economic);
• A public retraction and apology, published in the Antioch Herald, Times Herald, and East Bay Times and on the City’s official website, acknowledging that the allegations were unfounded and that Mr. Ford committed no misconduct;
• Injunctive relief prohibiting future disclosures of protected personnel records; and
• Attorneys’ fees and civil penalties.

See Complaint.

Pre-Litigation Settlement

About the complaint and settlement Cole wrote in a Memorandum to the City Council included in the agenda for their meeting on September 9, 2025, “On April 28, Ford filed a complaint against the City through his attorney…This Memorandum supplements the City Council’s report-out from the above item considered at its regular meeting on August 12, 2025. The matter then identified as an anticipated litigation item-significant exposure to litigation related to a government claim filed by former Police Chief Steven Ford. Following the report out on that evening, the City—acting under direction the City Council provided during the closed session—executed a settlement with former Chief Ford. The written settlement agreement is now available as a public record.

“The settlement was approved by motion made during the August 12, 2025, closed session. The motion was: to resolve the government claim filed by former Police Chief Steven Ford, subject to the preparation and execution of a written settlement agreement prepared and approved by the Interim City Attorney. Motion by Councilmember Freitas, second by Councilmember Torrres-Walker, with unanimous approval (all 5 members present voted ‘Yes’).”

However, on Aug 12, Interim City Attorney Derek Cole, while reporting out from the Council’s Closed Session, merely said, “the council provided direction to counsel. No reportable action was taken.”

Asked why the council’s vote wasn’t reportable Cole explained, “The action taken in closed session on August 12 was not then reportable because the other side had not yet accepted the settlement.  At the time of that closed session, we did not know if Chief Ford would agree on the same terms as the Council had authorized. He later did accept on those terms and his counsel and I reduced those to the written settlement agreement you now have.  Once that was executed,  there was no further executory action on either side’s part, so we made the updated report-out at the last meeting.”

The settlement was signed by representatives of both parties on August 25 and 26.

Public Apology by City

The City issued the following “Statement…Regarding Settlement of Government Claim Filed by Former Police Chief Steven Ford

August 27, 2025

“In November 2024, the City of Antioch initiated an internal investigation involving former Police Chief Steven Ford. The City received an email alleging Chief Ford, while employed with the City, had an inappropriate relationship with an unnamed subordinate. The investigation, which concluded in February 2025, determined this allegation was unfounded.

“The City acknowledges that shortly after the investigation began, the investigation’s existence and the subject of investigation were inappropriately revealed to the Press – before Chief Ford was made aware. This breach of confidentiality resulted in damaging media coverage about Chief Ford beginning on or about December 3, 2024

“The City acknowledges the investigation’s existence should not have been revealed to the Press. Chief Ford had a right to expect any unverified allegation about him would be investigated confidentially. Under California law, investigations regarding peace officers may only be revealed publicly when allegations are sustained. In this matter, the allegation against Chief Ford was found not true.

“The City expresses its appreciation for his previous service as Antioch Police Chief. It wishes Chief Ford the best for his future law enforcement career.”

See Settlement.

Ford Responds

When reached for comment about his complaint and settlement with the City, Ford said, “The main thing for me was to clear my name. That was important to me. The monetary compensation, I’m appreciative of. Because my name was tarnished by a lie forwarded in an email. It was my estranged wife who sent the email with some information that has been proven categorically untrue.”

“I was wondering why my ex would do that 16 months after I had left the Antioch Police Department,” he continued. “The City of Antioch acknowledged it was untrue. So, after 34 years building what I believe is a strong reputation there had never been anything like this. None of this was true.”

Asked why he didn’t sue Hernandez-Thorpe for sending it out to the media, Ford said, “That’s certainly an option. But my main goal was to clear my name.”

Asked why the City didn’t make the results of the investigation public in February he said, “They did not make that known in a timely fashion. I didn’t know an investigation had begun. I found out on December 3 there was an investigation, in the paper like everyone else.”

“That’s the ultimate violation of my Constitutional rights to due process,” the former police chief stated.

“This was for a divorce she filed for,” Ford explained. “It would be one thing if I had filed. But the slander campaign was outrageous by my estranged wife and Lamar.”

Asked why didn’t he or his attorney didn’t release the findings in February, Ford said, “I had no knowledge of my name being cleared as of Feb. 18th. They didn’t inform me of any disposition. I learned of that after the fact. That’s when I prompted my attorney to find out the disposition. Then we determined if I wanted to file the complaint which we did, in April.”

Asked for a copy of the investigation report, he said, “I was informed that’s something that has to be worked out between Cole and my attorney.”

City Attorney Cole was asked why the results of the investigation weren’t provided to the media when it was completed to clear Ford’s name at that point rather than wait for him to file and the City to settle his complaint and for a copy of the report. Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Would require developers to allocate percentage of housing units in market-rate developments as affordable or below-market rate

May increase costs to new home buyers, reduce number of new housing units; “there would likely be a fiscal impact” to City, possibly increase revenue from developer fees

By Allen D. Payton

During  a special meeting tonight, Tuesday, September 16, 2025, beginning at 6:00 p.m., the Antioch City Council will hold a study session to discuss a possible Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) and give direction to staff to develop one for a future vote.

According to the City staff report for the one item on the agenda, “An IHO, often referred to as inclusionary zoning, is an ordinance that requires developers to allocate a percentage of housing units in market-rate developments as affordable, or below-market rate (BMR) units.” Staff is recommending the Council support an IHO and a apply a 15% total inclusionary requirement to both rental and for-sale projects.

Background: “On May 27, 2025, the City Council held a study session on the possible adoption of an IHO, which is an Implementation Measure contained within the City’s Certified 6th Cycle Housing Element at Program 2.1.10. The possible adoption of an IHO can also be used for compliance with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Transit Oriented Communities (MTC TOC) Policy, as discussed in the May 27, 2025 staff report, linked below.

“Staff and the project team provided a project overview, discussed the legal and local contexts of IHOs, presented the draft financial feasibility analysis, discussed the outreach process to date, and detailed next steps. Members of the community provided public input, however, due to time constraints, the City Council was unable to provide feedback and direction to staff.

“A second study session was held by the City Council on August 26, 2025. Similar to the prior study session, members of the public provided input and yet again, the City Council was unable to provide feedback and direction to staff due to the lateness of the hour. The City Council requested a Special Meeting for consideration of an IHO and has dedicated tonight’s meeting to this singular policy discussion.”

Staff Questions and Recommendations to Council

During tonight’s study session the staff are asking for answers from the Council on a variety of questions to develop an ordinance including:

1. Should staff move forward with preparation of an IHO? Staff Recommendation: Yes.
2. Should the IHO apply to rental projects, for-sale projects, or both? Staff Recommendation: Both
3. Should the IHO include specific income category breakdowns – for example 5% VLI (Very Low Income), 5% LI, 5% MI – or should the developer be able to choose any affordability or combination of affordabilities? Other breakdowns could be 5% ELI, and 10% VLI or 5% ELI, 5% VLI & 5% LI or 3% ELI, 7% VLI & 5% LI, etc. Staff Recommendation: 15% total inclusionary requirement and this should apply to rental and for-sale projects.
4. Should rental housing and for sale housing have different inclusionary requirements or the same inclusionary requirements? Staff Recommendation: Breakdown of specific income categories: 5% ELI, 5% VLI, 5% LI Maintain compliance with the MTC TOC Policy.
5. Should rental housing and for sale housing have different inclusionary requirements or the same inclusionary requirements? Staff Recommendation: All housing types maintain the same inclusionary requirements.
6. What should the threshold project size be to be included in the IHO? Staff Recommendation: Developments of 5 units and projects less than 5 pay an in-lieu fee.
7. Should the units be affordable in perpetuity? Staff Recommendation: Yes.
8. Should an in-lieu fee option be included as an alternative means? And should other alternative means be included? Staff Recommendation: An in-lie fee option should be included.
9. Should the ordinance encourage on-site construction? If so, then by what means? Staff Recommendation: Encourage on-site construction by requiring a higher inclusionary ordinance requirement when a developer pays the in-lieu fee.
10. Should there be developer incentives, beyond State Density Bonus Law? If so, by what means? Staff Recommendation: Waivers and fee deferrals

Challenges With IHO’s

According to the National Housing Conference, “ While advocates view inclusionary zoning as a way to increase the stock of economically integrated affordable homes at little cost to the public, critics charge that inclusionary zoning policies amount to a ‘tax’ on new development that unduly burdens developers and adversely impacts the cost and availability of market-rate homes.”

In addition, “Common opposition arguments include:

• Inclusionary zoning ordinances increase the cost of new development, which may then be passed on to market-rate buyers through increased home prices.
• Inclusionary zoning ordinances cause developers to build fewer units — either because developers choose to build in jurisdictions without inclusionary policies and/or because the inclusionary policies change the economics of development such that other land uses (e.g., retail) are more profitable.
• By reducing the supply of new homes, inclusionary policies increase the cost of market-rate housing in the community implementing the policy and in neighboring areas (as reductions in supply in one jurisdiction may increase home prices for the whole metropolitan area by reducing the supply of housing available to satisfy the area’s demand).
• Inclusionary zoning policies unfairly place the burden of economic integration on housing developers.
• The possibility that units produced by an inclusionary housing program might have a negative impact on nearby home values.”

A commentary on SRQmagazine.com by Christine Robinson, Executive Director of The Argus Foundation, entitled, The Negative Effects of Inclusionary Housing reports, “According to a study on Pittsburgh’s (Pennsylvania) inclusionary zoning policies, developers often respond to mandatory affordability requirements by decreasing the total number of units they build. This occurs because the cost of providing affordable units often makes projects financially unfeasible. As developers struggle to balance profitability with affordability requirements, some may abandon projects that require affordable housing even with increased density or scale back their ambitions.”

“While inclusionary zoning policies aim to create a more equitable housing market, the negative effects seen in Pittsburgh and elsewhere demonstrate that these policies may have unintended consequences that worsen housing affordability and reduce the availability of housing overall.”

Possible Fiscal Impacts to the City

Also according to the staff report, “Should the City Council choose to adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in the future there would likely be a fiscal impact due to increased staffing and administrative costs to implement the ordinance. There is also the possibility of additional revenue generation for housing production should the City Council choose to adopt an in-lieu fee as an alternative means of compliance.”

Meeting Details

The meeting will be held in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 200 H Street, in Antioch’s historic, downtown Rivertown. It can also be viewed can also be viewed via livestream on the City’s website and on the City’s YouTube Channel.

Click to read the full agenda packet, tonight’s presentation and the May 27, 2025 City staff report.