Map of the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration-regulated pipelines that run in and through Antioch. Source: CRPC
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.”
• 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.
Will also vote on a 3% pay raise for police officers, Street Light & Landscape Maintenance District assessments, natural gas company’s appeal to reopen pipeline and recognize 60 years of Antioch-Chichibu Sister City relationship
By Allen D. Payton
During their meeting on Tuesday night, July 28, 2026, the Antioch City Council will again discuss state funding for the Homekey+ California Supportive Housing (CSH) Mahogany Housing Project. It is expected they will vote to either accept or reject the $34.9 million grant which requires matching City funds to create 84 units of permanent supportive housing for veterans and homeless individuals in Antioch and from throughout the county.
Before the regular meeting begins at 7:00 p.m., the Council will hold a closed session at 6:00 p.m. to discuss “Initiation of Litigation”, as the agenda item is simply described.
Homekey+ CSH Mahogany Housing Project
During their meeting on June 23rd, which lasted past midnight, after receiving public comments on both sides of the issue, the Council postponed a decision on the Homekey+ funding until tomorrow night’s meeting. Then on June 29th, the Council held a study session to get their questions answered regarding the project and the funding.
According to the staff report for agenda Item 7, the Council has two options.
“Option A – Reaffirm Continued Participation and Proceed with Implementation Receive the report; acknowledge the additional due diligence conducted since the June 29, 2026, Study Session; reaffirm the City’s continued participation as a Homekey+ co applicant and the funding commitments previously approved under Resolution No. 2025/201; direct staff to continue working with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), California Supportive Housing (CSH), and project partners to negotiate and finalize the most favorable financial and operational terms reasonably available to the City, including opportunities to reduce the City’s long-term financial commitments where feasible; and proceed with execution of the Homekey+ Standard Agreement and associated project documents consistent with the authority previously granted by the City Council.”
“Option B – Rescind Prior Authorization and Withdraw from the Project Receive the report and direct staff to rescind the City’s prior authorization under Resolution No. 2025/201, notify HCD that the City will not execute the Homekey+ Standard Agreement, and withdraw the City from continued participation as a Homekey+ co-applicant.”
Background
On average, the state and city funds for the project, combined, would total $41.75 million or about $500,000 per unit over the first five years and approximately $54.4 million or $640,000 per unit over the full 15-year period.
According to the City staff report for the June 23rd meeting, “consistent with the approved Homekey+ application and prior City Council authorization, the City identified a proposed $750,000 contribution to support acquisition and rehabilitation costs associated with the project. The proposed contribution is reflected in the City’s Five-Year Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan. Funding for this contribution is included in the proposed FY 2026/27 Housing Successor budget.
Following Council direction at their meeting on May 22, 2025, the City applied for the Homekey+ funding. “The project application assumes ongoing operating assistance averaging approximately $1.2 million annually during the initial five-year period,” for a total of an additional $6 million. “If such funding levels were maintained over the full fifteen-year period, the total potential City contribution could be approximately $18.75 million, from the General Fund.”
“The City would receive the benefit of approximately $34.9 million in State Homekey+ funding,” awarded in May 2026, “for acquisition and rehabilitation of the project. The City would assume ongoing administrative, monitoring, and compliance responsibilities associated with participation in the program.”
“While the City was a co-applicant and recipient of the award, the City has not executed the Homekey+ Standard Agreement with HCD and has not formally accepted the grant funds. Because the…Agreement has not been executed, the City currently has no contractual obligation to participate in the project. The City would not assume the reporting, compliance, monitoring, or administrative responsibilities associated with the Homekey+ Program.” However, if the Council declines the grant funds, “the City could experience reduced competitiveness for certain future discretionary housing funding opportunities.”
Council Gets Questions Answered During nJune 29th Study Session
During a special study session on Monday, June 29, 2026, that lasted three-and-a-half hours, the Antioch City Council asked a variety of questions of staff regarding the proposed Homekey+ California Supportive Housing (CSH) Mahogany Housing Project at the Antioch Inn & Suites, formerly Comfort Inn.
In attendance to answer questions was Jamie Schecter, Homeless Services Chief with Contra Costa Health, Housing and Homeless Services, who oversees the County’s Continuum of Care, she mentioned two other Homekey projects, Delta Landing Interim Housing Program at the former Motel 6 in Pittsburg and another in San Pablo. She also spoke of a similar upcoming project in Richmond the County is working with. Also in attendance were Richmond City Manager Shasa Curl and her Community Development Director, Lina Velasco, who has worked on that city’s Homekey project, who provided a presentation about it.
Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas asked, “The City of Richmond is actually the owner of this property?”
“Yes, we will own the property,” Velasco responded. “However, during the term of the ground lease, the lessee will own the improvements. They’ll be responsible for all the maintenance and the improvements.” “The wrap-around services, are they provided from City staff of Richmond or are they contracted out?” he asked.
“They’re contracted,” Velasco stated.
“How is occupancy determined?” Freitas asked.
“We cannot be limited to Richmond residents but there is a prioritization that’s considered,” she explained. “However, we’ll serve countywide.”
Mayor Ron Bernal asked if any of the funding pays for staff time and consultants. Velasco responded, “Some of the Homekey funding has predevelopment costs. However, it’s not reimbursing, like, the time I take to write an annual report and expenditure report. So, that’s part of what we’ve been absorbing outside of a loan for the rehab. But there were some early draws for the legal fees. The developer is paying for the architectural fees, the permit fees. Those costs were included in the grant award.”
“During the 55-year term of the project, will there be any funding for staff from the Homekey,” Bernal pressed further.
City Manager Curl responded, “I would say, ‘no’ and I think it’s important for the Antioch City Council to understand, our contribution of $10.3 million is an advance from the General Fund in excess of whatever was in our Housing In Lieu fund. So, as that is replenished that will pay back the City.”
“This is the first time we’ve done something of this magnitude,” Curl continued. “So, the city council has a third-party, neutral analysis that was separate from staff. In addition, the project looked at through the construction management lens, especially the change orders, especially with inflation. So, having that third party has been extremely helpful for staff working with the building official.”
“What is your program during that 55-year period for making sure the building is properly being maintained and when there is a problem…how are they handled?” Freitas asked.
“Our plan is to do annual inspections annually,” Velasco stated. “We do within our budget have a capital reserve for issues…including turnover.”
“How do you define success over a 55-year period?” Freitas then asked.
“For me…this housing type is very important and difficult to produce,” she responded. “I think making sure the property is well-maintained also, well-operated. Hoping the tenants that come in are not losing their housing or being expelled due to lease violations…making sure supportive services include tenancy sustaining services. I think those are the big things and just making sure it doesn’t become a nuisance property for the City.”
Freitas then asked about 24-hour security costs.
“So, we are talking about that. We do have that in our budget,” Velasco explained. “We may look at that overtime based on how the property is operating and the need.”
District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha asked if the occupancy would be “100% unhoused that you will be serving?”
“Yes. When we wrote our application it was for targeting the chronically homeless,” she stated. “There is a lega definition in our regulatory agreement with HCD (California Department of Housing and Community Development).”
“Is it a similar focus with individuals, youth and veterans?” Rocha asked.
“If they fit the definition,” Velasco said. “But unlike Homekey plus, you have more target definitions.”
“With your case managers is there a ratio that you have identified?” the councilman asked.
“Currently our budget is two case managers for the property,” she responded for 48 units.
“With Mahogany, it’s 100% just for those being served,” Rocha asked his fellow councilmembers. Torres-Walker nodded in agreement.
“Without those ERF funds (State Encampment Resolution Funds) and the Homekey, I think it would have been a heavy lift for the City,” Cass stated. “So, I think between that and the CDBG funds it was really important to get all of the partners to the table. For me, the price per unit is what makes it an acceptable public policy solution…because the cost per unit is less than if we were building a new unit. That was part of the rationale and because it takes so long to get a new unit online.”
Staff Answer Council Member Questions
Council members asked staff some of the outstanding questions not answered in the staff report for the agenda item.
Regarding the hotel’s current financial condition facing foreclosure, Freitas asked, “If the property owner sells the property with those debts, how is the City made whole?”
He mentioned “$400,000 or more in delinquent taxes.”
“And the water,” said Acting City Manager Ana Cortez.
“The City of Antioch is a co-applicant – said Assistant City Attorney Kevin Kundinger
“So, we’re just paying bills,” Freitas stated.
“Yes,” Kundinger replied. “I think the decisions are made collaboratively.”
Freitas asked for the breakdown of the $34.9 million in state funds.
The project developer said, “The capital award is the purchase price $27,500,00. Other costs are about $7 million.
“Approximately $700,000 is for operation and the $1.2 million from the City,” Freitas stated.
The councilman then asked about the veterans’ units.
In response to a question by Mayor Ron Bernal, the developer said there will be no senior-designated units.
Under Item 5 on the agenda, the Council will vote on the annual assessments for six Streetlighting & Landscape Districts throughout the city. They annual rates range from $8 in District 9, Zone 3, the Lone Tree Way District to as high as $331 per year in District 2-A, Zone 10, the Black Diamond Ranch units of the Citywide District, depending on the individual parcel.
The Public Works Department’s Parks & Landscape Division maintains 34 City parks and a wide variety of landscaped areas that enhance the aesthetic of our community. This includes:
City Parks and open space areas
Medians and right-of-ways
Trails and cul-de-sacs
Coordinate and oversee the annual weed abatement project
Street lighting is maintained by the Street Maintenance Division.
3% Pay Raise for Antioch Police Officers
Under Item 8, the Council will vote on the Tentative Agreement between the City of Antioch and the Antioch Police Officers’ Association that will include a 3% Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for Fiscal Year 2026-27 at a cost of $661,430 and other matters. According to the City staff report, “No COLA or additional increase to uniform allowance was including in the adopted FY26/27 budget, thus requiring a budget amendment.” The previous Tentative Agreement covered the period of Sept. 1, 2021 – Aug. 31, 2025. If the council approves the agreement, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) will be prepared to replace the agreement and require another vote by the council.
In addition to the 3% COLA, the Tentative Agreement includes the following:
Increase to four floating holidays in a calendar year.
Travel meal reimbursement increase to $25.00 for breakfast, lunch or dinner.
Lateral Police Officer and Dispatcher new hire vacation credit of one week upon employment.
Plus, increases to the uniform allowance, adjustments to benefits, retirement and vacation, sick leave and bereavement leave language defined and/or updated, as well as updates to the department’s grievance procedure.
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.
See separate article on the Natural Gas Pipeline Encroachment Permit Application Appeal.
Antioch Mayor Ron Bernal (left, second row) and his classmates were joined by Michael Bloomberg (front, center) on the second day of the Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative Class of 2027 during the week of July 13, 2026. Photo: BHCLI
One of two mayors from California, among 46 from 15 countries, who together lead over 22 million people, selected for program
Joint effort with Bloomberg Philanthropies marks decade of strengthening local government while advancing research, teaching and the practice of city hall leadership
By Jaden Baird, PIO, City of Antioch
ANTIOCH, CA — Mayor Ron Bernal announced, Friday, July 17, 2026, being selected as one of the 46 mayors from 15 countries for the tenth class of the Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative. He participated this past week at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts in the Class of 2027. Through the nine-month professional management program, Mayor Bernal—alongside key Antiochstaff who will begin in August—will gain strategies to improve how local government works and move residents’ chief priorities forward. This is the second time Bernal has been selected to participate in a class at the Bloomberg Center for Cities at Harvard’s Kennedy School. He also attended the First 100 Days program in December 2024. Bernal and Stockton Mayor Christina Fugazi were the only mayors from California selected for the tenth class.
“I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative and to bring learnings home to Antioch,” said Mayor Ron Bernal. “The program gives mayors access to expert faculty, research-backed frameworks, and practical tools we can put to work right away. For Antioch, that means building on our work to address blighted areas and make them cleaner, safer and more vibrant—because our community deserves a city hall that never stops learning and networking.”
Antioch Mayor Ron Bernal participates as a member of the BHCLI Class of 2027. Photo: BHCLI
The flagship Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative is at the center of more than 10 years of work led by Bloomberg Philanthropies through its Government Innovation program to strengthen mayoral leadership and local government across the globe. Today, it is where the world’s mayors come to learn—and to lead. Mayor Bernal joined them.
Established with Harvard Kennedy School and Harvard Business School, and housed at the Bloomberg Center for Cities at Harvard, the Initiative will have now served 447 mayors—including eight in ten of America’s big-city mayors and nine of England’s mayoral strategic authorities—alongside over 3,000 municipal chiefs.
“Mayors sit at the first and last mile of every major problem we face, and we built the Government Innovation program to ensure they have the capacity required to lead,” said James Anderson, who leads the Government Innovation program at Bloomberg Philanthropies. “The Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative is at its center, and in a moment that demands more from public leadership than ever, this class will have that world of support behind them. We look forward to these mayors putting it to work, and all that their city halls will do.”
Antioch Mayor Bernal participates in the 10th BHCLI class with 45 other mayors this past week. Photo: BHCLI
Through the Initiative, Bernal will work alongside Harvard faculty, policy experts, veteran managers and fellow mayors—periodically in classrooms, virtual sessions, and in the field—beginning with a multi-day convening in New York City this week. Participants learn to organize teams around outcomes, ground decisions in evidence, and collaborate across departments and sectors—applying lessons directly to the issues at home, from housing and affordability to economic growth, public safety, and emergency response.
Once the coursework ends, Antioch remains eligible for more: professional education for senior officials in economic development, human resources, procurement and civic engagement; a Bloomberg Harvard City Hall Fellow, placed for up to two years on a priority the mayor sets; and research and instructional material developed across the program’s first decade.
“Leading a city is among the hardest jobs in public service anywhere as the demands on mayors—and the complex challenges they face—continue to grow,” said Jorrit de Jong, Director of the Bloomberg Center for Cities at Harvard University and Emma Bloomberg Senior Lecturer in Public Policy and Management at Harvard Kennedy School.“Meeting those challenges requires city halls to continually strengthen how they work, and with Michael R. Bloomberg’s unwavering backing, we built the Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative to help them do just that—and every mayor teaches us in return. With a decade of that insight and research behind this tenth class, we expect their city halls to deliver at home and push the program’s work—and the field itself—further still.”
The tenth class of mayors represents 28 U.S. and 18 international cities, home to more than 22 million residents. The Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative Class of 2027 included:
NORTH AMERICA
United States:
Mayor Dorcey Applyrs – Albany, New York
Mayor Ron Bernal – Antioch, California
Mayor Sean Ryan – Buffalo, New York
Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui – Cambridge, Massachusetts
Mayor Stephen M. Morris – Concord, North Carolina
Mayor Shenise Turner-Sloss – Dayton, Ohio
Mayor Mary Sheffield – Detroit, Michigan
Mayor Sharon Tucker – Fort Wayne, Indiana
Mayor John Horhn – Jackson, Mississippi
Mayor James Solomon – Jersey City, New Jersey
Mayor Christal Watson – Kansas City, Kansas
Mayor Jaime Arroyo – Lancaster, Pennsylvania
Mayor Eileen Higgins – Miami, Florida
Mayor John Ewing – Omaha, Nebraska
Mayor Keith Wilson – Portland, Oregon
Mayor Marsha Judkins – Provo, Utah
Mayor Angela Birney – Redmond, Washington
Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones – San Antonio, Texas
Mayor Michael Garcia – Santa Fe, New Mexico
Mayor Van Johnson – Savannah, Georgia
Mayor Jake Wilson – Somerville, Massachusetts
Mayor James Mueller – South Bend, Indiana
Mayor Lisa Brown – Spokane, Washington
Mayor Kaohly Her – St. Paul, Minnesota
Mayor Christina Fugazi – Stockton, California
Mayor Sharon Owens – Syracuse, New York
Mayor Anders Ibsen – Tacoma, Washington
Mayor Spencer Duncan – Topeka, Kansas
Canada: Mayor Maude Marquis-Bissonnette – Gatineau, Canada
Jamaica: Mayor Andrew Swaby – Kingston, Jamaica
SOUTH AMERICA
Mayor Carlos Fernando Galán – Bogotá, Colombia
Mayor Agustín Iglesias – Independencia, Chile
Mayor Felipe Alessandri – Lo Barnechea, Chile
Mayor Esteban Allasino – Luján de Cuyo, Argentina
Mayor Sebastián Sichel – Ñuñoa, Chile
Mayor Ramón Lanús – San Isidro, Argentina
AFRICA
Mayor Sam Nujoma – Khomas Region, Namibia
Mayor Fatiha El Moudni – Rabat, Morocco
EUROPE
Mayor Richard Shakespeare – Dublin, Ireland
Mayor Stephan Keller – Düsseldorf, Germany
Mayor Mathias De Clercq – Ghent, Belgium
Mayor Carlos Moedas – Lisbon, Portugal
Mayor Helen Godwin – West of England, United Kingdom
Mayor Tomislav Tomašević – Zagreb, Croatia
OCEANIA
Mayor Sophie Barker – Dunedin, New Zealand
Mayor Mahé Drysdale – Tauranga, New Zealand
Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg with Antioch Mayor Ron Bernal during this past week’s class. Photo: BHCLI
In July 13 and 14, 2026, posts on X, Michael Bloomberg wrote, “For the past decade, I’ve had the opportunity to share lessons from my 12 years in New York City Hall with hundreds of mayors through @BHcityleaders. This is our 10th class, and this month, 46 mayors from 15 countries will come together to begin learning from one another and working with Bloomberg @CenterforCities at @Harvard faculty & policy experts to help them better tackle the challenges their residents care about most. Mayors are expected to solve some of the toughest problems we face. That takes bold leadership, talented teams, and a willingness to try new ideas. It was great to meet the tenth class of the @bhcityleaders…They’re bringing fresh thinking and a determination to make their communities stronger.”
The flagship Initiative has also informed parallel efforts worldwide. The most recent is the Bloomberg LSE European City Leadership Initiative, whose inaugural class included 30 mayors and 60 senior officials from 17 countries.
Through these leadership programs, Antioch enters Bloomberg Philanthropies’ broader Government Innovation portfolio and global community of practice, tens of thousands of mayors and municipal officials strong, who draw on each other’s work to better the lives of the hundreds of millions of residents they collectively serve.
About Bloomberg Philanthropies:
Bloomberg Philanthropies invests in 700 cities and 150 countries around the world to ensure better, longer lives for the greatest number of people. The organization focuses on creating lasting change in five key areas: the Arts, Education, Environment, Government Innovation, and Public Health. Bloomberg Philanthropies encompasses all of Michael R. Bloomberg’s giving, including his foundation, corporate, and personal philanthropy as well as Bloomberg Associates, a philanthropic consultancy that advises cities around the world. In 2025, Bloomberg Philanthropies distributed $4.3 billion. For more information, please visit bloomberg.org, sign up for ournewsletter, or follow us onInstagram,LinkedIn,YouTube,Threads,Facebook and X.
About the Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative:
The flagshipBloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative is at the center of more than10 years of work led by Bloomberg Philanthropies to strengthen mayoral leadership and local government across the globe. Established with Harvard Kennedy School and Harvard Business School, housed at the Bloomberg Center for Cities at Harvard, the Initiative will have now served 447 mayors and over 3,000 senior municipal officials, including 8 in 10 of America’s big city mayors and 9 of England’s mayoral strategic authorities. Today, it is where many of the world’s most accomplished mayors come to learn—and to lead. For more information, please visit cityleadership.harvard.edu or visit us onLinkedIn andX.
About the Bloomberg Center for Cities at Harvard University:
Founded in 2021 with Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Bloomberg Center for Cities at Harvard University serves a global community committed to improving public management, leadership, and governance. The Center’s cross-Harvard collaboration unites expertise focused on cities across disciplines and schools to produce research, train leaders, and develop resources for global use. The center is designed to have widespread impact on the future of cities, where more than half of the world’s people now live, by informing and inspiring local government leaders, scholars, students, and others who work to improve the lives of residents around the world. For more information, please visitcities.harvard.edu or follow us onInstagram,LinkedIn, andX.
Two Antioch city council, two school board seats up
By Dawn Kruger, Community and Media Relations Coordinator, Contra Costa County, Clerk-Recorder-Elections Department
The Candidate Filing Period for the November 3rd General Election will began, Monday, July 13, 2026, and nomination papers will be available for candidates running for office. The nomination period runs through 5:00 p.m. Friday, August 7, 2026.
In Antioch, City Council seats for District 1, currently represented by incumbent Tamisha Torres-Walker, and District 4, currently represented by incumbent Monica Wilson, are up for election. So far only one challenger has announced for District 4, Sandra White, who is running and hoping her third time is a charm. Plus, on the Antioch School Board, the seats for trustees in Area 2, currently represented by Dr. Jag Lathan, and Area 5, currently represented by incumbent Mary Rocha, who recently told the Herald she will run again, are up for election.
Papers for offices that are up for election will be available at the Contra Costa Elections Office, 555 Escobar Street, Martinez. Papers for Municipal Offices will be available from the City Clerk’s office in the city the position represents.
For further information on the General Election and key dates, go to www.contracostavote.gov
“Our Candidate Services team is ready to work with Candidates who will be running in the November General Election,” said Kristin B. Connelly, Contra Costa Registrar of Voters. “Our office is here to help potential candidates.”
If an incumbent does not file to run for office by the August 7th deadline, the filing period for that office will extend until 5:00 pm on Wednesday, August 12, 2026. This rule does not apply to incumbents that have reached their term limit and are unable to run again.
Interested candidates can schedule an appointment by emailing candidate.services@vote.cccounty.us or by calling (925) 335-7800. Walk-ins are accepted, but service is subject to the availability of staff. Appointments are available on weekdays from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm. Filing documents and information will be provided to interested constituents at their appointment. The process takes approximately 20 minutes.
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.
During Public Comments several speakers wore keffiyeh scarves and some members of the gallery held up a large poster. Video screenshots
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.
Hillcrest Summit Apartments Overall Site Plan. Source: City of Antioch
Forced to approve by state law, but without any changes to project since denying it in April
“The City will not have financial or legal obligation regarding the repayment of the debt.” – Planning Manager Zoe Merideth. But City will receive $15K in bond fees.
Freitas again rants against project saying, “It’s ugly.”
By Allen D. Payton
After denying public financing for the Hillcrest Summit Apartments on a 2-2-1 vote in April, the Antioch City Council changed course and voted 5-0 to approve it during their meeting on June 23, 2026. That’s despite the developer not making any changes to address concerns of the council members, including the proximity to the adjacent gas station, convenience store and car wash, as well as the project’s aesthetics. New concerns were shared about traffic impacts and lack of parking, due to new state law because of its location near the BART Station.
The project is one of the 10 Commercial Infill Housing (CIH) Overlay District parcels the council rezoned in 2022 that will allow extremely-low, very-low and low-income apartment complexes throughout the city. (See related articles here and here)
The 165 apartments, complete with 145 parking stalls and site improvements, are planned to be built immediately adjacent to the 76 gas station and 7-Eleven that has a 24-7 carwash on the corner of Hillcrest Avenue and E. Tregallas Road. Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas wanted the project to be redesigned with the apartments located on the other side of the 4.9-acre parcel. Mayor Ron Bernal was concerned about how the four-story apartment buildings would look. But due to the rezoning vote in 2022, the City Council has no say, and all of the CIH projects only require staff-level, administrative approval without any public input. The Hillcrest Summit Apartments project has already been approved by City staff.
The project is proposed to be 100% affordable with the following breakdown of affordability:
Hillcrest Summit Apartments AMI figures. Source: City of Antioch
No City Financial Obligation
During the brief staff presentation for the agenda item, #4, Planning Manager Zoe Merideth explained, “The City will not have financial or legal obligation regarding the repayment of the debt.” But the Tax Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (“TEFRA”) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 require the Council to hold a public hearing and vote to approve the financing for the project to receive the funds.
“This is a private loan with the borrower and the bank,” Meredith added. “Again, such adoption is solely for the purposes of satisfying TEFRA, Internal Revenue Code and California Government Code.”
According to the City staff report, the tax-exempt revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $50,000,000 to be issued by the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) will be used to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of the project and pay certain expenses incurred in connection with the issuance of the bonds.
Hillcrest Summit Apartments site and location maps. Source: City of Antioch
Public Comments & Proponents’ Responses
A representative of the developer, Los Angeles-based Cypress Equity Investments, LLC, Garrett Borges, Vice President of Real Estate Development, and Jarod Suzuki, Financial Advisor for the CMFA, the bond issuer, said they were available to answer any questions.
During public comments, with three residents in favor and one against the project, Suzuki responded reiterating, “The City is not party on the transaction. As a part of our policy, we share 25 percent of our fees with the host city. It’s just a CMFA policy. We just give away some of our fees.”
According to the CMFA website, “The CMFA shares 25% of all issuance fees directly with its member communities. In addition, a grant equal to 25% of the issuance fee is made to the California Foundation for Stronger Communities (‘CFSC’) to fund charities designated by the member communities.”
Borges further explained, “These projects pay all of our impact fees as part of the development for the project…to help with the schools.”
“We hope that us developing this and providing these affordable units for the community is where the police officers and the teachers and those types of folks within the community that need a little help on their housing can come and be a part of the community,” he added. “So, hopefully a benefit to the community rather than a perceived blight.”
Hillcrest Summit Apartments Elevations – views of the north and east sides from E. Tregallas Road and Hillcrest Avenue. Source: City of Antioch
Council Questions, Concerns About Traffic Impacts, Lack of Parking Allowed by State Law
Freitas was first to speak saying, “It’s never been, for me, about providing affordable housing or providing this type of housing. But how did we get to this point? The public needs to understand what this project may or may not have.”
Planning Manager Meredith explained the project is one of the CIH sites and it “was administratively approved in the fall of 2025.”
“So, this property is zoned commercial?” the councilman asked.
“It could be either,” Meredith said. The underlying zoning is still commercial, but the CIH Overlay District allows for multi-family housing, she explained.
Freitas then asked about the “money coming back to the City of Antioch” and “the amount that will be.”
Bond-issuer representative Suzuki said, “Right now it’s roughly $15,000.”
Freitas then asked, “Can the City require police services on this parcel?”
Meredith responded, “The developer does pay impact fees and the City has a Community Facilities District for police.”
“Roughly, how much are we talking about? Would it pay for one officer,” Freitas asked.
Assistant City Attorney Kevin Kundinger responded, “I believe the CFD is about $300 per unit paid on a yearly basis.” That would amount to $49,500 per year total.
Freitas then mentioned his concerns that he shared with the developer “six or eight months ago” including the driveway access off Hillcrest Avenue.
“When I looked at this project, the first thing for me was safety,” he stated. “The traffic congestion is a Level F and just like high school, F means failure.”
Meredith pointed out there are two entrances and exits, with the other one on Shaddick Drive off E. Tregallas Road.
Freitas then asked, “Are there 165 parking spaces?”
“This project has 145 parking stalls,” Meredith shared.
“If one or two people have a car, there are not enough parking spaces, here to actually facilitate the people who live here and park there,” Freitas stated, then asked, “So, where are they going to go? They can’t park on Hillcrest. They cannot park on East Tregallas. The only place that they can park is Shaddick. So, what’s going to happen is the overflow cars are going to go into the neighborhoods. We will have residents coming down, screaming at us, ‘what’s wrong with you idiots, why did you ever approve this project? It has ruined our quality of life.’”
He also mentioned St. John’s Lutheran Church, which is across Shaddick Drive from the project saying, “They’re not going to be happy because their parishioners are going to have a difficult time finding parking.”
However, because the complex is located within a mile of a transit station, specifically the BART Station, state law allows for new multi-family housing developments to not include any parking.
Freitas then repeated his concern about the proximity of the project to the neighboring gas station, 7-11 and carwash saying, “The property line is a couple of feet from the commercial area. So, there will be fumes…noise, twenty-four-seven. You think the people living there are going to come to the council and scream at us? Yeah, they will.’ He then mentioned children living there and his concerns about walking into traffic or to the gas station.
“When I met with the representative, I shared these and a lot more issues,” the councilman continued. “Instead of building the project next to the property line, flip it over and there is room. ‘No, no. We don’t want to do that. That would be too expensive.’”
Freitas said he asked the developer about not providing enough parking. “Well, that’s what’s required. That’s what we’re going to do.”
“The area in blue, that is for the children,” he stated. “That little area, right next to cars that are going to be parking in that particular area. As a parent, that would scare me.”
“So, I made lots of recommendations and the expectation that as a good builder, that they would consider some of those suggestions, and they never, ever called me back,” Freitas stated.
“Now, how did we get here? It is state law,” he explained. “And we did create this and it was approved in 2022 (by the previous council) and we are stuck with it.”
“So…in April when the council basically said, ‘no’ to this…we get a letter from the Department of Housing and Community Development from the State of California,” Freitas stated. “Basically, because we’re now dealing with the mandates from the State of California to the local jurisdiction, that you all need to build a lot more affordable housing and if you do not approve this then, guess what? You will be out of compliance in your approved housing element.”
“What impact would that be to the City of Antioch if we did not have an approved housing element?” he asked Planning Manager Meredith.
“You would be subject to the builder’s remedy, for example, which would allow housing to be built anywhere in the city,” she explained. “You could be subject to fines and also increased scrutiny by HCD, for example.”
“I want to make sure you heard that,” Freitas then said to those sitting in the gallery. “A developer could come into the city and build whatever she or he wanted and none of us, here could raise an objection. What kind of projects do you think we’re going to get?”
Freitas then shared concerns about the height of the four-story project saying, “So, here we are at one of the most important entrances to the City of Antioch. You’re going to have a gas station and right behind that… you’re going to have a four-story…structure. It is so ugly. I do not want that monolith, there…and the color scheme is usually brown or a deep, deep grey. It is ugly, it is ugly, it is ugly. It is not something that I would embrace.”
“It’s not just coming before us and asking us to approve this funding,” he continued. “This project should never have been allowed. But it is and the State of California has basically said to us…we don’t care what you like or dislike. If you don’t do it, that shotgun we have at your head, we’ll pull the trigger.”
“So, tonight, frankly, we have no choice,” Freitas stated. “Because the alternative is even worse than this and that’s the tragedy from my perspective. Frankly, there’s ten of these projects, people…and I think it’s disgusting and I think it’s wrong.” (Actually, only five have been so far approved by staff. The council could rezone the other five CIH Overlay District parcels).
“Who am I holding responsible?” the councilman asked. “The State of California.”
District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker, who voted for the overlay districts, spoke next asking, “So, are we voting to avoid a lawsuit? Do we need a motion or what are we doing?”
Freitas responded, “We have no choice.”
District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson, who also voted for the overlay districts, spoke next saying, “I agree whole-heartedly with…Mayor Pro Tem Freitas.” She then asked Acting City Manager Ana Cortez, “Is this even going to fulfill any of our RHNA requirements?”
She was referring to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation which, as previously reported, requires the City of Antioch to approve 3,016 more housing units between 2023 and 2031. They include 792 Very Low Income units (less than 50% of Area Median Income), 456 Low Income (50-80% AMI), 493 Moderate Income (80-120% AMI) and 1,275 Above Moderate Income (greater than 120% AMI) units based on the Area Median Income in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Meredith responded, “Yes. These count towards RHNA.”
Then repeating a question asked during public comments, Wilson asked staff, “Is it going to benefit…Antioch workforce residents…who are struggling, or first come, first served?”
Developer’s representative Borges responded, “We try to give priority where we can to Antioch residents. We’re obviously bound by fair housing laws. Those are very strict as far as how we are allowed to give preference.”
“We were happy and excited to fulfill what we thought was the council wishes to bring affordable housing to this site,” he continued, in response to the concerns raised by Freitas. He also said the City did a traffic study “and one of the ways we mitigate the impacts is paying a traffic impact fee which goes to the City to improve these intersections.” Regarding parking Borges said, “Because of our proximity to BART the State states, actually that we don’t have to have any parking as part of the project. We, as good developers, who will own and operate this, don’t think that that’s prudent or wise. So, we’ve fit as much parking as we could on the site.”
District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha then said, “To clarify, this item is not to approve or deny the project. This is a TEFRA hearing. Should we vote this down…they can also go to the County, I believe, or to the State and get the bonds elsewhere and we would be subject to the consequences you alluded to, earlier,” directing his comments to Freitas.
“So, I’m not crazy about the project for the reasons you stated,” he continued. “But we are here to talk about the bonds being issued, yes or no. Not about whether we are accepting or denying the project. I am in favor of affordable housing because it’s necessary in the community.”
Rocha then made the motion to approve the bonds.
But before a second was entertained, Mayor Ron Bernal asked if “the applicant had addressed the issues” raised at the council meeting in April
“I believe the applicant is willing to work with us on the aesthetics, including the siding, to make it a neutral green, rather than the grey,” Meredith responded. “I have some driveway improvements on Hillcrest, as well.”
Freitas then seconded the motion saying, “I’m going to second because we have to,” and it passed 5-0.
The former Comfort Inn, now Antioch Inn & Suites, is being considered for the Homekey+ program to house the homeless at a cost of up to $1.2 million per year. Photo courtesy of Mike Barbanica
Before deciding to accept or reject State Homekey+funding
City staff answer councilmembers’ questions; can only use 15% of CDBG funds to cover the up to $1.2 million annual commitment
By Allen D. Payton
As agreed to during their meeting this past Tuesday, June 23, 2026, the Antioch City Council will hold a study session Monday, June 29th, to discuss and get questions answered regarding the State Homekey+ funding for the Mahogany Housing Project at the Antioch Inn & Suites, formerly Comfort Inn. It will help the council members determine whether they will vote to accept or reject the $34.9 million grant at their next regular meeting on July 28th.
The City would have to commit an initial $750,000 already included in next year’s budget, plus, up to an additional $1.2 million per year for the next five for $6.75 million total and as many as 15 years for a total City commitment of $18.75 million. The State and City funds will provide for the acquisition and rehabilitation of the hotel on Mahogany Way, for approximately 84 units of permanent supportive housing.
On average, the state and city funds combined would total $41.75 million or about $500,000 per unit over the first five years and approximately $54.4 million or $640,000 per unit over the full 15-year period.
However, Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas asked if the other 40 rooms would still be rented for public hotel accommodations. Another question asked by District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha, that City staff did not have an answer for, was what would happen if a future council chooses to not continue the program. Those are just two of the questions the council members want answered before they vote.
As previously reported, following Council direction at their meeting on May 22, 2025, the City applied for the Homekey+ funding. “The project application assumes ongoing operating assistance averaging approximately $1.2 million annually during the initial five-year period,” for a total of an additional $6 million. “If such funding levels were maintained over the full fifteen-year period, the total potential City contribution could be approximately $18.75 million, from the General Fund.”
“The City would receive the benefit of approximately $34.9 million in State Homekey+ funding,” awarded in May, 2026, “for acquisition and rehabilitation of the project. The City would assume ongoing administrative, monitoring, and compliance responsibilities associated with participation in the program.”
“While the City was a co-applicant and recipient of the award, the City has not executed the Homekey+ Standard Agreement with HCD and has not formally accepted the grant funds. Because the…Agreement has not been executed, the City currently has no contractual obligation to participate in the project. The City would not assume the reporting, compliance, monitoring, or administrative responsibilities associated with the Homekey+ Program.” However, if the Council declines the grant funds, “the City could experience reduced competitiveness for certain future discretionary housing funding opportunities.”
Staff Answers questions
In the City staff report for the item, SM-1 on the agenda, they answered a variety of the council members’ questions.
HOMEKEY+ AWARD STATUS
The project received a conditional award in March 2026. The Acceptance of Terms was signed by both the City and CSH on March 17, 2026.
The award letter indicates that the representations made in the application are the basis for the award. HCD has been preparing the Standard Agreement, which is the final contract document for the award. The Standard Agreement has not been presented to the City as of the writing of this staff report.
HCD TIMELINES & PROJECT MILESTONES
“One of the primary questions raised by Council was related to timelines required by HCD. To staff’s knowledge, there does not appear to be an immediate concrete deadline.
“However, HCD described a series of project milestones tied to the award letter, Standard Agreement, construction, rehabilitation, and lease-up schedule. The longer the City delays execution and project advancement, the more difficult it becomes for the project to meet the milestones contemplated in the award and the Homekey+ Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). Homekey+ is designed to support the relatively rapid development of permanent supportive housing, and HCD expressed concern regarding the amount of time that has passed since issuance of the March 2026 conditional award.
In simple terms, staff understands the timeline issue as follows:
The City has received a conditional award.
The acceptance of award terms was signed.
HCD is preparing or has prepared the Standard Agreement.
Project milestones are tied to execution and project delivery.
Delay does not automatically terminate the award today, but continued delay increases risk to the award and project schedule.
PROJECT CONFIGURATION & UNIT COUNT
“The existing Comfort Inn currently contains 123 hotel rooms. Under the proposed Homekey+ project, the property would be rehabilitated and reconfigured into a total of 85 residential units, consisting of 84 permanent supportive housing units and one on-site manager’s unit. The reduction in the total number of units does not represent unused space or hotel rooms that would continue operating for transient lodging. Rather, the rehabilitation combines multiple existing hotel rooms to create larger, code-compliant residential units while also incorporating the infrastructure necessary for permanent supportive housing, including kitchenettes, accessibility improvements, property management offices, supportive service and case management offices, community gathering space, laundry facilities, recreation areas and other resident amenities.”
PROPERTY STATUS & REPORTED LOAN DEFAULT
The staff report also shares, “Council and members of the public raised concerns regarding news reports that the
property is associated with a loan default. Since the June 23, 2026, City Council meeting, staff has received additional information directly from the lending institution regarding the status of the loan.
“According to the lender, while a Notice of Default has been filed against the property, there is currently no foreclosure or trustee sale scheduled. The lender advised that it is actively working with the property owner to facilitate the sale of the hotel for the Homekey+ project and is aware that the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has awarded funding for the project. The lender further indicated that it will work cooperatively with the borrower, project partners, and the City to facilitate the transaction and is aligned with HCD’s project timeline.”
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES FOR ONGOING HOMELESS SERVICES:
The staff report also offers some other funding sources for homeless services. However, one source can’t be used, and the City can only use 15 percent of its annual Community Development Block Grant funds, which was suggested by District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker.
“During Council discussion, questions were raised regarding whether existing City, State, or Federal funding sources could be used to offset the potential ongoing operating commitment associated with the Homekey+ project. Staff evaluated several potential funding sources and summarized the findings below.
“Staff evaluated several existing funding sources to determine whether they could realistically offset the City’s projected operating commitment. While each funding source could potentially contribute to project operations, each carries statutory limitations or would require significant reductions to existing programs currently serving Antioch residents. Accordingly, none of the identified funding sources currently provides a complete replacement for the projected operating subsidy without corresponding impacts to existing City priorities.”
Housing Successor Funds
“The City currently allocates approximately $500,000 annually in Housing Successor funds toward homeless services, subject to available fund balance…these funds are expected to remain available for approximately two to three additional years.
“Redirecting the entire annual homeless services allocation to support Homekey+ operations would require discontinuing or significantly reducing programs currently serving approximately 2,688 homeless and at-risk Antioch residents through eight community-based organizations. It would also eliminate or significantly reduce funding for tenant-landlord mediation, eviction prevention, emergency rental assistance, legal services for tenants facing eviction, and a City staff position currently dedicated to housing services.”
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
“Federal regulations limit CDBG public service expenditures to 15 percent of the City’s annual allocation. Based on recent grant awards, this equates to approximately $127,500 annually, although the amount varies each year.
“Using the City’s entire public service allocation for Homekey+ operations would eliminate funding for the City’s competitive public service grant program during that funding cycle, affecting approximately 13 nonprofit organizations currently serving at least 1,655 Antioch residents, including programs supporting seniors, individuals with disabilities, youth, victims of abuse and other vulnerable populations. Additionally, such a change would require a Substantial Amendment to the City’s HUD Consolidated Plan, completion of a federal public participation process, and would not be available until the next funding cycle.
Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA)
“The City receives approximately $350,000 annually through the State’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Program. State requirements dedicate a significant portion of these funds to housing rehabilitation, first-time homebuyer assistance, accessory dwelling units, and administration. Approximately 55 percent of the annual allocation (roughly $190,000 annually) could potentially be directed toward homelessness-related activities through the City’s next five-year PLHA planning process.
“However, redirecting these funds would require reducing or eliminating other housing priorities currently supported through PLHA, including affordable homeownership assistance and housing rehabilitation programs. Any change would require HCD approval and completion of the City’s next required five-year planning process.
“Staff also evaluated whether the HUD Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program could be used to finance ongoing Homekey+ operations. Section 108 is intended to finance capital improvements, including housing acquisition and rehabilitation, public facilities, infrastructure improvements, and economic development projects. It is not an eligible funding source for ongoing supportive services, staffing, case management, or annual operating expenses. As a result, Section 108 could potentially support future capital improvements but cannot be used to fund the City’s proposed operating commitment associated with the Homekey+ project.”
QUESTIONS RAISED BY COUNCIL AND STAFF RESPONSE SUMMARY
1. Is the award final or conditional? Not yet. HCD has issued a conditional award of $34.9 million and the project has advanced beyond the application stage. However, the project is not yet fully finalized because the Standard Agreement has not been fully executed and other program requirements must still be satisfied before grant funds may be disbursed.
2. Has the City already accepted the award? The City previously executed and returned the Conditional Award Acceptance acknowledging the terms and conditions of the award. HCD has confirmed that this document does not, by itself, obligate the City to execute the Standard Agreement or proceed with the project. Execution of the Standard Agreement remains the action that commits the parties to the grant.
3. Does the City have to pay $1.2 million immediately?
No. The operating subsidy is tied to project operations and is not expected to begin until the project is operational, currently anticipated in 2027.
4. What happens if the City declines? If the City elects not to execute the Standard Agreement, HCD would likely rescind the Homekey+ award and the current project would not proceed under this funding allocation. HCD has advised that declining an award could be considered during evaluation of future competitive funding applications; however, any effect on future scoring would depend on the specific funding program and evaluation criteria in place at that time.
5. How does the current loan default affect the project? Based upon discussions between the City’s legal counsel, project representatives, and parties associated with the existing financing, the reported loan default appears to involve the current property owner rather than the Homekey+ project itself. While it may affect the timing or structure of the acquisition, HCD has advised that acquisition through foreclosure, receivership, negotiated purchase, or other lawful means may still be possible. The developer continues to evaluate acquisition options with the lender and trustee.
6. Is this a loan? No. HCD described Homekey+ as a grant program. The City’s obligation is related to its role as co-applicant, payee, and proposed local contributor.
7. Who receives and administers funds? HCD indicated the City is required to be the payee. Specific disbursement controls may be established through escrow or other approved structures.
8. Who gets housed? Residents would be referred to through approved eligibility and referral systems, not through open walk-in access. The final tenant selection and referral process must comply with Homekey+, fair housing, and coordinated entry requirements.
9. Can Antioch residents be prioritized? This requires additional legal and programmatic clarification. County partners have indicated that some projects have used lawful local targeting approaches, but final structure must comply with fair housing and funding requirements.
10. What public safety measures will be in place? The final operations plan should include property management, staffing, service coordination, resident expectations, security protocols, and coordination with APD and County partners.
A Closed Session beginning at 6:00 p.m. will be held to again negotiate contracts with City employee groups who have been working without one since last fall including the Management Unit, Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, Confidential Unit, Antioch Police Officers Association and Antioch Police Sworn Management Association. The study session will begin at 6:30 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.
The former Comfort Inn now Antioch Inn & Suites is being considered for the HomeKey+ program to house the homeless at a cost of up to $1.2 million per year. Photo courtesy of Mike Barbanica
Study Session on Monday, June 29th
Program would spend about $500K to $640K per permanent supportive housing unit
“That hotel is not going to operate as a hotel. It’s going to have a fence around it. People are going to start breaking in and…living there whether you want them to or not.” To her fellow council members: “I have no problem renting vans and dropping people off in front of your homes if we don’t get a solution.”- District 1 Councilwoman Torres-Walker
“I cannot sit here and support committing money we do not have.” – Mayor Ron Bernal
By Allen D. Payton
During their meeting on Tuesday night, June 23, 2026, which lasted past midnight, after receiving public comments on both sides of the issue, the Antioch City Council postponed a decision on accepting state funding for the Homekey+ California Supportive Housing (CSH) Mahogany Housing Project. The City would have to commit an initial $750,000 already included in next year’s budget, plus, an additional $1.2 million per year for the next five years. The funds will provide for the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Antioch Inn & Suites, formerly known as the Comfort Inn on Mahogany Way, for approximately 84 to 85 units of permanent supportive housing.
On average, the state and city funds combined would total $41.75 million or about $500,000 per unit over the first five years and approximately $54.4 million or $640,000 per unit over the full 15-year period.
According to the City staff report for Item 9 on this past Tuesday’s agenda, “consistent with the approved Homekey+ application and prior City Council authorization, the City identified a proposed $750,000 contribution to support acquisition and rehabilitation costs associated with the project. The proposed contribution is reflected in the City’s Five-Year Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan. Funding for this contribution is included in the proposed FY 2026/27 Housing Successor budget.
Following Council direction at their meeting on May 22, 2025, the City applied for the Homekey+ funding. “The project application assumes ongoing operating assistance averaging approximately $1.2 million annually during the initial five-year period,” for a total of an additional $6 million. “If such funding levels were maintained over the full fifteen-year period, the total potential City contribution could be approximately $18.75 million, from the General Fund.”
“The City would receive the benefit of approximately $34.9 million in State Homekey+ funding,” awarded in May, 2026, “for acquisition and rehabilitation of the project. The City would assume ongoing administrative, monitoring, and compliance responsibilities associated with participation in the program.”
“While the City was a co-applicant and recipient of the award, the City has not executed the Homekey+ Standard Agreement with HCD and has not formally accepted the grant funds. Because the…Agreement has not been executed, the City currently has no contractual obligation to participate in the project. The City would not assume the reporting, compliance, monitoring, or administrative responsibilities associated with the Homekey+ Program.” However, if the Council declines the grant funds, “the City could experience reduced competitiveness for certain future discretionary housing funding opportunities.”
Public Comments
During Public Comments several residents spoke in favor and against the project.
Lynette Clark, who said she’s a 34-year Antioch resident, spoke against the project, specifically its location, regarding “the potential long-term impacts project Homekey could have on Antioch neighborhoods, quality of life and community resources.” She said it “represents a 50-year commitment” and “1.2 million per year. Those funds could be used for youth programs, community services and, yes, economic development.” Clark asked for transparency regarding the results of the “successes and failures of Project Homekey sites throughout California.”
“The proposed location could negatively impact Antioch’s efforts to attract businesses, employers, hotels and redevelopment,” she continued. “It creates a first impression. Economic development depends heavily on public perception, safety, neighborhood appearance and investor confidence.”
“Is this the best location if Antioch’s stated goal is attracting investment, redevelopment and economic growth?” Clark asked.
She mentioned “drug activity, theft, disturbances, increased law enforcement calls” at other HomeKey projects. the facility and her concerns that the Antioch project “will house individuals with significant behavioral health, substance abuse and mental health needs.”
Crystal Law said, “We already spend over $1 million just cleaning up these…encampments and yet, want to argue all this extra stuff. However, when we have people out there, dying in the streets, there’s no question, yes, we absolutely need this site. Yes, we need to do this…for people in the city and the residents of Antioch. But yet, you want to take that $1.2 million…and you want to give it to City employees and incentives. Come on, now. It will help to clean up, down here, it will help to get businesses going…get people off the street…help to get people healthy, again. They’ll have case workers…mental health workers. They’ll have the ability to actually move forward. This is permanent housing, not transitional housing, so, it’s not like they will be in and out and going all over the place.”
A man named Jay who owns the 7-11 store across Auto Center Drive from the hotel said he “invested in here about three years ago. I did everything in my mighty power to clean this place up. It’s turned over a lot, now. But I am, actually, just a little scared of the traffic it’s going to be bringing in. I’m doing everything there in my mighty power every day to stop the theft…get people off that property.” He said, “they give us a hard time” and mentioned “struggling with the turnover. Employees don’t want to work there due to those issues.”
Antioch Police Oversight Commission Vice Chair Devin Williams urged the council to support the project saying, “If we get the…$34 million we can find the solutions. It’s not a complete fix but it’s a start. To turn it away would only put us back more.” He then challenged the mayor and two council members saying, “Ya’ll ran on it in 2024” in last year’s elections. “Ron, you ran on economic development and improvement.
Joe Mitchell said he “is not in support of the project due to the City’s current financial situation” and “the 1.2 million…there’s no guarantee that will cover the support for that facility. You guys had to cut, basically do magic, last year to get the budget down to where it was. Still, we’re facing a $12 million deficit.”
“So, monies that are needed to help the City function, can’t spare anything, right now,” he continued. “Sales tax isn’t going up. Our revenue is not going to go up and we can’t overcommit. I really support efforts to help unhoused folks. But our city can’t afford it. We need a full funded police department. We’re approaching a perfect storm for disaster. So, I think it would be a mistake to make that long-term commitment.”
Both council candidate and former Antioch Police Crime Prevention Commission Chair Sandra White and former Mayor Pro Tem and current Antioch Police Oversight Commissioner Manny Soliz, Jr. spoke against the project. She said, “I am here, tonight to respectfully oppose the proposed HomeKey project because of the financial and public safety challenges our city’s already facing. Antioch is already struggling to provide the level of public safety and city services that residents need.”
She said she’s concerned that, “Antioch taxpayers would pay these costs even though the project will serve unhoused individuals throughout Contra Costa County” and the challenges of the project’s residents “can increase demand on law enforcement…and other City resources.”
“The issue isn’t whether we should we help vulnerable people. The question is whether Antioch…is in the position to take on this additional responsibility, right now,” White concluded.
Soliz said, “I’m speaking on my own behalf as a citizen and long-term resident. I don’t think that the City can afford this program even though I am absolutely an advocate in trying to find a solution and I do have one.”
He suggested spending the money on “the Angelo Quinto program” referring to the City’s Crisis Response Team that’s facing potential budget cuts. Soliz was also concerned the facility wouldn’t just house individuals from Antioch as “they would be coming from anywhere in the county who can qualify to live there. If we’re going to support this as taxpayers let it be for people who are Antioch residents.”
He concluded by saying, “local businesses in the area are up in arms about this project” and “I’ve also heard that there’s a possibility the owner of the property may be having some financial difficulties. You need to look into that.”
A man named Ahmad spoke next saying, “This is a difficult decision for the community. These are the things we actually want to fund that are going to better the people that are living in the city, that are coming to live in the city. I believe people will get out of the situation that they’re in then, begin to sort of pay it forward.” “I know there’s going to be a lot of work…I’m willing to help,” he concluded.
Additional residents, including local homeless advocates Nichole Gardner and Andrew Becker, who gave impassioned speeches, spoke in favor of the project. He concluded by saying, “Those 84 individuals represent 33 percent of your unhoused community.” Becker also offered to answer any questions from the council members saying he had been involved with and working on the project “for six years” and pointed out its developer wasn’t invited to attend the meeting nor was informed of it by City staff.
Council Discussion & Decision to Postpone
However, after hearing from residents the council members chose to postpone the item until their July 28th meeting.
During their discussion, District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha-Torres Walker, who represents the part of the city the project is planned for, spoke first saying, “Whether we accept or reject HomeKey tonight, like, these political stances on poor, hurting people, it doesn’t hurt me. You’re not going to prevent me from getting a win. This is not what this is about. The biggest challenge I’m having is that we have been waiting 18 months for the mayor to come back with an ad hoc committee to talk about solutions to homelessness and it still has not come back to this council.”
“You want to show up against the solution when you don’t have none,” she continued. “There’s a claim this is not a great location. What is it going to look like for people driving into the city? I can tell you what it look like because I drove around and took pictures myself just so I could be reminded of what it looks like.”
Torres-Walker spoke of fires in empty buildings where homeless Antioch residents locate for shelter.
“No one’s being bussed in here from San Francisco. I have talked to people who said they have lived on the streets in Antioch for 30 years,” she stated. “They grew up here. They mama, here, their cousins, here, they brothers, they aunties and uncles. These are not strangers to Antioch.”
Torres-Walker then spoke of the food giveaways in Antioch to people who have nowhere to cook and it ends up on the street and residents complain about dirty streets.
She spoke of the impacts on business saying, “The business owners that’s calling me are tired of stepping over people every morning just to open up their store fronts. Having to clean feces and urine out from in front of they stores, before they can invite anybody in. They know the City isn’t going to anything about them…so, they feed them themself, they feed them themself, and they move them along so they can do business then let them come back at night because there’s no real solutions.”
“The Executive Inn, I wasn’t a big supporter initially,” Torres-Walker continued speaking of the City’s first homeless hotel. “I was also afraid it was going to create unsafe conditions in the community. But having Opportunity Village (at the hotel) on Cavallo and East 18th has actually made it better. The resources are there, the structure is there and people are getting served.”
“Schools have come here and said people are camping by the schools and we feel unsafe with all of this activity. Help us,” the councilwoman stated. “They haven’t gotten any help. Churches are asking for help as they’re helping and they haven’t gotten any help.”
She then spoke of homeless encampments being visible along the railroad tracks when people drive on L Street and then mentioned “bussing people to (Council) District 4 and District 3 and dropping them off, there so then you could see it because District 2 and District 1, we have to see it, deal with it and navigate around it and find solutions every day that aren’t even supported by this city. I’m just trying to figure it out like everyone else is,” Then speaking of the annual financial commitment Torres-Walker then said. “We have 13 months before the first payment is due for wrap-around services and it’s up to 1.2 million not even the potential of the full cost. But because you want people to fearmonger you, based on a budget rather than not having lazy politicians that don’t want to do the work to figure out how we do cover the costs while reducing the burden on the General Fund just baffles me.” Actually, the staff report reads “averaging approximately $1.2 million” but staff later clarified the amount of the City’s annual commitment.
“Because we can get creative,” she continued. “We have the CDBG (federal Community Development Block Grant fund allocations) coming up for a new five-year cycle. There’s housing and homelessness funds in there. If we can give over one million of that money to outside organizations to help with homelessness that aren’t even based in Antioch, we could give that money to this project.”
“All we’ve been hearing for 18 months is regional conversations,” Torres-Walker stated taking swipes at the mayor. “I haven’t heard one report from a regional conversation, yet where we could find out regionally how if every city is willing to kick in. But you have 13 months to do it. County conversations…you just complain about how the County doesn’t support but you never reach out to anybody in the County. You know how I know that? Because I’ve reached out to them. You know how I know the mayors of Brentwood, Pittsburg and Oakley have not been called…about regional efforts? Because I’ve talked to them.”
“You’re saying what you don’t want to see, that building is going to be blighted,” the councilwoman stated. “That hotel is not going to operate as a hotel, I’m not going to say forever, but for many years after this. It’s going to have a fence around it. People are going to start breaking in and people are going to be living there whether you want them to or not with no resources, no wrap-around services.”
“It’s not illegal to be unhoused but it should be illegal to allow people to be unhoused,” she continued. “So, this might not be the solution. But I haven’t heard one. We have people up here who got elected because they said they would address homelessness. We’ve been waiting 18 months.”
Torres-Walker then offered a suggestion from a member of the community to not reject the HomeKey+ fund but table the discussion until the next council meeting “to give those who actually want to do the work an opportunity to figure out how to relieve the burden off the General Fund.”
She then concluded her remarks by issuing a threat saying, “I’ve said this to the Council. I have no problem renting vans and dropping people off in front of your homes if we don’t get a solution.”
District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha weighed in next saying, “That’s tough to follow” and asked questions of staff of “when does the actual General Fund dollars of up to 1.2 (million) have to be kicked in to move forward” and “if this city council chooses to move forward what happens in four years when another city council chooses not to?”
Community Services Department Director Monseratt Cabral responded, “The 1.2 would happen next year. Right now, we’ll use the 750,000 (dollars) to acquire and then moving forward, 1.2. Why it’s up to 1.2 is because it’s 1.2 for the first five years, then in year six it drops down to 750 or 800,000 for the next three or four years. So, it fluctuates to the maximum of 1.2 until the year 16.”
“I’ve heard there’s a timeline for construction,” Rocha stated. “One of the things I definitely have supported this from the beginning on the application not knowing where we’d be in the budgetary process. We just overcame $54 million from our General Fund over the last two years. But looking forward, it’s like we’re faced with another $54 million or so the next three. So, if we move forward with this…something has to go along the way. I’m just talking about services and programs we may not be able to afford moving forward. It’s going to come at a cost of some General Fund dollars and services. I just want to make that clear.”
Torres-Walker responded, “A lot of the programs people have been advocating for are funded by outside funds, anyway. I think what the community is saying, the concern around sleight of hand…where we’re going to say we can’t afford this 1.2 million annually for this but then we add eight more police officers to the budget…and we’re still in discussion about COLA’s (Cost of Living Adjustments for City staff).”
“HCD (CA Department of Housing & Community Development)…nobody has even talked to the state about what’s going on. We’re just ghosting the state,” she continued then reiterated using CDBG funds to cover the $1.2 million annual cost over the next five years.
“I’m just trying to look at how we can best be stewards of our General Fund and continue to strive to meet the needs of our community,” Rocha stated.
District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson spoke passionately, as well, saying, “Thank you to those who have been in our ears for years. The housing alone isn’t enough. But services without stable housing are often not enough, either.”
She concluded by saying, “I’m in agreement if we pass on this the state will not look favorably on us in the future. The state’s going to be like, ‘You know what? Antioch is not that serious.’ I’m going to leave a comma there because I know this discussion is a never-ending one. But I’m going to leave it right there.”
The Council then voted to extend the meeting to 1:00 AM.
Mayor Ron Bernal spoke next saying, “This is obviously a very emotional subject because we’re dealing with…vulnerable people. There’s a need to fund whatever we do in this city. Stepping into a $54 million deficit with no regard to how we were going to sustain it, except we were going to ask for more money from some other agency. The feds aren’t giving it to us. The state isn’t giving it to us. The County has a failed bond measure because they can’t afford to do what they’re doing. (It was actually 0.625% sales tax on the June ballot as Measure B which failed). So, we’ve been working for the past year-and-a-half to get that $54 million two-year deficit…down to $4.5 million this year. When this came before us last May when this came before us, we had a $13 million deficit, and I was the only “no” vote on it…because we could not afford it. This was one more unfunded mandate that we were taking on that we couldn’t afford.”
“We’ve had a year to go talk to County, to talk to our neighbors and to everybody else and nothing has happened,” he stated. “So, here we are today saying we need to go out and talk to everybody and figure out how we’re going to get help on this thing. So, the bottom line is, we are facing next year…I’m just talking about money because that’s what this is, for me, right now. We can’t afford this.”
“Next year it goes back up to $14 million without cost of livings, getting our contracts up to date,” Bernal continued. “It’s probably close to $16, $17, $18 million deficit. That’s a million-and-a-half dollars a month we’re going negative in this city. We cannot afford or sustain that. So, to take on…up to $1.2 million per year for up to 15 years, that’s our maximum commitment. I cannot sit here and support committing money we do not have as we sit here. No matter how important the issues are, we can’t spend, I cannot, in good conscience, spend money that we do not have and hope that we’re going to get money down the road through grants and different things.”
“We spent…$6.8 million in (state) ERF…Encampment Resolution Funding, to house 30 to 50 individuals…moving them from the encampment…into the interim housing and into permanent housing with all the support services,” the mayor explained. “That’s happened in the last year. Our Point-In-Time Count numbers (of homeless residents) went from 240 to 250 last year. That $6.8 million investment did not result in our numbers coming down.”
“We are no closer to answering our financial problems,” he continued speaking of all the unfunded projects such as roofs and liabilities. “I just need to keep us focused on the finances of this. Our revenues are going up $300,000 in two years. That is not enough money to fund all the things we need to do in this community and to keep ourselves going with a vibrant staff that’s going to support all the things we want to do. It’s not going to be able to help us jump start economic development that we desperately need to do. We’re in a tough spot. I’m gonna admit that.”
“But by spending or investing up to $1.2 million for up to 15 years plus, 750 that’s going to have to come from somewhere, hopefully, CDBG, I cannot vote for that, as good of a cause as this project may be. Because I don’t’ believe we can sustain that,” Bernal concluded.
Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas spoke last saying, “I did ask for this to come back to the council for reconsideration. I voted for this and as we moved off from that original vote, the problem I have with this project is the rumors, the hearsay, the finger pointing, people accusing, people ripping us to pieces in public, making false accusations, lies, distortions and on and on.”
“After I approved it, come to find out, 85 of the units are for housing for the unhoused,” he stated. “The other 40 units…will be for retail. And so, this is a problem. Staff says one thing to us, Andrew Becker says another thing to us, and we’re standing there saying, ‘what’s true? What’s accurate? What’s factual?’ And for 18 months…we don’t know everything. How many times have we asked, ‘what is happening?’ Does it impact the grant?’ We’ve asked this question for months and we still don’t have an answer.”
“Why I brought this back is so, each and every one of us has a legal, fiduciary responsibility,” Freitas continued. “What’s the next step? And I don’t think my questions are out of line. I will not support something without knowing the facts. And I would say to each one of us on this council it is wrong to approve something.”
“We should care for the for the worst. We should provide housing and food and shelter education,” he said. “But there is something that we are responsible for and that is the budget. It looks like we are going to start July 1, 2027, with at least a $15 million budget deficit and…we only have a $100 million budget. That’s 15 percent. So, what department are we cutting out? Our quality of life will deteriorate and deteriorate.
“This is not a simple solution,” the mayor pro tem stated. “But I suggest before anybody makes a decision we have to…get the factual answers. This will not solve all the homelessness issues in Antioch. Let’s not kid ourselves. It may be a step forward but it’s not going to resolve anything. This is frustrating. We’ve been dealing with this for 18 months and frankly, I think we’re more confused with where we’re at and where we’re going. And the $1.2 million does not include all the administrative issues the staff has articulated. So, let’s be real about that.”
“If I had to vote, now I would vote not to go forward because I don’t have the answers to my questions and I am frustrated,” Freitas reiterated. “The human stories, the emotional stories, the tear-jerk stories, they’re real and I see it every day in this city.” Then choking up he continued, “and it tears my heart out. But I do not want to make a problem worse for our community. We are trying to respond to this issue as best we can and unfortunately, our best is not good enough for the last 18 months.”
“So, my issue is to give this one month and bring this issue back,” the councilman said, agreeing with Torres-Walker. “If the vote was tonight, I would vote to rescind. But I believe in hope and without hope, why live? This is not right for prime time. Let’s face it, it’s always an issue of money. I think it’s an obligation to move forward in a responsible manner and we’re not there.”
Torres-Walker then said, “There are deadlines and some we missed and the council was not informed of.” She reiterated the proposal to postpone the discussion and decision until the next meeting, which will be held on July 28th, and made a motion to that end. Before it was seconded, Freitas then asked to have an informal discussion with the developer and state representatives present and suggested a council meeting next week for a “round table”. Rocha suggested a study session. Acting City Manager Ana Cortez agreed and said she would reach out to each of the parties.
Director Cabral said there is a deadline, but Cortez said she didn’t see any deadline in the correspondence she had received.
Torres-Walker added to her motion to hold the study session next Monday, June 29th at 6:00 p.m.
She invited the property owner who was in attendance to speak.
He offered additional details saying, “The owner spent $40 million. The asset has not stabilized. After COVID it…is going downhill.”
In 2024, the property went into foreclosure. The same owner got it back with a different lender,” he explained. This property has had a history of financial challenges.”
“Interest rates for hotels are 10.5% to 12%. Insurance has trickled up. And the clientele we’re getting is not more than $100,” he stated.”
“In May 2025, once the resolution is passed by City it is awarded and the non-profit acquires. I have not heard that once it is awarded it comes back to council for approval. In December of 2025, the Comfort Inn flag was deflagged. It’s almost $3 to $4 million investment into the property again.
Right now, there is a notice of default filed. It is not in foreclosure. So, I think it will not be a problem. I can be there on Monday to answer your questions.”
“The problem is you said, ‘I think’,” Freitas said. “We need the city attorney to advise us.”
“I think there are philanthropic funds out there to get this project to the finish line,” the property owner added.
Freitas then seconded the motion to postpone the discussion and decision until July 28th and hold the study session next Monday at 6:00 p.m. and it passed 5-0.
Then, on quick motions and votes without any member of the public wishing to speak or comments from the members, the Council unanimously approved, under Item 5, the one-year operating budget for fiscal year 2026-27 and revised the fiscal year 2025-26 budget and under Items 6 and 7, adopted the fiscal year 2026-27 budgets and revised the fiscal year 2025-26 budgets for the City of Antioch as Successor Agency and Housing Successor to the Antioch Development (redevelopment) Agency and the Antioch Public Financing Authority (APFA).
As previously reported, “the fiscal year 2026-27 General Fund budget ended with a net deficit of $4,567,879 which was offset by a transfer from the Budget Stabilization Fund. According to the City staff report, the Council and staff worked to make $7,315,199 in “true” adjustments to the budget, after the City faced nearly a $12 million deficit.
According to the staff report, the Antioch Development Agency (Agency or ADA) was formed June 25, 1974, for the purpose of renovating (redeveloping) designated areas within the City limits. Project areas were designated to receive tax increment funds based on redevelopment formulas. The redevelopment funds were targeted for slum and blight areas. There are currently four former redevelopment areas in Antioch encompassing 2,082 acres, which is 11.6% of the City’s incorporated area.
According to the State Department of Finance, “As part of the 2011 Budget Act, and in order to protect funding for core public services at the local level, the Legislature approved the dissolution of the state’s 400 plus RDAs. RDAs were officially dissolved as of February 1, 2012,” and “property tax revenues are now being used to pay required payments on existing bonds, other obligations and pass-through payments to local governments.”
The City of Antioch elected to become the Successor Agency and Housing Successor to the Antioch Development Agency.
The APFA is a joint powers authority created between the City of Antioch and former Antioch Development Agency as a financing mechanism for real and personal property and improvements. The funds of the APFA are included in the budget document starting on page 304.
Funds of the Successor Agency and Housing Successor encompassing obligations listed on the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedules are included in the budget document starting on page 308.
