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

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

By Allen D. Payton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Comments

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

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

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

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

Council Discussion and Decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I agree,” Freitas said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rocha then seconded the motion.

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

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

See complete Agenda Item 8.

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

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:

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.

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.”

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.

See staff report and project details. See project plans. Watch the Council meeting video of the item beginning at the 2:34:40 mark.

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.

See additional details and issues in the agenda item SM-1.

Meeting Details

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.

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.

See Mahogany Housing Project 6/23/26 agenda item details and see 4:41:15 mark of the Council meeting video.

Approves FY26-27 and Revised FY25-26 City Budgets

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.

See 2026-27 Budget.

The Council meeting adjourned at 12:34 AM.

Would lose money on current investments, restrict investments in more companies and industries, could cost more in advisory fees; while world’s largest investment firms are abandoning them

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, the Antioch City Council will consider including liberal activist or “woke” practices in the City’s investment policy. The proposal is being brought to council after they 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.

Both Freitas and Torres-Walker suggested the investment policy discussion take place at a future Council meeting. Further discussion resulted in direction to bring the item back with the Treasurer and the City’s investment advisor, Justin Resuello from PFMAM, present and for the Treasurer to meet with the advocates to discuss ethical investment. City Treasurer Jorge Rojas, Jr. later met with a local advocacy group to receive their proposed policy.

Under item 8 on Tuesday’s agenda, the Council is being asked by City staff to “provide direction on inclusion of Socially Responsible Investing or Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Investing practices in the Statement of Investment Policy.” Such policies are considered “woke” as they are part of liberal activism, politicize investment practices and prevent investing in companies they don’t like for one reason or another. This, while the world’s two largest investment firms have been moving in the opposite direction over the past two years.

According to the City staff report, during the June 9th meeting, members of Contra Costa Divest spoke and requested that the City adopt what they consider to be “ethical investment practices”, with similar language to the investment policy for Alameda County. Torres-Walker spoke in support of an ethical policy, as well.

The City’s current Investment Policy requires that the City Treasurer render the Policy to City Council for review when changes are made, or at least every two years. The investment policy was last reviewed and approved by City Council in June 2024.

Current Investment Restrictions Only Exclude Alcohol & Tobacco Manufacturers

Socially Responsible Investing (SRI), would filter out and exclude sectors and/or companies the City does not want to invest in. The current Policy includes one such prohibition in Section V. 3: a. which reads, “The City will not invest in any companies that produce alcohol for public consumption or tobacco products.”

City Would Lose Money on Current Investments

According to the presentation by the City’s investment advisor, PFM Asset Management (PFMAM), the do-not-buy lists available through Bloomberg currently include specific industry or subindustry classifications such as firearms and ammunition, private corrections, oil & gas, coal, tobacco, wine/spirits, brewery, night clubs, etc. Furthermore, Sustainalytics has categorized each rated organization into one of over 40 industries and one of over 135 subindustries. Example classifications include oil & gas, refiners & pipelines, energy services, tobacco, pharmaceuticals, paper/forestry, etc.

PFMAM did review the current investments with Caterpillar, Chevron and Lockheed Martin that the advocacy group specifically mentioned that the City should divest from, and as of June 17th, four of the investments would be sold at a loss to the City of $25,758.93 and one investment would provide a small gain of $2,262. With either option, it is recommended that the City hold investments that would be out of compliance with any new methodology adopted until they can either be sold with no loss, or until maturity, whichever comes first.

Proposed ESG Investment Policy

Treasurer Rojas met with a representative from Contra Costa Divest to understand their position and the proposed language for the ESG investment policy is as follows:

“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 who will define each of those categories, and the effort has specifically been to divest from companies based in Israel as the Left considers that country’s actions in Gaza as 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.

Any Changes Will Be Brought Back Later for Consideration and Possible Adoption

The Council must at least review and adopt the current policy by June 30th. Staff is recommending they approve the draft policy without any SRI/ESG additions to remain compliant, and staff can then move forward working on any updates should Council direct ethical investing.

If they would like to incorporate it into the City investment policy, based on that direction, the Acting City Manager and Finance Director will work with the City Treasurer and PFMAM to determine investment parameters and draft an updated investment policy, understanding that this is not a quick turnaround process and will take some time as some agencies have spent up to a year crafting an investment strategy that fulfilled the ethical investment guidelines they wanted. A draft updated investment policy will be brought back to Council for consideration once this process is complete.

See agenda Item 8.

Meeting Details

The Council meeting will be held in the Council Chambers at 200 H Street, or can be viewed via livestream on the City’s website or on Comcast cable TV channel 24 or AT&T U-verse channel 99.

Despite net $7 million in budget savings City still projected to face double digit deficits for following three years; only 70% of Measure W sales tax funds to be spent on police

Will reconsider financing for affordable apartments project

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, the Antioch City Council will vote on the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget, reconsider approving financing for the affordable Hillcrest Summit Apartments project and consider approving funding for Homekey+ Project at former Comfort Inn on Mahogany Way. 

Before the regular meeting begins at 7:00 p.m., the Council will hold a Closed Session beginning at 6:00 p.m. to negotiate contracts with City employee groups who have been working without one since last fall. They include the Management Unit, Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, Confidential Unit, Antioch Police Officers Association and Antioch Police Sworn Management Association.

Annual General Fund Budget

According to the City staff report for agenda item 5. “the proposed fiscal year 2026-27 General Fund budget with a deficit of $4,567,879, to be offset by the Budget Stabilization Fund, is presented this evening. Since the budget presentation on June 9th, an additional $209,653 in vacancy and salary adjustments has been built into the draft budget.” To get to that figure the Council and staff worked to make $7,315,199 in “true” adjustments to the budget, according to Finance Director Dawn Merchant and Acting City Manager Ana Cortez.

The fiscal year 2027 budget includes a reduction of three funded staff positions “reflecting the net impact of added and frozen positions.” Sworn police officer staffing remains at 105 positions, while fiscal year 2027-28 projections include reaching a target of 117 sworn by June 30, 2028. However, as of June 10th, according to Chief Joe Vigil, there are currently 85 sworn officers on the Antioch Police force.

No COLAS (Cost of Living Adjustments), other than those previously approved for the Treatment Plan Employee Association bargaining unit, are included in the draft budget.

The proposed budget assumes the current Acting City Manager will remain in place through June 2027, and the Human Resources Manager will be filled by an Analyst, and no Assistant City Manager for six more months.

Budget Savings Highlights

The proposed budget includes the following savings:

City Manager’s Office

• Leave Assistant City Manager position vacant for six months saving $230,000. The position hasn’t been filled since last year.
• Freeze Administrative Analyst in City Manager’s office for $215,284;

Police Department

• Remove 12 Police Trainees for $631,464;
• Cancel Emergency Operations Center Improvements for $480,143;
• Update FY27 Police salaries for staffing/academy changes for $294,773;
• Reduce Police part-time help for $174,666;
• Add 4 months vacancy savings for 1 Police CSO for $55,534;
• Add 4 months vacancy savings for 1 Police Dispatcher for $70,001;

Animal Services

• Freeze 1 Animal Control Officer for $136,584;
• Add 2 months vacancy savings for 1 Animal Control Officer Police for $24,930;
• Reduction to Animal Services vet contracts and supplies of $110,000;

Public Works

• Freeze Assistant City Engineer for $262,295;
• Add 6 mos. vacancy saving Assistant/Junior Engineer for $84,221;
• Freeze Senior Civil Engineer (.25 FTE General Fund) for $47,130;
• Add 4 mos. vacancy savings Operations Supervisor for $22,630;

Community & Economic Development

• Reduction in Economic Development programs/contracts of $255,000;
• Add 6 months vacancy savings Economic Development Program Manager for $104,041;
• Add 4 months vacancy savings Senior Economic Development Program Manager for $86,415
• Freeze 1 Code Enforcement Officer for $181,981;

Recreation Department

• Underfill Recreation Supervisor with Recreation Coordinator for $45,383;
• Freeze Recreation Coordinator for 6 months for $74,402;
• Reduce Recreation part-time help for $88,636;

Finance Department

• Freeze Finance Dep’t. Business License Representative for $153,941;
• Freeze Business License Representative Finance for $153,941;
• Freeze Accounting Specialist II Finance for $166,643;

Other

• Freeze vacant Community Engagement Coordinator in Community Services Dep’t for $197,300;
• Underfill HR Manager with Analyst, freeze Specialist HR for $212,502;
• Add 6 months savings for Public Records Coordinator in City Clerk’s Office for $93,656; and
• Remove General Fund Vehicle Replacement Set-Aside for $1,776,290.

The use of Measure W 1% sales tax funds are proposed at 70% for Police, 15% for Quality of Life and 15% for Youth Services, which is out of compliance with the 80-10-10 split intended by the city council at the time the voters approved the ballot measure in November 2018.

Reserve & Budget Stabilization Funds

The minimum 20% unassigned reserve requirement is met in each fiscal year, although balancing is achieved with use of fund balance and Budget Stabilization Funds. The Budget Stabilization Fund balance is projected to be $36,249,323 at June 30, 2026; $31,681,444 at June 30, 2027; and $26,681,444 at June 30, 2028, based on current projections.

Even with this year’s budget savings, the City is projected to face double-digit deficits for the following three fiscal years. But there will be enough remaining in the Budget Stabilization Fund to cover almost all of them.

See Proposed General Fund Budget agenda Item 5 details.

California Supportive Mahogany Housing Project for Homeless

Under Item 9, the Council will consider approving a one-time capital match contribution of $750,000 for state funding of the Homekey+ California Supportive Housing (CSH) Mahogany Housing Project. It will fund the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Antioch Inn & Suites, formerly known as the Comfort Inn, to convert the existing hotel into approximately 84 to 85 units of permanent supportive housing with supportive services for eligible residents.

According to the City staff report, 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.”

See agenda Item 9 details.

Will Reconsider Financing for Affordable Apartment Complex

As previously reported, after an impassioned effort by Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas, during the Council’s meeting on April 14, 2026, public financing for the Hillcrest Summit Apartments received a 2-2-1 vote with Mayor Ron Bernal and District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha voting yes, Freitas and District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson voting no, and District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker voting to abstain. That’s in spite of the fact the latter two voted for the Commercial Infill Housing Overlay District rezoning the parcel and Bernal complained about how the four-story apartment buildings would look.

Freitas mainly opposed the project because of the proximity to the gas station and 24-hour car wash. (See related article)

According to the City staff report for the item, number 4. on the agenda, “Following that failed approval, the Developer and City engaged in discussions regarding the City’s further consideration and the City Council provided direction to staff to bring the item back this evening for consideration.”

However, no changes have been made to the design of the project.

The Council will again conduct a public hearing on financing for the proposed extremely low, very low and low-income housing project, part of the 10 properties the City Council rezoned to a CIH Overlay Districts in 2022. While, as a result, no Planning Commission or Council decisions with public input are required to approve the projects, the public does have the opportunity to provide input on the City assisting with financing. 

Under the Tax Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), the Council is being asked to approve the issuance of one or more series of revenue bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) to provide for the financing or refinancing of the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of the projects.

The bonds, not to exceed $50,000,000, will benefit Hillcrest Antioch LP for the 165-unit multi-family housing project on the 4.9-acre parcel. It is planned for vacant land located behind the 76 Service Station and 7-Eleven bordered by Shaddick Drive, Harris Drive, E. Tregallas Road and Hillcrest Avenue.

The project is planned to be 100% affordable. The affordability of the units will be based on income of the tenants with 17 units at 30% of Area Median Income (AMI), 17 units at 50% AMI and 131 units, including two manager units, will be offered at 60% AMI.

However, the staff report explains that the bonds to be issued by the CMFA for the Project will be the sole responsibility of the Borrower, and the City will have no financial, legal, or moral obligation, liability or responsibility for the Project or the repayment of the bonds for the financing of the Project. All financing documents with respect to the issuance of the bonds will contain clear disclaimers that the bonds are not obligations of the City or the State of California but are to be paid for solely from funds provided by the Borrower.

The Council is again being asked to adopt a resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds by the CMFA without such, the project cannot move forward.

See agenda Item 4 details.

Meeting Details

The beginning of the Closed Session and the regular Council meeting will be held in the Council Chambers at 200 H Street, or can be viewed via livestream on the City’s website or on Comcast cable TV channel 24 or AT&T U-verse channel 99.

See complete agenda packet.

Several related to alleged police civil rights violations

Will also discuss city attorney performance evaluation

By Allen D. Payton

During a special closed session meeting on Thursday, June 18, 2026, the Antioch City Council will meet with legal counsel to discuss 41 existing lawsuits, 16 potential lawsuits and the performance evaluation of City Attorney Lori Asuncion. The meeting begins at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers before adjourning behind closed doors.

Some of the lawsuits were among those also discussed by the city council during their meeting on Dec. 19, 2024.

Existing Lawsuits

1) Jayson Robinson v. Antioch Unified School District, Antioch Water Park, City of Antioch, Contra Costa Superior Court, (Case No.C20-02420). – Former student with a heart disorder who almost drowned during a class outing. (See related article)

2) Trent Allen, et al. v. City of Antioch, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No. 3:23-cv-01895-TSH). – Ongoing civil rights class action lawsuit against the City, as well as police officers and former chiefs. Plaintiffs also include Shagoofa Khan, Adam Carpenter, Joshua Butler, Diego Savala, Kardell Smith, Dejon Richards, Dreshawn Jackson and David Mackin. Defendants also include former Police Chiefs Tammany Brooks, Tony Morefield, Steven Ford, and former officers Josh Evans, Eric Rombough, Morteza Amiri, Scott Duggar, John Ramirez, Timothy Manly Williams, Tom Lenderman, Loren Bledsoe and Thomas Smith. As previously reported, Allen is one of four suspects convicted of the 2021 murder of Arnold Marcel Hawkins and the attempted murder of Aaron Patterson. He and the other plaintiffs claim civil rights violations by the officers. The case appeared to be settled last year. But, without explanation from City staff, continues to be adjudicated. (See Settlement and related articles here and here)

3) Ashika Kanji v. City of Antioch, Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C24-00795). Personal Injury and Torts – Motor Vehicle lawsuit.

4) Reagan DeGuzman v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No.C23-00666).

5) Nicholas Warner v. County of Contra Costa, City of Antioch, Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C23-02689). According to an EINPresswire report, “a bicyclist was injured when a designated bike lane was abruptly blocked by a locked metal gate located in an insufficiently illuminated section of (a developing) roadway.” According to court documents, “Plaintiff alleges he was injured while riding a bicycle between 10:30 and 11:00 pm on property owned by the City of Antioch” and amount demanded is $35,000. New home developer “K. Hovnanian plans to file a cross-complaint against Teichert Construction, Inc. and/or All Commercial Fence, Inc., the parties responsible for erecting and/or maintaining the gate alleged to have caused the injury.”.

6) Susan Shintaku v. City of Antioch, Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C24-00356).

7) O.Y. a Decedent, et al., v. Contra Costa County, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No. 3:24-cv-05154-PHK). Civil rights lawsuit by plaintiffs A.Y. a minor, W.Y. a minor and O.Y. a decedent. Defendants include Jessika Fulcher, Sr Worren Young, City of Antioch, Contra Costa County, Flynne Lewis, Raji Ponnaluri, Contra Costa Regional Health Foundation, Colleen Sullivan and The Learning Center.

8) Jordan Davis v. County of Contra Costa, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No.4:21-cv-04651). The complaint, filed on June 16, 2021, alleges civil rights violations. Defendants include County of Contra Costa, Nicole Martinez, Brian Rose, Ashley Crandall, Vernita James, Hutchings Christian, City of Antioch.

9) Nirvana Allen v. City of Antioch, Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No.C22-02401).

10) Lamar Young v. Sgt. Stenger, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No. 21-cv-08131-DMR).  Young is one of two brothers arrested in 2020 for a brutal sexual assault of a woman and convicted in 2022 of sex crimes and robbery. (See related articles here and here).

According to court documents, this is a civil rights case filed Aug. 15, 2023, by self-represented Plaintiff Lamar Young. He alleges “that the following Defendants employed by the Antioch Police Department (“APD”) used excessive force against him during an interrogation on October 29, 2020, in West County Detention Center in Contra Costa County: Sergeant James Stenger; and Detectives Kelly Inabnett, Mellone, and Bledsoe.Plaintiff asserts that during the interrogation, he refused Defendants’ request that he put on a mask in order for them to take a photograph of him wearing it.Plaintiff alleges that when he refused to put on the mask, Stenger, Mellone and Bledsoe forced him to wear it, using excessive force against him in the process. Plaintiff further claims that Inabnett failed to intervene to stop the use of excessive force. Plaintiff also alleges a state law claim of negligence against Stenger for failing to prevent a ‘safety issue’.”

11) Jessie Wilson and Dajon Smith v. City of Antioch, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No. 4:24-cv-02758-JSW). A federal civil rights lawsuit filed on May 8, 2024, against the City of Antioch, and individual, now former, police officers Morteza Amiri, Eric Rombough, and Devon Wenger, former Chief Tammany Brooks and DOES 1-50.

12) Pat Stack, et al., v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C24-01065).

13) Mary Reed v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C24-01367).

14) Marilou Gecale v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-01383).

15) Michael Sweets v. Antioch Police Department, et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of California, (Civil Action No. 24-9275 VC). According to Justia.com, the case is a Prisoner: Civil Rights complaint filed by Michael Sweets, a pretrial detainee at West County Detention Facility in Contra Costa County. The case involves allegations of false arrest and search and seizure of Sweets’s vehicle.

16) Estate of Linda Woolridge, et al. v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-01750). The case arose from the tragic death of Woolridge, a 29‑year‑old mother of two, who was fatally struck by a drunk driver, Antioch resident Alexander Mayorga, while riding her bicycle on Lone Tree Way in the early morning of July 27, 2024. (See related Herald articles here, here and here)

17) Kathryn Wade, et al. v. City of Antioch, et al., United States District Court for Northern California (Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-03200-TSH). – Filed by Wade on April 9, 2025, other plaintiffs include S.B., China Young, Adrian Arroyo and Brandon Lopez. Defendants named in the suit include City of Antioch, current or former Chief A. Morefield, Chief Tammany Brooks, Sgt. Evans, Sgt. Jimmy Wisecarver, Sgt. Stenger, Officers Kelly Inabnett, Aaron Hughes, Morteza Amiri, Devon Wenger, Eric Allen Rombough, Jacob Ewart and Michael Mellone.

According to the East Bay Times, Wade previously sued the City and two police officers, Michael Mellone and Jacob Ewart, in March 2023. The Antioch City Council voted in November 2024 to pay Wade $349,000 as part of a settlement. She claimed her son Malad Baldwin was assaulted by Antioch Police Department officers in 2014.

“The lawsuit said that Baldwin was seated in Wade’s car, which was parked in front of their house, when two Antioch police officers — James Colley and Casey Brogdon — approached the car, opened the passenger door and yanked Baldwin out. The two officers then kicked and beat him with a flashlight even after he lost consciousness, court documents state. Wade, who was present during the incident, also reportedly sustained physical and mental injuries.

“In her complaint, Wade claimed that apart from the alleged assault of Baldwin, Antioch officer Santiago Castillo had also verbally assaulted and pointed a gun at her while she was in a wheelchair that same month. She also alleged that Baldwin was again beaten at least three times in September and December of 2019, as well as in March 2020.”

Baldwin, who, according to Localcrimenews.com, had been arrested multiple times between 2014 and 2020, died March 13, 2021. However, according to his mother, he was never convicted of a crime.

18) Angelia Baxter v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-02194). According to Law.com, the personal injury lawsuit is for damages arising from an incident that occurred on city property or premises.

19) Espiridion Puga v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-03209).

20) Jonathan Smith v. City of Antioch, et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of California, (case No. 4:25-cv05572-KAW). Civil rights lawsuit.

21) Antioch Police Officers Association v. City of Antioch, Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. N23-1629). As previously reported by the Herald, the APOA’s attorney, Mike Rains, said the lawsuit is to obtain then-Mayor Lamar Thorpe’s phone records because the City won’t provide them, claiming they couldn’t find any. The Public Records Act request covers the nine days prior to Thorpe’s Wednesday, March 30, 2023, press conference when he spoke about the investigation into the racist text scandal among Antioch officers.

22) Christopher Martinez v. City of Antioch, Antioch Police Department, et al., Contra Costa County Superior Court, (Case No. C24-03123). Civil – Labor and Employment lawsuit.

23) Annette Bullock, et al. v. City of Antioch, Contra Costa County Superior Court (Case No. C19-01331). Lawsuit by 17 retired City employees over medical after retirement health benefits.

24) California Resources Production Corporation v. City of Antioch, Before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, (A.23-07-008, MSN21-2354). – Regarding the previous council’s shutdown of the natural gas pipeline. (See related articles, here and here)

25) Devon Wenger v. Antioch Police Department, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-00578). – By former Antioch Police Officer convicted, sentenced to 7.5 years in prison for conspiring to violate civil rights, distribute steroids, and obstructing justice. Wenger claims he was framed and retaliated against as a whistleblower. (See related articles here and here)

26) Brittany Hopper v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-00988).

27) Donna Miles v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-00148).

28) Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-00916, C25-02768) According to Law.com, this is a real property judicial foreclosure action. Defendants also include Does 1 through 20 (undisclosed), the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the Testate and Intestate Successors of Darrell Oliver, Deceased, and all persons claiming by, through or under such decedent.

29) Royal Pacific Funding Corporation v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (C25-01851).

30) Linda Price v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No.C25-01700).

31) Gary Dartez & Tamisha Latimore v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Limited Civil Jurisdiction, Contra Costa County, (Case No. N25-1849) Rent Program. Filed Sept. 17, 2025, the defendants include Redwood Property Investors III, LLC.

32) Lucia B. Albers & Elizabeth Ann Iannaccone v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. N26-0037). A civil action by developer of the Albers Ranch 294-home project in the Sand Creek Area. Although approved by the City Council in January 2025, Albers claims discrimination and she’s being overcharged fees that make her project financially unviable. Plaintiffs are seeking a writ of mandate and declaratory relief against the City of Antioch.

33) Katie Harrison v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-03507).

34) Karl Brownlee v. City of Antioch and California Community Housing Agency, Superior Court of the State of California, Limited Civil Jurisdiction, Contra Costa County, (Case No. N26-0212) Rent Program.

35) Wintrust Mortgage, a Division of Barrington Bank & Trust Company, N.A. v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C26-00295).

36) Shimmick Construction Co., et al, v. City of Antioch, et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, (Case No. 3:25-cv-05618 & 25CV109652 [Superior Court of  Alameda]). For Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty by the General Contractor for non-payment for work on the City’s Brackish Water Desalination Plant in which they are seeking damages of $30 million plus interest. (See related article)

37) Dason Melius v. J. Yega, City of Antioch Police Officer, et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. 25-cv-06956-CRB). Filed on May 5, 2026, by a a pretrial detainee at Contra Costa County’s West County Detention Facility (WCDF). According to court documents, “Plaintiff alleges that on September 22, 2023, he was arrested by several City of Antioch Police Department officers who used excessive force against him. He specifically alleges that officers J. Yega and Joseph Chandler ‘lift and throw [plaintiff] to the ground face down, with handcuffs.’ FAC (ECF No. 12) at 5. Then officers Chandler and B. Lassas ‘bounced on plaintiff’s legs while they were bent backwards,’ and officers Lassas and Aguilar ‘appl[ied] pressure or force to plaintiff’s back, pushing air out, stopping his ability to breathe.’ Id. Plaintiff further alleges a series of purported violations in connection with the conditions of his subsequent confinement at MDF (Martinez Detention Facility) and WCDF in 2024. Among other things, he alleges that various correctional staff at MDF and WCDF were deliberately indifferent to his health and safety needs and interfered with his right of access to the courts.”

38) Jami Bruno, the Estate of Gabriel Gaspar v. Contra Costa County et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-00820-EGW). A Personal Injury and Torts – Motor Vehicle lawsuit. Defendants include the City of Antioch, Contra Costa County Fire Emergency Services and Contra Costa County Fire Rescue Services. According to court documents, “The incident occurred on March 20, 2024, at the intersection of W. Fourth St. and L Street in Antioch.”

The lawsuit alleges, “Gabriel Gaspar was involved in a motorcycle-vehicle collision outside the Antioch Police Station. Antioch Police Department personnel arrived first and began resuscitation efforts, successfully reviving Gaspar two to three times. Contra Costa County Fire Emergency Services and Fire Rescue personnel arrived and took over medical care. However, they negligently ordered Antioch Police personnel to stop CPR and failed to continue life-saving resuscitation efforts. Defendants breached their duty by ceasing resuscitation efforts prematurely, in direct violation of established protocols. Defendants failed to act with reasonable care when they stopped resuscitation efforts.”

39) Christian Gutierrez et al. v. City of Antioch et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. 3:24-cv-01697-JSC). Civil rights violation complaint against Gonzalez Adrian, Antioch Police Department, City of Antioch, Stenger James, Vincent James, Harger Matt, Thomas Steve, Doo Will. Filed by Rosalba Zendejas, Christian Gutierrez, Giovanni Gutierrez.

40) Javier Elias Aguilar v. Anthony Valdez, Jr. et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C23-00410). According to Unicourt.com, on 02/24/2023 Aguilar filed a Personal Injury and Torts – Motor Vehicle lawsuit. Defendants also include Officer Ryan Duff and City of Antioch.

41) Jasmine Morris-Hughes v. Alameda Contra Costa Transit District et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-01756). According to UniCourt.com, on 06/20/2025 Morris-Hughes filed a Personal Injury and Torts – Motor Vehicle lawsuit. Defendants also include the City Of Antioch, County of Contra Costa and Does 1 to 50, inclusive. Court documents claim, Bus Driver Toby Sanders  “negligently, carelessly, recklessly, willfully, wantonly, and tortiously operated a motor vehicle in the defective mechanical condition of a motor vehicle…in such a manner so as to cause the motor vehicle to begin the chain of events which ended up with Plaintiff MORRIS-HUGHES was thrown to the right after an unsafe left turn, causing her physical, bodily, mental, and emotional injury. Plaintiff was injured in her health, strength, and activities, and sustained injury to her body and shock and injury to her nerves and nervous system, all of which have caused and continue to cause her great mental, physical, and emotional pain…”

The meeting will begin and end inside the Council Chambers located at City Hall, 200 H Street in historic, downtown Rivertown. The City Attorney will report out of Closed Session any action taken by the Council.

June 30 & July 7

By Jaden Baird, PIO, City of Antioch

ANTIOCH, CA — The City of Antioch is launching an update to its General Plan, the long-term policy document that guides the community’s growth and development, addressing physical, economic, social, and environmental changes for years to come. As part of this effort, the City is hosting two Public Visioning Workshops this summer and is encouraging all residents to attend and share their vision for Antioch’s future.

The workshops will be held on Tuesday, June 30, 2026, and Tuesday, July 7, 2026, both beginning at 6:00 PM at the Antioch Community Center, located at 4703 Lone Tree Way, Antioch, CA 94531. Both events are in person, free and open to the public and will cover the same information.

Each workshop will begin with a presentation designed to educate participants on relevant topics related to the General Plan Update, followed by a structured exercise to gather community input. The City will convene a total of four community workshops throughout the Update process, and this summer’s Visioning Workshops are the first opportunity for residents to get involved.

“Our General Plan is more than a policy document. It’s a blueprint of who we are, and as importantly, want to become as a community. These workshops are an open invitation to every resident to help shape that future. I encourage all of Antioch to come, participate, and make sure your voice is part of the vision we build together,” said Mayor Ron Bernal.

Community input gathered at these workshops will directly inform the development of the General Plan Update, ensuring the final document reflects the needs, values, and priorities of Antioch residents.

“The strength of this plan depends on hearing from as many residents as possible. Whether you’ve lived in Antioch your whole life or just moved here, your perspective matters. I hope our neighbors will take this first opportunity to get involved and help guide decisions that will affect our community for years to come,” said Economic and Community Development Interim Director Kevin Scudero.

For more information about the General Plan Update and to sign up for project notifications, visit https://antioch.generalplan.org/.

Spanish interpretation will be provided. Requests for alternative forms of interpretation should be sent at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to Kevin Scudero by email at generalplan@antiochca.gov or by phone at (925) 779-6133. Accessibility-related accommodations are available upon request at (925) 779-7009 or cityclerk@antiochca.gov.