Resolution doesn’t mention former city manager’s name

Will consider approving $340K for another year of the 2024-25 Mayor’s Apprenticeship Program; potential creation of a Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB) Officer position

Proclamation recognizing Antioch-Chichibu Sister City delegation from Japan

By Allen D. Payton

Sixteen months after the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Board of Directors voted to decommission the Antioch Amtrak station, during their meeting on Tuesday, July 23, 2024, the Antioch City Council will consider approving a resolution to send a message opposing the closure. It’s almost two years after then-City Manager Con Johnson learned of the proposed closure from SJJPA staff and in turn informed Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe.

In spite of the mayor saying at the end of the last council meeting he wanted to include the name of former city manager Ron Bernal, who Hernandez-Thorpe has repeatedly accused of approving the closure which Bernal denies and has been proven false through public records, the mayor’s opponent in the November election is not named in the resolution. (See related article)

According to the City staff report on the item (#9 on the agenda), “The Antioch-Pittsburg San Joaquins Passenger Stop began providing service to the east Contra Costa County region in Antioch on October 28, 1994. The Stop is served by the San Joaquins line that operates passenger rail service between Oakland and Bakersfield.

According to ridership data, the Antioch-Pittsburg San Joaquins Passenger Stop has provided approximately 106,000 on-boards and 118,200 off-boards between July 2016 and January of 2024. This equates to a daily average of 82 combined boarding types.

The San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority was established after the passage of Assembly Bill 1779 on August 30, 2012. This bill enabled local and regional agencies the ability to protect the San Joaquins rail service throughout the region.

On March 24, 2023, the SJJPA voted to decommission the Antioch-Pittsburg San Joaquins Passenger Stop (Amtrak Station). The decision to decommission the Antioch-Pittsburg San Joaquins Passenger Stop (Amtrak Station) did not have a comprehensive community engagement process nor an analysis concerning the impacts of their decision.

The decommissioning of the Antioch-Pittsburg San Joaquins Passenger Stop (Amtrak Station) will have an immediate negative impact on the local disadvantaged community which include low-income people of color, seniors, veterans, and small businesses that rely on the station.”

Following is the resolution of opposition prepared for discussion and adoption by the city council:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANTIOCH OPPOSING THE DECOMMISSIONING OF THE ANTIOCH-PITTSBURG SAN JOAQUINS PASSENGER STOP (AMTRAK STATION) IN ANTIOCH

WHEREAS, the Antioch-Pittsburg San Joaquins Passenger Stop (Amtrak Station) in Antioch, CA, has been a vital transportation hub for residents and visitors, providing essential connectivity to regional and national destinations since it;

WHEREAS, the Antioch-Pittsburg San Joaquins Passenger Stop (Amtrak Station) has provided approximately 106,000 on-boardings and 118,200 off-boardings between July 2016 and January 2024 that equates to a daily average of 82 combined boardings;

WHEREAS, the City of Antioch is committed to maintaining and enhancing its transportation infrastructure to ensure the mobility, safety, and well-being of its residents and to support the City’s economic vitality and quality of life;

WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority was established after AB 1779 was passed by the State Legislature on August 30, 2012, to enable local and regional agencies to protect the San Joaquin Rail Service throughout the San Joaquin Corridor;

WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority voted to decommission the Antioch-Pittsburg San Joaquins Passenger Stop (Amtrak Station) on March 24, 2023, at Robert J. Cabral Station South Hall Meeting Room 949 East Channel Street Stockton, CA 95202 without providing official notice to the City government or people of Antioch;

WHEREAS, the decision to decommission the Antioch-Pittsburg San Joaquins Passenger Stop (Amtrak Station) did not have a comprehensive community engagement process nor an analysis concerning the impacts of the closure of the Antioch-Pittsburg San Joaquins Passenger Stop (Amtrak Station) on riders who utilize the station to travel to and from the Antioch-Pittsburg San Joaquins Passenger Stop (Amtrak Station);

WHEREAS, the decommissioning of the Antioch-Pittsburg San Joaquins Passenger Stop (Amtrak Station) will have an immediate negative impact on the local disadvantaged communities which include low-income people of color, seniors, veterans, and small businesses that rely on the station;

WHEREAS, the closure of the Antioch-Pittsburg San Joaquins Passenger Stop (Amtrak Station) would adversely affect the quality of life in Antioch; and

WHEREAS, the decommissioning of the Antioch-Pittsburg San Joaquins Passenger Stop (Amtrak Station) impacts the City of Antioch and other regional municipalities from accessing state funding that is associated with having a transportation corridor.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Antioch, California, hereby opposes the closing of the Antioch-Pittsburg San Joaquins Passenger Stop (Amtrak Station) in Antioch and urges Amtrak, the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority, and relevant stakeholders to explore all possible alternatives to keep the station open and operational.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Antioch calls upon federal, state, and local officials to join in opposition to the closure of the Antioch-Pittsburg San Joaquins Passenger Stop (Amtrak Station) and to advocate for the continued operation and investment in this critical transportation asset.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution will be transmitted to the Governor of California, members of the California State Legislature, the United States Congress, the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority, and other relevant parties to underscore the City of Antioch’s strong opposition to the closing of the Antioch-Pittsburg San Joaquins Passenger Stop (Amtrak Station).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, Antioch-Pittsburg San Joaquins Passenger Stop (Amtrak Station), protest the decision of the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority to close the Antioch-Pittsburg San Joaquins Passenger Stop (Amtrak Station), and call on the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority to not eliminate regular service to the Antioch-Pittsburg San Joaquins Passenger Stop (Amtrak Station) but rather operate both the Oakley and Antioch-Pittsburg San Joaquins Passenger Stop (Amtrak Station).

Proclamation Recognizing Antioch-Chichibu Sister City Delegation from Japan

At the beginning of the meeting, the council will vote to adopt a Proclamation in Honor of Welcoming the Visiting Delegation from Antioch’s Sister City of Chichibu, Saitama, Japan. The group of 14, including 10 students and four adults, will stay with local host families while here for a 10-day tour.

Will Consider Approving $340,000 for the 2024-25 Mayor’s Apprenticeship Program

On the Consent Calendar, item K., the council will consider authorizing the Acting City Manager or designee to execute an agreement with Rubicon Programs to provide professional services from September 1, 2024, through December 31, 2025, for an amount not to exceed $340,000 for the Mayor’s Apprenticeship Program.

According to the city staff report, the program “began as a pilot initiative in November 2022 and has completed its first two cohorts…recruited young adults ages 18-26 and employed 20 underemployed, underserved and underestimated participants who faced multiple barriers, including justice involvement, homelessness and the foster care system. Participants underwent 60 hours of workforce development training before placement…(and) ongoing professional development…throughout their part-time employment. Participants were placed in the Public Works Department of the City of Antioch to practice, learn and hone skills that would equip the for future employment.”

Potential Creation of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB) Officer Position

At District 1 Councilmember Tamisha Torres-Walker’s request the council will consider the potential creation of a Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging (DEIB) Officer position under agenda item #10. No information about the proposed position is provided in the city staff report including its purpose, in what department it would be placed and who the person would answer to. The report only shows, “The recommended action has no fiscal impact at this time.” But if the position is created, a salary and benefits package will be developed for it.

Across the country, government agencies, universities and businesses have been either cutting back or completely abandoning their DEI efforts due to significant backlash and the passage of new state laws according to a May 2024 report by Forbes.

According to an article on The Wharton School website, “Diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives that began during the racial reckoning of 2020, when the murder of George Floyd renewed demands for social justice, are being pulled apart by political and cultural shifts,” and “more than 30 states have introduced laws banning or limiting DEI initiatives, and many companies are cutting their DEI teams.”

At a time the city council members are 60% Black even though according to the U.S. Census Bureau, Black residents make up only 19.5% of the  city’s population as of July 1, 2023, and the city staff has included two Black police chiefs, one permanent, one interim, a Black city attorney, two Black city managers, one permanent and the current one acting, and the Director of the Human Relations Department is an Hispanic woman, people are wondering why the position is even necessary.

The council is being asked to discuss the proposal and offer direction to staff.

The council meeting begins with a Closed Session at 6:00 p.m. in which includes conference with legal counsel on a lawsuit against the city, real property negotiation for the sale of the building at 275 W. Tregallas Road across from the Antioch Main Post Office that currently houses the Delta Learning Center, and the Public Employment – Recruitment of the City Manager.

Regular Session begins at 7:00 p.m. Council meetings can be watched livestream on the City’s website, on Comcast local cable channel 24 or AT&T U-verse channel 99, or in person inside the Council Chambers at City Hall, 200 H Street in historic, downtown Rivertown.

See the complete council meeting agenda packet.

Mayor, council Districts 2 & 3, clerk, treasurer and trustee Areas 1, 3 & 4

By Allen D. Payton

The nomination period for local offices in Antioch including mayor city council Districts 2 and 3, City Clerk, City Treasurer and Antioch School Board Trustee Areas 1, 3 and 4 opens on Monday, July 15, 2024. The nomination period runs through 5:00 pm Friday, August 9, 2024. The election will be consolidated with the statewide General Election on Tuesday, November 5th, 2024.

Papers for offices that are up for election for city candidates will be available at the City Clerk’s office inside City Hall, 200 H Street in historic, downtown Rivertown and for school board candidates at the Contra Costa Elections Office, 555 Escobar Street in Martinez.

“The 2024 General Election has officially begun,” said Kristin B. Connelly, Contra Costa Registrar of Voters. “Candidate Filing begins Monday July 15, and our Candidate Services team is ready to help our residents who are looking to serve their communities in an elected position.”

If an incumbent does not file to run for office by the deadline on August 9th, the filing period for that office will extend until 5:00 pm on Wednesday, August 14, 2024.

Interested candidates for Antioch School Board can schedule an appointment through email at candidate.services@vote.cccounty.us or by calling 925-335-7800. Walk-ins are accepted, but service is subject to the availability of staff. Appointments are available on weekdays from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm. Filing documents and information will be provided to interested constituents at their appointment. The process takes 20 minutes.

For further information on the General Election and key dates, go to www.contracostavote.gov

The following candidates have announced for the election in November:

Mayor of Antioch – Incumbent Lamar Hernández-Thorpe, Ron Bernal

District 3 City Councilmember –Antwon Webster, Don Freitas

See list of all offices up for election in Contra Costa County in November, here.

Kristin B. Connelly, County Clerk-Recorder and Registrar of Voters and Dawn Kruger, Civic Outreach and Engagement Specialist, Contra Costa Clerk-Recorder-Elections Department contributed to this report.

In response to letter from Contra Costa DA sent earlier this year Civil Grand Jury issues report to Antioch Council on city staff leadership turnovers, vacancies, possible Brown Act violations

“Any similar meeting on matters concerning the city could subject council members to criminal liability.” – DA Becton, Deputy DA for Public Corruption Bolen

Barbanica calls for resignations of Hernandez-Thorpe, Wilson, Torres-Walker and reopening investigation

Mayor says they were “get-togethers, not meetings”

“This is betrayal to the community and to the people they work with on the council,” Councilman Mike Barbanica

“What I’m not going to do is get caught up in Barbanica’s nonsense,” – Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe

By Allen D. Payton

The Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury publicly released, on Tuesday, July 2, 2024, a report entitled, “Challenges Facing the City of Antioch.” It was sent with a cover letter to the council members on June 14 and includes three areas of concern including turnover in city leadership, city employee vacancies and “possible Brown Act (state open meeting law) violations by the Mayor and certain City Council members, as outlined in a letter to Antioch’s Acting City Manager from the Contra Costa District Attorney.”

While Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe denies the gatherings at his home attended by current Mayor Pro Tem Monica Wilson and District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker were meetings at which city business was discussed, his former love interest, Lacy Ferguson, said she offered testimony to the DA’s Office and Grand Jury that the three did discuss redistricting of council districts.

The report also includes five recommendations, two with deadlines by Jan. 1, 2025. The cover letter signed by Grand Jury Foreperson Joanne Sarmento, copied to Acting City Manager Kwame Reed, requires a written response from the city council by Sept. 13, 2024.

The report reads, “Antioch is a dynamic and diverse city that faces a number of challenges. Among these challenges are:

1. Turnover in city leadership (six permanent or acting City Managers since 2013) which has resulted in an average tenure for Antioch City Managers that is less than half the state average (less than two years vs. 4.5-year average).

2. A city employee vacancy rate that is 4-times the national average (21.6% vs. 5.3%).

3. Possible Brown Act violations by the Mayor and certain City Council members, as outlined in a letter to Antioch’s Acting City Manager from the Contra Costa District Attorney (see Appendix A).”

Of the recommendations for the city council to follow, two are to be implemented immediately, one six months after the new city manager is hired, and two by next January 1st. The second recommendation is a reminder that city regulations preclude the mayor and council members “from having any direct authority to direct, supervise, hire or fire any city employee, other than the City Manager and City Attorney.”

Herald Publisher Participated in Grand Jury‘s Local Media Panel Discussion

For full disclosure, this reporter was one of three members of the media invited to meet with the Civil Grand Jury in June 2023, including Dan Borenstein of the East Bay Times and Tamara Steiner, publisher of the Concord/Clayton Pioneer. Issues regarding the hiring of the Antioch city manager and other matters were discussed and answers provided to questions from the jurors. However, it is unknown if anything discussed that day was used as a basis for the Grand Jury’s investigation or findings.

UPDATE: Asked if any of the input provided during the meeting with the local media panel was part of the basis for the Grand Jury’s investigation and report, new Foreperson Peter Appert responded, “As the deliberations and work of the Grand Jury are conducted in secret, we are unable to respond to your question. But thank you for your participation in Jury orientation last year.”

Letter from District Attorney, Deputy DA for Public Corruption Re: Private Meetings

That letter to Kwame Reed, sent on Jan. 3, 2024 (but incorrectly dated Jan. 3, 2023) and copied to City Attorney Thomas L. Smith and the Grand Jury was entitled, “RE: Alleged violations of the Brown Act by Antioch City Council members.”

DA Becton and Deputy District Attorney Steven Bolen, who was then in charge of public corruption, wrote, “The Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office was contacted earlier this year regarding alleged violations of the Brown Act by Antioch Mayor Thorpe, Antioch Councilmember Torres-Walker and Antioch Councilmember Wilson. Specifically, we were told that those three council members met in private to discuss matters within the council’s jurisdiction regarding the Public Works Department and the hiring of the City Engineer. Our investigation also led to an allegation that those three city officials met in private to discuss the redistricting of the city’s electoral map. The District Attorney’s Office reviewed these allegations and the applicable law and then interviewed potential witnesses to determine whether any Brown Act violations occurred.”

“The Brown Act… prohibits a majority of the members of a legislative body to develop a collective concurrence as to action to be taken on any item within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body unless such a meeting is open and public,” the letter continued. “…there is evidence that Mayor Thorpe and Councilmembers Torres-Walker and Wilson met at Mayor Thorpe’s home in 2022 and held discussions” and “Our investigation leads us to believe that Mayor Thorpe and Councilmembers Torres-Walker and Wilson did meet and may have developed a collective occurrence absent a public forum.”

The letter explained why there would be no action taken against the three councilmembers. It reads, “the District Attorney’s Office has serious concerns that non-compliance with the Brown Act may have occurred, however, there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt intentional violations of the statute at this time.”

Instead, Becton and Bolen decided to inform Reed, “in order for you to impress upon the council the importance of the Brown Act and the requirements of the statute. Any similar meeting on matters concerning the city could subject council members to criminal liability.”

“As the Brown Act makes clear, the deliberations and actions of our governmental representatives must occur openly and be subject to public scrutiny,” the letter concludes.

They also said they sent the “letter to the Contra Costa County Grand Jury to provide that body the opportunity to take any action it may deem appropriate.” (See CCDA letter re Antioch City Council)

The Grand Jury responded five months later with their report.

Hernandez-Thorpe Admits Private Meetings With Two Councilwomen, Torres-Walker Doesn’t Deny It

In a March 28, 2024 article by The Mercury News/East Bay Times, Hernandez-Thorpe admitted to meeting privately with Wilson and Torres-Walker. The report reads, “As to whether or not he met with Torres-Walker and Wilson, Hernandez-Thorpe said that he had but not for a nefarious purpose.”

“’We coordinate campaigns and whatnot, because we’re Democrats. We’re together all the time,’ Hernandez-Thorpe said. He later added, ‘I think if they can demonstrate that we violated the Brown Act, we’re more than happy to take corrective action.’”

Torres-Walker didn’t deny the private meetings and saying, “that she had no problem with whoever tipped off the DA using the proper channels to voice their concerns,” the article further reported.

Grand Jury Report

The report shared multiple statistics supporting the concerns outlined and offered an explanation for issuing it.

“We concluded that the police force was receiving adequate attention from other investigative bodies…However, the Grand Jury learned that the issues surrounding the police force are related to other issues of oversight and management within city government. In particular, we noted the average tenure for Antioch City Managers has been less than half the California state average over the last decade (average City Manager tenure of less than 2 years in Antioch vs. 4.5 years for the state).”

Methodology

The report shares the steps taken by the Grand Jury to obtain their information:

• We interviewed government officials in Antioch and experts in city government practices
• and regulation.
• We reviewed press reports and other documents related to Antioch’s city government
• operations and performance.
• We reviewed recordings and transcripts of city council meetings.
• We reviewed city budgets for the past 20 years.
• We also reviewed documents related to city government best practices.

Discussion Points

The report then offered three main discussion points and 15 specific findings about the City of Antioch and its governance providing details for each. The discussion points matched the three challenges outlined in the report:

• Excessive City Manager Turnover is a Negative for Antioch;
• High Employee Vacancy Rates Negatively Impact City Services; and
• Brown Act Compliance

Findings

The report summarizes the findings by the Grand Jury investigation, as follows:

F1. Antioch’s City Manager has broad responsibility to ensure the efficient operation of the city, including supervision of an approximately $100 million general fund budget and an authorized staff of over 400 employees.

F2. The city began the process of recruiting a new permanent City Manager in January 2024. As of June 10, 2024, no hiring decision has been announced.

F3. As outlined in both the City Manager job description and in city recruitment materials, the City Manager position requires a qualified and experienced individual.

F4. There has been a lack of continuity in City Managers in Antioch, with six City Managers or Acting City Managers since December 2013.

F5. Under city ordinances the City Council, including the Mayor, has no direct authority to direct, supervise, hire, or fire any city employees, other than the City Manager and City Attorney (Ordinance 246-A).

F6. The Mayor and City Council members have on occasion overstepped their authority in seeking to make personnel decisions, including terminating the then Public Works Director in December 2022, in ways not permitted by city ordinance (Antioch City Code § 2-2.06 and § 2-2.10).

F7. The Mayor and City Council members have on occasion sought to conduct meetings with City Staff without the approval or involvement of the City Manager, as required by city ordinance (Antioch City Code § 2-2.10).

F8. Antioch’s city government had a 21.6% employee vacancy rate as of February 2024, roughly four-times the national average for government agencies.

F9. In the absence of a permanent City Manager since March 2023, the city has deferred hiring new department heads when openings occur.

F10. The Police, Public Works and Community Development departments currently are without permanent department heads.

F11. Seven of the eleven most senior positions in Antioch city government are currently held by acting or part-time personnel, including City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Directors of Community Development, Police Services, and Public Works (all acting) and the Directors of Economic Development and Recreation (both part-time).

F12. The employee vacancy rate is above the city-wide average in the Public Works Department (26% vacancy rate) and Community Development Department (35% vacancy rate), both of which currently do not have permanent directors.

F13. Recruitment and retention of staff has been impacted by the absence of a permanent City Manager and the lack of permanent department heads in multiple city departments.

F14. The Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office conducted an investigation into alleged Brown Act violations by Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe and Council Members Tamisha Torres-Walker and Monica Wilson, which was forwarded to the Grand Jury.

F15. The District Attorney’s Office noted serious concerns that noncompliance with the Brown Act may have occurred, however, there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt intentional violations of the statute occurred.

Grand Jury Recommendations

In the report, the Grand Jury also issued five recommendations, as follows:

R1. “The Mayor and City Council should follow through on the ongoing process of hiring an experienced and qualified City Manager.

R2. The Mayor and City Council should abide by city regulations (Antioch City Code § 2-2.06 and § 2-2.10) that preclude the Mayor and City Council from having any direct authority to direct, supervise, hire or fire any city employee, other than the City Manager and City Attorney.

R3. The new City Manager should, within 6 months of their appointment to the position of City Manager, recruit and appoint permanent department heads to fill current department head vacancies.

R4. By 1/1/2025 the City Council should direct the City Manager to undertake a study to determine the factors leading to the city’s high employee turnover and vacancy rates.

R5. By 1/1/2025 the Mayor and City Council should consider directing the City Manager and

City Attorney to organize an annual training session focused on Brown Act requirements and compliance for the Mayor, City Council members, relevant city employees and members of city boards and commissions.

Written Response Required by Sept. 13, Six Months to Implement Recommendations

The report asks for a written response from the city council by Sept. 13, 2024, required by state law, providing whether the council agrees, disagrees or partially disagrees with each of the findings and include explanations for each one with which they either disagree or partially disagree. It also requires the council members outline how they are going to implement the recommendations or if they cannot, why not. The council has six months to implement the recommendations.

See Grand Jury Foreperson’s Cover Letter to Report

See Grand Jury Report 2405 Challenges Facing The City of Antioch

Only Hernandez-Thorpe, Barbanica Respond to Questions for Councilmembers

Questions were sent Tuesday evening to all five council members asking for their comments about the three matters and the direction given by the Grand Jury. They were also asked, besides the search for a new city manager, what is being done to fill the staff vacancies and stem the tide of City employees leaving. The council members were also asked where they are in the process of hiring a permanent city manager, if they have interviewed any candidates, yet, how many, and if they have set a date for the process to be completed.

Hernandez-Thorpe, Wilson and Torres-Walker were specifically asked why they held meetings together outside of either closed session or regular city council meetings, how many private meetings were held at which the three were present, and if any city business was ever discussed.

They were also asked if the discussions involved the hiring of former City Manager Cornelius “Con” Johnson, restructuring the Public Works Department, hiring a city engineer and/or redistricting the city’s electoral map, as is included in the report, and if not, what was discussed during the meetings.

Finally, all five were asked what their response will be to the Grand Jury as requested.

Mayor Has Campaign Spokesman, Former City PIO Respond with Statement

Hernandez-Thorpe responded Tuesday night writing simply, “Rolando will respond on my behalf. Thanks! -LH.” The mayor was referring to Rolando Bonilla, his re-election campaign’s “Communications Director”, and the City’s previous public information officer whose contract was terminated last year. That occurred following the controversy over a press release with words attributed to then-Police Chief Steve Ford critical of the Antioch Police Officers Association, which Ford denied saying. Bonilla said he was later offered the job back by Acting City Manager Forrest Ebbs who was appointed after City Manager Con Johnson was placed on paid leave, and provided a copy of an email between Bonilla and Ebbs as proof. (See related articles here, here and here)

Bonilla wrote, “The Mayor isn’t going to waste his time responding to conspiracy theories, as he is focused on reforming a city government that was so unaccountable that it allowed its police department to publicly embrace a culture of hate and racism that would still be in place today were in [sic] not for the FBI intervening. 

As far as the Brown Act, If the civil grand jury believed that the Mayor did something wrong then they should have had the guts to have detailed the allegations with facts. Instead, they hid behind a letter that had zero evidence of wrong but hid behind the word ‘possible’. Weak.”

Hernandez-Thorpe was reminded the Grand Jury is requiring a response from the city council by Sept. 13 and it was pointed out to him that Bonilla’s response did not answer the questions sent to the mayor and councilmembers. The questions were sent again to Hernandez-Thorpe.

Bonilla responded with the same statement. After pressing the mayor again for answers to the questions about the other issues and recommendations from the Grand Jury, Hernandez-Thorpe’s campaign spokesman wrote, “You got your answers. Run it if you want, or don’t. That’s all you are getting.”

Barbanica Posts Video Calling for Resignation of Mayor, Councilwomen, Further Investigation

About an hour after the questions were emailed by the Herald, District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica posted a video on his YouTube channel and his county Supervisor’s campaign Facebook page Tuesday evening in which he called for the resignation of his three council colleagues.

“Last year the DA’s Office got a report from somebody that said that these Brown Act violations were occurring,” the retired police sergeant stated. “A criminal investigation was conducted at that time.”

“They in turn forwarded that off to the Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury who launched an investigation,” he continued. “When they do those investigations, they’re done in secrecy.”

“Yes, they believe Brown Act violations possibly occurred, here, in secret meetings that were conducted at Mayor Thorpe’s house with all three of those members outside of the view of the public, with no other council members there and the public not having the ability to attend the meeting and it wasn’t properly noticed,” Barbanica shared. “That is a secret meeting where people collude, essentially is what the Brown Act is designed to guard against, issues of concern.” He then mentioned the matters believed to be discussed outlined in the DA’s letter.

“They can’t prove the content of the meeting,” he continued about the DA’s Office and Grand Jury’s findings. “Often what that’s from is people not talking about what occurred.”

“I’m urging…the two council members and mayor to step down,” the councilman stated. “Do the right thing.” This is not the way cities are supposed to operate. This is supposed to be open to the public, fair, transparent. This is not transparency.”

Barbanica also urged “DA Becton to reopen a criminal investigation and investigate this to the fullest extent of the law. I realize there are prior relationships there. If, in fact, you don’t feel comfortable doing that, please refer it over to the state Attorney General and have it investigated, there.”

“This has got to stop,” he exclaimed. “Many of us have felt that this has been occurring for some time. But now we have the DA’s Office saying, ‘hey, we think it might be, as well’ and we have the Civil Grand Jury saying, ‘we, too, think it might be, as well.’”

“I urge them to probe further into this and find out if criminal acts did in fact happen and if they did, prosecute them,” Barbanica stated. He then reiterated his call for “all the members, just do the right thing and step down.”

“We all know we can’t violate the Brown Act and I’m calling on the county Board of Supervisors to back me publicly, in this request, not only to the DA’s Office but to the members on the Antioch City Council, as well,” he concluded.

The mayor and councilwomen were then asked for their responses to Barbanica’s video.

Hernandez-Thorpe Says They Weren’t Meetings, Won’t Respond to Barbanica

But when reached for comment, later, the mayor said, “What I’m not going to do is get caught up in Barbanica’s nonsense.”

He then responded to the allegations of Brown Act violations saying, “We’ve had get-togethers at my house but not meetings. My house has always been the gathering place. The law is very clear and what you can’t do is have a discussion where you’ve had a predetermination where the public can’t participate. That didn’t happen.

“I appreciate the Grand Jury took a long view in terms of staffing issues. But the issue, for example in the Maintenance Department is compaction,” Hernandez-Thorpe stated. “There’s not enough pay differential between leadership and subordinates. But I can tell you we are dealing with it.”

Regarding low staffing levels in the police department, he said, “I’m sorry but they caused this problem internally,” referring to the  FBI and DA investigations including for the racist text scandal.

About the report, Hernandez-Thorpe said, “We’ve had it for a couple weeks. The Grand Jury calls you in for the findings and they did that with Barbanica and me.”

The council is already addressing the first of the recommendations. Asked about hiring a new, permanent city manager the mayor said, “We’re close to the end. I can tell you that. We’ll probably have this wrapped in a month or month-and-a-half. What I will be doing is visiting the candidate and other council members are welcome to do it as well to spend some time with the candidate to see if it feels right.

Regarding the other recommendations and the required response letter Hernandez-Thorpe said, “We’ve never done it before. We’ll figure it out. It can be helpful. We’ve changed the Animal Shelter based on the Grand Jury’s recommendations.”

“There are times we have clearly violated the Brown Act,” he continued. “The CDBG Committee was meeting without notices. So, when I became mayor, I fixed that. When we put (former City Manager) Con (Johnson) on paid leave, Barbanica, Monica and Lori violated the law. I went on camera and said we messed up.”

“If we did something wrong we’re more than happy to correct it,” the mayor added.

“We’re all Democrats and tend to lean progressive. We don’t have to have secret meetings. We just tend to agree,” he explained.

Hernandez-Thorpe then shared statistics of the council’s votes as an argument about not just he and the two council members agreeing most of the time. He said, “Of 525 votes in 2021, 17 were 3-2 votes.”

The information is based on research by the Municipal Fellow working in City Hall funded by the Urban League, the mayor shared. Hernandez-Thorpe said he told him to look at voting trends. “In terms of split votes, we’ve had 4-1 votes 16 times and 4-0-1 votes when someone abstained, were 48 times. He looked at all of the votes.”

Former City Manager Con Johnson Denies Attending Gatherings at Mayor’s Home, Blames City Attorney

When asked if he had been in attendance at any of the gatherings where the mayor and two council members allegedly discussed city business, former City Manager Cornelius “Con” Johnson said, “No. I was not involved in any of those shenanigans. I was not part of any hiring process. I was not involved in either of those things. I was not at Lamar’s house when it came to my hiring or to the redistricting.”

“I do know the council was aware of it on other issues,” he continued. “I did send notices about violations to (City Attorney) Thomas Smith.”

“I think the city council started on a slippery slope. They were disclosing information to the press that was unlawful,” Johnson stated. “I do know that I did bring possible Brown Act violations. I blame Thomas because he failed to keep the council safe. It’s the city attorney who is to make sure the city council doesn’t cross that line. I can only speak to what I brought to Thomas, the city attorney of the Brown Act violations.”

Barbanica Says Witness Approached Him Before Going to DA

When reached later for answers to the questions emailed to him specifically about the issues of city staff leadership turnover and vacancies, Barbanica stated, “We’re in a sad state of affairs right now because a lot of the employees who have come into the city have seen what’s going on from the Grand Jury and DA’s office, and when they see opportunities in other cities, they take them.”

“We either need a full commitment from the council to do things the right way or we need a new council,” he said.

He was then asked why he’s calling for their resignations, now knowing he has more than five months remaining in his term, as Barbanica is running for county supervisor not re-election, and will have to continue to work with the mayor and two councilwomen. The councilman said, “This is a much bigger picture and nobody should stand silent just to get a third vote when we have serious violations that are occurring at the expense of the city. If that means I don’t have a third vote for calling this out for what it is, then so be it.”

Asked about the response letter required by the Grand Jury, Barbanica doubled down on his call for reopening the investigation.

“I will be responding individually to the Grand Jury and my recommendation in my response is to stand with me to pressure the DA’s office or the Attorney General’s office to reopen the investigation,” he stated.

“This is betrayal to the community and to the people they work with on the council,” the District 3 councilman exclaimed. “This is totally contrary to the way the council is supposed to operate. To look at us on the council and members of the community in the eye, knowing all along that this is a predetermined vote, that is betrayal to the community.”

“I will tell you the person who shared this information that led to the investigation came to me with it,” Barbanica offered. “By the time it got to the Grand Jury they were talking to multiple people. I sat with that person and talked with them and learned of the information at one point.”

“But I have assured that person I will not be the one to reveal their identity to the public,” the councilman added.

Mayor’s Former Love Interest Told DA, Grand Jury 3 Councilmembers Discussed Redistricting in Private

Both Antioch City Clerk Ellie Householder and Lacey Ferguson, Hernandez-Thorpe’s former friends had a falling out with him following, had a falling out with him following settlement by the Board of Supervisors of the sexual harassment claims against him in 2022. The women were each provided with the DA’s Office letter, cover letter from the Grand Jury foreperson and the report and asked if they were in attendance at any of the same gatherings at the mayor’s home, as he and the two council members. They were also asked, if so, do they remember what was discussed by the three council members, if they spoke with anyone in the Contra Costa DA’s Office or the Grand Jury, and for any other information they’d like to provide.

Ferguson responded, “I was a cooperating witness in the investigation, and you can reach out to the DA for any info you need regarding that. I live in another state.”

“I believe my recorded interview is the only evidence used in front of the Grand Jury to confirm discussions regarding redistricting, as I didn’t feel it was right to do to Lori.” She was referring to the gerrymandering by the three council members that created a new Council District 3 and 4, moving Ogorchock into Wilson’s neighboring district. It prevents Ogorchock from running for re-election this year. (See related article)

First Amendment Coalition CEO Says Private Discussions Violate the Law

After reading the letter from the DA’s Office, the cover letter from the Grand Jury foreperson and the report, David Snyder, CEO of the First Amendment Coalition, a government watchdog organization responded, “I’d say that while neither the DA’s letter nor the grand jury report definitely conclude that members of the city council violated the Brown Act, it appears there was substantial evidence that was that case. That’s very troubling. Public officials meeting in private to discuss such consequential matters as the redistricting of the city’s electoral map is a breach of the public trust, not to mention a violation of state law.”

Attempts to reach Householder and additional efforts to reach Wilson, Torres-Walker and Ogorchock were unsuccessful prior to publication time. Please check back later for any updates to this report.

For more information read the complete Brown Act state open meeting law.

Will bring back for future votes: more street cameras, ordinance requiring native plant species for new developments, city owned property and resolution opposing Amtrak Station closure.

Ogorchock, Hernandez-Thorpe agree City needs to maintain historic murals

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting last Tuesday night, June 25, 2024, the Antioch City Council adopted the 5-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for 2024-29 which includes $176.85 million for projects in multiple categories including roads, parks and trails, water, sewer system and city-owned buildings. They also agreed to move forward, for future council votes, additional street cameras and an ordinance requiring plants included in new developments and on city-owned property be at least 70% native species.

Finally, the council agreed to return with a resolution opposing the closure of the Antioch Amtrak station and sending a letter to the San Joaquins Joint Powers Authority which governs the service in and through the city. Plus, the mayor and District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock agreed the City must maintain the historic murals it owns. District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker was absent for the meeting.

Council Approves 5-Year CIP Budget

The council heard from Acting Public Works Director Scott Buenting about the 5-Year Capital Improvement Program for 2024-29 with a budget covering $176.85 million for a variety of projects in various main categories. The CIP also shows $7.7 million in projects completed during the 2023-24 Fiscal Year which runs from July 1st to June 30th. The CIP also provides the list of $171.1 million of projects currently in progress of which $116.1 million is for the Brackish Water Desalination Plant. A total of $2.19 million for Community Facilities improvement projects was added to the list which includes $1 million for the police department’s Dispatch Communications Center Improvements and $550,000 for Antioch Water Park improvements.

The category to receive the greatest level of funding was $52.9 million for Roadway Improvements followed by $45.8 million for the City’s Water System, not including the desal plant for which $22.95 million was allocated. Community Facilities (City-owned buildings) were allocated $21.8 million followed by $18.85 million for Parks & Trails. The Wastewater & Storm Drain System will receive $10.25 million, and Traffic Signals were allocated $4.3 million.

$20.629 Million for L Street Improvements

Under the Roadway Improvements category, the greatest amount of funding received by a project, $20,629,000, is for the L Street Improvements from Hwy 4 to the marina which includes widening from Sycamore Drive to W. 10th Street. With planned completion in 2028, the project will provide four lanes of traffic, as well as curbs, gutters and sidewalks on both sides of the street, and landscaping.

CIP Budget Sources of Funds

Sources of funding for the projects include $60 million from sewer and water Enterprise Fund and $41.2 million from Special Revenue Funds including Measure J, the county’s half-cent sales tax for transportation, state gas tax and federal ARPA funds approved during COVID. An additional $27.8 million is from Grant Funds, including federal and state program sources, $16.9 million from the State Revolving Loan program, almost $10 million from the City’s General Fund and $2.4 million from Capital Improvement Funds. Over 10 percent of the CIP budget, a total of about $18.6 million, is currently unfunded.

See complete 5-Year CIP for 2024-29

Council Moves Forward Two Proposed Items for Future Votes

The council also discussed matters proposed by two council members. With Torres-Walker absent, her proposed items were held over to the council meeting in late July including creating a new Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging Officer position and a Health and Safety Analyst position for the Human Resources Department.

“I would like to put this back on the agenda when she can speak on it in late July,” Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe stated. The others agreed.

Street Cameras

“It’s very important to have these cameras back in our community….capture vital information,” said Ogorchock about her proposed agenda item. “Currently we have 130 cameras. If we had another 130 that would cover all intersections coming in and going out of the city.”

“The cost would be $250 per camera to maintain,” she continued. “They will be huge in capturing drivers and spectators of sideshows.”

“Is there consensus to bring back the cameras for discussion?” the mayor asked.

“I support cameras coming back and the discussion,” Barbanica said.

“OK. That will be coming back,” Hernandez-Thorpe stated.

Taxpayer Protection Act Opposed, But No Vote As It Was Removed from Nov. Ballot

Ogorchock, who asked for this item to be on the agenda for discussion and a vote by the council to oppose it, said, “I have really good news about this. The California Supreme Court ruled the Taxpayer ‘Deception’ Act would be removed from the November ballot.”

However, the measure was actually entitled the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act and if passed would have required all new local taxes to be enacted via a two-thirds vote of the electorate. (See related article)

Ralph Hernandez said, “Unfortunately, you don’t have really any information there in the packet. At this time without a lot of the information…if you’re looking at tax increases, I’m against it. I think the public already suffered enough in this economy.”

“This was a ballot measure sponsored by the California Business Roundtable that would impact cities like us negatively,” the mayor explained. “The Supreme Court decided it can’t even be on the ballot.”

Policy on Use of Native Plant Species in New Developments

Ogorchock also asked for this item to be on the agenda for discussion. One speaker asked that the policy, “include private developments and city land and parks. There are a variety of nurseries that offer native plants. Native plants can be acquired at reasonable costs.”

“Direct staff that when native plants – more than 70% be native plants,” she continued. “Without that, birds in general can’t reproduce. They need lots and lots of caterpillars. Keystone species provide the habitat for caterpillars.”

Another speaker, Alexander Broom, said, “A mandate or an ordinance would be a huge step in the right direction for new developments and city property. There’s just so many benefits.”

Ogorchock said, “I do believe we need to start looking at adding this to the General Plan. This is something we can do within our city, not only with new developments but with City property. I’m for having a 70% policy of native species.

I definitely concur,” District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson said. “Invasive species of plants have been planted and wreaked havoc on our environment. I think this is a plus for our city to do. It can play a part in our Climate Action Plan.”

“I’m definitely in favor of it coming back, at least 70%,” Barbanica stated.

Asked if the requirement on new development can be done with developers, Acting Community Development Director Kevin Scudero said, “I can’t find a city in the state that has one.”

“I think it’s not that difficult to do it we just need to do it,” Ogorchock added.

“That will come back,” the mayor said in conclusion.

Agree to Bring Back Resolution Opposing Amtrak Station Closure

Before the council discussed the Antioch Amtrak Station closure Ogorchock, who had requested the item to be on the agenda, suggested Hernandez-Thorpe public comments on the matter first, which he did.

One resident, Tashena Garret said, “We are still fighting to save our train. We, again, are not giving up.”

Another resident, who the mayor referred to as Mr. Gums, said, “I’m in support of the Amtrak train station staying. I would like all the council members to show their support for the Amtrak station staying.” He wanted the council to issue a press release stating that.

“I did meet with ACCE and a couple other individuals regarding the Amtrak station,” Ogorchock stated. “And in order for them to have a really good conversation with Senator Glazer, Assemblyman Grayson, Supervisors Federal (Glover) and maybe Burgis, we would like to have a resolution regarding the need, why we need that station and how important it is to our community.”

“So, I think that when they have the resolution in hand and they go and meet with these elected officials then they have something from the City stating why it’s so important,” she reiterated.

“What we’re asking for is a resolution to come back saying we never agreed to this,” Hernandez-Thorpe stated.

“I don’t know if it needs to say, that we didn’t agree to it,” Ogorchock responded. “Basically, it needs to say who it impacts, how many people, ridership, people go to work, basically…actually I started a resolution.”

“You guys had a draft,” the mayor said to City staff members.

“Well, the attorney said you would give me one,” Ogorchock stated.

“Do you want it to come back late July?” Hernandez-Thorpe asked, referring to the next council meeting (as they won’t hold one the second Tuesday in July). “We could call a special meeting.”

He then mentioned that the July 19th Board of Directors meeting of the San Joaquins Joint Powers Authority, which oversees and operates the Amtrak line in and through Antioch, had been cancelled. The next meeting is scheduled for Sept. 20th in Martinez, according to the organization’s website.

“Oh, but you want it for your advocacy efforts,” the mayor said to staff.

The council members then agreed to bring back a resolution for a vote opposing the closure of the Antioch Amtrak Station at their meeting on July 23rd.

“But I think it’s important that we include language we were never asked to weigh in, we were never asked our opinion,” Hernandez-Thorpe said, “Whoever made the decision, according to the San Joaquins, and you’ve all seen the video – I sent it to you – that this was the city manager, former city manager Ron Bernal who made this decision. He never told us about it. He never asked us to make a decision or weigh in. For the city manager to singularly make that decision on his own, I just think it was inappropriate and it needs to be noted.”

“So, everybody agree to that?” the mayor asked. “OK. So, consensus, there.

Ogorchock, Hernandez-Thorpe Agree City Must Maintain Historic Murals

During Council Communications and future agenda items, Ogorchock spoke about the murals in the city following the removal of the historic, council-commissioned mural on W. 4th Street this past week. (See related articles here and here)

“The mural on 2nd Street, we do have an easement on that property, next to the Nick Rodriguez building,” she stated. “It does need some repairs. I don’t want to go through the same issues. We need to make sure because we have an agreement, that is a written agreement, that we would maintain these. So, we need to go back and do what we need to do on that mural because there’s parts of it…that is weathered.”

“Then we need to make sure, we have the one at the Marina,” Ogorchock continued. “So, we need to make sure that all the murals are being maintained and repaired along with the (utility) boxes that we have.”

“The ones we own, I think the issue is with the easements on a few of them,” said Hernandez-Thorpe. “If we could take that back and I had an understanding…it’s really hard. And we do have all that money we set aside for murals, and we need to use some of that for the ones we’ve said, historically that we’re going to maintain.”

“On that, we do need to make sure that the mural money that we put aside was for a new mural,” Ogorchock pointed out. “That Mayor Pro Tem Wilson has asked for, too.”

With no further discussion on the matter, the council then voted to adjourn the meeting.

50% of gas now supplied to owner’s customers in Contra Costa originates in Canada as much as 3,500 miles away instead of 35, about 80% from fracking

“The farther that natural gas must travel to its destination, the greater the carbon emissions” – California Resources Production Corporation

They’re “just doing it for political reasons. That only benefits them, not us on climate change.” – local oil producer Bob Nunn

By Allen D. Payton

After following the lead of the Brentwood City Council, in September 2021, the Antioch City Council voted 2-3 against renewing the franchise agreement for the low-pressure, natural gas pipeline that runs beneath the two communities. That resulted in it being closed and the City foregoing the annual franchise fee of $16,871.90. Pipeline franchise agrmt extension ACC092821

Proposed by District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson, Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe and District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker joined her in opposing the 35-mile long, 12-inch pipe which carried 1.8 million cubic feet of natural gas daily which is enough to supply about 9,000 homes. District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica and District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock supported the motion to renew the agreement. The result has been an increase in the emission of greenhouse gases and a much dirtier product being used by the refineries, from which Antioch is downwind, thus defeating the purpose the three council members claimed was the reason for their action.

The gas had been supplied from the Brentwood natural gas field, and natural gas fields in western San Joaquin County on Union Island in the Delta, southeast of Discovery Bay, as well as in French Camp and Lathrop. But the council’s decision also forced the pipeline company’s customer that it served, Chevron refinery in Richmond, to obtain their supply elsewhere. At least 99% of that supply originates out of state with over half from natural gas fields in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan east of the Rocky Mountains in Canada, traveling a distance of as much as 3,500 miles instead of just 35.

In Canada, natural gas production is concentrated in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB), with the highest production in the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia with more than twice as much from Alberta than from BC.

Pipeline Owner Sues City

Following the decision, the company that owns the pipeline, California Resources Corporation (CRC), believed they had the right to continue operating the pipeline. At that time, spokesman Richard Venn, Senior Director, Communications said, “We believe there are legal protections in place that prevent an arbitrary and immediate shutdown, and we will continue to work with the city and its staff on the best solution.”

However, that was not to be the case, the pipeline was shut down, and on Dec. 27, 2021 the company’s subsidiary, California Resources Production Corporation (CRPC), filed a lawsuit against the City of Antioch over the council’s decision.

CRPC did not file a lawsuit against the City of Brentwood and the company has reapplied for the franchise agreement for the portion of the pipeline that runs beneath that city.

CRPC did not file a lawsuit against the City of Brentwood and the company has reapplied for the franchise agreement for the portion of the pipeline that runs beneath that city.

Questions were sent on May 12, 2024, to a representative for CRC about the status of the lawsuit, details about the pipeline and any impacts the change in supply is having on the environment. Venn responded on May 28, 2024, with the company’s answers:

1. Where is CRC in the process with its lawsuit against the City of Antioch? Was one also filed against the City of Brentwood? When were they filed and how soon does CRC expect them to be finalized?

On May 25, 2023, the trial court sustained the City’s motion to dismiss CRPC’s complaint, effectively ending trial court proceedings against the City. On August 25, 2023, CRPC appealed this decision. The parties are currently briefing the appeal. CRPC’s opening appellate brief was filed on April 22, 2024. The City’s brief is due July 3, 2024. CRPC’s reply will be due on August 16, 2024. A decision is unlikely to occur until late 2024 or even early 2025.

No lawsuit has been filed against Brentwood. The application for renewal of the Brentwood franchise is still pending. Per the Brentwood City Council’s request, CRC hired independent consultants, Bear, Inc., to perform a safety study on the Union Island (“UI”) Pipeline, which was published in April 2022. The study confirmed the UI Pipeline is a very well maintained and safe pipeline.

2. If the company had certain rights granted by the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) that would prevent the cities from stopping CRC from operating the pipeline and continuing to ship gas through it how has the City of Antioch been winning in court? What have been the decisions in favor of the City?

CRPC does not presently have any rights granted to it by the PUC related to the UI Pipeline. However, CRPC has applied for a certificate for public convenience and necessity (“CPCN”) to have the UI Pipeline converted from a private pipeline to a common carrier pipeline. If the CPCN is granted, CRPC would become a regulated public utility, with the CPUC controlling certain aspects of the UI Pipeline’s operations and the rates that CRPC can charge for use of the Pipeline. The UI Pipeline’s day-to-day operations would not change however, after flow through the UI Pipeline restarts, and CRPC would be subject to the same federal and state regulations for safety and environmental protection.

If the UI Pipeline right-of-way were condemned to allow it to resume operations as a common carrier pipeline, as part of the condemnation proceedings, CRPC would have to provide “just compensation” for use of the right of way.

3. Where does the natural gas originate that was running through the pipeline in Antioch and Brentwood?

The natural gas that was running through the pipeline originates from the French Camp, Lathrop, and Union Island natural gas fields in western San Joaquin County and the Brentwood natural gas field in Contra Costa County.

4. Who are the customers served by the pipeline?

The gas is transported from the UI Pipeline to Chevron Corporation’s Richmond Refinery. The gas is used to power the refinery and used in its industrial processes to make jet fuel, diesel and gasoline that is distributed throughout Northern California.

5. From where are those customers now receiving the gas?

The gas that the Richmond refinery is no longer receiving from the UI Pipeline is supplanted by gas from PG&E’s system. The overwhelming majority of PG&E-supplied gas is from out of state. According to the most recent published information on PG&E’s gas sources, over 50% of the natural gas supplied by PG&E comes from Canada via the Gas Transmission Northwest (“GTN”) system. See 2023 California Gas Report, Table 5, https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/Joint_Biennial_California_Gas_Report_2023_Supplement.pdf. Only around 1% of PG&E’s gas comes from California.

Around 80% of the natural gas produced in British Columbia, the upstream production region feeding the GTN pipeline, is produced by fracking. See https://stand.earth/.

6. Is the gas coming from Canada, is it not as clean as that produced in California, and how many miles is the gas now being shipped versus how many miles, previously?

As stated above, 80% of the natural gas produced in British Columbia is produced by fracking. Accordingly, we expect the majority of PG&E gas from Canada to be the result of fracking. This means that by stopping the UI Pipeline from operation, the City may be prioritizing the use of fracked gas.

The GTN system, which transports PG&E’s Canada gas to California, is a > 1,300-mile pipeline system. A map of it can be found at https://www.tcenergy.com/siteassets/pdfs/natural-gas/gas-transmission-northwest/tc-gas-transmission-northwest-map.pdf. (See center map at top of this article)

The >1,300-mile figure does not reflect the total distance Canadian gas must travel to reach Richmond, California, though. The GTN system only runs from the Canadian border in Montana to northern California. Accordingly, Canadian gas going to the Richmond refinery must be transported from wherever the natural gas fields are located in Canada to the mouth of the GTN system in Montana. It must also be transported from northern California to the Bay area. Accordingly, gas from Canada travels well over 1,300 miles to reach the Richmond refinery.

By contrast, the UI Pipeline assisted in the transportation of local gas from the natural gas fields in western San Joaquin County and the Brentwood natural gas field in Contra Costa County to Richmond, a drastically shorter distance.

7. Have there been any environmental impacts because of the change in the natural gas supply to those customers?

The farther that natural gas must travel to its destination, the greater the carbon emissions attendant to those pipeline operations. Additionally, the gas transported by the UI Pipeline is not fracked, as compared to the majority of PG&E’s gas obtained from Canada.

Finally, any GHG emissions from gas production in California are compensated for under the cap-and-trade program, which is not the case in most of the other jurisdictions supplying PG&E.

8. Has there been a change in the costs to CRC’s customer(s) in both the purchase of the natural gas from one or more different sources and the production of their products to their customers? And ultimately to the consumers?

Without the UI Pipeline, local gas cannot be delivered to the Chevron refinery. The contribution of local gas to the refinery helps keep gas prices competitive, which further keeps prices low and the refinery open. The Richmond refinery has a workforce of over 2,700 company employees and 850 contract workers, according to the Richmond Chamber of Commerce. See https://www.rcoc.com/membership-directory-2/name/chevron-richmondlorenz/.

9. Is the pipeline that runs through Brentwood and Antioch different than the high-pressure line that exploded in San Bruno in 2010? What are the differences between the two pipelines?

10. What could the Antioch and/or Brentwood City Council do to remedy the situation?

The City could extend the franchise to allow for operation of the UI Pipeline. With an extension, the City could propose additional conditions on the operation of the Pipeline to address any of its continuing concerns. Using this authority to ensure enhanced protections or benefits for the City, while allowing the Pipeline to safely transport gas as it has for the past thirty years, was not something the City officials considered during the public hearing on the franchise renewal. This kind of win-win solution would have protected the citizens from the costs of litigation, brought revenue to the City, and given the City peace of mind about the UI Pipeline’s operations.

It is also important to keep in mind that the UI Pipeline is by no means the only natural gas pipeline running through Antioch. All federally regulated natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines can be identified using the National Pipeline Mapping System Public Viewer, which can be accessed at https://pvnpms.phmsa.dot.gov/PublicViewer/.

There are several natural gas transmission pipelines running through Antioch besides the UI Pipeline. Some of these are high-pressure pipelines, in contrast to the UI Pipeline, which is considered a low-pressure pipeline. In addition to these other natural gas pipelines, there are over 34,000 natural gas connections in Antioch.

11. If the council(s) choose to settle the lawsuit(s) would the city(ies) have to reimburse CRC for their attorney’s fees?

The terms of any settlement would govern whether attorney’s fees are reimbursed by either side.

12. Is there anything else you would like to share about the matter?

CRPC is committed to operating in a manner focused on safety, environmental stewardship, and promoting the health and welfare of all Californians. One of our leading “Values” is being a responsible operator, meeting – if not exceeding – California’s high standards for safety and environmental protection. We have a decades-long successful track record of safely and efficiently operating critical energy infrastructure such as the UI Pipeline within the City of Antioch and we look forward to continuing to work with the City and its staff to provide safe, reliable, and low carbon.

Local Environmental and Economic Benefits of Pipeline, Supports Farmers

In addition, CRPC shared information from their application to the state’s PUC about the pipeline and its benefits to the environment and local economy. The company wrote, “The UI Pipeline currently provides the only viable avenue for the natural gas produced from the Fields to reach the market, including the Richmond Refinery, which currently utilizes all of the natural gas carried on the UI Pipeline. The use of in-state natural gas displaces the use of out-of-state natural gas produced in other states and transported by pipeline into California. Currently, California imports over 90% of its natural gas from out-of-state fields where the environmental and greenhouse gas regulations may not be as stringent as those required here in California. Absent the UI Pipeline, production from the Fields would cease and the State would have to look to alternate natural gas capacity at a time when natural gas supply constraints have been widely reported.

“Given California’s current natural gas demand, the natural gas production from these Fields would likely be replaced by out-of-state production, which would be contrary to statutory preferences for in-state production of natural gas and would result in appreciable environmental impacts and increased costs. Natural gas produced out of state is not obligated to follow California’s more stringent environmental and greenhouse gas regulations, and transporting natural gas from out of state through interstate pipelines increases greenhouse gas emissions, as compared to in-state production. Furthermore, in the future, the Field would be capable of converting to carbon dioxide storage and sequestration, which is widely considered a necessary component to achieving long-term climate goals. The UI Pipeline is therefore a key component in not only ensuring the Fields continue to provide in-state natural gas, but also in reducing the environmental impact of natural gas consumption. In-state natural gas production may also mitigate the substantial increases in natural gas costs to California customers over the past year.

“Closure of the UI Pipeline would also have a significant economic impact to the local community. Over 200 local landowners receive revenue from royalties associated with natural gas transported on the UI Pipeline. Many of the royalty holders are local farmers, and monetizing these mineral rights helps support local farming operations. Closure of the UI Pipeline would eliminate any opportunity for those mineral owners to monetize their assets.”

Questions for Council Members Go Unanswered

All five council members were informed of the answers provided by CRPC on Monday, June 24, 2024. Herandez-Thorpe, Wilson and Torres-Walker were asked if, knowing now that the action by the council majority has had a greater impact on the environment, will they reconsider and reverse their vote to deny the franchise agreement allowing the pipeline to resume operations in Antioch.

They were all also asked if they know how much the City has spent to date defending against the lawsuit by the pipeline owner.

None of the council members responded prior to publication time.

Additional Questions for CRC

Asked if the Antioch City Council reverses its decision and approves their franchise agreement can the pipeline reopen, company spokesman Venn said, “The renewal for the franchise for Brentwood is still pending.”

Both cities must approve their separate franchise agreements in order for the pipeline to reopen.

Local Oil Producer Says Council Members “Doing the Opposite of What They Claim”

When reached for comment about the information from CRPC and the council’s decision to shutter the pipeline, Brentwood businessman, Bob Nunn, whose company is the only holder of a permit to drill for natural gas and oil in Antioch said, “We have the strictest rules for oil and gas in California. The energy used to move the gas 100 times further is going to be greater.”

“California is doing its best in the name of climate change. But in the last three years, California has used more oil each year than in the previous year,” he continued. “The production of oil in California to support that demand has gone down each of those three years. CARB (California Air Resources Board) will show you, on the whole, imported oil will have more emissions than oil produced in California.”

“If they’re doing it in the name of climate change, they’re doing the opposite of what they claim,” Nunn stated. “The issue is to lower demand not squeeze supply. It’s Economics 101. Their model is flawed.”

“I support decisions that will reduce man’s impact on climate change. But make sure you do your homework that their positions are for the benefit of climate change,” he said. “If not, then you’re just doing it for political reasons. That only benefits them, not us on climate change.”

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Reallocates excess funds from Downtown Roadway Project, $550,000 were originally slated for housing

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting on Tuesday, June 25, 2024, the Antioch City Council approved spending $6.4 million of federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and state funding on affordable housing and homeless services, including 102 units on the properties of two churches to serve close to 300 residents in the city. District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker was absent for the meeting.

At the beginning of the regular meeting Assistant City Attorney Brittany Brice reported out of closed session that on the civil rights lawsuit by Trent Allen, et al vs. City of Antioch and on the recruitment of the city manager there was “no reportable action”.

Besides approving the sideshow ordinance on a 4-0 vote, which outlaws organizers, advertisers and spectators, the council approved spending funds for affordable housing and services for Antioch’s homeless residents.

Based on the funding recommendations of the CDBG Committee, consisting of Torres-Walker and District 3 Councilman Mike Barbanica, it includes $4,050,000 in Local Housing Successor funding from the City’s former redevelopment agency for homeless services and the development of affordable housing with 80 units on the property of Grace Bible Fellowship of Antioch on Oakley Road,

Another $610,896.19 was reallocated from excess funds that weren’t needed for the Downtown Roadway Project, for the development of affordable, supportive housing for extremely low-income and homeless households. It will be used for 22 housing units on a 2.17-acre parcel located at 3195 Contra Loma Blvd. in Antioch, purchased from First Family Church, through Hope Solutions.

An additional $6,454,180 of funding to address identified high priority needs of lower income residents in Antioch was approved for spending by the council. That amount includes $879,893 in CDBG entitlement funds, $610,896 in reallocated CDBG funds, $184,970 in previously approved CDBG-CV (Covid) funds, $4,050,000 in Local Housing Successor funds, $645,614 in Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funds, and $82,807 in Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) funds.

Agenda Item 10 was a public hearing on the spending and included amending the FY 2024-25 Budget. The council first heard from Public Safety and Community Resources Department Director Tasha Johnson who introduced Teresa House, the City’s housing and homeless consultant, to provide the staff presentation.

“It’s been quite some time since we’ve had an allocation this large and it’s exciting,” she stated. “It’s the plan we present to the federal government for the block grant funds.”

House mentioned the Hope Village project, which is a planned “22-unit housing development on church land” and “Grace Commons. They are partnering with Grace Bible Fellowship…for 80 units. The cost is $50,871” per unit from the City’s grant funds.

However, the total cost is estimated to be $45-50 million for the project.

The cost per home for the Hope Village units will be $27,768 from the City’s grant funding out of a total of $17 million budgeted for the project.

House said this was “the first affordable housing project (of its type) to come before the city or the county in over 15 years.”

Reallocation of Excess CDBG Funds for Downtown Roadway Project

Regarding the reallocation of the Downtown Roadway Project funds for affordable housing, House said, “These were not in any way negligently unspent. These were residual funds waiting for their next allocation.”

“The Downtown Roadway Project received an extra $550,000 by dissolving the rotating housing loan funds,” she continued. “HUD does not allow cities to hold on to monies. If we have excess funds on hand we’re sanctioned by HUD. It’s very necessary we spend the funds.”

“We’re recapturing that $550,000 and additional funds, and spending them on affordable housing, which they’d like to build in our community,” she explained.

No one spoke as the proponent for the public hearing, but resident Andrew Becker spoke as the opponent.

“It’s concerning because we see the growing need in our community and the impact we see as we drive these streets and talk with our community members who speak about the cost of housing,” he said. “We can’t find within our General Budget the funds for shelter housing beyond what we have. We say we don’t have dollars. We ask what it would cost to house the people on the street, but no one can give us those numbers because no one is working on it.”

“Our Point-In-Time Count went up. We know there are more people on the street,” Becker continued. “Instead, we choose to allocate dollars to housing rehabilitation in our community.”

PLHA is money that’s supposed to go to rapid deployment solutions,” he stated. “What is the cost of putting up 50 pallet shelters instead of paying a hotel operator $100,000 a month for 30 rooms?”

“You didn’t even choose to have that conversation. I don’t understand why I have to hear from our housing consultant that, ‘I don’t have enough time.’”

“What are we doing here besides paying that consultant a lot of dollars when what she’s developed doesn’t meet the community’s needs?” he asked. “And some of you don’t even want to sit down and talk with me.”

“We have such few dollars. As far as the millions of dollars going into these developments. What’s concerning when I show up to these CDBG meetings, the developer doesn’t even show up. There should have been the opportunity for council members to ask the developer questions,” Becker complained. “I feel like, as much as staff is right the County is saying we want to see local commitments, there are grey areas of concern.”

“There could be $50 million in costs,” he stated. “Sometimes developers…see these dollars as free money. It’s almost $7 million and when you look at the true intent of what a Housing Successor Agency does…and the misuse of those dollars, you see the cycle continue in a different model unless we have leaders who are responsible who say, ‘I’m not comfortable in giving $1 million in taxpayer dollars.”

“It’s a large cost so I really hope those questions

“I don’t want to see a 80-unit project go up on a church that doesn’t know what kind of waters it’s stepping into,” Becker stated. “If you’re going to ask the people for the dollars, it’s got to make sense.”

Grace Commons

According to the city staff report, the Grace Commons three-story housing project will include 80 units serving 200+ people for an estimated cost of $45-50 million. Funding is coming from capital campaign by church which has been successful for all structures on the property, County, State applications, federal, large tech companies.

Pastor Kirkland Smith spoke about the project planned for his church’s property saying, “This…goes back to 9-11. I’s the dream Grace Bible Fellowship has had for this community.”

He then shared about other services the church provides for the community including “Grace House Sober Living Home on our campus, Grace Closet, Grace After School Tutoring Program…and Midnight Basketball.”

“We’ll provide wrap-around services that will come into Grace Commons. Chalk is the name of the service provider,” Smith explained.

“Antioch is the number one for unhoused in Contra Costa County,” he pointed out.

“When we commit to a project…it’s going to happen. It’s going to come to pass,” Smith assured the council.

“I’m a 29-year resident of Antioch. I’m invested in this community,” the pastor shared.  “I’m excited about the opportunity and I will focus on the work and not those who are trying to frustrate the work.”

Hope Village

According to the city staff report, Hope Solutions is proposing 22 doors/households for an estimated 95 residents maximum to be named Hope Village. The city money will be used for development of the units. Total costs are $17 million in budget with a capital campaign, plus, they will be going back next year to the County and will pursue other sources.

Jasmine Tarkoff, a representative of Hope Solutions spoke about the organization saying they had, “a long history of service in this county for close to three decades. We serve 3,500 individuals with our…services.”

“We spoke to dozens of people in Antioch, house and unhoused about Cottage Communities on faith-owned land” she stated and said the 22-unit project would consist of one-, two- and three-bedroom manufactured homes.

“Hope Solutions will serve as the professional service provider,” Tarkoff continued. “In addition, we will provide the professional property management services on site…every single day.”

“Hope Solutions has launched a capital campaign to raise private funds to couple with this project,” she added.

Hope Solutions provided a presentation in February 2023 to the city council about their proposed tiny home project in Antioch. The organization broke ground on another Hope Village last fall at Grace Presbyterian Church in Walnut Creek.

Antioch resident Louise Greene spoke next saying, “There’s talk, ‘we’re going to build this and they’re going to move in.’ No, they’re not. Those aren’t normal homeless people. They’re unstable.”

“By law you can’t force anyone into a program. It’s not just building a box. It’s building a home,” she continued. “It cost us $17,000 over three years to help my sister. There’s no instant solutions and the cost is a lot. If you can’t give them back their dignity that’s not the right program.”

“Along with these services they’re looking to build, is family help for the whole wrap,” Green stated. “The people on the street have the final say of what kind of housing, what kind of program they want to go into.”

“I’d love to know, with Grace, if you have to be a church member to receive housing or with Hope Solutions,” shared another woman who said she had been homeless twice.

Ralph Hernandez was the last public speaker on the matter, saying he agreed with the comments made by Andrew Becker.

“All of that money going to that private hotel, the City didn’t end up having any ownership in it,” he stated. “They had their…motel rooms improved and upgraded.”

“It was a drug haven, and you had some prostitutes going there and being run by thugs,” Hernandez continued.

“The City has to know what you are spending and giving public monies for. You’re supposed to evaluate what the money is going to. These groups have plans to have this housing…it’s great. But you, as the City should have some ownership…not just give taxpayer money out and say, ‘you own it. 100%.’”

“Now, what I’m reading is the City won’t have enough money to continue that program, there,” he stated. “Is the City going to throw more money into it? You’ll still have no ownership.”

Council Discussion & Unanimous Votes

During council discussion on the use of the funds, Barbanica spoke first asking questions of Ms. House.

“There is some concern with the public that we’re shorting projects that are out there for curbs, gutters, roadways with these monies moving from one fund to another.”

“Are we shorting something, now?” he asked.

Acting Public Works Director Scott Buenting said, “The answer is no. There is nothing being worked on, currently that these monies would be spent on.”

“How much are we spending to hand over to these two groups?” Barbanica then asked.

“That is $4 million and some change,” House responded.

“Just so the public understands. This is not money coming out of our General Funds,” the councilman stated.

“CDBG and Housing Successor Funds,” House explained. “That money is all a loan. We’re not giving anyone anything. It’s bringing $70 million coming from elsewhere.

“This will help 250 people to get off the streets,” he said.

“That’s correct,” House responded.

“Where will the public get the most out of it? This is permanent, long-term housing,” Barbanica stated. “It’s not just bridge housing.”

“It’s a loan. We have recourse to go after the property,” he explained. “I support the project.”

“The agreement for affordability with the City, it must remain for 55 years,” House added.

“For Hope Solutions, the purchase will most likely be from CDBG funds,” she said in response to a question from Ogorchock. “The Housing Successor funds won’t be available until 2025.”

“The timing for Hope Solutions is 2026 and the other one, 2027,” Ogorchock stated.

“That timetable was if they got funding from the County. They did not…so that timetable will get pushed out,” House explained and added that another project “took nine years”

“There is not one way into homelessness and there’s not going to be one way out of homelessness,” Hernandez-Thorpe stated. “To think there’s one magic bullet…is a ridiculous notion. While homelessness increased overall in the county, imagine if we didn’t have these programs in place.”

Barbanica made the motion to approve the expenditure of the $4 million in CDBG funds for the two projects. It was seconded by Ogorchock and passed 4-0.

Barbanica then moved approval of the reallocation of the remaining Downtown Roadway Project funds of $611,000 for the use of development of affordable housing for extremely low-income households. Ogorchock seconded the motion and it also passed 4-0.

Finally, Barbanica made the motion to approve spending CDBG funds, including Coronavirus funds and Housing Successor funds for affordable housing. Ogorchock seconded the motion and it passed 4-0.

“Congratulations to you both,” Barbanica said to the representatives of the organizations building the housing projects.

See the complete staff report and resolutions on the item.

Can face up to 6 months in jail, $1,000 fine

Torres-Walker absent

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting on Tuesday, June 25, 2024, the Antioch City Council on a 4-0 vote passed an ordinance banning organizers and advertisers of and spectators at sideshows. The matter was finally dealt with after discussing the matter since last fall and holding two previous votes, one which adopted an ordinance without targeting spectators and the follow up vote, for which none of the three council members present supported it. (See related articles here, here, here and here)

Most of the residents who spoke during public comments on the agenda item were opposed to including a ban on spectators citing possible constitutional issues and profiling by police, and concerns that those stuck in their cars could be cited.

Before hearing from residents during the public hearing, Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe said, “The city attorney would have acted as the proponent” but was absent from the meeting. The mayor then asked who would be the opponent, resident Alexander Broom volunteered and was given 10 minutes to speak.

“There are some large concerns I have with Attachment A which goes after the spectators,” he said. “I don’t think there’s a crime that I could be a witness to and be guilty of a crime. I think there are some constitutional issues there.”

“Anyone who is found to be within 200 feet witnessing or observing a sideshow,” he pointed out as one example.

“There are multiple instances that I would go to part of car culture, then you have people who show up and ruin the event,” he stated. “Me just being present doesn’t mean I’m a participant. This ordinance…is far too broad. I would encourage you to not include the spectator portion.”

“I had one of my friends come out to one of these events and a car show broke out. He was profiled,” he stated. “I could face up to six months in jail for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.”

“There are so many other routes you can go after spectators for this disturbance,” he said. “I think this opens up the city to more lawsuits…to more civil rights violations.”

“I’m open to compromise. I’d rather see the second ordinance go forward that doesn’t include spectators,” he concluded. “This is far too broad.”

Ralph Hernandez said, “These car culture violators should figure out how to lawfully and peacefully cruise. You should keep option 1 to include spectators.”

These are not really spectators. They’re encouraging bad conduct In law, that’s aiding and abetting,” he continued. “I think the police are smart enough…to make differentiation who is a spectator. How do those people claim they’re merely parked there?” he asked. “Come on you have to sell that to someone else.”

“The 200-feet limit, it’s appropriate because these sideshows take up a lot of space,” Hernandez continued. “Is that car culture? They’re violators of the law…by those actively participating, drivers, blockers. If they don’t want to be considered a violator they should not go there.”

“Their cell phones should also be confiscated,” he added. “It’s dangerous. It’s not a football game.”

Teshina Garrett, ACCE Antioch asked, “Who or what is considered a spectator?” and then spoke of her experience being stuck due to a sideshow. “We took photos…of people doing stupid stuff in the middle of the street. Does that make us a spectator?”

“Use these drones, Take their license plates, confiscate their vehicles,” she added.

Resident Dr. Kimberly Payton, Vice President of the NAACP East County Branch, spoke next about her own experience of getting stuck in traffic due to a sideshow. “Therefore, I don’t understand how you can tell a spectator and someone who is stuck. I just encourage you to consider the definition of a spectator if that’s the route the council is going.”

Andrew Becker also shared about “a sideshow that popped up. Within two minutes there were 200 people there. They were jumping on my car. I understand there’s a subjective component there. I also understand you have to have these tools. It’s the individuals…who are driving these things. I’m wondering if…an individual who is cited, they can have it reviewed by the Oversight committee. I think that would be monumental. It might alleviate some of the concerns here.”

Gavin Payton asked, “Some of the sideshows are actually dangerous for cars and for pets, the next day because they’re throwing bottles and the glass is breaking on the curbs and the bushes. Is there going to be some kind of action for that, as well?”

A resident named Devin said, “We really need to determine what a spectator is. We all know that the definition that some will use is not fair to everyone. People can determine who’s participating in these things, who’s taking videos and advertising these things. This is a problematic issue we are having in this city. But the language…people being accused of being a spectator, but they weren’t. Two hundred feet…that’s not fair.”

A woman named Laura said, “I am not an expert on car culture but I’m an excellent driver…and I am a parent. I think it’s dangerous to include spectators …because…systemic racism is a thing. So, I don’t think spectators should be included in this.”

Louise Green spoke last saying, “Using the simple word spectator is scary to everyone. I think this is more targeted to spectator participants. It’s a game they play. They were throwing T-shirts over their license plates. They’re actually throwing their bodies into the cars. You’ll have to put the spectator clause in there. Unless you can get real specific on the language, they are spectators, but a participant spectator. They have racing guns that they signal when the police are coming. There were maybe five people on the sidewalk. But the 200 were spectator participants. They get out of their vehicles. If I’m trapped in my car, they’re going to know, they’re not part of it. We do have to include them because they’re part of the problem.”

Council Discussion

Barbanica spoke first saying, “We’re talking, here about active participants. Not someone sitting in their cars. There’s also a big difference with someone videoing, when an officer rolls up. They say, officer, ‘here’s my phone.’”

“They leapfrog ahead to the next sideshow. It’s very detrimental to the community,” he stated. “This has terrorized the community long enough.”

“These are roving sideshows that are very organized. We have to go after people who are active participants,”

“These sideshows are getting more and more frequent and they’re roving around the city,” Ogorchock stated. “I would ask the city attorney’s office if we can increase the penalties not just $1,000.”

“A San Joaquin Sheriff would not release the cars from a sideshow until the participants’ court dates,” she shared. “These cars are part of evidence.”

“I think we should also look at reimbursement for the use of our resources,” Ogorchock continued. “As we as community members, these are our dollars. These people, the majority of them are coming from outside the community.”

“This is a quality-of-life issue,” she stated. “If we can’t add these to the ordinance toight

Wilson said, “I’m going to steal the term spectator participant. These spectator participants…they’re filming and livestreaming it to let their friends know where they are. We need to hold those participants accountable along with the organizers and advertisers.’

“I betcha there are people from inside our community,” she added.

“We need to start talking about why is this happening. What’s the root cause?” Wilson asked. “We definitely need to include something about the spectators.”

Hernandez-Thorpe spoke last saying, “this doesn’t necessarily stop sideshows. These are tools that once sideshows are happening they can be used. These aren’t preventative. What actually prevents sideshows is determining who is starting them. But unfortunately, our traffic division has been decimated.”

“I’m all for all of them, spectators, organizers and those who advertise,” he stated. “If we pass something tonight it will come back late July and will go into effect 30 days later, at the end of the summer months. If we need to make changes, we do it in the fall.”

“The technology in the police department in my opinion allows them to differentiate between a spectator,” the mayor shared. “Let’s pass something now, tonight and build on it and not let perfection be the enemy of progress.”

Ogorchock then made a motion saying, “I’m going to add” then read the ordinance that included banning spectators, “including not releasing vehicles until court dates and reimburse costs of resource.”

The Assistant City Attorney said, “I think there are some concerns…that we can’t address tonight” in response to a question from Barbanica.

No one seconded the motion.

Barbanica then moved approval of the ordinance including spectators as written. It passed 4-0.

Ogorchock then asked, “that we come back with the two proposals.” But both Barbanica and Wilson had already left the dais, so the mayor said, “Uh, no. There’s no consensus. Everybody left.” They then took a two-minute recess.

She tried again following the break but none of the other council members supported her proposals.

Ordinance Details

The ordinance adopted includes the following:

City Council introduced the proposed ordinance adding Chapter 4 to Title 4 (Public Safety) to the Antioch Municipal Code, which prohibits organizing, advertising, and being a spectator at street racing, sideshows, and reckless driving exhibitions;

Organizing or Advertising Street Races, Sideshows, and Reckless Driving Exhibitions Prohibited

It is unlawful for any person to knowingly organize a street race, sideshow, reckless driving exhibition, or exhibition of speed conducted within the City on a public street, highway, or in an offstreet parking facility.

B. It is unlawful for any person to advertise, within the City, a street race, sideshow, or exhibition of speed conducted or to be conducted in the City on a public street, highway, or in an offstreet parking facility.

C. It is unlawful for any person to advertise online, including on social media, a street race, sideshow, or exhibition of speed conducted or to be conducted in the City on a public street, highway, or in an offstreet parking facility.

Spectators at Sideshows, Street Races, and Reckless Driving Exhibitions Prohibited

It is unlawful for any individual who to be knowingly present as a spectator, either on a public street or highway, or on private property open to the general public without the consent of the owner, operator, or agent thereof, at an illegal motor vehicle sideshow, street race, or reckless driving exhibition.

B. It is unlawful for any individual to be knowingly present as a spectator, either on a public street or highway, or on private property open to the general public without the consent of the owner, operator, or agent thereof, where preparations are being made for an illegal motor vehicle sideshow, street race, or reckless driving exhibition.

C. Local law enforcement shall have the authority to cite any spectator in violation of this Chapter with an administrative citation.

D. An individual is present at the illegal motor vehicle sideshow, street race, or reckless driving exhibition if that individual is within two hundred (200) feet of the location of the event, or within two hundred (200) feet of the location where preparations are being made for the event.

Enforcement

A. Any person who violates this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a maximum of six (6) months in jail, a fine of $1,000, or both, unless at the discretion of the district attorney or a court of competent jurisdiction, the violation is reduced to an infraction.

Read complete Antioch Sideshow Ordinance.

The ordinance requires a second reading which will occur at the July 23rd meeting and if passed, will go into effect 30 days later.

UPDATE: “We’re going to update it” – building owner Sean McCauley.

Antioch residents, business owners, former councilmembers upset

The first Facade Mural Easement on private property recorded in the State of California.

“Part of the easement agreement was the City agreeing to maintain the murals” – Elizabeth Rimbault

By Allen D.  Payton

Good news UPDATE! – Building owner, City working on new, historic mural for 4th Street wall in Antioch’s downtown Rivertown. (See article)

The historic mural on a privately owned building wall in Antioch’s downtown Rivertown is being removed beginning Thursday, June 19, 2024, to the dismay of residents, business owners and former Antioch Council members. Commissioned by the council in 1997 and paid for with private funds, the mural, located on the W. 4th Street side of the brick building at the corner of G Street, was no longer being maintained by the City at staff’s direction after some of the paint was pealing and cracking. Before the new owners purchased the building in 2021, they were given permission to remove the mural instead of the City repairing it. To maintain the mural would have been cost-prohibitive for the new owner according to the property manager who chose to remain anonymous.

Former Antioch Councilwoman Elizabeth Rimbault was instrumental in bringing to life both the murals on W. 4th Street and W. 2nd Streets. As a former member of the Antioch Friends of the Arts and former leader with the Antioch Historical Society, she was the one who led the effort for the mural’s approval by the council after she was no longer serving, raising the funds and working with the muralist.

“What a travesty,” she said first learned its removal. “That was the first Facade Mural Easement on private property recorded in the State of California. How low the City has come.”

A Certificate of Acceptance dated March 3, 1998 was signed by the city attorney states, “This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by Grant of Façade Mural Easement…from” the building owners at that time, “to the City of Antioch…is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer…pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution of the Antioch City Council adopted on May 10 1983, and the grantee consents to recordation thereof…”

Rimbault then offered some background to the mural which depicted a scene of the telephone company that was located inside during the 1950’s that included the late Don and Helen Meagher who were talking to the office manager, a real woman, as new residents at the time.

“Don came to work as a teacher in Antioch,” she shared. “Helen later became the leader of the former Antioch Friends of the Arts, and it was her dream to have a mural community for residents and others to appreciate in the city’s downtown.”

“I worked on that just prior to Helen’s death,” the former councilwoman shared. “Becoming a mural community and attracting visitors was Helen’s dream. City Attorney Bill Galstan and I put it together. Then I did all the negotiations with the owners and obtained their signatures. So sad. She died before we were able to get the first one approved.”

The mural also depicted an actual woman who worked as an operator at the switchboard as well as a telephone truck and the man leaning against it was an actual employee who literally installed all the phones in Antioch, at the time.

The mural also included a painting of the late Dr. Thomas Dozier, a local physician who practiced medicine from the 1930’s through the late 1980’s and one of the namesakes of Antioch’s Dozier-Libbey Medical High School.

“He walked by the building each day between his home and office a block away,” said Rimbault.

On the right end of the mural was a depiction of the late Bob Beswick, who owned Beswick Insurance in downtown, holding an American flag.

“He was the unofficial Mayor of Rivertown who greeted people,” she shared. “His office was in the nearby building that fronts W. 4th Street next to the auto repair building that houses Pantell’s Music Box, today.”

Rivertown business owner Vicky Galloway was not happy, saying, “I’m just upset that they took it down without trying to preserve it. It’s just another part of downtown gone.”

Antioch Historical Society Director Kay Power said when she learned of the mural’s removal, “Oh, no! That was nice. It just needed some repair.”

When informed of the matter, former Councilwoman Norma Hernandez said, “Anything to do with art that goes up should stay forever. The City can’t back away on historical art. This is a sad day. I don’t agree with anything they’re doing and they should uphold their contract. You can’t trust the City and they’ve proven it again.”

Former Antioch Public Works Director and City Engineer Stan Davis, who was on the Antioch Historical Society’s Board of Directors for 20 years until he resigned a few years ago, offered his perspective.

“I know the city was responsible for it and they (the building owners) got permission to remove it. The problem is the city hasn’t maintained it,” he stated.

“There was a paint problem with the building before they put it on,” Davis continued. “The paint was coming off and it was taking the mural with it. The wall should have been scraped and painted, first. They’re taking it down to the wall and then painting it

“No one has talked to us about it as a Historical Society. The decision was made without us. But I’m no longer on the board,” he stated. “It’s too bad but I don’t really know what they could do.”

Background

The mural was commissioned by the council, and the second to be painted following the 125th Anniversary Mural on the wall of 505 W. 2nd Street depicting early scenes of Antioch from the 1800’s including the July 4th, 19851 picnic when the town was renamed from Smith’s Landing to Antioch, the coal train and a coal miner, Antioch’s first mayor and his daughter, the first teacher in the community.

“After we had the easement, all the council decided they wanted the 125th Anniversary mural on 2nd Street first as that was coming up the following year,” Rimbault continued. “So, then I had to get the artist to design another, larger mural, negotiate with another owner of the old Fontana building and raise $165,000 of private money to pay for it. A minor contribution was made by the City. The minute the 125th Anniversary mural was done the fences were moved to the 4th Street site and the artist started painting.”

“Throughout its history the City has been a poor partner in the mural projects,” she stated. “All rights and obligations were turned over to the Historical Society when Friends of the Arts disbanded. The Historical Society should be hammering the City about maintenance as now this places the 125th Anniversary mural in jeopardy, as well.”

“Interesting the city I have moved to, Manteca, is a mural community and very proud of it,” Rimbault shared. “People drive all over downtown trying to see all the murals and they are historic about the community’s early beginnings or honoring military and heroes. They are beautiful and well maintained. Dozens of them covering entire business buildings walls, some on the second story.”

“Antioch’s crap attitude wins again,” she added.

“The 4th Street mural was paid for 100% with private funds,” Rimbault stated. “The council approved the easement agreement and permit for the mural.

“Part of the easement agreement was the City agreeing to maintain the murals,” she explained. “The conditions are the owner of the building can never paint over the mural and cannot disrupt the wall in any way, such as putting in a window or door.

In exchange, the City agreed to perpetually maintain the murals including removing any graffiti and repairs.”

“It was a recorded easement, and the new owner would have had to obtain a signature from the Historical Society and it would have had to be on the council agenda to get signatures from the City,” allowing removal, said Rimbault who was also a signatory to the easement agreement.

“The Friends of the Arts maintained both murals on two occasions because the City was not stepping up to fulfill their obligations,” she continued. “The City sent a contractor who used the wrong cleaning agent which resulted in one of the faces being blurred. He stopped as soon as he realized what was happening, but the damage was done. Before disbanding, the Friends of the Arts turned over their money, rights and responsibilities to the Historical Society.”

“The mural on the Antioch Library wall on E. 18th Street was the first one allowed on a County-owned building,” Rimbault shared. “The County has done an honorable job of maintaining that mural, unlike the City.”

City Staff Determined Mural “Cannot Be Restored”, Took Photos, Video for Archive

Emails December 2020 and January 2021, provided by the new building owners, among the real estate advisors for the owner selling the building and with city staff, and forwarded to the buyers, show there was a desire to restore the mural and that there was an easement in place.

In an email on Dec. 17, 2020, then-Parks and Recreation Director Nancy Kaiser informed the property manager for the owner selling the building and copying then-Assistant City Manager Rosannna Bayon Moore, that the mural could not be restored.

Kaiser wrote, “The City of Antioch has analyzed the mural located on the building (you manage) located at 4th and G Streets. Unfortunately, the mural in its current condition cannot be restored. It saddens me to acknowledge this situation and provide this report, since we know how beloved this mural is for many residents.

The City would like to preserve the place in history that this mural offers, and is moving forward to capture high quality images/video of the mural so that we can tell the story.

I am retiring and tomorrow is my last day at work. I am pleased to connect you with Rosanna Bayon-Moore, Assistant City Manager. Rosanna will work to see that the image/video project moves along in a timely manner.”

An email dated Jan. 2021 read, “we have been working with the city and historical society to get the mural restored. They currently have an easement. They have indicated they may no longer want that easement or the responsibility to maintain the mural. This might be a benefit to the buyer. We don’t have any agreements or commitments, but I will send you the contract we have been working with so the buyer can follow up with them.”

Questions for Council, Current and Former City Staff, Historical Society President

Questions were emailed on Friday, June 21, 2024, to all five current members who were serving on the city council in 2021, plus, Acting City Manager Kwame Reed, City Attorney Thomas L. Smith, Historical Society president Shari Gayle and former city manager Ron Bernal were informed of the easement agreement and asked about the mural’s removal, if the both the City and Historical Society signed off in 2021, if the council gave city staff that direction, when the City stopped maintaining it and why, what could have been done to repair and preserve it, and if there will be any efforts to secure another Rivertown building wall to replace and repaint the mural.

They were also asked what has been done to preserve and maintain the other murals in Rivertown and other parts of the city, including one at the Veterans Memorial at the end of L Street near the Marina, and the other on A Street next to the Chevron station, and if there is a fund in the City’s budget to pay for it.

Ogorchock responded, “Individuals came to me when the building was purchased. It was never shared with me that we had an easement on it and were supposed to maintain the mural. I asked the city manager about it at that time what could we do to make sure the mural stays. I was told it was in disrepair and the new owner could paint over it.”

“We as council never approved this. It’s my understanding, we as a city were not supposed to maintain the art and the owner was to put a coating on it every two years. Obviously, the previous owner didn’t. City staff made the decision. I was not aware of the easement. It was not brought to council. We should have maintained it but we didn’t. That was not brought to council. That was a decision made without us.”

“We need to make sure that we have funds set aside to maintain and repair the murals and utility boxes in the city. I will address it as the next city council meeting,” she added.

District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica replied, “I don’t recall any knowledge of this.”

Second Mural on the Building

“It was the second mural on that building,” he shared. “I remember the first time as a kid with my parents seeing that mural being painted. The Honey Sweet Donuts shop was located inside.”

“That mural included a guy, laying on his stomach, reaching out for something. It was a very unusual mural. But it was beautiful,” Barbanica added.

Former Antioch City Manager Ron Bernal responded, “Yes, the City decided it was too expensive to rehabilitate the mural.”

He reiterated what was written in the email by Parks and Recreation Director Kaiser writing, “The mural was however professionally photo documented to preserve the artwork.”

Acting City Manager Reed was then asked to locate the photos and video of the artwork.

Additional efforts to reach Gayle of the Historical Society were unsuccessful and no responses were received from them or the other council members prior to publication time.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.