3 give each council member $20K to spend on community events in their districts for the first time ever

After saying last year, “not now or in the future will I ever support an increase,” Torres-Walker flip flops joining 3 other members to support council pay raise

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting on Tuesday, June 11, 2024, the Antioch City Council approved the Fiscal Year 2023-25 Mid-Year Budget based on balancing it with $4.6 million from the Budget Stabilization Fund and over $4 million saved from city staff vacancies. That figure is currently pegged at 100 positions.

In addition, a new budget item approved by the council majority allocates $20,000 for each council member to spend on community events in their district. Plus, four of the council members approved moving forward a pay raise of as much as $300 per month to $1,900, for the part-time policy-making positions.

The council had to allocate $4.3 million in remaining federal American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) COVID-relief funds, which have to be spent by the end of this year.

At the beginning of the Regular meeting, Antioch City Attorney Thomas L. Smith reported out from the council’s closed session meeting on the matter of hiring a new city manager that, “the city council gave direction to the city attorney and Human Resources Director” but nothing more.

Mid-Year City Budget Approval

The council approved the 2023-25 Mid-Year budget using $4.617 million from the Budget Stabilization Fund, leaving a balance of $31.7 million, and $4.065 million from savings due to staff vacancies.

District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica pointed out, “We’ve been able to add every year to the Budget Stabilization Fund.”

“It’s due to salary savings,” said City Finance Director Dawn Merchant. “It’s there for future use.”

Her budget report shows there were 100 city staff vacancies at the time of its writing.

“We’re almost $4 million more than when it started,” Barbanica added.

Merchant then shared, “The General Fund Reserve is estimated to have approximately $32 million. It will continue, once we get past this wave of having vacancy savings.” She then pointed out that projected “revenues are $97.3 million and expenditures are over $101 million.”

“So, we should be looking at some reduction in spending.” Barbanica stated.

“Hopefully, over the next year we can tackle some of these vacancies,” Merchant said. “We’re kind of in a crazy cycle. When we do get to the point where we don’t have the 120 vacancies, the expenditure numbers are going to continue to rise.”

Council Majority Adds $20,000 for Each Member to Spend on Community Events in Their Districts

District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker spoke first about a first-time ever, proposed budget allocation available to each council member for use on community events in their Districts, complaining about the amount in the city staff report for the budget.

“I think $2,000 is a slap in the face. My number was between $10 and $20,000 for each councilperson for community events, things other city councils get to do,” she stated. “I don’t mean campaign funds. Some of us are using our own hard-earned dollars to give back to the community.”

“I agree with Councilmember Torres-Walker,” Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe said. “I do spend a lot of my own money.”

Torres-Walker then suggested $5,000 but “that is low.” Hernandez-Thorpe suggested $10,000. District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson suggested, “up to” $10,000.

“You don’t have to use it. But it should be available,” Torres-Walker added.

“I will work with you all so there will be legal parameters,” City Attorney Smith stated.

“It’s like my newsletter that I do. We don’t want to confuse that with my campaign,” the mayor shared.

Neither Ogorchock nor Barbanica offered any comments on the matter and the council majority agreed to allocate $10,000 to each council member for a total of $50,000 included in the budget.

Hernandez-Thorpe later suggested the amount be increased to $20,000 each for a total of $100,000, receiving approval from both Wilson and Torres-Walker.

Other Additions to the Budget

The council also approved the following additions to the budget:

• $100,000 for the mural program;
• $100,000 for outsourcing internal affairs investigations in the police department;
• $500,000 for new radios for both the police and other City departments as part of a total $2 million expenditure;
• $560,000 for 8,000 sq. ft. of concrete replacement at City parks and other parks maintenance work;
• $85,000 in FY25 for extra tree work in the Street Light & Landscape Districts;
• $389,929 to pay down the Police Supplementary Plan unfunded liability; and
• $277,131 remaining set aside for non-profit organizations in the community.

Ogorchock then spoke about the use of the remaining ARPA funds saying, “We have an opportunity…Hope Solutions for the project off Contra Loma.”

“That’s going to CDBG (Community Development Block Grant funds council subcommittee) this Thursday,” Barbanica interjected.

“I would like to be able for us to help them…to get this project going,” Ogorchock continued. “There’s another project off Delta Fair. Father Robert wanted a project on the property at St. Ignatius. So, there’s another project, there.”

Merchant than said, “Of the $4.3 million in remaining ARPA funds, $1.8 million will go for the building purchase, plus there will be some needed upgrades…design work,” referring to the former PG&E building on the corner of W. 2nd and I Streets for additional city staff offices instead of the former Rivertown Resource Center on W. 10th Street, as previously reported.

Merchant also mentioned spending, “$2.1 million for the Angelo Quinto Response Team. They’re asking for a one-year contract extension. What we are proposing is, if the council is agreeable to extending the contract, that takes the $1.37 million off the table for other projects that we could fund.”

“I don’t want you allocating more than we have,” she stated.

“Are they providing, number one, a benefit to the community and a benefit to the department keeping police from going to these calls?” Barbanica asked about the response team.

Acting Police Chief Brian Addington responded by simply saying, “Yes”.

“We need more presentations like that,” Torres-Walker said with a laugh.

The council approved the $2.1 million in ARPA funds for the one-year extension for the Response Team.

Ogorchock and Barbanica then attempted to adjourn the meeting at 10:46 PM, as the council has agreed previously to adjourn their meetings by 11:00 PM. But the other three council members voted against their motion.

4 Councilmembers Agree to Move Forward With Pay Raise

City Attorney Smith then provided a brief staff presentation on a possible council pay raise, saying, “The state already approved this, so the council just has to say, ‘yes’.”

“This will be for the next council,” Barbanica pointed out, to which Smith responded, “This council is not increasing their salaries.”

“Are we agreeable to bring back the ordinance?” Hernandez-Thorpe asked.

“Yes,” said Torres-Walker, joining the mayor, Wilson and Barbanica. The mayor didn’t ask Ogorchock her views on the matter as he already had consensus from the other councilmembers.

According to the city staff report for the agenda item, “On June 29, 2023 Governor Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 329…which increases the compensation that councilmembers of general law cities may receive for their work. The City of Antioch is included in the bracket cities over 75,000 up to and including 150,000 in population, which may compensate councilmembers up to and including one thousand nine hundred dollars ($1,900) per month totaling twenty-two thousand eight hundred dollars ($22,800) per year” for the part time position.

The council members currently each receive $1,600.04 per month, after approving a 70% pay raise from $941.60 per month in 2019 on a split vote with then-Councilman Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe and Councilwoman Monica Wilson voting in favor, and Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock casting the lone “no” vote.

The council did not support a pay raise of about 16% last year, which would have provided each $1,825.25 per month. Thorpe said he supported it and Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker was opposed saying, “I would like the public to definitely know, that not now or in the future will I ever support an increase, unless it’s something that absolutely has to happen, regardless of whether we vote on it or not as a council.” Wilson wanted the state legislature to set council salaries, Ogorchock made no comment on the matter and Councilman Mike Barbanica was absent.

The $299.96 per month increase would result in an 18.75% pay raise which can’t go into effect until after the November election, resulting in an impact of $18,000 per year to the city budget.

In addition, according to the staff report, “Senate Bill 329 also authorizes the salary of council members to be increased beyond the specified maximum to an amount not exceeding the greater of either 5% for each calendar year from the effective date of the last adjustment of the salary or an amount equal to inflation since January 1, 2024, based on the California Consumer Price Index (not to exceed 10% per calendar year).”

However, the council cannot vote for automatic future pay raises. Since it can’t go into effect until after the November elections, it only for sure benefits Torres-Walker and Wilson, and whomever is elected mayor and in the council races in Districts 2 and 3. Barbanica is running for county supervisor and Ogorchock can’t run for reelection, unless she moves into District 2, as she was gerrymandered out of her district and into Wilson’s neighboring District 4 by the council majority during redistricting in 2022. (See related article)

City staff will bring back a resolution for a vote by the council on a future meeting agenda.

The council then adjourned the meeting at 10:52 PM and all other items on the agenda will be postponed to a future council meeting.

Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe invites the public to join him for the first Antioch Salutes Ceremony that honors high school graduates who have chosen to serve our nation in the United States Armed Forces and become part of the 1% of Americans who serve in military uniform.

The ceremony will include entertainment and refreshments. Several elected city officials, military officers and Armed Forces veterans will be in attendance.

Student enlistees will be sworn in, receive a special Certificate of Commendation from the mayor and a special Thank You for their service to the nation.

The event will be held at Noon on Saturday, June 8, 2024, at 101 Waldie Plaza across from City Hall in Antioch’s historic, downtown Rivertown. To register for the free event visit Antioch SALUTES Tickets on Eventbrite.

Following Saturday’s rash of events

Responds to mayor’s swipe about playing politics

“We should not tolerate our elected officials dodging the issues by watering down penalties or limiting the authority of the police to cite everybody involved. Push your elected officials to put a stop to this.” – Councilman Mike Barbanica

“Pittsburg has taken a different direction. They have this policy.” – Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe

Lack of ordinance due to council member absences at meetings it was discussed and voted on

By Allen D. Payton

In a video post on his county supervisorial campaign Facebook page on Monday evening, June 3, 2024, Antioch District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica urged the public to support including prohibiting spectators in the sideshow ordinance. He also responded to Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe’s swipe at him, Mayor Pro Tem Monica Wilson and District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock for not voting to pass the second reading of the sideshow ordinance in March. As previously reported, after the council voted 5-0 in February for the ordinance banning advertising and organizing sideshows, with the mayor and District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker absent, no motion was made by the three council members in attendance to adopt the new ordinance. Barbanica and Ogorchock wanted a stronger ordinance with fines for spectators and greater penalties.

As previously reported, in the mayor’s Facebook video post on Saturday night about the sideshows, he said about the three council members, without naming them, “Unfortunately, the council decided to play politics and not pass the sideshow ordinance.”

Asked “didn’t you vote against targeting spectators,” Hernandez-Thorpe responded, “No. I proposed a sideshow ordinance that targeted organizers and spectators. When it got to council there was only consensus for organizers. I defended the use of camera technology assuring the public that we did a good job of determining who was a side show spectator and who was legitimately stuck in traffic created by sideshows. It had consensus (not a vote) from the council. When it came back for first reading vote as a proposed ordinance only targeting organizers it had unanimous support (5-0). The second reading of the ordinance on consent was pulled and failed. That’s called playing politics because as you know…laws can be easily modified later. I don’t always expect to get 100% of what I propose.” (See related article)

All three council members were asked if they had a response to the mayor’s comments about their lack of action in March. Only Barbanica responded saying he would post a video on the matter.

Barbanica Urges Public to Contact Council Members to Give Police All Needed Tools

In the post of a YouTube video on his Facebook page entitled, “Side Shows and what we can do”, Barbanica wrote, “Last weekend, Pittsburg and Antioch both experienced side shows. Push your elected officials to do everything we can to give officers every tool possible to put a stop to these.”

In the video he said, “Many of you are aware I retired as a police lieutenant, I did 21 years with the Pittsburg Police Department,” I’ve been on scene where we’ve had large groups of individuals and had to work…to break up that activity. I will tell you from experience if you hear that all we have to do is cite the organizer and the whole thing will come crumbling down. That is ridiculous.

“We should be giving our officers the tools…to be able to go out and cite anybody who is there, depending on the situation,” he continued. “I’m not talking people that are stuck in their cars waiting to get through a sideshow. I’m talking active participants. These are causing havoc within our communities.”

Barbanica shared about firefighters telling him about an engine stuck in a backup caused by a sideshow on their way to an emergency. “It’s a matter of time before somebody is seriously hurt or worse,” he stated.

“I’m asking you to push your elected officials…and tell them, ‘Enough. We’ve had enough and to stop playing games and taking a potentially, a very strong ordinance and watering it down.”

“I proposed that we not only cite anybody involved with a sideshow but active participants, the folks with the video cameras, cheering it on, surrounding the sideshows. Obviously there to participate,” Barbanica stated. “And that met with resistance from politicians. For the life of me I can’t understand why we would not want to give our officers the tools to do that.”

“It doesn’t mean they’re going to cite everybody that’s there,” he explained. “It means it’s a tool that they have when they get there, and they need to break up a sideshow. Start handing out citations and see how fast that breaks up.”

“But what happens, we have elected officials that say, ‘ah, what we need to do is just cite the organizers’,” Barbanica stated. “Do we want to sign the one organizer sitting behind their computer the many who are out there causing these issues. I say both. We do both.”

“Don’t let your elected officials fool you. Put pressure on them to enact these municipal codes to give our police the authority and the ability to take action,” he stated. “So, as long as we continue to tolerate this and as long as we accept this from our elected officials, we’re going to see this continue.”

“Push your elected officials to put a stop to this, please,” Barbanica concluded.

Ordinance Discussed During Nov. 14, 2023 Council Meeting When Ogorchock Absent

However, the lack of consensus for including prohibiting spectators in the ordinance was due to Ogorchock’s absence for the council meeting on Nov. 14, 2023. During discussion of the proposed ordinance that night, two of the four council members present, Torres-Walker and Wilson, expressed opposition to including enforcement against spectators. (See 2:35:20 mark of November 14, 2023 council meeting video)

Proposed Ordinance Included Banning Spectators at Sideshows

The section on spectators in the city staff’s proposed ordinance presented at that meeting reads:

“(I) ‘Spectator’ means any individual who is present at an illegal motor vehicle sideshow, speed contest, exhibition of speed, or at a location where preparations are being made for such events, for the purpose of viewing, observing, watching, or witnessing the event as it progresses. The term ‘spectator’ includes any individual at the location of the event without regard to whether the individual arrived at the event by driving a vehicle, riding as a passenger in a vehicle, walking, or arriving by some other means.

VIOLATIONS; BEING A SPECTATOR AT AN ILLEGAL MOTOR VEHICLE SPEED CONTEST, EXHIBITION OF SPEED, OR SIDESHOW IS PROHIBITED.

(A) It is unlawful for any person to:

1. Be knowingly present as a spectator at an illegal motor vehicle speed contest, exhibition of speed, or sideshow on a public street or highway or in an offstreet parking facility

2. Be knowingly present as a spectator where preparations are being made for an illegal motor vehicle speed contest, exhibition of speed, or sideshow conducted on a public street or highway or in an offstreet parking facility

(B) An individual is present at an illegal motor vehicle speed contest, exhibition of speed, or sideshow if that individual is on a public street or highway, public property, or on private property without the consent of the owner, operator, or agent thereof, and 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.

(C) Local law enforcement shall also have the authority to cite any spectator in violation of this chapter with an administrative citation.”

During the council discussion during the Nov. 14th meeting Barbanica said, “This is a tool our officers can use to break up sideshows. Torres-Walker responded with, “We’ve given this particular police department tools in the past and they have misused them and often abused their authority. So, to trust an individual to make the determination at a scene in this instance when we couldn’t trust some folks in our department to make the determination whether they would actively not violate somebody’s civil rights or participate in racism, I think, like for me it’s a real concern to say, ‘hey, here’s an ordinance, go, we’re going to trust your judgement when we haven’t been able to trust your judgement in the past. I’m not saying in the future we won’t have a department that we can fully trust. But at this point I’m not sure if, you know, if I support that. Tonight, we’re not voting for an ordinance, anyway. I have no problem supporting something coming back for review.”

Barbanica responded, “Based on what’s going on with our police department, here, the officers that are involved in this situation are being dealt with. To say that we can’t give an officer a policy to enforce an infraction because what other groups of officers are accused of doing, I do not follow that logic path. It doesn’t mean the officers out there working should be stripped of every enforcement technique they can use.”

“Saying that like something is within policy can mean that the policy in itself is problematic,” Torres-Walker then responded. “And so, when we provide policies to individuals in law enforcement with the authority to like, enforce those policies in our community we have to make sure that those policies don’t, in turn, intent versus impact is important. You can’t keep implementing policies that could also profile and harm people rather than provide an actual solution. That is why I am concern about this policy because I’m concerned about every policy in our police department that has not yet gone under review.”

“I’ll just say that, you know, we had gotten a handle on sideshows. The reality is it all falls back to the fact that our traffic division was basically decimated as a result of the racist text messaging scandal,” Hernandez-Thorpe said. “The policy, I thought it was punitive from the very beginning. I thought it was too much. But I thought it was important to send, you know, a very clear message to people who conduct and organize these sideshows as we have done in the past. So, I’ve kind of gone back and forth and I kind of scratched my head and I hear all the concerns everybody has expressed.”

In response to a question from Wilson about coordinating with neighboring cities, the mayor said, “Pittsburg has taken a different direction. They have this policy. In terms of what works, I don’t think anybody would say anything has worked. We can say what worked…when we had a sideshow traffic detail and it had nothing to do with any policy. It had to do with the methods and techniques our officers were using to find people who are organizing these sideshows. They were preventing them from happening and it worked when we had officers. So, this maybe, this may not work. I don’t know. What does give me comfort is the times we have had to cite people they’ve used our camera systems to validate whether anything was right.”

“I will give you the example of a woman who reached out to us and said, ‘hey, my son was just standing there doing absolutely nothing’ and we went out of our way as a city to say we will look into that,” Hernandez-Thorpe continued arguing in favor of including spectators in the ordinance. “And turns out not only was he there he was one of the people vandalizing the police car. So, not only was his car towed, not only did he get a citation but then he, now is being charged criminally, with a crime by the DA. So, what gave me some level of trust in having this policy is the fact we have a camera system in areas where we tend to see the highest number of sideshows, large-scale sideshows in the city.”

“If we don’t want to move forward with this, I’m personally fine,” the mayor then said sharing concerns about staff time. “And it’s clear we’re seeing in other cities it may not be working. This policy exists in Pittsburg. It exists in San Jose. I think Oakland is working on the policy, as well.”

“I’ve spoken with officers over in Pittsburg on the effectiveness of the program over there,” Barbanica interjected. “Most of the time they don’t even have to use it. They show up to these sideshows and say, ‘we will cite you, we will tow your cars, you’re not going to do this,’ here and the sideshows generally move on. I’m not saying they don’t get them. But that is a tool that they use to actually deter this, as a deterrent. And our staffing, we may not have capacity today but I’m betting we will at some point. Again, this is a tool for deterring this from occurring.”

“Isn’t it already somewhere in the traffic code…is this going to add an additional layer to something,” Torres-Walker asked City Attorney Thomas L. Smith.

“You are correct, for the drivers in the sideshows there are multiple ways they can be held accountable,” he responded. “What this is doing is looking at the people who are not the drivers but people who are either bystanders, watching, participating in the sideshow or planning the sideshow. So, it is another layer, as you said.”

“We all know who spectators are. I mean, they’re standing out there with cameras, they’re cheering and yelling and screaming. Some of them have fireworks,” Hernandez-Thorpe stated. “Someone sitting in a car is not going to be confused with a spectator.”

Wilson then shared her thoughts saying, “The organizer piece is really what I have the most interest in. The rest are concerning with the same concerns in this argument over here,” as she pointed toward Torres-Walker. “The organizer piece I do want.”

“Maybe we can look at an ordinance that specifically looks at organizers, for now…if we decide, ‘hey, that wasn’t strong enough we need to go after spectators we can always add that to the ordinance,” the mayor suggested.

Barbanica responded echoing the mayor’s previous concerns about wasting City staff time saying, “Doing two of these is really taking up a lot of staff time. I guess I’m just not following the logic of why…somebody standing out there cheering on a sideshow destroying the neighborhood and destroying city property, why we’re adverse to citing people for doing that.”

“Concern for some people…is that there’s a risk of, one, abusing that and two, confusing people who may not be need to be there,” Hernandez-Thorpe responded, “There have been instances where we decided, you know what, that tool, for now we’re just going to put it on the back seat,” while referring to the council majority’s vote against purchasing new tasers after a suspect died following being tazed by Antioch police officers.

Torres-Walker then reiterated the past police efforts to focus on the organizers and “preventing the sideshow from happening before it even happened. So, I wouldn’t be against coming back with something focused on organizers but not spectators.

“We can try that,” the mayor responded.

As a result, city staff returned in February with the ordinance focused only on banning advertising and organizing sideshows. See proposed sideshow ordinance.

Hernandez-Thorpe Won’t Include Spectators Ban When Ordinance Returns for Next Tuesday’s Meeting

Asked if he will now bring back the ordinance and include banning spectators as other cities like Modesto, Clovis and San Diego have done and state law allows and since he, Barbanica and Ogorchocck support including spectators if he will bring back the original ordinance staff proposed, Hernandez-Thorpe responded, “Top of FormBottom of FormThere was NO original ordinance proposed by staff. The Nov. 14th meeting was a discussion about my original proposal to focus on spectators and organizers. The time to make changes was at the meeting that EVERY COUNCILMEMBER was present for and nobody did and the proposed ordinance got a FIVE-ZERO VOTE. Then at the next meeting the same THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS who voted for it, then turned around and voted against it. THAT’S PLAYING POLITICS. Stop misinformation and get the facts. Thank you!”

When reminded of the proposed ordinance in the city staff report for the Nov. 14, 2023 meeting and his arguments in favor of including enforcement against spectators, Hernandez-Thorpe was again asked if he will include it as written in the city staff’s proposed ordinance when he brings it back to council for another vote. The mayor was also asked if the ordinance will return to the agenda for next Tuesday night’s council meeting.

UPDATE 1: Thorpe responded, “The proposed ordinance or any discussion around it that came to council was based on my initial call for the new law. It was literally all over the news. Further, I said on several occasions that I didn’t bring an ordinance forward after my initial call for the ordinance because we were doing SO well on the proactive side. So, any ordinance or discussion that came back was based on my request not something that came out of thin air from staff.”

For clarification, the mayor was asked if he is now claiming that he wrote and provided the proposed ordinance to the city attorney and his office didn’t develop any of what was in the city staff report for the council discussion. Hernandez-Thorpe was also asked, again if it will be brought back for next Tuesday’s council meeting agenda and will it include a provision prohibiting spectators.

Please check back later for his responses or any other updates to this report.

Spectators, participants challenged and threw items at police, opened fire hydrants, evidence of gunshots; CHP assists

Mayor vows to bring enforcement matter back to council after failure to pass any new ordinance in the past 9 months

By Allen D. Payton

According to witnesses, Facebook posts by Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe and a Sunday night report by Interim Antioch Police Chief Brian Addington, there were multiple sideshows in Antioch Saturday afternoon and evening, June 1, 2024. The mayor pegged the figure at 10 and said there were other sideshows in other East County cities, as well. Many times, participants in and spectators at a sideshow will relocate following police response, so, some of the sideshows most likely consisted of the same individuals just in different locations as mentioned by Addington.

According to one resident, there were sideshows in the intersection of Cavallo Road and Wilbur
Avenue and one at the Antioch Marina boat launch parking lot. Then a third, “Huge pop-up car show by BevMo” in the Slatten Ranch Shopping Center on Lone Tree Way, as described by a witness and the mayor spoke of another sideshow on Wildhorse Road, as well.

The Chief wrote, “From about 2 pm to 9 pm, APD responded to about a dozen reports of sideshows at differing locations throughout the city. Officers responded to each report and continued to disrupt the activity, and the participants continued to different places, including areas outside of the city. Sideshow activity was also reported in Pittsburg.

 As the afternoon wore on, the behavior of the sideshow participants and spectators took a turn for the worse. Their increasing belligerence was evident as they began to challenge our officers, even throwing items at them and opening fire hydrants. This unacceptable behavior was captured in several videos that have been posted online. 

APD impounded six vehicles (30-day impound), and 11 were arrested/cited for sideshow activity or possession of a stolen vehicle. We also have evidence of gunshots during some of the events, and two stolen vehicles were recovered. No injuries were reported. Additional follow-up is being conducted, and additional impounds and arrests may occur. We are also actively working to identify the organizers.

APD Officers and dispatchers demonstrated exceptional professionalism in handling these calls. We thank our law enforcement partners in East County, including CHP, the Sheriff’s Office, Brentwood Police, and Pittsburg Police, for their support.”

Mayor Comments While on Trip in So Cal, Vows to Bring Back Ordinance for Council Adoption

In a video posted on his official Facebook page on Saturday night from his hotel room while on a trip to the California water policy leadership summit – hosted by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California which included a visit to the Hoover Dam on the Colorado River, according to a post on his Instagram account – the mayor vowed to bring the matter back for the council to address it. The Facebook post reads, “Unprecedented Number of Sideshows Early Saturday Evening. I’m Urging the Antioch City Council to Quickly Pass Previously Rejected Sideshow Legislation.”

“This is very disappointing as this is an unprecedented event that has taken place in Eastern Contra Costa County,” he stated. “I asked the Chief to specifically zero in on what’s happening in Antioch. Since two o’clock our police officers have worked to combat 10 sideshows in the City of Antioch. They have successfully shut those down. While for some it may appear they may have gotten away, don’t forget Antioch has very, very good technology that…the police department utilizes in finding people, then arresting them then prosecuting them at the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office.”

“This is a priority. No one has been immune from this. I received calls from several neighbors today who told me of a sideshow on Wildhorse by my home,” the mayor continued. “This is a good example of why the sideshow ordinance is so key. Unfortunately, the council decided to play politics and not pass the sideshow ordinance. This…gives law enforcement the tool to prosecute individuals on the front end who are organizing these types of events. Right now, the police department does not have that tool in place and I’m going to be bringing this back…so that we can get this ordinance passed.”

“I’ve been particularly disturbed by some of the videos I’ve seen. It’s unfortunate to see so many young people running around on the streets,” Hernandez-Thorpe stated. “All I can say is parents have a responsibility, too, and that is to ensure your young people have a respect for the law but more importantly have respect for other people’s quality of life. It’s not fair that we have to live with this kind of nonsense in our community. I know I’m not going to stand for it…I’m exceptionally proud of the Antioch Police Department for responding to these sideshows and trying to take them down as quickly as possible.”

“So, parents will be held accountable, too because in many of these instances these cars are registered to parents. So, you will be paying some hefty fines, as well, when we eventually find you and hold you accountable for these actions,” he added.

Then in a post on Sunday afternoon, Hernandez-Thorpe shared some of the details Addington reported above and additional information in a “2nd Update Regarding Unprecedented Number of Large Scale Sideshows Early Saturday Evening.” He wrote, “Yesterday’s unprecedented number of large scale sideshows were combated [sic] by the APD with support from CHP by around 9:00 p.m. As a result of APD’s efforts, 6 vehicles have been impounded and include fines, citations and impound fees. 11 individuals were arrested for sideshow activity, possession or [sic] (of) stolen cars. 2 stolen vehicles were recovered. Lastly, APD will be making additional arrests, issuing additional citations and impounding additional vehicles.”

Background

CORRECTION: Although a majority of council members, including Hernandez-Thorpe, supported targeting sideshow spectators when first discussed last October, during their Nov. 14, 2023, meeting, Ogorchock was absent, Torres-Walker questioned including making it illegal to be a spectator at a sideshow and Wilson opposed to it. Yet, the District 1 Councilwoman said, “at this point I’m not sure if, you know, if I support that. Tonight, we’re not voting for an ordinance, anyway. I have no problem supporting something coming back for review.” But at the end of the discussion she said, “I wouldn’t be against coming back with something focused on organizers but not spectators.” So, the mayor only had city staff return with an ordinance banning advertising and organizing sideshows.

Then in February, the council voted 5-0 to approve an ordinance banning organizing or advertising street racing, sideshows and reckless driving exhibitions. But, as previously reported, during their meeting on Tuesday, March 12, 2024, the Antioch City Council failed to approve the second reading to adopt it. With Hernandez-Thorpe and District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker absent and Councilmembers Mike Barbanica and Lori Ogorchock changing positions on the matter, no motion was made by the three council members in attendance to adopt the new ordinance. The two councilmembers wanted a stronger ordinance with fines for those who attend sideshows and greater penalties.

The council has not dealt with either the ban on organizing and advertising nor being a spectator at a sideshow since then.

5-0 vote costs City $50,000 including attorney’s fees

Mock trial held, court wouldn’t grant officers qualified immunity which contributed to decision

Officers responded to home in Dec. 2020 where he was strangling his mother

Died in the hospital 3 days later while not in police custody

Coroner’s autopsy determined Quinto died of drug intoxication, psychiatric conditions, physical exertion and cardiac arrest

Independent toxicology report found presence of Fentanyl in Quinto’s blood – in addition to Modafinil and Levetiracetam.

DA reported, “an internal examination showed no bone fractures or damage to Quinto’s larynx and trachea” and “accounts of what transpired in the bedroom are consistent among all witnesses in that no police officer applied pressure to Quinto’s neck.”

By Allen D. Payton

During a Closed Session meeting Tuesday night, May 14, 2024, after receiving information from a representative of the County’s insurance pool the Antioch City Council voted 5-0 to settle the lawsuit by the family of Angelo Quinto who died in December 2020 following an interaction with Antioch Police Officers, while attacking his family during a mental health crisis. The council agreed to settle with the family for $7.5 million.

The Closed Session agenda item #1 read, “CONFERENCE INVOLVING JOINT POWERS AGENCY – Municipal Pooling Authority and California Affiliated Risk Management Authority (CARMA). Discussion will concern EXISTING LITIGATION pursuant to California Government Code section 54956.9 MARIA QUINTO-COLLINS, et al., v. CITY OF ANTIOCH, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California CASE NO.: 3:21-cv-06094-AMO; Name of local agency representative on joint powers agency board: Thomas Lloyd Smith, City of Antioch; Appearing on behalf of joint powers board: Linda Cox, Municipal Pooling Authority and Amanda Griffith, ERMA (Employment Risk Management Authority).”

The Municipal Pooling Authority (MPA) is the County’s insurance pool and along with ERMA and CARMA determined the maximum amount of a settlement they would approve. Had the council not settled and continued fighting the lawsuit, the three authorities would not have paid for attorney’s fees and any settlement or amount determined by the judge or jury. Instead, it all would have had to be paid from the City’s General Fund, most of which pays for the police department. By settling the lawsuit, the City only has to pay its $50,000 deductible including attorney’s fees.

Background

On Dec. 23, 2020, Officers responded to the home of Quinto’s parents after dispatch received a call that the young 30-year-old Filipino-American Navy veteran was attacking them. As previously reported, Quinto’s sister placed the call telling police Angelo was strangling their mom, and the mother was not breathing. The sister told police Angelo took drugs. The sister had a hammer in her hands, which her brother had taken from her at one point, but she was able to get it back. Upon arrival, officers found Quinto being actively restrained by his mother on a bedroom floor of the home.  

Although claims were made by his family that officers restrained Quinto by using a knee to his neck for five minutes, that was proven false, as police claimed they had only placed a knee on his back. According to then-Chief Tammany Brooks, “At one point, during the handcuffing, for a few seconds an officer did have his knee across Angelo’s shoulder blade…taught at police academies for prone handcuffing.” Quinto died in the hospital three days later while not in police custody. (See related articles here and here)

During Brooks’ report of the incident he said, “I have been in contact with the Coroner’s Office and the following four points have been jointly approved by multiple pathologists related to their findings thus far:

1. Although the decedent had injuries consistent with a struggle with his family and law enforcement, none of the injuries appeared to be fatal.
2. There were no fractures of the skull, torso, or extremities.
3. A full examination of the neck revealed there was no evidence of strangulation or crushed airway.
4. They are currently expanding toxicology testing because they were aware of reported past drug use.”

An autopsy was performed on December 28th by the Contra Costa County Coroner’s Office which ruled Quinto succumbed to excited delirium and prescription drugs during the physical altercation with officers. Further, the cause of death was determined to be Excited Delirium Syndrome due to drug intoxication, psychiatric conditions, physical exertion and cardiac arrest. (Excited Delirium being recognized as a valid medical diagnosis or cause of death has since been outlawed in California with the passage of a bill, AB-360, last October. It prohibits coroners, medical examiners, physicians or physician assistants from listing excited delirium on a person’s death certificate or in an autopsy report).

On February 18, 2021, Quinto’s family, through their attorney, John Burris, filed a complaint against the Antioch Police Department. Burris had previously complained the officers didn’t have their body cameras turned on, but the council hadn’t yet approved the purchase of police body cams and the department did not implement them until 2021.

On Friday, August 20, 2021, Contra Costa County Sheriff-Coroner David Livingston announced that a coroner’s jury reached a finding that Quinto’s death was an accident, not at the hands of another.

Then, in September 2022, Contra Costa District Attorney Diana Becton determined, Antioch Police officers engaged with Quinto in a manner that was lawful and objectively reasonable under the circumstances and an internal examination showed no bone fractures or damage to Quinto’s larynx and trachea.

According to the DA’s Office, “A toxicology report by the Coroner’s Office showed that Quinto had the presence of caffeine, Levetriacetam (a therapeutic for adults and children with epilepsy), and Modafinil – a drug to stimulate wakefulness – in his system. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner-Coroner reviewed the autopsy findings and agreed with its conclusions.

“The Quinto family commissioned an independent autopsy, and its findings note the cause of death was restraint asphyxiation. The private autopsy lists petechial hemorrhaging as the basis for such conclusion. An independent toxicology report also found the presence of Fentanyl in Quinto’s blood – in addition to Modafinil and Levetiracetam.

“However, of critical importance to the investigation, an internal examination showed no bone fractures or damage to Quinto’s larynx and trachea. While there are conflicting medical opinions as to the cause of death, the accounts of what transpired in the bedroom are consistent among all witnesses in that no police officer applied pressure to Quinto’s neck.

“After reviewing the evidence, the method of restraining Angelo Quinto by Antioch Police officers on December 23rd was objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. Therefore, when applying the applicable law and the California District Attorney’s Uniform Crime Charging Standards, there is no evidence of a criminal offense committed by the Antioch Police officers involved in restraining Angelo Quinto.”

Yet, according to a March 16, 2023, report by the San Francisco Chronicle, “During a deposition, the county contract doctor acknowledged the possibility that Quinto died of asphyxiation from restraint, according to a court filing by attorneys for Quinto’s family.”

Councilmembers’ Actions, Comments Prior to Settlement

The settlement vote by three of the council members was to be expected as they’ve been sympathetic and apologetic to Quinto’s family. During the council meeting on Oct. 25, 2022, Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe and Mayor Pro Tem Monica Wilson wore T-shirts in support of Angelo Quinto, Wilson proposed naming the City’s emergency response team after the young man, which was supported by the entire council, and District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker said, “I want to say to the Quinto family, you lost your son, that’s how we got here. Your loss has spurred some change, but it didn’t have to happen.” (See related article and the 2:35:42 mark of the council meeting video) In addition, Torres-Walker wore the same shirt at a later time and event. Plus, the mayor has repeatedly, falsely claimed Quinto died while in police custody.

But the unanimous vote in favor of an out-of-court settlement was not expected.

Barbanica Explains Reason for Settlement

About his vote for the settlement, District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica said, “these are extremely difficult cases. I’ve been very clear in open session that the DA’s office and Coroner’s inquest did not find that he died at the hands of the officers. I let those investigations speak for themselves. There was no criminal wrongdoing by any of the police officers.”

“But when the insurance pool is paying for the City’s legal defense, if the council declines a settlement offer presented to them, and decides to continue to fight it, then the City will pay potential attorneys’ fees and any judgement that holds the City responsible,” Barbanica explained. “The City is paying $50,000 which includes attorney’s fees, and the insurance pool is paying up to the balance of $1 million, which is common in any settlement, limiting the exposure to the City’s General Fund.”

“Once you get to $1 million, it kicks over to secondary insurance which paid the remaining $6.5 million balance,” he added.

“In addition, the court did not grant the officers in the case qualified immunity. If we had continued in this case, we don’t know what it would have meant for the officers,” he stated. “The city attorney also made a very wise decision to hold what is called a mock trial in this case and is done in secrecy.”

“That was all done during the course of the lawsuit with an actual jury because he wanted to know any potential outcome. Those were factors that went into the decision-making on the settlement,” Barbanica explained. “This was not a haphazard decision. There was a lot of research, and all of this was done prior to them coming to us with a proposed settlement.”

Ogorchock Offers Her Reasons for Settling

When reached for comment explaining her reason for supporting the settlement, Ogorchock said, “As with any lawsuit, if they would have found even one percent liability by the City, it could have opened up the General Fund to pay more than what was paid.”

Asked if the insurance authorities said why they felt a jury would have been sympathetic to the family instead of the City, Ogorchock would not get into the details from the Closed Session discussion.

Asked about who represented the City, Ogorchock said, “the city attorney (Thomas L. Smith) chose the attorney to represent the City in the case.”

“We settled the case based on the city attorney’s and the insurance carrier’s advice. If we hadn’t, it would have opened up the City to the liability,” she added, reiterating the information shared by Barbanica. “In litigation cases, MPA will give us their advice and if we even have a small percentage of liability they will recommend a settlement amount. We as council, can choose to either accept or reject MPA’s recommendation. If we reject it, then we as the City take on the full, potential liability costs.”

However, Barbanica later said, “The city attorney chose from a list of attorneys provided by the pooling authority.”

Questions for City Attorney, Acting City Manager, Interim Police Chief Go Unanswered

The background information shared above, and the following questions were sent Tuesday night to City Attorney Thomas L. Smith, Acting City Manager Kwame Reed and Interim Police Chief Brian Addington:

“Who represented the City in court against the lawsuit by Angelo Quinto’s family including the names of the law firm and attorneys?

If the case had not yet been presented to a jury, were there any preliminary rulings by a judge in favor of Quinto’s family?

Why settle if all the facts were in favor of the Antioch Police officers?

What were the determining factors by the Municipal Pooling Authority, CARMA and ERMA which caused them to recommend settlement instead of defending the City and why that amount?

Were any of the officers who responded to the Quinto home subjects of either the FBI investigation into ‘crimes of moral turpitude’ or the racist text scandal? If so, was that the reason for the settlement, the fear a jury would side against those officers and in favor of Quinto’s family?

What language is included in the settlement? Does it claim culpability by the officers?

According to then-Police Chief Tammany Brooks, Quinto was not in custody at the time he died in the hospital on Dec. 26, 2020. Is that correct? If not, when did that information get changed?”

They were also asked for copies of both the lawsuit and any and all settlement documents.

They did not respond prior to publication time. Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Follow-up to March meeting

By Deborah Hicks

As a follow-up to the productive, community meeting on March 28 to discuss and prioritize community needs, a group of Antioch residents will hold a meeting to present their proposed solutions to Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe on Friday, May 17, 2024.

We have been working hard identifying and prioritizing all the feedback we collected from our first meeting.  We have compiled a list of issues, concerns and possible solutions we are ready to address with the mayor and city staff.

The meeting will be held at the Antioch Community Center in Prewett Family Park at 4703 Lone Tree Way from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

If you are a resident of Antioch, I am encouraging you to attend.

Please share the flyer with others. Thank you!

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting, sans Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe, the Antioch City Council heard about two proposed new-home developments, one in the Sand Creek Focus Area and one on the far north side of the city. The mayor was in Washington, D.C. for the annual American Public Transit Association Legislative Conference, representing Tri Delta Transit for which he currently serves as chair.

Not all of the council members were supportive of the Richland Communities – Leung Property project adjacent to The Ranch development but all four offered enthusiastic support for the DeNova Homes’ Rancho Meadows project.

435-Home Leung Property Project in Sand Creek

Kyle Masters with Richland Communities spoke about the proposed 160-acre project on what’s known as the Leung property in the Sand Creek area across Deer Valley Road and south from the Kaiser Antioch Medical Center. (See Agenda Item 6)

The developer is proposing 435 units which includes 50 conventional single family detached units, 385 clustered single family detached residential units, and 159 row townhomes, according to the staff report and developer’s presentation.

“We’re looking at it more as an extension of our project, The Ranch project,” which is located just to the north. The first phase of that 1,100-home development was approved by the council last June. The proposed project is labeled, The Ranch – Phase 4.

“This provides more of a range of housing,” Masters continued. “A price point we may not have seen out there in Sand Creek. We see this as a second phase to The Ranch project.”

He said the project will, “provide a more affordable community. Lowering the entry point to homebuyers.”

During council discussion, District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica shared of his displeasure that neither developer had reached out to him prior to the council meeting.

“I really wish someone would have picked up the phone. But that didn’t occur. I learned of them by pulling up the agenda on Friday afternoon,” he stated. “So, developers, please communicate with us. Give me a call, so we have time to go over them and see how the developments will affect the community.”

Both District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock and and Mayor Pro Tem Monica Wilson, who chaired the meeting, spoke of the desire for inclusionary housing. District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker wanted to update the City’s General Plan which was last updated in 2003 before approving more housing in the Sand Creek area.

“The council adopted a housing element in 2023,” Acting Community Development Director and City Planner Steve Scudero responded. “We are almost to the point to bring a contract to hire a consultant to develop that (inclusionary housing) ordinance.”

“I live in a development that’s cluster housing. If you can figure out a way to make garbage service work, because it’s not working in my neighborhood,” Wilson shared.

“When I talk about inclusionary housing it doesn’t have to be there. It could be a credit for somewhere else,” Ogorchock added.

Asked by Wilson about not seeing any single-story homes in the plan, Masters responded. We’re just not at that level of detail, yet. We’re probably two to three years before coming back to you with this.”

“Most people are hoping we won’t be here, by then,” Torres-Walker responded. “But we’ll see what happens.”

143-Home Project with 6 Affordable Rental Units in Northeast Antioch

The other project proposed by DeNova Homes, is for a 143-home development off Vineyard Drive north of E. 18th Street. It includes six affordable rental units working with Yellow Roof Foundation. (See Agenda Item 7)

According to the city staff report, the residential development consists of 137 single family detached homes on approximately 2,600 square foot lots and six renter-occupied homes on 4,200 square foot lots designed for people who are at risk of being unhoused. The non-profit foundation is proposed to own and manage the six rentals.

Trent Sanson of DeNova Homes spoke during the presentation and responded to the councilmember’s questions.

Resident Andrew Becker, who usually opposes market-rate housing developments, spoke in support of the project.

During the council discussion Ogorchock spoke first saying, “I truly like the project. I think the lots are way small on this one. I think the park’s small. I’d like to see a bigger park. I’d also like to see a community garden.”

Agreeing with Torres-Walker, she said, “We have to have bathrooms in our parks.”

“I’m happy with Yellow Roof coming to town,” Ogorchock continued.

“I’d like to see walkability and trails,” she added.

Torres-Walker also liked Yellow Roof’s participation and hoped the homes would provide for transition into home ownership.

She advocated for larger sized back yards.

“I’m not a big supporter of gated communities,” Torres-Walker continued. “You can’t have a public park in a gated community. If it is, then you might want to rethink it being a gated community.”

“Is it affordable. I could be like everyone else saying you need a better paying job. People saying, ‘we need housing for all income levels. There has not been enough housing for low-income working families.

“15-minute cities. We use to live in those communities until we were pushed out with increasing rents,” Torres-Walker stated. “I just hope it actually has a pathway to home ownership.”

“I like the location…the fact that we’re doing this, that you put Yellow Roof in there,” Barbanica stated. “When a developer steps and does that and puts six units in there with ADU’s the money has to come from somewhere, either market-rate homes or smaller lots.

“You’re taking six units and saying, ‘come in here and pay whatever you can afford,’” he continued. “I do appreciate the fact that you are doing this in Antioch.”

“A little bit larger lots, if you can,” Barbanica added.

“They did call me, because it’s in my district…for the record,” Torres-Walker interjected.

“The individuals that go into these houses with lower rents, part of the money is set aside for them to get into home ownership,” Wilson inquired.

Confirming what she said, Sanson shared, “We try to keep it to a three-year program so people can get their financial affairs in order. We want to help more and more people that we can. Then they graduate on to home ownership.”

“I love that program but if you could add a couple more affordable units,” Wilson added. “I can support this project.”

Sanson then stated his company will work with city staff and include what was shared by the council members to finalize the project plan. Once ready, it will then be heard by the Planning Commission before returning to the council for a final vote.

Instead of former Rivertown Resource Center after evicting 16 non-profit tenants two years ago

Will also discuss developing just-cause eviction ordinance to further protect renters, rally in support of ordinance to be held before the meeting

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting Tuesday, March 26, 2024, the Antioch City Council will consider spending $1.83 million to purchase the former PG&E building at 800 W. 2nd Street in downtown Rivertown, across from City Hall, for the new, Public Safety and Community Resources Department. In addition, the council will consider developing a just-cause eviction notice for renters.

Purchase of Former PG&E Building

According to the city staff report on agenda Item 5, if the council purchases the former PG&E building the City will use American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to purchase the building. Staff is recommending the budgeted ARPA funds for the Public Safety and Community Resources Department building be used to complete purchase the property.

The department was originally planned to locate in the former Rivertown Resource Center on W. 10th Street which housed 16 non-profit organizations that were all evicted in 2022.

Questions were emailed to the mayor, council members, acting city manager and the city attorney asking why the city is purchasing the building instead of using the former Rivertown Resource Center, why take it off the tax rolls instead of allowing someone in the private sector to purchase it and use it for a business to attract more people to Rivertown, and will it only be used for the new department or will it also be used for city council members’ offices.

“I have no knowledge of it being used for city council offices. That would be news to me,” District 2 Councilmember Mike Barbanica stated. “If we obtain the building, no final decisions have been made about who is going in there.”

Asked why the city needs it he said, “Once we replace the 90-plus employees that we’re down, right now there isn’t office space for them inside City Hall. The room is definitely need it.”

No one else responded prior to publication time.

3/26/24 UPDATE: Acting City Manager Reed said the City has not sold the W. 10th Street building and Assistant Fire Chief Traci Dutter, Con Fire has expressed interest in purchasing it to expand Station 81 which is located next door. But they were waiting to hear back from the City.

Planned to Improve and Use Former Rivertown Resource Center Building

Last year, during their meeting on March 28th, the council gave direction to City staff to pursue a $9.7 million improvement plan for the building, including adding another floor. The 15,300 square-foot facility would have included a mini-plaza, event space, conference rooms and classrooms for residents to use.

Just-Cause Eviction Ordinance Discussion

Under Item 4, the council will receive a staff report on just cause eviction ordinances from other cities, provide feedback to staff and direct staff to either prepare a just cause eviction ordinance for the City of Antioch or take no further action.

The ordinance would be in addition to the tenant anti-retailiation, harrassment ordinance the council adopted last August.

Before the meeting a rally in support of an ordinance will be held at City Hall, organized by a variety of groups.

The regular meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall located at 200 H Street in downtown Rivertown. The council will first hold a special meeting at 5:00 p.m. for a workshop on eminent domain entitled, “Property Acquisitions: The Condemnation Process” by an attorney from the law firm BBK. That will be followed by a Closed Session to discuss two lawsuits against the City and recruitment of a new city manager. See the complete meeting agenda.

The meeting can be viewed live on Comcast channel 24, AT&T U-verse channel 99, or live stream on the City’s website.