Violates state law known as SB330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019

Would have devalued property by over 99%, downzoning it from 2 homes per acre to 1 home per 80 acres

Cities and counties must approve new homes or face hefty fines which will fund low-income housing

By Allen Payton

As was reported in news articles and an editorial by the Herald during the 2020 fall election campaign, the state has issued an opinion letter confirming that the residential growth limitations in Measure T on the November ballot, “cannot permissibly be adopted, implemented or enforced.” That’s due to the passage of SB330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, which went into effect on Jan. 1, 2020, also as previously reported. Known as the Let Antioch Voters Decide: The Sand Creek Protection Initiative, the measure passed by almost 79% of the vote.

SB330 added Section 66300 to California Government Code preventing cities and counties from reducing zoning of residential property by either council action or citizen initiative until Jan. 1, 2025.  Also, if a city council doesn’t approve new housing within existing allowable zoning, the new law requires a court to fine the city a minimum of $10,000 per housing unit denied and force the city to approve the new homes, and require they spend the funds from the fines on additional, low-income housing.

SB330 and State Housing Law

The language of SB330 reads, “(c) It is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, to do both of the following: (1) Suspend certain restrictions on the development of new housing during the period of the statewide emergency described in subdivisions (a) and (b). (2) Work with local governments to expedite the permitting of housing in regions suffering the worst housing shortages and highest rates of displacement.”

Furthermore, the act reads, “The Legislature finds and declares that the provision of adequate housing, in light of the severe shortage of housing at all income levels in this state, is a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair…Therefore, the provisions of this act apply to all cities, including charter cities.”

In addition, the new law reads, “with respect to land where housing is an allowable use, an affected county or an affected city shall not enact a development policy… that would  have any of the following effects: Changing the general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning of a parcel or parcels of property to a less intensive use or reducing the intensity of land use within an existing general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning district below what was allowed under the land use designation and zoning ordinances of the affected county or affected city, as applicable, as in effect on January 1, 2018.”

Also, the new law amended Section 65589.5 of the Government Code that reads, “the court shall impose fines on a local agency… in a minimum amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete.” Furthermore, the law requires, “the local agency shall commit and expend the money” from the fines “for the sole purpose of financing newly constructed housing units affordable to extremely low, very low, or low-income households.”

So, not only will the new homes in the development that was denied be built, but the city will be fined and the funds from the fines must be used to build additional, low-income housing.

Finally, According to the HCD, “Since 1969, California has required that all local governments (cities and counties) adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. California’s local governments meet this requirement by adopting housing plans as part of their ‘general plan’ (also required by the state). General plans serve as the local government’s ‘blueprint’ for how the city and/or county will grow and develop and include seven elements: land use, transportation, conservation, noise, open space, safety, and housing. The law mandating that housing be included as an element of each jurisdiction’s general plan is known as ‘housing-element law.’

California’s housing-element law acknowledges that, in order for the private market to adequately address the housing needs and demand of Californians, local governments must adopt plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for (and do not unduly constrain), housing development. As a result, housing policy in California rests largely on the effective implementation of local general plans and, in particular, local housing elements.” Each of the regions in the state must develop a plan for their Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Elements.

The Bay Area’s current Regional Housing Need Allocation Plan (RHNA) projected 187,990 units needed between Jan. 31, 2015 and Jan. 31, 2023 and another 441,176 units will be needed between 2023 and 2031, according to the HCD and the Association of Bay Area Governments. In the new RHNA, it requires Antioch to add 2,481 more housing units by 2030. (See related article)

City of Antioch Letter to HCD Regarding Measure T and SB330

A letter was sent on Jan. 8, 2021 from an attorney hired by the City of Antioch to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) seeking their advice and opinion on implementing Measure T. In that letter, attorney David Mehretu of Meyers Nave asked Paul McDougall, Housing Policy Manager for HCD to review Measure T for a determination of its “validity under SB 330 as follows: Letter to HCD Re Measure T (Antioch)

1. Whether Measure T’s housing development restrictions are proscribed under Section 66300(b)(1)(A) of the Government Code.
2. Whether, pursuant to Sections 66300(b)(1)(B)(i) and (ii) of the Government Code, Measure T’s housing development restrictions constitute “a moratorium or similar restriction or limitation on housing development . . . within [Sand Creek] . . . to specifically protect against an imminent threat to the health and safety of persons residing in, or within the immediate vicinity of [Sand Creek] . . . ”.
3. Whether Measure T acts as an impermissible cap on housing pursuant to Section 66300(b)(1)(D)(ii) of the Government Code; and
4. Whether Antioch may, consistently with SB 330, enforce Measure T’s housing development restrictions.”

Response Letter from HCD Explains Why Measure T Violates State Law

In a March 9th response letter entitled “Enforceability of Measure T’s Reduction in Land Use Intensity pursuant to Housing Crisis Act of 2019 – Letter of Technical Assistance,” McDougall wrote, “the City requested the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) opinion as to the enforceability of a reduction in the intensity of land use included in the City’s voter-approved initiative Measure T.” HCD Antioch SB 330 Letter 03.09.2021

“HCD’s opinion is based on the mandatory criteria established by the Legislature with the passage of Senate Bill 330 in 2019, known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019,” McDougall wrote.

“HCD finds that the less intensive use provisions of Measure T are impermissible under Government Code section 66300,” and “Measure T effectively acts as a ‘…cap on the number of housing units that can be approved…’, a violation of Government Code section 66300…,” he wrote.

McDougall offered one caveat writing, “the City could enforce the reduction in intensity contemplated in Measure T, notwithstanding this opinion, if and when it concurrently changes the development standards, policies, and conditions applicable to other parcels within the jurisdiction to ensure that there is no net loss in residential capacity.” However, he further wrote, “nothing in Measure T provides for an equal increase in intensity of land use elsewhere in the jurisdiction, therefore, these provisions of Measure T cannot be permissibly adopted, implemented, or enforced consistent with Government Code section 66300.”

He concludes his letter offering the state’s opinion that Measure T is impermissible.

“Measure T appears to have been drafted to assure that housing development in the City is restricted in a manner that preserves agriculture and open spaces (Measure T, section 1). However, there is minimal analysis in Measure T to support this outcome. Measure T language more readily suggests it was passed primarily with the intent to restrict future housing development as opposed to accommodating future residential growth as intended in the City’s general plan,” the HCD Housing Policy Manager continues.

“In sum, the provisions of the voter-approved Measure T result in a lesser intensity of land use and create a development cap, resulting in a reduction in the total number of housing units that can be built within the Initiative Area than what is currently allowed in the City’s General Plan. Accordingly, HCD is of the opinion that such a reduction in the intensity of land use created by Measure T cannot permissibly be adopted, implemented, or enforced consistent with Government Code section 66300,” McDougall concluded.

Measure T is Moot, Council Must Approve New Homes

Therefore, as previously reported, the state has confirmed that Measure T, which would have devalued four privately owned parcels on the west side of Deer Valley Road by over 99% from two homes per acre to just one home per 80 acres, is moot and will have no impact on the development of new housing in Antioch. It would have affected less than 900 housing units remaining of the total 4,000 homes allowed in the City of Antioch’s Sand Creek Focus Area of the general plan. But now those housing projects will move forward in the planning process and can be expected to be approved.

That’s because the council must adopt all new housing projects in the Sand Creek area and anywhere else in the city, until Jan. 1, 2025, which don’t require any zoning changes or general plan amendments, or the city will face state fines of $10,000 per unit, at a minimum, and the homes will still be approved and allowed to be built, and the fines fund additional, low-income housing in the city, according to SB330.

 

 

Leaves open option to be pilot city for county’s new program

“Deep down in my heart I think Mr. Quinto would still be with us if we had something like this in our community,” Mayor Pro Tem Monica Wilson.

By Allen Payton

A request for proposal (RFP) to hire a consultant to design a model for a mental health crisis response team, to be sent out on certain calls instead of police officers, was approved on a 5-0 vote by the Antioch City Council during their meeting on Tuesday night, March 23, 2021. It’s part of the mayor’s police reform proposals at the urging of Mayor Pro Tem and District 4 Councilwoman Monica Monica Wilson.

All the public comments were in favor of the city pursuing a team.

“I did have a conversation with someone, today. It was in the context of the CAHOOTS model,” said District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker. “I want to say I agree with a process that includes residents who have lived an experience. I’d also like to consider that we have something that is specific to our city, but how we also draw down resources from the county. Some kind of way the CORE program is involved. But not enough. So, we need to do something. If we’re asking for oversight and transparency of the police department, we wouldn’t move forward on a process that doesn’t include that for a mental health response program.”

“I haven’t seen a mental health response program that doesn’t include a police involvement…that they at some point they don’t call law enforcement in,” Torres-Walker stated. “We have to decide what those triggers are. There are some things that our law enforcement department should not respond to.”

“One of the things I didn’t like about the county model, it just focuses on mental health,” she continued. “A person could use substances for so long that they develop mental health issues or have mental issues that they use.”

“There are some models where you can work with fire…which we do not have in this city which is unfortunate,” Torres-Walker added.

“This has been a long-time coming,” Wilson said. “With mental health in particular with deregulation and funding being taken away…and now, all they can call is our police department. Yes, CAHOOTS is the first organization I reached out to in pursuit of multiple models. Definitely I want something that’s going to be 24 hours that deals with mental health and drug addiction.”

“Yes, I believe the community should be involved in the input into what is unique to the City of Antioch,” she continued. “I would just really like the city manager to move forward to prepare an RFP so we can work with a consultant. I’m definitely very excited.”

“Deep down in my heart I think Mr. Quinto would still be with us if we had something like this in our community,” Wilson concluded.

“I definitely support some kind of response team…someone with the training who can step in,” District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica stated. “My only concern is we’re hiring another consultant on the eve of the county program being implemented in 90 days…and they’re looking for a pilot city. I’d love to be the pilot city.”

“I’m not sure about hiring a consultant…who would go outside and look for a resource,” District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock said. “A 5150 or a 5185 they’re going to have to go to county. I think that because of the county’s program coming up in a short period of time, we could throw our hat in…we are the second largest city in the county.”

“Concord is doing a 2-11 CORE team…with the county, something like a mental health crisis team,” she continued. “If we want to jump in and get something started…we can work to be the trial city.”

“As we learned from homeless, we’re better off designing our own,” Mayor Lamar Thorpe said. “I heard nothing but county. I think their process is going to be much longer.”

“I also want to look at the cost. The CAHOOTS model is $2 million,” Ogorchock said. “I don’t think the county would have that same issue.”

“A vote on this isn’t saying we don’t want a program, it’s just saying we want a consultant?” Barbanica asked.

“I think it would bring in some estimates,” Thorpe responded.

“So, if we say yes to getting a consultant, it’s going to take a while,” Ogorchock said. “I would ask that we not stop pursuing the county option.”

“It could be both, and. The county is supposed to provide these services to our community, anyways,” Torres-Walker said. “I do think it could be a both, and, and we should discuss what that would look like.”

“I don’t want us to have amnesia. The reason we’re talking about providing homeless services, is because the county is not providing it,” Thorpe said. “I see the limited staff that they have…there is no infrastructure out here.”

“Going this route does not eliminate the county,” Wilson stated.

“When we’re under resourcing it’s a recipe for disaster,” Thorpe said.

“I’m glad that Mayor Pro Tem Wilson and Councilwoman Torres-Walker agree that we can do both,” Ogorchock said.

The motion by Torres-Walker, seconded by Wilson to direct staff to develop a request for proposal to hire a consultant to develop a plan for a crisis response team passed on a 5-0 vote.

 

 

Including safety and other free equipment the Pentagon no longer needs

“The chief hasn’t gone out and ordered a bunch of weapons. These are safety items for our officers,” – Councilman Barbanica

By Allen Payton

During their meeting on Tuesday night, March 23, as part of the mayor’s police reform efforts, immediately following public comments that were mixed on the matter, with some in support and others opposed, District 1 Antioch Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker made a motion to “ban the acceptance and or acquisition of surplus military equipment in the future.” Mayor Pro Tem Monica Wilson seconded the motion. It does not prevent the Antioch Police Department from using the equipment it already has, including the MRAP (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected) vehicle.

District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica spoke against the motion saying, “in our city in the last 12 months we’ve taken over 400 guns off the streets. We’re taking over a gun a day off the streets of our city. This equipment is free to our city. The government doesn’t allow us to sell it. The chief has reached out through this program. We’ve talked about the rescue vehicle. But other things, a robot that can deliver a phone when there’s a hostage situation or someone is in mental crisis, instead of sending in an officer.”

“Some sights for patrol rifles that we didn’t have to go out and buy, for free,” he continued. “First aid kits. The chief hasn’t gone out and ordered a bunch of weapons. These are safety items for our officers…to keep our community safe, as well.”

“I think this is a mistake,” Barbanica concluded.

District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock asked, “my only request is, can’t we do this on a case-by-base basis and not say ‘none’? It’s got to come before council and if the council decides, we can just say ‘no’.”

“The last time we had this conversation, it was my understanding we had very little military grade equipment,” said Torres-Walker. “This says, ‘in the future.’ Some of us remember the militarization of police happened on the heels of the war on drugs. And we had the theft of property. It has negatively impacted people of color, especially Black people.

“If we’re doing our jobs well, we won’t need military equipment,” she continued. “Most of these people acquire these weapons by breaking in your home and stealing your stockpile of weapons.”

“Stop tinkering around the edges,” Torres-Walker added.

“For the record, I don’t believe our police department…you don’t get trained to use military equipment,” Mayor Lamar Thorpe said. “Military equipment is not the standard across our nation. Those are unusual aspects of policing. We’re choosing not to move in that direction anymore. I trust our police officers to do their jobs and not need military equipment to do them.”

The motion passed on a 4-1 vote with Ogorchock voting yes, after a bit of a hesitation, to ban “the City’s future procurement of surplus military equipment by transfer or acquisition.” Barbanica cast the sole vote against the motion.

Federal Program

The U.S. Defense Logistics Agency’s 1033 program allows the Pentagon to give extra military equipment to local police departments across the United States. It’s part of their mission of disposing obsolete and unneeded excess property turned in by U.S. military units around the world. The type of property ranges from military-specific equipment and vehicles to generic office furniture, computers, medical items, and shop equipment. DLA Disposition Services disposes of this property in a variety of ways, including reutilization or transfer to other military components or federal agencies, donating through programs like computers for schools, destruction for scrap metal and resale to the general public.

In the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal years 1990 and 1991, Congress authorized the transfer of excess DoD property to federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. Congress later passed the NDAA for fiscal year 1997, which allows law enforcement agencies to acquire property for bona fide law enforcement purposes – particularly those associated with counter-drug and counter-terrorism activities. The program has been named the “1033 Program,” which refers to the numbered section of the 1997 NDAA that granted permanent authority to the Secretary of Defense to transfer defense material to federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.

A bill introduced by Congressman Hank Johnson will “prevent transfers of equipment inappropriate for local policing, such as military weapons, long-range acoustic devices, grenade launchers, weaponized drones, armored military vehicles, and grenades or similar explosives.” But the bill faces an uphill battle for passage in the Senate.

According to a report on The Hill, “former President Obama curtailed the 1033 program in 2015 after local police suppressed protests in Ferguson, MO, using military-grade equipment. But the Trump administration rescinded the restrictions in 2017. President Biden has been expected to issue an executive order reimposing limits on the program.”

Antioch will no longer be allowed to receive any of the surplus equipment.

220-home development on east end of Sand Creek area south of creek

By Allen Payton

During their meeting on Tuesday night, March 23, 2021 the Antioch City Council unanimously approved a new, 220-unit, single family home subdivision in the Sand Creek Focus Area known as Creekside at Sand Creek. It will be the city’s second gated home community and located immediately south of the Vineyards at Sand Creek new home project, along the city’s eastern boundary with Brentwood. It’s the second phase of the land development project by GBN Partners. The first gated community is the Cielo new home project on the north side of Sand Creek.

The council also approved final maps for both the 641-unit Vineyards at Sand Creek project and 641-unit Aviano Farms project on 5-0 votes. The actions confirmed acceptance of all the improvements required and that the developers have fulfilled all the conditions when the projects were approved in 2016.

Creekside at Sand Creek

Antioch city staff presented the details of the 158-acre project, sharing that the proposed residential units would consist of either non-age restricted units, senior/active adult units, or a combination of both, at the discretion of the developer. The project improvements would include parks, trails, landscaping, and traffic circulation improvements. The remainder of the site, including Sand Creek and the associated buffer area, would be retained as open space.

The project required the approval of a General Plan text and map amendment to the Sand Creek Focus Area to change the land use designations of the site from Open Space/Senior Housing and Hillside, Estate and Executive Residential/Open Space to Medium Low Density Residential/Open Space. In addition, the text of the General Plan is being modified to allow single family units on small lots that are not age-restricted.

Finally, the project will include the construction of a bridge over Sand Creek to connect to and extend Hillcrest Avenue.

Matt Beinke of Blackhawk Services Company and GBN Partners, LLC, made the owner’s presentation on the project.

“It’s been several years in the making dating back to the Vineyards at Sand Creek. It’s always been envisioned as an extension and a phase of that community,” he stated.

“Non-age restricted. It’s a gated community. There are no impacts on Antioch schools. This is in the Brentwood schools,” Beinke stated. “It will build out infrastructure. This has a PLA (project labor agreement) on it so it will be a union construction project.”

There was no opponent to speak during the public hearing.

There were six written comments, all in support.

“One prevailing issue…is the need for more affordable housing. You have the ability to address this tonight,” wrote former Antioch Mayor Don Freitas.

Another was by Derek Cole, an electrical workers union member, asking the council to support the project for the jobs it will create.

Thomas Lawson called in and said he was the business manager of a construction union, speaking in favor of the jobs and apprenticeship program, saying it will bring “union jobs, infrastructure and tax revenue to the City of Antioch.”

“How many local jobs will this bring into our community?” asked District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica.

“This is going to go on, the field work for a year, and the buildout for five years. The vertical construction, the jobs…it’s in the 100’s,” Beinke responded.

“I’m not excited about the small lots,” Barbanica added.

“I’ll add…one of my first meetings as a new elected council member, then-Mayor Sean Wright and I want out to this property,” Thorpe said. “Mr. Beinke presented the concept.”

District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker said, “it would have been nice to see the project labor agreement part of it to understand and what number of those jobs will be local. When we say hire local, union it’s my understanding this won’t guarantee Antioch residents will be hired.”

“Staff doesn’t usually address the issue of project labor agreements. That’s outside of our scope,” said Community Development Director Forrest Ebbs. “We know council likes to have that from the proponent.”

“Likewise, in our presentation, because our time is limited…we don’t have them (union partners) specifically as part of the presentation team,” Beinke explained. “The apprenticeship part of this is huge.”

“I just think that for myself it would be good to understand, you know, good jobs. Who wouldn’t want that?” Torres-Walker asked. “How many would be those coming from outside of our community?”

“I’m excited about this project,” she concluded.

District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock then made the motions to approve the project, including a General Plan Amendment and they each passed on 5-0 votes.

By Allen Payton

During their meeting on Tuesday night, the Antioch City Council approved Ducky’s Car Wash on Lone Tree Way near the intersection of Country Hills Drive and Mokelumne Drive on 5-0 votes. Ducky’s Car Wash ACC032321

Richard Miller, the owner, said, “We are bringing forth a project that we think will be very positive for the citizens of Antioch. I am a family-owned business. We have nine other car washes and this will be our tenth.”

He also owns one in Brentwood at the corner of Balfour Road and Brentwood Blvd.

“We had a prior approval and then the great recession hit that caused everyone to pause. But now we have a very clear path to constructing this project,” Miller continued. “It’s a real sleek and heavily landscaped corner.”

“We use the most environmentally conscious processes,” he shared, and said that they participate in the community with fundraisers.

There was no opponent nor any public comments on the matter.

District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica asked about how the number of jobs and local hire.

“100% local. We will only hire local,” Miller responded. “The staffing requirements will vary, from between five and seven. We’re rally giving people their first jobs. It’s not a big number. But you can imagine there’s a big turnover. So, we’ll employ about 20 per year.”

“I love the concept, here. The color and the sleek design,” said District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock. “I hope we have more out of the box designs like this one, here. This type of business will bring a lot of recognition because it’s so different. I’ve gone to the Ducky’s in Brentwood because it’s right next to the bowling alley.”

She asked if the same concept could be applied to the Antioch location.

“It’s actually an express car wash,” Miller explained. “What you’re asking about in Brentwood, is a flex serve. This model is for those who want a fast, clean car wash in three minutes. This is not your self-serve car wash. No. We clean your car, we dry it then you go into the vacuum lanes. You have that option. What you’re asking me…is whether or not we can provide an additional service. It’s really a customer-generated response. We’ve seen demand in Brentwood for that and we may see the demand for that in Antioch. If so, we will offer that.”

“That’s not an expectation we should have, now,” Mayor Lamar Thorpe said.

“We are going to be totally responsive to what the public needs,” Miller added. “We have the flexibility in our business model to respond to the customer, because that’s what we do.”

The council approved the motions by Barbanica and Ogorchock for both the California Environmental Quality Act requirements and final development plan on 5-0 votes.

Entitled “Law Enforcement Protocol Event; Importance: High”

No evidence of communication with council members or public from city management or APD

“Since then, the council has been informed. It’s a work in progress…” – Councilman Mike Barbanica

By Allen Payton

In response to a public records request, on Monday, March 15, 2021 Antioch city staff released a copy of the email message from Antioch Police Captain Trevor Schnitzius to Assistant City Manager Rosanna Bayon Moore and copied to Chief T Brooks, regarding the incident with Angelo Quinto on Dec. 23 during which he lost consciousness and was subsequently transported to the hospital. Quinto later died at the hospital on Dec. 26. Schnitzius was acting police chief as both Brooks and City Manager Ron Bernal were on vacation at the time of both. (See related articles here and here)

The email was sent at 7:07 a.m. on Dec. 24, 2020. The subject line reads: “Law Enforcement Protocol Event” and “Importance: High”. Email fr Schnitzius to Bayon Moore re Quinto 122420

The email reads, “Officers responded to a family disturbance service call where the caller reported the subject was hurting another family member. Upon arrival, officers determined the 30 year old male resident was experiencing a mental episode. The resident was restrained in handcuffs for everyone’s safety due to his non-cooperative behavior and was to be sent for a mental health evaluation pursuant to W/I 5150. An ambulance was summoned to the residence and while awaiting the ambulance’s arrival, the subject lost consciousness.”

The email continued explaining what occurred the night before: “CPR was initiated and the subject was transported to an area hospital via ambulance. As of this writing the subject is in critical condition and it is unknown if/how long he will survive according to medical staff. We should have an update later today after the neurologist evaluates the resident.

County Protocol was invoked and inspectors from the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office are conducting an investigation into the incident with assistance from the Antioch Police Department. The investigation is still in the preliminary stages and additional facts and information are still being gleaned.

As of 0630 hours there have not been any inquiries by the media and a no press release has been disseminated. I will be available by phone should you need to follow up with me personally as I am currently the Acting Chief, while Chief Brooks is on leave.”

Bayon Moore Refuses to Respond

Further questions were sent to Bayon Moore and all council members on Monday, March 15, if she had informed them of either the Dec. 23rd incident or Quinto’s death on Dec. 26th. They were asked: “Were any of you aware of that (email from Schnitzius)? Did she contact any of you, at that time? Were you contacted by any member of city staff about Mr. Quinto’s death on Dec. 26th? Anything else you would like to share about it?”

In addition, Bayon Moore was asked, “did you in turn inform the mayor and/or any of the council members at that time of the communication from Captain Schnitzius? If so, please provide a copy of that email. If no, why not? Did you expect or ask Captain Schnitzius if he had or was going to do so?”

Finally, additional questions were sent to her asking “were you informed by Ron (Bernal) or had the understanding that it’s your responsibility to inform the council members of such an event, or it was the police department’s? Were you informed of Mr. Quinto’s death on Dec. 26th and did you in turn inform any of the council members?”

Mayor, Two Council Members Respond

As previously reported, Mayor Lamar Thorpe, who was also on vacation at the time of both the police incident and Quinto’s death, said he was unaware of the email message from Schnitzius to Bayon Moore. Thorpe also previously stated that he learned about the incident on social media and spoke to Chief Brooks on Dec. 31st asking if there had been an in-custody death.

“I have never received a text from the city manager about the police department. If I had I would have found that unusual as that has never happened. I know I have communications from Captain Moorefield when he was acting chief,” Thorpe shared when reached for comment on the question if the council members were informed by Bayon Moore. “The question to ask is did Captain Schnitzius inform the council.”

District 2 Antioch Councilman Mike Barbanica responded to the same question saying, “I was not advised of the incident. I learned of it on social media three weeks to a month later. I reached out to Chief Brooks about it. I was advised that there was a notification to the assistant city manager and at some time point the mayor, but I don’t know when.”

“I made it clear that any event of this nature in the city, I felt, the council should be made aware of it,” he continued. “Since then, the council has been informed.”

Barbanica spoke of his experience as a Pittsburg Police officer, in which the department informed the council members of major events that occurred in that city.

“I was not used to not being notified about things occurring…of any major event that occurs in the City of Antioch,” he stated. “I’m not looking for any investigative details, just the information of what happened.”

“It’s a work in progress getting this in place,” Barbanica added.

When asked on Wed., March 17 if she had found the email message she referred to previously, District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock responded, “I cannot find it. I was still looking for it, yesterday with no luck.”

03/20/21 UPDATE: Chief Brooks Responds to Additional Questions

Additional questions were sent to Chief Brooks asking if Schnitzius had contacted any of the council members about either the Dec. 23rd incident with Angelo Quinto or his death on Dec. 26th? He responded, “No he did not.  His only communication was with the assistant city manager.”

Asked if the captain was informed that was part of his responsibility as acting chief on major matters, such as an incident requiring the invoking of the county protocol, Brooks responded, “no, I failed to give him that direction prior to leaving on vacation.”

Regarding Thorpe’s comments, Brooks also added, “the mayor and other councilmember are correct.  Past practice has been they received notification from the police chief directly.  Obviously, the inadvertent lapse of immediate council notification in this case has justifiably moved council to seek/create a formal notification process to prevent this oversight from happening again.”

Another Public Records Request

As a result of the lack of response from Bayon Moore and the other two council members, and no record of any communication from her to Ogorochock that could be found, another public records request was submitted on March 16 for any and all communication between Bayon Moore and council members about both the Dec. 23rd incident with Quinto and his death on Dec. 26th. City staff has 10 days to respond.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Second contract signed by city manager a month later similar to first but expands scope; city attorney claims he was unaware of it; city agreed to pay lead investigator $420 per hour, plus $180/hour for writer/editor’s time, $120/hour for intern’s time and other costs; no information on when or if the investigation has been concluded

By Allen Payton

On Friday, March 12, 2021, in response to a public records request by the Herald, Antioch City Attorney Thomas Smith released contracts with the outside investigator hired to investigate both the police officers’ incident with District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker’s sons on Dec. 29. She demanded an outside investigation be conducted. According to Smith, the second contract revised the scope of work included in the first. That allowed inclusion of the councilwoman’s conduct at the scene and comments in a later online video about it. (See related article)

First Contract Signed by Police Chief, City Attorney

As Antioch Police Chief T Brooks had shared previously, he hired the investigation firm, Oppenheimer Investigations Group, LLP (pronounced aw pin high mir), to investigate the conduct of his officers in the Dec. 29 incident. That was when they stopped Torres-Walker’s 13-year-old son who was riding a four-wheeled ATV “quad” motorbike and pursued her 20-year-old son who was riding a dirt bike but fled from the scene, both on city streets. According to a letter from an attorney for the Antioch Police Officers’ Association (APOA), Mike Rains, “the officers witnessed the subjects riding these vehicles in violation of several CVC sections, including riding on the wrong side of the road (CVC § 21650) and riding a motorcycle (the rider of the dirt bike) without a helmet (CVC § 27803).” (See related article)

The stop occurred on A Street in front of a home in the 1900 block near the intersection of Walter Way. As previously reported by this writer, who drove by the scene of the stop, both the police car and quad were facing south in the right, north bound lane.

Also, according to Rains’ letter, “Unbeknownst to the officers on scene, the second rider who fled was Ms. Torres-Walker’s adult son, who apparently fled to his home where he notified Ms. Torres-Walker about the incident and the officers’ contact with her other son.”

“Although the 13-year-old was wearing a helmet, the ATV was not street legal (CVC §§ 38010, 38012) and he did not possess a valid California Driver License (violation of CVC § 12500(a)). Due to his age and the fact that the ATV would be towed, as well concerns about the second rider who fled, officers asked the 13-year-old to contact a parent who could respond to the scene and pick him up. This was done to ensure a parent, in this case Ms. Torres-Walker, was aware of the incident and to ensure the officers knew the minor would be released to a responsible adult.

A short-time later, Ms. Torres-Walker, along with her adult son, arrived in another vehicle to the location where officers stopped her 13-year-old son. Ms. Torres-Walker immediately approached Officer Prieto and Officer Rodriguez in a hostile and threatening manner as she announced her position as a City Council member and made statements to the effect of ‘do you know who I am?,’ ‘I’ll have your badge,’ and ‘I’ll have your [expletive] job, do you know who I am?’ Eventually, Ms. Torres-Walker calmed down enough for the officers to complete the paperwork to tow the ATV and issue a citation to her son. The 13-year-old son was released to Ms. Torres-Walker at the scene without further incident.”

In both Rains’ letter and a second video posted on her council Facebook page on Feb. 16, Torres-Walker said she met with Vida Thomas, a partner in Oppenheimer, and informed the councilwoman of both the investigation into the police incident with her sons, as well as her conduct and comments to and about them.

First Contract Signed Jan. 14 Focused on Police Actions

The first contract was signed by both Brooks and Smith on Jan. 14, 2021 with Amy Oppenheimer, the firm’s managing partner. It reads, “Firm agrees to conduct an impartial administrative investigation regarding police actions relating to an incident on December 29, 2020, involving Antioch Police Department and the children of an Antioch City Councilmember.” 2021.01.14 Oppenhemier Agreement

The investigators are lawyers, so the contract established an attorney-client relationship and states the “Firm’s communications, work product and final report are protected from disclosure…unless waived by the City”. The contract included payment of $420 per hour for the lead investigator, $180 per hour for an editor/writer and $120 per hour for an intern’s time, as well as other related costs of the investigation.

Second Contract Signed by City Manager, Police Chief Removes Language Focused on Police Actions

Prior to release of the contracts, attempts to reach Ms. Thomas to confirm if she was hired and by whom for the second contract were unsuccessful. But the second contract, dated Feb. 15, 2021 shows Antioch City Manager Ron Bernal’s name and signature, as well as Chief Brooks’ name and signature. It does not include Smith’s signature, nor anyone from the APOA, as Torres-Walker stated in her Feb. 16th video. 2021.02.15 Oppenhemier Agreement

“My signature is not on the second contract, which revised the scope of the investigation, because I was not notified of this contract,” City Attorney Smith shared.

However, the second contract is similar to the first, with the exception of who signed it. In addition, the second contract reads: “Firm agrees to conduct an impartial administrative investigation regarding an incident on December 29, 2020, involving Antioch Police Department and the children of an Antioch City Councilmember,” and no longer included the words “police actions relating to.”

It did not ask for a separate investigation into Ms. Torres-Walker, but the removal of the language included in the first contract is what allowed the investigation to be expanded to include her conduct and comments.

Furthermore, in her second video she stated, “On Wed., Feb. 10 at 11:00 a.m., I actually met with Vida Thomas, who is with Oppenheimer Investigations Group. They are handling the independent investigation into the situation that happened with my sons and Antioch PD.” Torres-Walker also said, “through the…interview process of the investigation, the attorney, Vida also alerted me that she is also representing the Antioch Police Officers’ Association in their request for independent investigation into my conduct.”

Only One Investigation Not Two

There was only one investigation, not two, into the incident, with the second contract expanding the scope of work from the first, which included the councilwoman’s conduct and comments. Thus, the reason for the same investigator working on both aspects of the investigation.

Questions to Staff, Torres-Walker and Other Council Members

The following questions were emailed to Bernal, Brooks, and Torres-Walker and included City Attorney Smith and the other four council members:

“How did the second contract revise and expand the scope of services outlined in the first one? Was the elimination of the words “police actions relating to” in the second contract the difference which revised and expanded the scope of work of the investigation to include Councilwoman Torres-Walker’s conduct and comments?

If so, then there was only one investigation, not two. Correct? And if that’s the case, has the investigation of all parties involved in the incident been concluded or terminated, when and by whom, and why?

Was there a cover letter for the second contract asking for a broader investigation into the councilwoman’s conduct and comments? Or was there other communication between Ron and Ms. Oppenheimer prior to the signing of the second contract?

Furthermore, since Ms. Torres-Walker stated in her Facebook video on Feb. 16 that, ‘On Wed., Feb. 10 at 11:00 a.m., I actually met with Vida Thomas, who is with Oppenheimer Investigations Group.’ and ‘through the…interview process of the investigation, the attorney, Vida also alerted me that she is also representing the Antioch Police Officers’ Association in their request for independent investigation into my conduct.’

First, to Councilwoman Torres-Walker, when did Ms. Thomas alert you to the second investigation? Was it on Feb. 10 or on Feb. 15 or 16, after the second contract was signed and prior to your video in which you mentioned it?

Second, to Ron and T (Chief Brooks), if she was alerted on Feb. 10, how would Vida Thomas know there was a second investigation before the contract was signed with Ms. Oppenheimer on Feb. 15 unless there were other communications between Ron and/or T, and Ms. Oppenheimer prior to signing the contract? If there were additional communications. Please confirm that fact and what was communicated to Ms. Oppenheimer as to what would be included in the additional scope of work, and provide that information/documentation, as well.”

They were also asked if the investigation has been concluded. If so or if not, when? If not, when will it be? Also, how much has the City been billed to date, for the investigation.

A formal records request was made on Saturday, March 13 for that additional communication if the city officials are unwilling to provide it and answer the questions.

In addition, another public records request was submitted the same day for the City to waive their attorney-client privilege and release any and all reports from Oppenheimer to the City of Antioch as described in the contracts. The City has 10 days to provide that information.

As of Monday, March 15 at 12:45 p.m. no responses to the questions were received from any city official.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

APOA attorney issues statement regarding second investigation, original one into incident with her sons, and Angelo Quinto incident; 

Attorney letter to city manager reveals names of officers involved in, provides details of incident with Torres-Walker’s sons, claims she told officer, “I’ll have your [expletive] badge, do you know who I am?”;

Torres-Walker responds with second video claiming, “It’s a racket. It’s not real,” and “would not trust any results of this investigation;”

Both sides want “a fair and impartial review” and “independent investigation;”

Bernal refuses to answer questions;

Chief Brooks says outside investigation “is still moving forward”;

Mayor learns of second investigation on social media.

By Allen Payton

An attorney for the Antioch Police Officers’ Association (APOA), which represents the sworn officers who are not part of the department’s administration, issued a statement on Wednesday, March 3 regarding the comments by District 1 Antioch Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker in a video she shared on her Facebook page. That was in response to an incident on Dec. 29 in which her two sons were pulled over by APD officers for riding a dirt bike and quad on city streets, which is illegal. (See related article)

Michael Rains, one of the APOA’s attorney, also provided documentation to support the fact of the second investigation requested of City Manager Ron Bernal. Torres-Walker is not happy that the same outside investigator was hired to handle both investigations. Rains also mentioned the recent Angelo Quinto case and the information about that incident with police in December was revealed during a press conference, las week. But Bernal won’t answer any questions about the matter.

One thing that both the APOA and Torres-Walker agree on is to have impartial and independent reviews.

APOA Attorney Statement

Following is Rains complete statement:

“This press statement is issued by the Law Firm of Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver (RLS) on behalf of our client, the Antioch Police Officers’ Association (“APOA”) and its individual members. Our clients in the APOA expect and deserve nothing more nor less than a fair and impartial review of the multitude of official actions they are called upon to take on a daily basis, something which has not been occurring lately in the City.

The Antioch Police Officers’ Association was heartened that Police Chief Tammany Brooks was finally permitted yesterday to speak in factual terms concerning the unfortunate incident which culminated in the death of Angelo Quinto. The APOA is confident that a Coroner’s Inquest public hearing, when held concerning this matter, will verify the factual information discussed by Chief Brooks, and soundly refute the distortions and/or complete falsehoods previously asserted by members of Mr. Quinto’s family and their attorney. (See related article)

Since the press conference of Chief Brooks was limited to responding to false accusations made against the Department and its individual officers in the incident involving Mr. Quinto, he did not address another recent incident which resulted in members of the APOA being publicly maligned by City Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker, simply because the officers were attempting to enforce statutory laws being violated by her two sons by driving off-road vehicles on public roadways and violating other rules of the road, endangering themselves and other motorists alike. In the aftermath of an approximate nine-minute public condemnation of the officers by Councilwoman Torres-Walker, the police department commenced an Internal Affairs investigation by an ‘outside’ investigator to determine if the officers who attempted to stop Ms. Torres-Walker’s sons, and who had to actually pursue them after they fled, acted appropriately.

The APOA and this law firm welcomes a fair, thorough and objective investigation of this incident and the actions of the involved officers.

But there was also a second investigation initiated as a result of Ms. Torres-Walker’s public ‘statement’ – an investigation commenced at the direction of the City Manager of Ms. Torres-Walker for the manner in which she conducted herself and the delivery of her ‘message’ to her constituents in the public. In her ‘message,’ rather than acknowledging that her sons were violating the law when officers attempted to stop them, Ms. Torres-Walker attempted to deflect the illegality of her sons’ behavior onto the police officers who were simply trying to enforce the

law. Her nine minute “statement” was shown prominently on social media sites and referred to by many who saw and heard it as a ‘recorded temper tantrum’ and ‘profanity laced rant’ directed at police officers of the Antioch Police Department.

In her ‘statement’ Ms. Torres-Walker referred to Antioch police officers as ‘a—holes’ nine separate times; she called Antioch police officers ‘mother f—ers’ 16 times; she used the word ‘f–k,’ or ‘f—er,’ or ‘f—ing’ 42 times; she used the word ‘sh-t’ a total of 11 times.

If any police officer represented by this law firm in Northern or Southern California would have publicly addressed any human being, let alone another public official, in terms similar to these, for any reason, they would have been terminated from their positions and would have rightfully deserved such a fate. The APOA is aware that City Manager Ron Bernal initiated an investigation of Ms. Torres-Walker’s outrageous behavior and the enormous discredit she brought to the City Council and the City Management of the City of Antioch. However, suddenly, very quietly, and entirely inexplicably, the investigation was discontinued, apparently as a result of pressure brought by Ms. Torres-Walker and/or her supporters. The discontinuation of this investigation is tantamount to City Management sanctioning displays of profanity and unprofessionalism at the very highest levels of City Government.

As the law firm proudly representing Antioch Police Officers’ Association, we ask Mr. Bernal and the entire City Council what will happen to one of our police officer clients if he/she dares in the future to refer to any member of the public with any profane reference not even approaching the level of vulgarity engaged-in by Ms. Torres-Walker?

The City Government’s response to Ms. Torres-Walker’s undeserved, unnecessary and patently outrageous behavior is itself a disgrace and disservice to the constituents of the City and to every member of the Antioch Police Department and the Police Officers’ Association.”

“The City has, in essence, sanctioned Ms. Torres-Walker’s venomous attack of law enforcement officers at the precise moment when community relations between the public and law enforcement are in desperate need of community leaders who step-up to both practice and preach the restoration of mutual trust and cooperation between the police and the public, and not to engage in a continuation of the vitriol of police hatred exhibited by Ms. Torres-Walker,” RLS Founding Principal Mike Rains added.

APOA Attorney Claims Second Investigation

Asked for documentation of the secondary investigation, Rains responded, “I’m very confident an investigation was started and discontinued,” and provided copies of letters from the APOA to Bernal requesting one.

“Our firm fired off a letter to Ron Bernal on Jan. 25th demanding an investigation into Tamisha Torres-Walker and as a result of that, he actually sent a follow up letter, because we hadn’t heard they had started the investigation,” Rains explained.

“The outside investigation is still going on,” he said, reiterating what Chief Brooks had stated. “The officers have been interviewed. The Law firm of Amy Oppenheimer in Berkeley was hired.”

“The City also retained that firm to do the investigation of Torres-Walker. There’s probably a contract or some kind of document from the City,” Rains stated, confirming Torres-Walker’s video comments about it.

“We were told that investigation was discontinued,” he continued. “What I know as of now the investigation into the cops continues but there is no longer an investigation into Torres-Walker.”

APOA Attorney Letter to Bernal Requesting Investigation into Torres-Walker’s Conduct

On Jan. 25, another attorney for the APOA, Timothy Talbot sent a letter to Bernal detailing the incident between Antioch Police officers and Torres-Walker and her sons, identifying the officers and requesting an investigation into her conduct and comments toward the officers.

“Re: Request for Investigation

Dear Mr. Bernal:

This firm is counsel to the Antioch Police Officer’s Association (APOA). We write on behalf of the APOA to request that the City of Antioch (City) initiate a thorough and independent investigation into the conduct of Antioch City Council member Tamisha Torres-Walker. During a recent traffic enforcement incident, Antioch police officers at the scene came into contact with Ms. Torres-Walker’s children and later with Ms. Torres-Walker herself. Based on the facts and circumstances known to the APOA (described below), Ms. Torres-Walker’s actions on that date appear inconsistent with the standards of professional and ethical conduct that all citizens and City employees should expect from their elected public officials and City leaders.

On December 29, 2020, Antioch Police Officers Calvin Prieto and Andrea Rodriguez were on duty and assigned to the Antioch Police Department’s Traffic Bureau. They, along with other officers and a sergeant, were primarily responsible for enforcing the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and investigating traffic collisions within the City limits. At approximately 3:00 p.m., Officers Prieto and Rodriguez were patrolling in the same marked police vehicle on A Street, which as you know is a heavily traveled four lane roadway. The officers each observed two subjects riding off-road vehicles on A Street, one vehicle was a dirt bike and the other a four-wheeled ATV. The officers witnessed the subjects riding these vehicles in violation of several CVC sections, including riding on the wrong side of the road (CVC § 21650) and riding a motorcycle (the rider of the dirt bike) without a helmet (CVC § 27803). In accordance with their assigned duties, the officers attempted to stop both riders because their actions put their own safety at risk as well as the safety of other drivers on the busy thoroughfare.

In attempting to conduct a traffic enforcement stop on the two riders for the CVC violations using emergency lights and sirens, the dirt bike rider managed to elude the officers in violation of CVC section 2800.4, while the ATV rider was stopped in the 1900 block of A Street. After making the stop, the officers learned for the first time that the rider of the ATV was Ms. Torres-Walker’s 13-year-old son. Unbeknownst to the officers on scene, the second rider who fled was Ms. Torres-Walker’s adult son, who apparently fled to his home where he notified Ms. Torres-Walker about the incident and the officers’ contact with her other son.

Although the 13-year-old was wearing a helmet, the ATV was not street legal (CVC §§ 38010, 38012) and he did not possess a valid California Driver License (violation of CVC § 12500(a)). Due to his age and the fact that the ATV would be towed, as well concerns about the second rider who fled, officers asked the 13-year-old to contact a parent who could respond to the scene and pick him up. This was done to ensure a parent, in this case Ms. Torres-Walker, was aware of the incident and to ensure the officers knew the minor would be released to a responsible adult.

A short-time later, Ms. Torres-Walker, along with her adult son, arrived in another vehicle to the location where officers stopped her 13-year-old son. Ms. Torres-Walker immediately approached Officer Prieto and Officer Rodriguez in a hostile and threatening manner as she announced her position as a City Council member and made statements to the effect of “do you know who I am?,” “I’ll have your badge,” and “I’ll have your [expletive] job, do you know who I am?” Eventually, Ms. Torres-Walker calmed down enough for the officers

to complete the paperwork to tow the ATV and issue a citation to her son. The 13-year old son was released to Ms. Torres-Walker at the scene without further incident.

Ms. Torres-Walker surfaced on social media a few hours after the incident and posted an approximate 9-minute Facebook live video. The video was very inflammatory and profanity-laden. While she was dismissive of her status as a newly elected City Council member, Ms. Torres-Walker made veiled threats towards the involved officers and expressed disdain for the Antioch Police Department as a whole. While the video was later removed from Facebook, it was posted by several local media outlets before it was deleted. (Publisher’s Note: see related article)

Ms. Torres-Walker’s inflammatory and misleading statements to and about Antioch police officers as they performed their official duties in a lawful and professional manner creates the alarming appearance that she intended to use her position as a City Council member to threaten, intimidate, or otherwise influence the officers into not doing their jobs. The APOA is also concerned that Ms. Torres-Walker may incorrectly believe her position on the City Council somehow exempts her and members of her family from complying with existing laws. The fact that Ms. Torres-Walker was seemingly emboldened enough by her status as a City Council member to threaten police officers during the performance of their duties is quite unsettling. As a community leader, Ms. Torres-Walker should recognize and appreciate the fact that the officers’ actions actually served to protect the health and safety of her children and the public that elected her to office.

The APOA does not take this incident or the request for an investigation lightly, as its members must not be subject to threats and intimidating conduct by the same elected officials whose decisions will directly impact their health, safety, and economic security. There can be no legitimate explanation for Ms. Torres-Walker’s disturbing conduct, and the City must initiate a thorough and independent investigation of this matter. Given the need for transparency and legitimacy, the APOA requests that the City present the matter to the Attorney General’s Office or the Office of the District Attorney for investigation.

Ms. Torres-Walker’s actions constitute a serious matter raising significant ethical and legal concerns, including but not limited to abuse of power and public corruption, as well as violations of the City’s own Personnel Rules. The police officers hired by this City are appropriately held to the highest standards of professional ethics and conduct, and our elected and appointed leaders obviously must be held to these same standards. We respectfully request this investigation be started without delay to ensure that the public can maintain confidence in

their local government. The community deserves nothing less.

Sincerely,

RAINS LUCIA STERN

PHALLE & SILVER, PC

Timothy K. Talbot

cc: Antioch POA”

“Tim Talbot is a partner at Rains Lucia Stern and he does most of the day-in, day-out collective bargaining work with the APOA,” Rains explained. “He’s on the labor side of our firm.”

Rains said he represents the officers on disciplinary issues.

Torres-Walker Confirms Second Investigation, Disappointed, Won’t Trust Results of Either

Councilwoman Torres-Walker confirmed a second investigation into her comments and conduct toward the Antioch Police officers in a second video posted on her council Facebook page on February 16. She said she wanted “to give people an update” into “what is going on with the…independent investigation into what happened with…me and my sons and Antioch PD.”

“The police chief actually did find someone, and they got in touch with me. On Wed., Feb. 10 at 11:00 a.m., I actually met with Vida Thomas, who is with Oppenheimer Investigations Group,” Torres-Walker stated. “They are handling the independent investigation into the situation that happened with my sons and Antioch PD.”

“I’m so disappointed in this process because through the…interview process of the investigation, the attorney, Vida also alerted me that she is also representing the Antioch Police Officers’ Association in their request for independent investigation into my conduct,” she continued. “And I thought it pretty odd that the same investigator, the same investigative firm or group, that was hired by the police department to look into the independent investigation of what happened to me and my sons, which was supposed to be a non-biased, independent investigation. That the same firm was hired by the Antioch Police Officers’ Association, the same people, same lady to investigate me for corruption and misuse of my council position.”

“What a conflict of interest,” Torres-Walker exclaimed. “And mind you, this is supposed to be an investigation that I don’t even think that I’m supposed to know about. However, the attorney alerted me to the fact that she is also working on said investigation.”

“So, now we see where the concerns start to arise. Because how can you represent me in one case, while at the same be building a case against me?” Torres-Walker asked.

“And so, when we say we want transparency, we want accountability and we want independent investigations into police conduct and use of force, this is not what we’re talking about,” she said with a chuckle. “This is again, another reason why we need to do better. We need to do better by civilians who make complaints and request of independent investigations. Because if this is what they call an independent investigation, this transparent, of course she was transparent because she let me know that she is not only investigating the police department and their conduct, but she’s also investigating me and my conduct, and I have no idea how that is not a direct conflict of interest.”

“I’m letting you know, now, it’s not a fair and independent process by any means,” Torres-Walker stated. “I would not trust any results of this investigation. I don’t think it’s a non-biased investigation and at this point I’m not sure if it’s an independent investigation. And I’m just so unhappy with the way this all was laid out. I mean if I had the power to, I would go back and request, and actually ask for this particular group be removed from completing the independent investigation into the case of me and my sons and ask for a new investigator, so then they could continue. I think it’s unfortunate that with what I see as a clear conflict of interest that this particular attorney would take on both cases at the same time knowing that she would have to interview me and she’s doing double duty, and it’s actually double dipping, and it’s actually not transparent, a transparent and fair process.”

“It’s a racket, it’s not real. We cannot trust the process, any real accountability around theses,” she concluded.

Torres-Walker was asked if she found an investigation of what was said by a council member and which occurred outside of their official duties unusual, but she did not respond as of publication time.

Second Attorney Letter to Bernal

A second letter from an APOA attorney, Timothy Talbot was sent by email to Bernal on Feb. 18th, reiterating the request for an investigation of Torres-Walker’s conduct:

“Re: Request for Investigation

Dear Mr. Bernal:

As you know, this firm is counsel to the Antioch Police Officer’s Association (APOA).

By letter dated January 25, 2021, we requested, on behalf of the POA, that the City of Antioch (City) initiate an independent investigation into the actions of City Council Member Tamisha Torres-Walker that occurred on December 29, 2020. To date we have not received a response from anyone acting on the City’s behalf as to whether an independent investigation will be initiated as requested by the POA. With this in mind, we would appreciate a response as to whether the City has initiated or intends to initiate an investigation.

Your courtesy and cooperation are appreciated.

Sincerely,

RAINS LUCIA STERN

ST. PHALLE & SILVER, PC

Timothy K. Talbot

cc: Antioch POA”

Bernal Refuses to Answer Questions

Several attempts to reach Bernal were made to verify if he initiated the second investigation and to answer questions about it. The following questions were emailed to him on Thursday, March 4 at 5:10 p.m. without response as of Monday, March 8: Is that true (that Bernal had initiated a second investigation)? If so, when did that investigation begin? Who participated in conducting it and did you end it before completion? Or was there a report produced as a result of it? If you ended it before completion and there’s no report, why? Finally, is that unusual for a city manager to initiate an investigation into the actions and comments made by a council member outside of their official business? What else can you say about it, please?

On Monday, March 8, the following questions were then sent to Bernal and copied to City Attorney Thomas Smith, Chief Brooks, all five council members and the City’s PIO, Rolando Bonilla:  is the councilwoman correct in stating that Ms. Thomas also served as the APOA’s investigator into her conduct, or was Ms. Thomas working for you, at the APOA’s request? In addition, is it considered a conflict of interest for the same investigator to investigate both aspects of what occurred with her and her sons, the APD and her comments and conduct? Finally, if you have discontinued the second investigation into Ms. Torres-Walker’s comments and conduct, has a new one begun using a different investigator from a different firm?

Bonilla responded via email and text, City Administration response: “We will not be commenting on this matter.”

Another email was sent just prior publication time asking for copies of the contracts with the Amy Oppenheimer Group and for the costs of both investigations, as well as when did they begin and when did the second one end. A public records request for the same was also submitted Monday afternoon.

Outside Investigation Requested by Chief Continues

When asked about the press release from the APOA’s attorney and about the department’s outside investigator for the Torres-Walker matter, Antioch Police Chief T Brooks responded, “I hired an outside investigator to investigate my officer’s conduct due to her allegations. That investigation is still moving forward.”

Mayor Not Aware

Asked if he was aware of the additional investigation initiated by Bernal, Mayor Thorpe responded, “I found out when Tamisha Walker posted a video on her Facebook page. Not the 9-minute video. It was a follow-up video,” referring to the Feb. 16 video.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.