With the close of filing on Friday, August 7, 2026, at 5:00 p.m., according to Appointed City Clerk Michael Mandy, all those who pulled nomination papers, except for Diane Gibson-Gray, have filed them to run for the Antioch City Council. Incumbent Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker will face former Antioch Councilwoman and School Board Trustee Joy Motts for a third time in District 1 and incumbent Monica Wilson will face three challengers in the race for District 4. Gibson-Gray announced earlier Friday in a letter to the editor she will not be running in District 1, again.
Torres-Walker defeated Motts who ran for re-election in 2020, then Motts lost again to Torres-Walker in 2022 by just four votes following a recount.
Former Antioch Police Crime Prevention Commission Chair Sandra White will run for a third time against Wilson, having also run in 2020 and 2022. First-time council candidates Andrew Becker, a local homeless advocate and regular public speaker at council meetings, as well as Metty Mathews Alappat have also entered the race. According to her LinkedIn page, Alappat was a Senior Technical Account Manager for Amazon Web Services until July 2025.
Wilson is running for a fifth term, or a rather fourth-and-a-half term. She was first elected in 2012, then re-elected in 2016, then re-elected in 2020 for a two-year term following the City’s move to district elections, and again re-elected in 2022 for another full, four-year term.
Former Antioch School Board President Diane Gibson-Gray will not run for the Antioch City Council again. Photo source: 2022 campaign
“This isn’t stepping away from the fight for accountability in Antioch.” – Diane Gibson-Gray
To the Editor:
In 2022, I ran for Antioch City Council, District 1, because I believe in serving the greater good of this community. That race came down to four votes — Tamisha Torres-Walker’s margin of victory over Joy Motts. I finished just 128 votes behind Torres-Walker myself.
I’ve thought hard about what that result actually tells us. Together, Joy and I represented roughly 60% of the vote in that race. We split it, and a three-vote margin decided the outcome for all of District 1.
I fully intended to run again in 2026. My commitment to fiscal accountability and transparent government in Antioch hasn’t wavered. My reason for running was, and always has been, the greater good — making sound decisions for District 1 and for Antioch as a whole.
Yesterday, Joy Motts and I had a conversation about the race. We talked through the reasons each of us is qualified to serve, and the reasons we each felt called to run. The call ended the same way it began, with both of us still in the race.
I’ve seen comments on social media about vote-splitting, and I’ve had conversations with valued friends and family who share that concern. After a great deal of thought, I’ve decided to withdraw — for the greater good. Joy Motts and I have real differences in experience, style and approach, and in many ways have similar ideas and values. District 1 voters deserve to hear those differences clearly, head-to-head with Tamisha Torres-Walker, not blurred across a three-way field.
This isn’t stepping away from the fight for accountability in Antioch — it’s making sure that fight is decided by voters, not by how the numbers happen to fall. I’ll continue doing the work I’ve always done in this community, watching the budgets and asking hard questions, from outside the ballot box this time.
I wish both candidates a hard-fought, honest campaign. District 1 deserves nothing less. The outcome is theirs to decide.
Finally, I want to thank everyone who signed my nomination papers, and everyone who encouraged and supported me along the way. Your belief in me and in this community means more than I can say.
Acting Antioch Manager Ana Cortez and District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker. Official photos source: City of Antioch
Followed 72-hour required noticing process
“…this is disheartening.” – Councilwoman Torres-Walker in an email to Acting City Manager Cortez
By Allen D. Payton
During the Antioch City Council meeting on Tuesday, July 28, 2026, District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker was absent but unable to attend remotely via Zoom as allowed by state law. That’s in spite of her following the required process to do so. Complaints were made during the meeting by members of the public that staff had made a mistake with one going so far as to call it “sabotage” as it prevented Torres-Walker from participating in and voting on the matter of the Homekey+ program at the Antioch Inn & Suites. The councilwoman was the one who pushed the matter and encouraged the City to pursue the state grant of $34.9 million.
Torres-Walker called in both during public comments on the agenda item to offer her input, then again, at the end of the meeting when she said, “In advance of the meeting, I submitted all the necessary documents to participate,” she said. “It speaks to the disfunction. This is in no way a sleight to Acting City Manager Cortez. So, I don’t blame Ms. Cortez for not posting my location within 72 hours before the meeting.”
Emails released on Friday by Cortez confirm what the councilwoman claimed and show Cortez’s inaction prevented Torres-Walker from participating in and voting on the matter, and all other agenda items during the meeting. The acting city manager called it an “oversight.”
Process for Official’s Remote Participation in Meetings
The agendas for public meetings must be publicly posted at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. According to California Government Code section 54953 (b)(3), “If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all teleconference locations. Each teleconference location shall be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public.”
In addition, under subsection (c)(2) “A member of a legislative body participating in a meeting by remote participation pursuant to this subdivision shall do both of the following: (A) The member shall participate through both audio and visual technology; (B) The member shall disclose at the meeting before any action is taken, whether any other individuals 18 years of age or older are present in the room at the remote location with the member, and the general nature of the member’s relationship with any of those individuals.”
Torres-Walker provided the location where she would be during the meeting and that was supposed to be included in the meeting agenda posted on the City’s website by Saturday, July 25th. City staff usually posts regular council meeting agendas by Friday afternoon prior to the Tuesday night meeting. The agenda for the July 28th meeting did not include Torres-Walker’s planned location which is what prevented her from participating remotely.
Email Exchange, Cortez Admits to “Oversight”
On Thursday, July 23, 2026, at 9:36 AM Torres-Walker sent Cortez an email informing her “I will be out of town and I need a zoom link to join close session and the council meeting” on July 28th. Then at 9:38 AM, Cortez acknowledged receipt of the email and responded, “As soon as I have it from our IS department, I will share with you.”
Then, in response, at 10:29 AM, Torres-Walker provided the location where she planned to be during the July 28th meeting. She wrote, “Here is the address where I will be zooming in from. Homewood Suites by Hilton San Jose Airport-Silicon Valley, 10 W Trimble Rd, San Jose, CA 95131, USA.”
But no response from Cortez acknowledging receipt of that email was provided.
On Friday, at 5:33 PM, Assistant City Clerk LaTonia Peoples-Stokes emailed all City employees, the city clerk and bcc’d the council members with “the link…for the City Council Meeting Agenda and Staff Reports for July 28, 2026,” and that, “The Agenda Packet will be available on the City’s Website shortly.”
On Monday, Torres-Walker informed Cortez she would have to cancel a “check-in” meeting planned for 1:00 p.m. that day. Cortez responded until 7:08 PM that night. But nothing was mentioned about the councilwoman’s location during the meeting missing from the agenda.
Then on Tuesday morning at 10:43 AM Cortez emailed Torres-Walker that she had left voicemails for the councilwoman on her work and personal phone the day before and wrote, “Unfortunately, your request to participate in tonight’s meeting via Zoom cannot be accommodated. Under the Brown Act, there are specific requirements for a Councilmember to participate remotely. The meeting agenda must include notice of the remote participation location, and the agenda must also be posted at that location. These requirements are subject to the Brown Act’s 72-hour noticing timeline, which cannot be met for tonight’s meeting.
“Additionally, with the new public comment procedures, the City would need to provide two separate Zoom links—one for members of the public providing comments and a separate link for Councilmember participation. Please note the Zoom link I shared with you has been set up for public comment participation. We would need to issue a new link for Councilmember participants.
“If you would like to discuss this further, please let me know and I would be happy to talk with you.
“We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.
“Thank you.”
At 11:17 AM Torres-Walker responded, copying City Attorney Lori Asuncion and asking Cortez why her remote location wasn’t included in the council meeting agenda. The councilwoman wrote, “Hello, Acting City Manager Cortez. I provided my location, and when I noticed it wasn’t included on the agenda, I knew it would be a challenge. Who overlooked this?”
Cortez responded at 12:30 PM, also copying Asuncion, admitting it was her mistake writing, “This was my oversight, and I take responsibility for it. While I was aware of your location, I did not identify the Brown Act requirements for remote participation in time to ensure the agenda included the required information and that the posting requirements could be met within the 72-hour noticing period.
“I apologize for the oversight. Going forward, I will ensure these requirements are identified and communicated in advance.
“Please let me know if you would like to discuss this further.
“Thank you for your understanding.”
————-
Torres-Walker responded to Cortez at 4:39 PM, again copying Asuncion, writing, “Hello, Acting City Manager Cortez. “I did my part.
“1. Requested to participate in the meeting via Zoom in advance of the meeting
“2. I provided the location
“3. I posted the agenda in the lobby 72 hours in advance
“I understand that we are understaffed and that the Clerk’s Office is in a learning position, but this is disheartening.”
—————- No additional communication between the councilwoman and acting city manager was provided.
Mayor Ron Bernal and the other three council members allowed the item regarding the Homekey+ program at the Antioch Inn & Suites to be discussed and voted on that night. During her called-in public comment, Torres-Walker said, “If I was there tonight and had the opportunity to vote, I would vote to move forward.”
The matter ended with a 3-1 vote to rescind the prior authorization for the funding and withdraw from the project, with District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson the only one opposing. So, Torres-Walker’s absence did not affect the outcome.
Councilmembers Monica Wilson (top) and Tamisha Torres-Walker and then-City Manager Ron Bernal participate in a council meeting remotely Feb. 26, 2021, during COVID. The practice ended in Feb. 2023. Now a maximum of two council members can participate remotely, and the public can offer comments remotely, as well. Herald file video screenshot.
Requires policy for handling technology disruptions, misconduct
Also, changes rules for officials’ remote participation in meetings and on social media, reporting of compensation for top staff
By Allen D. Payton
Just like during COVID, members of the public again have the opportunity to participate remotely in city council and other government meetings, either by phone call or online via videoconferencing. Passed in 2025 and signed into law last Oct. 3, Senate Bill 707 modernizes the Ralph M. Brown Act, California’s open meeting law, went into effect July 1, 2026, and lasts until January 1, 2030. It requires that “all open and public meetings include an opportunity for members of the public to attend via a two-way telephonic service or a two-way audiovisual platform.” In Antioch, the law applies to all public meetings “of the City Council and all eligible subsidiary bodies as directed by the City Council,” such as commissions, boards, committees and council subcommittees.
In addition, the law requires, “an eligible legislative body, on or before July 1, 2026, to approve at a noticed public meeting in open session a policy regarding disruption of telephonic or internet services occurring during meetings subject to these provisions, as specified, and would require the eligible legislative body to comply with certain requirements relating to disruption, including for certain disruptions, recessing the open session for at least one hour and making a good faith attempt to restore the service.”
The new law also requires “that the eligible legislative body take specified actions to encourage residents to participate in public meetings.” District 3 Councilman Don Freitas suggested at the meeting on Tuesday, July 28th, that the council make an effort to inform the public of the new, remote process.
Source: City of Antioch
During their meeting on April 14, 2026, the Council was provided a presentation on SB707 (agenda Item 13) which included various changes to the state’s open meeting law.
Orderly Conduct – Mayor Can Cut Off Disruptive Remote Participants
The new law “Clarifies statutory authority to remove disruptive remote participants to maintain the orderly conduct of the meeting” for proper decorum. “The Chair must issue a specific warning before muting or disconnecting a disruptive user” to prevent “Zoom Bombers” as occurred during COVID with comments that included profanity and racial epithets by some who called in during public comments. The Council must also “Establish clear conduct rules (e.g., time limits, profanity) and apply them neutrally to all speakers.”
Technology Disruptions
The City Council approved Antioch’s policy regarding technology disruptions during their meeting on May 12, 2026 (See agenda Item 9). According to the staff report on the policy, it “ensures transparency, public participation, and continuity of government during technology disruptions if the City Council finds the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote public access.”
If a technology disruption occurs, “the meeting must remain in recess for up to one hour or until remote access is restored, whichever occurs first. If service is restored within that time, the Council will reconvene and proceed with the agenda.”
According to the April 14th presentation, technology disruptions require a:
Mandatory Pause: If remote access service fails, the legislative body must recess to attempt to restore the connection before adjourning;
Public Notification: Staff must immediately post real-time status updates on the meeting webpage and announce the delay on all available social channels.
Physical Access to Meeting Room: The physical meeting room must remain open and accessible to the public during the entire recess period.
The “Public Interest” Finding:If remote service is not restored after one hour, the Council may make a formal finding that the “public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the lack of remote access.” This finding must be adopted by a recorded roll call vote before any further business occurs.
Meetings of Other City Legislative Bodies
The presentation explains that meeting of other eligible city boards, committees, commissions and council subcommittees “include bodies that serve exclusively in advisory capacities, cannot take final action and do not have primary subject matter jurisdiction. (Example: APOC – Antioch Police Oversight Committee). These can include bodies constituted with elected officials. (Example: Cannabis Subcommittee).”
However, “the City Council must formally direct these bodies follow two-way requirements. To do so, the Council must find that circumstances justify use of two-way communication, such communication would enhance public access, and would promote attraction, retention and diversity of the bodies’ memberships. Findings would have to be made by resolution of the City Council.”
Finally, “if two-way communication is required, there must be one physical meeting location, at least one board and staff member must be present there and the present board member must appear on camera. Special standards apply if any member appears via teleconferencing.”
More Reasons & Opportunities for Officials’ Remote Participation in Meetings
SB707 also adds more reasons why public officials can participate in meetings remotely and increases from two to a maximum of five uses per year. Valid reasons labeled, “Just Cause” and “Emergency Circumstances”, now include family medical emergencies, childcare or caregiving needs, military service and contagious illness.
Members must “provide notice and public disclosure at the start of the meeting in accordance with local procedure” and
“explicitly disclose if any individuals over the age of 18 are present in the room with them, and state their relationships…during roll call.”
“The City is required to publish a member-by-member utilization report annually to ensure accountability,” the presentation added.
But a majority of the members must be present in-person to have a quorum to conduct a meeting.
Officials’ Participation on Social Media
The law also changes how public officials can engage with the public on social media. According to the April 14th presentation, officials may now engage with the public’s posts on city matters (e.g., answering questions on a resident’s post, but it includes a strict prohibition that “officials cannot respond to, like, share, or repost other council members’ content on the same topic to avoid ‘serial meetings’” of a majority of members outside the setting of a publicly noticed meeting.
Reporting of Staff Compensation Before Council Vote
Also, according to the presentation, the new law requires that the Council provide, “An oral report…in open session before taking final action on compensation” for all department heads not just for executives such as the City Manager and City Attorney. “The verbal report will include the position title, a summary of compensation elements, and any contract changes.”
Antioch Virtual Speaker Rules& Procedure
According to the Speaker Rules published in each council meeting agenda, “The public has the opportunity to address the City Council on each agenda item. No one may speak more than once on an agenda item or during ‘Public Comments’.
“To provide oral public comments during the meeting, please click the following link to register in advance to access the meeting via Zoom Webinar:
“You will be asked to enter an email address and a name. Your email address will not be disclosed to the public. After registering, you will receive an email with instructions on how to connect to the meeting. When the Mayor announces public comments, click the “raise hand” feature in Zoom.
“When calling into the meeting using the Zoom Webinar telephone number, press *9 on your telephone keypad to ‘raise your hand’. Please ensure your Zoom client is updated so staff can enable your microphone when it is your turn to speak. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak.
“When you are called to speak, please limit your comments to the time allotted. The City cannot guarantee that its network and/or the site will be uninterrupted.”
Florence “Chickie” Rundall’s family, including husband Dennis and sons (center), were joined by the city council members and city clerk following presentation of the proclamation on July 28, 2026. Photo by Allen D. Payton
By Allen D. Payton
During their meeting on Tuesday, July 28, 2026, the Antioch City Council honored honor the late and former City Clerk Florence “Chickie” Rundall who passed away on June 11th. Mayor Ron Bernal read the proclamation approved unanimously then presented it to Rundall’s family members, including her husband Dennis, who were in attendance. Her oldest son spoke and thanked the council who then took photos with the family.
PROCLAMATION IN MEMORY OF FLORENCE “CHICKIE” VIRGINIA RUNDALL FORMER CITY CLERK
WHEREAS, the City of Antioch and the community lost a deeply cherished community member, with the passing of Florence “Chickie” Rundall on June 11, 2026;
WHEREAS, Florence “Chickie” Rundall born October 1, 1940, in Miami Beach, Florida, dedicated her life to public service;
WHEREAS, Florence “Chickie” Rundall faithfully served the City of Antioch, first as Deputy City Clerk and later as City Clerk, where her integrity and exemplary work ethic contributed significantly to the transparent operations
of municipal government for nearly 25 years;
WHEREAS, Florence is remembered as a distinguished individual whose devotion to civic responsibility has set a lasting standard of excellence for all who follow;
WHEREAS, beyond her professional accomplishments, Florence was a loving mother, wife, grandmother, and devoted community member, leaving behind a legacy of kindness, warmth, and cherished memories shared among her family, friends, and colleagues; and
WHEREAS, the City of Antioch honors Florence, and memorializes her dedication and commitment to the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, RON BERNAL, Mayor of the City of Antioch, hereby recognize the significant contributions of Florence “Chickie” Virginia Rundall over the course of her distinguished career and join the community in mourning her passing.
Takes action with Torres-Walker absent who was not allowed to attend via Zoom due to apparent staff mistake
“To say there’s no plan is wrong. We are not doing nothing.” – Mayor Bernal
By Allen D. Payton
Following multiple meetings on the matter, the City being awarded nearly $35 million in state Homekey+ grant funds and voting to approve the purchase and conversion of the hotel for the program, during their meeting on Tuesday, July 28, 2026, the Antioch City Council voted 3-1, to reject the funding and withdraw from the project. The funds would have been used to convert the 123-room Antioch Inn & Suites to 84 units of permanent supportive housing for veterans and homeless residents from Antioch and throughout the county. But it would have required a significant financial commitment from the City for five to 15 years which the mayor and two councilmen said Antioch can’t afford following two years of budget cuts and future deficits looming on the horizon.
District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson was the lone vote against the motion and Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker, in whose District 1 the project would have been located, was absent and unable to attend via Zoom due to an apparent staff mistake.
A new state law allows council member participation and public comments via Zoom which requires council members to submit information prior to the meeting. Earlier in Tuesday night’s meeting residents said Torres-Walker had informed her fellow councilmembers and Acting City Manager Ana Cortez she would miss the meeting and sent the necessary information to participate remotely. But something happened that prevented the councilwoman from participating in the meeting. Resident Leslie May called it, “sabotage” and as a result, she and local homeless advocate Nichole Gardner called for the agenda item to be postponed so Torres-Walker could be in attendance. But that didn’t happen and the councilwoman called in later during public comments on the matter to offer her thoughts in support of the project.
The Primary Issue: City Financial Commitment
While one of the issues was that all those housed on the property would not have been from Antioch, the primary issue for the three councilmen was the City’s financial commitment. To accept the state funding, it would have required ongoing operating assistance from the City averaging up to approximately $1.2 million annually during the initial five-year period, for a total of up to an additional $6 million. Over the full fifteen-year period, the total potential City contribution could have been approximately $18.75 million, primarily from the General Fund.
On average, the state and city funds combined would total $41.75 million or about $500,000 per unit over the first five years and approximately $54.4 million or $640,000 per unit over the full 15-year period.
Competing Views Offered During Public Comments
Following a brief staff presentation on the agenda item, #7, during public comments some residents spoke against while most spoke in favor of the project.
A woman asked, “Why Antioch? Antioch is the poster child for low-income housing. There is no guarantee it will house Antioch residents. It can go on for 55 years.”
Patrick Scott said he opposed the project, “primarily for economic reasons. This project will increase the deficits. We’ve already spent more than $25 million on homeless programs and services. In spite of these services, we still face homeless in front of our businesses, on our streets and shuttered businesses.”
He spoke of growing “encampments along the railroad tracks and in downtown.”
“Neither of our neighbors to the west or the east are experiencing the problems we have,” Scott stated.
He then spoke of the City’s projected budget deficits over the next few years and the $1.2 million annual cost for the project.
Resident Leslie May said, “The place is located in District 1. Most of the people who stand and speak against it don’t live in District 1. The railroad tracks are not the responsibility of the City of Antioch. Unless you live in District 1 and have to work with the people who are unhoused…you don’t understand what it is. It is humane to give these people a clean place.” “Antioch residents will definitely have first choice,” she explained. “They reason they’re not in Pittsburg, Oakley and Brentwood is because they pushed them all here.”
“The City of Antioch is already spending $1.2 million a year to do these sweeps, so why not spend the money on this…up to $1.2 million,” she concluded.
“Why would the council even consider adopting the Homekey project in Antioch? It’s ludicrous,” said Evelyn Scott. “Especially with the current budget shortfalls.”
“Residents can come from anywhere in the county,” she continued. “You cannot continue to dip into reserves…especially when you’re taking prime properties.
Cielo Martinez spoke next saying, “I’m 29 years old. I’ve been homeless for almost seven years. I work myself. I don’t do drugs. I don’t do alcohol. I work every day. So does my husband. I can’t afford a home, right now. The rent out here is crazy.”
Rebecca B. said, while choking back tears, “I’ve been on the streets for 15 years. We need homes. A lot of us don’t want to be out here. This is not a choice. We’re not getting better. We’re getting bitter. A lot of us want to work but we can’t work. I’m diabetic. I don’t have teeth. I can’t get a job because you want to judge me by my teeth, by my face, by my dog. I want a home. How much more in life am I supposed to take? It’s not my duty, it’s not my job. It’s your job. Please, help us. We don’t want to be out there.”
Local real estate broker Mark Jordan spoke next saying, “This is an incredibly emotional discussion. However, the City of Antioch only has one option and that’s Option B. Because the contract price is not a realistic price…of $15.1 million.”
“This particular property has a 17% occupancy rate. This property uses revenue to determine value,” he explained.
“There’s no appraisal for this property to the public,” Jordan continued. He cited state government code that it requires one unless it’s a gift.
California Penal Code…section 424 makes it a felony if an elected official overpays for a property and commits waste. Protect yourself, protect the city. The property is in foreclosure. Buy it at the foreclosure price.”
A woman who referred to herself as a reverend said, “It’s not just a fiscal issue. Housing is the most essential thing you can spend your money on. I think you can find the money. There are grants you can apply for. The amount of money you are spending on homeless people already would be offset. We can’t tolerate what’s going on in the Bay Area anymore. Even wealthy, middle-class people are struggling to pay their rent. I pray you…make the right decision.”
Joey Flegel-Mishlove, Policy Manager for the Bay Area Housing Mission, said, “Starting from the human question of what it’s like to sleep in the cold, the heat or the rain. Homelessness…as elected officials it is the most important issue. It is a fiscally sound choice to enter into this contract.”
“How in a deficit can we turn down the largest grant the State of California has ever offered us?” he asked. “Partners have been offering to help us. I hope you can say, ‘we can get this done. We will get this done.”
Former Councilman Ralph Hernandez said, “The Homekey thing, I don’t think we can afford it. You’re taking…something that is income generating for the community. They pay tax monies to the city.”
“I’m not saying deny the money from the state. Is there another way that it can be used?” he asked.
“Financially, the City cannot afford it and the homeless need to understand that,” Hernandez concluded.
A woman named Pastor Phillips said, “I’m for the housing…for the people to get housed. I’m praying that God touch your heart. It’s necessary. Give them somewhere to live. All things are possible through Christ. Have a heart. Help these people then you can clean up the community.”
Resident Joe W. said, “It’s very cut and dry. If you have money coming in you can help the deficit. If you give people a place to stay you help the community. You ain’t got no worry to get a felony off this.”
As members in the audience wouldn’t quiet down at the direction of the mayor, the council took a five-minute recess. Following the break, the council then voted to extend the meeting until 11:30 p.m.
Joe W. continued his comments saying, “You literally have the money to invest in a program. It’s a fiduciary responsibility of the committee to make a sound decision. The community of District 1 is very supportive of this. The money is there. You also need to look inside yourself. The city council is supposed to solve problem. You have wasted $25 million trying to move it away. Basically, you have a decision to invest in your people.”
Another speaker was Ankit Panchal who formerly managed and works with the owners of the hotel said, “Let’s clarify some of the false narratives. There was an appraisal that was done by the City in 2025. Cost to build a room? $300,000 for a brand, new hotel room. So, this is a bargain. This project was conditionally approved and signed by the City. If the City pulls out, will it cost the city thousands or millions?”
“The City of Antioch has a golf course,” he stated offering a funding option. “40,000 rounds of golf times four is 160,000. I believe each golfer can afford $5 extra for around of golf. That’s $800,000 per year. There’s your funding, right there.”
Former Antioch School Board Trustee Diane Gibson-Gray who said, “You’re deficit spending. So, you’re living on savings. We’re going to be sued if there’s fights.”
“What happens if the operator goes out of business?” she asked. “If you want to spend $14,500 per unit, spend it here in Antioch. I’m sure there’s some good things you could do with that money. “
Torres-Walker spoke via Zoom as a resident saying, “Wow. Tonight, has been very interesting. We have a city that is divided on a moral issue. We have months if not years to address this issue. The city invested in Opportunity Village…in clearing encampments. You have a large moral dilemma.”
She spoke of the City not having a strategy for economic development or staffing.
“I don’t know what the solution is, tonight.” Torres-Walker continued. “If I was there tonight and had the opportunity to vote, I would vote to move forward.”
Opportunity should live here in Antioch for everybody,” she stated.
“Whatever decision you make tonight…think about me and my neighbors who have to live with them every day. Support Homekey,” she concluded.
The council again voted to extend the meeting, this time for another hour until 12:30 AM. It passed 4-0.
All other public comments were in favor of the project.
Council Questions, Discussion and Decision
District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha was first to speak saying, “When this process started, I supported this application….because of the significant dollars from the state coming to our city for permanent, supportive housing.”
He spoke of the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds that help keep people in their homes.
“I thought the $34.9 million would come to the City to offset our costs. But in time I learned that would go to the property for rehabilitation,” he continued.
“There’s no disagreement to do what we can to help our neighbors, the unhoused community,” Rocha stated. “What I think about is being a steward of taxpayer dollars.”
“I was thinking 84 beds, that would be about a third of our homeless. But the…system has a wait list throughout the county. It’s a regional problem, not just here in Antioch,” he shared. “We’re not in a position to take on a long-term commitment of taxpayer dollars,”
“What I’ve heard is partnering with neighboring communities. But that hasn’t transpired.”
“What I’m hearing from residents in District 2 and beyond, is do something with funding…but when it comes down to taxpayer dollars, that’s the part I’m struggling with.
“I don’t see money coming in to offset the deficits next year and the years that follow,” he concluded.
District 3 Councilman Don Freitas spoke next saying, “There isn’t a simple solution to many of the problems and questions asked tonight. When the council did decide to go forward it was based on the information we had at that time. We thought the information was complete and comprehensive. I voted for it. Although, unfortunately, afterwards a lot of questions came up and more and more, without answers. Our regional partners have tried to respond and give us answers.”
“A lot of speakers say, ‘it’s $35 million. What’s you’re problem? Just accept it.’ Fiscal responsibility is not a negative thing. Bankruptcy is not a wonderful thing,” he continued. “We have to make decisions individually and collectively for the 120,000 people we represent.”
“Let’s spend millions of dollars on this project knowing it’s irresponsible, knowing some future city council will have to declare bankruptcy,” Freitas stated. “We took no pleasure in cutting…and using reserves, $5 million last year, $5 million this year…and with a $15 million deficit for the next fiscal year. That’s why we’re so concerned…in August, we will begin to focus on the budget so the City will not go into bankruptcy.”
“Having receivership is not something we would welcome in this community,” he continued.
“I would love to address the homelessness in the City of Antioch. This Homekey project doesn’t guarantee it,” Freitas stated. “We can go ahead and spend $19 million for the next 15 years and the impact that we will have to spend money to oversee how we’re spending money. I just can’t understand why there’s such a fight in this community and division, and frankly, a lot of hatred…coming to us, because we want fiscal responsibility.”
“I agree with what Nichole Gardner said. ‘If not this, what are we going to do to figure this out?’ For me, Homekey+ application is not it,” he stated.
“We’re going to spend $15 million to buy a property that’s in foreclosure. Really?” the councilman asked. “We could go through all of this and not one homeless Antioch person would be helped. Not one. That is not acceptable to me. This is not the right project at the right time with the consequences. So, I believe the prudent response is the second option.”
Some in the audience then erupted into chants of “Fight, fight, fight. Housing is a human right.”
“Not helpful,” Freitas responded.
“This report, if you read it in its entirety, you’ll see it’s not a good project,” he added.
District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson said, “I need to hear from staff, particularly the city manager, why Councilwoman Torres-Walker wasn’t in this meeting tonight. She’s been the number one advocate here and we did not hear her voice, tonight and I find it very disrespectful. She let staff know over a month ago.”
“If we don’t do this, what are we going to do?” she asked “What we’re currently doing is not working. It’s a crisis on the street. We need to figure something out because people email us every day. People call us every day. They’re concerned about homeless, because they don’t want to see it. We can’t turn our backs on this population…because other cities have pushed their problems. I refuse to be a problem pusher.”
“Somebody bought that hotel and fixed it up. But we didn’t help it. We didn’t utilize it,” Wilson continued and then mentioned it’s going to be fenced in and boarded up.
“I’m probably going to be the only one to still support Homekey,” she concluded.
Mayor Ron Bernal spoke next saying, “In 2021, the city council developed and adopted policies how we’re going to help homeless. Those still stand. In December 2023…it provided specific tactics and strategies how staff was going to help homeless in the City of Antioch. We spent $500,000 to develop those plans. To say there’s no plan is wrong. We are doing aspects of that plan, with ERF (state Encampment Resolution Funds) to help 30 or 40 homeless off the streets. We are not doing nothing.”
“Let me thank staff for doing that, because it wasn’t council,” Wilson interjected.
“Yes. It was staff,” Bernal responded.
“Other cities do not use their General Fund monies for these programs,” he continued. “When this program came forward it required General Fund monies which are very precious. We faced a $54 million budget…I didn’t think we could commit $1.2 million per year. At that time, I was the only ‘no’ vote. So, I’ve been the bad guy which is fine. Because I don’t think we can add…to our deficit. That’s with 15 vacancies…deferring all of our $4 million in roof project. We have a building across the street that’s going to cost…I don’t know why we have that.”
“We as a city do not have the resources at this time to make a long-term commitment…up to $18 million in the future,” Bernal stated.
“We have a permanent housing element that with discussion with regional opportunities…I’ve reached out to other cities and there is not an appetite…for people to commit money to what people often believe is Antioch’s problem,” he shared.
“This project is not going to solve homelessness in Antioch,” Bernal continued. “This is a very expensive proposition which is going to help people, but Antioch does not have the funds.”
“My position is to rescind the Homekey funding,” he concluded.
Bernal then made the motion to rescind the prior authorization and withdraw from the project. Rocha seconded the motion and it passed 3-1 with Wilson voting against and Torres-Walker absent.
(For more background on the project see related articles here, here, here and here).
Torres-Walker Speaks During Public Comments at End of Meeting
Torres-Walker then called in again during the Public Comments at the end of the meeting.
“In advance of the meeting, I submitted all the necessary documents to participate,” she said. “It speaks to the disfunction. This is in no way a sleight to Acting City Manager Cortez. So, I don’t blame Ms. Cortez for not posting my location within 72 hours before the meeting.”
“Ms. Scott is not coming back, and we are in desperate need of quality leadership,” the councilwoman added.
Map of the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration-regulated pipelines that run in and through Antioch. Source: CRPC
Will also end five-year lawsuit against City; but City staff claim company continued unauthorized use of pipeline
By Allen D. Payton
During their meeting tonight, Tuesday, July 28, 2026, the Antioch City Council will vote on the Encroachment Permit Appeal of California Resources Pipeline Company, LLC (CRPC), owner of the low-pressure, natural gas pipeline that runs under the city and has been shut off since 2021.
As previously reported, after operating for 30 years without incident, the 35-mile-long pipeline, including the 8.5-mile section through Antioch, that run from Union Island in the Delta to Pittsburg and serves the Chevron oil refinery in Richmond, the CRPC’s Franchise Agreement expired on February 7, 2021. On or about February 10, 2021, CRPC applied to renew the Franchise for an additional 10-year term that would run from February 7, 2021, until February 7, 2031. On September 28, 2021, the City Council voted 2-3 not to approve the proposed ordinance that would have granted CRPC’s requested 10-year renewal and the Franchise Agreement remained expired. Current Councilmembers Monica Wilson and Tamisha-Torres Walker were joined by then-Mayor Lamar Thorpe in voting against renewing the franchise agreement. Then Councilmembers Lori Ogorchock and Mike Barbanica voted to renew the franchise agreement.
The 12.75-inch pipeline, buried at a minimum of four feet, carried 1.8 million cubic feet of natural gas daily which is enough to supply about 9,000 homes. It’s one of many natural gas pipelines that run through the city.
In the past, the council’s renewal votes had been non-controversial, and the annual franchise fee only generated $16,871.90. Wilson led the effort in Antioch following the lead of Brentwood Councilwoman Jovita Mendoza. Their council, also on a 2-3 vote, opposed renewing that city’s franchise fee renewal in May 2021, even though only a small portion of the pipeline runs through their city.
Torres-Walker claimed, “Environmental injustices exist all around us and they impact frontline communities the most,” as a reason to oppose the franchise agreement renewal. She also called the pipeline, “dangerous” even though, “The pressures are 50% below the allowable pressures” and “The volumes are very low” a CRC representative explained.
Increased Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Also, as previously reported, shutting down the pipeline actually increased greenhouse gas emissions as 50% of gas now supplied to CRPC’s customers in Contra Costa originates in Canada as much as 3,500 miles away instead, about 80% is from fracking and some of the gas has to be transported via truck.
Tuesday Night’s Agenda Item
Under Item 6 on Tuesday night’s agenda, City staff are recommending “that the City Council affirm the City Engineer’s denial of the Encroachment Permit Application submitted by…CRPC in June 2022.”
• On or about June 29, 2022…CRPC’s predecessor-in-interest, California Resources Production Corporation, applied for an encroachment permit to maintain its existing Union Island Pipeline within the City’s public right-of-way.
• CRPC’s application included all information required by the City’s form, including necessary renderings, a surety bond, and proof of relevant liability and property insurance.
• On May 15, 2023, the City Engineer denied the application solely on the basis that two years prior the City Council had voted to deny CRPC’s franchise extension application.
• On May 22, 2023, CRPC timely appealed the City Engineer’s decision.
• Because the City Engineer did not have substantive comments or technical conditions to place on the permit application as a basis for rejection, the City Engineer had a duty to grant the permit.
• The Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (“PHMSA”) audits pipeline records, inspection programs, safety protections to prevent leaks or overpressures, operating procedures, training, and emergency response programs. The UIP inspections demonstrated:
• 2015 – No findings or violations.
• 2018 – No findings or violations.
• 2024 – No findings or violations.
• 2022: Independent consultants, Bear, INC., at the direction of the City of Brentwood, conducted a safety assessment of the pipeline. The assessment involved evaluating previous pipeline inspections and concluded: “Overall, this pipeline is well maintained, in good condition, and has had more inspections than the average pipeline, and the inspections were sufficiently thorough.”
“Without UIP, the Richmond refinery must import its natural gas, making California’s fuel supply more expensive,” the CRPC presentation concludes.
City Claims CRPC Continued Unauthorized Use of Pipeline
However, the staff report claims, “The City Engineer did not err in concluding that CRPC’s Encroachment Permit Application was in conflict with the City’s Encroachment Regulations. Specifically, as detailed in the May 15, 2023 written denial letter provided to CRPC, CRPC continued to use the Union Island Pipeline on City owned and/or controlled property without authorization after the expiration of CRPC’s Franchise with the City on February 7, 2021.
“This use continued after the City Council voted not to extend the Franchise on September 28, 2021 – and thus after the City expressly declined to re-authorize CRPC to use the City’s rights of way for the purpose of operating the Union Island Pipeline. This use also continued after the City Engineer sent a notice of termination informing CRPC that it was excluded from further use of the public highways, streets, alleys, and public places which it was previously granted permission to use under the Franchise Agreement. The City Engineer knew that CRPC’s continued use of the Union Island Pipeline was the subject of ongoing litigation between the City and CRPC wherein the City contends CRPC’s continued use of the City’s property is an unauthorized encroachment.
“As such, the City Engineer fairly concluded that denial was warranted because CRPC’s Encroachment Permit Application – submitted while CRPC was encroaching on the public right of way and did not have the City’s consent – was in conflict with the City’s Encroachment Regulations, and in particular with Antioch Municipal Code sections 7-2.204 and/or 7-2.304.”
Council Options
The current council majority can either vote to approve the appeal and renew the franchise agreement or deny the appeal, continue being sued by CRPC and keep the pipeline shuttered.
Meeting Details
Following the 6:00 p.m. Closed Session meeting, the regular meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. inside the Council Chambers at City Hall, 200 H Street in Antioch’s historic, downtown Rivertown. It can be viewed livestream on the City’s website or the City’s YouTube channel.
Will also vote on a 3% pay raise for police officers, Street Light & Landscape Maintenance District assessments, natural gas company’s appeal to reopen pipeline and recognize 60 years of Antioch-Chichibu Sister City relationship
By Allen D. Payton
During their meeting on Tuesday night, July 28, 2026, the Antioch City Council will again discuss state funding for the Homekey+ California Supportive Housing (CSH) Mahogany Housing Project. It is expected they will vote to either accept or reject the $34.9 million grant which requires matching City funds to create 84 units of permanent supportive housing for veterans and homeless individuals in Antioch and from throughout the county.
Before the regular meeting begins at 7:00 p.m., the Council will hold a closed session at 6:00 p.m. to discuss “Initiation of Litigation”, as the agenda item is simply described.
Homekey+ CSH Mahogany Housing Project
During their meeting on June 23rd, which lasted past midnight, after receiving public comments on both sides of the issue, the Council postponed a decision on the Homekey+ funding until tomorrow night’s meeting. Then on June 29th, the Council held a study session to get their questions answered regarding the project and the funding.
According to the staff report for agenda Item 7, the Council has two options.
“Option A – Reaffirm Continued Participation and Proceed with Implementation Receive the report; acknowledge the additional due diligence conducted since the June 29, 2026, Study Session; reaffirm the City’s continued participation as a Homekey+ co applicant and the funding commitments previously approved under Resolution No. 2025/201; direct staff to continue working with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), California Supportive Housing (CSH), and project partners to negotiate and finalize the most favorable financial and operational terms reasonably available to the City, including opportunities to reduce the City’s long-term financial commitments where feasible; and proceed with execution of the Homekey+ Standard Agreement and associated project documents consistent with the authority previously granted by the City Council.”
“Option B – Rescind Prior Authorization and Withdraw from the Project Receive the report and direct staff to rescind the City’s prior authorization under Resolution No. 2025/201, notify HCD that the City will not execute the Homekey+ Standard Agreement, and withdraw the City from continued participation as a Homekey+ co-applicant.”
Background
On average, the state and city funds for the project, combined, would total $41.75 million or about $500,000 per unit over the first five years and approximately $54.4 million or $640,000 per unit over the full 15-year period.
According to the City staff report for the June 23rd meeting, “consistent with the approved Homekey+ application and prior City Council authorization, the City identified a proposed $750,000 contribution to support acquisition and rehabilitation costs associated with the project. The proposed contribution is reflected in the City’s Five-Year Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan. Funding for this contribution is included in the proposed FY 2026/27 Housing Successor budget.
Following Council direction at their meeting on May 22, 2025, the City applied for the Homekey+ funding. “The project application assumes ongoing operating assistance averaging approximately $1.2 million annually during the initial five-year period,” for a total of an additional $6 million. “If such funding levels were maintained over the full fifteen-year period, the total potential City contribution could be approximately $18.75 million, from the General Fund.”
“The City would receive the benefit of approximately $34.9 million in State Homekey+ funding,” awarded in May 2026, “for acquisition and rehabilitation of the project. The City would assume ongoing administrative, monitoring, and compliance responsibilities associated with participation in the program.”
“While the City was a co-applicant and recipient of the award, the City has not executed the Homekey+ Standard Agreement with HCD and has not formally accepted the grant funds. Because the…Agreement has not been executed, the City currently has no contractual obligation to participate in the project. The City would not assume the reporting, compliance, monitoring, or administrative responsibilities associated with the Homekey+ Program.” However, if the Council declines the grant funds, “the City could experience reduced competitiveness for certain future discretionary housing funding opportunities.”
Council Gets Questions Answered During June 29th Study Session
During a special study session on Monday, June 29, 2026, that lasted three-and-a-half hours, the Antioch City Council asked a variety of questions of staff regarding the proposed Homekey+ California Supportive Housing (CSH) Mahogany Housing Project at the Antioch Inn & Suites, formerly Comfort Inn.
In attendance to answer questions was Jamie Schecter, Homeless Services Chief with Contra Costa Health, Housing and Homeless Services, who oversees the County’s Continuum of Care, she mentioned two other Homekey projects, Delta Landing Interim Housing Program at the former Motel 6 in Pittsburg and another in San Pablo. She also spoke of a similar upcoming project in Richmond the County is working with. Also in attendance were Richmond City Manager Shasa Curl and her Community Development Director, Lina Velasco, who has worked on that city’s Homekey project, who provided a presentation about it.
Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas asked, “The City of Richmond is actually the owner of this property?”
“Yes, we will own the property,” Velasco responded. “However, during the term of the ground lease, the lessee will own the improvements. They’ll be responsible for all the maintenance and the improvements.” “The wrap-around services, are they provided from City staff of Richmond or are they contracted out?” he asked.
“They’re contracted,” Velasco stated.
“How is occupancy determined?” Freitas asked.
“We cannot be limited to Richmond residents but there is a prioritization that’s considered,” she explained. “However, we’ll serve countywide.”
Mayor Ron Bernal asked if any of the funding pays for staff time and consultants. Velasco responded, “Some of the Homekey funding has predevelopment costs. However, it’s not reimbursing, like, the time I take to write an annual report and expenditure report. So, that’s part of what we’ve been absorbing outside of a loan for the rehab. But there were some early draws for the legal fees. The developer is paying for the architectural fees, the permit fees. Those costs were included in the grant award.”
“During the 55-year term of the project, will there be any funding for staff from the Homekey,” Bernal pressed further.
City Manager Curl responded, “I would say, ‘no’ and I think it’s important for the Antioch City Council to understand, our contribution of $10.3 million is an advance from the General Fund in excess of whatever was in our Housing In Lieu fund. So, as that is replenished that will pay back the City.”
“This is the first time we’ve done something of this magnitude,” Curl continued. “So, the city council has a third-party, neutral analysis that was separate from staff. In addition, the project looked at through the construction management lens, especially the change orders, especially with inflation. So, having that third party has been extremely helpful for staff working with the building official.”
“What is your program during that 55-year period for making sure the building is properly being maintained and when there is a problem…how are they handled?” Freitas asked.
“Our plan is to do annual inspections annually,” Velasco stated. “We do within our budget have a capital reserve for issues…including turnover.”
“How do you define success over a 55-year period?” Freitas then asked.
“For me…this housing type is very important and difficult to produce,” she responded. “I think making sure the property is well-maintained also, well-operated. Hoping the tenants that come in are not losing their housing or being expelled due to lease violations…making sure supportive services include tenancy sustaining services. I think those are the big things and just making sure it doesn’t become a nuisance property for the City.”
Freitas then asked about 24-hour security costs.
“So, we are talking about that. We do have that in our budget,” Velasco explained. “We may look at that overtime based on how the property is operating and the need.”
District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha asked if the occupancy would be “100% unhoused that you will be serving?”
“Yes. When we wrote our application it was for targeting the chronically homeless,” she stated. “There is a lega definition in our regulatory agreement with HCD (California Department of Housing and Community Development).”
“Is it a similar focus with individuals, youth and veterans?” Rocha asked.
“If they fit the definition,” Velasco said. “But unlike Homekey plus, you have more target definitions.”
“With your case managers is there a ratio that you have identified?” the councilman asked.
“Currently our budget is two case managers for the property,” she responded for 48 units.
“With Mahogany, it’s 100% just for those being served,” Rocha asked his fellow councilmembers. Torres-Walker nodded in agreement.
“Without those ERF funds (State Encampment Resolution Funds) and the Homekey, I think it would have been a heavy lift for the City,” Cass stated. “So, I think between that and the CDBG funds it was really important to get all of the partners to the table. For me, the price per unit is what makes it an acceptable public policy solution…because the cost per unit is less than if we were building a new unit. That was part of the rationale and because it takes so long to get a new unit online.”
Staff Answer Council Member Questions
Council members asked staff some of the outstanding questions not answered in the staff report for the agenda item.
Regarding the hotel’s current financial condition facing foreclosure, Freitas asked, “If the property owner sells the property with those debts, how is the City made whole?”
He mentioned “$400,000 or more in delinquent taxes.”
“And the water,” said Acting City Manager Ana Cortez.
“The City of Antioch is a co-applicant – said Assistant City Attorney Kevin Kundinger
“So, we’re just paying bills,” Freitas stated.
“Yes,” Kundinger replied. “I think the decisions are made collaboratively.”
Freitas asked for the breakdown of the $34.9 million in state funds.
The project developer said, “The capital award is the purchase price $27,500,00. Other costs are about $7 million.
“Approximately $700,000 is for operation and the $1.2 million from the City,” Freitas stated.
The councilman then asked about the veterans’ units.
In response to a question by Mayor Ron Bernal, the developer said there will be no senior-designated units.
Under Item 5 on the agenda, the Council will vote on the annual assessments for six Streetlighting & Landscape Districts throughout the city. They annual rates range from $8 in District 9, Zone 3, the Lone Tree Way District to as high as $331 per year in District 2-A, Zone 10, the Black Diamond Ranch units of the Citywide District, depending on the individual parcel.
The Public Works Department’s Parks & Landscape Division maintains 34 City parks and a wide variety of landscaped areas that enhance the aesthetic of our community. This includes:
City Parks and open space areas
Medians and right-of-ways
Trails and cul-de-sacs
Coordinate and oversee the annual weed abatement project
Street lighting is maintained by the Street Maintenance Division.
3% Pay Raise for Antioch Police Officers
Under Item 8, the Council will vote on the Tentative Agreement between the City of Antioch and the Antioch Police Officers’ Association that will include a 3% Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for Fiscal Year 2026-27 at a cost of $661,430 and other matters. According to the City staff report, “No COLA or additional increase to uniform allowance was including in the adopted FY26/27 budget, thus requiring a budget amendment.” The previous Tentative Agreement covered the period of Sept. 1, 2021 – Aug. 31, 2025. If the council approves the agreement, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) will be prepared to replace the agreement and require another vote by the council.
In addition to the 3% COLA, the Tentative Agreement includes the following:
Increase to four floating holidays in a calendar year.
Travel meal reimbursement increase to $25.00 for breakfast, lunch or dinner.
Lateral Police Officer and Dispatcher new hire vacation credit of one week upon employment.
Plus, increases to the uniform allowance, adjustments to benefits, retirement and vacation, sick leave and bereavement leave language defined and/or updated, as well as updates to the department’s grievance procedure.
Following the 6:00 p.m. Closed Session meeting, the regular meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. inside the Council Chambers at City Hall, 200 H Street in Antioch’s historic, downtown Rivertown. It can be viewed livestream on the City’s website or the City’s YouTube channel.
See separate article on the Natural Gas Pipeline Encroachment Permit Application Appeal.
