Antioch among 15 cities eligible to participate in ADU Accelerator Program
By Steven Harmon, Policy Analyst/Communications, Office of State Senator Steve Glazer
SACRAMENTO – Senator Steve Glazer, D-Contra Costa, announced a newly created program to encourage the construction of hundreds of Accessory Dwelling Units in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties.
The ADU Accelerator Program, secured in the budget through Senator Glazer’s efforts, offers rebates of up to $15,000 for qualifying ADU plans and projects. This $2.5 million state-funded initiative is intended to facilitate the construction of 350 ADUs among the 15 cities and towns in the East Bay.
“It is no secret the State of California is facing a shortage of available and affordable housing, and no one knows this better than our local cities and towns,” Glazer said. “From my first days in the State Senate, I have been a staunch supporter of cities seeking new and unique ways to spur the production of housing while blending new developments within the fabric of their communities.”
“I’m hoping that cities in my district can show what can be achieved when cities work together with the state on an incentivized program aimed at producing more affordable housing,” Senator Glazer said.
The 15 cities are: Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, Danville, Dublin, Lafayette, Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pittsburg, San Ramon, Walnut Creek in Contra Costa County and Livermore and Pleasanton in Alameda County.
Qualifying cities must have a Certified Housing Element that meets the substantial compliance requirements of Housing and Community Development.
Below is an overview of the new program along with guidelines to apply and receive funds.
Senate District 7 – ADU Accelerator Program | GUIDELINES
Program Overview
Some cities are taking steps to encourage and facilitate the construction of ADUs through the development of permit-ready plans, including architectural design work. Other cities are waiving processing fees to bring down the cost of housing.
This new program will be piloted by Senator Glazer’s District 7, composed of 15 cities in the East Bay of the San Francisco Bay Area. The program will be administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development for the purpose of advancing or “accelerating” the production of 350 ADUs through a series of programs.
Program Funding
Section 19.564 of the Budget Act of 2023 provides $2,500,000 to be allocated by the California Department of Housing and Community Development for implementation of the ADU Accelerator Program (“Program”) to grant funds to cities for the creation of pre-approved permit-ready accessory dwelling unit plans and an incentive program.
Program Eligibility
Fifteen (15) cities located in Senate District 7, including: Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, Danville, Dublin, Lafayette, Livermore, Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pittsburg, Pleasanton, San Ramon, and Walnut Creek.
Qualifying cities must have a Certified Housing Element that meets the substantial compliance requirements of Housing and Community Development.
Program Details
1. Incentive Program. Available Funding: $1,725,000
A. Low-Income Restricted ADUs
Provide individual rebates of up to $15,000 to property owners who obtain building permits to construct an ADU and receive a certificate of occupancy within 18 months of issuance. Rebates will be provided for units that are deed restricted to low-income households for a minimum of 20 years; based upon the following sliding scale:
$15,000 for units < 50 square feet
$10,000 for units between 501-750 square feet
$5,000 for units between 751-1,000 square feet
No rebates for units over 1,000 square feet.
B. Non-restricted ADUs
Provide individual rebates of up to $7,500 to property owners who obtain building permits to construct an ADU and receive a certificate of occupancy within 18 months of issuance. Rebates will be provided for units that are deed restricted to low-income households for a minimum of 20 years. Funds are awarded based upon the following sliding scale:
$7,500 for units < 50 square feet
$5,000 for units between 501-750 square feet
$2,500 for units between 751-1,000 square feet
No rebates for units over 1,000 square feet.
Example:
City of Dublin has a population of 72,917 (as of January 1, 2024)
Per Capita: $1.87
Eligible for Award of $136,352 ($1.87 per capita x 72,917 population)
Divided by average of $5,000 per unit (unrestricted)
Potential ADUs Added: 27 ADUs
2. Permit Ready Prototype ADU Plans. Available Funding: $750,000
Qualified cities receive funding toward preparing prototypical permit-ready ADU plans (“ADU Plans”), including design elevations and construction drawings. Permit-ready plans are intended to streamline the ADU development process and facilitate additional ADU development in the community. Cities may partner with other cities on applications in this category to leverage investment. The maximum grant per city will be $50,000.
Cities may not be reimbursed for permit-ready ADU plans that were prepared prior to the launch of this program. Program funds may be used to modify or update existing permit-ready ADU plans or to create additional permit-ready ADU plans. Cities may also seek compensation from other eligible cities they share plans with.
Application Process
To receive funds, qualified cities must complete and submit an electronic application to the Town of Danville, Fiscal Agent. All funds must be expended as prescribed below and no later than September 30, 2026, after which these funds would be considered unexpended “Excess Funds” subject to re-allocation.
Incentive Program
An application must include (a) the anticipated number of units proposed to be produced through the program; and (b) amount requested based on the per capita amount identified in the Funding Eligibility section.
Funding will be distributed to cities upon receipt of the application. Any unused funding must be returned to the Town of Danville, Fiscal Agent, at the end of the 18-month period and may be reallocated to cities that meet their targets and have additional need.
Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans
An application must include (a) brief description of the plans to be developed including the number of floor plans and ADU sizes; and (b) requested funding amount. The maximum funding is $50,000 per agency. Cities may partner with other eligible cities on applications in this category to leverage funding investment.
Funding will be distributed to cities upon receipt of the application. Permit-ready plans must be completed and available to prospective permittees within 12 months of grant award and include a city resolution adopting the ADU Plans.
Excess Funds
Any funding that has not been expended pursuant to these program guidelines by September 30, 2026, must be returned to the Fiscal Agent, the Town of Danville. These Excess Funds will be reallocated to other eligible agencies pursuant to the Incentive Program Guidelines. Funds will be re-allocated on a first come, first served basis. In the event of multiple requests, consideration will be given to which city or cities will generate the largest number of affordable units.
Application Deadlines
Applications are accepted via electronic submittal only
Incentive Program: September 1, 2024 – March 31, 2025 (may be extended if additional funds are available to be rolled over from the Permit-Ready program).
Permit-Ready Prototype ADU Plans: September 1, 2024 – March 31, 2025.
Program Administration
As authorized through the California Budget Act of 2023 and the California Department of Housing and Community Development, the Town of Danville will act as the fiscal agent (“Fiscal Agent”) to receive funding applications and distribute Program funds. The Town of Danville will receive a 1% fee ($25,000) for administering the program.
General program questions can be directed to Planning Division c/o Jessica Lam, Town of Danville at jlam@danville.ca.gov or (925) 314-3337.
Eligible recipients will be required to submit Biannual Progress Reports which summarize the number of ADUs that have been permitted and finaled for the reporting period as well as cumulatively for the life of the program through September 30, 2027.
Cites “finite funding”; would have qualified some for up to $150,000 or 20% down payment; signs 5 other bills
By Allen D. Payton
In a message to the California State Assembly on Thursday, Sept. 6, Governor Gavin Newsom explained his veto of AB1840, Home Purchase Assistance Program: eligibility by Assemblymember Dr. Joaquin Arambula (D-Fresno) that it’s due to limited funds. He wrote:
“To the Members of the California State Assembly:
I am returning Assembly Bill 1840 without my signature.
This bill seeks to prohibit the disqualification of applicants from one of California Housing Finance Agency’s (CalHFA) home purchase assistance programs based solely on their immigration status.
Given the finite funding available for CalHFA programs, expanding program eligibility must be carefully considered within the broader context of the annual state budget to ensure we manage our resources effectively.
For this reason, I am unable to sign this bill.”
Source: Office of the Governor of California
The bill would have allowed some illegal immigrants in California to qualify for the California Dream for All Shared Appreciation Loan program, which would have been renamed under the bill to the Home Purchase Assistance Program, and receive up to $150,000 for a 20% downpayment to purchase their first home.
Newsom also announced on Thursday the bills he signed into law:
AB 1170 by Assemblymember Avelino Valencia (D-Anaheim) – Political Reform Act of 1974: filing requirements.
AB 1770 by the Committee on Emergency Management – Emergency services: Alfred E. Alquist Seismic Safety Commission: seismic mitigation and earthquake early warning technology.
AB 2094 by Assemblymember Heath Flora (R-Modesto) – Alcoholic beverage control: public community college stadiums: City of Bakersfield.
AB 2436 by Assemblymember Juan Alanis (R-Modesto) – Cattle: inspections: fees.
AB 2721 by the Committee on Agriculture – Food and agriculture: omnibus bill.
Up to $150,000 for a 20% down payment, awaits Newsom’s signature or veto
Glazer votes against, Grayson for
By Allen D. Payton
The California State Senate passed the bill, on Tuesday, August 27, 2024, to give home loan down payments to illegal immigrants on a 25-14 vote with 1 Democrat abstaining from voting. It follows the action in May by the Assembly, which passed it on a 56-15 vote with 6 Democrats and 3 Republicans not voting. Now the controversial Assembly Bill 1840 is on Governor Newsom’s desk awaiting his decision.
State Senator Nancy Skinner (D-SD9) who represents portions of West Contra Costa County voted yes, while State Senator Steve Glazer (D-SD7), who represents the rest of the county including Antioch, voted against the bill authored by Assemblyman Joaquin Arambula (D-AD31) of Fresno. As previously reported, all four Assemblymembers representing Contra Costa County, including Tim Grayson (D-AD15), Lori Wilson (D-AD11), Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-AD16) and Buffy Wicks (D-AD14), voted to pass the bill.
It would expand eligibility of the California Dream for All Shared Appreciation Loan program, to be renamed under the bill to the Home Purchase Assistance Program, by removing any disqualifications based on an applicant’s immigration status. If approved, illegal immigrants could enter the lottery system under the program and qualify for the 20% in down payment assistance up to $150,000.
However, not all illegal immigrants would qualify for the program. Under AB 1840, only those with taxpayer ID numbers or Social Security numbers could apply. According to the language of the bill “This bill would specify that an applicant who meets all other requirements for a loan under the program and who is otherwise eligible under applicable federal and state law, shall not be disqualified solely based on the applicant’s immigration status.”
According to a June 28, 2024, press release from the governor’s office, out of 18,000 people who applied to the program this year, only 1,700 were chosen and according to a report by KQED, in 2013, the program ran out of money in the first 11 days. The bill would greatly expand the number of applicants, due to the California Dream program targeting low- to middle-income first-time buyers.
According to the program details, “The Dream for All Shared Appreciation Loan is a down payment assistance program for first-time homebuyers to be used in conjunction with the Dream For All Conventional first mortgage for down payment and/or closing costs. Upon sale or transfer of the home, the homebuyer repays the original down payment loan, plus a share of the appreciation in the value of the home.” In addition, one borrower must be a first-generation homebuyer and all borrowers must be first-time homebuyers.
Contact the Governor
To contact the governor to offer your input on how he should respond to the bill use the online form on the office’s website at www.gov.ca.gov/contact/. But you’ll have to select Immigration Issues/Concerns and write AB1840 in the comment as it is not currently in the Active Bills list. You can also call Newsom’s office at (916) 445-2841 and leave a message with or for his staff.
According to campaign finance reports known as Form 460’s, as of June 30th, former Antioch mayor Don Freitas had raised the most money of the three candidates running for city council in District 3, with a total of $5,055. But an additional $2,500 received on August 11th brings his total to $7,555 raised with all but $55 in the form of monetary contributions.
His report for the period of Jan. 1 through June 30, 2024, shows he raised $5,000 in monetary contributions including $2,000 from himself, all from within Antioch, and an additional $55 in non-monetary, referred to as an in-kind contribution, which were for fees he paid out of pocket to form his campaign committee and to the bank where its account is located.
The other contributions received were $2,000 from Susan Kennedy of Antioch, a Senior Policy Advisor in the U.S. House of Representatives and $1,000 from his campaign treasurer, Stephanie Bonham of Antioch, who is listed as retired.
Since the close of the reporting period, Freitas filed a Form 497 which shows he had received an additional $2,500 on Aug. 11 from GBN Partners of Danville, which stands for Ginocchio, Blackhawk, Nunn, land developers for the already approved Promenade projects north and south of Sand Creek Road. The Form 497 is required for state and local committees making or receiving contributions that total $1,000 or more in the 90 days before an election. It brings Freitas’ total to $7,500 raised for his campaign.
That compares to the $3,411 that second-time candidate Antwon Webster raised, which were all loans from himself, as previously reported, and $4,056.88 that was raised by the third candidate in the race, newcomer Addison Peterson. Of that amount $1,500 was an in-kind contribution from his wife for website design, $1,980 in loans, and $576.88 in monetary contributions. But Peterson did not provide details for the loans which were included in his Form 460 report for the period ending June 30th, as it appears there were received after. Questions about his campaign finance report were sent on Tuesday and await a response.
Freitas’ greatest expenditures were $1,500 to Carla Marymee of Antioch for website development and $450 to Mark Marymee of Fremont for photography. Asked why he didn’t use a photographer in Antioch, instead, the candidate responded, “He is Carla’s former husband, and they work together on the websites she develops. The business really is Carla’s, Rivertown Communications Marketing.”
Freitas’ original Form 460 showed a total of $2,063.18 in expenditures. But he submitted an Amended report a week later showing a corrected amount for total expenditures of $2,062.20, a reduction of $0.98 which was from a change in the cost for campaign checks paid to Travis Credit Union, where the committee’s account was opened. That left him with an Ending Cash Balance of $2,937.80 to spend on his campaign before the $2,500 contribution on August 11th. See Freitas’s Form 460 and Form 460 Amended.
The election is November 5th.
Please check back later for any updates to this report.
High-density, high-rise housing construction would have been funded by the bond measure. Photo: BAHFA
Removed from all nine Bay Area counties after Contra Costa attorney opposed to measure filed lawsuit claiming ballot language was slanted, forced BAHFA to correct more than $240 million error
20 Billion Reasons opposition campaign responds
By Allen D. Payton
Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) Chair Alfredo Pedroza and Belia Ramos, president of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)’s Executive Board today, Wednesday, August 14, 2024, issued a joint statement following BAHFA’s decision this morning to remove a $20 billion general obligation bond measure for the production and preservation of affordable housing from the November 5 general election ballot in all nine Bay Area counties:
“The BAHFA Board’s decision to withdraw the affordable housing bond measure from this November’s ballot is not one that was taken lightly. The Bay Area’s housing affordability crisis has been decades in the making and is far too big for any one city or county to solve on its own. This is the reason the state Legislature established BAHFA. A robust source of funding for safe and affordable housing across our diverse, nine-county region is essential to the Bay Area’s economic and environmental health and to its residents’ quality of life.
The decision followed the action of a group of Bay Area residents, known as Opportunity Now, who opposed the $20 billion regional housing bond measure and filed a court challenge on Thursday, Aug. 8, 2024, to Regional Measure 4’s (RM4) 75-word ballot question claiming it was slanted.
Source: Opportunity Now
Following is the press release from the group announcing the lawsuit, entitled “BAHFA blunders on ballot language for Bay Area tax measure” and “Gets busted for wildly lowballing cost to taxpayers”:
“Talk about misinformation. The discredited Bay Area Housing Finance Authority yesterday admitted that they’d misrepresented in ballot language the annual cost to taxpayers of the mammoth bond by (hold on) more than $240 million (you read that right) per year.
“The Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA), a recently created regional agency, placed RM4 on the November 5 ballot. The unprecedented size of the bond measure has already drawn opposition.
The 20BillionReasons.com group helped pull together ballot arguments rebutting the claims for the measure. The lawsuit asserts that the ballot question is slanted to prejudice voters to vote in favor of the measure.
BAHFA conducted multiple polls to test various phrases in relation to the measure and picked the most popular ones. The lawsuit asserts that the ballot question contains a series of phrases that are not found in the language of the measure. The legal standard is that the ballot question must be an accurate synopsis.
Opponents’ Attorney Jason Bezis sent BAHFA a letter last Friday demanding a series of nine language changes to remove prejudicial language. Opponents assert that the true annual cost of the measure is nearly 36% higher than the amount shown in the ballot question.
The very name of the measure is deceptive: Bay Area Affordable Plan. This measure’s taxes will make the Bay Area even less affordable. In response, BAHFA held a special meeting of its Executive Committee this morning.
The lawsuit has already had success: The Committee adopted General Counsel Kathleen Kane’s recommendation “to correct the Ballot Question for Regional Measure 4 by deleting ‘$670,000,000’ from the Ballot Question and replacing it with ‘$910,976,423’.” No other changes to the ballot question were adopted today.
General Counsel Kane described this as a “mathematical error”. Plaintiff Marc Joffe retorted: “How can the public trust an agency that can’t do basic arithmetic with nearly $50 billion of its taxes? Ridiculous.”
“By law, Regional Measure 4 is coordinated by the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters, so the Santa Clara County Superior Court is where this challenge was filed. The final language of the RM4 ballot question will now be determined by the court. See www.NoOnRM4.com for further information.”
“This public body, MTC in the form BAHFA, they finally acknowledged the public is not willing to support more taxes. It’s completely new to them. They’ve never recognized it before. They exist in this world in which the public is there to give them all the resources they want to monkey around with,” said David Schonbrunn, paralegal for the lawsuit said after the measure was removed from the ballot. “The worst part is MTC, when it comes to their transportation decision making, they have a dismal record on outcomes. Their outcomes are horrible. What I see them doing is it’s all about political deal making and it’s not about delivering solutions to the public.”
The BAHFA statement continued, “The BAHFA Board has always understood that it would be a steep climb to establish this source of funding. Recent developments have led the Board to conclude that the wise choice is to look ahead to another election season for a regional housing measure when there is more certainty and the voters have weighed in affirmatively on Proposition 5.
“In the meantime, BAHFA will continue to work on increasing the production of housing at all income levels, to preserve existing affordable housing, and to protect current residents from displacement. This includes maintaining, refining and expanding pilot programs such as the online Doorway Housing portal that makes it easier for prospective tenants to find and apply for affordable housing throughout the region and easier for developers and property managers to lease up their apartments; working to move thousands of planned housing units through the predevelopment pipeline; and implementing innovative programs to preserve affordable housing and prevent homelessness.
“BAHFA’s commitment to a regional approach toward solving the Bay Area’s housing affordability problems is stronger than ever. When the climb toward passage of a regional revenue measure resumes, the Board looks forward to teaming with every one of the Bay Area’s nine counties and 101 cities; and with the hundreds of other public, private and nonprofit partners who already have invested so much energy into this effort. Their work to prepare for a November bond measure, and the relationships built along the way, have laid a strong foundation for future success. Each step brings us closer to the summit.”
BAHFA is jointly governed by the ABAG’s Executive Board and by the BAHFA Board, which is comprised of the same membership as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). BAHFA and MTC Chair Pedroza and ABAG Executive Board President Ramos both also serve as members of the Napa County Board of Supervisors.
20 Billion Reasons Campaign Responds
In response to the withdrawal of the measure from the ballot, the opposition campaign, 20 Billion Reasons, responded with their own statement on Wednesday, August 14, 2024:
“This morning, the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) voted to pull Regional Measure 4, the $20 billion dollar regional bond measure, off the November ballot. Gus Mattammal, President of the 20 Billion Reasons campaign to defeat the bond measure in November, hailed the move.
Said Mattammal, “This decision is a win for Bay Area taxpayers, and a win for affordable housing. To address housing affordability in a meaningful way, we have to address root causes, not soak taxpayers for billions of dollars to pay bonds that would waste two thirds of their tax money on interest and overhead while barely making a dent in the issue.”
The 20 Billion Reasons campaign brought together Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents in a single campaign, a rarity in recent times, but a necessity.
“Actually, working on the root causes of the housing crisis in California – a crisis created by our legislature and the corporate interests to which they are beholden – is politically difficult. It’s much easier to simply raise taxes,” said Mattammal. “That’s why it’s so important for voters to say ‘no’ to deeply flawed proposals such as Regional Measure 4: every time we do say no, it helps create the political conditions to work on the problem in a meaningful way.”
Though Regional Measure 4 is off the ballot for November, many other expensive proposals remain on that ballot. The $20 Billion Reasons campaign team is excited to regroup and consider the best way forward to help ensure that Bay Area taxpayers are getting real solutions for the taxes they pay and that they have a real voice in what is done with their tax money.”
John Goodwin, Assistant Director of Communications, Rebecca Long, Director, Legislation & Public Affairs, Metropolitan Transportation Commission contributed to this report.
Photo sources: Bernal campaign. Hernandez-Thorpe Official Faceebook page.
Challenger raised almost $128K since January launch a majority from within Antioch
Incumbent raised $59K this year mostly from outside Antioch but transferred $58K from recall opposition committee after reimbursing it $5,700 giving him $117K to spend on re-election.
Mayor’s reports show $5,200 in travel expenses this year; plus, multiple errors including incorrect dates, amounts, but corrected after Herald inquiry; fails to disclose all required information; refuses to answer most questions; state watchdog agency reviewing reports
By Allen D. Payton
In the race for Mayor of Antioch for the November election, former city manager Ron Bernal has outraised incumbent Lamar Hernández-Thorpe by more than double this year, according to the most recent campaign finance reports. Known as a 460 Recipient Committee Statement required by state law for transparency, Bernal’s report, covering Jan. 1 through June 30, 2024, show he raised $127,645.34 in cash and in-kind contributions, of which almost $111,000 was cash, while the mayor’s reports show he raised $58,794 in cash. But Hernandez-Thorpe transferred $58,221.60 from his recall opposition campaign giving him $117,015.60 to spend in support of his re-election.
As of June 30th, Bernal’s campaign had spent $39,847.37 leaving him with $87,797.97 cash remaining to spend. (See Bernal for Mayor 460 report for 01/01-06/30/24)
The Lamar Hernández-Thorpe for Antioch Mayor 2024 committee’s 460 report for the period Jan. 1 and June 30, 2024, shows $58,794 in contributions in the totals. It also includes the amount of $58,221.60 shown on the Termination Statement for his Stop the #KAREN Recall of Mayor Lamar Thorpe 2022 committee, for the period beginning Jan. 1, 2024, ending on Feb. 14, 2024, and filed the next day, that was transferred to his mayoral campaign committee. So, Hernandez-Thorpe’s total funds available during the period were $117,015.60. His re-election committee spent $17,761.29 leaving the mayor with $99,204.31 to spend. (See Hernández-Thorpe’s re-election committee 460 report)
He formed his re-election committee on Sept. 26, 2023, but didn’t begin raising funds for it until this year.
Another contrast between the two candidates’ campaign finances is that most of the funds received by Bernal were from within Antioch while most of the mayor’s funds came from outside the city.
Mayor’s Multiple Mistakes, Miscalculations, Missing Money and Information
Although he previously ran three times for the Antioch City Council, including once for mayor, and raised funds to defeat the attempted recall against him in 2022, Hernández-Thorpe and his treasurer Vicki Robinson haven’t been reporting his campaign finances properly as they show multiple mistakes in both calculations and dates, and have not provided required disclosure information. However, after questions from the Herald, his campaign submitted corrected versions of the two final reports for his Stop the #KAREN Recall Committee covering July 1 through Dec. 31, 2023, and Jan. 1 through Feb. 14, 2024, when he terminated the committee and transferred the balance to his re-election committee.
Recall Opposition Committee Reports Were Missing $4,000
The mayor’s original recall opposition committee report for July 1 through Dec. 31, 2023, showed an Ending Cash Balance of $59,936.54 (p.3). But the committee’s original 460 report for Jan. 1 through Feb. 14, 2024, the date it was terminated, shows a Beginning Cash Balance of $55,929.86 on the Summary Page (p.3) a difference of $4,006.68. He was asked where did that money go, and if he borrowed the funds, not report it and later reimburse the recall opposition committee $4,099.02 on Feb. 12, 2024, to cover it. (See Stop the #KAREN Recall Committee 460 for 01/01-06/30/23 amended prior to the Herald’s review, original 460 report for 07/01-12/31/23, and original Termination 460 Report for 01/01-02/14/24)
Instead of responding, Hernandez-Thorpe submitted Amendments to the reports on Monday, Aug. 5. (See below)
Hernández-Thorpe Reimbursed Recall Opposition Committee Almost $5,700
Hernández-Thorpe’s Stop the #KAREN Recall committee original report for July 1 through Dec. 31, 2023, has incorrect dates on the Schedule I, Miscellaneous Increases to Cash (p.8) showing the “Statement covers period from 07/01/2024 through 12/31/2024” and an amount of $1,331.09 reimbursed by the mayor on Jan. 29, 2024. While the subtotal shows $1,339.09 the correct $1,331.09 figure appears on the Summary Page (p.3).
In addition, his recall committee’s original Termination Statement 460 dated Feb. 14, 2024, on Schedule I, Miscellaneous Increases to Cash, shows he reimbursed the committee an additional $4,099.02 on Feb. 12, 2024 (p.5).
His Amended 460 for the recall opposition committee for Jan. 1 through June 30, 2023, shows another $251.02 in “Returneding [sic] funds”.
That totals $5,681.31 that Hernández-Thorpe reimbursed his recall opposition committee before terminating it and transferring the remaining funds to the re-election committee.
He was asked if those amounts were for personal expenditures on which he shouldn’t have spent committee funds. But Hernández-Thorpe did not respond.
His 460 report for Jan. 1 through June 30, 2023, for the Stop the #KAREN Recall committee shows expenditures including a contribution to his former employee, Nichole Gardner’s non-profit, Facing Homelessness in Antioch of $500, and another contribution to Team Jesus Ministries in Bay Point of $100, to which he contributed an additional $1,500 this year.
The amounts on the original 460 report for the time period of July 1 through Dec. 31, 2023, for the Stop the #KAREN Recall committee under Schedule E Payments Made are also incorrect (see pages 4-7). The total of Itemized payments (for amounts $100 or more) for the period from the four pages was actually $4,005.34, but the amount shows only $3,098.84, a difference of $906.50. The report also shows a total of $999 in payments made of less than $100 for a total of what should be $5,004.34. Yet, the Total Cash Payments on the Summary Page (p.3) show only $4,097.84. The Ending Cash Balance shows $59,956.34 but it should have been $59,049.84. But without any additional contributions, only $58,171.60 was transferred to his 2024 re-election committee, a difference of $878.24.
Combined with the correct Beginning Cash Balance of $62,221.05, the Ending Cash Balance for the recall opposition committee Termination Report should have shown as $58,547.80 of which $58,171.60 was transferred to his re-election committee leaving a balance of $376.20. But with expenditures this year by the recall opposition committee of $1,809.98 and the reimbursement of $4,099.02, that leaves a discrepancy of $2,665.24 in missing funds.
However, as mentioned, the mayor submitted an amended form earlier this week with the correct figures. (See below)
Spent $5,200 on Travel This Year
Hernández-Thorpe’s re-election committee report shows he spent almost $5,200 in the category of “candidate travel, lodging and meals” labeled as TRC. (See pages 13-18) That includes $198.10 paid to United Airlines, $131.09 to Spirit Airlines, $185 for the Delphi Hotel in Los Angeles, $1,389.08 for a stay at the Hotel Washington in D.C., $549 to the Bethesdan Hotel in Bethesda, Maryland, and another $641 was paid to the Morrison Hotel, also in Washington, D.C. and $150 and $178 for parking at SFO, two payments for $554.11 each to United Airlines and spent $651.70 at the Marriott Metro Center hotel, also in Washington D.C. for a total of $5,181.19.
The mayor was asked what those trips were for and how they benefited his re-election campaign.
The FPPC was asked if that is allowed for a local candidate running for re-election if he’s not there for campaign events benefitting his campaign, such as fundraisers, etc.
Most Questions for Hernández-Thorpe Go Unanswered
The mayor was again asked about his campaign finances specifically, why a reimbursement in January of this year was included in the report ending Dec. 31, 2023, why did he reimburse the recall opposition committee those amounts, was he informed those are considered personal expenditures that weren’t allowed to be spent using committee funds and for which previous committee expenditures did those reimbursements cover.
He was also asked where the $502.40 came from and where did the $2,665.24 in missing funds from the Stop the #KAREN Recall committee Termination Report go. But those were later answered with the amended reports.
The mayor was also asked how the trips he took were connected to his re-election campaign and was he holding fundraisers or meeting with major contributors in D.C. and L.A., and to provide the dates he traveled to both cities and the events he held and/or attended.
He was also asked why he didn’t, instead hire a business in Antioch to handle his website design in order to shop local, what the payment of $259.66 to the Best Western in Oakley was for and when, and what the payment of $698.00 to the AUSD Transportation Division, listed as a civic donation, was for and when.
Finally, regarding his committee paying $621.95 to Holy Rosary Catholic School he was asked what it was for and when, and if his daughter attends there. That’s the only question that was directly answered, and it’s allowed if the childcare occurred while the mayor was campaigning.
Hernández-Thorpe’s Campaign Consultant Responds
Instead of responding directly, Hernández-Thorpe had his campaign spokesperson, former City of Antioch Public Information Officer, Rolando Bonilla respond. He wrote incorrectly, “Thank you for reaching out. As the mayor mentioned, you’re reviewing the wrong report. Please see attached. Also, please remember that CA Government Code 89510(b) states all ‘contributions deposited into the campaign account shall be deemed to be held in trust for expenses associated with the election of the candidate or for expenses associated with holding office.’ Lastly, before he became CA’s Attorney General, Rob Bonta sponsored AB 220, signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom that says, ‘officeholder may use campaign funds for childcare expenses resulting from directly engaging in campaign activity including that which is both political and legislative or governmental.’”
In response, he and Hernández-Thorpe were informed the information was from the Amended report for Jan. 1 through June 30, 2023. They were asked the same questions, again with a few changes in light of the information provided by Bonilla, including how those trips were connected to the mayor’s re-election campaign, was he holding fundraisers or meeting with major contributors in D.C. and L.A. or were they “for expenses associated with holding office” and to provide the dates he traveled to both cities, the events he held and/or attended while there, and if they were campaign or City-related.
Finally, Hernández-Thorpe was asked, as has been asked of other candidates in the past who submit incorrect campaign financial disclosure reports, if he can’t handle properly reporting of thousands of dollars, how can he expect the public to trust him in making decisions about millions of their hard-earned tax dollars.
Bonilla responded on Monday, August 5, 2024, at 8:26 AM first writing, “We will look into your questions.” Then at 9:31 PM he wrote, “Forms were amended and submitted to city clerk today. Should be posted within the next 24 hours,” without providing copies to the Herald as requested. Nor did either he or the mayor answer the other questions posed to them about the campaign finance reports.
Hernández-Thorpe Submits Two Amended Finance Reports for Recall Opposition Committee
After being asked by the Herald about the mistakes and discrepancies in his campaign finance reports, the mayor submitted Amendments to his final two 460 forms for the Stop the #KAREN Recall committee on Monday, Aug. 5. On Wednesday, Aug. 7th, the City Clerk’s office posted the reports on the Office’s campaign finance portal and provided copies to the Herald.
The Ending and Beginning Cash Balances now match, and his Termination Report now shows an expense of $3,167.98to Waikiikii Designs of Antioch for Social Media Support and Content Design Services resulting in all the figures being correct. But the reports still show the two amounts that he “returned” or “reimbursed” to the closed committee, plus the amount returned between Jan. 1 and June 30, 2023. (See Amended Stop the #KAREN Recall Committee 460’s for 07/01-12/31/23 and 01/01-02/14/24)
FPPC Says Using Campaign Funds for Personal Use is “Egregious” Violation; All Complaints Against Hernández-Thorpe Rejected
The Fair Political Practices Commission, the state’s campaign watchdog and enforcement agency, was asked about Hernández-Thorpe’s reimbursements to his recall opposition campaign, specifically, if he spent those amounts for personal use are they violations of campaign finance law, as written in Chapter 6 Use of Funds of the FPPC’s Manual 1 dated August 2023. Manual 1, Chapter 6 Use of Campaign Funds
They were also asked, if not, shouldn’t he have instead reported them as contributions on Schedule A Monetary Contributions rather than listed as “Returned” or “Reimbursed”. Finally, they were asked to verify if a complaint, that the Herald was informed of, had been filed about the mayor’s campaign finance reports and if they are under investigation.
Jay Wierenga, FPPC Communications Director responded with the following:
“Before I delve into and/or ask some of my colleagues to delve into the 460’s, the first thing I’m going to do is check to see if any recent complaints came in to FPPC Enforcement Division regarding this committee/individual. On our public portal it shows a few complaints from the past few years, and the portal shows they were all rejected. (our public portal is on our homepage, the transparency tab, and the enforcement tab).
Generally speaking, I/my office usually refrains from actually looking at one individual, or a specific situation, and saying something is ‘wrong’ or ‘violating the law’ or the like, as that is a public accusation of wrongdoing before and lacking any investigation by the appropriate entity, which is usually the FPPC Enforcement Division, or potentially any DA or the AG’s Office. To do so would not only be a public accusation which could prejudice any investigation but also I/my office could be wrong (after an investigation finds no wrongdoing), thereby harming and damaging my credibility as a Communications Director as well as our credibility as an agency.
What I/my office tries to do is to point to the specific statutes and/or regulations that may be pertinent to show what the law says.
I am willing to do so in this case after I hear back from our Enforcement Division, because, if there is a complaint, we can’t comment on any complaint or open case, per regulation. Again, all I can do is point you to pertinent statute/regulation.
What I also can say is a couple of things. First, how people/committee’s file their reports is something I/we can’t speculate as to why they do or don’t do some things. They are obviously supposed to follow the instructions, the law, to the best of their ability, ask for advice or help to do so if needed (we have our Advice unit for just such requests), and the candidate/officeholder/treasurer are responsible for filling out and filing forms accurately, truthfully, and to the best of their knowledge under penalty of perjury.
Second, recognize mistakes can be made, things can be forgotten, etc. That is why we always encourage compliance first, to bring folks into compliance, before worrying about or acting on potential violations, so the public gets the information they are legally entitled to as quickly as possible. Then comes the determination of consequences.
Finally, while we take all violations of the Political Reform Act seriously, we recognize some are more harmful than others. Using campaign funds for personal use is one of the most egregious violations of the Act and violations of public trust, as it is taking money from people who are donating to a campaign and using it instead on one’s self. The Commission is on record and has a history of seeking the highest possible penalties in such cases.”
Weirenga later shared, “We (FPPC Enforcement Division) did receive a recent complaint against Hernandez-Thorpe that was rejected.”
Former DA, County Clerk Fined, Forced to Resign, Latter Given Jail Time for Personal Use of Campaign Funds, Lying About It
Spending campaign funds for personal use is a very serious matter as it is what caused former Contra Costa District Attorney Mark Peterson and later, County Clerk-Registrar of Voters Joe Canciamilla to be fined thousands of dollars. Plus, according to an NBC Bay Area news report, “The state attorney general’s office filed 12 counts of felony perjury and one count of felony grand theft against Peterson” to which he plead no contest. “In exchange for his plea and resignation, the state agreed to dismiss the other charges” and he “was sentenced to 250 hours of community service and will be on probation for three years.”
Later, the State Bar placed Peterson on interim suspension, and “effective Aug. 21, 2017, Peterson cannot practice law pending the outcome of the discipline case. The California Supreme Court has the final say in attorney discipline matters.” He was disbarred on March 31, 2018.
In addition, Canciamilla was charged with 34 felonies including four for grand theft of campaign funds for his personal use, pled guilty to nine and was sentenced to one year in jail which he served under electronic home detention. According to a Mercury News editorial, “under a plea deal…with District Attorney Diana Becton, he will probably spend six months on home detention at his oceanfront Hawaii home while continuing to draw his full public pension.” (See related articles here, here, here, here and here)
Most of Bernal’s Contributions from Within Antioch
Because Antioch doesn’t have its own campaign finance limitation ordinance, state law limits contributions to a candidate’s campaign committee to $5,500 per individual or business. In his only report covering the period Jan. 1 through June 30, 2024, Bernal shows $16,823.78 in Non-Monetary or what are referred to as in-kind contributions, with the largest amount from local business and commercial property owner, Sean McCauley and his family members totaling $15,923.78 for fundraisers held at his family’s home and olive and wine grape business on Deer Valley Road in Antioch. The next highest in-kind contribution Bernal received was $600 of campaign buttons from Tom Baldwin of Antioch who is listed as retired. (See Schedule C, pages 51 & 52)
Bernal received a total of $110,821.86 in cash contributions, of which only $5,703.56 was from less than $100. Of the $105,118.30 in reportable contributions of $100, a majority were from within Antioch, $54,846 compared to $50,272 from outside the city, unless you take into account $11,000 from the owners of Drill Tech located on Fulton Shipyard Road but live in Byron. That would make the totals $65,846 from within Antioch and $39,272 from outside the city.
Bernal’s Largest Contributors are Business Owners, Developers, Other Real Estate Interests, Contractors
The former city manager’s largest contributors include the following:
$5,500 each from Bryan Bento of Antioch, listed as an Investor, Beehive Hospitality; Ann Creson of Byron, Owner, Drill Tech in Antioch and Shannon Creson of Byron, Owner, Drill Tech in Antioch;
$4,500 each from Jeffrey Voss of Belmont, Business Owner, The Zeka Group, Inc. and Robert Katin of Antioch, retired;
$2,500 from Charles Wall of Walnut Creek, Contractor, Brosamer & Wall, LLC;
$2,200 from Dennis Bernal of Walnut Creek, his brother, listed as self-employed roofing contractor;
$2,050 from Perry Realty Team Inc, Oakley;
$2,000 from Robert McGrew of Dixon, Ranch/Farming, Self-employed;
$1,500 each from Martin Fernandez of Antioch, retired; Marjorie Katin of Antioch, Engineer, Katin Engineering Consulting; Bradley Jacob of Danville, Sales, McKesson Corporation and Patricia Curtin of Lafayette, Attorney, Wendel Rosen LLP;
$1,050 from Joseph Mitchell, Retired/Part time Antioch Police Dept;
$1,000 each from Gabriel Chiu of Pleasanton, listed as retired, but is the owner of two shopping centers in Antioch; Glen McCauley Investments of Brentwood; Sharon Hannaford of Oakley, retired; Information Technology, Data & Security Solutions LLC of Concord; former Antioch Economic Development Commission Chairman Tim McCall listed as Business Owner, Genesis Landscape, Inc.; Louisa Zee Kao of Hillsborough, CA, President/CEO, The Zeka Group, Inc. owners and developers of The Zeka Ranch; Joseph Goralka of Antioch, retired; Lisa Carter of Antioch, Vice President, CD & Power; Desmond Bittner of Lafayette, Police Lieutenant, City of Antioch; Duane Anderson of Antioch, retired; Scott Dellinger of Antioch, Owner, Restoring Dreams LLC; Andrea Fontana of Antioch, retired; Gordon Gravelle of Alamo, retired Antioch developer and professional football player; Terry Ramus of Antioch, Scientist, Diablo Analytical, Inc.; SIAFU Enterprises, Inc. of Antioch and two-time Antioch City Council candidate Sandra White of Antioch, VP Human Resources Center for Social Dynamics.
Bernal’s Report Shows Almost $21,000 Paid to Consultant, $3,500 to Out-of-County Businesses
In addition, Bernal’s 460 shows $20,985.90 was paid to Praetorian Public Relations of Walnut Creek for campaign consulting.
Like Hernandez-Thorpe, Bernal paid out-of-town and out-of-county businesses for work that could have been done by either Antioch or other local businesses in East County or Contra Costa. He paid Goprint.com of Burbank, CA $2,258.48 to print his door hangers and Imprint.com of Houston $1,300.97 for yard signs.
While there is no longer a printer in Antioch, there are in East County, and two sign companies in Antioch and others in East County. Bernal was asked why he didn’t shop local and use Antioch or other businesses in East County or Contra Costa to print his door hangers and yard signs.
The campaign responded, “Since there’s no longer a printer in Antioch we shopped the best prices and found one in Burbank. They’re a California vendor. Ron will do the same when he’s in office to ensure fiscal responsibility and use of taxpayer dollars.”
He was also asked about the correct reporting on two of his contributors, one about their city of record for the contribution, which was later confirmed to be correct, and about another’s employment, specifically, Gabriel Chiu of Pleasanton who is listed as retired. Yet, Chiu is the owner of two shopping centers in Antioch, including the Deer Valley Plaza on Lone Tree Way where the Food Maxx store is now located, and the Delta Fair Shopping Center where the Food Maxx store was previously located, for which the council majority, including Hernández-Thorpe, voted in 2020 to postpone indefinitely Chiu’s improvement plans. Those plans included a new 210-apartment complex, 4,000 square feet of new retail and renovation of the remaining existing 73,535 sf of retail space. (See related articles here and here)
Bernal responded, “Gabriel Chie is a Business Owner.”
Most of Hernández-Thorpe’s Contributions from Outside Antioch
The mayor raised a total of $58,794 in cash contributions, of which only $1,067 was less than $100. Of the reportable contributions of $100 or more, he received $57,727, of which only $7,375 was from within Antioch and most, or $36,652 was from outside the city, not including $13,700 from political action committees (PACs) and unions.
Largest Contributors are Unions, Business Owners, Building Industry, Real Estate Interests, Garbage Company, Cannabis
Hernández-Thorpe’s largest contributors include the following:
$5,500 each from Build Jobs PAC ID# 761102, Sponsored by the Building Industry Association of the Bay Area; Yua Huan Li of San Francisco, no information was provided. But according to Bizpedia, he is the Manager of ON Dog Dog LLC also in San Francisco; Longlife A LLC in Oakland; EL W Estate Management in San Francisco; LH Real Estate Management LLC of San Francisco; Republic Services in Concord, Antioch’s garbage collection company; and Manuel Robles of Los Angeles, self-employed;
$5,000 from Richard Hoke of Antioch, owner, Delta Dispensary cannabis/marijuana business in Antioch;
$2,500 from Sheet Metal Workers Union Political Committee ID 850381 in Livermore; and
$1,002 from Rolando Bonilla of San Jose, Strategist, Voler.
Hernández-Thorpe’s Greatest Expenses Were for Travel, Event Catering, Photography
Of the Payments Made totaling $17,761.29 for the period, the aforementioned $5,181.19 was spent for travel expenses and $4,226 was paid to Chef Clarise LaGrone of Antioch for three different events, plus, $1,200 to Bronze Girl Productions for an event performance, and $1,059.61 to LowKii Photography in Antioch.
08/09/24 5:45 PM UPDATE: Filing for the mayor’s race closed today, Friday, Aug. 9 at 5:00 p.m., and Hernández-Thorpe filed to run for re-election according to the report by the City Clerk. As of Thursday, he hadn’t completed filing his paperwork. Another candidate has also filed to run for mayor, Rakesh Kumar Christian, who ran in 2020 and placed last out of the five candidates. The election is November 5th.
Please check back later for any updates to this report.
399,000 positions paid almost $29 billion in total wages
Includes Contra Costa Superior Court and Cal State East Bay data
SACRAMENTO — State Controller Malia M. Cohen has published the 2023 self-reported payroll data for state departments, superior courts, and California State Universities (CSU) on the Government Compensation in California website. The data covers more than 399,000 positions and approximately $28.87 billion in total wages for those agencies and institutions.
Users of the site can view compensation levels on maps and search by region, narrow results by name of the entity or by job title, and export raw data or custom reports.
The newly published data were reported by:
• 24 CSU institutions (116,235 employees),
• 56 superior courts (20,884 employees), and
• 157 state departments (262,097 employees).
California law requires cities, counties, and special districts to annually report compensation data to the State Controller. The State Controller also maintains and publishes state and CSU salary data. However, no such statutory requirement exists for the University of California, California community colleges, superior courts, fairs and expositions, First 5 commissions, or K-12 education providers; their reporting is voluntary. Two superior courts either did not file or filed a report that was non-compliant, including those in Alameda County and Tuolumne County.
The site contains pay and benefit information on more than two million government jobs in California, as reported annually by each entity.
In addition, the report shares, “This California State University includes payments toward the unfunded liability of the employer sponsored retirement plan.” For more information visit www.csueastbay.edu/hr.
The State Controller’s Government Compensation in California website provides information on employee pay and benefits for approximately 2 million positions at more than 5,000 public employers. Public employers annually report employee compensation to the State Controller’s Office. It allows the public to view and search employee job titles, build charts and graphics, and download custom reports and raw data.
About Controller Cohen
As the chief fiscal officer of California, Controller Cohen is responsible for accountability and disbursement of the state’s financial resources. The Controller has independent auditing authority over government agencies that spend state funds. She is a member of numerous financing authorities, and fiscal and financial oversight entities including the Franchise Tax Board. She also serves on the boards for the nation’s two largest public pension funds. Follow the Controller on X at @CAController and on Facebook at California State Controller’s Office.
By Office of Contra Costa County Supervisor Federal Glover
We need your feedback!
The Workforce Development Board of Contra Costa County (WDBCCC) and the Contra Costa County Employment & Human Services Department (EHSD) invite you to review and provide feedback on the draft document titled “Implementation Plan for Measure X-Funded Youth Centers.”
According to the county’s website, “Measure X is a countywide 20-year, ½ cent sales tax approved by Contra Costa County voters on November 3, 2020. The ballot measure language stated that the intent of Measure X is ‘to keep Contra Costa’s regional hospital open and staffed; fund community health centers, emergency response; support crucial safety-net services; invest in early childhood services; protect vulnerable populations; and for other essential county services.’”
This document outlines the plans for three new youth centers in Supervisorial Districts 3, 4, and 5. Your input is crucial and will help county policymakers and administrators shape the design and implementation of these centers.
Public Review Period: July 1 – July 10, 2024, until 5:00 PM.
