City of Antioch’s General Plan Visioning Survey closes Monday, August 17
By City of Antioch
The City’s General Plan will help guide decisions about Antioch’s future, including how our community grows, develops, and evolves in the years ahead.
The City of Antioch is updating its General Plan, which provides goals, policies, and guidelines for the physical development of the City for the next ten to twenty years. The General Plan is intended to reflect the goals, values, and priorities of the Antioch community. The following questions will help the City gain a broad perspective of views and values in the community to help craft a General Plan that is reflective of local concerns and priorities. Your opinion and input are greatly appreciated. Please complete one survey per person.
This survey is available in English and Spanish. Please use the language selector at the top left of the survey to choose your preferred language.
Esta encuesta está disponible en inglés y español. Utilice el selector de idioma en la parte superior izquierda de la encuesta para elegir su idioma preferido.
Your input matters. If you haven’t taken the survey yet, now is the time to make your voice heard.
You’re invited to the Jacobsen Park Ribbon Cutting to celebrate its reopening. Join the City of Antioch as we celebrate improvements on Friday, August 21, from 4:30–5:00 p.m.
Approved by the City Council on August 27, 2024, the work by Frontline General Engineering Construction, Inc. of San Lorenzo was budgeted at a total of $695,830.55 and involved a full renovation of the existing park, including:
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.”
The City of Antioch encourages residents to become involved in their local community. One way to do so is to serve on various commissions, boards, and committees. Any interested resident is encouraged to apply.
The City of Antioch is now accepting applications for two important volunteer opportunities: Sales Tax Citizens’ Oversight Committee – Help promote transparency and accountability by reviewing sales tax revenue and expenditures, monitoring compliance with ballot measure requirements and advising the City Council on oversight matters; and the Board of Administrative Appeals (BOAA) – Serve your community by reviewing administrative determinations, conducting public hearings, evaluating evidence, and helping ensure fair and impartial decisions.
These are meaningful opportunities to contribute your experience, strengthen local government, and serve your community.
Sales Tax Citizens’ Oversight Committee Details
The Sales Tax Citizens’ Oversight Committee shall review the expenditures and report publicly how the funds from the City’s Measure W one-cent sales tax are being used to address the City Council’s stated priorities of maintaining Antioch’s fiscal stability, police patrols, 911 emergency response, youth violence prevention programs; ensuring water quality/safety; repairing streets; cleaning up parks/illegal dumping; restoring youth afterschool/summer programs; and other essential services.
Committee members are responsible for the following duties:
Reviewing annual sales tax revenue and expenditure reports.
Monitoring compliance with ballot measure requirements.
Providing transparency to the public regarding fund usage.
Advising the City Council on accountability measures.
Each year, an independent auditor shall complete a public audit report of the revenue raised and its expenditure. The Committee’s review shall be completed in conjunction with the City’s budget process. The Committee’s report on its review, whether oral or written, shall be considered by the City Council at a public meeting before April 1 of each year. Any written report shall be a matter of public record.
The Council’s intent of Measure W is to split the revenue on the following basis: 80% for the maintenance of public safety, 10% for youth services, and the remaining 10% for supporting quality of life and fiscal stability and accountability. The sales tax passed by Antioch voters in November 2018 lasts for 20 years. (See related Herald articles here, here, here and here)
The official ballot measure language reads: “Antioch’s Quality of Life Measure. To maintain Antioch’s fiscal stability, police patrols, 911 emergency response, youth violence prevention programs; ensuring water quality/safety; repairing streets; cleaning up parks/illegal dumping; restoring youth afterschool/summer programs; other essential services; shall the measure be adopted approving an ordinance to renew the sales tax at the one-cent rate, raising approximately $14,000,000 annually, expiring in twenty years, with mandatory annual independent financial audits, and independent citizens oversight?”
Committee Seats:
Seven (7) Members, 4-year terms.
Vacancies:
Three (3) Full-Term Vacancies, expiring March 2030
Two (2) Full-Term Vacancies, expiring March 2028
Meetings: The Committee shall meet at least twice a year.
Staff Liaison: Dawn Merchant, City of Antioch Finance Director
Requirements:
Must be a resident of the City of Antioch.
At least one member of the Committee shall have a financial, accounting or auditing background.
Commissioners are required to submit the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) Form 700 (Statement of Economic Interests) upon assuming office, and every year thereafter.
Commissioners are required to complete a 2-hour online AB1234 Ethics course within one year of their appointment.
Newly appointed and reappointed Members are required to take an Oath of Office administered by the City Clerk.
The BOAA hears appeals regarding administrative decisions by any official of the city and approves liens on properties.
Board members are responsible for carrying out the following duties:
Reviewing administrative determinations.
Conducting public hearings.
Evaluating evidence and testimony.
Rendering fair and unbiased decisions.
The Board consists of five members and one alternate to be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by a majority of the Council. The alternate member shall serve a term of two years.
Committee Seats:
Five (5) Board Members, 4-year terms.
One (1) Alternate Board Member, 2-year term.
Vacancies:
Three (3) Full-Term Vacancies, expiring March 2030
One (1) Alternate Vacancy, 2-Year Term
Meetings: First Thursday of the month at 3:00 p.m.
Staff Liaison: City Clerk’s Office
Requirements:
Must be a resident of the City of Antioch.
Three (3) members shall have experience in building construction trades and/or training in the CA Code of Regulations.
Board members are required to submit the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) Form 700 (Statement of Economic Interests) upon assuming office, and every year thereafter.
Board members are required to complete a 2-hour online AB1234 Ethics course within one year of their appointment.
Newly appointed and reappointed Members are required to take an Oath of Office administered by the City Clerk.
Application Deadline: Friday, August 14, 2026, by 5:00 PM
To be considered for the vacancy position(s), please complete an application and submit it to the City Clerk’s Office by the deadline date listed above. Applications are also located on the City’s Website at www.antiochca.gov/739/Boards-Commissions and may be picked up in person at Antioch City Hall, 200 H Street, Antioch, CA.
Please email your completed application to: cityclerk@antiochca.gov. You can also drop off your application (Attn: City Clerk) in the water billing drop-off box located in the parking lot just outside of Antioch City Hall.
We were at the Antioch Library today, Wednesday, July 29, 2026, for a General Plan Visioning Workshop, as part of the General Plan Update process, connecting with residents to hear what they love about Antioch and what they’d like to see in the years ahead.
Thank you to everyone who stopped by to share ideas, ask questions, and help shape the vision for our community’s future.
Missed us today? There’s still another opportunity!
Map of CRPC’s 35-mile Union Island Pipeline of which 8.5 miles runs through Antioch. Source: CPRC
Mentions opportunity to negotiate new franchise agreement
Company’s attorney refutes City staff’s portrayal of continued operation during litigation
By Allen D. Payton
During their meeting on Tuesday, July 28, 2026, the Antioch City Council voted 4-0 to deny 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. (See related articles here, here and here)
In introducing the public hearing on the matter, under item #6 on the agenda, Antioch Public Works Director and City Engineer Scott Buenting said, “An Encroachment Permit is not the appropriate process.”
Dean Persinger,Vice President of Operations and Ester Brawley, VP of Technical Operations for California Resources Pipeline Company (CPRC) provided the company’s presentation.
He said the company applied for the Encroachment Permit “to maintain the right-of-way.”
Assistant City Attorney Kevin Kundinger spoke on behalf of the City saying, “The City requests the city council denies the appeal and uphold the decision of the City Engineer.”
“An encroach permit is not the appropriate approach for this long-term encroachment…for a project of this magnitude. It’s normally used for a short time and limited scope,” he explained. “They wanted to continue to pump gas…when before in order to do that they had to through the franchise agreement process.”
Kundinger also pointed out the company continued to operate the pipeline although the city council majority in 2021
“Even if you were to find the process is appropriate, CRPC failed to comply with the code,” Kundinger added. “This was an end route around” the council’s decision to not renew the franchise agreement, he stated.
Public Comments
During public comments, resident Harry Thurston spoke of his concerns about safety as the pipeline runs near homes and Sutter Delta Medical Center.
Bob Brown spoke next “on behalf of the Western States Petroleum Association” about the “safety and jobs” and that “The pipeline is safe and well-maintained. “Safe and reliable energy are essential” and asked the council to allow it to resume operations.
Resident Mark Jordan said, “This is a situation where both sides are right and both sides are wrong. The last council and a group of people decided we didn’t want petrochemicals running through our city. If it’s not organic, it’s not stone…it has petrochemicals in it. To believe that we don’t need pipelines is wrong.
“We’ve been told that they ran gas through that pipeline after they were denied. That’s disconcerting,” he continued.
“Where you are is, the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. You’ve been in court running up bills,” Jordan stated. “You want it solved? You put them in a room with a representative from the city and mediator. I’ll do it.”
“They’re going to have to pay a penalty for using that pipeline after they no longer had a franchise agreement,” he continued. “I support giving them a franchise agreement. The way to go is ‘what’s in it for us’? They’ll pay, because they want it and because they make $3 billion a day (as an industry). We need petrochemicals and they need their pipeline. They can just load up a thousand trucks and run them down our street and there’s nothing you can do to stop them? What’s the better way to move the petrochemicals?”
“He wants to cut a deal. Let’s do it,” Jordan concluded.
Timothy Jeffries spoke on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers saying, “I’m here as a worker…maintaining this infrastructure. It supports high-quality jobs, family-supporting wages…right here in this city.”
Resident Jan Warren said, “I want to support Harry Thurston’s comments. I hear these same stories at the Air District, the legislature bill sessions. I don’t believe any job is being created here in Antioch by that 8.5-mile pipeline.”
“Thank you, City Attorney and City Manager for saying, ‘no’ when they didn’t follow the rules,” she continued. “They’re trying to work their way around. It’s time to deny…this appeal.”
Former Councilman Ralph Hernandez said, “I’m with the City, the appeal should be denied” claiming it’s “a very dangerous transportation of natural gas. Don’t let a big corporation come here and basically bribe you with what they want. I don’t know what the potential danger these pipelines create. Think of the city and its safety and whether it’s a good thing or not.”
Mark Hughes said by Zoom (which is now allowed by state law), “I’m the Executive Director of the Industrial Association…in the Bay Area…in support of the encroachment permit.” He also mentioned, “California has the strictest…regulations in the nation and the world.”
“It actually results in an overall increase in greenhouse gas emissions,” he added.
Resident Frank Sterling, also speaking via Zoom, said, “I’m going to speak out against the pipeline.” He referred to the explosion of the pipeline in San Bruno. “I’m just against it.”
APOC Vice Chair Devin Williams said, “I’m against this pipeline, as well. I actually live in District 4 and there’s a pipeline running through my community.”
Resident Andrew Becker spoke last during comments saying, “I’ve lived next to this pipeline for the past 30 years…and what I really think about is…the only thing I’ve really seen changed is the sidewalks lift and cracked, yet there’s yellow stakes telling us there’s a pipeline undergound. I can assume it’s being maintained.”
He mentioned his appliances being gas powered and said, “Should this pipeline go away and other pipelines go away, my bill’s just going to go higher and higher.”
“Somebody in this city is not negotiating properly. Along with maintaining the pipeline, maybe they can plant some flowers,” Becker concluded.
CRPC Attorney Refutes City Staff’s Comments on Continued Use of Pipeline
The proponent had five minutes for a rebuttal comment in which their attorney used it to explain the company’s continued use of the pipeline after the council denied the renewal of the franchise agreement for its use in 2021.
Michael Mills, outside counsel to CRPC mentioned “a letter sent to staff and council, yesterday. Most importantly, it’s been now, almost five years, that the prior council decided to reject the franchise agreement. Since then, there’s been litigation.”
“The company negotiated a series of extensions to continue to operate the pipeline,” he explained. “The judge invited the City to enjoin the company from operating the pipeline during the legal challenge, but it did not do so.”
“Up until the point the company lost the legal challenge to the denial the company operated the pipeline. It wasn’t correctly stated in the staff report,” Mills pointed out.
“The company very much wants to work out something with the City,” the company’s attorney stated. “That’s the entire reason we’re here asking you for this permit.”
Council Discussion and Decision to Uphold Staff Denial
During council discussion, District 3 Councilman Don Freitas said, “The issue for the council is on the recommended action. Is an Encroachment Permit appropriate? The answer is ‘no’.”
“It’s simply about whether an Encroachment Permit is the proper process,” Kundinger said.
“I do think it’s creative,” Freitas stated. “Let’s not make it difficult. Let’s not bring in these other issues.”
“The company is not precluded from asking the city to sit down and discuss a franchise agreement,” he continued.
“The company has not been operating the pipeline for several years,” Freitas stated.
“I cannot confirm or deny if they have been using it. I have no personal knowledge,” Kundinger responded.
“How much in mitigation fees would we get?” District 4 Councilwoman Wilson asked.
“I believe the original was $75,000,” Kundinger said. That was from 2016-21. “Those were amounts fixed by agreement.”
“If a franchise agreement were in place, then an encroachment permit would be appropriate?” Mayor Ron Bernal asked.
“Permission could be given through a franchise agreement, yes,” Kundinger responded.
The motion by Freitas to uphold the city staff denial of the encroachment permit passed 4-0.
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.
