By Darryl Saffold, Strategic Communications Officer, Antioch Police Department

On some occasions, we use drones to help us locate the vehicles that do not belong to the people that are driving them. (See videos here and here)

Other times we have a guardian angel that assists in our efforts, also known as the Contra Costa County Sherriff’s Office Air Support Unit (honorable mention to the California Highway Patrol’s Air Operations Unit).

The STARR (Sheriff’s Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance and Rescue) is a support helicopter that provides critical assistance to patrol personnel during a variety of calls for service to include pursuits of fleeing suspects, searches for criminal suspects, search and rescue missions, transport and deployment of tactical teams, crime scene photography, and aerial surveillance and reconnaissance.

On Friday, Feb. 25, 2022, STARR 3 was in the air and just happened to be searching for the same stolen vehicle as your officers. With the assistance of the whirlybird, the stolen vehicle was located in the area of A and 18th Streets, and Wilbur Avenue. The driver was detained, and the vehicle was returned to its rightful owner. (See partial incident video)

The detained subjects were Jeremy Nading (42) and Sheila Becraft. Both subjects are from Antioch. Charges are to be filed with the DA’s office.

We often team up with our law enforcement partners and are extremely appreciative of these partnerships. As the saying goes, “Teamwork makes the dream work.” Thanks, STARR 3.

Special redistricting meeting begins at 5:30 p.m.; will hear presentation from Contra Costa DA Becton; large opposition to ban on sale of certain tobacco products expected; forming another ad hoc committee for new department

By Allen D. Payton

During another special meeting/study session, this time at 5:30 p.m. the Antioch City Council is set to choose a final redistricting map before their regular, 7:00 p.m. meeting tonight, Tuesday, March 8, 2022. Prior to that, at 5:00 p.m., the council will meet in closed session for a Conference with Legal Council on two anticipated lawsuits, with which the city has “significant exposure, In addition, during the regular meeting. But the agenda doesn’t share what those “two cases” of “anticipated litigation” are. The council members and city attorney were asked early Tuesday afternoon to provide information about what are the two cases of anticipated litigation. (See meeting agenda)

At their meeting on Feb. 22 the council switched from two previous map finalists to two new map finalists, new Map 521 and Modified Map A. (See related article)

Then during their regular meeting, the council will hear a report from Contra Costa District Attorney Diana Becton who is running for re-election in June, and deal with the second reading of the ban on sales of certain tobacco products in Antioch, that they approved on a 3-2 vote at their meeting on Feb. 22, with Mayor Pro Tem and District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica and District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker voting no. That issue is expected to garner a large turnout of Antioch retailers, who claim the city did not notify them for last month’s public hearing. According to former Councilman Ralph Hernandez, a petition opposing the ban has gathered over 800 signatures.  Tobacco Products Sales Ban ACC030822 5G

The item reads as follows:

ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 6-8.02 OF THE ANTIOCH MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD THE DEFINITIONS OF CHARACTERIZING FLAVOR, CIGAR, AND LITTLE CIGAR (INCLUDING CIGARILLO) AND AMENDING SECTION 6-8.14 BOTH TO RESTRICT TOBACCO RETAILERS OR BUSINESSES FROM SELLING OR PROVIDING TOBACCO WITH CHARACTERIZING FLAVOR, SELLING OR PROVIDING ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES OR E-CIGARETTES, AND TO REGULATE THE SIZE AND PRICE OF SPECIFIED PACKAGES OF CIGARETTES, LITTLE CIGARS, AND CIGARS

The second reading of the item is on tonight’s meeting’s Consent Calendar as item 5.G. Either a member of the council or public must request the item be removed from the Consent Calendar for a separate discussion and vote.

The council will also vote to approve the minutes for the past three meetings, Jan. 25, Feb. 8 and Feb. 22 which the City Clerk’s Office has failed to keep updated for each following meeting.

Planning Commission Appointments

In addition, the council will consider appointing three residents Mayor Lamar Thorpe has nominated for the Planning Commission, two of whom are his vocal supporters. One is Warren Lutz whose social media comments have been in opposition to most articles published that are negative about Thorpe, and in defense of the mayor. The other is Christian Hills who has posted on social media her opposition to Thorpe’s recall and attended his roast fundraiser, in January, for which he called his opponents “Karen’s” in the promotion for the event. (See related article)

According to the city’s website, Hills is currently a member of the Economic Development Commission, and the third nominee, Robert Martin, is currently Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. But no other background information about the three nominees is part of the agenda packet, including their applications, as has been past practice so the public can know their backgrounds before making comments to the council prior to a vote on their nominations.

Forming Ad Hoc Committee for New Public Safety and Community Resources Department

Finally, among other matters, the council will consider forming another ad hoc committee, this one for developing the purposes of the planned, new Public Safety and Community Resources Department, which will have nothing to do with police services. That department, with a new director at a cost of $275,069 to $327,382 per year, equal to two or three police officers, will oversee seven service areas, two new ones and five existing services that are already handled by other departments.

The department will include, but not be limited to, the existing services of Animal Control, currently part of the Police Department; Youth Services Network Manager, currently part of the Recreation Department; Code Enforcement and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program that are currently part of the Community Development Department, and , the Unhoused Resident Coordinator, which is part of the city manager’s office.

The only new services of the department will be mental health crisis response, and violence intervention and prevention, both of which could be handled by the police department.

Question for Council, City Staff Refuse to Answer Questions Won’t Provide Public Hearing Notice to Tobacco Retailers

On Wednesday, Feb. 23, an email was sent to City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith, Mayor Thorpe and Interim City Manager Con Johnson, copying the other four council members and Economic Development Director Kwame Reed, asking if the tobacco retailers in Antioch were noticed about the previous night’s public hearing on the ordinance which is why the owners weren’t there, to speak on the item. “Is that true? If so, why not? Is the city not required to notify those impacted by a council action, especially for public hearings? If that’s not true, how were they notified? Also, how many tobacco retailers are there in Antioch and were each of them notified?

Please provide a copy of the notification and when it was sent to them.

Also, since the ordinance affects adults, in an attempt to keep youth from smoking, is the sale of flavored marijuana/cannabis products also banned in the City of Antioch?”

The only response received was from District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock who wrote, “I am not sure if they were noticed, I can tell you that there was someone that spoke on their behalf, and he was not an owner.  There were owners that did come and speak and others on Zoom.”

Since Ogorchock’s response didn’t completely answer the Herald’s questions nor those of the public, the email was resent on Friday, Feb. 25 and having not received any responses, it was sent once more on Thursday, March 3. No additional responses were received as of Tuesday afternoon, March 8.

Viewing and Public Comments

City Council meetings are televised live on Comcast channel 24, AT&T U-verse channel 99, or live stream at City Council Meeting LIVE – City of Antioch, California (antiochca.gov).

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”.

Members of the public wishing to provide public comments, may do so in one of the following ways (#2 pertains to the Zoom Webinar Platform):

1. IN PERSON Fill out a Speaker Request Form, available near the entrance doors, and place in the Speaker Card Tray near the City Clerk before the City Council Meeting begins.
2. VIRTUAL To provide oral public comments during the meeting, please click the following link to register in advance to access the meeting via Zoom Webinar: https://www.antiochca.gov/speakers

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. For instructions on using the “raise hand” feature in Zoom, visit: https://www.antiochca.gov/raise_hand. 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 (350 words, up to 3 minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor).

The City cannot guarantee that its network and/or the site will be uninterrupted.

3. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT If you wish to provide a written public comment, you may do so in one of the following ways by 3:00 p.m. the day of the City Council Meeting:

(1) Fill out an online speaker card, located at https://www.antiochca.gov/speaker_card,

Or (2) Email the City Clerk’s Department at cityclerk@ci.antioch.ca.us.

Please note: Written public comments received by 3:00 p.m. the day of the City Council Meeting will be shared with the City Council before the meeting, entered into the public record, retained on file by the City Clerk s Office, and available to the public upon request. Written public comments will not be read during the City Council Meeting.

Please check back for any updates to this report.

Lori Wilson running to fill Frazier vacancy through end of year

Still time for write-in candidates to enter race

She’s also only candidate so far to file for June Primary for regular election in new AD11

Current district includes Antioch, new one doesn’t

By Allen D. Payton

On Wednesday, Feb. 9, Suisun City Mayor Lori D. Wilson officially filed for candidacy in the April 5th Special Primary Election race for California’s current 11th Assembly District. The vacancy was caused by former Assemblyman Jim Frazier’s resignation at the end of December. By 5:00 PM the next day, Wilson, a Democrat, learned she was the only candidate to file.

Wilson’s campaign issued a press release on Friday, Feb. 11 stating, “She still intends to run a strong campaign to talk to voters about their concerns and tell them her story. Wilson believes that a strong voter turnout in every election is important to democracy.”

Still Time for Write-In Candidates to File and Run, Could Force Run-Off in Special General Election

However, there is still time for write-in candidates to file and run in the race. According to the Special Primary Election Calendar on the California Secretary of State’s website, which isn’t included in the Special Primary Election Calendar on the county’s Elections Office website, the “Period for all write-in candidates to file their Statement of Write-In Candidacy and Nomination Papers with the county elections official” began Feb. 7 and runs through the deadline on March 22, 2022. Those interested and who live in Contra Costa County must obtain the necessary documents from the Elections Office in Martinez.

If a candidate does not receive a majority of the votes of at least 50% plus one, a special general election will be held. The top two candidates in the primary will face off in the general election. While a write-in candidate’s name will not appear on the special primary election ballot, if a run-off is necessary, the name of the write-in candidate who is one of the top two candidates in the primary will appear on the special general election ballot. Whomever wins the election will fill the vacancy in the current 11th District through the end of the year. If no write-in candidate files, Wilson automatically wins will be sworn in sometime in April.

About Wilson

According to her LinkedIn account, since July 201 Wilson has worked as the Director of Finance for developer KB Home in Fairfield, and in the same position for Meritage Homes from 2011 to January 2019. Prior to working in the private sector, she worked for two non-profit organizations, first as Program Director for Liberty, then as Chief Accountant for Fair Housing Napa Valley. Prior to that she worked as an auditor for Solano County from 2003 to 2006.

Wilson earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration with a concentration in Accountancy from Cal State Sacramento.

She has “been endorsed by Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis, who joins a long list of state and local elected officials who have voiced their support for the campaign,” the press release reads.

“Lori Wilson has the right priorities and experience to represent Solano and Contra Costa Counties in the Assembly,” the press release continues. “As Mayor of Suisun City she has helped solve tough problems and delivered for her constituents. We need strong women leaders in Sacramento and I am proud to endorse Lori Wilson for Assembly.”

According to her campaign website, Wilson is the first Black female mayor to serve in all of Solano County She has served as Mayor of Suisun City since 2018 and was first elected to the Suisun City Council in 2012. According to her press release, “During her tenure, she has worked tirelessly to make Suisun City a welcoming and safe home to all. Wilson has a track record of fiscal responsibility while leading efforts to bring more housing, jobs and diversity to Suisun City. Lori Wilson is committed to fighting for the residents of California’s 11th Assembly District and she has a track record of creating good jobs, keeping our community safe and increasing the quality of life for all her constituents.”

According to the bio on her campaign website, Wilson is “A native Californian raised on the west side of Fresno, Lori is married to her high school sweetheart Chavares Wilson, a retired Air Force Reserve Technical Sergeant. They have been blessed with two sons, Tyler and Kiren, and a daughter-in-law, Brittney. They have enjoyed living in Suisun City since 2004 after being stationed at Travis AFB for 5 years.”

Only Candidate to File for Regular Election Also

Wilson has also filed to run in the regular election in the June primary, for the newly redrawn district which no longer includes Antioch. To date, in that race she is the only candidate to file in either Solano County or Contra Costa County, as well. Candidates have until March 16 to file papers to run, since the seat is currently vacant.

For more information about Wilson visit ElectLoriWilson.com.

Past Write-In Candidate for Assembly District 11

This reporter was the last candidate to successfully run as a write-in in a primary election for Assembly District 11, in 1998, garnering enough votes to be included on the November ballot. He lost to then-incumbent Assemblyman Tom Torlakson.

APD issues warning to public about fentanyl – don’t touch or approach, call 911

By Antioch Police Department

Fentanyl is one of the most dangerous synthetic drugs currently in circulation. According to the DEA, Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid drug that is approximately 100 times more potent than morphine and 50 times more potent than heroin. More recently, there has been a re-emergence of trafficking, distribution, and abuse of illicitly produced fentanyl and fentanyl analogues with an associated dramatic increase in overdose fatalities, ranging from 2,666 in 2011 to 31,335 in 2018.

Thursday evening, Officer Marques was conducting a patrol of the Executive Inn on E. 18th Street when he noticed a subject sleeping in the front seat of the car with the vehicle running. Conducting a welfare check on the subject, Officer Marques developed probable cause to search the vehicle and located a loaded un-serialized firearm in plain view. In addition to the numerous firearms violations, the subject was a convicted felon and was not able to have a firearm, let alone one that did not have a serial number associated with it.

During a subsequent search of the vehicle, Officer Marques located approximately 23g of suspected illegal narcotics, including what was believed to be fentanyl. In fact, the subject warned Officer Marques of the fentanyl, knowing how dangerous and potentially fatal the substance can be. Needless to say, the narcotics were confiscated, and the subject was transported to the county jail in Martinez.

Illegal fentanyl is sold in the following forms: as a powder, dropped on blotter paper-like small candies, in eye droppers or nasal sprays, or made into pills that look like real prescription opioids. In the event anyone encounters a substance believed to be fentanyl, please DO NOT TOUCH IT OR APPROACH IT and immediately dial 911. Drug Fact Sheet: Fentanyl (dea.gov) Fentanyl-2020-Fact Sheet DOJ DEA

City attorney claims that caused him to “believe that the investigation of the complaint by Tamisha Torres-Walker has been compromised”

Only three emails released, city won’t release others or give Brooks opportunity to respond, defend himself against accusations

Reveal possible internal power struggle between Brooks, Smith

Only two council members, city clerk deny releasing emails; Barbanica wants investigation into leaks, disciplinary action; city attorney won’t say consequences for releasing them

By Allen D. Payton

As of Thursday, Feb. 24, portions of email conversations between former Antioch Police Chief Tammany Brooks and outside investigator Vida Thomas, on which City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith was copied, and from Smith to the city council, regarding the investigation on the claim by District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker against the police officers involved in the incident with her sons in December 2020, were made public. The incident, as previously reported, involved her 13-year-old and adult sons illegally riding an offroad dirt bike and quad on city streets, and the councilwoman’s interaction with the officers who pursued both and stopped her younger son, after her adult son fled the scene, went home and returned with his mother. (See related article)

The email exchange is about the draft report by Ms. Thomas, an attorney with Oppenheimer Investigations Group (OIG), hired to provide an independent investigation of the incident, and claims by Torres-Walker that Officer Calvin Prieto “behaved in an ‘uncivil, disorderly or unprofessional manner” towards Ms. Walker, in violation of APD Policy 1001.3.4(a).” Emails TLSmith VThomas, TBrooks 09-21

Her use of the term “uncivil” was based on the dictionary definition, not that used by the Antioch Police Department.

Antioch resident Frank Sterling said he obtained the emails in his capacity as a reporter for KPFA radio but wouldn’t say how or from whom. Asked if he had received any additional emails between Brooks, Smith and Thomas, Sterling responded, “that’s it.”

As previously reported last October, Torres-Walker claimed city attorney Smith told all council members Brooks interfered with the investigation. (See related article)

Incomplete Email Record

The emails are incomplete as they don’t show all the communications between Brooks, Smith and Ms. Thomas about the investigation. Only three emails were released, and the city refuses to release the others or give Brooks the opportunity to respond and defend the accusations against him.

Reveal Possible Power Struggle Between Brooks, Smith

According to the email from Ms. Thomas, she claimed “persistent disagreements” between Brooks and Smith over who Oppenheimer’s client was, the police chief or city attorney, that “created some tension between the two”.

However, Brooks responded to her, “It is my understanding that OIG’s client was neither myself nor the city attorney, but instead was ‘the City of Antioch’” and “which should make…who is OIG’s client irrelevant to your findings

Questions for City Attorney, Torres-Walker, Other Council Members, City Staff

The following questions were sent Thursday afternoon, Feb. 24, 2022, to Smith, Torres-Walker, and copying Interim City Manager Con Johnson, Interim Police Chief Tony Morefield, the other four council members and Brooks asking, “what date was your email sent to the council, please, Thomas?

How did providing the correct definition of a term used by both the APD and outside investigator to ensure its proper application cause Brooks to compromise the investigation? Did he tell Ms. Thomas to change her investigation report or merely ask her questions about her draft?

Thomas, did you see the previous email communications between Brooks and Vida Thomas? Or did you just not read them and discovered the final report was different from the draft report which caught you by surprise? Did you challenge Brooks and/or Ms. Thomas after reading their previous communications which, according to her email, you both were copied on? Also, for Thomas and Tamisha, did you two have any communication about the draft report prior to the final report being issued? If so, please provide any and all email, handwritten or typed, or details of verbal communications about the draft and/or final reports.

Is it wrong for the police chief to question anything in any report about the conduct of his officers, whether it’s internally developed or from an outside investigator, especially if it’s merely challenging the use of the definition of a term and how it’s applied by the department?

Now that these emails are public, will you, the interim city manager and interim police chief release the rest of the emails between you, Brooks and Ms. Thomas regarding the outside investigation the councilwoman requested, so that our former police chief is free to defend the accusations against him? Also, so the public can see the other issue upon which Thomas Smith’s belief that the investigation was compromised?”

City Attorney Smith was also asked, “how does the issue mentioned in these emails rise to the level of Brooks compromising the investigation? Or is it the other issue that’s not included in these emails that caused you to have that belief? If so or if not, what is that other issue, please?

Who would it possibly harm if the other related emails are released? If you claim it’s the two officers involved in the incident who are now suing the City and Councilwoman Torres-Walker, let’s ask them if they mind the emails being released.”

The following questions were sent to Attorney Smith both Thursday and Friday, Feb. 24 and 25, 2022 and Interim Chief Tony Morefield on Friday: “Has another outside investigator been hired for the investigation into the police incident with Councilwoman Torres-Walker’s sons riding their dirt bikes on city streets? If so, when did that occur and is that investigation completed? If not, is that currently ongoing? If not, do you still plan to hire another outside investigator in the matter?” (See related article)

The questions were resent at 12:03 PM, Thursday, March 3 and included City Clerk Ellie Householder and Public Information Officer Rolando Bonilla providing information from previous reports by the Herald and with the additional question asking, “Which one of you released/provided/emailed a copy of the attached emails to either Frank Sterling, Lacey Brown/Ferguson or another member of the public? Lacey mentioned it in an Oct. 5, 2021, Facebook post that I reported on in an article published on Oct. 8, 2021 – Antioch councilwoman claims city attorney told all council members former police chief interfered with investigation of December incident with her sons | Antioch Herald

She claims it was from a Public Records Act request. But I find that doubtful.

However, if that’s true, then why wasn’t it shared with the Herald, as I made the PRA last fall for the emails between APD, the City and Oppenheimer and was denied my request. – Antioch city staff won’t respond to questions on councilwoman’s claims of interference by former police chief in investigation of her sons’ and her 2020 incident with police | Antioch Herald

As asked last fall but not responded to, is it a violation of state law? What are the consequences for doing so? Since Councilwoman Torres-Walker publicly mentioned the email between City Attorney Smith and the council, was that a violation of attorney client privilege? Was it a violation of state law?

If so, what are the potential repercussions against her? Does it require former Chief Brooks to sue her and the city for violating his rights? Also, has the second investigation begun and if so, who was hired to do that? If there was one, has it been completed and are the results different than the draft or final reports in the first investigation?”

Barbanica, Ogorchock, Householder Say They Didn’t Release the Emails, Barbanica Wants Person Who Did Disciplined

In response Barbanica called and asked where the Herald obtained the copy of the emails. He later said, “I reached out to the city attorney, and I encouraged the city staff to go into the server and see if they could determine where those came from based on everybody that had them. And if, in fact they could determine where they came from to take appropriate disciplinary action.”

“This is an ongoing litigation and releasing anything from it is improper,” Barbanica continued. “I can’t release anything. I won’t release anything. I have encouraged the city attorney to investigate this and try to determine where they came from and to take appropriate disciplinary action against that person.

Ogorchock also responded by asking for the Herald’s source for the emails. She later denied releasing them saying, “no. I honored the attorney client privilege and the Brown Act, and closed session rules. I wouldn’t violate those. I’m pretty sure who did.”

Asked who she thought that was, Ogorchock wouldn’t say.

Householder responded, “the City Clerk’s Office did not receive (and thus, did not process) a request for those records. This does not mean they were not released by another office or individual, since the public can request records directly from departments.”

“Since there are employees who no longer work for the City of Antioch, I will forward your records request to the Information Services Department to specifically check those closed email accounts to see if they received and/or processed a request for that email,” she added.

No other responses were received as of Friday morning, March 4, 2022. A formal Public Records Act request was made for any and all emails from the council members’ and city clerk’s official email accounts to and from their personal email accounts and/or to members of the public between Sept. 10 and Oct. 5, 2021, which include any city documents or emails from City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith. The city has up to 10 days to respond.

Emails from City Attorney to Council Members, Between Brooks and Investigator

Following are the three emails including one from City Attorney Smith to the city council members which included two emails between Brooks and outside investigator Vida Thomas. No date was provided for the first one:

“Mayor Thorpe, Mayor Pro Tem Wilson and City Council Members,

I believe that the investigation of the complaint by Tamisha Torres-Walker has been compromised. Please see the email discussion below.

Thomas Lloyd Smith

City Attorney

————–

From: Vida Thomas <email address redacted by the Herald>

Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 11:02 AM

To: Brooks, Tammany <tbrooks@antiochca.gov>; Smith, Thomas Lloyd

<TLSmith@antiochca.gov>

Subject: Concern about report finding

Hello, Chief Brooks and Mr. Smith.

It has come to my attention that there are concerns about one of the findings in my final report. Specifically, the finding concerning whether Officer Prieto behaved in an “uncivil, disorderly or unprofessional manner” towards Ms. Walker, in violation of APD Policy 1001.3.4(a). Because the finding in my draft report was different from the finding in my final report, I want to clarify the sequence of events leading up to my final finding.

My draft report contained a finding sustaining the allegation that Officer Prieto had behaved in an “uncivil” manner. As my draft report indicated, I reached this finding by applying the Oxford dictionary definition of “uncivil.” After reading my draft finding, Chief Brooks informed me of the APD’s interpretation of Policy 1001.3.4, which uses a higher standard than expressed by the dictionary definition of “uncivil.” I determined that Officer Prieto’s behavior did not violate this higher standard as articulated by the Chief.

Although I explained this reasoning in the final report, I did not explain that I believed that Officer Prieto’s behavior met the dictionary definition of “uncivil.” I would be happy to provide an addendum to the final report that includes this clarification.

This investigation was unique because there were persistent disagreements about who OIG’s client was: the Police Chief (with whom OIG executed the investigation contract) or the City Attorney (whose budget funded the investigation). As you both know, this created some tension between the two of you, which made it advisable that I include you both in all of my communications. I did not do that regarding this amended finding,

which I regret. However, at all times, I endeavored to conduct an impartial investigation, balance the apparently conflicting interests of the police department and the city attorney’s office, and reach findings that were driven by the evidence and nothing else. I believe I did that.

If either of you would like me to prepare and attach an addendum as described above to the final report, please let me know in writing, and I will be happy to provide it.

——————

From: Brooks, Tammany <tbrooks@antiochca.gov>

Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 10:04 AM

To: ‘Vida Thomas’ <email address redacted by the Herald>; Smith, Thomas Lloyd

<TLSmith@antiochca.gov>

Subject: RE: Concern about report finding

Good morning Vida,

It is my understanding that OIG’s client was neither myself nor the city attorney, but instead was “the City of Antioch.” Additionally, the service requested was “to conduct an impartial investigation” into the matter, which should make the question as to who is OIG’s client irrelevant to your findings. I trust that your final work product is reflective of your contracted obligations, and as such do not need an addendum.

Thank you,”

Will match $200,000 in employee and physician donations raised in just two days

Calls on other health care organizations to join the effort

By Antonia Ehlers, PR and Media Relations, Kaiser Permanente Northern California

Kaiser Permanente has launched an employee and physician giving campaign to help with the urgent Ukrainian refugee crisis for physicians and employees who wish to personally support organizations helping with the relief effort, providing refugees with food, shelter, warm clothing, medical care, and supplies. Employees and physicians can choose to support these efforts by donating to any of 3 organizations selected by Kaiser Permanente, and the nonprofit integrated health care organization will match individual donations dollar for dollar, up to a total of $200,000.

The program was announced March 1, and in less than two days employees and physicians donated more than $200,000 in relief funds, ensuring the organization will contribute at least $400,000 for Ukraine relief. Donations continue to come in to support the three nonprofit relief organizations included in this matching effort, who are all providing direct aid: Direct Relief, Global Empowerment Mission, and World Central Kitchen. They were chosen based on a successful track record in disaster situations, and all three are on the ground in the region working to assist the refugees.

“Kaiser Permanente’s mission compels us to take action in response to the events unfolding in Eastern Europe. We are deeply saddened for the people in Ukraine, and for the loss of lives, destruction of communities, and displacement of families,” said Greg A. Adams, chair and chief executive officer, Kaiser Permanente. “This worsening humanitarian crisis merits our immediate response. We ask that you join us with your donations and solidarity for the people in Ukraine. This is a moment and cause that connects us regardless of our background or ethnicity. This is a time for unity, and for us to stand together as an industry and as a nation.”

The war in Ukraine already has caused more than 1 million refugees to leave the country and stream into neighboring nations. The United Nations estimates a total of 4 million people will eventually leave the country in the coming weeks. The scale of the humanitarian crisis is expanding significantly, and disaster relief agencies are struggling to meet the needs. While neighboring countries are welcoming the refugees, they are overwhelmed by their numbers.

The damage caused by this conflict continues to change every day. Kaiser Permanente will continue to closely monitor the situation as it continues to develop.

Kaiser Permanente has physicians and employees who have ties to Ukraine, Russia, and other countries in the region. Many of the people in the communities we serve also have connections to those affected by the war. This diversity is a source of strength and provides an opportunity to seek mutual understanding, offer support, and work together for a better future.

About Kaiser Permanente

Kaiser Permanente is committed to helping shape the future of health care. We are recognized as one of America’s leading health care providers and nonprofit health plans. Founded in 1945, Kaiser Permanente has a mission to provide high-quality, affordable health care services and to improve the health of our members and the communities we serve. We currently serve 12.5 million members in 8 states and the District of Columbia. Care for members and patients is focused on their total health and guided by their personal Permanente Medical Group physicians, specialists, and team of caregivers. Our expert and caring medical teams are empowered and supported by industry-leading technology advances and tools for health promotion, disease prevention, state-of-the-art care delivery and world-class chronic disease management. Kaiser Permanente is dedicated to care innovations, clinical research, health education, and the support of community health. For more information, go to about.kp.org.

 

607-acre, 1,650-home development next to planned Thurgood Marshall Regional Park

SMD leader says motion for new trial “should be denied”

By Allen D. Payton

Last Friday, Feb. 25, 2022, attorneys representing Discovery Builders and their Faria new home development requested a new trial for the lawsuit by Save Mount Diablo, following a judge’s decision in favor of the environmental group to stop the project. As previously reported, on March 30, 2021, Save Mount Diablo filed a lawsuit challenging the City of Pittsburg’s approval of the 1,650-unit Faria project, on the ridgeline between Pittsburg and Concord. According to the agenda item documents, the master plan overlay district encompasses approximately 607 acres of land. (See related article)

The motion for a new trial was filed “on the basis that the Court’s decision is not supported by the evidence and controlling legal authorities. Specifically…that there were several portions of this Court’s February 10, 2022 Statement of Decision that may not have fully considered evidence in the administrative record.” In addition, the motion asks that the “Court vacate its Statement of Decision and enter a new decision denying SMD’s motion” and “conduct a new hearing”.  Faria project Motion for New Trial    Parsons Dec. ISO Mot for New Trial    Raskin Dec. ISO Mot for New Trial    Faria project new trial Proof of Service

A hearing date on the motion for a new trial has been set for April 14, 2022.

On the day of the decision, Save Mount Diablo issued the following press release about their legal victory:

“On February 10, 2022, the Contra Costa County Superior Court handed Save Mount Diablo a major victory in its legal challenge to the City of Pittsburg’s approval of the 1,650-unit Faria/Southwest Hills Project.

According to the ruling, the city’s environmental review was inadequate in numerous ways. Faria was proposed by Seeno companies/Discovery Builders, Inc./Faria Investors LLC on the spectacular and highly visible major ridgeline between Pittsburg and Concord and could include grading and houses visible across the ridge.

As a result, the City of Pittsburg is required to overturn approvals for the project and correct environmental review. The city and Seeno/Discovery Builders will also be required to pay Save Mount Diablo’s legal fees.

It remains to be seen whether the developers, Discovery Builders, Inc. and Faria Land Investors, LLC, or the City of Pittsburg will appeal the decision.

The Pittsburg City Council—then-Mayor Merl Craft; then–Vice Mayor Holland Barrett White; and Councilmembers Shanelle Scales-Preston, Juan Antonio Banales, and Jelani Killings—all voted to approve the proposal in February 2021. (The mayor and vice-mayor designations rotate among the councilmembers.) They ignored hundreds of letters and public comments that opposed the project. Save Mount Diablo filed a lawsuit challenging the project’s approval in March 2021.

If the project had moved forward, it would have meant the development of a major, new residential subdivision on 606 acres of ridgeline and hillside grazing land in what is currently unincorporated Contra Costa County, immediately south of the City of Pittsburg.

The biologically rich site supports sensitive wildlife species and rare plants and is in one of the most visible and most environmentally constrained areas of the county. The Faria project would have fragmented open space and damaged wildlife corridors.

The proposed housing development would have changed the beautiful green hills forever by annexing the property to the City of Pittsburg and locating 1,650 new residences far from jobs, transit, and services.

The Faria project would have also impacted the new East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) Thurgood Marshall Regional Park – Home of the Port Chicago 50 at the Faria site’s southwestern edge, formerly part of the Concord Naval Weapons Station. Save Mount Diablo and its partners advocated for the creation of this new park over many years. The Faria project would have been located directly above the new park on a ridgeline, degrading views from surrounding areas.

The Contra Costa Superior Court ruled that the City of Pittsburg’s environmental review of the project was inadequate in four major ways:

1. It failed to analyze any impacts that would results from the 150 accessory dwelling units that were added by the City of Pittsburg at the last minute. This is important because the number of units affects every part of environmental review from traffic to water supply to schools, etc. and will make correcting the environmental review complicated;
2. It failed to include a baseline description of biological resources that could be impacted by the project, specifically special-status plant species;
3. It failed to consider the water supply impacts of adding 1,650 new housing units in the area, which is especially important given years of drought and increasing fire danger; and
4. It failed to adequately disclose or mitigate the project’s air quality impacts, including greenhouse gas impacts, without which development will continue to make the climate crisis much worse.

“The court’s decision says to developers: ‘You don’t get to kick the can down the road. You have to do a thorough analysis of your project’s impacts before you lock in project approvals,’” said Winter King, Save Mount Diablo’s attorney from Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger. “The court got it right.”

The court’s ruling means that the City of Pittsburg’s approval of the project is null and void.

The court also noted that additional impacts—such as geologic hazard impacts resulting from grading and filling, and impacts on streams and agricultural lands—would need to be addressed in more detail.

Save Mount Diablo Executive Director Ted Clement said, “Throughout the East Bay, residents have worked hard to protect our ridges and views, flora and fauna, and to defend our parks. In this case that was just decided in our favor, Save Mount Diablo had to stand up against some very powerful interests to help further the work of protecting these treasured resources, which add so much to our collective quality of life.”

“Although I’ve worked for Save Mount Diablo on this issue, I’m also a Concord resident,” said Juan Pablo Galván Martínez, Save Mount Diablo’s Senior Land Use Manager. “This project infuriated me as an open-space lover, a wildlife enthusiast, and someone who is deeply worried and taking action to stop catastrophic climate change. Since this affects both cities, I want both city councils to work together to protect the hills and ridgeline.”

“This is a major victory for Pittsburg’s hills,” stated Save Mount Diablo Land Conservation Director Seth Adams. “Open space, habitat for wildlife, and the community’s scenic views have won the day, and poorly planned development will not go forward, for now. We are very happy with the court’s decision.”

“On the other hand,” said Adams, “while our victory is costly for the city and Seeno/Discovery Builders in time and money, it does not stop the project forever. After correcting environmental documents, the Pittsburg City Council can approve Seeno’s huge project again if they choose. But now they have a second chance to make it better by protecting the ridgeline and neighboring regional park. We don’t have to argue about protecting ridgelines in other cities. The Pittsburg City Council should do the right thing.”

Save Mount Diablo Says Motion for New Trial “Should Be Denied”

Asked about the motion for a new trial, Save Mount Diablo Executive Director, Ted Clement responded, “Regarding the Seeno companies/Pittsburg request for a new trial, the Court has already rejected their arguments for reasons fully set forth in its decision. Their Motion for New Trial does not question the adequacy of the administrative record on which the Court properly based its decision (and which the City itself prepared) or suggest there was any other irregularity or unfairness in the hearing. Instead, they seek a second bite of the apple.”

“Their Motion reargues issues that were fully briefed and addressed in the Court’s Decision,” he continued. “They also seek to introduce irrelevant and improper extra-record evidence, violating black letter law that CEQA actions must be decided on the record that was before the agency when it made its decision.”

“Because their Motion provides no basis for this Court to order a new trial solely on the issues decided adverse to them, it should be denied,” Clement concluded.

Claim gender discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, defamation and more; “contemptible culture” at APD, “malicious campaign of vengeance” by Torres-Walker

City doesn’t issue response to lawsuit

Councilwoman unsure if she needs outside counsel or if city attorney will represent her, city attorney won’t say

By Allen D. Payton

On Dec. 28, 2021, Antioch Police Officers Andrea Rodriguez and Calvin Prieto filed a lawsuit against the City of Antioch, District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker as an individual and unnamed Does 1-10 for gender discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and defamation for how the Antioch Police Department has treated the officers and how the councilwoman treated them both following the Dec. 2020 incident in which they pursued and attempted to pull over two of her sons who were riding dirt bikes illegally on city streets. COMPLAINT-Rodriguez & Prieto v. City of Antioch & Torres-Walker

The officers were able to stop her younger son, who is a minor, but her adult son, Yomani Mapp, who was riding with his younger brother, fled from police, went home and brought the councilwoman back with him to the scene. It was during that exchange and Torres-Walker’s later video rant on her Facebook page that are the basis for the officers’ lawsuit.

As previously reported, he was later charged with evading the police by the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office. Antioch Police submitted a felony charged against Mapp using Vehicle Code (VC) 2800.4, because he drove in the opposite direction while evading police. He could have faced six months to a year in jail or a fine of $1,000 to $10,000, or both. But Contra Costa DA Diana Becton reduced the charge to a misdemeanor using VC 2800.1(a) for just evading police and, if convicted, Mapp could face up to one year in jail. The filing with the court occurred on March 23, the same day Torres-Walker made a $500 contribution to Becton’s re-election committee, according to the DA’s campaign finance report. (See related articles here and here)

Officers Claim “Contemptible Culture” at APD, “Malicious Campaign of Vengeance” by Councilwoman

In their complaint, the officers claim, “Officer Rodriguez and Officer Prieto served their community as dedicated and honorable law enforcement officers for nearly a decade. Over the last two years, Plaintiffs’ (officers’) careers have been railroaded by the collision of two events: a contemptible culture of gender-based discrimination, harassment and retaliation at the Antioch Police Department”.  They also claim, “a malicious campaign of vengeance spearheaded by Defendant Torres-Walker.” The complaint states that her “conduct has been egregious that both Plaintiffs have been placed on stress leave as a result of the emotional distress they have suffered and continue to suffer, jeopardizing their livelihoods, law enforcement careers, and depriving the City of Antioch of two committed officers.”

The officers are requesting a jury trial for their case and for “general, special and compensatory damages; punitive and exemplary damages; civil penalties; pre-judgment interest; and attorneys’ fees and costs.

A case management conference is scheduled for May 17, 2022, at 8:30 AM in Department 21.

City Council Discussed Case in January

The case was discussed by the city council during a closed session meeting on Jan. 25, 2022. – Closed Session Agenda item 4. reads, “CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION – pursuant to California Government Code section 54956.9: Andrea Rodriguez and Calvin Prieto v. City of Antioch et al., Contra Costa County Superior Court Case Number C21-02687.”  But no reportable action was taken during the meeting.

Officers Represented by Civil Rights Attorneys

The officers are represented by three attorneys from the Dhillon Law Firm in San Francisco, including nationally known civil rights attorney Harmeet Dhillon, founder of the Center for American Liberty.

When reached for comment, one of the attorneys for the officers, Jesse Franklin-Murdock, wrote, “Officers Rodriguez and Prieto are hardworking and community-minded public servants. They served the City of Antioch with integrity and professionalism. Officer Rodriguez suffered gender-based discrimination and a hostile work environment at the Antioch Police Department, and both officers suffered retaliation after they opposed illegal, discriminatory practices at APD.”

“Councilmember Torres-Walker further defamed Officer Prieto by telling vicious lies about him in a profane video, and then sought professional retribution against him because her anti-police animus,” Franklin-Murdock continued. “Our office looks forward to seeking justice for both officers and sending a message to the City of Antioch that a culture of discrimination and retaliation cannot continue.”

“The action is indeed in the Martinez division,” the attorney shared. “The Case Management Conference is open to the public and members of the media. It is generally a routine scheduling conference where the court will set case deadlines.”

City Attorney Doesn’t Respond to Questions About Lawsuit

On Friday, Feb. 25, 2022, questions were emailed to City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith and Torres-Walker, copying the other four council members and former Antioch Police Chief Tammany Brooks asking, “does the city attorney represent a council member if they’re being sued as an individual? Or would they need to get their own counsel? Also, do you have any comments about the lawsuit and what do you expect to result from the Case Management Conference scheduled for May 17, 2022?”

None of them had responded to the email as of Wednesday, March 2, 2022, at noon.

Torres-Walker Doesn’t Know, Yet if City Attorney Will Represent Her or She Needs Outside Counsel

When asked directly if she had to obtain her own legal counsel or if the city attorney is representing her, Torres-Walker responded, “That’s still not clear but I have reached out for consultations.” Asked for clarification, if she had reached out to City Attorney Smith or an outside attorney she responded, “Outside.”

City Doesn’t Respond to Lawsuit

When asked for a copy of the City’s response to the officers’ lawsuit, Rakia Grant-Smith, Executive Legal Assistant for City Attorney Smith wrote, “The City of Antioch received your request for a “copy of a response to the lawsuit on behalf of the City” in regards to the Prieto-Rodriguez complaint. It has been determined that the record sought does not exist.”

In response, they were asked, “isn’t it common practice to respond to a lawsuit within 30 days?”

In addition, Franklin-Murdock was informed of the city attorney’s office claim and asked, Is that true? If not, do you have what the City provided? If it is true, isn’t that unusual for a party to not respond to a lawsuit?”

As of Wednesday, March 2 at noon, neither the city attorney’s office, nor Franklin-Murdock had responded.

City Attorney, Interim Police Chief Won’t Say if New Investigator Hired

Last fall, City Attorney Smith and then-City Manager Ron Bernal said they would hire another outside investigator.

Questions were sent Friday afternoon, Feb. 25 to Smith and Interim Police Chief Tony Morefield asking, “has another outside investigator been hired for the investigation into the police incident with Councilwoman Torres-Walker’s sons riding their dirt bikes on city streets? If so, when did that occur and is that investigation completed? If not, is that currently ongoing? If not, do you still plan to hire another outside investigator in the matter, please?”

As of Wednesday, March 2 at noon, they had not yet responded.

Interim Police Chief Offered Opportunity to Respond to Accusations Against Department

On Wednesday afternoon, March 2, 2022, Interim Police Chief was also sent a copy of the lawsuit and given the opportunity to respond on behalf of the department.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.