Prevents former ICE agents with history of misconduct from becoming law enforcement officers in California

Claims participating in ICE operations during Trump’s 2nd term “demonstrates an immorality”

Could be challenged in court, deemed unconstitutional

By Allen D. Payton

On Tuesday, Sept. 29, 2026, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law AB 1627, the Misconduct Ends Law-enforcement Trust Act of 2026 (MELT ICE) by Assemblywoman Anamarie Ávila Farías (D-Martinez), which disqualifies officers employed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from being employed as a peace officer in California, if they “engaged in serious misconduct that would have resulted in their certification being revoked…if employed as a peace officer in this state.”

The Assemblywoman represents portions of Contra Costa County in the State Assembly’s 15th District including Antioch.

While the law makes clear that existing police hiring rules covering serious misconduct by former law enforcement officers now, also apply to officers involved in immigration enforcement, it applies even if the ICE officer was not found guilty of misconduct in their current or previous position.

However, the soon to be new law could be challenged in court because of possible violation of federal labor law and deemed unconstitutional in part due to the “immorality” clause. That clause reads, “Participating in the operations of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement on or after January 20, 2025, demonstrates an immorality that California cannot afford to have in its ranks of peace officer.”

On August 30th, the bill passed the state Senate on 29 to 10 party-line vote, and the Assembly by 57 to 16 also on a party-line vote. It was enrolled and presented to the Governor on Sept. 9th at 1 p.m.

Part of Package of Federal Immigration Enforcement Related Bills Signed by Governor

According to a press release from the governor’s office that day, “Governor Newsom signed 21 bills earlier today cementing California’s longstanding efforts to support immigrant communities and reflecting on the state’s response to an intensified federal immigration enforcement environment.”

“Newsom…signed a package of bills related to federal immigration enforcement in California to expand oversight of federal immigration enforcement in California.

“This action builds on years of work by Governor Newsom and the Legislature to support (illegal) immigrant families, protect communities and the economy from reckless immigration actions, strengthen transparency and oversight of detention facilities, and ensure that state resources are focused on public safety and the needs of Californians.

The governor’s office claims the package of bills, “Prohibits ICE officers who have committed serious misconduct on the job from becoming peace officers or public employees in California.”

Included in the bills was AB 1627 by Ávila Farías, described as “Public employment: disqualifications”, and known as the MELT ICE Act.

Legislative Counsel’s Digest of AB 1627

According to the Legislative Counsel’s Digest, “Existing (state) law specifies circumstances that disqualify a person from holding office or being employed as a peace officer, including, among other things, any person previously employed in law enforcement in any state or United States territory or by the federal government whose name is listed in any of specified indexes whose certification as a law enforcement officer in that jurisdiction was revoked for misconduct or who, while employed as a law enforcement officer, engaged in serious misconduct that would have resulted in their certification being revoked by the commission if employed as a peace officer in this state.

“This bill would specify that, for purposes of the disqualification circumstances described above, the terms ‘employed in law enforcement’ and ‘law enforcement officer’ include a law enforcement officer employed in any state or United States territory or by the federal government who engages in immigration enforcement, as provided.”

Bill Text Claims Participating in ICE Operations During Trump’s Second Term “Demonstrates an Immorality”

According to the Bill Text in, “SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

“(a) Beginning in 2025, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have terrorized California residents, United States citizens and noncitizens alike, through untargeted arrests and brutality based on nothing more than a person’s racial appearance, language spoken, means of earning a living, or exercise of First Amendment-protected expression.

“(b) Beginning in 2025, the United States Department of Homeland Security has recruited peace officers to United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement with the promise of being unrestrained in the manner in which officers engage with civilians or by the laws of the State of California.

“(c) Participating in the operations of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement on or after January 20, 2025, demonstrates an immorality that California cannot afford to have in its ranks of peace officers whose duties include interacting with the public.”

Further according to the Bill Text, “…except as provided in subparagraph (B), any person previously employed as a sworn law enforcement officer or individual contractor, and personally engaged in immigration enforcement,” is “disqualified from holding office as a peace officer or being employed as a peace officer of the state, county, city, city and county, or other political subdivision, whether with or without compensation, and is disqualified from any office or employment by the state, county, city, city and county, or other political subdivision, whether with or without compensation, which confers upon the holder or employee the powers and duties of a peace officer.”

Subparagraph B (ii) reads, “‘Immigration enforcement’ includes any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal civil immigration law, and also includes any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal criminal immigration law that penalizes a person’s presence in, entry, or reentry to, or employment in, the United States.”

However, the bill “does not prohibit or restrict any governmental entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, federal immigration authorities information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an individual, or from requesting from federal immigration authorities immigration status information, lawful or unlawful, of any individual, or from maintaining or exchanging that information with any other federal, state, or local governmental entity.” That means existing law enforcement officers can cooperate with ICE within limits of California’s sanctuary state laws.

Ávila Farías Comments About Bill, Signing by Governor

A press release issued earlier this year, after the State Assembly passed her bill, reads, “On the Assembly Floor, Assemblymember Ávila Farías emphasized that ICE enforcement has created fear across California—impacting both citizens and immigrants alike—and legislation is needed to proactively safeguard our communities and critical spaces.”

She is further quoted in a FOX11 Los Angeles report as saying in a statement, “California’s peace officers…must be guardians of constitutional rights, not participants in their erosion.” and “argued that participating in ICE operations during this period ‘demonstrates an immorality that California cannot afford to have in its ranks.’”

In her brief speech on the Assembly Floor on May 27th, Avila Farias said, “Communities are safer when we are policed by people who are committed to protecting the public rather than kidnapping them.”

During a presentation before the Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety in April, she said, “Frankly, I don’t want my kids or anyone else’s counting on people who flaunt the rule of the law.” Ávila Farías also claimed, “this bill, does not have any legal issues, and challenges, because we’re simply doing a modest expansion of existing law in a way to protect our community members and holding the highest regard of what our law enforcement professionals. It also is not honing into the individuals that are doing their jobs to the letter of the law. This is protecting vulnerable community populations…”

She repeated her remarks before the state Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety in June saying, “AB 1627 ensures that immigration enforcement personnel are disqualified from becoming a peace officer in California if they have committed misconduct in their prior roles. This bill is about restoring public trust and holding federal law enforcement to the same standards as any other peace officer in California.”

About the governor signing her bill Ávila Farías said, “Our kids deserve role models in uniform, not individuals tied to fear and intimidation. AB 1627 is about accountability, integrity, and reducing harm before it happens. With the signing of the MELT ICE Act of 2026, California sends a clear message: Federal agents who have disregarded constitutional rights are not to be entrusted with peace enforcement roles in our state. Thank you, Governor Newsom, for your commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting our communities.”

Ávila Farías’ office issued a press release about the bill’s signing.

“Today, Governor Gavin Newsom signed my bill to prevent former ICE employees with documented histories of misconduct from becoming peace officers in California.

“AB 1627, the Misconduct Ends Law-Enforcement Trust Act of 2026, started with people in my community speaking up. One year ago, at a No Kings Rally in Concord, our community came together and spoke out about the fear many immigrant families were experiencing. That community activism helped inspire this legislation, and I am proud that their voices helped lead to meaningful change.

“AB 1627 was not written overnight. It was the result of many conversations, a lot of listening, and working with people who care deeply about public safety and accountability.

“At the heart of this bill is a simple principle: if someone has a documented history of misconduct, they should not be able to leave one agency and simply put on another uniform without accountability.

“I am honored and humbled to have played a part in creating one more barrier to prevent individuals who have abused their authority from becoming peace officers in California. This is about protecting public trust and making sure the people entrusted with a badge are held to a high standard.

“I want to thank Governor Newsom, my legislative colleagues, the community partners who stood with me, and the law-enforcement professionals who worked with us throughout this process. “This is what people power looks like. A community raised its voice, we listened, we worked together, and we turned that vision into law.

“AB 1627 takes effect January 1, 2027.”

Opposed by Statewide Police Organization

According to a report on MSN.com, “The Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) has voiced opposition to the bill. ‘This bill is unnecessary, duplicative and it jeopardizes qualified immunity for California employees,’ stated David Mastagni on behalf of PORAC.

The report further claims, “Critics argue the measure represents ‘guilty by association’ and could worsen existing staffing shortages in California’s police departments and schools. According to data from PORAC, law enforcement agencies throughout California have lost over 3,300 sworn officers since 2020, with an average of 10% of policing roles remaining unfilled.”

Could Be Challenged in Court, Deemed Unconstitutional

However, the new law could be ruled unconstitutional if challenged in court as questions have arisen whether the state can legally enforce a lifetime ban on a specific class of former federal employees without violating federal labor protections or constitutional due process.

According to a report by iHeart Radio in February, “Legal experts question whether California can legally enforce a lifetime ban on a specific class of federal employees without violating federal labor protections or constitutional due process rights.”

Inclusion of the “immorality” clause could give further basis for a court challenge.

Plus, discuss downtown security services, vote on emergency fuel purchase, more traffic calming devices, increasing investigative services contract, more water park repairs & improvements, and report on state and federal funds for housing and homeless

Still nothing on agenda about El Campanil Theatre although escrow closes Sept. 29th

By Allen D. Payton

During their regular meeting Tuesday, Sept. 22, 2026, the Antioch City Council has a full agenda and will vote on reestablishing the Economic Development Department, with one staff member and either a director or combined assistant city manager dual role,emergency fuel purchase, increasing investigative services contract for the Police Department by $250,000,almost $200,000 for more traffic calming devices and $141,000 for more improvements to the water park. They will also discuss restoring private security services in downtown Rivertown and the annual report on use of state and federal funds for housing and homeless services. Finally, the Council will vote on approving a Tentative Agreement with the Confidential Unit of City employees for a one-year 3% COLA increase.

That will follow a Closed Session at 6:00 p.m. during which the Council will meet to discuss the contracts with representatives of three employee organizations: Antioch Public Employees’ Association, Treatment Plant Employees’ Association and Antioch Police Sworn Management Association.

Reestablishing Economic Development Department, Director, Staff or Dual Assistant City Manager Role, Possible Commission

Under Item 7 the Council will vote on reestablishing a standalone Economic Development Department separate from Community Development, with funding for an Economic Development Director position with an amended salary range, an Economic Development Specialist, and assigning a budget; or directing staff to revise the existing Assistant City Manager job description whose primary role would be to focus on economic development in an 80/20 scope of work structure.

As previously reported and according to the City staff report, “Per the City Council’s direction from the August 31, 2026, Study Session, below are the options for discussion.

• A standalone Economic Development Department;

• An Economic Development Director responsible for oversight and implementation of the Economic Development Strategic Plan or amending the Assistant City Manager to an 80/20 dual role;

• Status of Economic Development Commission (EDC); and

• Providing a substantial budget to the Economic Development Department for programming and successful operations.

“Under the proposed 80/20 structure, the City Manager Department would gain dedicated Assistant City Manager capacity for executive initiatives, Council priorities, interdepartmental coordination, and organizational problem-solving, while retaining responsibility for matters that cannot be delegated. This creates a tradeoff between dedicated departmental oversight and unrestricted Assistant City Manager capacity.”

In addition, Mayor Ron Bernal suggested a salary range “something similar to the current Community and Economic Development Director of  $14,800 to $18,000.”

Also, as previously reported, the two departments were combined last year and has had an acting director since March 3rd, after a the new director was hired in October but left effective that day. The Economic Development Department hasn’t had a separate director since Kwame Reed was promoted to Assistant City Manager on Jan. 23, 2025. He, too, has since left the City for a job with the County.

While the Commission was never officially dissolved, during their meeting on April 9, 2024, the City Council voted unanimously to dissolve their own Restructuring of the Economic Development Commission Ad Hoc Committee. According to the meeting minutes, District 1 “Councilmember Tamisha Torres-Walker explained that the committee’s purpose was to restructure the EDC to improve functionality,” but “expressed her support for dissolving the existing Ad Hoc Committee.”

During that council meeting, then-District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock asked that the vacancies on the Commission be filled to no avail.

According to Tim McCall, the Commission’s former chairman, then-mayor “Lamar (Hernandez-Thorpe) refused to fill vacancies until they didn’t have a quorum anymore. People started quitting because they could see their volunteer work was going to waste and they had better uses for their time. I asked Lamar to fill the vacancies, but he didn’t.”

Downtown Security Services

Under Item 6, on the agenda, the Council will discuss downtown security services for City owned parking lots, property and public areas, and provide direction to staff on whether to initiate a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) process for private security services in the Rivertown/Downtown area.

It follows the meetings held with and incorporates feedback received from downtown business owners and community members regarding hours of operation, patrol locations, scope of services and other identified needs.

Emergency Fuel Purchase Up to $500,000

Under Item 8, the Council will vote on purchasing fuel on an emergency basis through December 31, 2026, in an amount not to exceed $500,000, including applicable taxes, fees, delivery charges, and other associated costs,

to cover both the payment of outstanding fuel invoices accrued from July 1, 2026, through August 31, 2026, in the amount of $178,042.33 and the purchase of fuel necessary to maintain City operations until December 31, 2026, while City staff continue efforts to secure a new service provider for a long-term fuel supply agreement.

On April 28, 2026, the City Council approved a cooperative purchase agreement with Hunt and Sons for the purchase and delivery of unleaded and renewable diesel fuel for City operations. Hunt and Sons have not been able to meet the City’s insurance requirements and are therefore not able to perform this service under the terms of the agreement.

Since July 1, 2026, the City has continued receiving fuel deliveries from Hunt and Sons while staff, under consultation with the City Attorney’s Office, worked with the vendor to resolve the insurance requirements. The outstanding invoices will continue to accrue twice weekly as future fuel deliveries are made.

Annual Report on Use of State and Federal Housing and Homeless Funds

Under Item 9 the Council will receive public comments and vote on approving the Fiscal Year 2025–26 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) for submission to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

According to the City staff report, “The CAPER details the individual goals and achievements of funded agencies during the first year (FY 2025-26) of the 2025-30 Consolidated Plan. Most agencies exceeded their goals. Below is a summary of the Priority Goals and Annual Strategies that received funding in FY 2025-26. Funding sources below are identified by their stated abbreviation for funds committed and expended:

• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development;

• Housing Successor (HS) funding authorized by the State for expenditure on affordable housing and homeless services; and

• Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funding from the State for expenditure on affordable housing and homeless services.

A total of $1,701,909.45 was spent on the various programs and a balance of $144,428.20 in Habitat for Humanity Homeowner Housing Rehabilitation funds was carried over to and will be expended in FY26-27.

Breakdown of Residents Served

According to the FY 2025-26 Summary, “Funding from the City of Antioch Community Grants Program served a total of 6,497 Antioch residents during the past year for 148% of the cumulative goal of 4,398. Of the total Antioch residents served by all programs:

• 68.8% had household incomes of 30% or less AMI (Average Median Income);

• 28.7% had incomes of 50% to 31% AMI; and

• 2.5 had incomes of 80% to 51% AMI.

The demographic breakdown of all served against the demographics of the City of Antioch is provided in the chart above.

The report also states, “Overall, community-service activities exceeded the cumulative annual service goal, with most participating agencies meeting or exceeding their individual goals. Several affordable-housing activities remain in progress or below their annual production goals and will require continued monitoring, financial reconciliation, and follow-up during FY 2026–27.”

Increasing Investigative Services Contract for Police Department to Comply with DOJ, Allen Agreements

Under Item 10, the Council will consider approving Amendment No. 2 to the contract with Chaplin and Hill Investigative Services, increasing the contract amount by $250,000 for continued investigative services “required pursuant to the USDOJ MOU, the Allen Agreement, and applicable City policies and procedures,” according to the City staff report.

Also, according to City staff, “To maintain public confidence and uphold the integrity of internal investigations, the Antioch Police Department must ensure that its process for handling allegations of misconduct is impartial and consistent with applicable federal requirements. Engaging independent, external professional investigators provides an objective means of conducting investigations involving allegations of misconduct and other matters requiring an independent review.

“This approach is consistent with national law enforcement best practices and standards. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)…recommends the use of external investigators to promote fairness and impartiality in law enforcement investigations.”

City Employee Confidential Unit One-Year 3% COLA

Under Item 11, the Council will vote on approving a Tentative Agreement with the Confidential Unit of City employees which includes a one-year 3% Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) and benefits for FY2026/27 at a cost of $123,000 with $103,000 from the General Fund. The Confidential Unit includes a variety of staff positions: the Deputy City Clerk, Account Specialists, Analysts, Assistants, Coordinators, Specialists and Technicians. The 26 employees in the Unit have been working without a contract since September 30, 2025. See City’s Master Salary Schedule.

CONSENT CALENDAR

More Traffic Calming Devices

After approving the expenditure of a little over $500,000 for the traffic calming devices on Sycamore Drive on Aug. 25, under Item 5.P. on the Consent Calendar, the Council will consider awarding the construction agreement to Consolidated Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $168,495 with a contingency of $30,000 for a total contract amount of $198,495 for the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Project.

It consists of the installation of speed hump systems, signage and thermoplastic striping. There will be a total of eight speed hump systems constructed on the following streets:

• Sunset Drive between Diablo and Beasley Avenues;
• E. Tregallas Road between Center Lane and Garrow Drive;
• Wildflower Drive between Larkspur Drive and Lupine Court;
• W. Madill Street between D and G Streets;
• D Street between the Railroad and Texas Street;
• East 19th Street between Acacia and Deodar Avenues;
• Sunset Lane between Northridge and Daphne Courts; and
• Candlewood Way between Arroyo and Stagecoach Ways.

According to the City staff report, funding for the project will be from the FY 25/26 Capital Improvement Budget which has a balance of $292,292 carried over into the FY 26/27 budget of $250,000 for a total of $542,292 from Measure J Funds. Following procurement of the contract and an estimated 10% of $16,850 for construction engineering, management, inspection, testing and contract administration, that will leave an estimated fund balance of $326,947.

More Water Park Repairs & Improvements

Under Item 5.Q. the Council will consider approving an amendment to the construction agreement with Top Line Engineers, Inc. in the amount of $78,232.98, for a total contract amount of $276,732.98 for Prewett Water Park Concrete Improvements 2026 Project; and under Item 5.R. they will vote on approving a second amendment to the construction agreement with Adams Pool Solutions in the amount of $63,034, for a total contract amount of $855,632 for the Prewett Water Park Pool Resurfacing Project; and approving a budget amendment to the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 Capital Improvement and Operating Budgets utilizing General Funds for the project by $75,000.

Allocate & Reallocate State Violence Intervention & Prevention Grant Funds

Under Item 5.S, on the Consent Calendar, the Council will vote on approving a budget amendment to appropriate and reappropriate California Violence Intervention and Prevention (CalVIP) Cohort 5 Grant funds across Fiscal Years 2025–26 through 2028–29, consistent with the approved grant award and anticipated expenditure schedule.

According to the City staff report, “On March 10, 2026, the City Council authorized acceptance of $2,066,775 in CalVIP Cohort 5 funding administered by BSCC. At that time, Council appropriated $112,000 for anticipated Fiscal Year 2025–26 expenditures and directed that the remaining grant balance be incorporated into subsequent fiscal-year budgets consistent with the grant term and approved spending plan.

“CalVIP is a competitive State grant program supporting jurisdictions disproportionately impacted by violent crime through evidence-based violence interruption, prevention, and intervention strategies. The City’s Cohort 5 award continues and expands upon violence intervention infrastructure established through prior CalVIP funding beginning in 2022.

“CalVIP Cohort 5 supports the City’s continued violence intervention and prevention activities, including personnel dedicated to program administration, violence intervention and outreach; community-based services and partnerships; participant supports; evaluation and performance measurement; and other activities authorized under the approved grant agreement.

“Because the…Cohort 5 grant extends across multiple City fiscal years, expenditure authority must be appropriately budgeted within each fiscal year in which grant-funded costs are anticipated.

The proposed budget amendment…establishes and adjusts appropriations across Fiscal Years 2025–26 through 2028–29 to align the City’s financial budget with the anticipated timing of…Cohort 5 expenditures.

Meeting Details

The Regular meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 200 H Street, in historic, downtown Rivertown and can be viewed via livestream on the City’s website, on Comcast cable TV channel 24 or AT&T U-verse channel 99 or on the City’s YouTube channel.

See the complete agenda packet with staff reports here.

Paving project tentatively scheduled to be completed by Summer 2027.

By DeNise Harding, PIO, Contra Costa County, Caltrans

Contra Costa County Caltrans crews continue making progress on State Route 4 tonight, Wednesday, August 19 through Thursday with paving, drainage, electrical and guardrail work scheduled throughout the corridor.

For the safety of the motoring public and our crews, Caltrans Construction has adjusted its schedule to allow crews to continue various operations along State Route 4 (SR-4). Overnight full closures, including lane and ramp closures, on westbound and eastbound SR-4 between SR-160 and Byron Highway will continue tonight and Sunday through Thursday nights, between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., as construction progresses. Motorists are advised to plan ahead, allow additional travel time, prepare to merge, and slow for the cone zone. All work is weather dependent and subject to change. For current Caltrans District 4 lane closure information click here.

Full Closure SR-4 — Balfour Road to Byron Highway through 7:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m.

• Full closures of the conventional highway sections of SR-4 between Balfour Road and Byron Highway through Marsh Creek Road – for paving operations
• Full Closures will continue through August 2026 throughout this corridor

Eastbound SR-4 — Hillcrest Avenue to SR-160 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.

• Alternating closures of lanes #3 and #4
• Hillcrest Avenue on-ramp to eastbound SR-4 — CLOSED for drainage improvements

Westbound SR-4 Ramp Closures 7:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m.

• Sand Creek Road on-ramp to westbound SR-4 — CLOSED for guardrail work
• Balfour Road on-ramp to westbound SR-4 — CLOSED for guardrail work
• Balfour Road off-ramp from westbound SR-4 — CLOSED for electrical work

Eastbound SR-4 Balfour Road Off-Ramp 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.

• Balfour Road off-ramp from eastbound SR-4 — CLOSED for electrical work

Please note complete closures, as well as lane and ramp closures, will continue along SR-4 Sunday through Thursday nights as construction progresses. The westbound SR-4 closures are expected to reopen by 5:00 a.m., while the eastbound SR-4 to closures are expected to reopen by 8:00 a.m.

Traveling through the SR-4 corridor tonight? Plan ahead and expect delays. Please follow posted detours, allow extra travel time and slow down when approaching crews and equipment. Your attention behind the wheel helps everyone working along the highway get home safely.

Check QuickMap.dot.ca.gov before you head out.

State Route 4 Detour Information for Full Closure

• Eastbound SR-4 from Antioch, Pittsburg, and Martinez towards Discovery and Stockton: The detour begins at Balfour Road. Take the Balfour Road exit, turn left on Balfour Road, turn right onto Brentwood Boulevard or continue Balfour Road, then turn right into Byron, follow SR-4.
• Westbound SR-4 from Discovery Bay and Stockton towards Martinez / Antioch/Oakland: The detour begins at the Byron, turn left onto Brentwood Boulevard, turn left into Balfour Road or continue Byron Highway, turn left into Balfour Road, continue Balfour Road, turn right onto the westbound SR-4 on-ramp, and continue on SR-4.
• Westbound Vasco Road towards Martinez/Antioch/Oakland: The detour begins at Walnut Boulevard. Turn right on to Walnut Boulevard, turn left onto Balfour Road, continue Balfour Road, turn right onto the west-bound SR-4 on-ramp, and continue to SR-4.
• Eastbound from Martinez/ Antioch Oakland to Livermore: The detour begins at Balfour exit. Left on Balfour Road, continue Balfour Road, take left turn into Walnut Boulevard, turn left Vasco Road, continue Vasco Road.

All work is weather dependent and subject to change.

This paving project is tentatively scheduled to be completed by Summer 2027.

Drivers may experience minor delays and are advised to plan ahead and allow extra time. For 24/7 traffic updates, follow 511.org on Twitter. For real-time traffic, visit Caltrans QuickMap at Quickmap.dot.ca.gov. To view more D4 Projects, visit: Caltrans D4 Traffic Advisory Publications.

Caltrans thanks the public for their patience and cooperation during these necessary closures and improvements. Your understanding helps keep our crew members and roadways safe for everyone.

State’s largest free database of public employee pay and pension information

New website is live – faster, mobile friendly and 100% ad free, giving 10 million users a clearer look at government pay and spending.

By Transparent California

Transparent California, the state’s largest database of public pay and pension data, has now obtained 2024 data covering over 93% of employee compensation and pension payments in our state. This includes state, county, city, school district, and special records.

Our team has collected almost 3 million compensation records documenting $278 billion in total pay and benefits, and 1.5 million pension records with $64 billion in payments. Since launching over a decade ago Transparent California has now collected and posted over 50 million compensation and pension records. All available free at http://transparentcalifornia.com.  

This year we’ve made that site easier to use. Users report they love our site changes and web traffic has seen a tremendous increase, to over 2 million page views a month.

Did you know in 2024 149,065 public employees made total compensation exceeding a quarter-million dollars a year? For more detail on what we’ve found in this data, go to our website and click on News and Updates for a summary.

And if you have a specific interest in an agency of our government, click “Get notified” on that agency’s page and you’ll get a notice when new data is posted.

Transparent California’s data collection schedule is determined by the State Controller’s Office reporting requirements. The inordinate delays allowed by the state, as well as significant resistance from some of the agencies involved, is why we’re just now wrapping up 2024.

Assembly Bill AB1821, if passed, would extend the time for a response from 14 calendar days to 14 “business days”, effectively be three weeks. This may sound small, but that deadline only applies to a “response”, not to provision of the actual records requested. Our legislature continues to ignore the current legislation has no defined deadline for production of the actual records, nor does it impose any penalty on agencies for delaying the process (or declining to respond altogether) even if the requester files a lawsuit and wins.

Transparent California’s Director of Research, Todd Maddison, notes “As we see more tax increase proposals appearing, we’re focused on giving the People the data they deserve to see how their existing tax dollars are being spent, so they can make informed decisions at the ballot box.”

Transparent California depends on the generosity of individual donors to enable this collection. Anyone with a specific interest in a particular agency can sponsor collection of their data and support the effort to provide the public with this service.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Share ideas, raise concerns, provide suggestions online or in person

By David Hafner, Office of Public Affairs, CDTFA

What: The Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights Meeting, on August 19, 2026, is an opportunity for taxpayers to provide valuable feedback on the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration’s (CDTFA) programs and procedures. Presided over by the Department’s Taxpayers’ Rights Advocate, Alfred Buck, the annual meeting encourages taxpayers to share ideas, raise concerns and provide suggestions. This meeting is open to everyone. 

DATE: Wednesday, August 19, 2026

TIME:  9:30 a.m.

ONLINE: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/tra/tbor-meetings.htm

IN PERSON: May Lee State Office Complex Auditorium, 651 Bannon Street, Sacramento, CA 95811-0299
Those unable to attend in person can also participate by:

• Telephone, toll-free at 844-767-5651, access code 8014689.
• Viewing the livestream (link will be posted at www.cdtfa.ca.gov/tra/tbor-meetings.htm prior to the meeting).
• Submitting comments by email.

To learn more about the rights provided under the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights, visit CDTFA’s Taxpayers’ Rights Advocate (TRA) website or contact the TRA Office at taxpayer.rights@cdtfa.ca.gov or +1.888.324.2798. You can also view the TRA’s  2024/25 Annual Report.

About the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights 

Enacted in January 1989, the Harris-Katz California Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights ensures that the rights of California taxpayers are protected during the assessment and collection of sales taxes. The Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights was expanded in 1993 to include special tax programs such as environmental fees, fuel taxes, and tobacco taxes.

The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) administers California’s sales and use, fuel, tobacco, alcohol and cannabis taxes, as well as other taxes and fees that fund specific state programs. CDTFA-administered programs accounted for more than $97.8 billion in the 2024/25 fiscal year, supporting essential local services such as transportation, public safety and health, libraries, schools, social services and natural resource management programs through the distribution of tax dollars directly to local communities.

Vote in Senate as early as Thursday

New language by Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee chaired by Senator Scott Wiener also exempts crimes against disabled victims and, in some cases, children under 14.

WARNING: Graphic content

By California Family Council

SACRAMENTO, CA — AB 2691, the Public Trust Protection Act, could be voted on the Senate floor as soon as tomorrow morning, Thursday, Aug. 13, 2026. On August 4, the bill’s authors quietly rewrote its central definition. They did not fix the problem California Family Council (CFC) raised in June. They made it bigger, and harder to see.

Background

AB 2691, authored by Assemblywoman Dawn Addis (D-Dawn Addis), passed the Assembly floor 67 to 0. It would bar people convicted of felony sexual assault or human trafficking from holding public office, a policy CFC supports. On June 24, the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee, chaired by Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), added language exempting felony sodomy, oral copulation and sexual penetration when the victim is a minor age 14 to 17.

CFC Vice President Greg Burt testified against that exemption on June 30 and asked the committee to restore the bill to the form the Assembly passed unanimously. The committee advanced the bill anyway, 4 to 1, with only Senator Steven Choi (R-Irvine) voting no.

What Changed on August 4, and How California’s Sex Offender Registry Actually Works

The named exemption for ages 14 to 17 is gone from the bill text. In its place, Addis rewrote the bill to define “sexual assault” using California’s sex offender registration system, and only the most severe part of it.

California sorts every registerable sex offense into one of three tiers, based on how serious the offense is:

• Tier 1 requires registration for 10 years. It covers misdemeanor sex offenses and the least serious felony sex offenses.
• Tier 2 requires registration for 20 years. It covers felony sex offenses that state law separately classifies as “serious” or “violent”, along with a short list of specifically named crimes.
• Tier 3 requires registration for life. It is reserved for the most serious sex crimes: forcible rape, forcible sodomy, aggravated sexual assault of a child, and similar offenses.

Under the bill the Assembly passed, a felony conviction under any of six penal code sections covering rape, sodomy, oral copulation, and sexual penetration disqualified a candidate, full stop. Under the August 4 rewrite, a conviction only disqualifies a candidate if it happens to fall into Tier 3 of the sex registry list. A conviction that falls into Tier 1 or Tier 2, no matter how serious the underlying crime actually was, no longer counts.

That single change does not narrow the original exemption. It widens it.

• Crimes against minors age 14 to 17 remain exempted. The specific carve-out is gone by name, but the conduct it covered, non-forcible sodomy, oral copulation, and sexual penetration of a 14-to-17-year-old, is a Tier 1 offense. It still falls outside the bill’s new definition.
• Sex crimes against disabled victims are now exempted. Non-forcible sodomy and sexual penetration of a victim who cannot legally consent because of a mental disorder or a developmental or physical disability are Tier 2 offenses and fall below the bill’s new threshold.
• Under certain circumstances, so do sex crimes against children under 10. A first-time, non-forcible conviction for molesting a child under 14, which includes children under 10, is a Tier 2 offense and no longer disqualifies a candidate under the bill’s new language, unless the act specifically involved intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation, or penetration, which remain covered under a separate, Tier 3 statute.

“We asked this Assemblywoman Addis in June to send this bill back to the form the Assembly passed unanimously. Instead, she took the exemption we objected to, deleted the sentence that named it, and buried the same result inside a much bigger loophole,” said CFC Vice President Burt. “Sex crimes against 14 to 17-year-olds are still exempted. Now sex crimes against people with disabilities are exempted too. And under the right circumstances, so is molesting a child under 14. This bill was supposed to keep sex offenders out of public office. As written, it tells some of them they’re still welcome to run.”

Call to Action

The Senate could vote on AB 2691 as early as tomorrow morning. California Family Council urges senators to vote no on the bill as currently written and urges Californians to contact their state senator today.

About California Family Council

California Family Council works to advance God’s design for life, family, and liberty through California’s Church, Capitol, and Culture. By advocating for policies that reinforce the sanctity of life, the strength of traditional marriages, and the essential freedoms of religion, CFC is dedicated to preserving California’s moral and social foundation.

---

APPENDIX: Affected Crimes, With Penal Code Citations

This list is limited to items independently confirmed against the text of Penal Code section 290, subdivisions (d)(1) through (d)(3), and Penal Code section 667.5(c). Additional items appear in supplemental research from a California State Senate office; those are not included here pending independent confirmation.

No Longer Disqualifying: Tier 1 Offenses (10-Year Registration)

Penal Code 286(b) — sodomy, non-forcible, victim under 18

Penal Code 287(b), or former 288a(b) — oral copulation, non-forcible, victim under 18

Penal Code 289(h) and (i) — sexual penetration by foreign object, non-forcible, victim under 18

Penal Code 289.5 — fleeing to California to avoid prosecution or custody for a registerable sex offense committed in another state (misdemeanor)

No Longer Disqualifying: Tier 2 Offenses (20-Year Registration)

Penal Code 285 — incest

Penal Code 286(g) — sodomy of a victim who cannot legally consent due to a mental disorder or a developmental or physical disability

Penal Code 286(c)(1) — sodomy of a victim under 14, where the offender is more than 10 years older, without force

Penal Code 288(a) — a lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14, first offense, without force. This is California’s basic child molestation statute.

Penal Code 288.3 — contacting a minor with intent to commit a felony, specifically when the underlying intent was to violate 286(b), 287(b), or 289(h)/(i)

Penal Code 289(b) — sexual penetration of a victim who cannot legally consent due to a mental disorder or a developmental or physical disability

Penal Code 647.6 — annoying or molesting a child, second or subsequent offense

Still Disqualifying: Tier 3 Offenses (Lifetime Registration)

Penal Code 236.1(c) — human trafficking of a minor for a commercial sex act

Penal Code 266h(b) — aggravated pimping of a minor

Penal Code 266i(b) — aggravated pandering of a minor

Penal Code 266j — procuring a child under 16 for a lewd act

Penal Code 269 — aggravated sexual assault of a child

Penal Code 286(c)(2) and (d) — forcible sodomy of a child under 14, including in concert

Penal Code 287(c) and (d), or former 288a — forcible oral copulation of a child under 14, including in concert

Penal Code 288(b) — a lewd act on a child under 14 committed by force

Penal Code 288(c) — a lewd act on a 14- or 15-year-old, where the offender is at least 10 years older

Penal Code 288.2 — sending harmful matter to a minor with intent to seduce, felony

Penal Code 288.3 — contacting a minor with intent to commit a felony, except when the intent was to violate 286(b), 287(b), or 289(h)/(i)

Penal Code 288.5 — continuous sexual abuse of a child

Penal Code 288.7 — sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation, or sexual penetration with a child age 10 or younger

Penal Code 289(a) — forcible sexual penetration

Penal Code 653f(c) — soliciting another person to commit rape, sodomy, oral copulation, or a lewd act on a child

A felony sentenced to a mandatory life term under Penal Code 667.61 (“One Strike” law)

Designation as a habitual sex offender under Penal Code 667.71

A second, separately tried conviction under Penal Code 288(a)

Sources: California Penal Code section 290, subdivisions (d)(1) through (d)(3), and Penal Code section 667.5(c), both available at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.

Postpones, will study resuming security services for downtown

“This is one thing that unites people that don’t usually get together.” – resident Frank Sterling about support for the proposed downtown park

“We do not have $250,000 to spend to maintain this park. If we do, every other park is going to have a reduced level of maintenance.” – Mayor Ron Bernal

Freitas envisions a hotel with conference center on the former Beede Lumber Yard site

By Allen D. Payton

In spite of impassioned comments from a broad spectrum of residents in favor of using state funds for a new park on the site of the former Beede Lumber Yard in downtown, to their chagrin, during the regular meeting on Tuesday, August 11, 2026, the Antioch City Council voted 4-1 to apply for the grant to benefit City Park. Only District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha voted against the motion. Most of the public speakers spoke in favor of the proposed, new downtown park, including representatives of two groups of residents, one wearing blue shirts with the message, “Rivertown Square Yes!” printed on them and the other from Rising Juntos wearing green shirts, and others who aren’t usually allied on the same side of major issues. (See related article)

During Council deliberations on the matter, both Councilmembers Tamisha Torres-Walker, in whose District 1 both sites are located, and Don Freitas hemmed and hawed in their willingness to support the Rivertown Square project before ultimately voting to pursue the funds for City Park, instead.

Public Comments

Before the vote on item #8 on the agenda, members of the public spoke mainly in favor of using the state grant funds for the Rivertown Square.

“I’ve watched cities that have grown their downtowns…and I think, ‘why not us? Why not Antioch?’” said one downtown resident. “Downtown once had a green space at Barbara Price Marina Park and we were promised a replacement.”

“Please choose the Yard,” she added.

“This is our neighborhood. I have been fighting for The Yard…this is one of the longest fights I’ve been doing,” said resident Frank Sterling. “This is one thing that unites people that don’t usually get together. I feel like you all should be bold. I’m in favor of The Yard being our downtown…community space.”

Resident Michael Simpson, wearing one of the blue shirts compared it to Concord’s Todos Santos Plaza, Oakley’s Civic Center and Brentwood’s downtown City Park, as well as Pittsburg’s Old Town park.

“We should…create something for future generations,” he stated.

Barbara Price Marina Park was six acres, and the Beede Lumber Lot is just under two acres, one third the size, so, the maintenance costs will be less, another resident pointed out.

“We have waited long enough. This community has spoken. Please don’t let maintenance be the issue. Please honor the commitment. Please apply for the grant to be at the Rivertown Square,” she concluded.

“Antioch shouldn’t be the city people drive through but the city people drive to,” another resident wearing one of the blue shirts in support of the Rivertown Square stated.  

Former Planning Commissioner Kerry Motts, also wearing a blue shirt in support of the project for which his sister, former councilwoman and current District 1 council candidate, Joy Motts has helped lead the effort, said, it “would provide for enhanced economic vitality of Rivertown. This has been a stated goal…for 40 years.”

A leader of Rising Juntos East spoke “in support of developing the Beed Lumber Yard park.”

“Please vote yes for the families of north Antioch,” she added.

“Children and families need safe spaces to thrive,” another representative of Rising Juntos said in support of the Rivertown Square. “We envision not just a park but a cultural hub.”

“Why is it taking so long?” she asked. “Making the lot a park would make the downtown more walkable and enjoyable. It’s right across the street from the Senior Center. They could enjoy it.”

Another member of Rising Juntos said, “City Park needs investment and our community absolutely needs to see it improved. But one park should not be sacrificed at the expense of another.”

Alexander Broom, Vice Chair of the Antioch Parks and Recreation Commission, said, “I think it should be Beede Lumber Yard or bust. I believe we should put all of our eggs in this basket.

District 4 Council candidate and local homeless advocate Andrew Becker spoke last with a completely different idea saying, “My concern is that the intent of Prop. 4 is to…preserve or create open space for individuals and I keep hearing, tonight it’s a once in a lifetime opportunity. In the 1940’s, homes were built along Cavallo (Road). There’s still no parks within a-half a mile.”

Council Discussion & Decision for City Park

During council discussion Acting Community Development Director Steve Scudero was asked by Mayor Ron Bernal about the vacant downtown lot, “How is that property zoned?”

“Mixed use which allows for commercial residential and public spaces,” Scudero responded.

“If we wanted to sell that property as a surplus property…” Bernal began.

“We would have to make it available to an affordable housing builder…giving a sixty-day notice of availability… before selling the property,” Scudero stated.

District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha spoke next saying, “Both parks are important. I believe City Park does need investment. But we have a downtown area that many of us…for enrichment would see where people could come together and bring some economic development.”

“It’s unfortunate we have to pick just one. It looks like both projects meet the criteria for the process,” he continued. “Whatever we decide tonight won’t determine what would happen to the other.”

“Probably the one thing I’ve been most impressed with…over the years I’ve heard about The Yard, the Town Square,” Rocha stated. “I’m inclined to support The Yard because of the engagement that’s bringing people together. This may be four years down the road even if we get the funding.”

“I understand the value of bringing people together. I could support both. But I’m going to support the Beede Lumber Yard because of all the engagement,” he added. “I don’t think there’ll be a problem with getting the people behind you.”

District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson said, “Both are good. But I want to put one in that’s most competitive and going to get the dollars.”

Alex Gibbs, Grants Director of Townsend Public Affairs, the City’s consultant on the grant process, said, “There will be a lengthy process…that will include site visits from the state…most likely in April next year. You’re looking at really a difference of five or six points. There are fewer people living near the Yard…given the location of the lot near the river. But the state takes that into consideration. That’s the reality we’re living in. I’m confident that either case…we can write a very competitive application. The only thing you’re going to lose out on is the number of people living in poverty and nearby park land.”

Wilson asked about the Cavallo Road area saying, “That space we don’t own. It’s not a park,” referring to an empty, privately-owned lot on the southeast corner of Cavallo Road and E. 18th Street.

“I’m not aware of any land we own in that area,” Scudero stated.

District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker, participating remotely from a resort and spa in Santa Cruz, then said, “I keep saying, don’t put housing there. I also don’t agree that housing should be the priority for this site.” She then said, “I keep hearing, it’s been 15 years they’ve had the commitment to replace the Barbara Price park that they lost. That seems to be a theme I continue to hear…that people have been waiting…for something.”

“I definitely want us to award whatever can bring revenue to the City of Antioch and I’m hearing the Beede Lumber Yard could bring revenue and even cover its maintenance costs,” Torres-Walker continued. “This is potentially an $8 million grant. We could submit one application or two applications.”

“Anything is possible,” said Recreation Department Director Shahad Wright. “Whatever money we have…we’ll make sure the contingency fund will be enough to cover.”

“It will be a city park not a neighborhood park so it would include restrooms,” Torres-Walker stated.

“That will be part of the design process,” Wright responded.

“If Beede Lumber lot is selected tonight, there will be a design phase, a community engagement phase, restrooms. What would be the follow up for City Park?” she asked.

“I will pivot and figure out how to fix the rest of the parks in the city,” Wright stated. “You have up to four years to spend the grant funds.”

The councilwoman then mentioned “downtown business owners” dealing with “parking issues and unhoused folks who actually live along the waterfront” and giving enough time for the City to deal with those issues.

District 3 Councilman Don Freitas said, “We’ve talked a lot about history. Some of us have intimate knowledge of history. I want to go back to 1978 and 1979. I was the Executive Director of the Antioch Chamber of Commerce and most of our members were in downtown. Because at that time it was still one of the economic hubs of the community.”

“I told them, ‘the downtown could survive if we had residents moving into the downtown and…sustained economic development,’” he continued.

“We needed to improve the circulation pattern in the downtown area. As mayor…from 2000-2008, whe number one project was to finally connect A Street to Second Street,” Freitas stated. “That was probably one of my greatest achievements as mayor. Because downtown finally had circulation.”

“So, on the issue of the Beede Lumber Yard…and this has been an issue for over 40 years, my vision for Beede Lumber was that we need to make downtown a destination, and we needed to generate revenue,” he explained. “I’ve seen many people say on social media that Freitas wants to build apartments. Freitas has never been for building apartments” on the vacant lot.

“My vision was to build a Sheraton Inn like in Concord…that Antioch would own the property and reach out to owners of hotels…two to three stories with a rooftop garden,” Freitas shared. “I wanted to have a situation where we would have a 35-year lease. I never wanted to sell that property…and each and every year we would generate revenue.”

“We have more than 118,000 people in this town. There is no hotel in this town for us to offer conferences or seminars or anything. So, part of my argument was, let’s build one,” he continued. “If you’re there for two to three days, what are you going to do? You’re going to walk up the street. We could have a jazz lounge. We would have restaurants there.”

“You say you’ve been disappointed for 15 years. I’ve been disappointed for over 50 to 60 years,” Freitas exclaimed. “You say this is going to produce revenue. To do that you’d have to be using this facility every day. That’s not going to happen. Excluding the 4th of July, you’re going to get a couple hundred people. Very few people come out of District 3 to the downtown because there’s nothing there for them.”

“We have Williamson (Park). What’s the problem? There’s no parking,” he asked and answered. “If Beede goes through, the problem is going to be parking.”

“I have seen your schematics. Very interesting. But it’s not going to sustain itself,” Freitas stated. “But you’ve done a very good job coming together and advocating. I think I can count the votes. I think we’re going to probably engage Beede. But be under no delusion. The best bet is not Beede. The best bet in my opinion is City Park.”

“But I’m going to challenge every single one of you here. There’s going to be community meetings. You’ve said, ‘we can raise money through non-profits…through other means.’ Don’t wait,” he said. “That’s been the problem with this city. I challenge you, start figuring out how to pay for this on a long-term basis.”

“We are in a deficit. We’ve reduced it dramatically,” Freitas pointed out. “Your organization is great…you have another part of the job. Don’t abandon us. Stay with us. I challenge you. Where are all these other monies going to come in? Because the city doesn’t have it.”

Mayor Ron Bernal spoke next reiterating Freitas’ last point saying, “The Council chose to remove this project from the Capital Improvement process because we didn’t have the funds for maintenance. If this goes through, we still won’t have the money for maintenance. We do not have $250,000 to spend to maintain this park. If we do, every other park is going to have a reduced level of maintenance.”

“We have deferred maintenance coming out of our ears,” he stated. “I am not in favor of adding another expense…as much as people would love to have this park built in downtown,” he continued.

“We’re talking about one point being the difference in getting this funding. We don’t have five points,” Bernal explained. “And that (City) park won’t be improved and we won’t have Beede, either.”

“The new areas are fully paying for the maintenance of their parks. The downtown area parks, the General Fund is paying for their maintenance,” he continued.

“We do need to improve our downtown…have places for people to gather. I’m for all of that,” Bernal said. “This is an example of everyone coming together. But we don’t have the…wiggle room in this process. So, I’m going to be in favor of City Park.”

Torres-Walker than said, “I didn’t hear that we only had to submit one application. I heard we could do two applications. Was that correct?”

Gibbs of Townsend said, “That is correct. There is no limit to the number of applications the City can submit.”

“Would the Council be against submitting two?” she asked.

“I would be opposed to that,” Freitas said. “I think Townsend has made the case not to do that.”

“I think there would be a staff issue in running two processes. How well would you be able to run two processes?” Bernal asked.

“It’s a heavy lift,” Director Wright said. “We’re already understaffed and two facilities down. How well can we do in this small timeframe?”

Freitas asked, “What is in the best interest of Antioch?” then said, “I’m going to move that we do apply for this grant for City Park.”

Bernal seconded the motion.

Torres-Walker than stated, “For Townsend said, ‘this takes a while to bring this process around.’ I’ve been for bringing grants to the City. Do you see there will be opportunities in the future…can there be a commitment to pursue grant funding for parks?”

“I can commit to purse the best grant application as possible…I commit to not leaving any stone unturned…be it state, federal or other,” Gibbs said.

The motion then passed on a vote of 4-1 with Rocha voting against.

In response, one member of the audience could be heard yelling out, “There are elections coming up.”

Postpones Resuming Downtown Security Services Until September to Study Issue

Two residents spoke during public comments on the item, #9 on the agenda, local homeless advocate and District 4 Council candidate Andrew Becker said, “I managed a private security company…for years. I think…the biggest question is…what’s very alarming is staff puts out the report that includes the security logs. But there’s no results. ‘We as staff are doing a good job…that the work should continue in downtown.’ It’s staff’s responsibility to monitor and maintain contracts.”

“I went through all of the security logs,” he continued. “It speaks to a high volume of emergency calls…I think you see four or five very low instances in the hundreds of logs put out. The contract is for City-owned parking lots. If that’s the case, then why are the photos…of properties the City doesn’t own in downtown? Or pictures of properties that aren’t even in downtown….a shopping center in a newer development? Where are these guards and who are we paying and what is the relationship of this company to the City?”

Keith Butler, CEO and Founder of Elite Defense Security Solutions said he had, “ties to prior law enforcement. I’m a retired law enforcement officer of 18 years.”

“Without getting into the particulars of the current company…it’s not who’s providing the security, it’s what does the security look like. You need to look at what that security can do,” he continued.

“I have to agree with the previous speaker,” Butler stated. “There were a lot of items on there that don’t look to be parking lots.”

He then offered to help the City draft a new RFQ (request for quote).

Council Discussion & Decision to Postpone After Meeting with Downtown Businesses, City Staff

During Council discussion, Freitas spoke first saying, “I think that when we initially did this, we did focus on the City-owned property. If we want to put together a work group…we didn’t receive any input from the Police Department…Code Enforcement, the Antioch Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Antioch Association. We need to ask questions…be proactive rather than reactive.”

Rocha then said, “One key strategy identified…is to act as a visible deterrent…and properly report incidents to the Antioch Police Department. When you read the comments from the survey…the key strategy is to be visible when people don’t even know they’re there. Maybe this is misleading the way the key was written.”

“I think the merchants and restaurant owners are wanting to have a relationship…that didn’t happen with this particular vender,” he continued. “I do think we need to have community members meet together. I think there needs to be dialogue. I’m not prepared to approve this contract.”

Wilson then said, “We didn’t include any measurables…around patrol hours…how to communicate with the police. I think if we have this committee we figure out the performance measures. That’s the problem with the RFQ. I think we really missed it on this one.”

Finance Director Dawn Merchant, serving in the role of acting city manager for the meeting (or Acting Acting City Manager she jokingly said) then shared, “One of the difficulties I do recall being discussed was how can the City pay for extra security for businesses in downtown when they don’t for another challenged area in the City. That’s why it was focused on the City-owned parking lots. That’s how this evolved.”

Torres-Walker mentioned, “the businesses saying, ‘we need more support from the City.’ The police saying, ‘we can’t just commit officers to downtown’. We couldn’t justify doing it for the businesses. We asked if there were other City-owned parking lots throughout the city.”

“What is being often overlooked is…it just provided patrol for City-owned parking lots in downtown not the businesses,” she continued. “When I looked at this report…at least one property outlined in here that is way over by Deer Valley. How did they end up all the way over in District 4?”

“The survey was completed by seven respondents…out of fifty or more in downtown,” Torres-Walker stated. “You have 71% of the respondents said they would support the City continuing security services in downtown. It is very telling. The majority of businesses that responded felt like security services were needed for weekdays and the evenings and special events.”

“Asked how often they see security services downtown it was pretty spread out. You never had ‘never or occasionally.’ Although you had one outlier say they had seen the security company several times a week,” the councilwoman shared.

She then mentioned the only cannabis retail location in downtown and that, “they’re supposed to have 24-hour armed security.”

“I do want to add patrolling for downtown businesses,” Torres-Walker stated. “Most municipalities have a downtown overlay district where the businesses pay for additional police patrols” and mentioned using “CSO’s (Community Service Officers) driving around in marked cars.”

She concluded by suggesting forming a “police district in the waterfront.”

“This could be a collaborative effort of the City and downtown businesses that they pay for this,” Freitas said. “I think it’s in their best interest. I just think we should try to get them together…with the City Attorney. It’s an idea to move forward. Because we don’t have the services right now, the question to the police department is, are there other personnel that can be used such as VIPS. I think we need to be a little creative.”

Rocha agreed with using CSO’s.

Antioch Police Captain Matt Koch jokingly said, “In the words of Director Wright, ‘anything is possible.’”

“We’ve already increased our presence over there with officers and CSO’s during all hours of the day and night that are scheduled,” he stated. “I went 42 days before and 42 days after and there’s been a 23% increase in calls for service to the police department. It’s about three-and-a-half to four-and-a-half calls for service per day. I think having them there…with the lights flashing is a deterrence. It is a great service and a force multiplier for us.”

“There are some residences besides the businesses that are affected there,” Koch continued. “At my request they were taking pictures and providing them to the department.

“So, you see the security as a benefit overall,” Bernal asked.

“Overall, yes,” Koch responded.

“As they’re driving different routes between the parking lots there’s nothing that precludes them from making calls if they see something,” Bernal said.

“Yes,” Koch stated.

“I would like to see something done in the month of August,” Bernal stated. “I just think we need to do something quickly.”

“I do think we need to pursue another request for qualifications,” Torres-Walker added.

There will be a DAA meeting on the 19th at El Campanil Theatre,” the mayor stated. Torres-Walker said she will be attending that meeting.

Rocha said he will speak with the Chamber of Commerce. Bernal suggested Freitas do so, as well.

The council members agreed to have representatives from the Antioch Police Department, Code Enforcement meet and downtown business owners to discuss the needs for private security.

Watch council meeting video.

12-year effort by River Town Square supporters continues but City’s consultant recommends applying for funds to renovate City Park

Torres-Walker to participate remotely from resort and spa in Santa Cruz

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting on Tuesday, August 11, 2026, the Antioch City Council will discuss using state grant funds for either a park at the former Beede Lumber Company Yard, in downtown where the Council-supported River Town Square project has been proposed, or at City Park.

District Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker will attend remote via ZOOM from the Chaminade Resort & Spa, (Seascape Room) in Santa Cruz. Unlike during the last council meeting on July 28, this time, the councilwoman’s remote location is included in the agenda as required, allowing her to participate other than calling in during public comments as she did twice that night.

State Park Grant

According to the City staff report for item #8 on the agenda, the California Department of State Parks Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS), will be administering a competitive grant funded by Proposition 4 in the next 12-18 months. This is the same agency that administered Proposition 68 grant funds, of which Antioch received a $2.9M grant for the renovation of Contra Loma Estates Park. The grant will require that there be less than three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents and/or residents are below median income within a half-mile radius of a selected point within the project site.

According to the presentation by Townsend Public Affairs, there are five locations in the City that meet the criteria. They include Antioch City Park, Eagleridge Park, Waldie Plaza, Beede Lumber Yard and Contra Loma Estates Park, which was already renovated.

Council is being given two options for use of the funds, either Antioch City Park at the corner of A and W. 10th Streets or the former Beede Lumber Company Yard bordered by W. 2nd, W. 3rd and E Streets, across the street from the old Lumber Company building, that now houses Prime Vintage Realty.

History of 12-Year River Town Square Effort

For more than a decade, an effort, formerly known as Save The Yard, led by former Antioch Councilwoman and District 1 candidate Joy Motts, has been to change the lumber yard into the “River Town Square” park and event center. The City has owned the dirt lot since the late 1990’s and originally planned to build condominiums or townhouses. But neighbors on W. 3rd Street have opposed that through the years, sharing concerns that their views of the river would be blocked.

The idea was first proposed in 2014 during a joint meeting of the Antioch Planning and Economic Development Commissions on November 19th, regarding the Downtown Specific Plan. Several of the speakers were in favor of the creation of an event plaza, as opposed to construction of additional housing, downtown. Lee Ballesteros, representing Citizens for Responsible Antioch Waterfront Development, spoke about a proposal her group had submitted to the city advocating just such an idea. “Our vision for Downtown is for an active, vibrant, event plaza, as opposed to selling it and putting up homes. Events and quality of life is something that is very important to people,” she said.

Then during their meeting on June 23, 2015, the Council in approving the Downtown Specific Plan voted 5-0 for a Mixed-Use designation for the Beede site that would restrict the number of units to 18 per acre but still retain the possibility of a park, pleasing supporters of the River Town Square project. 

But during Closed Session at their meeting on Aug. 25, 2015, the Council reversed course with a vote of 4-1 to build condos on the lot instead, agreeing to sell the property along with eight other City-owned parcels to one developer. Supporters of the event center vowed to pursue a ballot measure. Two signature gathering efforts, including an initiative effort in 2016, that included fundraisers to support it, failed to garner enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. A second effort was announced later that year but did not materialize into a ballot measure.

During the Council meeting on Sept. 13, 2016, Councilwomen Lori Ogorchock and Monica Wilson offered some light at the end of the tunnel for the project when they “suggested reclassifying the lot from ‘Medium Density’ to ‘Open Space’, which would prevent the City from developing it in the near future, and clear the way for the Save the Yard movement to begin raising funds for a new event center.”

It wasn’t until the Nov. 23, 2021 Antioch City Council meeting, Motts and other Save The Yard representatives received the go ahead from the Council after providing a presentation on the River Town Square proposal. All five council members agreed to “explore” the idea, including Torres-Walker, in whose district the lot is located, who said, “yes, this should be green space.” She also mentioned people not having to “go to San Francisco for 420 fests”, which is a large, annual pot smoking event. “We should do it, here like we do all these other things,” Torres-Walker stated.

“We can begin a process for exploring a community gathering space, a green space,” then-City Manager and now-Mayor Ron Bernal said at that meeting.

That process began in July 2022, when the Council hired Mill Valley-based RHAA Landscape Architecture & Planning and approved a contract for the Rivertown Community Space Project in the amount of $350,000 for design of the former Antioch Lumber Company lot to, according to that meeting agenda’s staff report, “that will transform the area into a family friendly public space.” RHAA also designed the City’s Prewett Park Community Center.

Then, in May 2023, the City announced in a press release, “the development of a new gathering place in downtown Antioch” and invited the public, “to share your vision for the future central attraction of historic Rivertown. This new outdoor public space is uniquely situated along the Sacramento-San Joaquin River. It will benefit our diverse community by fostering a vibrant, thriving downtown.” The survey is still available on the City’s website at Antioch Rivertown Community Open Space Design Survey.

The Parks & Recreation Department currently has a page on the City’s website dedicated to the Rivertown Community Space that offers renderings of what a park, there could look like and a link to the survey.

Then in February 2024, the City held two Community Design Workshops to obtain public input on the development of the new gathering place at the former Beede Lumber Yard.

But no results of that survey or the workshops have been provided to the Council or public.

Then, at a recent Council meeting, Torres-Walker switched and said she now supports building homes there. However, because the City owns the property, any homes built there would have to be within the affordable range, which would undermine efforts to attract residents of means to the historic downtown area to live, shop and dine.

One argument offered in support of the River Town Square project is the City’s downtown hasn’t had a large park since the much larger Barbara Price Marina Park was replaced with the marina boat launch and parking lot in 2012. Concerts and community events are held in Waldie Plaza, but it’s much smaller and can hold fewer attendees than at the proposed River Town Square.

According to the staff report for Tuesday’s agenda, the Parks and Recreation Commission discussed use of the grant at their meeting on February 19, 2026. The commissioners were provided with an overview of the grant program requirements, eligibility criteria and the Community Fact Finder tool https://www.parksforcalifornia.org/communities/ which assists agencies in determining project eligibility and priority status for grant funding.

Since that meeting, staff conducted a preliminary evaluation of potential project sites and narrowed the focus of the Proposition 4 grant opportunity to two locations: City Park and the Beede Lumber Yard site.

City Park was last significantly renovated more than 20 years ago and continues to serve as one of Antioch’s most heavily utilized park facilities. According to Placer.ai visitation data, City Park ranks as the City’s most visited park. The site presents an opportunity for a transformational community investment that could include improvements such as a synthetic turf field, an all-inclusive playground, renovated and fully operational restroom facilities, pickleball courts, enhanced gathering spaces, and other recreational amenities. Due to its central location, City Park also has the potential to generate income from user groups and continue to be a community hub.

The staff report continues: The Beede Lumber Yard site is currently an undeveloped property located in Downtown Antioch. Preliminary community outreach and conceptual renderings for a future park at this location were completed in 2024. Development of the site would create a new public park and gathering space in the downtown area, further supporting community activation, recreation opportunities, and economic vitality.

While development of a new park at the Beede Lumber Yard site would result in additional annual maintenance and operational costs estimated between $200,000 and $250,000, public spaces in downtown areas can provide broader economic and community benefits by attracting visitors, supporting local businesses, and creating a “third place” for residents to gather outside of home and work.

Both locations appear to meet the preliminary eligibility requirements of the Proposition 4 grant program and present significant opportunities to expand recreational amenities and enhance quality of life for Antioch residents.

Staff is seeking City Council direction regarding which project site should be advanced for further evaluation, community engagement, conceptual design and grant application development.

Renderings by both the River Town Square proponents and RHAA include a concert stage, grass, trees, benches and pathways. The RHAA renderings include an amphitheater for seating near the corner of W. 3rd and E Streets.

Consultant Recommends City Park

In the presentation by consulting firm Townsend Public Affairs, who was hired by the City to provide state and federal legislative advocacy and grant writing services, they recommend the Council choose City Park as the location for the state grant funds.

They wrote, “City Park is definitively the most competitive project site across both selection criteria (lack of park space and significant poverty). While TPA and the City of Antioch considered multiple potential project sites, other options that were able to demonstrate significant poverty were less competitive in terms of park space, primarily due to their proximity to Corteva Wetlands Preserve and other large preservation areas.”

River Town Square Supporters Continue Effort

At one point, supporters of the River Town Square project said the cost would be covered privately without any City funds. But with the potential state grant funds, the supporters have changed to asking the Council to fund it.

Since 2015 supporters have maintained a Facebook page, participated in parades including this year’s Independence Day Parade, and launched an effort on Change.org, posted by Kim Stadtler, asking for people to sign a petition until tomorrow, Sunday, Aug. 9th. So far, 836 people of the 1,000 goal have added their names. She wrote:

“The Issue

“What would a Town Square mean to you?

“For decades, residents have advocated for preserving one of the last large historic waterfront sites (at 2nd and E Streets), known as the “Yard” in downtown Antioch for a community Rivertown Square. Volunteers have organized petitions, attended meetings, participated in workshops, and contributed ideas to help shape a vision for a Rivertown Square.

“This petition continues that community-driven effort and demonstrates that residents remain committed to creating a public space that serves all of Antioch. This spacious area is not just a piece of land; it represents a precious opportunity for our community allowing seniors, families, and people from all walks of life to come together and enjoy a versatile community space.

“Once this property is developed for another use, the opportunity to create a town square may be lost forever. 

“Turning this space into a Town Square would create a hub for recreation, cultural events, farmers markets, and community celebrations. The town square could serve as a vibrant gathering place that celebrates our diverse community and enhances the quality of life for everyone in Antioch.

“To make this vision a reality, we need the Antioch City Council to choose the “Yard” in their application for the  Prop 47 grant of up to $8 million, to build our Town Square. THIS MONEY CAN ONLY BE USED FOR THE RENOVATION OR DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMUNITY GREEN SPACE. By securing these funds, we can ensure that the site truly reflects the needs and desires of our community, transforming it into a welcoming venue that honors our diverse history.

“Numerous cities (Pittsburg, Brentwood, Oakley, Clayton) have benefited from similar initiatives, finding that such spaces boost local business and improve public well-being. The town square would be a testament to the city’s commitment to revitalizing downtown. 

“This is our chance to build something remarkable that can be enjoyed by generations to come. To learn more:  https://www.facebook.com/Downtowneventplaza

“PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION by August 9th, 2026, and urge the Antioch City Council to seize this opportunity and use these grant funds to build our Town Square. Together, we can make a lasting difference for Antioch’s future! Take action now.”

Meeting Details

The meeting will be held in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 200 H Street, in historic, downtown Rivertown and can be viewed via livestream on the City’s website or on Comcast cable TV channel 24 or AT&T U-verse channel 99.

See agenda packet.