Embattled DeNova Homes’ 129 units at Slatten Ranch passes on split vote; 159 units at Wildflower Station fails on tie vote with Torres-Walker absent, continued until next Tuesday.

“It’s…unfortunate our hands are going to be tied due to state law” – District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson

“We are very limited in what actions we can take.” – Mayor Pro Tem Louie Rocha

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting on Tuesday, October 28, 2025, the Antioch City Council voted to approve one of two new townhome projects by DeNova Homes in the Slatten Ranch area on the eastern edge of the city on a split 3-1 vote. Another townhome project on Hillcrest Avenue and Deer Valley Road in the Wildflower Station development failed on a 2-2 vote with District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker absent. The council members pointed out that their hands are tied by state law, SB330 – The Housing Crisis Act of 2019, under which plans for both developments were submitted, and were forced to approve both.

It was the second time the Council reviewed the projects by the embattled developer, whose father and son leaders were indicted in April on charges of bribing an Antioch city councilman. (See related articles here, here and here).

Approve 129 Slatten Ranch Townhomes

Following another presentation on the 179-unit Slatten Ranch Townhomes project by the developer’s representatives as well as public comments by residents including some members of local unions concerned about growth and jobs, the council members discussed the project and questioned City staff.

District 3 Councilman Don Freitas who has been critical of the project, especially that it allows housing in the City’s 200-acre East Lone Tree Focus Area that was intended for commercial and economic development foorr creation of local, well-paying jobs, was first to question staff. He said, “In the report…it states that…the project has been adequately analyzed…under CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) and further review is not required. Traffic…will exceed City standards at the intersection…Level of Service F, which is the worst traffic conditions we can have.”

“The mitigation…they’re going to give one-fourth of the traffic light,” he asked with incredulity. “Empire and Wicklow. Level F. How does that pass CEQA?”

Antioch Planning Manager Zoe Merideth responded, “Vehicle miles traveled is a different standard…that’s what’s in the Housing Element EIR (Environmental Impact Report). Also, in the City’s General Plan, we have the Level of Service…and guidelines under that.”

“We’re still going to have Level F at Empire…and Wicklow for all of Eastern Contra Costa County,” Freitas reiterated.

“But we’re going to have mitigation,” Planning Manager Meredith stated.

“One-fourth of traffic signal is adequate?” Freitas asked again.

“There will be a turn pocket,” Meredith responded. “There will be additional left-turn storage prior to…building permit and occupancy. They’re looking at build out (in the area)not just at the project.”

Then Freitas again raised the issue of the children’s park that would be seen at the entrance to the development.

“Even though the public testimony about children’s safety, nothing’s changed,” he stated.

“Our issues and concerns that led us to pausing this until tonight,” said Mayor Pro Tem and District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha. “SB330, it says, is intended to streamline housing…to address the housing crisis in California. The concerns we brought up about traffic, children’s safety, just fall off the table…since they meet CEQA standards, there’s nothing else we can do.”

“As a General Law City we…are being required to follow laws…and in this case it has do with housing laws,” he continued. “We would hope that the applicant would show concerns we have for our residents and families.”

“It’s very clear…as far as local government we are very limited in what actions we can take. That’s what brings us here, tonight,” Rocha stated.

District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson then asked the developer’s attorney, Golub about his possible comment at the last council meeting of not having to care about the working conditions. “I hope I misheard you,” she stated.

“So, am I. I really don’t recall raising that,” he responded. “I certainly don’t have any notes in front of me. I don’t think I mentioned that at all.”

Then he recalled what he did say that Wilson might have misunderstood.

“State law is very explicit and clear…any CEQA review…the opponent has to show any peculiar    I’m not aware of any evidence why this project would address any of those concerns. We reviewed carefully the comments raised by the labor union’s attorney. The issues that seem to be raised don’t relate to any peculiar aspects of this project. It’s a standard development. We’re not taking any kind of unusual conditions that will have any unusual impacts on working conditions. There are a bunch of state laws we have to follow.

“The project is supposed to be approved,” he added.

“I think it’s unfortunate you didn’t take the opportunity to hear all the concerns the last time. I feel like you’re just reiterating in your letter. You didn’t address any of their concerns,” Wilson stated.

“It’s also unfortunate our hands are going to be tied due to state law,” she added.

Dana Tsubota, Chief Legal Officer of DeNova Homes said, “We’re happy to have conversations with all of the staff members. We’ve gone through two years of detailed review with staff. We’re happy to continue to have those discussions. When we build something, we’re in partnership with the City for a very long time.

We are limited by the City’s objective standards,” she continued. To make sure all the pieces fit and have all the units in the project as the City is requiring. If there is something we can do we’re happy to.”

“There’s a period of time between an approval and building permit…to ameliorate or soften the impact…there’s a certain amount of latitude we have to change the site plan,” said Antioch Interim Community and Economic Director David Storer.

“This council saw it for the first time a little over a month ago,” said Mayor Ron Bernal.

He then asked about Empire Avenue saying, “Historically, it’s been a joint project with the City of Brentwood. There is no condition of approval for them to build one-half of the street on their side. If this builder doesn’t build it…it falls back on the City and we don’t have any money…we don’t have an impact fee.”

“The center median is not included,” said Scott Buenting.

“Who will build it?” Bernal asked about the additional lane of traffic on the west side of Empire Avenue adjacent to the project.

“We have curb and gutter on our side,” Buenting responded.

“Why isn’t this project being conditioned to do it?” Bernal asked about the widening of Empire Avenue next to the project.

“I’m not sure,” said Buenting.

“I’d like to add it as a condition of approval. As long as Antioch fulfills our responsibility, for our half of the street,” Bernal stated.

“You’ll have to ask the applicant,” Storer responded.

“We’d be happy to look at a specific proposal,” said Golub. “But we don’t necessarily see a nexus of impact by this development. It could be very costly.”

After a 10-minute break for City staff to consult with the developer’s representatives, Interim City Attorney Derek Cole said, “To deal with this issue, there will be a general conditions that will require the improvements to the road…that will allow us to work with the applicant to reduce the concerns of the impacts of nexus. I believe we have to hear from the developer on this.”

Storrer then proposed some language for the council to consider for the additional condition of approval on the road widening.

The developer’s attorney Dan Golub. “I think we just heard there’s an objective standard. The time has come and gone. We’re willing to sit and work with you on this.”

“It’s an arterial design standard,” Bernal stated.

“I must go on the record opposing this. The outcome of that would be something we could agree to. We will work with you,” Golub stated.

Bernal, in violation of Roberts Rules of Order, then made  a motion to approve the project with the added condition that the developer is required to improve Empire Avenue to one-half arterial road standard with consultation with Design Review and City Attorney.”

In proportionate share,” Cole added. “The City Engineer will make that determination.”

“From Wicklow to the north property line of the project,” Bernal added.

Rocha seconded the motion which passed 3-1 with Freitas voting against.

Don’t Approve 159 Wildflower Station Townhomes on Tie Vote

The Council then received a brief presentation on the 159-unit Wildflower Station Townhomes 2 Multifamily Residential Project planned for the four-parcel, 10.35 acre vacant property near the intersection of Hillcrest Avenue and Deer Valley Road and bordered by Wildflower Drive to the east and the road next to the KFC restaurant in the Hillcrest Crossroads shopping center which also serves the existing condo development.

“According to our General Plan, developers are supposed to pay their way,” said former Councilman Ralph Hernandez during Public Comments. This project has been another one that’s being dumped on the city, not properly mitigated. You have to charge the right amount of money…for our police services.  The project right next door is already telling you how dangerous it is.” He was referring to the condo project previously built and units sold.

Alora McGuire spoke next “on behalf of Contra Costa Residents for Responsible Development”, representing union members and residents in Antioch and surrounding areas. She said the group did not want the council to oppose the project but wanted the developer to address noise impacts.

Jason Buster of Plumbers and Steamfitters union Local 159, representing 300 Antioch families that are members of other unions, including electricians and sheet metal workers. “We advocate for projects that are more sustainable and equitable for the city of Antioch. We’re proud of our work to reduce the environmental impacts of projects.”

“The project is fully exempt from CEQA due to SB330,” said DeNova’s attorney Golub. “We’re very willing to fence and gate this property. It’s not an objective standard. But it doesn’t mean we’re not willing to consider it.”

Wilson asked, “Why was the commercial piece removed from this plan?”

“This is a Housing Element site, and it was rezoned with the update,” Meredith said.

“That’s unfortunate,” Wilson stated even though she approved the rezoning during a council vote.

Rocha then made a motion to approve the project.

“Obviously, it was intended at one time to be a mixed development. But that was changed in 2023,” he stated.

Bernal seconded the motion and without further discussion the council did not approve the project on a two-two tie with both Freitas and Wilson voting to oppose.

“The motion does not carry. This does not preclude us from continuing the item until we have a fifth member present,” Cole explained.

Bernal then made a motion to continue the item until the Council’s next meeting on Tuesday, Nov. 4th. (It will be held instead of the normal second Tuesday, which falls on Veterans Day, Nov. 11th. Rocha seconded the motion and it passed 4-0.

the attachments to this post:

East LTSPA Map & Slatten Ranch Townhome Project location

Slatten Ranch Townhomes

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 29th, 2025 at 5:00 pm and is filed under City Council, Growth & Development, Housing, News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.