Antioch Council votes 4-1 to postpone approving policy for more low-income housing
Will instead include proposed Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in General Plan Update process; could come back in “a year or so”
“We need to take a comprehensive view of how all these things are going to impact our community and to do this piecemeal is wrong.” – Mayor Pro Tem Freitas
“Antioch…is still the most affordable place in the East Bay and if we don’t keep it affordable then it won’t be.” – Councilwoman Torres-Walker
By Allen D. Payton
During their meeting Tuesday night, March 10, 2026, the Antioch City Council voted 4-1, with District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker voting against, to postpone a decision on the proposed Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) and include it in the General Plan Update process. Since, according to City staff, that process will take one to three years, it could allow enough time for the remaining proposed, new-home subdivisions in the Sand Creek Focus Area to be approved. That’s the part of Antioch where upscale homes have been planned for more than 30 years to meet the higher-end portion of the city’s housing mix.
It’s also the part of Antioch that Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas said he wants excluded from the ordinance.
The expectations have been the Sand Creek area homes will attract business owners to Antioch to create local jobs and employ residents in the 200-acre East Lone Tree Specific Plan area off Laurel Road near the J.C. Penney store, and allow them to escape the commutes on Highway 4 and Vasco Road. Only four more potential developments on the west side of Deer Valley Road including the Richland Communities-Leung, Zeka Ranch and Oak Hill Park LLC/Richfield-Bridle Hills projects, and one on the east side, referred to as the Chen property, located south of the Kaiser Antioch Medical Center and west of Dozier-Libbey Medical High School, are remaining to be submitted, processed and/or approved.
In addition, two more new single-family housing projects on Somersville Road, known as Rialto Place, and on James Donlon Blvd., known as Sorrento Village, are also in process, and would probably be approved before an ordinance is adopted. That would leave mostly in-fill, single-family housing and multi-family housing projects throughout the city to which an ordinance would apply. Those include five of the 10 Commercial Infill Housing Overlay District affordable apartment projects and multiple other projects, including the currently on-hold Rancho Meadows on the north side of Antioch, that have yet to be built, as well. (See related articles here and here)
Following an hour of the staff presentation and public input, mostly by representatives of out-of-town organizations and a few residents in support, and opposition from one resident, the council then took up the matter for another hour asking questions of staff and the consultant and discussing it before the vote. (See council meeting video beginning at the 5:27:30 mark)
Council Questions, Discussion & Comments
District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha asked if the IHO would apply to developments already approved. Planning Manager Zoe Merideth responded, “This would be for new development moving forward.”
Asked by Mayor Ron Bernal about the point in time when the ordinance would be applicable to a new housing project, she responded, “It would generally be deemed complete also under SB330 if you file a complete preliminary development application, that vests your rights at the time…which are most housing projects at this point.”
Torres-Walker, referring to the comments of local homeless and affordable housing advocate Andrew Becker, was concerned “the ordinance would essentially do nothing based on the developments that are currently in the pipeline.”
“Is it a paperweight?” she asked.
“No,” was the reply from Greg Goodfellow, Associate Principal for PlaceWorks, the consulting firm that helped develop the City’s proposed IHO. “The big picture for me, here is to think of the IHO as one tool in such a large shed of tools for affordable housing.”
“I don’t do things to be symbolic. I want this to mean something,” the councilwoman said.
“My point is it’s not going to do everything,” Goodfellow responded.
Mayor Pro Tem Freitas then asked about the chart staff provided in their presentation showing that “there are only seven cities listed” that have IHO’s and that most had much lower percentages than the 15 percent recommended by staff and 20 percent requested by some members of the public and organization representatives.
“That’s not all of them. Those were just examples,” the consultant stated. “I don’t know the exact number. I’m sorry.”
Freitas then mentioned, “The City would have to hire three to six individuals to oversee this,” and the fact the City is facing deficits this and next year. “Where would we get the money?” he asked. “Would we get it out of the (IHO) Trust? The Trust can’t pay those fees?”
“No,” Goodfellow responded. “This IHO…could be taken care of with the leadership of existing staff.”
Part of the costs of the annual review for the program would be covered by developer fees Merideth explained.
A discussion over adequate staffing for all housing programs in the city ensued.
Freitas then asked about the need outlined on page 8 of the staff report for “additional building height” to accommodate density increases “required to make rental projects feasible” and “potential parking regulation exemptions.”
“What concerns me is engineering says, even if you approve this project, you are at Level F for traffic. That’s gridlock,” the councilman stated. He was referring to, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Level of service for traffic flow, which measures automobile congestion and travel time delay, on a scale of A, which is the best, to F, which is the worst.
“I’m concerned that the qualify of life in Antioch will deteriorate,” Freitas added. “The citizens of Antioch I know, they don’t want to have high-density, three- and four-story buildings. They don’t.”
“Antioch, historically, since I was born here, has always been a haven for affordable housing,” he continued. “Yes, I know it’s screwed up, now. But is it going to help us or hurt us?”
“We are now going to be doing the General Plan, number one,” Freitas stated. “Number two, we do have Senate Bill 300, Senate Bill 330 and now we have a proposal on inclusionary housing. We need to take a comprehensive view of how all these things are going to impact our community and to do this piecemeal is wrong.”
“The reality is, we do have an issue of affordability,” he said. “My feeling is, this is not the place, tonight to make that decision. Our legal requirement is to do the study. We have fulfilled that. But I believe we fold it in to the General Plan review.”
“I want staff to tell me how are we going to oversee this. How are we going to implement this. We have no plan,” Freitas continued. “It’s just a policy, let’s do it, let’s put it in. That’s irresponsible as far as I’m concerned.”
“It’s an amazing study,” he said. “I just think it would be wrong to approve this tonight.”
Freitas Says Ordinance Shouldn’t Apply to Sand Creek Area Developments
“The other problem to me is….quote, unquote, it is citywide,” Freitas said about another of his concerns with the ordinance. “I spent three years of my life doing the last General Plan (which was adopted in 2003 when he previously served as mayor)…and we consciously made a decision that there are parts of our community we don’t want high rises, we don’t want high-density. We want executive housing primarily in the area which was Urban Area number one, the Sand Creek Area. I don’t think this should be applied citywide.”
“We need to make some qualitative judgments and some areas I don’t think it should apply,” he reiterated. “Because I think cities want the whole gamut…from executive housing to absolutely affordable housing.”
“I guess I’m frustrated with this. I think it’s the wrong approach. I think we need to delay this,” Freitas stated. “I think we need to fold it into the General Plan and do a much better job of how we’re going to pay for this because it’s not here. Reading this report scares me more than anything with how we’re going to financially do it and the exemptions that are being called out.”
“Thank you for letting me rant and rave,” he concluded to laughter from Torres-Walker and others. “I’m OK. I feel good,” he said with a smile on his face.
Torres-Walker States Her Support
The District 1 councilwoman then said, “I support this. I always have. Antioch…is still the most affordable place in the East Bay and if we don’t keep it affordable then it won’t be. I know there is definitely NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard) that exists in the city. I know there are places people do not want this kind of housing and we have to figure things out. I think this is important.”
Then speaking of the staffing issue to support the proposed IHO and City’s other housing programs Torres-Walker concluded, “I don’t think residents who are trying to afford to live in Antioch should have to suffer because we haven’t figured out our institutional challenges.”
Wilson Supports Inclusionary Housing “Whenever” Council Votes
District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson spoke next saying about Torres-Walker’s comments, “a lot of it I agree with.” Then to Freitas she said, “I get your frustration…but on the other hand we need affordable housing. I hear about people who are either couch surfing, living in their homes, living on the street and they have a job. We need to do something. I get we need to have a plan with programs that are going to work, be successful and be maintainable. We need to do something for housing to be affordable.”
“I support this. Regardless, if we vote on it today or whenever, I’m in support of inclusionary housing,” Wilson concluded.
Rocha Supports “the Concept” But Approving it Now Would be “Winging It”
Rocha spoke next saying, “I support the concept all along. But I have more questions and concerns about…how we do it right, how we structure it.”
“So, if we’re going to vote tonight, my answer would be ‘no’,” he stated. “If we’re going to have staff look at it, get some feedback to look at how we can make it feasible, workable for us, with staffing, with all of the questions that have come up, then I can consider that.”
“Looking at this, tonight, I can’t support this vote, tonight based on so many questions and concerns,” Rocha continued. “Otherwise, I think we’re just winging it.”
Freitas then said, “I’m generally supportive, but, you know, we have to do it right. We all support affordability. In my opinion, this is too critical to screw up.”
Staff Says General Plan Update Will Take “Two to Three Years”
Torres-Walker then asked staff, “How long is it going to take to finish the General Plan?”
Interim Community Development and Economic Development Director David Storer responded, “We’re saying anywhere from two to three years depending on the process.”
Bernal Also Supports Including IHO with General Plan Process
Mayor Bernal then weighed in saying, “My biggest concern with this…is the fact that we’ve been thrown for a loop when it comes to the housing legislation that has come out of Sacramento. We’ve only had two projects approved, we have eight or 10 in the pipeline. We have three-story units going up right in the back of residential on Golf Course Road which is going to be a nightmare firestorm.” He was referring to the Joyfield at Lakeview Center Apartments for extremely-low, very-low and low-income residents.
“So, we don’t even know the impacts of current legislation on our city let alone adding one more moving part to it that’s just going to complicate things,” the mayor continued. “The other part of this, and I keep harping on it, is we need to get our budget under control…in order to know where we’re headed as a city, how we’re going to afford to pay for things like extra staffing.”
“The other thing that has always frustrated me is RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) numbers are just dumped on us,” Bernal stated. “We’re going after these arbitrary numbers that a group in the larger Bay Area (speaking of MTC & ABAG) has come up with and I don’t know if that’s what’s best for our community.”
“I know it’s what we’re mandated to do but I don’t know if that’s best for our community. That’s where the General Plan comes in and I think that folding this in with the General Plan process…,” concurring with Freitas. “Because what the General Plan process is going to do is tell us how many units we have left in our 25-year building sphere that we’re going to be building, that then we would know how many units we’re going to get out of this. Right now, there isn’t any certainty of that.”
“My point is I think there are a lot more questions than there are answers,” he continued. “I think there are a lot of moving parts, right now, when it comes to Sacramento, development and how it’s going to impact Antioch with so much vacant land and so much residential opportunity, and I just think this would add one more element of complication to it.”
“So, I’m not going to be supportive of moving it to a date certain…because I don’t see the benefit or the purpose of it,” Bernal concluded.
Housing in Land Use Element of General Plan Update Could Be Done in “a Year or So”
Freitas then confirmed with Storer, that the first of seven issues to be dealt with during the General Plan Update is the Land Use Element, which includes housing policy, and said, “Some of the questions we’re all asking…I think we could move that forward…we could bring back the IHO within a year or so for action.”
Bernal then advocated to “bring it back organically when it’s time.”
Freitas then asked City Manager Bessie Scott, “Does the city manager want to offer any words of wisdom?” to which she simply replied, “Um, no,” to laughter from the council members and those still in the audience as it was after 11:50 p.m.
“That’s called a wise city manager,” Bernal stated in jest.
Freitas then made the motion to move the item off-calendar, “with the understanding that the General Plan will prioritize this entire discussion.” Rocha seconded the motion and it passed 4-1 with Torres-Walker voting “no”.
the attachments to this post:
IHO cover postponed
