Antioch Council switches, approves public financing for controversial low-income apartment project
Forced to approve by state law, but without any changes to project since denying it in April
“The City will not have financial or legal obligation regarding the repayment of the debt.” – Planning Manager Zoe Merideth. But City will receive $15K in bond fees.
Freitas again rants against project saying, “It’s ugly.”
By Allen D. Payton
After denying public financing for the Hillcrest Summit Apartments on a 2-2-1 vote in April, the Antioch City Council changed course and voted 5-0 to approve it during their meeting on June 23, 2026. That’s despite the developer not making any changes to address concerns of the council members, including the proximity to the adjacent gas station, convenience store and car wash, as well as the project’s aesthetics. New concerns were shared about traffic impacts and lack of parking, due to new state law because of its location near the BART Station.
The project is one of the 10 Commercial Infill Housing (CIH) Overlay District parcels the council rezoned in 2022 that will allow extremely-low, very-low and low-income apartment complexes throughout the city. (See related articles here and here)
The 165 apartments, complete with 145 parking stalls and site improvements, are planned to be built immediately adjacent to the 76 gas station and 7-Eleven that has a 24-7 carwash on the corner of Hillcrest Avenue and E. Tregallas Road. Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas wanted the project to be redesigned with the apartments located on the other side of the 4.9-acre parcel. Mayor Ron Bernal was concerned about how the four-story apartment buildings would look. But due to the rezoning vote in 2022, the City Council has no say, and all of the CIH projects only require staff-level, administrative approval without any public input. The Hillcrest Summit Apartments project has already been approved by City staff.
The project is proposed to be 100% affordable with the following breakdown of affordability:
No City Financial Obligation
During the brief staff presentation for the agenda item, #4, Planning Manager Zoe Merideth explained, “The City will not have financial or legal obligation regarding the repayment of the debt.” But the Tax Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (“TEFRA”) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 require the Council to hold a public hearing and vote to approve the financing for the project to receive the funds.
“This is a private loan with the borrower and the bank,” Meredith added. “Again, such adoption is solely for the purposes of satisfying TEFRA, Internal Revenue Code and California Government Code.”
According to the City staff report, the tax-exempt revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $50,000,000 to be issued by the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) will be used to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of the project and pay certain expenses incurred in connection with the issuance of the bonds.
Public Comments & Proponents’ Responses
A representative of the developer, Los Angeles-based Cypress Equity Investments, LLC, Garrett Borges, Vice President of Real Estate Development, and Jarod Suzuki, Financial Advisor for the CMFA, the bond issuer, said they were available to answer any questions.
During public comments, with three residents in favor and one against the project, Suzuki responded reiterating, “The City is not party on the transaction. As a part of our policy, we share 25 percent of our fees with the host city. It’s just a CMFA policy. We just give away some of our fees.”
According to the CMFA website, “The CMFA shares 25% of all issuance fees directly with its member communities. In addition, a grant equal to 25% of the issuance fee is made to the California Foundation for Stronger Communities (‘CFSC’) to fund charities designated by the member communities.”
Borges further explained, “These projects pay all of our impact fees as part of the development for the project…to help with the schools.”
“We hope that us developing this and providing these affordable units for the community is where the police officers and the teachers and those types of folks within the community that need a little help on their housing can come and be a part of the community,” he added. “So, hopefully a benefit to the community rather than a perceived blight.”
Council Questions, Concerns About Traffic Impacts, Lack of Parking Allowed by State Law
Freitas was first to speak saying, “It’s never been, for me, about providing affordable housing or providing this type of housing. But how did we get to this point? The public needs to understand what this project may or may not have.”
Planning Manager Meredith explained the project is one of the CIH sites and it “was administratively approved in the fall of 2025.”
“So, this property is zoned commercial?” the councilman asked.
“It could be either,” Meredith said. The underlying zoning is still commercial, but the CIH Overlay District allows for multi-family housing, she explained.
Freitas then asked about the “money coming back to the City of Antioch” and “the amount that will be.”
Bond-issuer representative Suzuki said, “Right now it’s roughly $15,000.”
Freitas then asked, “Can the City require police services on this parcel?”
Meredith responded, “The developer does pay impact fees and the City has a Community Facilities District for police.”
“Roughly, how much are we talking about? Would it pay for one officer,” Freitas asked.
Assistant City Attorney Kevin Kundinger responded, “I believe the CFD is about $300 per unit paid on a yearly basis.” That would amount to $49,500 per year total.
Freitas then mentioned his concerns that he shared with the developer “six or eight months ago” including the driveway access off Hillcrest Avenue.
“When I looked at this project, the first thing for me was safety,” he stated. “The traffic congestion is a Level F and just like high school, F means failure.”
Meredith pointed out there are two entrances and exits, with the other one on Shaddick Drive off E. Tregallas Road.
Freitas then asked, “Are there 165 parking spaces?”
“This project has 145 parking stalls,” Meredith shared.
“If one or two people have a car, there are not enough parking spaces, here to actually facilitate the people who live here and park there,” Freitas stated, then asked, “So, where are they going to go? They can’t park on Hillcrest. They cannot park on East Tregallas. The only place that they can park is Shaddick. So, what’s going to happen is the overflow cars are going to go into the neighborhoods. We will have residents coming down, screaming at us, ‘what’s wrong with you idiots, why did you ever approve this project? It has ruined our quality of life.’”
He also mentioned St. John’s Lutheran Church, which is across Shaddick Drive from the project saying, “They’re not going to be happy because their parishioners are going to have a difficult time finding parking.”
However, because the complex is located within a mile of a transit station, specifically the BART Station, state law allows for new multi-family housing developments to not include any parking.
Freitas then repeated his concern about the proximity of the project to the neighboring gas station, 7-11 and carwash saying, “The property line is a couple of feet from the commercial area. So, there will be fumes…noise, twenty-four-seven. You think the people living there are going to come to the council and scream at us? Yeah, they will.’ He then mentioned children living there and his concerns about walking into traffic or to the gas station.
“When I met with the representative, I shared these and a lot more issues,” the councilman continued. “Instead of building the project next to the property line, flip it over and there is room. ‘No, no. We don’t want to do that. That would be too expensive.’”
Freitas said he asked the developer about not providing enough parking. “Well, that’s what’s required. That’s what we’re going to do.”
“The area in blue, that is for the children,” he stated. “That little area, right next to cars that are going to be parking in that particular area. As a parent, that would scare me.”
“So, I made lots of recommendations and the expectation that as a good builder, that they would consider some of those suggestions, and they never, ever called me back,” Freitas stated.
“Now, how did we get here? It is state law,” he explained. “And we did create this and it was approved in 2022 (by the previous council) and we are stuck with it.”
“So…in April when the council basically said, ‘no’ to this…we get a letter from the Department of Housing and Community Development from the State of California,” Freitas stated. “Basically, because we’re now dealing with the mandates from the State of California to the local jurisdiction, that you all need to build a lot more affordable housing and if you do not approve this then, guess what? You will be out of compliance in your approved housing element.”
“What impact would that be to the City of Antioch if we did not have an approved housing element?” he asked Planning Manager Meredith.
“You would be subject to the builder’s remedy, for example, which would allow housing to be built anywhere in the city,” she explained. “You could be subject to fines and also increased scrutiny by HCD, for example.”
“I want to make sure you heard that,” Freitas then said to those sitting in the gallery. “A developer could come into the city and build whatever she or he wanted and none of us, here could raise an objection. What kind of projects do you think we’re going to get?”
Freitas then shared concerns about the height of the four-story project saying, “So, here we are at one of the most important entrances to the City of Antioch. You’re going to have a gas station and right behind that… you’re going to have a four-story…structure. It is so ugly. I do not want that monolith, there…and the color scheme is usually brown or a deep, deep grey. It is ugly, it is ugly, it is ugly. It is not something that I would embrace.”
“It’s not just coming before us and asking us to approve this funding,” he continued. “This project should never have been allowed. But it is and the State of California has basically said to us…we don’t care what you like or dislike. If you don’t do it, that shotgun we have at your head, we’ll pull the trigger.”
“So, tonight, frankly, we have no choice,” Freitas stated. “Because the alternative is even worse than this and that’s the tragedy from my perspective. Frankly, there’s ten of these projects, people…and I think it’s disgusting and I think it’s wrong.” (Actually, only five have been so far approved by staff. The council could rezone the other five CIH Overlay District parcels).
“Who am I holding responsible?” the councilman asked. “The State of California.”
District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker, who voted for the overlay districts, spoke next asking, “So, are we voting to avoid a lawsuit? Do we need a motion or what are we doing?”
Freitas responded, “We have no choice.”
District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson, who also voted for the overlay districts, spoke next saying, “I agree whole-heartedly with…Mayor Pro Tem Freitas.” She then asked Acting City Manager Ana Cortez, “Is this even going to fulfill any of our RHNA requirements?”
She was referring to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation which, as previously reported, requires the City of Antioch to approve 3,016 more housing units between 2023 and 2031. They include 792 Very Low Income units (less than 50% of Area Median Income), 456 Low Income (50-80% AMI), 493 Moderate Income (80-120% AMI) and 1,275 Above Moderate Income (greater than 120% AMI) units based on the Area Median Income in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Meredith responded, “Yes. These count towards RHNA.”
Then repeating a question asked during public comments, Wilson asked staff, “Is it going to benefit…Antioch workforce residents…who are struggling, or first come, first served?”
Developer’s representative Borges responded, “We try to give priority where we can to Antioch residents. We’re obviously bound by fair housing laws. Those are very strict as far as how we are allowed to give preference.”
“We were happy and excited to fulfill what we thought was the council wishes to bring affordable housing to this site,” he continued, in response to the concerns raised by Freitas. He also said the City did a traffic study “and one of the ways we mitigate the impacts is paying a traffic impact fee which goes to the City to improve these intersections.” Regarding parking Borges said, “Because of our proximity to BART the State states, actually that we don’t have to have any parking as part of the project. We, as good developers, who will own and operate this, don’t think that that’s prudent or wise. So, we’ve fit as much parking as we could on the site.”
District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha then said, “To clarify, this item is not to approve or deny the project. This is a TEFRA hearing. Should we vote this down…they can also go to the County, I believe, or to the State and get the bonds elsewhere and we would be subject to the consequences you alluded to, earlier,” directing his comments to Freitas.
“So, I’m not crazy about the project for the reasons you stated,” he continued. “But we are here to talk about the bonds being issued, yes or no. Not about whether we are accepting or denying the project. I am in favor of affordable housing because it’s necessary in the community.”
Rocha then made the motion to approve the bonds.
But before a second was entertained, Mayor Ron Bernal asked if “the applicant had addressed the issues” raised at the council meeting in April
“I believe the applicant is willing to work with us on the aesthetics, including the siding, to make it a neutral green, rather than the grey,” Meredith responded. “I have some driveway improvements on Hillcrest, as well.”
Freitas then seconded the motion saying, “I’m going to second because we have to,” and it passed 5-0.
See staff report and project details. See project plans. Watch the Council meeting video of the item beginning at the 2:34:40 mark.
the attachments to this post:
Hillcrest Summit Apts Elevations
Hillcrest Summit Apts Overall Site Plan
