But wasn’t placed on council meeting agenda for discussion and vote

Council voted unanimously both times to just receive and file annual reports of available funds from developer fees

“We did talk to the current owner that he would entertain a sale to the City…we got blind-sided…” – Councilwoman Torres-Walker on this year’s efforts for the City to buy the building

By Allen D. Payton

In response to questions sent to Antioch City staff multiple times beginning Friday, August 28 and to staff and council members on Friday, Sept. 4, it was learned by the Herald on Tuesday, Sept. 8, that the City had more than enough funds to purchase the El Campanil Theatre in both 2023 before the first sale to a private owner, and prior to this year’s sale, as well.

In fact, according to a staff report to the council on Dec. 9, 2025, the City had over $7 million by June 30, 2025, sitting in a fund, as District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker recently claimed, that can be used to “acquire existing buildings with the intent to convert them into Community Centers.” That is more than enough to have covered the $1.5 million asking price by the current owner and seller. In addition, by June 30, 2023, the month after the first sale of the theater to a private party closed, the City had almost $5.5 million in that same fund. Plus, the Fiscal Year 2021-22 report shows as of June 30, 2022, the fund had a balance of over $4.2 million. So, the City also had enough funds to purchase the theater in 2023 for the $800,000 asking price. (See fourth subsection of related article)

Questions to Staff and Council if Development Fees Could Be Used to Purchase Theater, More

The questions were sent to City Attorney Lori Asuncion (pronounced uh-SUN-shun), Acting Community & Economic Development Director Kevin Scudero and Acting City Manager Ana Cortez, but since they had not yet responded by Friday night, Sept. 4, those same questions plus, a few more, were then emailed to them, the mayor and all four council members, and City PIO Jaden Baird. Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas informed the Herald last Wednesday that he would be out of town and unreachable for the following two weeks, and an auto-response email shared that Baird is no longer with the City of Antioch.

They were informed of what Torres-Walker said, that she and Freitas were looking into having the City use development impact fees to purchase the El Campanil Theater and she said there are millions of dollars just sitting there. They were also informed that after researching it on the state’s website, this reporter could not find any legal limitations under the definition of “other civic and community facilities.” They were then provided with a link to the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s webpage regarding the impact fees, Residential Impact Fees in California | California Department of Housing and Community Development and asked the following questions:

“Can they be used by the City to purchase the El Campanil Theatre building? How much in impact fees collected does the City currently have? Why are they sitting there? What were they collected for? What nexus was determined in the study?” and “can the City change the use of the funds after the fact?” They were also asked, “what else can the funds be used for?”

Development Impact Fees Available to Acquire Community Centers

Scudero responded Tuesday evening with, “The development impact fee program adopted by the city in 2014 accounts for Community Center Expansion as part of the Parks and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee. This fee could be used to construct new Community Centers or acquire existing buildings with the intent to convert them into Community Centers.”

He continued writing, “Here is the link to the annual AB 1600 reports that the city files detailing the amount of development impact fees collected and expended in each fiscal year: https://www.antiochca.gov/299/AB1600-Reports.

“That page also has the 2014 study that details the fee program and cost allocation for the fees collected. We are currently in the process of updating the development impact fee study which will involve looking at the current needs of the city and identifying new projects that will need to be constructed to accommodate new development.”

According to the League of California Cities, “A development impact fee is a monetary exaction other than a tax or special assessment that is charged by a local governmental agency to an applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the…project.”

According to City staff, Assembly Bill (AB) 1600, passed in 1987, is part of California statutes that “are collectively known as the ‘Mitigation Fee Act’ and imposes specific requirements on cities that chose to collect development fees” including issuing an annual report within six months of the end of the fiscal year.

The fees can only be “Collected for Capital Facility, Equipment, and Infrastructure Improvements, Cannot Fund Existing Needs…of the City’s existing population, and Must Be Based on a Rational Nexus” i.e. “a reasonable…connection, between new growth and development and the need for a new facility or improvement” and “must be structured such that the revenue generated does not exceed the cost of providing the facility or improvement for which the fee is imposed.”

There are four impact fees imposed on new development in the City: one for General Administration, another for Public Works, a third for Police Facilities and Equipment, and a fourth for Parks and Recreation Facilities, each with a separate, designated fund.

Council Aware of Fund Balances Last December and in December 2022 But Did Not Discuss Using Money

The latest report for the 2024-25 Fiscal Year presented to the Council during their Regular Meeting on Dec. 9, 2025 (see Item 6.Q.), shows an Ending Balance in the Parks and Rec (Fund 324) of $7,404,937.33. So, the City did have the money to purchase the El Campanil Theatre this year for the $1.5 million asking price.

Yet, during the Dec. 9th council meeting, that agenda item on the Consent Calendar was not pulled by any council member for the Council to discuss use of the funds before they voted 5-0 to receive and file the report as part of approving all but four other items. (See 5:27:15 mark of meeting video)

The report also shows that at the end of the 2022-23 Fiscal Year, which was on June 30, 2023, the fund had a balance of $5,491,281.75. In addition, the 2021-22 Fiscal Year report, which shows an Ending Balance of $4,218,197, was presented to the Council during their regular meeting on Dec. 13, 2022. (See Item 4.H.)

Thus, the City also had plenty of money to purchase the theater in 2023 and could have for just $800,000. Yet, during that meeting, the Council did not remove that item from the Consent Calendar either, to discuss use of the money available in the fund before voting 5-0 to receive the report and approve all the other items. (See 1:23:30 mark of meeting video)

One Councilmember Made Requests to Agendize Protection, But Not Purchase of El Campanil Theater

A montage of council meeting videos by the ContraCosta.news posted on the Facebook page, shows council members speaking about the theater and one repeatedly requesting to be placed on a future meeting agenda an item for protecting, but not purchasing it. During their meeting on May 13, 2025, under Council Communications and Future Agenda Items, District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson asked, “Can we have an agenda item on potential historical sites in the city and how we protect them?”

“Alright,” Mayor Ron Bernal said while taking notes.

“I put that on because I reached out to Councilman Freitas about this because I’m concerned about the El Campanil that it’s not a registered historical site…that someone could come in, purchase it and demolish it,” the councilwoman added.

Freitas responded, “So, I would just suggest we put, dash, because it really is El Campanil.”

“Specific to El Campanil,” Bernal interjected.

“Right?” Freitas asked Wilson. “Right,” she replied.

“So, the Carnegie is completely separate,” Bernal stated.  He was referring to the building at 519 F Street, which, according to the Carnegie Libraries website, “has housed the Senior Citizens Center, City Recreation Department, and Antioch Historical Centers” and more recently was leased to a church.

Then during the council meeting on Nov. 4, 2025, Wilson reiterated, “I just wanted to remind or get an update on making sure our El Campanil Theatre is a historical landmark, and I think the Carnegie Library so nobody can come in and demolish it. I wanted to get an update on that.” She repeated the request during the council meeting on Feb. 20, 2026, saying while reading from notes, “Agendize historical sites in Antioch. I think this is getting confused with my other item in regards to identifying sites in Antioch and getting them on the California historical registry so we can protect them.”

Then, most recently, during their meeting last month, on August 25, Torres-Walker repeated what she said in her video posted on Facebook (referred to above) about Freitas and her discussing the theater since last year. But she did not request to place on a council meeting agenda the possible purchase of the theater as it was already in escrow.

Torres-Walker Explains What Transpired This Year

When reached for comment, Torres-Walker said the City did try to buy the theater building this year and shared details of what she, Freitas and City staff did in their efforts to purchase it, possibly using development impact fees in the Parks and Rec Fund.

“It was $8 million when I brought it up,” she stated referring to the balance in that fund.

About the sale she said, “How I found out this year was seeing a video on Instagram of the pastor in the theater,” (the same as this reporter).

“In July, it was me, Don, Ana Cortez, Shahad and Sharon and the conversation didn’t include ‘this needs to be a rushed process to stop a sale,’” Torres-Walker said referring to Freitas, the acting city manager, the City’s Recreation Department Director Shahad Wright, and current El Campanil Theatre Preservation Foundation board president Sharon Sobel Idul.

Based on the timeline shared by the pastor last week, the church’s offer was accepted after that meeting was held.

“I told Don, last year, we had to do something,” she continued. “I was told the theater was being sold to a church. But we found out that was the AMC (Deer Valley Theaters).” As previously reported, that building, located on Lone Tree Way, was sold to The Bay Area Pentacostals church, whose building in Pittsburg burned in 2022.

“We did talk to the current owner that he would entertain a sale to the City,” Torres-Walker stated referring to Tung Bui. (See related article) “It was brought up at the council that this needed to be a discussion. We have this 90-day list thing. So, it should be on the list that I’ve been asking for over the last 60 days.”

At the end of each council meeting agenda under Council Communications and Future Agenda Items, it reads, “any Council Member may place an item for discussion and direction on a future agenda. Timing determined by Mayor and City Manager – no longer than 90 days.”

However, that item is not included on Special Council Meeting agendas, and no request regarding discussing the theater was made at the end of the regular council meetings on May 12, May 26, June 9, June 23, July 28 or Aug. 11. Not until the Aug. 25th meeting was the theater brought up by Torres-Walker, as mentioned above, after the conditional sale to the church. (See related article) It was during the meeting on April 28th that the Council last discussed one item from their previous 90-Day List, which was to hold a joint meeting between the Council and the Police Oversight Commission.

“Ana Cortez did speak to the owner,” Torez-Walker added. “Me and Don were trying to see if he would entertain a sale to the City and I had questions for the owner because we knew it was on the market.”

“We were all blindsided, because the last conversation we had with Sharon was that the owner was excited about the City buying it and keeping it as an arts and cultural center for the city,” Torres-Walker stated.

“David Storrer told me about the development impact fees. I said, ‘is this a real option?’ He said he was going to look into it,” referring to the City’s then-Acting Community and Economic Development Director, “and he would talk to the Parks and Rec Director,” she continued. “I went to Don and told him about the development impact fees, that this would be an opportunity to bring the Carnegie Library back on and potentially purchase the El Campanil Theatre.”

“Don met with David Storrer, and they were going through legal to make sure it passed what David called, ‘the smell test,’” said Torres-Walker. “Conversations with David Storrer started back in March. David’s contract was terminated in June or July. But things were already in motion.”

“We met with Sharon in July at Monica’s,” the councilwoman stated. “Then conversations started with the City with either the seller or his broker. Ana said he was excited about being in conversations with the City about purchasing the theater and to move forward with an option from the City.”

“Then this video goes out by Pastor Eli of Legendary,” she shared. “I get it if you’re a private property owner, you’re going to go where the money is.”

“I was blind-sided because I didn’t know there was another offer on the table,” Torres-Walker exclaimed. “I thought we were in, right? I thought we were working things out.”

“This is not about being against any church. We can’t discriminate,” she stated. “It was never about a church; it was about preserving arts and culture in downtown. That was the goal before we even knew a sale was taking place.”

About using the development impact fees and what they can be used for Torres-Walker shared, “We have to think about how we’re spending taxpayer dollars. There was no specifics. It didn’t name any projects. It was broad enough terms to interpret what is allowed.”

Asked if she had received the statement from Scudero sent to the Herald she said, “No, I haven’t heard back from staff and I was unaware of Kevin making a statement.” However, the councilwoman was reminded of the annual reports received by the council, including the last one in December with the details of the balance in each fund.

“Once David Storrer left and Bessie was placed on leave and the conversation transferred to Ana, and Kevin was brought in and asked if he could find out about this. So, we’re all playing catch up,” Torres-Walker explained, referring to City Manager Bessie Scott who has been on paid leave since May 5th.

“Staff never tells us what monies can be used for. We have to ask,” the councilwoman stated. “David Storrer said, ‘I don’t know why council isn’t being informed you need to be spending this money.’ Because it is for improvements.”

“Once we found out about it, Councilman Freitas looked into using them,” said Torres-Walker. “The only reason we didn’t want to do a rush job is me and Mayor Pro Tem Freitas didn’t want it to be half-baked and brought to the council. Then we got caught in the trap that we didn’t know we had enough time and we got blind-sided by the sale.”

“We have to be careful speaking on the sale of private property,” she acknowledged. “Because if it puts the sale in jeopardy, we could face potential lawsuits if the sale to Legendary doesn’t go forward.”

“The option to work with the church if they get the keys on the 28th, you can only work together through collaboration,” Torres-Walker stated. “This issue has brought together unlikely partners because people care about this building.”

“I think the challenge I’m faced with is that I’ve been hearing some people say it’s the structure, I’ve heard others say it’s arts and culture. Either way it’s brought people together,” she added.

The councilwoman then switched her focus to the future of the city’s historic downtown, known as Rivertown.

“I think what we should focus on are what are the other opportunities,” she stated. “We’re still in conversations about security downtown, about the Economic Development Commission, Department and Director. We need to look at the mission and purpose of the commission. Oh, and the Rivertown Standing Committee – we have not met since I was elected. Even when me and Don started talking about meeting, the former council member before I was in, that was their thing, so, everyone else pulled out of the space. What we need is to talk about the standing committee and if it’s a pet project of a council member, it dies when they leave. It needs to be championed by the community.”

“Form an Ad Hoc committee and form a commission for Rivertown, downtown or whatever or a task force,” Torres-Walker continued. “Because an ad hoc committee gives council members free reign, rather than a standing committee which has to comply with the Brown Act, with notices and minutes, and two members who make a quorum, which limits the dialogue and people talking at us and us looking at information and people don’t want that right now.”

Again, Freitas informed the Herald last week that he will be unavailable while on vacation for two weeks. Once he has returned and if the City’s mayor pro tem offers any comments, they will be added to this article.

Bernal Was Not Asked to Agendize Purchase of Theater, Did Not Help Church

Mayor Bernal was asked if any of the council members had requested the matter of purchasing the El Campanil Theatre be placed on a meeting agenda for discussion in the past year to either take over the theater or purchase it. He responded simply, “No.”

Bernal was also asked if he was aware the theater was for sale this year before it went public last month. The mayor responded, “Yes. As Tamisha may have told you she, Don and Bessie were working together to find out more about it. I was not involved due to obvious Brown Act implications,” referring to the state’s Open Meeting Law.

Finally, he was asked if he helped the church purchase the theater as has been one of the rumors being spread to which he responded, “No.”

Questions for Current Owner

Questions were sent to current owner Tung Bui Tuesday evening asking if he spoke with Sobel Idul and Cortez or if his broker, Michael Temby did, and if he had anything else to share about what Torres-Walker said regarding entertaining an offer from the City. He was also asked, if it’s true, why he did not give the City enough time to make an offer. But he didn’t respond prior to publication time.

Questions for Theatre Board President

Similar questions were sent to foundation board president Sobel Idul Wednesday evening. But she did not respond prior to publication time.

Questions for Acting City Manager, Mayor

Cortez was appointed Acting City Manager effective May 6, 2026. Following receipt of the information from Scudero she was then asked via email Tuesday night and voicemail on Wednesday, since she was appointed acting city manager did any of the council members ask her to speak with the mayor about placing on a meeting agenda a discussion of using the funds from the Parks and Recreation Facilities Development Impact Fee to purchase the El Campanil Theatre, or were there any discussions about the matter outside of a council meeting with the mayor or council members.

Additional questions regarding what Torres-Walker shared were emailed to Cortez Wednesday evening.

UPDATE 1: Cortez responded Friday afternoon, Sept. 11th, simply writing, “As Mayor Bernal stated on September 8, the City is not in a position to comment on the pending El Campanil sale at this time. Thank you for your understanding!”

More Questions for Acting City Manager, City Attorney

In an immediate response, questions were sent to Cortez and City Attorney Asuncion asking why Cortez can’t tell the public if she spoke with the owner and what was discussed, and that while it was a real estate matter, there were no city council closed session meetings held to discuss it, based on what both the mayor and councilwoman shared, as it didn’t get that far. They were also asked, are such conversations outside of a closed session meeting still protected by the Brown Act (state open meeting law), even if they’re conducted without the city attorney present.

An auto response from Asuncion read, “I will be out of the office Friday September 11, 2026.”

Please check back later for any additional updates to this report.

Will receive findings of Community Outreach, Land Use Introduction

Top Quality of Life issue: Jobs

By Allen D. Payton

The second meeting of the General Plan Advisory Committee will be held on Tuesday, September 1st at 6:00 PM. It’s part of the process to update the City’s General Plan, the long-term policy document that guides the community’s growth and development, addressing physical, economic, social and environmental changes for years to come. (See related articles here and here)

There are two items on the agenda.

Under item 5.1, Beth Thompson and Elise Laws of the De Novo Planning Group, the City’s consultants for the General Plan Update, will present the Community Outreach Findings which includes the Visioning Outreach Summary from the Community Visioning Workshops, Online Visioning Survey and Pop-up Events.

According to the staff report, the update process is currently in Phase One, Visioning. Across all Phase One activities, the City received 100 online survey responses, hosted two community workshops attended by approximately 80 participants, and held ten pop-up events.

In the findings, under Quality of Life Issues in response to the question, “What would you like to see more of in Antioch?” the top responses in order are Jobs, Public gathering places and community spaces and Restaurants.

Under item 5.2, the committee members will be provided with a Land Use Introduction by Thompson and Laws. As part of the General Plan Update process, the City will revise the General Plan Land Use Map.

The meeting will be held in the Antioch City Council Chambers at City Hall located at 200 H Street in historic, downtown Rivertown. 

The agenda and meeting materials can be found here.

The updated General Plan is expected to be adopted by the city council in August 2027. To stay up to date on the General Plan Update process you can visit the project website at: https://antioch.generalplan.org/

City of Antioch’s General Plan Visioning Survey closes Monday, August 17

By City of Antioch

The City’s General Plan will help guide decisions about Antioch’s future, including how our community grows, develops, and evolves in the years ahead.

The City of Antioch is updating its General Plan, which provides goals, policies, and guidelines for the physical development of the City for the next ten to twenty years. The General Plan is intended to reflect the goals, values, and priorities of the Antioch community. The following questions will help the City gain a broad perspective of views and values in the community to help craft a General Plan that is reflective of local concerns and priorities. Your opinion and input are greatly appreciated. Please complete one survey per person. 

This survey is available in English and Spanish. Please use the language selector at the top left of the survey to choose your preferred language.

Esta encuesta está disponible en inglés y español. Utilice el selector de idioma en la parte superior izquierda de la encuesta para elegir su idioma preferido.

Your input matters. If you haven’t taken the survey yet, now is the time to make your voice heard.

Take a few minutes to share your priorities and vision for the future of Antioch, by clicking, here: https://survey123.arcgis.com/share/39bd9883638640bd9e9c07cd33578f3e.

Your Voice. Our Future. Help shape Antioch!

For more information visit Antioch General Plan.

Part of the General Plan Update process

By City of Antioch

We were at the Antioch Library today, Wednesday, July 29, 2026, for a General Plan Visioning Workshop, as part of the General Plan Update process, connecting with residents to hear what they love about Antioch and what they’d like to see in the years ahead.

Thank you to everyone who stopped by to share ideas, ask questions, and help shape the vision for our community’s future.

Missed us today? There’s still another opportunity!

Tomorrow, Thursday, July 30th

10:30 AM – 1:00 PM

Antioch Library – 501 W. 18th Street

Your input helps guide decisions about housing, transportation, parks, economic development, public spaces, and more. We hope to see you there!

For more information about the General Plan Update or to take the online survey visit https://antioch.generalplan.org.

June 30 & July 7

By Jaden Baird, PIO, City of Antioch

ANTIOCH, CA — The City of Antioch is launching an update to its General Plan, the long-term policy document that guides the community’s growth and development, addressing physical, economic, social, and environmental changes for years to come. As part of this effort, the City is hosting two Public Visioning Workshops this summer and is encouraging all residents to attend and share their vision for Antioch’s future.

The workshops will be held on Tuesday, June 30, 2026, and Tuesday, July 7, 2026, both beginning at 6:00 PM at the Antioch Community Center, located at 4703 Lone Tree Way, Antioch, CA 94531. Both events are in person, free and open to the public and will cover the same information.

Each workshop will begin with a presentation designed to educate participants on relevant topics related to the General Plan Update, followed by a structured exercise to gather community input. The City will convene a total of four community workshops throughout the Update process, and this summer’s Visioning Workshops are the first opportunity for residents to get involved.

“Our General Plan is more than a policy document. It’s a blueprint of who we are, and as importantly, want to become as a community. These workshops are an open invitation to every resident to help shape that future. I encourage all of Antioch to come, participate, and make sure your voice is part of the vision we build together,” said Mayor Ron Bernal.

Community input gathered at these workshops will directly inform the development of the General Plan Update, ensuring the final document reflects the needs, values, and priorities of Antioch residents.

“The strength of this plan depends on hearing from as many residents as possible. Whether you’ve lived in Antioch your whole life or just moved here, your perspective matters. I hope our neighbors will take this first opportunity to get involved and help guide decisions that will affect our community for years to come,” said Economic and Community Development Interim Director Kevin Scudero.

For more information about the General Plan Update and to sign up for project notifications, visit https://antioch.generalplan.org/.

Spanish interpretation will be provided. Requests for alternative forms of interpretation should be sent at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to Kevin Scudero by email at generalplan@antiochca.gov or by phone at (925) 779-6133. Accessibility-related accommodations are available upon request at (925) 779-7009 or cityclerk@antiochca.gov.

Would allow for expansion near Byron Airport, contractions elsewhere including next to Antioch

Will not affect Antioch’s ULL

By Allen D. Payton

On Tuesday’s Primary Election ballot in Contra Costa County is Measure A, the 2026 Voter-Approved Contra Costa County Urban Limit Line also referred to as the Urban Limit Line and Land Preservation Plan Amendment Measure. Voters are asked whether or not to extend the County’s current Urban Limit Line (ULL) for 25 more years, as well as expand and contract it, placing a net of almost 9,500 more acres outside the line.

The ballot language reads, “Shall the measure amending the Contra Costa County General Plan and the County’s 65/35 Land Preservation Plan Ordinance to continue protections to the County’s non-urban, agricultural, and open space areas by extending the term of the County’s Urban Limit Line through December 31, 2051; adopting an updated Urban Limit Line map; requiring voter approval, except under limited circumstances, to expand the Urban Limit Line by more than 30 acres; and retaining the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard, be adopted?”

The county’s first ULL was voter-approved in 1990 and was renewed in 2006 which lasted 20 years.

Each of the 19 cities have their own voter-approved ULL, which supersede the County’s ULL, in order to receive local street maintenance funds from Measure J, the county’s half-cent sales tax for transportation. The City of Antioch did that when voters there established their own line and moved the County’s line back out in 2004, after the Board of Supervisors moved it in and cut off the land previously planned for the Roddy Ranch golf course and housing development. That land was later sold to the East Bay Regional Park District and is planned for a park.

So, Measure A will not affect each city’s ULL, only land in the unincorporated portions of the county. But it will move outside the County’s ULL a section of land, currently outside the Antioch city limits bordered by Deer Valley and Empire Mine Roads, where long-time Antioch residents might remember the “party barn” was located, on property now known as Ginochio West in planning documents. It would be constrained to public or easement use.

Will Extend County ULL by 25 Years, Allow Expansion Near Byron Airport, Contractions Elsewhere

According to the County Counsel’s Impartial Analysis of the measure,“In 2004, voters approved Measure J-2004, which extended a local transportation sales tax (Measure C-1988) by 25 years and allowed the County to receive a share of those sale tax proceeds provided the County had a voter-approved ULL.

“In 2006, voters approved Measure L-2006, which extended the term of the ULL to December 31, 2026. In order (for the County) to continue to be eligible to receive transportation sales tax proceeds after 2026, the ULL must be extended beyond 2026. This measure would extend the County’s ULL for 25 years, through December 31, 2051.

In addition, “the measure would amend the County’s 2045 General Plan and the 65/35 Ordinance to accomplish the following: (1) extend the term of the 65/35 Ordinance from December 31, 2026, through December 31, 2051; (2) require four-fifths vote of the County Board of Supervisors and voter approval to expand the ULL by more than 30 acres (except under limited circumstances); (3) provide for periodic reviews of the ULL by the Board of Supervisors and a required review involving an evaluation of housing and job needs; (4) update and expand the criteria for moving land outside the ULL; (5) incorporate a revised ULL map that among other things delineates an area of future potential expansion near the Byron Airport; and (6) retain the 65/35 land preservation standard and protections for the County’s prime agricultural land. This measure will become effective immediately if approved by a majority of the voters voting on the measure.”

The proposed County ULL would include contractions totaling 11,098 acres and expansion of 1,603 acres for net 9,495 more acres placed outside the Urban Limit Line. (See map). However, the acreage does not include the Byron Airport Potential ULL Expansion Area.

Yes on A Campaign’s Main Argument

The main argument of the Yes on Measure A campaign, paid for by Save Mount Diablo and supported by nine other organizations, is “The Urban Limit Line helps prevent traffic from getting worse. The more people have to drive, and the more cars on the road, the worse traffic gets. This election, say YES to protecting our open space and agriculture, safety from wildfire, limiting traffic, and encouraging housing where it makes sense.”

No on A Campaign’s Main Argument

The main argument of the No on Measure A campaign, paid for by the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association is that “Measure A removes an additional 9,460 acres — equivalent to 14.78 square miles — from any possible urban housing use through 2051. That is larger than 10 of the 19 cities in Contra Costa County. Calling this a routine renewal misleads voters about what is actually on the ballot.”

The campaign also claims, “When Contra Costa restricts its land supply, families don’t disappear. They move — and commute back.”

Analysis: Growth is inevitable and acts much like a balloon, when it is restricted in one area, growth expands elsewhere. Such as in the Central Valley which feeds not only our state, but nation and world, and where land is cheaper and unfortunately, farmers can make more money selling to developers than farming. The result is commuters driving further to work and blowing more polluting smoke out of their tailpipes, defeating the goals of the environmentalists.

At the same time, there’s plenty of room inside the current ULL’s of the cities for more housing growth to occur, especially in East County. Plus, the measure includes a potential expansion near the Byron Airport where commercial and/or mixed-used development could occur, as the long-planned, four-lane Route 239 between Brentwood and Tracy are built, the runway is potentially extended, a fixed base operation and fuel farm are built there, and a possible transit stop located there, as well.

Read more information on the websites for both the Yes on Measure A and No on Measure A campaigns.

See the Full Text of the Measure.

No council approval required, no parking required but 136 spaces included; had to approve “Soviet-style” design due to state law-required waivers, concessions

Units will be offered at 30%, 50% and 60% of Area Median Income

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting on April 1, 2026, the Antioch Planning Commission, on a vote of 6-0, with Vice Chair Cortney Jones absent, approved the 183-unit affordable Wildflower Senior Apartments. Planned for the southeast corner of Wildflower Drive and Hillcrest Avenue, the complex will consist of 113 one-bedroom units of 559 square feet and 70 two-bedroom units of 771 square feet. It will include a parking lot, walkways and dog park on a vacant 3.77-acre parcel.

The Planning Commissioners who voted in favor of the project are Chair Seth Webber and Commissioners Don Aguilar, Jennifer Perez, Kevin Riley, William Spijker and Ramesh Suman.

The developer, Cypress Equity Investments of Brentwood in Los Angeles, according to the City staff report for the agenda item, number 7-1, the senior citizen housing project will be built on four levels. It will provide 145 residential units at 60 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI), 19 at 50 percent of the AMI, and 19 at 30 percent of the AMI. Therefore, the proposed project would be eligible for a density bonus under the State Density Bonus Law of up to 80 percent. The applicant is utilizing the bonus to increase the density from 35 dwelling units per acre to 48.54 dwelling units per acre.

Qualifies for State Density Bonus, Transit Proximity Height Increase

The proposed project “designates 100 percent of base units (132 units total) as affordable to low-income households to obtain a density bonus of 51 additional units as well as waivers from certain development standards, in accordance with State Density Bonus Law.”

Plus, since the project is located within a half-mile of a major transit stop, specifically, the Antioch BART Station, the applicant received a height increase of up to three additional stories, or 33 feet.

City Required to Agree to Developer’s Waiver, Concession Requests

According to City staff, the Commission had to agree to other concessions requested by the developer. “As detailed in the State Density Bonus Law portion of the staff report, the applicant is allowed waivers and concessions for the project’s architecture.” The developer requested 12 waivers and five concessions. That included more simple elevations than are required in the citywide Multi-Family Residential Objective Design Standards.

The staff report continues, “The proposed architecture of the building is contemporary. The project uses earth-tone colors: crystal white, titanium gray and muted orange. The color combination provides soft variation and transition along the building facade. The project proposes a varied parapet topped by cornices, large windows, and detailed landscaping. The project design complies with the applicable Multi-family Residential Objective Design Standards.”

However, the developer claimed, “Inclusion of the decorative elements would require added carpentry and labor, may trigger custom fabrication or waterproofing details. Strict compliance with this standard would require additional architectural detail for the density bonus project, rendering the development financially infeasible.”

That’s why it will look like a housing project straight out of the former Soviet Union. (This reporter’s opinion.)

Finally, because the project complies with existing zoning, approval by the City Council is not required, as is the case for all multi-family projects in Antioch.

Amenities

The project does include some amenities for the residents. “The central courtyard is comprised of seating areas with tables, fire pits, BBQ facilities, succulent gardens, and pedestrian pathways to seamlessly connect the complex and provide the amenities required in the Multi-Family Objective Design Standards for common open space areas. The enclosed dog park includes a water fountain, hose, benches and waste station.”

No Parking Required But 136 Spaces Included

Also, according to the staff report, “Because the proposed development is a 100 percent affordable multifamily senior housing project, within half a mile of a major transit stop, there is no parking requirement. However, the applicant is proposing to provide 136 parking spaces, which equates to about .74 stalls per unit. Senior Housing projects generally have less parking due to utilizing public transit and services such as paratransit.”

Affordable Housing Agreement with City

The project will include an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City. According to the City staff report, “the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to ensure the continued affordability of all affordable units. Prior to receiving a building permit, such agreement shall be recorded as a covenant against the property.”

See Project Plans and Site Photos. To watch developer’s presentation and commission discussion and vote, see 57:00 mark of meeting video.

Opposes one, approves two others

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting Tuesday, April 14, 2026, the Antioch City Council on split votes opposed public financing for one affordable apartment complex but approved it for two others. The three projects are part 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)

After an impassioned effort by Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas, public financing for the Hillcrest Summit Apartments received a 2-2-1 vote with Mayor Ron Bernal and District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha voting yes, Freitas and District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson voting no, and District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker voting to abstain. That’s in spite of the fact the latter two voted for the CIH Overlay District rezoning and Bernal complained about how the four-story apartment buildings would look.

At one point, things became contentious as Freitas responded to the project proponent, who was speaking via call-in and defending the project saying they didn’t create the zoning and were only following it, saying, “Shame on you” for designing the layout of the apartments the way they did.

The District 1 Councilwoman later explained her vote saying she abstained because she didn’t like the fact that, as Freitas pointed out, the 165 apartments 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. Freitas wants the project to be redesigned with the apartments located on the other side of the 4.9-acre parcel. 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 other two affordable apartment complexes also received split votes but were approved 3-2 with Freitas and Wilson voting against the public financing for both. That’s in spite of Bernal raising concerns about traffic at the Lone Tree Way, Golf Course Road and Bluerock Drive intersection. In response to City staff’s argument that the traffic levels would be the same as when the parcel was previously zoned commercial, the mayor pointed out that traffic from residential development occurs at different times than traffic from commercial development.

The 195-unit Buchanan Crossings CIH project, a multifamily rental housing project on 5.4 acres located at 3210 Buchanan Road next to the Grocery Outlet is being built by the same developer as the 233-unit Lakeview Center CIH, multifamily rental housing project. That will be located on 5.3 acres next to the CVS store on the southwest side of the aforementioned intersection. Wilson said she had received significant opposition to the project from residents.

The financing would not have been from City funds, and the Hillcrest Summit Apartments project developer can still obtain them through another local agency, like the County, according to City Attorney Lori Asuncion. But the developer’s rep for the other two projects the council approved said, if they voted against the financing it would have killed both projects. That’s due to timing on the financing and because the dirt from the Lakeview Center Apartments project will be used as fill for the Buchanan Crossings Apartments project. Yet, a majority of council members approved the public financing for both.