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.

Roadmap toward transit recovery and an affordable, connected, diverse, healthy and vibrant region for all

By John Goodwin, Assistant Director Of Communications & Leslie Lara-Enríquez, Assistant Director, Public Engagement, Metropolitan Transportation Commission

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) today unanimously adopted  Plan Bay Area 2050+ and certified the plan’s associated Environmental Impact Report — giving final approval to the Bay Area’s long-range plan for transportation, housing, economic resiliency and environmental sustainability.

Plan Bay Area 2050+ was adopted unanimously by the Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG) Executive Board last week. The votes by both boards cap a nearly three-year process during which over 17,600 Bay Area residents, community organizations, advocacy groups and public sector partners contributed to the development of the new plan, which MTC and ABAG are required to develop jointly. 

Defined by 35 strategies for transportation, housing, the economy and the environment, Plan Bay Area 2050+ lays out a suite of policies and investments that define what it would take to make the nine-county region more affordable, connected, diverse, healthy and economically vibrant for all residents through 2050 and beyond. From housing and transportation strategies that would reduce cost of living and construct more affordable housing to investments in public transit that prioritize service improvements in Equity Priority Communities, the goal of a more equitable Bay Area is interwoven throughout the plan. With a major focus on climate change, strategies also are crafted for resilience, including protection from hazards such as sea level rise and wildfires. 

ABAG Executive Board President and Napa County Supervisor Belia Ramos, who also serves as an MTC Commissioner, acknowledged some of the region’s biggest challenges the plan seeks to address. “Today, our communities face rising costs, widening inequality and persistent housing shortages,” said Ramos. “This is not the future we want for the generations of Bay Area residents to come. Plan Bay Area 2050+ charts a course for how we can bring about our shared vision for a Bay Area where everyone has access to opportunity and a better quality of life.”

Unique to this plan cycle is the parallel Transit 2050+ planning effort, developed in partnership with Bay Area transit agencies, which culminated in the first-of-its-kind plan to re-envision the future of public transportation across the region.

“Plan Bay Area 2050+ will help shape the vital service improvements and funding solutions we need to keep Bay Area transit running, while also making it faster, more frequent, more reliable, safer and better connected,” explained MTC Commission Chair and Pleasant Hill City Councilmember Sue Noack. “Plan Bay Area 2050+ lays the groundwork for how our region can meet the challenges of today, while also advancing a shared vision for an even better tomorrow.” 

Plan Bay Area 2050+’s policy and investment framework has the potential to strengthen the region for decades to come, representing a major step toward a stronger, more resilient future. 

ABAG is the council of governments and the regional planning agency for the 101 cities and towns, and nine counties of the Bay Area. Contra Costa County is represented by District 4 Supervisor Ken Carlson, District 5 Supervisor Shanelle Scales-Preston, El Cerrito Councilwoman Lisa Motoyama and Walnut Creek Councilwoman Cindy Silva.

MTC is the transportation planning, financing and coordinating agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. Contra Costa County is representatives include Chair Sue Noack Mayor of Pleasant Hill representing the cities of Contra Costa County and District 2 Supervisor Candace Andersen representing Contra Costa County.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Proposed Plan for housing, transportation, the economy and environment in the nine counties will go to committee for review on Friday, March 13

Offers strategies, investments and outcomes for Contra Costa County

By John Goodwin, Assistant Director of Communications & Leslie Lara-Enríquez Assistant Director, Public Engagement, Metropolitan Transportation Commission

After nearly three years of public discussion, technical analysis and refinement, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments last Friday released the proposed final Plan Bay Area 2050+ and the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Plan Bay Area 2050+. 

Plan Bay Area 2050+ is the latest long-range plan to guide growth and investment across the region’s nine counties and 101 cities. The plan seeks to advance an integrated vision for a Bay Area that is affordable, connected, diverse, healthy and vibrant for all by 2050. It focuses on the four areas of housing, transportation, the economy and environment.

The plan and its related reports will be presented for review and consideration at a joint meeting of the MTC Planning Committee with the ABAG Administrative Committee on Friday, March 13, before the documents are referred to their respective approving bodies. The ABAG Executive Board will consider certification of the Final EIR and adoption of the final plan at its March 19 meeting. At its March 25 meeting, MTC will consider certifying the Final EIR and adopting the final plan, as well as adopting the accompanying Air Quality Conformity Analysis and an amendment to the 2025 Transportation Improvement Program. 

The release of the proposed final Plan Bay Area 2050+ follows a 59-day public comment period for the Draft Plan and the Draft EIR that closed on December 18, 2025. The proposed final plan and Final EIR have been updated to reflect feedback received during the public comment period.

The Plan includes Partner Resources: Regional Tools for Local Action that local jurisdictions and partner agencies can use to develop plans, seek funding and take action to make a better Bay Area. It offers a fact sheet for each county, including Contra Costa, which spotlights strategies, investments and outcomes.

Plan Bay Area 2050+ is the latest long-range regional plan for the nine-county Bay Area. The plan lays out a series of funding and policy strategies that can create a more affordable, connected, diverse, healthy and vibrant future for all Bay Area residents in 2050. Unique to this plan cycle is the parallel Transit 2050+ planning effort, which culminated in the first-of-its-kind plan to re-envision the future of Bay Area public transit, in partnership with transit agencies across the region.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Inclusionary Housing Ordinance will require developers to privately-subsidize housing by setting aside 15% of new units for low-income buyers/residents or pay a $200K per unit fee

Will also establish affordable Inclusionary Housing Trust Fund requiring more City staff

Building Industry says ordinance not state required, will have opposite effect

“The higher the inclusionary requirement, the fewer market-rate homes are constructed” – UC Berkeley, UCLA joint study

Participants might not be allowed to keep increase in equity, but share it with City instead

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting tomorrow night, Tuesday, March 10, 2026, the Antioch City Council will require new home developers to set aside 15% of housing units for Very Low-Income, Low-Income, and Moderate Income households. Although it’s not required by the state and opposed by the Building Industry Association of the Bay Area, on February 4, 2026, the Planning Commission voted 4-0, with two members absent, to recommend the City Council adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO). The IHO would apply to both single-family homes and both for rent and for sale multi-family projects.

Antioch would be only the eighth city out of 19 to approve such an ordinance.

Program Participants Might Not Get to Keep Equity Growth or Must Share it With City

The lower-income homebuyers who would participate in and benefit by the program would be able to purchase the same home as their neighbors but at a much lower price. Yet, when they sell the home, they might only be allowed to keep the amount of their original downpayment but not receive any of the increase in equity as the home must be resold to another buyer who qualifies, whenever the sale occurs “in perpetuity”. The other option would be the seller would have to share the increase in equity with the City.

Section 3.3 DISPOSITION REQUIREMENTS of the Financial Feasibility Analysis for the ordinance reads:

“An inclusionary ordinance will likely require that households purchasing an affordable unit qualify based

on income and that the sales price qualify as affordable to that household. The program will also have to identify what restriction, if any, will be applied to future resales of these affordable units. Different state and federal programs have different requirements.

We recommend that the city’s ordinance restrict future resales so that the purchasing household also be income-qualified and the sales price represents an affordable housing payment for the purchasing household. We further recommend that this restriction be enforced by a deed restriction for a period of 45 years. This would be consistent with some federal affordable housing programs, but it is worth noting that it is unlikely that federal funding would be involved with mixed-income inclusionary housing projects.

As an alternative, Antioch could consider using provisions similar to the State Density Bonus Law. The original purchaser would still have to be income-qualified and the sales price would have to be qualified as affordable to the purchasing household. The purchasing household would not be restricted from selling the property in the future at then market-rates or to selling to households that are not qualified as low income. However, there would be an equity sharing agreement, and the city would receive the amount of the original sales price write-down and a proportional share of any appreciation in value. Antioch could then use its share of the sales price to support other affordable housing projects and programs.”

However, the proposed ordinance in Section 9-5.4308 – Ongoing Affordability and Occupancy reads, “A. Ongoing Affordability of For-Sale Units. In order to maintain the availability of For-Sale Inclusionary Units constructed pursuant to this Article, the affordable sales prices of for-sale Inclusionary Units shall be restricted in perpetuity, and reset upon resale of the unit(s), as documented through an Inclusionary Housing Agreement, as prescribed in Section 9-5.4305.F, recorded against the property.”

Program Details, Previous Findings Stated Antioch IHO “Not Warranted…Not Reasonable”

According to the City staff report for the agenda item, #8, an IHO is a zoning tool that requires developers to allocate a percentage of housing units in market-rate developments as “affordable”, or below-market rate (BMR) units. Many HOs include the option of paying a fee (“in-lieu” fee) rather than building the required affordable units onsite.

Inclusionary ordinances require that a specific percentage of units in market-rate development projects be offered at below market rates, typically to Very Low-Income (VLI), Low-Income (LI), and Moderate Income (MI) households (see below for definitions). These percentages are known as inclusionary requirements.

Developers would be given the option to instead pay an in-lieu fee, which is proposed at $202,500 per unit, and the City would collect the fees and be deposited into an Inclusionary Housing Trust Fund (IHTF) to be used for affordable housing purposes. The purpose of the IHTF is to assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing in the City of Antioch for the benefit of extremely low, very low, low and moderate-income households.

The staff report also explained that Antioch has considered adopting an IHO since approximately 2009. Past City leadership concluded that market rate housing in Antioch was already adequately affordable. In 2016, the Contra Costa Grand Jury released a report titled Where Will We Live: The Affordable Housing Waiting List Is Closed. The report recommended that Antioch should consider adopting an IHO. The City responded to this recommendation on August 9, 2016, stating that the City, assuming 2000-2009 home values, “already provides a diversity of housing options and is accessible to households of all income levels…” Therefore, an IHO was “not warranted and is not reasonable.”

IHO Income Levels

The Area Median Income (AMI) per household in Contra Costa County is $159,800. The three categories of affordable housing typically accommodated in IHOs are:

• Very Low-Income (VLI) Housing. Units affordable to households earning 0-50% of the Area Median Income (AMI).
• Low-Income (LI) Housing. Units affordable to households earning 51-80% of AMI.
• Moderate Income (MI) Housing. Units affordable to households earning 80-120% of AMI.

The State also recognizes Above-Moderate Income Housing, which are units affordable to households earning more than 120% of AMI. However, this affordability level is not provided for in IHOs.

Proposed Ordinance Applies Citywide Including New Sand Creek Area Subdivisions

The proposed City of Antioch Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is composed of the following basic regulations:

Applicable Geography. The proposed IHO requirements apply to Residential Development Projects citywide.

Affordability Term. The proposed IHO requires all BMR units to be affordable in perpetuity.

Threshold Project Size. The proposed IHO requirements apply to all Residential Development Projects consisting of five or more units.

Income and Affordability Requirements. As proposed, 15 percent of all new Residential Development Projects shall be affordable to VLI and LI incomes.

Specifically:

• Ten percent of the BMR units shall be affordable to VLI households.
• Five percent of the BMR units shall be affordable to LI households.
• The first BMR unit shall be affordable to VLI households, the second unit shall be affordable to LI households, and so forth for all the BMR units in the project.

Affordability Standards. The proposed IHO includes standards to ensure that affordable units are of the same quality as Market Rate Units. Per the IHO, all affordable units shall:

• Be built in the same proportion as the Market Rate Units.
• Have an average square footage of at least 90 percent of Market Rate Units with the same bedroom count.
• Be developed with the same bedroom count ratio as the Market Rate Units.
• Have the same quality of exterior design and overall quality of construction as the Market Rate Units.
• Have the same quality and type of interior finishes and features as the Market Rate Units.
• Meet all site, design, and construction standards included in the City’s Building Regulations, Planning and Zoning.

Planning Commission Recommendations

During the Feb. 4th Planning Commission meeting one member of the public opposed the IHO with six members of the public representing coalitions of housing advocates spoke in favor.  A letter in support was submitted by Joey Flegel-Mishlove, East Bay Housing Organizations, on behalf of California Center for Movement Legal Services, Contra Costa Budget Justice Coalition, East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy, East Bay Housing Organizations, Ensuring Opportunity Campaign to End Poverty in Contra Costa County, Hope Solutions, Lift Up Contra Costa County, Monument Impact, Multi-Faith ACTION Coalition, Public Advocates, Rising Juntos and United Latino Voices of Contra Costa County. They wanted to set “the IHO’s overall inclusionary rate at 20%.”

The Commission provided recommendations and requested that the City Attorney review them prior to the City Council reviewing the IHO including:

• That the housing units created with the IHTF shall be prioritized for residents of Antioch.

However, the City Attorney responded, “the City of Antioch generally cannot lawfully adopt a broad resident-priority rule for assistance funded by inclusionary in-lieu fees, particularly for homebuyer subsidies. California law strongly protects statewide housing objectives and fair housing principles, and such a preference would likely conflict with those goals.”

• That the IHO and IHTF gives preference to local unions.

But the City Attorney responded, “the City of Antioch cannot lawfully require private developers to give priority to union labor over non-union contractors on inclusionary housing projects. Such a requirement would first be preempted by federal law under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which governs private-sector labor relations and occupies the field to the exclusion of most local regulation.”

Developers’ Share Concerns

According to the staff report, during a December 2024 workshop, local housing developers “stressed that the difficulty of qualifying for home loans may impede the function of an IHO. Per participants, lower income households in Contra Costa typically face severe economic barriers to mortgage qualification, including an adequate down payment. As such, requiring the construction of for-sale units for very low-income or low-income households may be an unproductive path toward privately subsidized affordable housing.”

Building Industry Says IHO’s Aren’t State Required, Don’t Work, Benefits “Lucky” Few

In a letter to the council members and commissioners for the study session during the Planning Commission meeting on April 16, 2025, the Eastern Division of the Building Industry Association of the Bay Area submitted a letter opposing the ordinance saying they aren’t required by the state and they don’t work, making the cost to build the market rate housing to high.

The letter reads, “the California Housing & Community Development staff informs us that no jurisdiction is required to study the feasibility of an inclusionary ordinance or adopt such a program as part of the housing element review process.”

The BIA letter also includes a policy brief published in 2019 and updated in 2021by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University  which “found that none of the six major studies of inclusionary programs show that they increase the housing supply or lower prices. Instead, much of the research comes to the opposite conclusion: Except for a very small number of people lucky enough to secure one of the affordable units, inclusionary programs cause overall housing prices and rents to rise, further reducing affordability for everyone else.”

“‘Relying on new housing construction to provide subsidized units is not a strategy that can lead to more housing that’s affordable for more people,’ wrote research fellow Emily Hamilton. ‘In cases where inclusionary zoning raises house prices generally, the costs of the policy fall hardest on the lowest-income.’”

Furthermore, the BIA letter claims that a “joint study by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley and the Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies released earlier this year also found that inclusionary policies trigger significant tradeoffs between affordable housing and market rate housing production levels: The higher the inclusionary requirement, the fewer market-rate homes are constructed.”

An IHO “improves housing affordability for a few at the risk of worsening affordability for many, and it taxes precisely the activity needed to ameliorate the housing shortage and bring down rents: development.”

The BIA letter also states, “a 15 percent inclusionary requirement is infeasible for all single-family large lot developments and only partially feasible for single-family small lot and townhome developments. On the rental side, only high-density multifamily projects are fully feasible for very low, low and moderate income households. The market for very dense rental housing in Antioch is limited, at best. Overall, adopting a 10 or 15 percent inclusionary requirement will result in fewer homes being built in Antioch.”

The BIA requests City “staff to work with the development industry on alternative incentive-based approaches.”

Local Real Estate Broker Says IHO “Unnecessary”, “Built on…Fundamentally Socialist Ideology…Failed Model”

In a letter to the Commission, local real estate broker, Mark Jordan wrote, “an inclusionary housing ordinance is unnecessary, unsupported by current case law, and of questionable constitutional validity. Adoption of this ordinance would expose the City to avoidable legal and financial risk.”  His letter cited a successful lawsuit against City of East Palo Alto and as a result, “significantly modified its inclusionary housing ordinance” and possibly paid the man who sued that city.

In a previous email to the City Council dated Sept. 15, 2025, Jordan wrote, “Though rarely stated outright, the lnclusionary Housing Ordinance is built on a fundamentally socialist ideology-one that demands others pay the price for systemic outcomes beyond their control. But socialism, like Marxism, is a failed model. It doesn’t uplift communities; it burdens them and eventually collapses under its own weight.

“If life hasn’t turned out the way we want, the answer isn’t to demand others pay the price. The answer is to adapt, to work harder, to upskill, to disengage from distractions-and to pursue our own happiness through self-reliance.

“In closing, I urge you to table this ordinance. It is ill-timed, legally risky, economically unwise, and ideologically misguided.”

Antioch Housing Already Affordable, Hundreds of Units Already Approved or in Approval Process

The City is already meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements for very low- and low-income housing. A total of 1,248 new housing units are required in those categories. Yet, as previously reported, over 2,000 apartment units have either been or can be approved by staff through the 10 Commercial Infill Housing Overlay Districts about by the City Council in 2022, many of which will be affordable, including in the extremely-low, very-low and low-income housing categories.

In addition, according to Redfin.com, “The housing market in Antioch, CA, is currently competitive, with homes selling for a median price of $603K. The market is somewhat competitive, with homes selling in about 40 days on average. The median sale price per square foot is $306, down 3.2% since last year. In December 2025, Antioch home prices were down 1.2%.”

Finally, according to Realtor.com, “The housing market in Contra Costa County, CA, presents a range of home values and prices. As of February 2026, the median price for a single-family home is $780,000, with a median AVM value of $801,000 for properties sold in the last year.” According to RocketMortgage.com, AVM value is “an estimated property value generated by an Automated Valuation Model using algorithms and real estate data.”

Questions for Mayor, Council Members

An email was sent to the mayor and four council members Monday afternoon, asking questions about the ordinance:

They were asked, “since it’s not required by state law why do you feel an IHO is necessary in Antioch, since our city is already going to have at least five if not 10 more affordable housing apartment complexes as part of the Commercial Infill Housing Overlay Districts?”

They were also asked, “why does the proposed ordinance apply citywide and therefore include the remaining Sand Creek Focus Area developments that have yet to be approved, when those homes have long been intended to be the more upscale, higher priced homes for that end of our housing mix?”

Finally, they were asked, “why use this option to achieve the RHNA requirements when Antioch homes are less expensive than the average throughout the county?”

No responses were received to the email and further efforts to contact each of the council members were unsuccessful prior to publication time. Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Council Meeting Details

The Council meeting begins with a Closed Session at 4:30 p.m. for a Conference with legal counsel regarding “significant exposure to litigation.”

That will be followed at 5:00 p.m. for a Special Meeting/Study Session on the fiscal year 2026-27 budget and an update on the Code Enforcement Division’s progress and operations.

The regular meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. The latter two meetings will be held in the Council Chambers at 200 H Street, or 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 IHO agenda item #8.

See Council meeting agenda packet.

No Planning Commission, Council decisions or public input required due to Council votes in 2022 to rezone 10 commercial properties to include Extremely Low, Very Low and Low-Income housing and mixed-use development; not state required

By Allen D. Payton

It’s been over 20 years since the residents who live near the Antioch golf course rose up in 2004 and successfully defeated a proposed apartment complex on Blue Rock Drive on the north side of Lone Tree Way. Yet Antioch City staff have “Approved, Administratively” an Extremely Low, Very Low and Low-Income, 233-unit apartment complex on the south side of Lone Tree Way next to the CVS store and shopping center without any public hearings before the Planning Commission or City Council.

But it’s only one of 10 sites throughout the city where the same conversion from commercial zoning to residential development can occur due to multiple votes by the City Council in 2022 where almost 2,500 affordable apartments can be built. Over 2,000 units only require city staff approval. Currently, four of the 10 sites have projects in process and have already been approved by staff, including the largest project, the 702-unit Somersville Town Center apartment complex.

That’s because higher density residential is allowed by right under the Regional Commercial land use designation of the General Plan due to a 2022 amendment to the General Plan Use Element (GP22-01), approved by the City Council, that added a “Commercial Infill Housing Policy.” Pursuant to this policy, the Council designated the various sites with a Commercial Infill Housing (“CIH”) overlay.

As part of the strategic infill housing study process in 2022, the specific sites within Antioch were rezoned to allow for the streamlined development of medium- and high-density residential and mixed-use projects. These infill sites are typically vacant and / or underutilized commercial areas of the City.

According to the City staff report for the City Council meeting agenda item on April 12, 2022, “The intent with this policy is to encourage revitalization in commercial developments that have commercial vacancies and relocation of commercial activity to other parts of the city. These sites are eligible for streamlined review subject to compliance with objective standards. This fulfills the need to add more housing through the building of medium and high-density housing and allows for existing commercial sites to be developed with high quality residential development.”

Unanimous Council Votes in Favor of Rezoning

During that meeting, the council voted unanimously through five separate motions to approve the Zoning Map Amendments and Rezone the 10 sites to include a CIH Overlay District designation, an addendum to the 2003 General Plan Environmental Impact Report, the General Plan Amendment, establishing Commercial In-Fill Housing Policies in the Land Use Element, the project’s Objective Design Standards and other administrative requirements to implement the changes.

Nine sites are currently developed with existing commercial uses, requiring demolition, and vary in size from 4.9 to 40.9 acres. One site, located at the southeast corner of Crestview Drive and W. 10th Street, is vacant and is 2.3 acres.

The 10 sites rezoned by the City Council are labeled as:

1. Lakeview Center – Estimated Units: 80. Actual: 233  See below.
2. In-Shape Shopping Center – Estimated Units: 267. Actual: 245  See below.
3. Deer Valley Plaza – Location of former AMC theaters building and parking lot. Estimated Units: 147. No plans yet submitted.
4. Hillcrest Summit – Estimated Units: 147. Actual: 165  See below.
5. Hillcrest Terrace – on Deer Valley Road next to McDonald’s, across from Safeway and the Hillcrest Crossings shopping center. Estimated Units: 189. Actual: 165 No plans yet submitted. (Owned by the Antioch Unified School District).
6. Buchanan Crossings – Estimated Units: 81. Actual: 195  See below.
7. Delta Fair Shopping Center – Estimated Units: 221 Submitted: 210  Withdrawn  See below.
8. Somersville Towne Center – Estimated Units: 720. Actual: 702  See below.
9. 99 Cents Only/Big Lots shopping center – on Somersville Road. Estimated Units: 113. No plans yet submitted.
10. Crestview Drive/W. 10th Street – empty lot near Enterprise Rent-A-Car. Estimated Units: 115. No plans yet submitted.

Votes, including two split, on individual sites occurred as follows:

On Nov. 22, 2022, the council voted to rezone and include in CIH Overlay Districts for both the Lakeview Center (Ayes: Ogorchock, Wilson, Barbanica, Thorpe; Noes: Torres-Walker) and Buchanan Crossings (Ayes: Ogorchock, Wilson, Thorpe; Noes: Torres-Walker, Barbanica recused himself) and on Dec. 13, 2022, the council unanimously approved them during the second reading as part of the Consent Calendar.

City of Antioch Principal Planner Kevin Scudero was asked about those votes and when the other eight sites were rezoned and included in CIH Overlay Districts by the City Council. He responded, “The City Council adopted the CIH Overlay on April 12, 2022. The Lakeview Center and Buchanan Crossings parcels were part of the original approval but there was an error in processing and some parcels within the center that were intended to be included were left out of the ordinance. The action on November 22, 2022, was a cleanup to add in the parcels that were mistakenly left off of the original approval.”

Asked if any additional parcels been added to the list of 10, Scudero responded, “No parcels have been added.”

Not State Required

Although the City was awarded $310,000 in SB 2 The Building Homes and Jobs Act grant funding to study feasibility of providing infill, high-density residential development on underutilized and vacant commercial sites, the rezoning was not required by state mandate.

No Additional Commission or Council Meetings with Public Input Required

Once a site has a CIH overlay, residential development is a permitted use under the General Plan. Furthermore, the entitlement process for a residential development within the CIH Overlay is ministerialprovided the proposed project is consistent with the applicable CIH Overlay District Objective Design Standards. That means no additional Planning Commission or City Council hearings with public input are required.

So, instead of future potential commercial and employment areas as the City grows south into the Sand Creek Focus Area, the designated properties will now be used to build over 2,000 apartments and townhomes. Since the change in 2022, developers have been submitting applications to build on many of the sites.

Following are the projects on the City’s Community Development Department, Planning Division’s Current Projects webpage:

233-Unit Extremely Low, Very Low and Low-Income Lakeview Center Apartments Near Golf Course Road

Labeled “Lakeview Center Multi-family”, it’s described as “Commercial Infill Housing, Administrative Design Review Request for a Multi-family development with 233 affordable units.”

Currently, the General Plan designations for the four parcels on 7.56 acres are Office, Neighborhood Community Commercial or both and each has a CIH overlay zoning. The project has been “Approved, Administratively.”

Development plans show seven new 3- and 4-story buildings included in the project by Los Angeles-based Standard Communities. The Project will include 350 on-grade parking stalls, community amenities, and site landscaping. The apartments will be single level and arranged in a “stacked flat” configuration. Each unit will be accessed through stairways with direct access to the parking areas. There will be 109 one-bedroom 607 s.f. units, 58 two-bedroom 793 s.f. units and 66 three-bedroom 1,008 s.f. units included.

The architectural style for the Project is “California Contemporary,” simple, and sophisticated. The amenity building is located at the center of the Project and includes a leasing center, clubhouse, business center, fitness center and laundry. The indoor amenity areas will connect to the landscaped courtyard which will include a BBQ area, lounge seating and tot lot. The Project will also have a dog park.

245-Unit Lone Tree Apartments at In-Shape Shopping Center

The Lone Tree Way Apartments project, proposed by The Spanos Corporation of Stockton, sits on 8.93 acres in Antioch, located between Bluerock Drive and Eagleridge Drive near the In Shape health club. The project, submitted in May 2023, and also “Approved, Administratively”, consists of 245 apartment units within (5) 49-plex, 4 story buildings as well as a stand-alone 2-story community clubhouse (approximately 9,400 SF). Each building is served by an elevator with interior-conditioned corridors. Units will range from 477 SF studios to 1,047 SF 2-bedrooms.

Each unit will include washer/dryer, private balcony, and luxury interior finishes. Located centrally within each building will be a pet spa and bicycle café. The community clubhouse will include a leasing center, great room, fitness center, mail and parcel room, game room, theater, sports simulator, rooftop deck and more. Outdoor amenities will include a pool, spa, cabana, fire pit, bocce ball, tot lot, dog park and pickle ball court.

Last year, a commercial project was approved to be located in front of the apartment complex, along Lone Tree Way, which will include a Chipotle Mexican Grill, Habit Burger & Grill and Mister car wash.

165-Unit Hillcrest Summit Apartments 

Administrative review for a 165-unit, 100% affordable apartment development, complete with associated parking and site improvements on a Commercial Infill Housing site also “Approved, Administratively”.

Hillcrest Summit Apartments is a proposed 100% affordable apartment project at Hillcrest Avenue and Shaddick Drive on a vacant site behind the 76 Service Station and 7-Eleven. Effective May 26, 2022, the property was included in the Commercial Infill Housing (CIH) Overlay District. The new zoning classification allows for by-right housing development for projects in compliance with Objective Design Standards.

In accordance with the purpose of the CIH Overlay District, the project aims to revitalize the underutilized commercial site and increase the city’s housing supply. The convenient location is less than a half-mile from the Antioch BART Station, near access onto Highway 4, and includes a bus stop at the Hillcrest frontage. The project will include 165 residential units on four levels.

165-Unit Hillcrest Terrace Apartments – No Project Yet Submitted

This project, planned for the vacant property located next to the McDonald’s and across Deer Valley Road from the Hillcrest Crossings/Safeway shopping center, consists of a 165-unit affordable senior housing project. The CIH Overlay District would allow for up to 189 units on the 6.3-acre parcel.

The only information about the project available is regarding a loan from the City’s former redevelopment agency. According to a City staff report in the 2023 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Council meeting on Feb. 13, 2024, “In October 1998, the former redevelopment agency made a commitment for $731,175 in housing set-aside funds towards this project.

“Commencing on the first date of disbursement, the loan accrues simple interest at 3% per annum. The 55-year term loan is secured by a deed of trust. Commencing on the June 1 after project completion, and on June 1 of each year thereafter, the developer will pay the Agency one-half of the residual receipts to the extent there is residual receipts. Payments will be first credited against accrued interest and then against principal. Any outstanding principal and interest is due and payable in full in June 2055. In September 2001, the Agency made a commitment of an additional $200,000 due and payable October 1, 2038. Principal and interest outstanding for these loans at June 30, 2023, is $1,599,570.”

Scudero confirmed ownership of the property. “According to our records this site is still owned by the (Antioch Unified) school district,” he wrote. However, there are no current plans submitted for the site.

195 Affordable Apartments on Buchanan Road next to Grocery Outlet

Standard Communities of Los Angeles has another affordable apartment complex in Antioch, known as Buchanan Crossings Phase II, which was also “Approved, Administratively.” The application is for a residential 100% affordable multifamily development project on 6.22 acres along Buchanan Road that will include residential apartment units with associated parking, amenity areas and site landscaping as well as frontage improvements along Buchanan Road.

The Project will consist of six new 3-story buildings with a total of 195 total affordable residential apartments and 293 on-grade parking stalls. There will be 91 one-bedroom, 49 two-bedroom and 55 three-bedroom units included in the complex.

Both parcels are located within the Western Antioch Commercial Focus Area of the Antioch General Plan and have a Regional Commercial land use designation and the CIH designation added in 2022.

210-Unit Delta Fair Shopping Center Apartments – Withdrawn

The project, which proposed a 4,000 s.f. commercial building and 210 apartments, known as the Delta Fair Village, was withdrawn by the developer after the City Council voted 3-2 in Sept. 2020 to postpone indefinitely his application. That was before the CIH policies were approved and the property rezoned to allow for high-density housing. At that time the plans show the residential units to be condominiums.

702-Unit Somersville Town Center Apartment Complex

The largest, new apartment complex currently in process in Antioch, will be the redevelopment of a majority of the Somersville Town Center shopping mall which has also been “Approved, Administratively” due to its location in a Commercial Infill Housing (CIH) Overlay District.

The existing mall includes 500,000 sf+/- of retail floor area. When the buildout is complete the approximately forty-acre site will include 702 new apartment units and 124,872+/- of commercial space.

Development is proposed to occur in two phases. Following demolition of most of the existing shopping mall, the first phase would begin at the northern part of the site and include eleven residential buildings, comprising 330 apartment units. Three-story, walk-up apartment buildings would be arrayed along Fairview Drive and Delta Fair Boulevard, with a central clubhouse facility.

Phase Two will complete the residential master plan adding 372 units in twelve buildings. The resulting design will define two distinct apartment villages, each with a unique architectural identity and community character. On-site parking will provide covered parking spaces for all of the units.

OTHER AFFORDABLE APARTMENT PROJECTS

180-Unit Wildflower Senior Apartments

In addition to the administratively approved apartment complexes on the various CIH Overlay District sites, the 180-unit Wildflower Senior Apartments are planned for the corner of Wildflower Drive and Hillcrest Avenue. According to the Project Description, it is a proposed 100% affordable, senior apartment project on a 3.77-acre, vacant site located across Wildflower Drive from the previously approved Wildflower Station Multi-Family project and across Hillcrest Avenue from the Chevron gas station.

The General Plan land use is High-Density Residential with a zoning designation of R-35. The site is identified in the 2023-2031 Housing Element as Site 112. As a Housing Element site, the property has been targeted for redevelopment.

Within the building, a mix of one- and two-bedroom units make up the 180 residential units on four levels arranged around the central courtyard. The 102 one-bedroom units are approximately 559 s.f. each and make up 56.7% of the units. There are also 78 two-bedroom units (43.3% of total) at approximately 771 s.f. each. Two, one-bedroom units will be utilized as manager’s units.

The project will provide 100% of the residential units at 60% Area Median Income (AMI) or less and is currently in processing.

395 Apartments, 101 Townhomes Planned for Lone Tree Way Not Part of CIH But Some Units Will be Affordable

While, according to Principal Planner Scudero, the proposed project labeled, Apartments at Lone Tree, is not part of the CIH zoning overlay district, “the City Council approved the rezoning of the property from commercial to high-density residential in January 2023 as part of the Housing Element approval.”

The project by The Martin Group based in Oakland, is planned for the north side of Lone Tree Way between Country Hills Drive and Deer Valley Road, below the Seventh Day Adventist Church and Hilltop Christian School. The developer proposes 395 apartment units consisting of 25 or 33 junior one-bedroom, 261 or 253 one-bedrooms, and 109 two-bedrooms. In addition, proposed townhome buildings include a total of 84 two-bedroom, 2-bath, 1-car and 27 three-bedroom, 2.5-bath, 2-car units. This project includes 616 vehicle parking stalls with 399 surface parking spaces, and 220 proposed garage spaces. The project sponsor proposes to develop the property per the California state density bonus law.

The 19 townhome buildings are planned for the west end of the property along Country Hills Drive. The four apartment buildings and clubhouse are planned for the center of the property facing Lone Tree Way and the east end near the intersection with Deer Valley Road.

The project sponsor proposes to develop the property per the California state density bonus law (government code sections 65915-65918). The proposed project can utilize the concessions, incentives and waivers that are afforded.

While the CIH Overlay District is not required by the state, according to the 2021 Guide to the California Density Bonus Law by the Meyers Nave law firm, the Density Bonus is a state mandate requiring cities to adopt ordinances to implement the law. It “provides developers with powerful tools to encourage the development of affordable and senior housing, including up to a 50% increase in project densities for most projects, depending on the amount of affordable housing provided, and an 80% increase in density for projects which are completely affordable.”

“A developer who meets the requirements of the state law is entitled to receive the density bonus and other benefits as a matter of right,” the Guide continues. “Special development bonuses are available for developers of commercial projects who partner with affordable housing developers to provide onsite or offsite affordable housing.”

The developer is currently processing the project application with City staff but did not provide in the Project Description the percentage of units that will be affordable and at what AMI levels.

Scudero was asked questions regarding the Apartments at Lone Tree project. He was first informed of and asked about the discrepancy in unit totals as the Project Description reads, “PROPOSES A TOTAL OF 395 UNITS CONSISTING OF 33 JUNIOR ONE-BEDROOM, 253 ONE-BEDROOMS, AND 109 TWO-BEDROOMS. TOWNHOMES BUILDINGS PROPOSES A TOTAL OF 84 TWO-BEDROOM AND 27 THREE-BEDROOM TOWNHOMES.” But further down in the Unit and Area Summary chart it shows 25 Junior One-Bedroom and 261 One-Bedroom apartments.

Finally, the Project Description reads, “The project sponsor proposes to develop the property per the California state density bonus law (California government code sections 65915-65918). The proposed project can utilize the concessions/Incentives and waivers that are afforded.”

The state Density Bonus Law means a portion of the units will be affordable. Scudero was asked what percentage of the units will be affordable or if those numbers be submitted later.

Scudero responded, “Regarding the Lone Tree project, we have notified the applicant of the inconsistency in the plans and project description as part of our consistency review. Once we receive a revised submittal we will update the plans on the website. The total unit count of 506 units is correct. Regarding the density bonus, you are correct they will be providing affordable units. They have not determined yet what percentage of affordable they will propose to achieve the density bonus. That will come at a later date. 

“Regarding the CIH site at Hillcrest that was approved as part of the original CIH approvals. The ordinance needs a second reading and goes into effect 30 days after that which is why the effective date is later than the original approval date,” he added. 

City Staff Provides Additional Information

Questions were emailed to City staff, Mayor Ron Bernal and Councilmembers Don Freitas and Louie Rocha about the apartment and townhome projects.

Staff were asked if the parcels with projects that do not yet have administrative approval can be rezoned, the CIH overlays be eliminated and the projects be stopped. Principal City Planner Scudero responded, “Given the current complexities in state housing laws, we will need to look further into this question and get back to you.”

Staff were also asked if SB330, the state law that streamlines and limits local regulations on housing developments in California, applies to these projects since they’re apartments and not single-family residences. The townhome projects recently approved by the City Council at Wildflower Station and Slatten Ranch were submitted under the law and the council was required to approve them.

Scudero responded, “Yes, SB330 applies to all housing projects that are consistent with the General Plan and Zoning standards.”

The three council members were asked if they were aware of the CIH apartment projects and, if they can, are they willing to reverse the decision on parcels that don’t yet have a project that’s been administratively approved.

Creating Another Sycamore?

Both the councilmembers and staff were asked if approving 702 apartment units where most of Somersville Towne Center currently exists and must be demolished was going to create another Sycamore area, the City’s neighborhood with the greatest crime problems, with too many multi-family units in one area. They were also asked if some of those units could instead be approved as for sale, owner-occupied condominiums.

Scudero responded, “The decision to make a project for sale versus for rent is up to the developer. They are reviewed against the same objective design standards with the one difference being that a for sale project also requires the processing of a map for subdivision purposes.”

Questions Regarding Delta Fair and 99 Cents/Big Lots Shopping Center Projects

The four were also asked if someone has contacted Gabriel Chew, the owner of the property where the Delta Fair Village is proposed, to reconsider submitting and processing it. They were also asked if Chew owns the 99 Cents/Big Lots property and has there been any contact with him or the owner (if different) about redeveloping it.

Finally, they were asked about Deer Valley Plaza, where the former theaters building is located and is included on the list, but no plans have been submitted for it, yet, if it was purchased and going to be a mosque as has been rumored.

Scudero responded, “The Delta Fair Village property owned by Gabriel Chiu is included in the CIH Overlay district and the site is eligible to be developed under the streamlined CIH approval process. The former 99 Cents/Big Lots/CVS building is actually three separate parcels under separate ownership. A church has recently purchased the former CVS and obtained a use permit to operate there.”

A sign on the side of the former theaters building reads, “Bay Area Pentacostals”.

Bernal Must Check with Staff, City Attorney if Stopping Projects Not Yet Approved Possible

Bernal responded with, “I am aware of the overlays the Council approved in 2022 but do not know if the City can ‘undo’ these overlays and will have to find out from City staff and the City Attorney’s office if this is a possibility. 

“Regarding Mr. Chiu, I have reached out to him but have been unable to arrange a time for us to meet,” the mayor continued. “My understanding is that he still owns shopping centers on Delta Fair Blvd., 18th and A Streets and Deer Valley Plaza. I’m told he sold the theater to a church which I have seen is currently being renovated.”

“I’ve been told the former CVS and 99 Cent stores at the Bank of America Center on Somersville Road have been purchased by La Palabra de Dios Church and are currently being renovated,” Bernal added, reiterating what Scudero shared.

Rocha Open to Reviewing Commercial Properties Not Yet Administratively Approved

In response to the questions posed to him, Rocha said, “I’m aware of the approved projects and in favor of reviewing all projects as we develop our new General Plan with a focus on rezoning of commercial properties that have not received Administrative Approvals.”

“We have learned the limitations to local government control with properties that were rezoned from commercial to residential under new legislation SB 330 that grants high density housing as part of the States response to the housing crisis without local approvals,” he continued. “I am in favor of advocating for mixed housing and commercial projects that support economic development that provides housing, business and local employment.”

Asked if he had nny concerns about too many low-income rental units being concentrated in one area of the city as part of the redevelopment of Somersville Towne Center and possibly creating more future crime problems, Rocha responded, “I’m in favor of mixed development that provides equitable opportunities for all members of our community.

Pressed again if he is concerned about too many low-income rental units being concentrated in one location, the councilman did not respond.

Barbanica Wanted Up-Scale Housing, Ogorchock Knew They Would be Affordable, Neither Were Aware They Only Required Staff Approval

At the time the CIH rezoning was proposed to the city council, Con Johnson was City Manager, Forrest Ebbs was Community Development Director and Kwame Reed was Economic Development Director.

When reached for comment about the matter, former District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica said, “It was never the intent to be affordable, low-income housing. It was to be upscale housing and mixed use. I had several meetings with Forrest about rezoning the properties.”

Asked about her votes on the CIH Overlay Districts for the 10 properties, former District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock said, “Basically, I remember them being infill projects. The one that sticks in my mind was the property behind CVS on Lone Tree Way.”

“I don’t remember them ever allowing them to be administratively approved,” she continued.

“I didn’t meet with Con Johnson because he never had answers and he was going to ask department heads for the answers and then never got back to me,” Ogorchock offered. “He didn’t want us meeting us with department heads without his presence. But I would talk to Forrest.”

“I would have never voted for anything if it was only administratively approved,” she stated. “I believe in the process of the Planning Commission and Council meetings with public input.”

“I do remember them being affordable but, that we couldn’t say ‘no’ to any housing projects because of the new state law. (SB330). I also remember them being mixed use,” Ogorchock added.

Questions for Former Mayor, Current Councilwomen, Torres-Walker Thought She Voted for Mixed-Use

Councilwomen Monica Wilson and Tamisha Torres-Walker, and former Mayor Lamar Thorpe were asked the following questions:

“Were you aware you were giving City staff the authority to approve each project without having to go through the public approval process?”

For the councilwoman they were asked the same questions as the current mayor and councilmen, “Are you willing to either require the five sites that don’t yet have administrative approval to go through the public process, require that they be mixed use instead of just housing or stop and rezone them? They were also asked, “Are you concerned about creating another policing problem area like the Sycamore neighborhood, by concentrating too many rental housing units in the same area at the Somersville Towne Center project?”

Wilson was specifically asked, were you aware of the 2004 effort to stop the apartments from being built on the property where your townhome is located? If so, why would you vote to approve not only an apartment complex there, but one that includes Extremely Low, Very Low and Low-Income units? 

Only Torres-Walker responded with, “I am a supporter of affordable housing projects and I have considered the need for housing projects that include options for individuals that fall under the category of Extremely Low, Very Low and Low-Income.”

“When I voted I was under the impression that we were supporting mixed-use and mixed income projects,” she added.

The District 1 Councilwoman was again asked if she was aware that they had given City staff the authority to approve the projects without holding hearings for public input. But she did not respond prior to publication time.

Lakeview Center, Buchanan Crossing Projects on Feb. 24th Council Meeting Agenda

For the council meeting on Tuesday, February 24, 2026, two of the projects were on the agenda, as Items #5 and #6. They were Appeals of the December 18, 2025 Administrative Decision Regarding Lakeview Center Commercial Infill Housing Application and the November 13, 2025, Administrative Decision Regarding Buchanan Crossing Commercial Infill Housing Application. However, both items were requested to be postponed until the next council meeting on March 10, 2026, for Public Hearings.

Multiple efforts to reach Freitas, Wilson and Thorpe for their responses to the questions were unsuccessful. Please check back later for any updates to this report.