Proposed Vineyard Crossing Preliminary Development Plan. Source: City of Antioch
Vineyard Crossing Preliminary Development Plan includes 71 homes, 70 ADU’s
By Allen D. Payton
During their meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2024, the Antioch City Council will consider a new type of residential development consisting of 71 single-family residences (SFRs) and 70 accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on 71 residential lots. The 14.6-acre project site is located north of Oakley Road and west of Phillips Lane. ADU’s, formerly referred to as “in-law units” or “granny units” have become a significant form of in-fill development in the past two years following approval of new state legislation.
According to Selna Partners law firm, “In 1982, California allowed the construction of ADUs statewide, but gave local governments control over where to locate and how to regulate them. That changed in 2016 when the State Legislature approved bills requiring cities and counties to allow ADUs on most residential lots, preempting local zoning. More than 24,000 ADUs were permitted in 2022, up from 1,000 in 2016. State data indicates that currently 20% of the housing units built annually in California are ADUs, which is the equivalent of 20,000 new homes.”
Furthermore, “in 2022, the Legislature passed yet another round of bills to combat local resistance. The most impactful were those that enabled ‘mandatory’ ADUs: structures that met specific, basic criteria essentially could not be denied by a local government. 2022 bills, AB 2221 and SB 897 resulted in amendments to the California Government Code dictating that an ADU with the following characteristics, must be approved by the local planning and building department(s) with no discretion from a zoning board or planning commission:
A detached structure that does not exceed four-foot side and rear-yard setbacks for a lot with an existing or proposed single-family dwelling.
800 square foot floor area limit.
18-foot height limit, plus two feet for a single family residential zoned parcel to accommodate a roof pitch aligned with the pitch of the existing house.”
Vineyard Crossing home designs. Source: City of Antioch
According to the City staff report on the agenda item #, “The proposed unit mix includes three different SFR floor plans that range in size from 1,492 to 1,697 square feet (sf) and two different ADU floor plans that range in size from 603 to 750 sf. Each SFR included in the proposed project would have an attached two-car garage with a driveway and each ADU would include a driveway for one vehicle parking space.”
Vineyard Crossing site map. Source: City of Antioch
Also according to the City staff report, “The Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) the council will review is a non-entitlement action and does not require environmental review. The future project application review would require compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of a PDP is to gather feedback from the Planning Commission and others in order for the applicant to become aware of concerns and/or issues prior to final development plan and tentative map submittal. As standard practice, preliminary plans are not conditioned; rather a list of needed items, information, and issues to be addressed is compiled for the applicant to address prior to submitting an entitlement application.”
Vineyard Crossing project area map. Source: City of Antioch
The meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers inside City Hall at 200 H Street following a 5:30 p.m. Closed Session on four legal matters. See the complete meeting agenda. The meeting can be viewed online via livestream on the City’s website or on Comcast local cable channel 24 or AT&T U-verse channel 99.
By Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development
From land use and housing to climate change and environmental justice, residents are invited to explore drafts of the General Plan and Climate Action Plan to ensure they reflect the community’s collective aspirations for Contra Costa County’s future.
View the plans and provide comments on the project website at envisioncontracosta2040.org through Jan. 31, 2024.
The Public Review Draft of the Contra Costa County 2045 General Plan is the County’s primary policy tool to guide physical changes in the unincorporated areas over the next 20 years. It serves as the basis for planning- and infrastructure-related decisions made by County staff and decision makers. It is built around the themes of environmental justice, community health, economic development, and sustainability.
“Our General Plan establishes the policies that will move us towards a more equitable, healthier, safer and stronger future,” said John Gioia, Chair of the Board of Supervisors. “Public participation and input is vital in creating sound policy and guiding our public decisions on the issues that impact every facet of our lives.”
The Public Review Draft Climate Action Plan 2024 Update is the County’s strategic plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and to adapt to changing climate conditions, such as extreme heat, flooding, droughts, and wildfires, in the unincorporated areas of the County. The 2024 Climate Action Plan implements the General Plan policy guidance and addresses behaviors, regulations, and investment decisions that directly reduce GHG emissions or promote climate resilience.
Community feedback has been the driving force behind these planning efforts. County staff have held over 130 meetings with community members, advocates, stakeholders, and officials. This collaborative effort, including almost 50 community meetings and over 20 with community-based organizations, has shaped the shared vision for Contra Costa County.
Effort “to bring back a local voice in community planning”co-sponsored by Brentwood Councilwoman
By Daniel Payne, Our Neighborhood Voices
This past week the Our Neighborhood Voices initiative received a title and summary from the office of Attorney General Rob Bonta that is false, misleading and likely to create prejudice against the initiative.
The title and summary provided by Bonta’s office falsely claims that the measure “automatically” overrides the state’s affordable housing laws. It does no such thing. It gives communities the power to shape local growth in a way that better meets affordable housing requirements – and it restores the ability of local communities to negotiate even higher affordable housing rates, which one-size-fits-all laws passed in Sacramento have taken away.
Brentwood District 1 Councilmember Jovita Mendoza is one of the three co-sponsors of the initiative which has been endorsed by the Contra Costa County city councils of Brentwood and Clayton, as well as Oakley Vice Mayor Randy Pope.
In 2021, Bonta’s own office issued a title and summary for the first draft of this initiative that did not include this misleading language. It correctly stated that the Our Neighborhood Voices initiative would return land-use and zoning decisions back to local communities – instead of forcing top-down mandates on cities that damage neighborhoods and only benefit for-profit developers.
In fact, the Our Neighborhood Voices initiative will increase the chances of more affordable housing being built according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. In their report, the LAO states that the initiative “May enable additional flexibility for affordable housing development.” This is exactly the intent of the initiative – to help local cities choose which state housing laws work best for them and modify them in ways that will make them more successful.
The only substantial changes in the new version of the initiative submitted to Bonta’s office this year was the addition of a provision that exempts 100% affordable housing projects at 80% of AMI, and a repeal of Article 34 of the California Constitution that makes it more difficult to create affordable housing.
Yet Bonta’s office still added the argumentative and prejudicial language that the initiative would “automatically override” affordable housing laws.
“Bonta’s claim that our initiative would ‘automatically override’ affordable housing laws is clearly and provably false,” Brentwood City Councilmember and initiative proponent Jovita Mendoza said. “Our initiative would allow cities to choose where and how new housing projects get built, instead of forcing them to comply with blanket mandates from Sacramento that give for-profit developers a blank check to gentrify and destroy our communities.”
The laws that the Attorney General’s office is apparently referring to are not even correctly called “affordable housing” laws. Sacramento politicians have given developers the ability to override local communities and governments to build luxury housing with affordable requirements so low that these new projects contribute to displacement and gentrification.
A law like SB9, which eliminated single family zoning in California, is being challenged in court because it was passed on the premise that it WILL create affordable housing, but clearly will not. “There is nothing in laws like SB9 that would get us anywhere close to the number of new affordable units that the state says we need,” said Kalimah Priforce, an Emeryville City Councilmember and advocate for BIPOC homeownership. “Instead, we will continue to see projects that are largely unaffordable to most working families, communities of color, or other Californians who need housing most. ‘Trickle down housing’ doesn’t work – and we certainly shouldn’t be relying on debunked theories to guide important housing decisions in our state.”
“Without a fair and accurate title and summary, our initiative cannot go forward on the 2024 ballot,” explained Susan Candell, Lafayette City Councilmember and proponent of the Our Neighborhood Voices initiative. “We are weighing our options to sue, although such a delay will run out the clock for an initiative like ours – which relies on volunteer efforts to qualify. But our fight for local democracy will go forward – and we won’t stop until we restore our right to have a say in the future of our own communities.”
“In fact this politicized attack against our initiative is just further evidence that Sacramento will continue to put developer profits over the needs of our communities – unless we stand up and fight back. And while we focus our efforts on seeing that this misleading language is changed, we will continue to grow our grassroots coalition and fight back for our neighborhood voice,” said Redondo Beach City Councilmember and supporter of the initiative Nils Nehrenheim.
Learn more about the Our Neighborhood Voices coalition and how you can get involved at www.OurNeighborhoodVoices.com
Creating the Blueprint is a key step in developing Plan Bay Area 2050+.
Public engagement is a fundamental element of the plan update process.
September 6th workshop in Contra Costa; Deadline for comment: September 7, 2023
The Plan Bay Area 2050+ Blueprint will integrate strategies across the four elements of the plan — the economy, the environment, housing and transportation — to create a more equitable and resilient future for all.
Beginning in summer 2023 and wrapping up in late 2024, staff will develop the Blueprint over two phases: the Draft Blueprint and the Final Blueprint. Given Plan Bay Area 2050’s solid foundation of 35 strategies, the Draft Blueprint phase for Plan Bay Area 2050+ will focus on making targeted refinements to select plan strategies. (See Plan Bay Area 2050 Executive Summary)
Assumptions for the select Blueprint strategies will be refined to reflect ongoing implementation efforts from Plan Bay Area 2050, while also leveraging findings from previous planning efforts that may be relevant to the post-COVID environment.
Equity and performance analyses will also be conducted during the Draft Blueprint phase to evaluate how the plan’s strategies are supporting progress towards making the Bay Area more affordable, connected, diverse, healthy and vibrant for all.
Furthermore, Transit 2050+ — the comprehensive re-thinking of the six transit-related strategies in Plan Bay Area 2050’s transportation element — will develop an integrated regional transit network that will be incorporated into the Final Blueprint.
While still remaining fiscally constrained per federal planning requirements, the focused plan update approach will consider whether to pursue targeted updates to — or to reaffirm — the Regional Growth Forecast (while maintaining its forecast methodology), as well as to the External Forces, the Growth Geographies and the Needs and Revenue Forecasts.
Culminating in late 2024, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) will consider adoption of the Final Blueprint, which will then move forward in the plan update process as the preferred alternative for environmental review.
Photo: Plan Bay Area
Getting Involved
Creating the Blueprint is a key first step toward updating the plan itself, and thus the Blueprint planning phase will require iteration and deep engagement of the public, partners and elected officials.
A first step in developing the Blueprint is to better understand what has changed as the region emerges from the pandemic. This summer, MTC and ABAG staff will be traveling across the region to speak to the community to understand how life has changed for individuals as the Bay Area enters the “new normal.”
MTC and ABAG are taking input from community members and partners to help inform the development of the Draft Blueprint.
You can make your voice heard in a variety of ways! Attend a pop-up workshop near you; participate in our survey; or submit comments via email, telephone or mail.
Find an event near you and join the conversation to help staff better understand how the last three years have impacted life across the Bay Area.
Participate in Our Survey
A first step in updating the plan is to better understand what has changed for you as the region emerges from the pandemic. MTC and ABAG want to learn how the “new normal” may be impacting your life.
The survey also will help inform the development of Transit 2050+, a parallel long-range planning effort that will produce a first-of-its-kind plan to re-envision the future of the public transit network in the nine-county Bay Area, and the expenditure plan for a potential transportation revenue measure. The revenue measure is key in advancing implementation of Plan Bay Area.
Join a Pop-up Workshop
This summer, MTC and ABAG staff will be traveling across the region to speak to the community to understand how life has changed for individuals as the Bay Area emerges from the pandemic. Attend a pop-up workshop near you and tell us what the “new normal” means to you.
Phase Map of The Ranch new home project in the Sand Creek Focus Area. The grey section is Phase I in two parts. Source: Richland Communities
First development in Sand Creek Area project west of Deer Valley Road; will include trails, new fire station, small commercial area
Torres-Walker votes against, she and Wilson want low-income/“inclusionary” housing included in the area long planned for upscale homes
By Allen D. Payton
During Tuesday night’s regular meeting the Antioch City Council voted 4-1 with Mayor Pro Tem Tamisha Torres-Walker voting against, to approve two Vesting Tentative Maps for the 440 homes in The Ranch project’s Phase I in the Sand Creek Focus Area. It’s the first development west of Deer Valley Road in the City’s long-planned and embattled upscale housing area. In addition, the council approved an amendment to the Master Development Plan reserving more space for conservation. (See Item 3 of meeting agenda for staff report and presentation and meeting video beginning at the 3-hour, 12-minute mark)
Location map of The Ranch project. Source: Richland Communities
According to the City staff report, the Small Lot Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map would divide the Phase I area into 440 residential lots, a mixed-use component, a fire station, 6.6 acres of parkland, stormwater detention areas and an internal roadway network. That includes an extension to Sand Creek Road next to the Kaiser Medical Center across Deer Valley Road that will eventually connect to Dallas Ranch Road. The Master Development Plan Amendment modifies the proposed trail systems in order to reserve more space for conservation. The trails will more closely border the development and will include different amenities such as picnic tables and signage.
The 440 homes will be built on including 230 medium density lots with a minimum size of 4,000 square feet and an average of 4,845 s.f. and 210 low density lots with a minimum size of 5,000 s.f. and an average size of 8,140 s.f. Lots that abut the northern boundary next to existing homes will be a minimum of 8,000 s.f.
For the overall project homes will be built on 253.50 acres of the 551.50-acre site and will include a 5-acre Village Center consisting of commercial, office, and retail space, 3 acres of public services facilities, including a new fire station site and a trail staging area, approximately 22.5 acres of public parks and landscaped areas, 229.5 acres of open space including trails and 38 acres of roadway improvements.
History of Sand Creek Area and The Ranch
Planning for housing in that part of the city first began in the 1980’s. Then following the first of four votes in favor of placing the Urban Limit Line on the south side of the city limits, the planning in the 1990’s included a total of over 8,900 homes plus the previously proposed 640 homes at the former Roddy Ranch project. Now, at build out, the Sand Creek Focus Area will include just 4,000 homes. The regional and city infrastructure planned and built included 12,000 homes in the southernmost part of Antioch.
An initiative that had gathered enough signatures to be placed on the ballot which included a development agreement for the 1,177 homes of The Ranch project was approved by the Antioch City Council in 2018. But it was tossed out by a judge the following year. (See related articles here and here)
The Ranch Phase 1 Vesting Tentative Map Lot Area Plan. Source: Richland Communities
Following the presentation of the project by Contract Planner Cindy Gnoss of Raney Planning & Management and Kyle Masters, Land Entitlement Director for the developer, Richland Communities, Allan Moore, an attorney representing neighboring development The Zeka Ranch argued in favor of a connection road through The Ranch property to his client’s property.
“The General Plan shows the road to Zeka Ranch goes through,” he stated. “The Subdivision Map Act requires it.” But Moore pointed out the plan for The Ranch before the council did not include it.
The Ranch Vehicular Circulation map showing dotted line for future, possible connector road to The Zeka Ranch. Source: Richland Communities
Council Discussion & Approval
Following public comments that included opposition and support for the project, during the council members’ discussion of the project, District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica and District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock asked staff about the connector road to The Zeka Ranch.
Gnoss responded that the connector road can be dealt with during The Ranch’s Phase 3 approval process.
Prairie style home concept planned for The Ranch Phase I. Photos: Richland Communities
Torres-Walker said she wanted low-income housing included in the Sand Creek area and was disappointed it wasn’t. District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson, in whose district the project will be built, said she wanted inclusionary housing. “I think when you’re not thoughtful this is what you get,” she stated.
But Mayor Lamar Thorpe reminded the public and his fellow council members that “Kaiser hospital is not fully built out. It’s to be built as a regional…I’m not saying this is right or wrong but part of build out is development.” He also pointed out that “Sand Creek Road is a regional road. It’s supposed to serve Brentwood residents, Oakley residents so they can get to Kaiser hospital. We don’t build roads in Antioch. Development builds roads.”
Craftsman style home concept planned for The Ranch Phase I.
Regarding traffic circulation in response to a complaint by a resident as a reason she opposed the project and a comment by this reporter that plans for the infrastructure in East County and within the city included 12,000 homes in the Sand Creek area, Thorpe said, “Lone Tree Way, how it was thought out, how it’s operating…is literally how it was intended. Out of the blue we didn’t add an extra lane in there. As growth has happened triggers happened. It was all intentional. Luckily, it’s not 8,000 homes that we’re talking about. It’s much, much scaled back.”
Farmhouse and Foursquare style home designs are also proposed for The Ranch Phase I.
In response to Torres-Walker’s concerns that the new homes won’t be affordable, the mayor said, “When you look at the demographics in the 94531 ZIP Code there’s a lot of people there who have advanced degrees. So, it’s living up to the area it was intended to be including…African Americans in that ZIP Code. It’s the largest concentration of Black people in the Bay Area with advanced degrees.”
The council then approved the new homes on 4-1 votes with Torres-Walker voting no.
Following the meeting Masters of Richland Communities shared that construction at the site should begin in about a year. The Ranch includes two more phases which will be brought to the council for adoption in the future.
Background – City Required to Approve New Homes
As previously reported, the City of Antioch, and all cities and counties in the Bay Area, must approve more homes between 2023 and 2031 based on the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Antioch’s share is 3,016 new housing units for various income levels. On 4-1 votes in January 2023, the city council adopted the resolutions and ordinances related to the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update with Barbanica voting against all. The update allocates 792 Very Low-Income Units, 456 Low-Income Units, 493 Moderate-Income Units and 1,275 Above Moderate-Income Units that the council must approve. But more than those amounts are proposed or in the planning process.
RHNA City of Antioch 2023-31 from the Housing Element Update. Source: City of Antioch
Income levels are based on the following: Very Low is <50% of Area Median Income; Low is 50-80% of Area Median Income; Moderate is 80-120% of Area Median Income; and Above Moderate is >120% of Area Median Income. Area Median Income according to Fannie Mae is currently $158,200 per year.
Our Neighborhood Voices, a growing statewide coalition of communities, claims the bill is a permanent extension of SB 35, gives developers unlimited ability to develop nearly anything, anywhere in California
California lawmakers recently introduced legislation that would permanently strip local communities of nearly all important land use decisions. While the legislation – SB 423 – is touted as a tool to solve our affordable housing crisis, local elected leaders say that the legislation undermines local democracy by removing the ability of communities to plan and prepare for what is built in their neighborhoods. It also can accelerate damaging ‘Builders Remedy’ projects across the state that see massive projects built in residential neighborhoods without adequate planning for water, schools, transit, safety fire danger and other priorities.
SB 423 also removes vital protections in our Coastal Zones – something no other housing bill has dared to do. Californians have consistently supported protecting our coasts – this bill removes many of those protections forever.
“I was hoping SB 423 might be a tool to help us solve our affordable housing crisis, but it is not,” said Susan Candell, Lafayette City Councilmember. “Instead, it is the state’s final end game to undermine local democracy in cities and counties, and unleash unlimited development, including the ‘Builders Remedy,’ even in our treasured coastal zones.”
SB 423 can potentially release the ‘Builders Remedy’ where developers can just about build anything, anywhere. SB 423 is a permanent extension of SB 35 – a 2018 law that forces local governments to approve certain developments under a streamlined process if they fail to build, not just approve, but build enough housing to meet their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers. Complex interactions with many other bills lead cities again to be subject to the ‘Builders Remedy’ in 2025 for Southern California and 2027 in Northern California.
The RHNA numbers – which are set every eight years – “laid out impossible goals this cycle,” explains Jovita Mendoza, Brentwood City Councilmember. “Virtually no cities or counties will be able to meet their RHNA numbers. Cities and counties are now set up to fail, and as a result, local governments will lose their ability to have a say about what gets built in our communities. Instead, under SB 423, that approval process will be turned over to developers permanently.”
Coastal zones have been protected from profit-driven overdevelopment since the passage of the California Coastal Act of 1976. This new proposed legislation would virtually undo decades of work to protect California’s coastlines.
“Now local oversight, those who are the stewards of the coastal zone, is removed. Instead, those decisions are handed over to developers and their allies in Sacramento. We all know we need affordable housing in every part of California, but this bill drastically reduces the required affordable units,” said Redondo Beach City Councilmember Nils Nehrenheim.
Our Neighborhood Voices is a non-partisan coalition of residents and elected officials from every corner of California who believe that land use decisions should be determined by local communities and their elected leaders – not one-size-fits-all laws from Sacramento and for-profit developers.
To get these important questions in front of voters, Our Neighborhood Voices is organizing to qualify a citizen-led ballot initiative that would protect the ability of local communities to adopt laws that shape local growth, preserve the character of neighborhoods, and require developers to produce more affordable housing and contribute to the costs associated with it.
The RHNA is a requirement of state housing law and is a process that determines projected and existing housing need for all jurisdictions (city or unincorporated county) in California. The latest plan requires the city to approve a total of 3,016 new housing units in four categories from 2023 to 2031. They include 792 Very Low-Income Units, 456 Low-Income Units, 493 Moderate-Income Units and 1,275 Above Moderate-Income Units. However, the city’s plans already include more than enough of each type of units for a total of 4,881 units of 62% more than required. Those include housing units already approved and in the “pipeline”, projected Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s) which are small housing units on the property of existing residences, sometimes referred to as “in-law units”; pending units and future multi-family development.
City of Antioch 2023-31 RNHA Units – Required & Planned. Source: City of Antioch
“This is a pretty important element of the city. We do this every eight years,” Thorpe explained.
“This is a state required policy, addressing housing, specifically…where we want to see housing,” Planning Manager Ann Hersch said. “There is no development being proposed at this time. This is a change on paper. It’s really policy changes at this time.”
“The first time…it was more equitable in how they dispersed the housing development in the Bay Area,” Thorpe said. “While other cities like San Mateo fought it and got all the businesses, we were stuck with all the housing and the problems. So, this is an important policy that for the first time is equitable throughout the Bay Area.”
“Just because we rezone something it doesn’t mean there’s going to be housing on it,” he continued. “It depends on the property owner. There are certain shopping plazas in Antioch that will be rezoned to accommodate housing. We are changing those rules to accommodate state law. Their process will be more streamlined than others do.”
“Those are the kinds of changes that we may implement, today. Some of it we just can’t get around,” Thorpe added.
Most of the residents who spoke during public comments on the item live in the Viera Avenue neighborhood off E. 18th Street who are concerned about increasing density and adding more housing in their part of town, which has been more rural, and not wanting the nearby vineyards from being developed.
East Lone Tree Specific Plan Employment & Commercial Phase map. Source: City of Antioch
Adopt East Lone Tree Specific Plan Amendments
Formerly known as Future Urban Area #2 or FUA-2 and adopted as the East Lone Tree Specific Plan area by the city council in 1996, consists of approximately 200 acres of land at Laurel Road and Highway 4, set aside for employment and commercial development. It includes the housing on the west side of Highway 4 north of Lone Tree Way and the Slatten Ranch Shopping Center. The council approved amendments to the plan for the employment and commercial phase on the north and east side of the freeway. In that portion of the plan, Slatten Ranch Road will be extended from J.C. Penney and from the Antioch BART Station to Laurel Road. East Lone Tree Specific Plan ACC012423
Council Discussion
Regarding “Community engagement. Did we do enough of it?” Wilson asked.
“We had two public workshops. We also had planning commission meetings and the council meeting in June. We also had an online survey up.,” Hersch responded.
“Did we do these community meetings at different times?” Wilson pressed further.
“Those were both Wednesday evenings. There were also Spanish-language workshops,” Hersch said.
“We have to do better with this outreach,” Wilson said. “If I lived in a neighborhood and I saw my house highlighted I’d be a little freaked out, too.”
“How are we supporting special needs, now and propose supporting them in the future,” Wilson asked.
“Housing is shared between the Community Development Department. But the administration of programs will be handled in the new Public Safety and Community Services Department,” Community Development Director Forrest Ebbs explained.
All Six Resolutions Approved on 4-1 Votes
Ogorchock then moved approval of the six resolutions, and the council voted on each of them separately. They all passed on 4-1 votes with Barbanica voting against.
“The rezoning creates opportunities for residential development,” Ebbs explained about the property in the Viera Avenue neighborhood.
“What’s happening today is because of state law,” Thorpe added.
Following the meeting Barbanica was asked why he voted against each of the housing element update resolutions.
“Overall, this was going to pass, and I assumed that going into this,” he said. “I’m not anti-development. But I’m for smart development. When you take some of these people in the Viera Avenue area who didn’t want to be inside the city. Now, in the next housing update they’re looking at having their property rezoned, and facing potential development around their land, someone needs to listen to these folks.”
