Forced to approve by state law, but without any changes to project since denying it in April

“The City will not have financial or legal obligation regarding the repayment of the debt.” – Planning Manager Zoe Merideth. But City will receive $15K in bond fees.

Freitas again rants against project saying, “It’s ugly.”

By Allen D. Payton

After denying public financing for the Hillcrest Summit Apartments on a 2-2-1 vote in April, the Antioch City Council changed course and voted 5-0 to approve it during their meeting on June 23, 2026. That’s despite the developer not making any changes to address concerns of the council members, including the proximity to the adjacent gas station, convenience store and car wash, as well as the project’s aesthetics. New concerns were shared about traffic impacts and lack of parking, due to new state law because of its location near the BART Station.

The project is one of the 10 Commercial Infill Housing (CIH) Overlay District parcels the council rezoned in 2022 that will allow extremely-low, very-low and low-income apartment complexes throughout the city. (See related articles here and here)

The 165 apartments, complete with 145 parking stalls and site improvements, are planned to be built immediately adjacent to the 76 gas station and 7-Eleven that has a 24-7 carwash on the corner of Hillcrest Avenue and E. Tregallas Road. Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas wanted the project to be redesigned with the apartments located on the other side of the 4.9-acre parcel. Mayor Ron Bernal was concerned about how the four-story apartment buildings would look. But due to the rezoning vote in 2022, the City Council has no say, and all of the CIH projects only require staff-level, administrative approval without any public input. The Hillcrest Summit Apartments project has already been approved by City staff.

The project is proposed to be 100% affordable with the following breakdown of affordability:

No City Financial Obligation

During the brief staff presentation for the agenda item, #4, Planning Manager Zoe Merideth explained, “The City will not have financial or legal obligation regarding the repayment of the debt.” But the Tax Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (“TEFRA”) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 require the Council to hold a public hearing and vote to approve the financing for the project to receive the funds.

“This is a private loan with the borrower and the bank,” Meredith added. “Again, such adoption is solely for the purposes of satisfying TEFRA, Internal Revenue Code and California Government Code.”

According to the City staff report, the tax-exempt revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $50,000,000 to be issued by the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) will be used to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of the project and pay certain expenses incurred in connection with the issuance of the bonds.

Public Comments & Proponents’ Responses

A representative of the developer, Los Angeles-based Cypress Equity Investments, LLC, Garrett Borges, Vice President of Real Estate Development, and Jarod Suzuki, Financial Advisor for the CMFA, the bond issuer, said they were available to answer any questions.

During public comments, with three residents in favor and one against the project, Suzuki responded reiterating, “The City is not party on the transaction. As a part of our policy, we share 25 percent of our fees with the host city. It’s just a CMFA policy. We just give away some of our fees.”

According to the CMFA website, “The CMFA shares 25% of all issuance fees directly with its member communities.  In addition, a grant equal to 25% of the issuance fee is made to the California Foundation for Stronger Communities (‘CFSC’) to fund charities designated by the member communities.”

Borges further explained, “These projects pay all of our impact fees as part of the development for the project…to help with the schools.”

“We hope that us developing this and providing these affordable units for the community is where the police officers and the teachers and those types of folks within the community that need a little help on their housing can come and be a part of the community,” he added. “So, hopefully a benefit to the community rather than a perceived blight.”

Council Questions, Concerns About Traffic Impacts, Lack of Parking Allowed by State Law

Freitas was first to speak saying, “It’s never been, for me, about providing affordable housing or providing this type of housing. But how did we get to this point? The public needs to understand what this project may or may not have.”

Planning Manager Meredith explained the project is one of the CIH sites and it “was administratively approved in the fall of 2025.”

“So, this property is zoned commercial?” the councilman asked.

“It could be either,” Meredith said. The underlying zoning is still commercial, but the CIH Overlay District allows for multi-family housing, she explained.

Freitas then asked about the “money coming back to the City of Antioch” and “the amount that will be.”

Bond-issuer representative Suzuki said, “Right now it’s roughly $15,000.”

Freitas then asked, “Can the City require police services on this parcel?”

Meredith responded, “The developer does pay impact fees and the City has a Community Facilities District for police.”

“Roughly, how much are we talking about? Would it pay for one officer,” Freitas asked.

Assistant City Attorney Kevin Kundinger responded, “I believe the CFD is about $300 per unit paid on a yearly basis.” That would amount to $49,500 per year total.

Freitas then mentioned his concerns that he shared with the developer “six or eight months ago” including the driveway access off Hillcrest Avenue.

“When I looked at this project, the first thing for me was safety,” he stated. “The traffic congestion is a Level F and just like high school, F means failure.”

Meredith pointed out there are two entrances and exits, with the other one on Shaddick Drive off E. Tregallas Road.

Freitas then asked, “Are there 165 parking spaces?”

“This project has 145 parking stalls,” Meredith shared.

“If one or two people have a car, there are not enough parking spaces, here to actually facilitate the people who live here and park there,” Freitas stated, then asked, “So, where are they going to go? They can’t park on Hillcrest. They cannot park on East Tregallas. The only place that they can park is Shaddick. So, what’s going to happen is the overflow cars are going to go into the neighborhoods. We will have residents coming down, screaming at us, ‘what’s wrong with you idiots, why did you ever approve this project? It has ruined our quality of life.’”

He also mentioned St. John’s Lutheran Church, which is across Shaddick Drive from the project saying, “They’re not going to be happy because their parishioners are going to have a difficult time finding parking.”

However, because the complex is located within a mile of a transit station, specifically the BART Station, state law allows for new multi-family housing developments to not include any parking.

Freitas then repeated his concern about the proximity of the project to the neighboring gas station, 7-11 and carwash saying, “The property line is a couple of feet from the commercial area. So, there will be fumes…noise, twenty-four-seven. You think the people living there are going to come to the council and scream at us? Yeah, they will.’ He then mentioned children living there and his concerns about walking into traffic or to the gas station.

“When I met with the representative, I shared these and a lot more issues,” the councilman continued. “Instead of building the project next to the property line, flip it over and there is room. ‘No, no. We don’t want to do that. That would be too expensive.’”

Freitas said he asked the developer about not providing enough parking. “Well, that’s what’s required. That’s what we’re going to do.”

“The area in blue, that is for the children,” he stated. “That little area, right next to cars that are going to be parking in that particular area. As a parent, that would scare me.”

“So, I made lots of recommendations and the expectation that as a good builder, that they would consider some of those suggestions, and they never, ever called me back,” Freitas stated.

“Now, how did we get here? It is state law,” he explained. “And we did create this and it was approved in 2022 (by the previous council) and we are stuck with it.”

“So…in April when the council basically said, ‘no’ to this…we get a letter from the Department of Housing and Community Development from the State of California,” Freitas stated. “Basically, because we’re now dealing with the mandates from the State of California to the local jurisdiction, that you all need to build a lot more affordable housing and if you do not approve this then, guess what? You will be out of compliance in your approved housing element.”

“What impact would that be to the City of Antioch if we did not have an approved housing element?” he asked Planning Manager Meredith.

“You would be subject to the builder’s remedy, for example, which would allow housing to be built anywhere in the city,” she explained. “You could be subject to fines and also increased scrutiny by HCD, for example.”

“I want to make sure you heard that,” Freitas then said to those sitting in the gallery. “A developer could come into the city and build whatever she or he wanted and none of us, here could raise an objection. What kind of projects do you think we’re going to get?”

Freitas then shared concerns about the height of the four-story project saying, “So, here we are at one of the most important entrances to the City of Antioch. You’re going to have a gas station and right behind that… you’re going to have a four-story…structure. It is so ugly. I do not want that monolith, there…and the color scheme is usually brown or a deep, deep grey. It is ugly, it is ugly, it is ugly. It is not something that I would embrace.”

“It’s not just coming before us and asking us to approve this funding,” he continued. “This project should never have been allowed. But it is and the State of California has basically said to us…we don’t care what you like or dislike. If you don’t do it, that shotgun we have at your head, we’ll pull the trigger.”

“So, tonight, frankly, we have no choice,” Freitas stated. “Because the alternative is even worse than this and that’s the tragedy from my perspective. Frankly, there’s ten of these projects, people…and I think it’s disgusting and I think it’s wrong.” (Actually, only five have been so far approved by staff. The council could rezone the other five CIH Overlay District parcels).

“Who am I holding responsible?” the councilman asked. “The State of California.”

District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker, who voted for the overlay districts, spoke next asking, “So, are we voting to avoid a lawsuit? Do we need a motion or what are we doing?”

Freitas responded, “We have no choice.”

District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson, who also voted for the overlay districts, spoke next saying, “I agree whole-heartedly with…Mayor Pro Tem Freitas.” She then asked Acting City Manager Ana Cortez, “Is this even going to fulfill any of our RHNA requirements?”

She was referring to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation which, as previously reported, requires the City of Antioch to approve 3,016 more housing units between 2023 and 2031. They include 792 Very Low Income units (less than 50% of Area Median Income), 456 Low Income (50-80% AMI), 493 Moderate Income (80-120% AMI) and 1,275 Above Moderate Income (greater than 120% AMI) units based on the Area Median Income in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Meredith responded, “Yes. These count towards RHNA.”

Then repeating a question asked during public comments, Wilson asked staff, “Is it going to benefit…Antioch workforce residents…who are struggling, or first come, first served?”

Developer’s representative Borges responded, “We try to give priority where we can to Antioch residents. We’re obviously bound by fair housing laws. Those are very strict as far as how we are allowed to give preference.”

“We were happy and excited to fulfill what we thought was the council wishes to bring affordable housing to this site,” he continued, in response to the concerns raised by Freitas. He also said the City did a traffic study “and one of the ways we mitigate the impacts is paying a traffic impact fee which goes to the City to improve these intersections.” Regarding parking Borges said, “Because of our proximity to BART the State states, actually that we don’t have to have any parking as part of the project. We, as good developers, who will own and operate this, don’t think that that’s prudent or wise. So, we’ve fit as much parking as we could on the site.”

District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha then said, “To clarify, this item is not to approve or deny the project. This is a TEFRA hearing. Should we vote this down…they can also go to the County, I believe, or to the State and get the bonds elsewhere and we would be subject to the consequences you alluded to, earlier,” directing his comments to Freitas.

“So, I’m not crazy about the project for the reasons you stated,” he continued. “But we are here to talk about the bonds being issued, yes or no. Not about whether we are accepting or denying the project. I am in favor of affordable housing because it’s necessary in the community.”

Rocha then made the motion to approve the bonds.

But before a second was entertained, Mayor Ron Bernal asked if “the applicant had addressed the issues” raised at the council meeting in April

“I believe the applicant is willing to work with us on the aesthetics, including the siding, to make it a neutral green, rather than the grey,” Meredith responded. “I have some driveway improvements on Hillcrest, as well.”

Freitas then seconded the motion saying, “I’m going to second because we have to,” and it passed 5-0.

See staff report and project details. See project plans. Watch the Council meeting video of the item beginning at the 2:34:40 mark.

Despite net $7 million in budget savings City still projected to face double digit deficits for following three years; only 70% of Measure W sales tax funds to be spent on police

Will reconsider financing for affordable apartments project

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, the Antioch City Council will vote on the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Budget, reconsider approving financing for the affordable Hillcrest Summit Apartments project and consider approving funding for Homekey+ Project at former Comfort Inn on Mahogany Way. 

Before the regular meeting begins at 7:00 p.m., the Council will hold a Closed Session beginning at 6:00 p.m. to negotiate contracts with City employee groups who have been working without one since last fall. They include the Management Unit, Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, Confidential Unit, Antioch Police Officers Association and Antioch Police Sworn Management Association.

Annual General Fund Budget

According to the City staff report for agenda item 5. “the proposed fiscal year 2026-27 General Fund budget with a deficit of $4,567,879, to be offset by the Budget Stabilization Fund, is presented this evening. Since the budget presentation on June 9th, an additional $209,653 in vacancy and salary adjustments has been built into the draft budget.” To get to that figure the Council and staff worked to make $7,315,199 in “true” adjustments to the budget, according to Finance Director Dawn Merchant and Acting City Manager Ana Cortez.

The fiscal year 2027 budget includes a reduction of three funded staff positions “reflecting the net impact of added and frozen positions.” Sworn police officer staffing remains at 105 positions, while fiscal year 2027-28 projections include reaching a target of 117 sworn by June 30, 2028. However, as of June 10th, according to Chief Joe Vigil, there are currently 85 sworn officers on the Antioch Police force.

No COLAS (Cost of Living Adjustments), other than those previously approved for the Treatment Plan Employee Association bargaining unit, are included in the draft budget.

The proposed budget assumes the current Acting City Manager will remain in place through June 2027, and the Human Resources Manager will be filled by an Analyst, and no Assistant City Manager for six more months.

Budget Savings Highlights

The proposed budget includes the following savings:

City Manager’s Office

• Leave Assistant City Manager position vacant for six months saving $230,000. The position hasn’t been filled since last year.
• Freeze Administrative Analyst in City Manager’s office for $215,284;

Police Department

• Remove 12 Police Trainees for $631,464;
• Cancel Emergency Operations Center Improvements for $480,143;
• Update FY27 Police salaries for staffing/academy changes for $294,773;
• Reduce Police part-time help for $174,666;
• Add 4 months vacancy savings for 1 Police CSO for $55,534;
• Add 4 months vacancy savings for 1 Police Dispatcher for $70,001;

Animal Services

• Freeze 1 Animal Control Officer for $136,584;
• Add 2 months vacancy savings for 1 Animal Control Officer Police for $24,930;
• Reduction to Animal Services vet contracts and supplies of $110,000;

Public Works

• Freeze Assistant City Engineer for $262,295;
• Add 6 mos. vacancy saving Assistant/Junior Engineer for $84,221;
• Freeze Senior Civil Engineer (.25 FTE General Fund) for $47,130;
• Add 4 mos. vacancy savings Operations Supervisor for $22,630;

Community & Economic Development

• Reduction in Economic Development programs/contracts of $255,000;
• Add 6 months vacancy savings Economic Development Program Manager for $104,041;
• Add 4 months vacancy savings Senior Economic Development Program Manager for $86,415
• Freeze 1 Code Enforcement Officer for $181,981;

Recreation Department

• Underfill Recreation Supervisor with Recreation Coordinator for $45,383;
• Freeze Recreation Coordinator for 6 months for $74,402;
• Reduce Recreation part-time help for $88,636;

Finance Department

• Freeze Finance Dep’t. Business License Representative for $153,941;
• Freeze Business License Representative Finance for $153,941;
• Freeze Accounting Specialist II Finance for $166,643;

Other

• Freeze vacant Community Engagement Coordinator in Community Services Dep’t for $197,300;
• Underfill HR Manager with Analyst, freeze Specialist HR for $212,502;
• Add 6 months savings for Public Records Coordinator in City Clerk’s Office for $93,656; and
• Remove General Fund Vehicle Replacement Set-Aside for $1,776,290.

The use of Measure W 1% sales tax funds are proposed at 70% for Police, 15% for Quality of Life and 15% for Youth Services, which is out of compliance with the 80-10-10 split intended by the city council at the time the voters approved the ballot measure in November 2018.

Reserve & Budget Stabilization Funds

The minimum 20% unassigned reserve requirement is met in each fiscal year, although balancing is achieved with use of fund balance and Budget Stabilization Funds. The Budget Stabilization Fund balance is projected to be $36,249,323 at June 30, 2026; $31,681,444 at June 30, 2027; and $26,681,444 at June 30, 2028, based on current projections.

Even with this year’s budget savings, the City is projected to face double-digit deficits for the following three fiscal years. But there will be enough remaining in the Budget Stabilization Fund to cover almost all of them.

See Proposed General Fund Budget agenda Item 5 details.

California Supportive Mahogany Housing Project for Homeless

Under Item 9, the Council will consider approving a one-time capital match contribution of $750,000 for state funding of the Homekey+ California Supportive Housing (CSH) Mahogany Housing Project. It will fund the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Antioch Inn & Suites, formerly known as the Comfort Inn, to convert the existing hotel into approximately 84 to 85 units of permanent supportive housing with supportive services for eligible residents.

According to the City staff report, following Council direction at their meeting on May 22, 2025, the City applied for the Homekey+ funding. “The project application assumes ongoing operating assistance averaging approximately $1.2 million annually during the initial five-year period,” for a total of an additional $6 million. “If such funding levels were maintained over the full fifteen-year period, the total potential City contribution could be approximately $18.75 million, from the General Fund.”

“The City would receive the benefit of approximately $34.9 million in State Homekey+ funding,” awarded in May, 2026, “for acquisition and rehabilitation of the project. The City would assume ongoing administrative, monitoring, and compliance responsibilities associated with participation in the program.”

“While the City was a co-applicant and recipient of the award, the City has not executed the Homekey+ Standard Agreement with HCD and has not formally accepted the grant funds. Because the…Agreement has not been executed, the City currently has no contractual obligation to participate in the project. The City would not assume the reporting, compliance, monitoring, or administrative responsibilities associated with the Homekey+ Program.” However if the Council declines the grant funds, “the City could experience reduced competitiveness for certain future discretionary housing funding opportunities.”

See agenda Item 9 details.

Will Reconsider Financing for Affordable Apartment Complex

As previously reported, after an impassioned effort by Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas, during the Council’s meeting on April 14, 2026, 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 Commercial Infill Housing Overlay District rezoning the parcel and Bernal complained about how the four-story apartment buildings would look.

Freitas mainly opposed the project because of the proximity to the gas station and 24-hour car wash. (See related article)

According to the City staff report for the item, number 4. on the agenda, “Following that failed approval, the Developer and City engaged in discussions regarding the City’s further consideration and the City Council provided direction to staff to bring the item back this evening for consideration.”

However, no changes have been made to the design of the project.

The Council will again conduct a public hearing on financing for the proposed extremely low, very low and low-income housing project, part of the 10 properties the City Council rezoned to a CIH Overlay Districts in 2022. While, as a result, no Planning Commission or Council decisions with public input are required to approve the projects, the public does have the opportunity to provide input on the City assisting with financing. 

Under the Tax Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), the Council is being asked to approve the issuance of one or more series of revenue bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) to provide for the financing or refinancing of the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of the projects.

The bonds, not to exceed $50,000,000, will benefit Hillcrest Antioch LP for the 165-unit multi-family housing project on the 4.9-acre parcel. It is planned for vacant land located behind the 76 Service Station and 7-Eleven bordered by Shaddick Drive, Harris Drive, E. Tregallas Road and Hillcrest Avenue.

The project is planned to be 100% affordable. The affordability of the units will be based on income of the tenants with 17 units at 30% of Area Median Income (AMI), 17 units at 50% AMI and 131 units, including two manager units, will be offered at 60% AMI.

However, the staff report explains that the bonds to be issued by the CMFA for the Project will be the sole responsibility of the Borrower, and the City will have no financial, legal, or moral obligation, liability or responsibility for the Project or the repayment of the bonds for the financing of the Project. All financing documents with respect to the issuance of the bonds will contain clear disclaimers that the bonds are not obligations of the City or the State of California but are to be paid for solely from funds provided by the Borrower.

The Council is again being asked to adopt a resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds by the CMFA without such, the project cannot move forward.

See agenda Item 4 details.

Meeting Details

The beginning of the Closed Session and the regular Council meeting 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 complete agenda packet.

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.

Funds new units across California

By Cameron Niven, Communications Director, Office of Congressman John Garamendi

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, U.S. Representative John Garamendi (D-CA-08) issued the following statement after the Senate passage of the bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, which includes his HOME Investment Partnerships Reauthorization and Improvement Act—a bill to significantly increase the amount of federal funding available for affordable housing across the country:

“Hardworking Californians face a severe shortage of affordable housing options, and minimum wage workers must work an average of 88 hours per week to afford a modest one-bedroom rental at fair market rates. The HOME Act will help change that,” said Representative Garamendi.

“The Senate’s affordable housing legislation includes my HOME Investment Partnerships Program, which, for the first time since 1994, will bring this crucial program into the 21st century,” Garamendi continued. “It will provide states and local governments with the funding needed to construct and rehabilitate affordable rental housing, as well as expand homeownership opportunities for working families. I’d also like to thank Senator Masto for introducing this bill in the Senate and Representative Beatty for co-leading in the House.”

On February 9th, Garamendi voted in favor of the Housing for the 21st Century Act (H.R. 6644), which passed the House with strong bipartisan support. Then, on March 12, the Senate overwhelmingly passed the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. The bipartisan bill combines elements of both the House and Senate-passed legislation. The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act includes 18 sections drawn from both the House and Senate bills, including Garamendi’s HOME Act.

This comprehensive housing package will take important steps to boost the nation’s housing supply, improve affordability, and increase oversight and efficiency of federal regulators and housing programs.

HOME Background

The HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) is the largest federal affordable housing block grant and is HUD’s flagship affordable housing production program.

Since 1990, HOME has helped state and local housing agencies support a wide variety of housing needs, from financing new construction and home repairs to funding down payment and rental assistance. It also provides additional funding to housing developments financed by the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, helping the program serve more extremely low-income people, including seniors, veterans, those experiencing homelessness, and people with disabilities.

Since 1992, the HOME program in California has:

• Invested $5.27 billion into housing across the state;
• Built or preserved 121,727 homes;
• Given rental assistance to 43,840 families;
• Supported 277,318 jobs; and
• Generated $19.2 billion in local income.

The program was last re-authorized in 1994 and needs critical updates to better address today’s housing crisis. Garamendi’s HOME Investment Partnerships Reauthorization and Improvement Act would reauthorize the HOME program and make several much-needed improvements. Specifically, it would:

• Authorize $5 billion in HOME funding for fiscal year 2024 and boost the funding for the program by five percent annually through 2028. Garamendi’s legislation would address chronic underfunding of the affordable housing investment program, which received only $1.5 billion in 2023;
• Improve HOME’s ability to provide downpayment assistance to homebuyers and home repair assistance to homeowners;
• Enable HOME funds to support Community Land Trusts and other shared equity homeownership programs; and
• Increase access to HOME funds for nonprofits and provide state and local governments loan guarantee options that would allow them to leverage their future HOME funds for investments today.

Representative Garamendi has spent his entire career advocating for affordable housing, robust homeowner protections, and rental assistance programs. As California’s first-ever elected Insurance Commissioner, Garamendi successfully implemented Proposition 103, which reformed the homeowner insurance industry and lowered homeownership insurance rates.

In 2023, Garamendi and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) led members of California’s congressional delegation in sending a letter to California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara urging him to use his power under state law to protect homeowners in the face of an insurance crisis. During his congressional tenure, Garamendi worked with Habitat for Humanity to establish a financing mechanism that utilized existing funding to build new veteran housing units.

Garamendi originally introduced the HOME Investment Partnership Reauthorization Act in 2020 and has continued to champion the legislation in Congress. He is also a cosponsor of the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act, which would support the financing of more affordable housing by expanding and strengthening the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit.

The Office of Congressman John Garamendi has also worked with local partners to increase access and support the development of affordable housing projects throughout California’s 8th Congressional District including: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, East Bay Housing Organizations, Tiny Village Spirit, Eden Housing, Multi-Faith ACTION Coalition (MFAC), Hope Solutions, Interfaith Council of Contra Costa, Crankstart Foundation, and the California Association of Housing Authorities.

The bill is endorsed by: Hercules Vice Mayor Alexander Walker-Griffin, Hercules Council Member Dilli Bhattarai, Richmond City Council Member Cesar Zapeda, National Council of State Housing Agencies, Institute of Real Estate Management, National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals, National Association of Realtors, Enterprise Community Partners, National Apartment Association, National Multifamily Housing Council, National NeighborWorks Association, National Community Development Association, National Alliance of Community Economic Development Associations, National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies, Council of State Community Development Agencies, National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development, Local Initiatives Support Corporation, Grounded Solutions Network, and Habitat for Humanity.

Garamendi represents California’s 8th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives which includes the northern and western portions of Contra Costa County and a majority of Solano County.

Will instead include proposed Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in General Plan Update process; could come back in “a year or so”

“We need to take a comprehensive view of how all these things are going to impact our community and to do this piecemeal is wrong.” – Mayor Pro Tem Freitas

“Antioch…is still the most affordable place in the East Bay and if we don’t keep it affordable then it won’t be.” – Councilwoman Torres-Walker

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting Tuesday night, March 10, 2026, the Antioch City Council voted 4-1, with District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker voting against, to postpone a decision on the proposed Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) and include it in the General Plan Update process. Since, according to City staff, that process will take one to three years, it could allow enough time for the remaining proposed, new-home subdivisions in the Sand Creek Focus Area to be approved. That’s the part of Antioch where upscale homes have been planned for more than 30 years to meet the higher-end portion of the city’s housing mix.

It’s also the part of Antioch that Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas said he wants excluded from the ordinance.

The expectations have been the Sand Creek area homes will attract business owners to Antioch to create local jobs and employ residents in the 200-acre East Lone Tree Specific Plan area off Laurel Road near the J.C. Penney store, and allow them to escape the commutes on Highway 4 and Vasco Road. Only four more potential developments on the west side of Deer Valley Road including the Richland Communities-Leung, Zeka Ranch and Oak Hill Park LLC/Richfield-Bridle Hills projects, and one on the east side, referred to as the Chen property, located south of the Kaiser Antioch Medical Center and west of Dozier-Libbey Medical High School, are remaining to be submitted, processed and/or approved.

In addition, two more new single-family housing projects on Somersville Road, known as Rialto Place, and on James Donlon Blvd., known as Sorrento Village, are also in process, and would probably be approved before an ordinance is adopted. That would leave mostly in-fill, single-family housing and multi-family housing projects throughout the city to which an ordinance would apply. Those include five of the 10 Commercial Infill Housing Overlay District affordable apartment projects and multiple other projects, including the currently on-hold Rancho Meadows on the north side of Antioch, that have yet to be built, as well. (See related articles here and here)

Following an hour of the staff presentation and public input, mostly by representatives of out-of-town organizations and a few residents in support, and opposition from one resident, the council then took up the matter for another hour asking questions of staff and the consultant and discussing it before the vote. (See council meeting video beginning at the 5:27:30 mark)

Council Questions, Discussion & Comments

District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha asked if the IHO would apply to developments already approved. Planning Manager Zoe Merideth responded, “This would be for new development moving forward.”

Asked by Mayor Ron Bernal about the point in time when the ordinance would be applicable to a new housing project, she responded, “It would generally be deemed complete also under SB330 if you file a complete preliminary development application, that vests your rights at the time…which are most housing projects at this point.”

Torres-Walker, referring to the comments of local homeless and affordable housing advocate Andrew Becker, was concerned “the ordinance would essentially do nothing based on the developments that are currently in the pipeline.”

“Is it a paperweight?” she asked.

“No,” was the reply from Greg Goodfellow, Associate Principal for PlaceWorks, the consulting firm that helped develop the City’s proposed IHO. “The big picture for me, here is to think of the IHO as one tool in such a large shed of tools for affordable housing.”

“I don’t do things to be symbolic. I want this to mean something,” the councilwoman said.

“My point is it’s not going to do everything,” Goodfellow responded.

Mayor Pro Tem Freitas then asked about the chart staff provided in their presentation showing that “there are only seven cities listed” that have IHO’s and that most had much lower percentages than the 15 percent recommended by staff and 20 percent requested by some members of the public and organization representatives.

“That’s not all of them. Those were just examples,” the consultant stated. “I don’t know the exact number. I’m sorry.”

Freitas then mentioned, “The City would have to hire three to six individuals to oversee this,” and the fact the City is facing deficits this and next year. “Where would we get the money?” he asked. “Would we get it out of the (IHO) Trust? The Trust can’t pay those fees?”

“No,” Goodfellow responded. “This IHO…could be taken care of with the leadership of existing staff.”

Part of the costs of the annual review for the program would be covered by developer fees Merideth explained.

A discussion over adequate staffing for all housing programs in the city ensued.

Freitas then asked about the need outlined on page 8 of the staff report for “additional building height” to accommodate density increases “required to make rental projects feasible” and “potential parking regulation exemptions.”

“What concerns me is engineering says, even if you approve this project, you are at Level F for traffic. That’s gridlock,” the councilman stated. He was referring to, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Level of service for traffic flow, which measures automobile congestion and travel time delay, on a scale of A, which is the best, to F, which is the worst.

“I’m concerned that the qualify of life in Antioch will deteriorate,” Freitas added. “The citizens of Antioch I know, they don’t want to have high-density, three- and four-story buildings. They don’t.”

“Antioch, historically, since I was born here, has always been a haven for affordable housing,” he continued. “Yes, I know it’s screwed up, now. But is it going to help us or hurt us?”

“We are now going to be doing the General Plan, number one,” Freitas stated. “Number two, we do have Senate Bill 300, Senate Bill 330 and now we have a proposal on inclusionary housing. We need to take a comprehensive view of how all these things are going to impact our community and to do this piecemeal is wrong.”

“The reality is, we do have an issue of affordability,” he said. “My feeling is, this is not the place, tonight to make that decision. Our legal requirement is to do the study. We have fulfilled that. But I believe we fold it in to the General Plan review.”

“I want staff to tell me how are we going to oversee this. How are we going to implement this. We have no plan,” Freitas continued. “It’s just a policy, let’s do it, let’s put it in. That’s irresponsible as far as I’m concerned.”

“It’s an amazing study,” he said. “I just think it would be wrong to approve this tonight.”

Freitas Says Ordinance Shouldn’t Apply to Sand Creek Area Developments

“The other problem to me is….quote, unquote, it is citywide,” Freitas said about another of his concerns with the ordinance. “I spent three years of my life doing the last General Plan (which was adopted in 2003 when he previously served as mayor)…and we consciously made a decision that there are parts of our community we don’t want high rises, we don’t want high-density. We want executive housing primarily in the area which was Urban Area number one, the Sand Creek Area. I don’t think this should be applied citywide.”

“We need to make some qualitative judgments and some areas I don’t think it should apply,” he reiterated. “Because I think cities want the whole gamut…from executive housing to absolutely affordable housing.”

“I guess I’m frustrated with this. I think it’s the wrong approach. I think we need to delay this,” Freitas stated.  “I think we need to fold it into the General Plan and do a much better job of how we’re going to pay for this because it’s not here. Reading this report scares me more than anything with how we’re going to financially do it and the exemptions that are being called out.”

“Thank you for letting me rant and rave,” he concluded to laughter from Torres-Walker and others. “I’m OK. I feel good,” he said with a smile on his face.

Torres-Walker States Her Support

The District 1 councilwoman then said, “I support this. I always have. Antioch…is still the most affordable place in the East Bay and if we don’t keep it affordable then it won’t be. I know there is definitely NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard) that exists in the city. I know there are places people do not want this kind of housing and we have to figure things out. I think this is important.”

Then speaking of the staffing issue to support the proposed IHO and City’s other housing programs Torres-Walker concluded, “I don’t think residents who are trying to afford to live in Antioch should have to suffer because we haven’t figured out our institutional challenges.”

Wilson Supports Inclusionary Housing “Whenever” Council Votes

District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson spoke next saying about Torres-Walker’s comments, “a lot of it I agree with.” Then to Freitas she said, “I get your frustration…but on the other hand we need affordable housing. I hear about people who are either couch surfing, living in their homes, living on the street and they have a job. We need to do something. I get we need to have a plan with programs that are going to work, be successful and be maintainable. We need to do something for housing to be affordable.”

“I support this. Regardless, if we vote on it today or whenever, I’m in support of inclusionary housing,” Wilson concluded.

Rocha Supports “the Concept” But Approving it Now Would be “Winging It”

Rocha spoke next saying, “I support the concept all along. But I have more questions and concerns about…how we do it right, how we structure it.”

“So, if we’re going to vote tonight, my answer would be ‘no’,” he stated. “If we’re going to have staff look at it, get some feedback to look at how we can make it feasible, workable for us, with staffing, with all of the questions that have come up, then I can consider that.”

“Looking at this, tonight, I can’t support this vote, tonight based on so many questions and concerns,” Rocha continued. “Otherwise, I think we’re just winging it.”

Freitas then said, “I’m generally supportive, but, you know, we have to do it right. We all support affordability. In my opinion, this is too critical to screw up.”

Staff Says General Plan Update Will Take “Two to Three Years”

Torres-Walker then asked staff, “How long is it going to take to finish the General Plan?”

Interim Community Development and Economic Development Director David Storer responded, “We’re saying anywhere from two to three years depending on the process.”

Bernal Also Supports Including IHO with General Plan Process

Mayor Bernal then weighed in saying, “My biggest concern with this…is the fact that we’ve been thrown for a loop when it comes to the housing legislation that has come out of Sacramento. We’ve only had two projects approved, we have eight or 10 in the pipeline. We have three-story units going up right in the back of residential on Golf Course Road which is going to be a nightmare firestorm.” He was referring to the Joyfield at Lakeview Center Apartments for extremely-low, very-low and low-income residents.

“So, we don’t even know the impacts of current legislation on our city let alone adding one more moving part to it that’s just going to complicate things,” the mayor continued. “The other part of this, and I keep harping on it, is we need to get our budget under control…in order to know where we’re headed as a city, how we’re going to afford to pay for things like extra staffing.”

“The other thing that has always frustrated me is RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) numbers are just dumped on us,” Bernal stated. “We’re going after these arbitrary numbers that a group in the larger Bay Area (speaking of MTC & ABAG) has come up with and I don’t know if that’s what’s best for our community.”

“I know it’s what we’re mandated to do but I don’t know if that’s best for our community. That’s where the General Plan comes in and I think that folding this in with the General Plan process…,” concurring with Freitas. “Because what the General Plan process is going to do is tell us how many units we have left in our 25-year building sphere that we’re going to be building, that then we would know how many units we’re going to get out of this. Right now, there isn’t any certainty of that.”

“My point is I think there are a lot more questions than there are answers,” he continued. “I think there are a lot of moving parts, right now, when it comes to Sacramento, development and how it’s going to impact Antioch with so much vacant land and so much residential opportunity, and I just think this would add one more element of complication to it.”

“So, I’m not going to be supportive of moving it to a date certain…because I don’t see the benefit or the purpose of it,” Bernal concluded.

Housing in Land Use Element of General Plan Update Could Be Done in “a Year or So”

Freitas then confirmed with Storer, that the first of seven issues to be dealt with during the General Plan Update is the Land Use Element, which includes housing policy, and said, “Some of the questions we’re all asking…I think we could move that forward…we could bring back the IHO within a year or so for action.”

Bernal then advocated to “bring it back organically when it’s time.”

Freitas then asked City Manager Bessie Scott, “Does the city manager want to offer any words of wisdom?” to which she simply replied, “Um, no,” to laughter from the council members and those still in the audience as it was after 11:50 p.m.

“That’s called a wise city manager,” Bernal stated in jest.

Freitas then made the motion to move the item off-calendar, “with the understanding that the General Plan will prioritize this entire discussion.” Rocha seconded the motion and it passed 4-1 with Torres-Walker voting “no”.

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.