Before deciding to accept or reject State Homekey+ funding

City staff answer councilmembers’ questions; can only use 15% of CDBG funds to cover the up to $1.2 million annual commitment

By Allen D. Payton

As agreed to during their meeting this past Tuesday, June 23, 2026, the Antioch City Council will hold a study session Monday, June 29th, to discuss and get questions answered regarding the State Homekey+ funding for the Mahogany Housing Project at the Antioch Inn & Suites, formerly Comfort Inn. It will help the council members determine whether they will vote to accept or reject the $34.9 million grant at their next regular meeting on July 28th.

The City would have to commit an initial $750,000 already included in next year’s budget, plus, up to an additional $1.2 million per year for the next five for $6.75 million total and as many as 15 years for a total City commitment of $18.75 million. The State and City funds will provide for the acquisition and rehabilitation of the hotel on Mahogany Way, for approximately 84 units of permanent supportive housing.

On average, the state and city funds combined would total $41.75 million or about $500,000 per unit over the first five years and approximately $54.4 million or $640,000 per unit over the full 15-year period.

However, Mayor Pro Tem and District 3 Councilman Don Freitas asked if the other 40 rooms would still be rented for public hotel accommodations. Another question asked by District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha, that City staff did not have an answer for, was what would happen if a future council chooses to not continue the program. Those are just two of the questions the council members want answered before they vote.

As previously reported, 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.”

Staff Answers questions

In the City staff report for the item, SM-1 on the agenda, they answered a variety of the council members’ questions.

HOMEKEY+ AWARD STATUS

The project received a conditional award in March 2026. The Acceptance of Terms was signed by both the City and CSH on March 17, 2026.

The award letter indicates that the representations made in the application are the basis for the award. HCD has been preparing the Standard Agreement, which is the final contract document for the award. The Standard Agreement has not been presented to the City as of the writing of this staff report.

HCD TIMELINES & PROJECT MILESTONES

“One of the primary questions raised by Council was related to timelines required by HCD. To staff’s knowledge, there does not appear to be an immediate concrete deadline.

“However, HCD described a series of project milestones tied to the award letter, Standard Agreement, construction, rehabilitation, and lease-up schedule. The longer the City delays execution and project advancement, the more difficult it becomes for the project to meet the milestones contemplated in the award and the Homekey+ Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). Homekey+ is designed to support the relatively rapid development of permanent supportive housing, and HCD expressed concern regarding the amount of time that has passed since issuance of the March 2026 conditional award.

In simple terms, staff understands the timeline issue as follows:

• The City has received a conditional award.
• The acceptance of award terms was signed.
• HCD is preparing or has prepared the Standard Agreement.
• Project milestones are tied to execution and project delivery.
• Delay does not automatically terminate the award today, but continued delay increases risk to the award and project schedule.

PROJECT CONFIGURATION & UNIT COUNT

“The existing Comfort Inn currently contains 123 hotel rooms. Under the proposed Homekey+ project, the property would be rehabilitated and reconfigured into a total of 85 residential units, consisting of 84 permanent supportive housing units and one on-site manager’s unit. The reduction in the total number of units does not represent unused space or hotel rooms that would continue operating for transient lodging. Rather, the rehabilitation combines multiple existing hotel rooms to create larger, code-compliant residential units while also incorporating the infrastructure necessary for permanent supportive housing, including kitchenettes, accessibility improvements, property management offices, supportive service and case management offices, community gathering space, laundry facilities, recreation areas and other resident amenities.”

PROPERTY STATUS & REPORTED LOAN DEFAULT

The staff report also shares, “Council and members of the public raised concerns regarding news reports that the

property is associated with a loan default. Since the June 23, 2026, City Council meeting, staff has received additional information directly from the lending institution regarding the status of the loan.

“According to the lender, while a Notice of Default has been filed against the property, there is currently no foreclosure or trustee sale scheduled. The lender advised that it is actively working with the property owner to facilitate the sale of the hotel for the Homekey+ project and is aware that the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has awarded funding for the project. The lender further indicated that it will work cooperatively with the borrower, project partners, and the City to facilitate the transaction and is aligned with HCD’s project timeline.”

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES FOR ONGOING HOMELESS SERVICES:

The staff report also offers some other funding sources for homeless services. However, one source can’t be used, and the City can only use 15 percent of its annual Community Development Block Grant funds, which was suggested by District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker.

“During Council discussion, questions were raised regarding whether existing City, State, or Federal funding sources could be used to offset the potential ongoing operating commitment associated with the Homekey+ project. Staff evaluated several potential funding sources and summarized the findings below.

“Staff evaluated several existing funding sources to determine whether they could realistically offset the City’s projected operating commitment. While each funding source could potentially contribute to project operations, each carries statutory limitations or would require significant reductions to existing programs currently serving Antioch residents. Accordingly, none of the identified funding sources currently provides a complete replacement for the projected operating subsidy without corresponding impacts to existing City priorities.”

Housing Successor Funds

“The City currently allocates approximately $500,000 annually in Housing Successor funds toward homeless services, subject to available fund balance…these funds are expected to remain available for approximately two to three additional years.

“Redirecting the entire annual homeless services allocation to support Homekey+ operations would require discontinuing or significantly reducing programs currently serving approximately 2,688 homeless and at-risk Antioch residents through eight community-based organizations. It would also eliminate or significantly reduce funding for tenant-landlord mediation, eviction prevention, emergency rental assistance, legal services for tenants facing eviction, and a City staff position currently dedicated to housing services.”

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)

“Federal regulations limit CDBG public service expenditures to 15 percent of the City’s annual allocation. Based on recent grant awards, this equates to approximately $127,500 annually, although the amount varies each year.

“Using the City’s entire public service allocation for Homekey+ operations would eliminate funding for the City’s competitive public service grant program during that funding cycle, affecting approximately 13 nonprofit organizations currently serving at least 1,655 Antioch residents, including programs supporting seniors, individuals with disabilities, youth, victims of abuse and other vulnerable populations. Additionally, such a change would require a Substantial Amendment to the City’s HUD Consolidated Plan, completion of a federal public participation process, and would not be available until the next funding cycle.

Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA)

“The City receives approximately $350,000 annually through the State’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Program. State requirements dedicate a significant portion of these funds to housing rehabilitation, first-time homebuyer assistance, accessory dwelling units, and administration. Approximately 55 percent of the annual allocation (roughly $190,000 annually) could potentially be directed toward homelessness-related activities through the City’s next five-year PLHA planning process.

“However, redirecting these funds would require reducing or eliminating other housing priorities currently supported through PLHA, including affordable homeownership assistance and housing rehabilitation programs. Any change would require HCD approval and completion of the City’s next required five-year planning process.

“Staff also evaluated whether the HUD Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program could be used to finance ongoing Homekey+ operations. Section 108 is intended to finance capital improvements, including housing acquisition and rehabilitation, public facilities, infrastructure improvements, and economic development projects. It is not an eligible funding source for ongoing supportive services, staffing, case management, or annual operating expenses. As a result, Section 108 could potentially support future capital improvements but cannot be used to fund the City’s proposed operating commitment associated with the Homekey+ project.”

QUESTIONS RAISED BY COUNCIL AND STAFF RESPONSE SUMMARY

1. Is the award final or conditional? Not yet. HCD has issued a conditional award of $34.9 million and the project has advanced beyond the application stage. However, the project is not yet fully finalized because the Standard Agreement has not been fully executed and other program requirements must still be satisfied before grant funds may be disbursed.

2. Has the City already accepted the award? The City previously executed and returned the Conditional Award Acceptance acknowledging the terms and conditions of the award. HCD has confirmed that this document does not, by itself, obligate the City to execute the Standard Agreement or proceed with the project. Execution of the Standard Agreement remains the action that commits the parties to the grant.

3. Does the City have to pay $1.2 million immediately?

No. The operating subsidy is tied to project operations and is not expected to begin until the project is operational, currently anticipated in 2027.

4. What happens if the City declines? If the City elects not to execute the Standard Agreement, HCD would likely rescind the Homekey+ award and the current project would not proceed under this funding allocation. HCD has advised that declining an award could be considered during evaluation of future competitive funding applications; however, any effect on future scoring would depend on the specific funding program and evaluation criteria in place at that time.

5. How does the current loan default affect the project? Based upon discussions between the City’s legal counsel, project representatives, and parties associated with the existing financing, the reported loan default appears to involve the current property owner rather than the Homekey+ project itself. While it may affect the timing or structure of the acquisition, HCD has advised that acquisition through foreclosure, receivership, negotiated purchase, or other lawful means may still be possible. The developer continues to evaluate acquisition options with the lender and trustee.

6. Is this a loan? No. HCD described Homekey+ as a grant program. The City’s obligation is related to its role as co-applicant, payee, and proposed local contributor.

7. Who receives and administers funds? HCD indicated the City is required to be the payee. Specific disbursement controls may be established through escrow or other approved structures.

8. Who gets housed? Residents would be referred to through approved eligibility and referral systems, not through open walk-in access. The final tenant selection and referral process must comply with Homekey+, fair housing, and coordinated entry requirements.

9. Can Antioch residents be prioritized? This requires additional legal and programmatic clarification. County partners have indicated that some projects have used lawful local targeting approaches, but final structure must comply with fair housing and funding requirements.

10. What public safety measures will be in place? The final operations plan should include property management, staffing, service coordination, resident expectations, security protocols, and coordination with APD and County partners.

See additional details and issues in the agenda item SM-1.

Meeting Details

A Closed Session beginning at 6:00 p.m. will be held to again negotiate contracts with City employee groups who have been working without one since last fall including the Management Unit, Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, Confidential Unit, Antioch Police Officers Association and Antioch Police Sworn Management Association. The study session will begin at 6:30 p.m. inside the Council Chambers at City Hall, 200 H Street in Antioch’s historic, downtown Rivertown. It can be viewed livestream on the City’s website or the City’s YouTube channel.

No changes in new leaders elected, countywide ballot measures

But lead change in 14th Assembly District second place for November run-off

By Allen D. Payton

According to the Contra Costa Elections Division, with the seven-day deadline to receive mail-in ballots passed on Tuesday and only 2,100 ballots remaining to be processed and 4,000 ballots to be cured, the results are confirmed as of June 10th at 3:23 p.m.: three new leaders have been elected, three re-elected, one ballot measure passed and two failed.  A total of 323,422 ballots were cast in the county resulting in a 44.21% turnout.

Plus, according to the California Secretary of State as of 7:25 p.m., second place in two of the closest races in the state have been determined, including one lead change since last Friday’s update.

County Leader Elections

In the four contested races for countywide positions no changes occurred. Dr. Dana Eaton defeated Dr. Jag Lathan for Superintendent of Schools; Vince Robb defeated his two opponents, Nick Spinner and Kismat Kathrani, for Assessor; Peter Karumbi defeated Deepika Naharas for Auditor-Controller; and incumbent County Clerk-Recorder-Registrar Kristin Connelly was re-elected having defeated challenger Pratima Sonavne.

Countywide Ballot Measures – A Passes, B & G Fail

In the three countywide ballot measure elections, Measure A, the Urban Limit Line renewal, passed overwhelmingly while Measure B, the County’s sales tax increase and Measure G, the college district’s bond, were defeated.

Measure A increased its margin of victory to 70.2% of the vote in favor to 29.8% opposed.

In the Measure B contest, while more “no” than “yes” votes were counted since last Friday’s update and the margin of defeat increased from 36,562 votes to now 41,093, the percentage of defeat decreased from 57.41% to 56.93% of the vote against. Yet, there are not enough votes remaining to be counted in the county for it to pass.

Although the “yes” votes overtook the “no” votes in the Measure G contest and currently lead by 253 votes, it requires 55% of the vote to pass. There are now 50.03% of the vote in favor to 49.97% opposed. Yet, even if all the remaining 6,100 ballots in the county included favorable votes, the bond measure would still fall about 12,000 votes short of passing.

Lead Change in 14th Assembly District

In the race for second place to determine who will face incumbent Democrat Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks in November in the 14th Assembly District, which includes most of West County and portions of Alameda County, a lead change occurred. Green Party candidate Mark Rendon has overtaken Republican Borgar Solnordal by 1,251 votes, a reversal of 2,201 votes since last Friday’s update and 3,336 votes since Election Night.

10th Congressional District

In the second-place contest to determine who will take on incumbent Democrat Rep. Mark DeSaulnier in November in the 10th Congressional District, which includes most of Contra Costa and portions of Alameda County, Republican Jeff Frese has 3,077 more votes than third-time candidate Katherine Piccinini. He increased his lead by 121 votes since the last update and 233 since Election Night.

The mystery candidate has a website, Facebook page with two followers, X/Twitter feed with zero followers and an Instagram account with one post and one follower as of June 10th. But Frese does not provide a photo of himself or description of what he does for work as a Small Business Owner, which is his ballot designation. Only an email address is provided. An effort to reach him comment about his advancing to the General Election and details about his business were unsuccessful prior to publication time.

Estimated number of unprocessed ballots in Contra Costa County:

Ballots voted at a voting location – 0

Vote-by-mail ballots received on or before Election Day – 0

Vote-by-mail ballots received after Election Day – 0

Provisional ballots – 100

Conditional Voter Registration Provisional ballots – 1,000

Other (In Review, Damaged) – 1,000

Total – 2,100

Ballots Left to Cure – 4,000

Next Results Expected (date and time): Friday, 6/12/2026, 4:00PM

Estimated number of unprocessed ballots in Alameda County:

Ballots voted at a voting location – 0

Vote-by-mail ballots received on or before Election Day – 0

Vote-by-mail ballots received after Election Day – 18,058

Provisional ballots – 233

Conditional Voter Registration Provisional ballots – 1,467

Other (In Review, Damaged) – 293

Total – 20,051

Ballots Left to Cure – 1,600

Next Results Expected: Friday, 6/12/2026, 4:00PM

According to the Secretary of State, “State law requires county elections officials to report final official results to the Secretary of State by July 3, 2026. The Secretary of State has until July 10, 2026, to certify the results of the election.”

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Increases K-12 spending by $2.5 billion

Association of California School Administrators “rejects the Administration’s proposal”

California School Boards Association President, California Teachers Association President not satisfied

By John Fensterwald – This story was originally published by EdSource.org (republished with permission)

Top Takeaways

• The governor included $1.7 billion in his allocation to K-12 and community colleges, but is keeping $3.9 billion until next year.
• Newsom would raise the statutory minimum COLA from 2.87% to 4.31%.
• The revised budget reduces the cost-of-living adjustment for the California State Preschool Program to 2.01% from the January proposal of 2.41%.

With one contentious exception, school districts can check off most items on their wish list for 2026-27 with the release on Thursday of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s revised state budget.

Newsom is proposing to target unexpected billions of dollars from surging state revenues to the priorities that school district leaders had prized, including a higher cost-of-living adjustment, billions of dollars more annually for special education, and a one-time, much larger discretionary block grant.

Also, all employees of community colleges and TK-12 schools will be entitled to up to 14 weeks of paid pregnancy disability leave beginning in 2026-27, which the higher COLA will pay for.

But there remains a major point of contention: Newsom is still withholding $3.9 billion in Proposition 98 funding that school organizations say should go to schools and community colleges now.

School districts had complained loudly that their base funding hadn’t kept up with rising expenses, particularly special education and declining enrollment. Amid overall record state funding, Newsom prioritized new initiatives, including the addition of transitional kindergarten, the creation of community schools and expanded learning after school and during the summer.

“People were looking for base money in their pocket,” said Sen. John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, who chairs the Senate Budget Committee. “The attention to a higher COLA and special education is welcome news.”

Ted Lempert, president of the nonprofit advocacy organization Children Now, said, “Big picture, the May revision puts $8.1 billion more than the January budget into education. While it’s not perfect, we really appreciate it. The governor and Legislature have done a better job in the last couple of years of protecting funding. That said, kids are still way behind.”

Tempering praise for the higher COLA and special education funding, California School Boards Association President Debra Schade said in a statement, “Unfortunately, the Governor’s May Revise masks the underfunding of the Proposition 98 school funding guarantee and the prolific use of one-time money to inflate funding levels in the short term without providing the stability and predictability schools need to plan effectively for student support. “

In his January budget, Newsom said he would withhold $5.6 billion from schools and community colleges until he was certain, early in 2027, that state revenue had actually come through. Schools objected, and the California Teachers Association and the school boards association have threatened to sue on the principle that the Prop. 98 allocations are a voter-approved constitutional guarantee.

In the May revision, Newsom included $1.7 billion in his allocation, but is still keeping $3.9 billion until early next year, when the next governor can reassess. This continues to frustrate school organizations.

“ACSA rejects the Administration’s proposal, as these funds belong in classrooms supporting students,” said Edgar Zazueta, executive director of the Association of California School Administrators. “As budget negotiations move forward, ACSA will continue advocating for a final budget that fully honors the state’s constitutional commitment to public education.” 

CTA President David Goldberg said withholding the funds “causes serious harm to public schools. This means overcrowded, under-resourced, destabilized classrooms.” This week, he said, “more than 2,000 educators will find out if their layoff notice is permanent heading into the next school year … and their future is in jeopardy with threats to withhold vital funds from our local school districts.”  

Asked about the issue during a state budget presentation Thursday, Newsom said education advocates should take a wider view.

“We made some accommodation to that concern, and I would just have them look at the entire balance sheet and be hard-pressed to find an administration over a seven-year period that’s invested more in transforming our TK — a brand new grade — to 12 education system,” Newsom told reporters “(We’ve made) unprecedented, historic investments per pupil, investments that are the envy of many other states.”

The revised funding estimate for Proposition 98, the 40% of the state general fund that must go to TK-12 and community colleges, would be a record $127.1 billion in 2026-27. Per student funding would increase to a record $21,013 per pupil. Funding per pupil from federal and other sources would be $28,282.

That overall revenue estimate, however, would appear at least several billion dollars less than the Senate and the independent Legislative Analyst’s Office had forecast. The May revision marks the starting line for a final dash toward the Legislature’s June 15 deadline, followed by negotiations between Newsom and legislative leaders, with final passage by the July 1 start of the fiscal year.

Laird said that including the withheld $3.9 billion for schools and community colleges will be one of the items. Additional revenue projections, based on May tax receipts, will be a factor.

Here are some budget specifics:

COLA: Newsom would raise the statutory minimum COLA of 2.87%, determined by a federal formula that does not consider the price of housing, to 4.31%. The effect would raise COLA for districts’ operating expenses, through the Local Control Funding Formula, from $3.1 billion proposed in January to $4 billion. Other programs, including special education, would get the statutory COLA of 2.87%

The 4.31% would become the new base for determining COLA calculations in future years.

SPECIAL EDUCATION: State and federal special education fall well short of districts’ obligations for students with disabilities. Additional state funding for special education offsets districts’ base expenses. Newsom would add $1.8 billion to the extra $509 million increase he proposed in January for a total of $2.4 billion — 43% more than a year ago.

Newsom characterized it as “the largest investment in special education in California’s history … maybe in American history.”

“It’s an area that has continued to be anxiety-inducing because you meet with parents, and they’re demanding more, and we’ve heard that call,” he said.

BLOCK GRANT: In January, Newsom proposed a one-time $2.8 billion grant; he has raised it to $5 billion. He calls it the Student Support and Professional Development Block Grant, and implies it should be used for teacher training for math, reading and literacy support for English learners, along with career pathways and expanding dual enrollment. But districts will have wide latitude to spend the money as they choose.

RAINY DAY FUND: Newsom would raise the Proposition 98 reserve to $10.3 billion, approaching the statutory maximum, as a cushion in the event of a recession or if the spigot of projected revenues from tax receipts from AI startups runs dry.

John Affeldt, managing attorney for Public Advocates, a public interest law firm, warned that the state should plan for that to happen. “Our state cannot continue to rely on temporary AI stock market bubbles,” he said. “To build a budget that will enable our residents to thrive, California needs more robust permanent revenue streams to support our schools and healthy communities. We cannot ask teachers to transform students’ lives while those same teachers are being priced out of the communities they serve.”

COMMUNITY SCHOOLS: Newsom would add $1 billion to the $4.1 billion previously invested in creating 2,500 community schools, which provide community partnerships involving wellness, mental health and career opportunities. His May revision would also repurpose nearly $500 million in extension grants to add more community schools.

“We lead and dominate the nation in community schools,” Newsom said Thursday.

LITERACY AND MATH INSTRUCTION: Since 2019, the state has funded $715 million to hire and train reading specialists and coaches in high-poverty schools — a key element in the state’s comprehensive early literacy plan. But that money, in one-time grants, will expire over the next three years. Newsom proposes $440 million to extend the grants through 2031.

He would also add $60 million to the $30 million funded last year for the Mathematics Professional Learning Partnership, which is creating a statewide network to train coaches and math specialists in the 2023 math framework. Still missing: funding for elementary schools to hire coaches.

Newsom is also encouraging districts to use some of the $5 billion in the discretionary block grant for literacy and math instruction. 

Early education and care

In his presentation, the governor largely overlooked early education and child care. The proposal allocates $15 million toward training to help with the implementation of programs such as Transitional Kindergarten and $5 million in ongoing funding to support the use of the Multitudes dyslexia screener at no cost to districts. 

But the revised budget reduces the cost-of-living adjustment for the California State Preschool Program to 2.01% from the January proposal of 2.41%. The governor also did not address calls from early education advocates to help support pre-K programs that have been struggling after losing large numbers of children to the new TK programs offered by the state’s public schools. 

Patricia Lozano, executive director of Early Edge California, a nonprofit organization that advocates for accessible, high-quality early learning, said the reduction to the cost-of-living adjustment sends a troubling signal to providers who are already operating on the margins.

“Access to affordable child care isn’t just an early learning issue, it’s essential to families’ economic well-being,” she said. “The governor has been a strong champion for children during his years in office, and we’ll be urging the Administration and the Legislature to fulfill the promise of funding additional child care slots and restoring COLA before the budget is finalized.”

In particular, the governor’s plan to significantly increase the cost-of-living allowance for TK-12 schools while cutting it for preschools drew fire. 

“He decided to backstop health premiums and local schools, while punting on aiding families who desperately search for affordable child care,” said Bruce Fuller, who co-authored a new report from the UC Berkeley Equity and Excellence in Early Childhood alliance on the dire outlook many pre-K programs are facing. 

Lempert, of Children Now, said he hoped the cuts to the early education COLA would be reversed by the Legislature in the final budget.

the STATE BUDGET PROCESS

Governor’s initial budget proposal:

• Must be released by Jan. 10.
• Assumes an estimate of revenues the state will collect over the next 18 months (by June 30, 2027). Actual revenues often differ significantly due to economic conditions, federal policy and unforeseen events, such as the destructive fires in Los Angeles.

MAY 14 revision:

Governor issues May budget with revised general fund revenues, including its impact on Proposition 98.

LATE MAY to EARLY JUNE:

Legislature’s budget subcommittees report to the full budget committees.

JUNE 15:

Constitutional deadline for the Legislature to pass the budget bill.

MID-JUNE TO LATE JUNE:

Negotiations between the Assembly speaker and the Senate president pro tempore with the governor; the Legislature passes the final budget, and the governor signs it before the fiscal year starts on July 1.

Legislature’s response: 

The Assembly and Senate have until June 15 to hold hearings and respond with their own version.

Negotiation: 

Behind closed doors, legislative leaders and the governor settle differences. Lawmakers sign off, and the governor signs the final version.

Governors have increasingly used the budget to rewrite statutes outside the legislative process. That’s why it’s important to read the fine print in massive “budget trailer bills” written after the budget is passed.

About 40% of the state’s general fund will go to schools and community colleges. The bulk goes to keeping schools running, but in some years, new money is spent on new programs, such as transitional kindergarten and community schools.

Budget summaries

You can find the full budget by areas here.

• TK-12
• Higher Education

Over 16 positions saved at request of three trustees, but no teachers

Board first heard from state’s Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team CEO

By Allen D. Payton

During another long meeting, the Antioch School Board, on Wednesday night, May 13, 2026, on split votes cut the District budget, and laid off 159 employees including 48 teachers and 30 other Certificated staff. Area 3 Trustee Dee Brown voted to abstain on all three votes. But the Board voted unanimously to accept the offer of one-day furloughs by Superintendent Dr. Darnise Williams and administrative staff, including principals. That will save the District about $117,000.

The meeting and votes followed split votes the previous Wednesday when the Board majority opposed the budget and staff cuts. The Board again met at 7:00 p.m. in the Deer Valley High School Theater with the expectation of a greater turnout than the District’s Board Room could accommodate. But that, once again, proved to be unnecessary as very few teachers, staff and members of the public attended the meeting.

The District was facing a $31.5 million budget deficit and the proposed budget cuts totaled $18.7 million. But how much was actually cut wasn’t clear due to the over 16 Classified staff positions that were saved. Also saved, was the District from a potential takeover by the State and County Offices of Education, known as receivership.

The Board faced two deadlines requiring them to vote to make the cuts that night. First, the District had to give final layoff notices to employees by Thursday, May 14th as well as submit their financial plan to the County Office of Education by Friday, May 15th.

The trustees heard from District staff, including Bob Carson, president of the Antioch Education Association, the local teachers’ union, who supported the cuts to avoid the takeover and from residents who opposed them.

Then the Board was provided a presentation Regarding Projected Cash Flow by Mike Fine, the Chief Executive Officer of the California Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team (FCMAT), which, “assists and provides guidance to local educational agencies in the areas of business and financial management practices.” He described his organization as “the guardian of the receivership process” but stressed to the trustees that FCMAT’s efforts were to work with financially challenged districts to avoid it.

“The majority of our work is absolutely avoiding receivership,” he added, which he estimated to be 80% of FCMAT’s work.

Fine also informed the Board and District leadership that the expected May Revised Budget from Governor Newsom on Thursday would change the financial figures being discussed and that it would be positive for the District. That turned out to possibly be true as the governor’s 2026-27 budget proposal increases spending on K-12 by $2.5 billion. (See related article)

Trustee Requests & Board Votes

Following several responses to questions by District staff and requests by individual trustees to save certain jobs, including school psychiatrists and Reading Intervention Teachers by Area 5 Trustee Mary Rocha and Paraeducators by Area 3 Trustee Dee Brown, who was also unsatisfied with requests for information from District staff not being provided, the Board took three split votes.

Area 4 Trustee Olga Cobos-Smith was satisfied that the District didn’t need one psychiatrist per school because best practices only required one for every 500 to 700 students. That was enough for her to change her “no” vote on the budget from last week. After Rocha was satisfied with the explanation from District staff that they had a plan to handle the loss of the Reading Intervention Teachers, she joined the other three trustees in voting in favor of cutting the Classified staff positions.

At 11:34 PM, on a vote of 3-1-1 with Rocha voting “no” and Brown voting to abstain, the Trustees approved the Budget Reduction Plan including the concessions that saved several specific jobs.

The Board the voted 3-1-1, again, on final layoffs of 78 Certificated employees which, were mainly teachers. 

After Rocha was able to get the other board members to agree to saving the jobs of the Behavior Support Specialists (3 FTE), Board Certified Behavior Analyst (1 FTE) and Instructional Assistants – Bilingual (12.4275 FTE), the Trustees voted 4-0-1 on final layoffs of a little over 81 Full-Time Equivalent Classified Services employees. Brown again, voted to abstain.

The Board also voted to accept the superficial gesture of one-day furlough by the superintendent and administrative staff including principals. It means those staff members won’t be paid but also don’t have to show up for work that day. After Rocha asked about increasing it to three days, Dr. Williams said that would have to be taken to the Personnel Commission, first. The motion on the matter then passed 5-0, saving the District approximately $117,437.

The Board’s work on the budget is not over as they still face another deadline in October, Dr. Williams shared. But by then, with additional state funds, assuming the governor’s budget proposals are approved by the legislature, the Antioch trustees job may get easier.

Watch the Board Meeting video on the District’s YouTube Channel.

Governor Newsom announces $111 million in voter-approved Prop 1 funding to communities to get people off the streets and connected to mental health care

To date, Homekey+ has created 50 supportive housing projects with 2,471 affordable homes —including 620 homes for veterans

By Office of the Governor of California

SACRAMENTO – Building on California’s strategies leading to a 9% reduction of unsheltered homelessness last year, Governor Gavin Newsom today announced the award of voter-approved Proposition 1 funding to create another six affordable housing communities including one in Antioch. The communities are part of the state’s Homekey+ program to expand supportive housing and behavioral health services statewide. Today’s announcement creates 307 new permanent supportive homes to provide stability for veterans and other Californians who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness and living with behavioral health challenges.

Last year, the Antioch City Council approved purchase of the hotel, formerly the Comfort Inn, now, the Antioch Inn & Suites, “to serve as permanent housing for homeless families/individuals with prior behavioral health issues” and veterans. But it’s still operating as a hotel. Recently, the Council discussed using the location for the unhoused voucher program and a possible site for a warming center but did not pursue either use.

Our state investments have launched critical programs for local communities to help get vulnerable people off the streets and into housing and care. Together, we’re breaking cycles of homelessness that took decades to create — and we’re doing it with urgency, compassion, and accountability.

Governor Gavin Newsom

Governor Newsom is the first governor to have prioritized new housing, homeless, and mental health programs, and is turning around the impacts of this national crisis on California, leading the first reduction in unsheltered homelessness in more than 15 years. 

More than 1.2 million adults in California live with a serious mental illness, and 1 in 10 residents meet the criteria for a substance use disorder, greatly increasing their odds of experiencing homelessness.

Proposition 1, advanced by the Governor in partnership with the Legislature and approved by voters in 2024, helps local communities provide vital care and housing for these vulnerable residents. Prop 1 is transforming California’s behavioral health systems with a $6.4 billion Behavioral Health Bond for housing, services, and treatment for veterans and people experiencing homelessness, including $2.25 billion through Homekey+ to serve individuals with mental health or substance use challenges and veterans.

“Proposition 1 and Homekey+ funds are supporting communities throughout California by investing in affordable homes with supportive services,” said Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency Secretary Tomiquia Moss. “The homes created through today’s awards will provide stability and dignity to Californians most in need.” 

With today’s awards, Homekey+ has so far allocated $858.8 million to support 50 permanent supportive housing projects that will create 2,471 affordable homes throughout California for individuals experiencing or at risk of homelessness with behavioral health challenges. Of these homes, 620 are reserved for veterans. 

“Each new Homekey+ award means more than housing. It means stability, dignity, and a fresh start for veterans in need,” said CalVet Secretary Lindsey Sin. “With 75 more veterans’ homes in this round, and 620 total veterans’ units across 50 projects, we are seeing the real impact of strong partnerships and a shared commitment to those who served. CalVet is proud to continue working alongside the California Department of Housing and Community Development and local partners to turn these projects into places where veterans can rebuild their lives.”

Approximately $1.033 billion in Proposition 1 bond funds are currently available through Homekey+ to cities, counties, housing authorities, and tribal entities for permanent supportive housing projects serving veterans. Another $1.11 billion is available for projects serving all target populations, through a combination of Proposition 1 bond funds and Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program (HHAP) funds.

In addition to supportive affordable housing through Homekey+ and HHAP, through Proposition 1 bonds, the state is also funding 6,800 residential treatment beds and 26,700 outpatient treatment slots for behavioral health. 

“HCD is working with CalVet to advance California voters’ vision for a state in which people with mental health challenges have the services and support they need to succeed in a life lived off the streets,” said HCD Director Gustavo Velasquez. “We have reached a point where the numbers are reflecting the cumulative impact of our programs, and we look forward to building on those successes under the soon-to-be California Housing and Homeless Agency.”

The Homekey+ awards announced today total $111 million to create 307 homes across six projects, with 75 units for veterans and six manager units:  

• The City of Antioch in partnership with California Supportive Housing, will receive nearly $34.9 million in Homekey+ funds to acquire and rehabilitate a hotel into 85 homes, including one manager’s unit. The project will set aside 21 units for veterans and 21 units for transitional age youth. The development known as CSH Mahogany Housing is conveniently located near two bus stops and a busy commercial area that offers amenities such as a grocery store, pharmacy, restaurants, retail stores, and two major medical centers.  It is located on Mahogany Way near Auto Center Drive, adjacent to Highway 4 across from Lowe’s.
• The City of Cudahy in partnership with National Community Renaissance of California and Prima Development, will receive just under $8 million in Homekey+ funding to fill a financing gap for Amanda Villas. The project will have a total of 140 homes, including two manager’s units. The project dedicates 69 units to individuals experiencing chronic homelessness, 18 of which are designated as Homekey+ units for people facing a behavioral health challenge. In addition to Homekey+ funds, HCD’s Multifamily Finance Super NOFA Program awarded $6.7 million in 2023. Project-based rental subsidies of $33.1 million have been committed by the Los Angeles County Development Authority.
• The County of Fresno, in partnership with UP Holdings California, LLC and RHCB Development LP, will receive just over $27 million in Homekey+ funding for Sendero Commons, a new construction project with 88 homes, including one manager’s unit. The project dedicates 45 units to veterans. HCD’s No Place Like Home program awarded $10 million in 2022. The Homekey+ award will fill the financing gap and replace the need for tax credits.
• The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, in partnership with The RightWay Foundation, will receive more than $12.5 million in Homekey+ funding to acquire two newly constructed buildings with a total of 33 homes, including two manager’s units, to serve youth who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness with a behavioral health challenge. All units include a kitchen and private bathroom
• The City of Los Angeles, in partnership with National Community Renaissance of California, will receive $15.6 million in Homekey+ funding to rehabilitate a motel into Huntington Villas, with 52 homes for individuals experiencing homelessness with a behavioral health challenge and one manager’s unit. The project also has funding and rental subsidy commitments from Los Angeles County.
• The County of Santa Barbara, in partnership with DignityMoves, will receive a Homekey+ award of just over $11.7 million to build the 30-home Calle Real Family Village to serve veterans, youth, and other Californians experiencing or at risk of homelessness, as well as one on-site manager. Nine units are dedicated for veterans, with three of those reserved for veterans aged 18-24. The project will utilize modular units and include indoor and outdoor community spaces. It is located within one-half mile of transportation stops, a medical clinic.

This adds to state investments made by the administration and Legislature since 2019 to help local communities address homelessness, including the launch of the first-in-the-nation Homekey program that has funded nearly 16,000 homes across more than 250 projects that will house an estimated 172,000 Californians over the projects’ lifetimes; $4.95 billion through current and previous rounds of the HHAP Program; $2.2 billion through Homekey+ to serve individuals with mental health or substance use challenges and veterans; $1 billion in Encampment Resolution Funds to provide services and housing to help 23,000 individuals across 120 encampment sites transition from homelessness.

The Homekey+ NOFA allocates funding by region based on a proportionate share of veterans and others experiencing homelessness, and by share of extremely low-income households whose rent is more than half of their income. There are also allocations for rural projects and for projects serving youth experiencing or at risk of homelessness. Homekey+ applications will continue to be reviewed and approved on a rolling basis.  

Reversing a decades-in-the-making crisis 

From the very first moments of the Newsom administration, California has approached the decades-in-the-making housing and homelessness crisis with focus and urgency. No other state has devoted as much time and attention to these twin problems – and California is a leader in producing positive results. Governor Newsom, in partnership with the Legislature, has continued to make progress in reversing decades of inaction, leading to a 9% reduction in unsheltered homelessness, a first in more than 15 years:

Expanding shelter and support — Providing funding and programs for local governments, coupled with strong accountability measures to ensure that each local government is doing its share to build housing, and create shelter and support, so that people living in encampments have a safe place to go. 

Addressing mental health and its impact on homelessness — Ending a long-standing 7,000-bed shortfall in California’s behavioral health system by rapidly expanding community treatment centers and permanent supportive housing units. In 2024, voters approved Governor Newsom’s Proposition 1, which is transforming California’s behavioral health systems. It is estimated that funding from Proposition 1 will create 6,800 residential treatment beds and 26,700 outpatient treatment slots for behavioral health care.

Creating new pathways for those who need the most help — Updating conservatorship laws for the first time in 50 years to include people who are unable to provide for their personal safety or necessary medical care, in addition to food, clothing, or shelter, due to either severe substance use disorder or serious mental health illness. Creating a new CARE court system that creates court-administered plans for up to 24 months to help people struggling with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, often with substance use challenges, get the treatment and housing they need to recover and thrive.

Streamlining and prioritizing building of new housing — Governor Newsom made creating more housing a state priority for the first time in history. He has signed into law groundbreaking reforms to break down systemic barriers that have stood in the way of building the housing Californians need, including broad CEQA reforms. 

Removing dangerous encampments — Governor Newsom has set a strong expectation for all local governments to address encampments in their communities and help connect people with support. In 2024, Governor Newsom filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court defending communities’ authority to clear encampments. After the Supreme Court affirmed local authority, Governor Newsom issued an executive order directing state entities and urging local governments to clear encampments and connect people with support, using a state-tested model that helps ensure encampments are addressed humanely and people are given adequate notice and support. 

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

By Office of the California Governor

Governor Gavin Newsom announced on Friday, March 27 2026, his appointment of two more Superior Court Judges in Contra Costa County, Hanni Fakhoury and Amanda Karl.

Hanni Fakhoury, of Contra Costa County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Contra Costa County Superior Court. Fakhoury has worked as a Partner of Moeel Lah Fakhoury since 2021, where he works in white collar and federal criminal defense as a trial attorney and mediator. He served as an Assistant Federal Public Defender at the Federal Public Defender for Northern District of California from 2015 to 2021. Fakhoury worked as a Staff Attorney and Senior Staff Attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation from 2011 to 2015. He worked as a Trial Attorney at the Federal Defenders of San Diego from 2007 to 2011.

According to his Linkedin profile, “Fakhoury is an accomplished litigator who represents individuals and companies in criminal prosecutions and government and regulatory investigations. He is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and a Northern California Super Lawyer. In addition to litigation, Hanni serves as a mediator in the Northern District of California’s ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) program and is a co-lecturer at UC Berkeley School of Law.

According to his bio on his law firm’s website, Fakhoury is a “Bay Area native” and “proudly serves the Northern District of California as a member of its Criminal Justice Act (CJA) trial panel, representing indigent criminal defendants. He was also selected by the Northern District bench to serve on the court’s Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility, Criminal Rules and Practice Committee, and CJA Administration Committee.”

“A sought-after teacher, Hanni…co-teaches a seminar on white collar crime. He has presented and lectured at over 100 legal conferences to wide audiences, including judges, attorneys and the public at large.”

Fakhoury received a Juris Doctor degree from the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Charles S. Treat. Fakhoury is a Democrat.

Amanda Karl, of Alameda County, has also been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Contra Costa County Superior Court. Karl has worked as a Partner at Gibbs Mura since 2022, where she also worked as an Associate from 2016 to 2021. She served as a Law Clerk at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California from 2015 to 2016 and at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 2014 to 2015.

According to her profile on the Gibbs Mura website, Karl “represents consumers, employees and others who have been harmed by corporations. She has prosecuted a wide range of complex cases, including product defect, failure-to-warn, wage and hour, data breach, sexual assault, and securities cases, within a variety of industries. In 2024 she was honored as a Rising Star by Law360, a highly selective award that recognizes top attorneys under the age of 40.

Karl received a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law as a member of the Order of the Coif, a national honorary scholastic society, which extends invitations to the top 10% of Berkeley Law’s graduating J.D. students by grade point average. . She fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Charles B. Burch.  Karl is a Democrat. 

The annual compensation for each of these positions is $244,727.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

By Matt J. Malone, PIO, Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa

The Contra Costa Superior Court is pleased to announce that Governor Gavin Newsom has appointed Carole Bosch as the Court’s newest judge. She took her oath on March 20, 2026, and began presiding in Department 3 on March 23, 2026.

Since 2021, Judge Bosch, of Alameda County, has served as an administrative law judge with the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board since 2021, an independent administrative judicial agency charged with resolving disputed unemployment, disability, and employment tax determinations from the Employment Development Department. She was Vice President and Training Committee Co-Chair for the Administrative Law Judge Association. Simultaneously, she taught as an adjunct professor of legal writing and research at Golden Gate University.

Before serving as administrative law judge, Judge Bosch worked as a civil trial lawyer, including as a managing attorney at Hildebrand, McLeod and Nelson from 2017 to 2021, a partner at Paul & Hanley from 2007 to 2011, and an attorney at Kazan McClain Satterley & Greenwood from 2013 to 2016, in cases involving complex product liability litigation and catastrophic injury. Bosch also worked as a Partner at Minnard Bosch from 2016 to 2017 and at Farrise Law Firm from 2012 to 2013. Early in her legal career, she was an annual attorney with the California Supreme Court in 2007and worked as a Clerk at Hersh & Hersh from 2005 to 2007.

Judge Bosch is graduate of Golden Gate University School of Law and received her undergraduate degree from the University of California at Santa Cruz. She also holds a master’s degree from the University of Birmingham in Great Britain. Judge Bosch fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Patricia Scanlon. Bosch is a Democrat.

The annual compensation for her position is $244,727.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

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”.