In a split 3-1-1 vote on Tuesday, the Antioch City council approved the 159-unit housing project by DeNova homes.
The vote came after members of the city council expressed disgust with State Laws – specifically Senate Bill 330 (SB330) which took away local control and ensures developers did not have to work with cities since state law mandates housing projects. In this case, taking commercial property and turning it into residential. This was also the third meeting the council held on the project.
The project is set on 10.35 acres at Hillcrest Avenue and west of Wildflower Station Place which includes 19 townhome buildings totaling 159 residential units. The proposed project would include a total of
2.8 acres of landscaping and open space, consisting of two open play areas and open space for bioretention. Each residential unit would include either a single-care or two-car garage, and the two centrally located play areas would include 25 additional vehicle parking spaces with another 57 surplus shared parking spaces with the adjacent Wildflower Station development. The 159 residential units would consist of a mix of two- and three-bedrooms units, ranging in size from 1,135 to 1,381 square feet.
On Tuesday, Mayor Pro Tem Louie Rocha referenced the Housing Accountability Act which limits a local government to deny, reduce the density of, or make reasonable housing development projects that are consistent with objective development standards.
He added that staff The proposed project is consistent with the City’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element, the
adopted citywide Multi-family Residential Objective Design Standards, and the zoning and development standards for the project site. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Design Review for the proposed project.
“Whether we are crazy about this development or not, the reality is we have to be objective on the decisions we make on development projects. If they meet the zoning regulations in place by the local government level and fall into our general plan and meets all the guidelines and has been received the planning commission recommendation for adoption, I am going to be consistent with that,” stated Rocha noting he would follow SB 330 legislation.
Councilmember Tamisha Torres-Walker said the developer knows they cannot stop this development and cannot off the community anything while noting the importance of mixed use development from an economic development standpoint.
“Instead of getting what I thought was going to be mixed use development that could meet our housing needs as well as drive economic development we got something totally different,” said Torres-Walker. “I think is important to take responsibility for not understanding the full scope of what we were doing at that time and what we expected versus what we have now. Moving forward, because we are finally working on the general plan, that is not as old as me, that we can address some of these zoning issues so we can actually have housing development that actually drives economic development.”
She said she would not vote for or against the project because she is not against development but had other reasons for abstaining from the vote.
Councilmember Don Freitas shared his concerns which date back to the development of the general plan – 25 years ago. He said the main issue was increasing economic development which included a 3-year process of community meetings and community involvement to reflect what the community wants.
“The problem with SB 330 is that it usurps the power of local government, it takes away our discretion,” stated Freitas. “Unfortunately because of the state legislation, in my opinion, we are failing the community because there should not be a development in this particular area. This area that we are talking about was intentionally, deliberately, chosen to help the city of Antioch with sales tax revenue and economic development, but to help all of eastern contra costa county to be a hub for economic development.”
He shared back when this area was planned, it was believed to be a hub to help other communities such as City of Pittsburg, City of Oakley, City of Brentwood and the county to do something jointly.
“I am so offended by SB 330 and I am so offended by DeNova housing,” said Freitas noting they had a lot of public discussion and legitimate issues. “But because they have the law behind them and SB 330 they can ignore us completely. I am voting no on this but I know legally it puts us in a very difficult bind but there has to be some protest and there has to be some protest and there has to be people like myself and others that say yes I understand the law but the law is broken. The law is not helping our economy.”
He said they had a plan to have Slatten Ranch Road go to the BART station along with high density housing and this property would be used for economic development and now that is being taken away – he called the project not in Antioch’s best interest.
Councilmember Monica Wilson shared her frustration as the original project had mixed use with commercial and residential. She said the council’s hands are tied based on state law and DeNova found a “loophole” and Antioch is now going to have to deal with the project.
Meanwhile, Mayor Ron Bernal shared focusing their anger on the developer is the wrong place and this is a properly zoned residential (ABAG, MTC, State) are all pushing these higher housing numbers through mandates.
“We must comply and we got a letter from the Department of Housing and Community Development that was written in such a way to provide the facts if we do not approve this project tonight. They are very clear and we will end up in litigation. That is not a question, that is a fact. We will end up in front of the Attorney General of California and so I do not see this as a battle that I am going to vote for us to fight.”
He continued that noting the loss of local control, but they can fight for it at The League of California Cities and work to maintain local control, but folks like San Francisco have different ideas.
“Unfortunately, what it does is push housing to cities like Antioch so we can provide the workforce that goes into San Francisco,” said Bernal. “I am not happy about it but I don’t see any way around it and something we are going to have to address as a city to figure out the best way to address the fact we have a lot of former commercial property now residential that are going to be coming forward to us with similar type projects that we will find ourselves in the same boat.”
Rocha said to be fiscally responsible, we are opening ourselves up to litigation that will cost the city a great deal of money, which they are already facing a large deficit, and called it a fight they don’t have a chance to win and it’s been made clear and the odds. He wanted to be not only objective, but fiscally responsible versus be the case that will go to trial and pay all the fees.
The council then voted 3-1-1 with Freitas voting no and Torres-Walker abstaining.
Staff Report – click here
Previous
- Sept. 25 – Antioch City Council Punts Both DeNova Homes Projects Until October
- Sept. 22 – Antioch to Talk Pair of Housing Projects, Budget and Police Oversight
