Antioch City Council
January 24, 2023

6. ADEQUATE SITES
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 6-21 TABLE 6-910 REZONING
APN Address Acreage

Current
General Plan
Proposed
General Plan Current Zoning
Current
Maximum

Density
(du/ac)
Proposed
Zoning
Proposed
Max Density
056-120-
096

2721 Empire Ave 3.3
East Lone Tree Focus Area High-Density
Residential P-D -- R-35 35
072-011-
052 3950 Lone Tree Way 4.2 Medium-Density Residential High-Density Residential P-D/S-H -- R-35 35
051-200-
065 3415 Oakley Rd 4
Public/Institutional High-Density
Residential P-D 6 R-35 35
068-091-
043 1018 E 18th St 0.84
Neighborhood Community Commercial High-Density
Residential R-6 -- R-35 35
076-231-
007 1919 Buchanan Rd 1.5 Public/Institutional High-Density Residential P-D 0 R-35 35
065-122-
023 Apollo Ct 1.6
Eastern Waterfront Employment Focus
Area
High-Density
Residential
PBC/
Cannabis Overlay 0 R-35 35
061-122-
029 Apollo Ct 1.7 Eastern Waterfront Employment Focus
Area
High-Density
Residential
PBC/
Cannabis Overlay 0 R-35 35
061-122-
030 Apollo Ct 2.1
Eastern Waterfront Employment Focus
Area
High-Density
Residential
PBC/
Cannabis Overlay 0 R-35 35
061-122-
028 Apollo Ct 0.6
Eastern Waterfront Employment Focus
Area
High-Density
Residential
PBC/ Cannabis
Overlay -- R-35 35
052-370-
009 Hillcrest Ave 2.13 Office High-Density
Residential P-D -- R-35 35
056-120-
098 Empire Ave 6.4 East Lone Tree Focus Area N/A P-D -- R-25 25 B140

6. ADEQUATE SITES
6-22
TABLE 6-910 REZONING
APN Address Acreage

Current
General Plan
Proposed
General Plan Current Zoning
Current
Maximum

Density
(du/ac)
Proposed
Zoning
Proposed
Max Density
051-390-
006,
051-390-
005,
051-390-
004,
051-390-
003,
051-390-
002,
051-390-
001,
051-390-
016, 051-
390-011,
051-390-
010,
051-390-
009
3301-3333 Jessica Ct &
3345 Oakley Rd 2.98

Medium-Density Residential High-Density
Residential P-D -- R-35 35
076-010-
039
Somersville Rd
and Buchanan
Rd

4.77 Western Antioch
Commercial Focus Area
- Regional Commercial
Medium-
Density
Residential
R-20 20 No
change1
No
change
Rezoning of these sites will take place prior to January 31, 2023. 1 This parcel currently has a mismatch between its General Plan designation and zoning. The zoning is not proposed to change but clean up is needed to make the General Plan consistent with the zoning.

Source: City of Antioch, 2022.

B141

6. ADEQUATE SITES
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 6-23 TABLE 6-101 REUSED SITES AND REZONING
APN Address Acreage 2015-2023 Element
2007-2015
Element
2022-2030 Housing
Element
Current
Zoning
Current
Allowed
Density
Proposed
Zoning
Proposed

Allowed
Density
051-200-037 1841 Holub Ln 4.4 Vacant and single-
family residentiala N/A Non-Vacant R-35 35 du/ac -- --
065-110-006 810 Wilbur Ave 3 2.86 Non-Vacant: Single-
family residential Vacant Vacant. R-25 25 du/ac --R-35 35 25du/ac 065-110-007 701 Wilbur Ave 2.5 Non-Vacant: Single-
family residential N/A Non-Vacant. R-25 25 du/ac R-35 35 du/ac 065-262-035 1015 E 18 th St 0.68 Vacant Vacant Vacant. R-20 20 du/ac -- -- 067-103-017 A St 1.77 Vacant Vacant Vacant. C-0 0 du/ac R-20 20 du/ac 068-252-045 2709 Windsor Dr 0 Vacant Vacant Vacant. R-6 6 du/ac R-35 35 du/ac 074-080-026 Delta Fair Blvd &
Belle Dr 12.26 Vacant N/A Non-Vacant. R-35 35 du/ac -- -- 068-251-012 620 E Tregallas Rd 0.86 Non-vacant. Religious institution
Non-vacant.

Church Non-Vacant. Church
R-25 25 du/ac R-35 35 du/ac
Notes: -- = no change; BMR = below market rate
a Included in a consolidated site made up of vacant parcels and non-vacant parcels with single-family residential.

Source: City of Antioch, 2022.

3 During the public review of the dDraft Housing Element, the City of Antioch received a development application on 810 Wilbur Avenue which proposes the development of 74 dwelling units, consistent with the site’es existing zoning designation and relevant sState laws. Accordingly, this site is no longer proposed to be rezoned as part of the housing element. It is still included within the Housing Sites Inventory as a pending project.

B142

6. ADEQUATE SITES
6-24
Per State law, sites that are reused from previous Housing Element(s) must establish a program to rezone these sites to allow residential use by-right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households. However, the program is not necessary if sites are rezoned to a higher density as part of a General Plan update. Since five of the eight sites included within Table 6-101, above, are proposed to be rezoned prior to the beginning of the Planning planning Periodperiod, they are treated as new sites and therefore do not need by-right zoning. Three sites are subject to by-right zoning, as listed in Table 6-112, below. By-right programs are established in Program

54.1.7. Streamlined Approvals of the Housing Element.in Chapter 7, Housing Goals, Policies, and Programs.

TABLE 6-112 BY-RIGHT SITES
APN Address Acreage
2015-2023
Element
2007-2015
Element 2022-2030 Housing Element
051-200-037 1841 Holub Ln 4.4 Vacant and single-
family residentiala N/A Non-Vacant. Proposed for lower- income units.
065-262-035 1015 E 18 th St 0.68 Vacant Vacant
Vacant. Proposed for moderate and
above-moderate units given the
density, but by-right approval will be
required for projects with 20% of
units BMR.
074-080-026 Delta Fair Blvd
& Belle Dr 12.26 Vacant N/A Non-Vacant. Proposed for lower- income units.
a Included in a consolidated site made up of vacant parcels and non-vacant parcels with single-family residential. b Since the adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element, this site was developed with solar panels. Because it is now a non-vacant site that has been repeated in two consecutive elements, it is conservatively assumed to be subject to by-right requirements.

Source: City of Antioch and Urban Planning Partners, 2022.

4.3. NON-VACANT SITES
The degree of a site’s underutilization was a consideration within the site identification process. This was measured using the land to improvement ratio (also called the improvement ratio) from ABAG’s Housing Element Site Selection Tool (HESS). This measurement which was compiled by dividing improvement value by the improvement value added with land value. A lower improvement ratio indicates that a property is underutilized relative to the property’s land values, with values less than 1.0 indicating underutilization and demonstrating potential market interest in future redevelopmentfor further development. All non-vacant sites on in the inventory Housing Sites Inventory have a land to improvement ratio less than 1.0, with values ranging from 0 to 0.95. The improvement ratios of each non- vacant site is are included in the discussion of RHNA sites later in this document.

Less than half of the sites included in the Housing Ssites Iinventory are non-vacant. As shown in Table 6- 123, the majority (53 percent) of the 1,515 166 affordable units (i.e., very low- and low-income units) are accommodated on vacant sites. The non-vacant sites identified in the Housing Sites Iinventory were selected based on environmental constraints and infrastructure capacity, existing land uses, developer/property owner interest, and surrounding land uses. The selected non-vacant sites are underutilized based on the existing site use compared to what is allowed under existing or proposed zoning. Non-vacant sites on the inventoryin the Housing Sites Inventory are typically developed with 1) aging single-family homes, 2) religious institutions that are interested in or attractive candidates to add housing to their properties, or 3) minor improvements such as sheds or billboards that would impose an obstacle to redevelopment. Although Antioch does not have recent experience with housing redevelopment (all the projects on Table 6-67 are on vacant sites), the City has made a diligent effort to ensure that non-vacant sites in the Housing Sites Iinventory have the potential to be redeveloped. The B143

6. ADEQUATE SITES
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 6-25 City and has included programs to assist in the sites’ redevelopment, such as programs to facilitate missing middle housing in the Viera and Trembath clusters and programs to facilitate the development of housing on lots owned by religious institutions.

TABLE 6-123 VACANT AND NON-VACANT SITES BREAKDOWN

On Vacant
Parcels
On
Non-Vacant
Parcels Total
Percentage
Vacant
Percentage
Non-Vacant
Very low-income units 515369 452377 967746 5349% 4751%
Low-income units 291206 257214 548420 5349% 4751%
Moderate-income units 562467 385337 947804 5958% 4142%
Above moderate-income units 1, 156257 957834 2,113091 5560% 4540% Total for Affordable Units 806575 709591 1,5151,166 53% 47% Total for All Units 3,3442,299 2,7601,762 6,0944,061 5557% 4543% Note: Assumes the rezonings shown in Table 6-910. Affordable units include very low- and low-income units.

Source: City of Antioch and Urban Planning Partners, 2022.

5.4. ENVIRONMENTAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS
All sites shown in the Housing Sites Iinventory are infill sites located within urbanized areas of the city and overall, do not have environmental or infrastructure constraints that would preclude future development.

This includes any sites in the Housing Sites Iinventory which are cCity-owned or dedicated to institutional uses.

INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS
The sites either already have infrastructure service or are located close to other properties with existing services. Many sites would require lateral expansions or mainline utility expansions to connect to existing utilities. However, these expansions are a standard and inexpensive component of nearly all housing construction. Capacity issues have not been identified in the locations where lateral expansions or mainline expansion would be required.

As part of the 6th cCycle Housing Element Uupdate process, the cCity commissioned Sherwood Engineers to conduct a wet utility analysis of the city’s water, sewer, and stormwater systems. This analysis is contained within an Infrastructure Report from Sherwood Engineers dated May 2022 which evaluated the city’s wet system utilities against the cCity’s 6th cCycle RHNA obligations. The Infrastructure Report determined that there is sufficient utility capacity to accommodate the City’s RHNA obligations. It was determined that any required infrastructure upgrades or improvements that may be required in specific areas of the city to allow for housing site development would include lateral and mainline extensions which are typical requirements of the development process and provided by developers.

There are two areas of the city where greater infrastructure expansion may be necessary to accommodate future development: sites near the intersection of Deer Valley Road and Lone Tree Way (see sites 116-119 in Figure 6-3) and sites along the eastern edge of the city along Highway State Route 4 (see sites 113-115 in Figure 6-3). There have been sewer deficiencies identified in the area around the Deer Valley Road and Lone Tree Way intersection but analysis from Sherwood Engineers indicates that B144

6. ADEQUATE SITES
6-26
they are still feasible sites. Sites near Highway State Route 4 on the west edge of Antioch would require some utility expansions, including potential pump station or force main requirements. This does not preclude development and the CitycCity has recently received a development inquiry for one of the Highway State Route 4 sites, indicating there is development interest.

Development across the city has demonstrated that infrastructure expansion is not a constraint to development, and iIt is anticipated that even the sites with larger infrastructure expansions would still be feasible given the recent experience of the AMCAL Pproject, and Wildflower Station, and The Ranch, which included the provision of infrastructure such as water lines, sewer lines, drainage facilities, and/or circulation improvements.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
There are various environmental constraints throughout the City of AntiochAntioch which must be considered as part of the analysis of adequate sites to ensure feasibility of housing development.

Environmental constraints which have the ability to influence or impede development in certain parts of the city are described below.

Flood Zones
The city’s location along the San Joaquin River-Sacramento River Delta, as well as its inland creek systems mean portions of the city are located with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zones and may experience seasonal or regular flooding. While some of the sites are near flood zones, no sites themselves are located within a flood zone. Additionally, future development of housing on these adequate sites will be in compliance with Section 6-9, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, of the City’s Municipal Code which requires compliance with the Contra Costa Clean Water Program Stormwater C.3. Guidebook. The City will also continue cooperative flood management planning with Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (CCCFCWCD) to ensure appropriate flood control improvements are implemented citywide to mitigate any additional storm flows created by the development of adequate sites.

Earthquakes
While there are no active fault lines within Antioch, the city’s proximity to various fault lines throughout the larger region leave it vulnerable to dangerous seismic hazards. These hazards may include extreme ground-shaking, soil liquefaction and/or settlement, and subsequent structural damage which poses a hazard to human life. Additionally due to the abundance of earthquake fault lines in the region, a majority of Antioch, as well as the adequate sites, are located within a California Geological Survey (CGS) Liquefaction Zone. During a violent earthquake, these areas are at risk of experiencing liquefaction, a phenomenon where saturated soils take on the characteristic of liquid and no longer can support structures, leading to property damage and potential casualties.

The City of Antioch outlines several actions within its Climate Action and Resilience Plan to mitigate the potential harmful effects of earthquakes which may pose as a constraint to future housing development.

These actions focus on proactive measures the Citycity can take to better prepare for earthquakes and that allow the Citycity to adapt and recover from earthquakes more effectively and with minimized losses.

These measures include building earthquake resiliency into the City’s development code requirements for new developments, retrofitting older structures, and educating the public regarding emergency shelters and evacuation transportation options. These measures are in addition to existing building codes and construction standards established in the California Building Code, the requirements of the City of B145

6. ADEQUATE SITES
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 6-27 Antioch Municipal Code, and City’s General Plan which are intended to increase building resiliency to earthquake hazards.

Other Constraints
Other environmental constraints that have the potential to influence development of housing sitesHousing Sites in general may include hazardous material contamination, dedicated easements, and other encumbrances or title conditions, or the presence of sensitive natural habitats or biological resources. To accommodate the cCity’s RHNA obligations and potential site constraints upon individual hHousing sSite development, the realistic capacity of the Housing sSite Iinventory is calculated using the minimum permitted density threshold allowed by each Housing Ssite’s zoning district. Accordingly, future residential development of Housing Ssites will be able to design around any unique site constraints while still maintaining the development’s ability to accommodate the realistic capacity included in the Housing Sites Iinventory.

6.5. RHNA SITES
As shown in Figure 6-3, the proposed Housing Ssites are evenly distributed throughout the city. This section describes the various pockets of sites Housing Sites that can be categorizes based on their proximity to one another. The descriptions in this section reference below median income neighborhoods and environmental justice (EJ) areas. The relationship of the sites Sites to these and other AFFH factors is described more thoroughly in Chapter 3, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.

B146

6. ADEQUATE SITES
6-28

VIERA SITES

Sites 1-82 (. 82 Total Sites)
The area was annexed into Antioch in 2013 and is currently underutilized in regard s to housing develop- ment. The sHousing Sites in this cluster are proposed to be rezoned to the R-20 district with the understanding that increased density could promote housing development in the area and that larger lots in this area have the capacity to redevelop. Although no affordable housing units are planned for this area, these sites Housing Sites will support the development of missing middle housing sites. The rezoning determination was made in consultation with Mogavero Architects. Given there is no minimum density requirement in the R-20 zone, larger properties could develop with medium-density, multi-family projects up to 20 du/acre while smaller Housing Ssites could utilize the provisions of SB 9 or add ADUs to more modestly increase density. Because Since the R-20 district allows multiple building typologies, property owners will be able to assess the market for what makes the most sense on their property.

As mentioned under Realistic Capacity earlier in this chapter, the Housing Sisites to the south around Bown Avenue and Vine Lane are more densely developed and are assumed to have a realistic capacity of zero. Other Housing Ssites in this area are conservatively assumed to develop with a density of 6 du/ac re, which is equivalent to 30 percent of the allowed density in the R-20 zone.

B147

6. ADEQUATE SITES
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 6-29 Non-Vacant (81 Sites) (1-69, 71-82)
These sHousing Sites are currently residential lots occupied primarily by single-family residences. The Housing Ssites are located north of State Route 4 and east of State Route 160. The Housing Ssites in this area are currently zoned asS: Zoning Study District(S) District, with areas to the west zoned PBC:

Planned Business Center (PBC), M-2 Heavy Industrial (M-2) to the north, PBC: Planned Business Center (PBC) to the east, and P-D: Planned Development (P-D) District to the south.

The Housing Ssites range in size from 0.2 acres to 1.6 acres and the improvement ratios range from 0.13 to 0.89. The few buildings within this area with documented building ages listed with the County Assessor Aerial view of typical non-vacant sites along Viera Ave.

Aerial view of typical non-vacant sites along Viera Ave.

B148

6. ADEQUATE SITES
6-30
list them as being built between 1950-1953. The age of the homes, underutilization of many sites, and access to infrastructure and utilities make these Housing Ssites suitable for redevelopment.

Vacant (1 Site) (70))

Site numberSite 70 is vacant. The
Viera information from earlier is consistent with this Housing Sisite, with the only difference is that this is the only Housing Ssite within this area that is vacant. As a 0.43-acre lot, this site Housing Site is anticipated to develop with two units.

Site 70 / APN: 051-082-010
Site 70 (/ APN: 051-082-010)
B149

6. ADEQUATE SITES
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 6-31 EAST
18TH STREET AREA

Sites 105-110, 125-127, 130-133, 165 (. 14 Total Sites) 18th Street is major road in Antioch located north of State Route 4 and east of State Route 160. The street runs horizontally, from west to east, cutting through low-income neighborhoods and environmental justice (EJ) neighborhoods in the western half. The Housing Ssites in this area are currently zoned P-D, R- B150

6. ADEQUATE SITES
6-32
20, R-35, C-2, and R-6. Areas to the north and south of the street, near the east are largely zoned C-3, PBC, and S: Zoning Study District. As the street progresses west, the area takes on commercial and residential zoning districts such as C-1, C-2, and R-20.

The proposed zoning for these Housing Ssites will primarily be R-20 except for sites Housing Sites farther east that are outside of or on the periphery of the EJ area. The R-20 zoning will promote the development of medium-density units for moderate- and above moderate-income households. Sites 125 and 133 (APNs 065-161-025 and 068-082-057) are both surrounded by single-family homes on most sides and are smaller sitesHousing Sites. For these reasons, a density of 12 du/acre was used to calculate a realistic capacity of 2 units and 6 units for sSites 125 and 133, respectively. All other R-20 sHousing Sites in the East 18th Street Area utilized a density of 20 du/acre to calculate their allowed capacity and a yield of 80 percent of that capacity was conservatively used to calculate the realistic capacity. The Housing Ssites that utilized 20 du/acre for their capacity calculations are typically better-served by transit and services and farther and/or easier to buffer from existing single-family homes than their R-20 townhome counterparts that used 12 du/acre in their calculation.

Non-Vacant (3 Sites) (106, 125, 165)
The non-vacant sites Housing Sites along 18th Street are occupied by single-family residences and a parking lot. The Housing Ssites range in size from 0.3 acres to 4.4 acres.

Site 106, 1841 Holub Ln, was included in the previous housing Housing elementElement. It is currently zoned R-35 and will keep that zoning designation. Its improvement ratio is 0.67. Projects with 20 percent of units designated as below-market-rate would therefore be allowed by-right. The site Housing Site is 4.4 acres and currently developed with a single-family residence, giving it a high degree of underutilization (a minimum of 132 units would apply should the site redevelop).

Site 125 is currently developed with a surface parking lot. This is a smaller 0.31-acre site Housing Site surrounded by a mix of single-family residential and commercial uses . and iIts improvement ratio is 0.56.

Given its size and location, a density of 12 du/ac was used to conservatively calculate up to 2 units on the Housing Ssite.

Site 165 is currently developed with a single-family residence built in 1941 and has an improvement ratio of 0.58. The proposed density of 30-35 du/acre for this 0.84-acre Housing Ssite allows for the development of affordable housing to be more financially feasible. It is in the EJ neighborhood but it is the Housing Site 165 (/ 1018 E 18th Street)
B151

6. ADEQUATE SITES
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 6-33 northwesternmost parcel within the EJ boundaries, indicating it may be impacted less than other EJ sites.

The Housing Ssite is near commercial uses and bus service on East 18 th Street and Hillcrest and abuts a preschool to the south.

Vacant Sites (11 Sites) (105, 107-110, 126-127, 130-133) The 11 vacant Housing Ssites in the East 18th St Area range in size from 0.08 acres to 5.71 acres. The existing zoning for these sites Housing Sites includeincludes P-D, R-35, R-20, and C-2. The surrounding land uses for these vacant sites Housing Sites is consistent with the information for the non-vacant sites Housing Sites above.

From these 11 vacant Housing Ssites, 4 will be capable of supporting affordable housing units. Two of these Housing Sitessites— – sSite 105 (051-200-076) and 109 (051-230-028)— – will be rezoned from P- D to R-35 to accommodate affordable housing. The other two have existing zonings of R-35 and will maintain that zoning.

Site 127, 1015 E 18th Street, currently zoned R-20, was in included in the previous two housing Housing elementsElements. This sHousing Site will keep its R-20 zoning designation and therefore future project on this Housing Ssite with 20 percent of units designated as below-market-rate would be allowed by-right.

Site 105 (/ APN: 051-200-076 1)
B152

6. ADEQUATE SITES
6-34

HILLCREST AVENUE
Sites 111, -112, 153, 156-161, 171 (. 10 Total Sites)
The Housing Ssites in this area are located near Hillcrest Avenue, south of State Route 4 and east of State Route 160. Overall, the area primarily has a residential typology.

B153

6. ADEQUATE SITES
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 6-35 Non-Vacant (4 Sites) (111, 153, 156-157)
The non-vacant sites Housing Sites in the Hillcrest Avenue Area are residential lots each developed with a single-family house. The existing residences were built between 1956-1979 with improvement ratios ranging from 0.28 to 0.8. The sites Housing Sites range in size from 0.9 acres to 5 acres. Two of these Housing sSites, site Site 111 (052-042-044) and site Site 153 (052061053) are zoned P-D, with the remaining two zoned S, (site Site 156 [052-061-014]) and R-6 (site Site 157 [052-042-037]). The area around these sites Housing Sites is primarily zoned P-D with an area north of these sites being zoned HPD: Hillside Planned Development (HPD).

All four of these sites Housing Sites will be rezoned to R-35 placing them at a density this financially feasible for affordable housing. Single-family residences are the main use currently occupying each lot.

Given the age of the homes (approximately 45 to 65 years old) and the degree of underutilization (improvement ratios of 0.8 and lower), the existing uses are not anticipated to prevent redevelopment.

Vacant (6 Sites) (112, 158-161, 171)
Currently all ofall these sHousing Sites, except for 112, are zoned P-D. Site 112 is zoned R-6. Sites 158- 161 will be rezoned R-25 and the others (sites Sites 112 and 171) will be rezoned to R-35. Most of these Housing sites Sites comprise the Wildflower Station project. The City has stated that the developer of the Wildflower project is interested in pursuing residential development, specifically condominiums at densities consistent with the R-25 zoning district, instead of the commercial uses it had previously proposed.

Located near the intersection of three major roads and just south of the Antioch BART Station, these sites Housing Sites have access to ample transportation options. From the six vacant Housing Ssites in this area, two will be eligible for affordable housing given their sizes and allowed densities, Ssite 112 (052-342- 010) and 171 (052-370-009).

Site 153 (/ 4325 Berryessa Court)
B154

6. ADEQUATE SITES
6-36

Site 112 (APN: / 052-342-010)
B155

6. ADEQUATE SITES
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 6-37

TREMBATH
LANE

B156

6. ADEQUATE SITES
6-38
Sites 83-104 (. 22 Total Sites)
These sites Housing Sites are clustered along East 18th Street between Trembath Lane and St Claire Drive. East18th Street is a major road in Antioch located north of State Route 4 and east of State Route 160. The street runs horizontally, from west to east, Trembath Lane and St Claire Drive are not public streets and do not have sewer connections. Lateral expansions are required to provide sewer service to these sites. However, there are no prior capacity issues identified for this area , and , based input from Sherwood Engineers, these sites Housing Sites are considered viable for future housing development.

Non-Vacant (22 Sites) (83-104)
The non-vacant sites Housing Sites along 18th Street west of the Viera area are largely occupied by single- family residences. The Housing Ssites range in size from 0.3 acres to 8 acres and the improvement ratios range from 0 to 0.95. The sites Housing Sites in this area are zoned C-2, R-35, R-6, and S. Areas to the north and south of the street, near the east are largely zoned C-3, PBC, and S : Zoning Study District. As the street progresses west, the area takes on commercial and residential zoning types such as C-1, C-2, and R-20.

The sites Housing Sites are being rezoned to R-20. The sites Housing Sites are underutilized and are primarily developed with single-family residences. Given the infrastructure expansion needed to serve these sites Housing Sites and the allowed density of 20 du/acre, it is anticipated that only moderate- and above-moderate units would develop here.

Site 85 (/ 1710 Trembath Lane)
B157

6. ADEQUATE SITES
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 6-39

Site 85 / 1710 Trembath Lane
B158

6. ADEQUATE SITES
6-40

EAST LONE TREE FOCUS AREA

Sites 113-115, 162 (. 4 Total Sites)
This cluster is located near the southeastern boundary of Antioch. Site 162 in particular is right at the Antioch boundary with Brentwood. This area is not within a below median income or EJ neighborhood.

Non-Vacant (1 Site) (162)
This non-vacant site, 162 (056-120-096), is developed with a residence built in 1976 with an improvement ratio of 0.65. It is currently zoned P-D and will be rezoned to R-35. Currently the site is surrounded by rural land and large retail centers such as JCPenny, Office Depot, and Best Buy. Higher-density housing is proposed here because of the size of the site, surrounding uses, and location in the city. The R-35 zoning district would make the site conducive for affordable housing. This site is neither in a below median income area nor in an EJ area, making it an attractive site to target for affordable housing.

B159

6. ADEQUATE SITES
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 6-41

Vacant (3 Sites) (113-115)
These sites are located just west of State Route 4 in a vacant area with single-family development located roughly 0.5 miles west and south of the sites. These sites range in size 0.5 to 7.2 acres. These sites are in the East Lone Tree Specific Plan Focus Area and are zoned S-P. They will be rezoned to R-35, placing them at a density feasible for affordable units. To upzone these sites, the specific plan will be amended.

Site 162 (/ 2721 Empire Avenue)
B160

6. ADEQUATE SITES
6-42

LONE TREE WAY

Sites 116-119, 139-142, 163 (. 9 Total Sites)
These sites are located south of State Route 4 and just west of Lone Tree Way, a major road that goes north/south through Antioch.

Non-Vacant (2 Sites) (140 & 163)
The area around these two non-vacant sites is primarily single-family residential with Sutter Delta Medical Center nearby.

Site 140 (072-400-039) is located adjacent to the Antioch Municipal Reservoir and is a non-vacant site with a single-family residence built in 1926. This 2-acre site is currently zoned P-D and will be rezoned to R-35. This site is anticipated to accommodate affordable housing. The age of the house and degree of underutilization (improvement ratio of 0.36) make redevelopment more attractive at this location.

Site 163 (072-011-052) is located north of site 140, on Lone Tree Way and is currently being used as a Senior Living Facility built in 1999. This 9.22-site was recently subdivided. The new parcels, which are vacant and total approximately 4.2 acres, can be used for residential development. The site is currently zoned P-D/S-H and will be rezoned to R-35. This site will also accommodate affordable housing.

B161

6. ADEQUATE SITES
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 6-43

Vacant (7 Sites) (116-119, 139-142)
Sites 116-119 are located near the intersection of Deer Valley Rd and Lone Tree Way and sites 139-142 are located slightly more north along Lone Tree Way. All these sites are currently zoned P-D and will all be rezoned to R-35, except for site 119 which will be zoned R-20. A density of 12 du/ac was utilized to calculate the capacity of site 119 given the anticipation of townhome-style development on this parcel given the neighborhood context.

Sites 116-118 are large vacant sites adjacent to a church and Hilltop Christian School.

Site 163 (/ 3950 Lone Tree Way)
B162

6. ADEQUATE SITES
6-44

Site 116 (APN: / 055-071-106)
B163

6. ADEQUATE SITES
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 6-45

HEIDORN RANCH

Site 121 (. 1 Total Site)
Non-Vacant (1 Site) (121)
Site 121 (056-130-011) is located along the southeastern boundary of Antioch on Heidorn Ranch Road, east of State Route 4 and south of Lone Tree Way. This site is currently zoned P-D and has a single-family residence on the property. The improvement ratio of the site is 0.56. The site is approximately 5.05 acres. Areas around the property are primarily agricultural and single-family residential. The site will be rezoned to R-35 and will also accommodate affordable housing units.

Site 121 (/ 5320 Heidorn Ranch Road)
B164

6. ADEQUATE SITES
6-46

A STREET
Sites 122, 128, 129 (. 3 Total Sites)
Non-Vacant (1 Site) (122)
Site 122 (065-071-020) is located at 1205 A Street, north of the State Route 4. This site is 0.3 acres and is located in an EJ and below median income area. It is currently zoned C-0 and is occupied by a building built in 1964 that has been boarded up and appears to be not in use. The building previously burned and has been vacant for a few years. Given the state of the existing structure, it appear ripe for redevelopment, as evident in its improvement ratio of 0.67. Along A Street, adjacent to the property, are commercial uses. To the rear of the property are single-family residential homes. This downtown location will be rezoned to R-20 and will help support the development of housing for moderate- and above moderate-income households. A density of 12 du/ac was used to conservatively assume a capacity of 2 units on the site.

Vacant (3 Sites) (128, 129)
Sites 128 (067-093-022), 129 (067-103-017), are also located along A Street, north of State Route 4.

Similar to the non-vacant sites, these sites are also located within a below median income and EJ area.

B165

6. ADEQUATE SITES
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 6-47 Site 128 is on the corner of A Street and Park Lane. The site is 0.32 acres and surrounded by primarily single-family uses. Adjacent to the site on A Street is Antioch Convalescent Hospital. To the rear of the site are the single-family uses. The site will be rezoned to R-20 and will help support the development of medium-density housing for moderate- and above-moderate income households. A density of 20 du/ac at 80 percent yield would enable 4 units on the site, which is appropriate given its context and location.

Site 129 is located near the corner of A Street and W 16 th. The site is 1.7 acres and is neighboring small commercial business along A St such as a car stereo store, hair salon, shoe store, and a restaurant. To the rear of the site are single-family residential properties. This site was also included in the previous two housing elements. However, because the site is currently zoned C-0, it will be rezoned to R-20 to allow residential uses and would count as a new site. By-right approval will not be applicable to the site if the rezoning is completed before the beginning of the Planning Period, as intended. Given its adjacency to single-family homes, it is anticipated that townhomes could be developed here and a density of 12 du/ac was used to assume the realistic capacity.

Site 122 (/ 1205 A Street)
Site 128 (APN: / 067-093-022)
B166

6. ADEQUATE SITES
6-48

WILBUR AVENUE
Sites 123-124, 167-170 (. 6 Total Sites)
Non-Vacant (1 Site) (124)
Site 124 (065-110-007) is located at 701 Wilbur Avenue. This site is north of the State Route 4 and is within a below median income area. This long site is 2.5 acres, designated for high-density residential in the General Plan, and currently zoned R-25. The site currently has a single-family residence on the property at the north and is being used for storage in the south. It has an improvement ratio of 0.44. To the west side of the lot is a vacant property (site 123) and to the east are single-family residential lots. To the front of the lot, on the opposing side of Wilbur Avenue are Tri Delta Transit offices, along with other M-1 Light Industrial uses (i.e., uses that are not potentially hazardous).

This site was included in the previous housing element and is being rezoned to R-35 to accommodate the development of affordable units. Given that the rezoning is anticipated to be completed by January 2023, the site will not be eligible for by-right approval of projects with 20 percent of their units below-market- rate.

Vacant (5 Sites) (123, 167-170)
Sites 123 (065-110-006), 167 (065-122-023), 168 (061-122-029), 169 (061-122-030), and 170 (061-122- 028) are all located along Wilbur Avenue. These sites are zoned PBC with a Cannabis Overlay, except for Site 123 which is zoned R-25. They range in size from 0.6 to 2.8 acres. Similar to site 124, opposite to these sites, across the street on Wilbur Avenue, there are Light Industrial uses with M-2 Heavy industrial uses appearing as you move eastward. All these vacant sites will be rezoned to R-35 and are anticipated to support the development of affordable housing units.

Site 123, 810 Wilbur Ave, had an entitlement; however, nothing has been built so far. Currently the site is fenced off with some debris on the site but no actual structures. This site, currently zoned R-25, was included in the previous two housing elements. However, the site is anticipated to be rezoned to R-35 by B167

6. ADEQUATE SITES
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 6-49 January 2023, and so the site will not be eligible for by-right approval of projects with 20 percent of their units below-market-rate.

Site 124 (| 701 Wilbur Avenue)
Site 123 (| 810 Wilbur Avenue)
B168

6. ADEQUATE SITES
6-50

TREGALLAS ROAD
All sites in this cluster are vacant with some car storage on the site in the aerial image.

Sites 134-137 (. 4 Total Sites)
Vacant (4 Sites) (134-137)
Sites 134 (068-252-041), 135 (068-252-042), 136 (068-252-043), and 137 (068-252-045) are just south of the State Route 4. The neighboring uses are primarily residential with the State Route 4 across the street from the properties.

These sites are within a below median income area and EJ area. The sites are zoned R-6 and have a large creek setback which constrains the developable area. The City received a previous application for high- density residential on the sites, which had calculated a developable acreage of 1.57 acres across the sites.

This is the acreage used in the realistic capacity calculation for these consolidated sites. These sites will all be rezoned to R-35 and are anticipated to accommodate affordable housing development.

Site 137, 2709 Windsor Dr, was identified in the previous housing element. However, with the anticipated rezoning, the site conditions would be different and by-right approvals would not apply.

B169

6. ADEQUATE SITES
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 6-51

Site 134 (/ 2721 Windsor Drive)
B170

6. ADEQUATE SITES
6-52

CONTRA LOMA BOULEVARD / L STREET

Sites 150-151 (. 2 Total Sites)
Both sites in this area are vacant and described below.

Vacant (2 Sites) (160150-151)
Site 150 (074-343-034) is located at 2100 L Street, north of State Route 4. The site is zoned C-1 and is surrounded by a combination of uses, with R-10 and R-20 zones to the rear, and C-1 and R-6 single-family residential to the front and side. This site located approximately 0.25 miles from Antioch High School and will be rezoned to R-20, which will help support the development of moderate- and above-moderate B171

6. ADEQUATE SITES
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 6-53 income housing. The City anticipates townhome development on this site given its context, and therefore a density of 12 du/ac was used to calculate the realistic capacity Site 151 (075-460-001) is located south of site 154, an existing church, along Contra Loma Boulevard.

This site is located in a below median income area on the corner of Contra Loma Boulevard and James Donlon Boulevard south of State Route 4. The site is zoned C-1 will be rezoned to R-25. It is surrounded by P-D, R-20, and R-4 zoning districts.

Site 150 ( / 2100 L Street)
B172

6. ADEQUATE SITES
6-54

DELTA FAIR BOULEVARD

Sites 143-149 (. 7 Total Sites)
Non-Vacant (2 Sites) (143, 145)
Site 143 (074-080-026) and 145 (074-080-029) are located along the northwestern boundary of the city, near Los Medanos College, just south of State Route 4. The sites are both currently zoned R-35 and will maintain that zoning. Surrounding sites are zoned MCR Service/Regional Commercial, R-35, and R-6.

Currently both sites are developed with a billboard and solar panels and have improvement ratios of 0.0.

Site 143 has Solar Panels occupying roughly 4 acres of the 12-acre site. This site was identified in the previous Housing Element and would be subject to by-right approval for projects with 20 percent of units below-market-rate. Site 145 is approximately 1 acre and has a billboard. These minor uses are not anticipated to dampen the feasibility of housing development and high-density housing could be developed while retaining the existing uses given the size of the sites and extent of the existing development. Both of these sites are publicly-owned, site 143 by the Fire Department and site 145 by the City. Sites currently under public ownership are not know to be encumbered by any potential constraints to redevelopment.

Thus, bBoth sites can support affordable housing units. Even though site 145 is larger than 10 acres, given the City’s history with developers such as AMCAL, affordable housing is feasible.

Vacant (5 Sites) (144, 146-149)
These sites are all located near the northwestern boundary of the city, south of State Route 4 and west of Somersville Road. Site 144 (074-080-028) is 0.49 acres and site 146 (074-080-030) is 5.5 acres. Both are B173

6. ADEQUATE SITES
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 6-55 currently zoned R-35 with an emergency shelter overlay and will keep that zoning designation. These sites are surrounded by MCR Service/Regional Commercial and R-35 zones. Both sites are owned by the City.

Sites 147 (074-122-016), 148 (074-123-004), 149 (074-123-005) are all located within the Western Antioch Commercial Focus Area and are zoned C-3. Sites 148 and 149 will be rezoned to R-35 and will support the development of affordable housing. Site 147 on Delta Fair Boulevard will be rezoned to R-20; given its shape and dimensions, it was not considered feasible for development with affordable, multi- family units. Given its context neat a bus stop and with a creek providing a natural buffer to the adjacent single-family homes, a density of 20 du/ac (with an 80 yield) was used to calculate the realistic capacity of this site.

Site 143 (APN: | 074-080-026) and & Site 146 (APN: | 074-080-030) B174

6. ADEQUATE SITES
6-56

BUCHANAN ROAD
Sites 152 (. 1 Total Site)
Vacant (1 Site) (152)
Site 152 (076-010-039) is located near the corner of Somersville Rd and Buchanan Rd, south of State Route 4. This site is located within a below median income area and is approximately 4.7 acres. Site clean- up has occurred at and around the site and it was determined that a neighboring parcel was not suitable for residential uses due to contamination. However, site 152 is suitable for residential development and development would comply with all State and regional standards and codes to ensure the safety of future residents.

The surrounding parcels are zoned R-20 to the west, R-10 to the south and west, and C-3 to the north.

The site is near existing mobile homes and duplexes. The site is zoned R-20 and will keep this zoning designation. The City has been approached about residential development on the site even though the General Plan designation for the site is currently Commercial. Given the adjacent multi-family housing and ability to provide bulk and mass reductions given the site’s size and dimensions, a density of 20 du/ac (with an 80 yield) was utilized to calculate a realistic capacity of 76 units on this site.

Site 152 (APN: | 076-010-039)
B175

6. ADEQUATE SITES
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 6-57

JESSICA COURT
Sites 164, 172-182 (. 11 Total Sites)
This area is along the eastern boundary of the city, near State Route 160, and is within a neighborhood below the median income. These sites are currently zoned P-D and were subdivided and previously planned for a community of single-family homes that never got built. The area that was anticipated for the roundabout is included as a site. This area is under one ownership and treated as one consolidated, 2.98- acre site for the purposes of calculating realistic capacity. All sites would be rezoned to R-35 and would support the development of affordable housing.

Non-Vacant (1 Site) (177)
Site 177 (051-390-001) is located at 3321 Jessica Court and is currently developed with an unidentified building on the property, likely a shed. The existing structure/shed is not anticipated to dampen the feasibility of redevelopment given its size and value, as exemplified by its improvement ratio of 0.02 Vacant (10 Sites) (172-182)
Sites 172-182 are currently vacant and range in size from 0.1 to 2.9 acres. These sites, including site 182, which refers to the land previously identified to build a driveway and roundabout, will be rezoned to R-35 and will support the development of affordable housing similar to the non-vacant Jessica court sites.

B176

6. ADEQUATE SITES
6-58

Jessica Court Area
B177

6. ADEQUATE SITES
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 6-59

PLACES OF WORSHIP
Sites 120, 138, 154, 155, 164, 166
. (6 Total Sites)
Sites 120, 138, 154, 155, 164, and 166
of the site inventories are non-vacant
sites, presently developed with
churches and other places of worship.

The City cCity has received interest
from these churches that would like
to add infill housing units to their
properties. All sites in this section
include vacant or underutilized
portions of the property and
accordingly the realistic capacity
calculations have been applied only to
these vacant developable areas and
not the existing churches. Given that
housing would be added in addition to
the existing uses, the existing uses are
not anticipated to impede the
development of housing.

Accordingly, the cCity and has included a pProgram 2.1.7 in the Policy Program of this the Housing Element, located in Chapter 7, Housing Goals, Policies, and Programs to facilitate these projectshousing developments on sites owned by places of worship . This program states the Ccity will work with the Multi-Faith ACTION Coalition (MFAC) and Hope Solutions (Formerly Contra Costa Interfaith Housing (CCIH)), local housing organizations, to rezone sites to allow housing on properties owned by religious institutions identified by the site inventory. To this end, the City of Antioch is presently working with both organizations, to advance equitable housing policies identified by this Housing Element and utilizing the housing sites identified in this section. This work is being facilitated through a $500,000 Breakthrough Grant from the Partnership for the Bay’s Future and managed by the San Francisco Foundation. All sites in this section include vacant or underutilized portions of the property and the realistic capacity calculations Site 120 (056-130-014), 5200 Heidorn Ranch, is located along the southeastern boundary of Antioch on Heidorn Ranch Road, east of State Route 4 and south of Lone Tree Way. It is currently zoned P-D and will be rezoned to R-35, making the density high enough to accommodate affordable housing units. The church, built in 1990, is supportive of their property being included as a site in the Housing Element. Most of this church’s property is vacant; the vacant portions of the lot roughly occupy 1.95 acres.

B178

6. ADEQUATE SITES
6-60

have been applied only to these areas and not the existing church. Given that housing would be added in addition to the existing uses, the existing uses are not anticipated to impede the development of housing.

Site 138 (071-370-026), 3351 Contra Loma Boulevard, is the current site of St. Ignatius of Antioch. This site is located within a below median income area. It is currently zoned R-6 and will be rezoned to R-20 before January 2023. Approximately 1 acre of the total 8-acre site is vacant and was used to determine the realistic capacity. A density of 20 du/ac (with a yield of 80 percent) was utilized to calculate a realistic capacity of 16 units on the site.

Site 120 | 5200 Heidorn Ranch Road
Site 138 | 3351 Contra Loma Boulevard
B179

6. ADEQUATE SITES
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 6-61 Site 154 (071-130-026) is located at 3195
Contra Loma Boulevard, south of the State
Route 4, along Contra Loma Boulevard, a
major north-south road within Antioch.

The site is within a below median income
area. The surrounding zones include C-2,
R-20, and R-6. The site is currently zoned
R-20 and would be rezoned to R-35 given
the proximity of higher-density housing
directly north of the site.

The exiting church was built in 1967 and does not occupy the entire lot area, with most of the property being undeveloped. Approximately 2.9 acres of the lot are vacant and used to calculate the realistic capacity.

Site 155 is located at 620 E Tregallas Road just south of the State Route 4 and is within a below median income and EJ area. The church on site was built in 1968. The church currently has vacant portions of the property in the rear, which make up approximately 0.8 acres of the total 2.5 acres of the site. This site Site 138 | 3351 Contra Loma Boulevard
Site 154 | 3195 Contra Loma Boulevard
Site 154 | 3195 Contra Loma Boulevard
B180

6. ADEQUATE SITES
6-62
was identified in the previous
housing element. It will be rezoned
from R-25 to R-35 and will support
the development of affordable units.

Site 164 (051-200-065) is located at
3415 Oakley Road. This site is
located along the eastern boundary
of the city, near State Route 160.

This site is located within a below
median income area and currently
zoned as P-D. The church on this
property has inquired about adding
tiny homes or other housing on the
site. This site will be rezoned to R-
35 to support the development of
affordable housing, consistent with
the church’s vision.

Site 155 | 620 E Tregallas Road
Site 155 | 620 E Tregallas Road
B181

6. ADEQUATE SITES
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 6-63 Site 164 (051-200-065) is located at 3415 Oakley Road. This site is located along the eastern boundary of the city, near State Route 160. This site is located within a below median income area and currently zoned as P-D. The church on this property has inquired about adding tiny homes or other housing on the site. This site will be rezoned to R-35 to support the development of affordable housing, consistent with the church’s vision.

Site 166 (076-231-007) is located south of State Route 4, near the western portion of the city within an area that is below the median income. The site is located southwest of Deltafair Shopping Center and Somersville Towne Center. The site is approximately 3.3 acres and zoned P-D with surrounding zones consisting of C-0, P-D, and R-6. The site will be rezoned to R-35 and will support the development of affordable housing units. Housing would be developed on approximately 1.5 acres that are not in use by the church.

Site 164 | 3415 Oakley Road
Site 166 | 1919 Buchanan Road
B182

6. ADEQUATE SITES
6-64

Site 166 (| 1919 Buchanan Road)
B183
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 7 - 1

HOUSING GOALS,

POLICIES, AND

PROGRAMS
California Government Code Section 65583(b)(1) requires the Housing Element to contain “a statement of goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, preservation, and development of housing.” The policies and programs directly address the housing needs and constraints identified and analyzed in this Housing Element and are based on State law.

Five goals are presented below pursuant to Department of Housing and Community Development ( HCD) requirements for the 6th Cycle, corresponding to the following topics:
 Improve and Conserve Existing Housing Stock
 Address and Remove (or Mitigate) Housing Constraints
 Assist in the Development of Housing
 Identify Adequate Sites
 Preserve Units At-Risk of Conversion to Market Rates
 Equal Housing Opportunities
As required by law, quantified objectives have been developed for housing production, rehabilitation, and conservation. These are presented at the end of this chapter. The quantified objectives provide metrics for evaluating the effectiveness of the Housing Element and are presented at the end of this Chapter..

Three types of statements are included in this chapterChapter: goals, policies, and programs. Goals express broad, long-term statements for desired outcomes. Each goal is followed by multiple policies. The policies are intended to guide decision makers, staff, and other City representatives in the day-to-day operations of the City. They are statements that describe the City’s position on specific housing issues.

Some policies, but not all, require specific programs to ensure their effective implementation. The link between each program and its corresponding policy or policies is noted at the end of the program.

B184

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
7-2
A. GOALS, POLICIES, AND IMPLEMENTING PROGRAMS[SW1]
Goal 1: Improve and Conserve Existing Housing Stock
Conserve and improve the existing housing supply to provide adequate, safe, and decent housing for existing Antioch residents.

Policy 1.1 Safe Housing. Ensure the supply of safe, decent, and sound housing for all residents.

Policy 1.2 Housing Rehabilitation. Continue to participate in housing rehabilitation programs and pursue funding to rehabilitate older housing units.

Policy 1.3 Reducing Home Energy Costs. Provide incentives to reduce residential energy and water use to conserve energy/water and reduce the cost of housing.

B. IMPLEMENTING PROGRAMS

1.1.1 1.1.1 Monitor and Preserve At-Risk Projects. The City has identified 54 multi-family rental units at-risk of converting from income-restricted to market-rate within the next 10 years.

To preserve affordability of these units, the City shall:
 proactively Proactively meet with the property owners and identify funding sources and other incentives to continue income-restrictions.
 The City shall develop strategies to act quickly should the property owners decide not to continue income restrictions. The strategy program may include, but is not limited to, identifying potential funding sources and organizations and agencies to purchase the property. If preservation is not possible, the City shall ensure that tenants of at-risk units opting out of low-income use restrictions are properly noticed and informed of resources available to them for assistance.  Comply with Government Code Sections 65863.10-13 which contain a series of noticing provisions designed to give tenants sufficient time to understand and prepare for potential rent increases, as well as to provide local governments and potential preservation buyers with an opportunity to preserve the property

Responsible Agency: City of Antioch, Public Safety and Community Resources, Housing Program

Implementation Schedule: The Housing Coordinator will contact management of the ANKA 1 Hope Solutions MHSA and Antioch Rivertown Senior buildings by 2028 (earliest conversion date is 2032) to start looking at funding sources and other incentives.

Quantified Objective: Retention of existing affordable housing stock through early action regarding 54 “at-risk” units.

Funding Source: CDBG Housing Successor, PLHA, and General Fund

Implements: Policy 1.1

B185

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 7 - 3

1.1.2 Housing Rehabilitation ProgramMaintain and Preserve Affordable Housing sStock .

Continue to contribute funds for and promote the Housing Rehabilitation Program administered by Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley (HHEBSV). This program provides home repair services to improve housing safety and health conditions, assist residents to age in place, and prevent displacement for low-income mobile home and single-family homeowners. Assistance is provided through zero and low-interest loans and grants to extremely low-, low-, and moderate- income households. The cCity provides information about the program on the cCity website and at City Hall and refers homeowners to Habitat to complete the application.Continue to contribute funds for and promote the Housing Rehabilitation Program (previously the Neighborhood Preservation Program (NPP)) administered by Contra Costa County. This program provides zero and low-interest loans to low- and moderate-income households for housing rehabilitation. The Citycity will continue to provide information about the program on the Citycity website and at City Hall and refer homeowners to the County.

Responsible Agency: Housing & CDBG programs, Contra Costa County Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing , and funded annually with grant funding , currently at $510,000/yr.

Quantified Objective: Annually serve 19 lower income residents through the provision of at least four (4) loans of up to $75,000 and ten (10) grants of up to $15,000.Adequate assistance to provide loans and grants to 3-4 homeowners per year.

Funding Source: City of Antioch Housing Successor and PLHA funding to Habitat for Humanity

EBSVCDBG

Implements: Policy 1.1, -1.2

1.1.3 Expand aAffordable hHousing for oOwnership. Provide financial down payment and closing cost assistance to lower income households to aid in the purchase of a home in the Ccity through the Antioch Homeowner Program (AHOP),. Targeted population outreach includes households currently residing or working in Antioch, those who are first-time home buyers, Section 8 renter voucher participants, and those being displaced.

Responsible Agency: Housing & CDBG programs, Bay Area Affordable Homeownernship Alliance (BAAHA)

Implementation Schedule: Annually grant funding to program, currently $500,000 per /year for loans and grants, and $60,000 for program administration.

Quantified Objective: Annually serve 7seven lower income households to become Antioch homeowners through the provision of at least seven (7) loans of up to $75,000 and five (5) grants (as needed) of up to $20,000 for closing and other costs.

Funding Source: City of Antioch Housing Successor and PLHA funding

Implements: Policy -1.3
B186

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
7-4

1.1.4 Reduce hHousehold eEnergy costs to iIncrease hHousing aAffordability. Increase housing and energy security for lower income households by reducing energy consumption by providing grants for increased insulation, weatherstripping, replacing single-paned windows, replacing failing HVAC systems with energy star units, and other energy saving measures as needed for lower income homeowners.

Responsible Agency: Housing & CDBG programs, Habitat for Humanity

Implementation Schedule: Annual grant funding to program.,

Quantified Objective: Annually serve 5five extremely and very low-income (0-59% AMI) homeowners through the provision of at least five (5) grants annually of up to $20,000.

Funding Source: City of Antioch Housing Successor and PLHA funding

Implements: Policy – 1.1.4, , Policy 1.1.2,

1.1.65 Affordable Housing Search Assistance. Assist extremely and very low-income renters with information about affordable housing resources, rental assistance, utility assistance, and other housing information through the provision of two Affordable Housing pamphlets, one for seniors and one for the general population, and a recorded training provided on the website and in- person assistance through classes at the Senior Center.

Responsible Agency: Housing and CDBG program staff.

Qualified Objective: Annually provide a minimum of six6 (6) in-person trainings at the Antioch Senior Center; respond to an estimated 50 email or telephone inquiries about finding affordable housing.

Funding Source: City of Antioch Housing and CDBG administration funds.

Implements: Policy 1.1.6

1.1.63 Community Education Regarding the Availability of Rehabilitation Antioch Housing Programs, Fair Housing, and Tenant/Landlord services . Continue to provide information to extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate-income homeowners, other homeowners with special needs, and owners of rental units occupied by lower-income and special needs households regarding the availability of rehabilitationall of the City's housing programs, fair housing rights and investigation, and tenant/landlord rights and responsibilities and counseling programs funded by the City. programs through neighborhood and community organizations and through the media. Disseminate information developed and provided by the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County and Contra Costa County’s Department of Conservation and Development to Antioch residents. Continue to use the city’s City’s website and social mediaeeting to advertise the programs..

Responsible Agency: City of Antioch CDBG & Housing Program

B187

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 7 - 5 Implementation Schedule: Ongoing
 Social media outreach (Facebook, Next Door) 6six times per year.  City Manager Newsletter twice per year.
 Email blasts to faith communities, service organizations, 2-1-1, and nonprofit agencies 2two times per year. Tabling at special events 4four times per year.
 Tabling targeted to limited English proficiency speakers of Spanish and Tagalog 2two times per year.  Update to City website 2two times per year.
 Presentation before City Council on programs 2two times per year.

Non-Quantified Objective: Through public education, and city implementation of the above outreach activities, the public’s ability to use programs will be enhanced and hHousing eElement objectives will be easier to achieve. Conduct outreach twice annually with community-based organizations and other potential community partners that are working with lower-income community members.

Funding Source: City of Antioch CDBG and Housing Successor Administration. funding to the County’s Neighborhood Preservation and the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County’s Rental Rehabilitation programs

Implements: Policy 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6

1.1.47 Code Enforcement. Enforcement of planning and building codes is important to protect Antioch’s housing stock and ensure the health and safety of those who live in the city, especially in neighborhoods identified within city’s Environmental Justice Element. for lower-income households. Typical code enforcement actions relate to life safety and public health violations, unpermitted construction, and deteriorated buildings. Code enforcement is performed on a survey and complaint basis, with staff responding to public inquiries as needed.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Neighborhood Improvement Services

Implementation Schedule:
 Ongoing routine enforcement survey activities and complaint basis, with staff responding to public inquiries as needed.
 OnAnnually survey multi-family developments in the environmental justice neighborhoods for life safety and public health violations.

Non-Quantified Objective: Monitor the housing conditions in the City city and respond to complaints. Inform violators of available rehabilitation assistance. Through remediation of substandard housing conditions, return approximately six units/year to safe and sanitary condition, thereby keeping people in their homes and preventing displacement.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 1.1

B188

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
7-6

1.1.85 Safe Housing Outreach. Continue to provide information on the City’s website on safe housing conditions and tools to address unhealthy housing conditions, including information on County programs and resources like the Lead Poisoning Prevention Program. Collaborate with local community organizations to outreach and provide assistance to city residents facing unhealthy housing conditions. Consistent with the City’s E nvironmental Justice policies currently under development, safe housing outreach will be concentrated targeted in northwestern Antioch where there are higher concentrations of cost-burdened households and lead exposure.

Responsible Agency: Neighborhood Improvement ServicesCommunity Development Department

Implementation Schedule:
 Continue to provide information on the city’s website regarding the city’s Housing Rehabilitation Program in partnership with Habitat for Humanity East Bay/ Silicon Valley.  Develop and provide informational brochures related to safe housing resources available to residents, including but not limited to materials from Costa County’s Lead Poisoning Prevention Program, and the city’s Housing Rehabilitation Program. Ongoing

Non-Quantified Objective: Safer housing stockAnnually assist a minimum of 10 households in applying for Housing Rehabilitation Program grants to address unsafe housing conditions within Antioch’s Environmental Justice Neighborhoods.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 1.1

1.1.96 Infrastructure to Support Housing for Extremely Low-, Very Low-, Low-Income, and Large Households. Continue to utilize available federal, State, and local housing funds for infrastructure improvements that support housing for Antioch’s extremely low-, very low-, low- income, and large households. The City uses CDBG funds for street improvements and handicapped barrier removal within low-income census tracts. The City will ensure that the Capital Improvement Program includes projects needed to correct existing infrastructure deficiencies, including infrastructure to combat chronic flooding, and to help finance and facilitate the development of housing for special needs groups. This will ensure that the condition of infrastructure does not preclude lower-income housing development. The City will coordinate and promote these improvements with non-profit housing development programs. In addition, improvements and resources are promoted on the City’s website, local newspapers, at the senior center, and through televised public City meeting and hearings. Furthermore, as a result of amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance in 2014, the City has increased opportunities for developing housing for lower-income households and persons with special needs in areas that are already adequately served by infrastructure.

Responsible Agency: City of Antioch CDBG & Housing Programs, Public Works - Capital Improvement Department

Implementation Schedule: Annually, as funds are available.

Quantified Objective: Provide infrastructure improvements necessary to accommodate the City’s lower-income RHNA need of 1,248 dwelling units.

B189

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 7 - 7

Funding Source: Federal, State and Local funds, CDBG

Implements: Policy 1.1

1.1.107 Condominium Conversion. Continue to implement the condominium conversion ordinance, which establishes regulations for the conversion of rental units to owner-occupied units. The ordinance requires that any displaced tenants who choose not to purchase and who are handicapped, have minor children in school, or are age 60 or older be given an additional six months in which to find suitable replacement housing according to the timetable or schedule for relocation approved in the conversion application.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing, project-based.Continue to implement process as approached by property owners seeking to convert rental multi-family units to owner occupied condominiums.

Non-Quantified Objective: Conservation of rental units currently being rented by lower-income households and tenants with special needs when units are proposed to the city to be converted to ownership.

Funding Source: Developers proposing to conversions

Implements: Policy 1.1

1.1.118 Foreclosure Prevention. Continue and expand partnerships between various governmental, public service, and private agencies and advocacy organizations to provide ongoing workshops and written materials to aid in the prevention of foreclosures. The City will continue to provide information about foreclosure resources on the City website and at City Hall. The City will also continue to refer persons at-risk of foreclosure to public and private agencies that provide foreclosure counseling and prevention services.

Responsible Agency: City of Antioch CDBG & Housing Programs Implementation , ECHO Housing; Bay Area Legal Aid, Centro Legal de la Raza, Contra Costa Senior Legal Services.

Schedule: Ongoing

Non-Quantified Objective: Foreclosure prevention.

Funding Source: CDBG

Implements: Policy 1.1

1.1.129 Water Conservation Program. As part of the development review process, ensure that new residential development meets City standards and guidelines for conserving water through provision of drought-tolerant landscaping, and the utilization of reclaimed wastewater when feasible. Continue to encourage water conservation through City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) that conforms to the State’s model ordinance. Encourage water utilities to B190

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
7-8
participate in BayREN’s Water Upgrade $aves Program in order to make water efficiency improvements availability to residents at no up-front cost.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, City Engineer, and Building Official

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing, as project applications are received for design review .

Non-Quantified Objective: Conservation of water resources.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 1.3

1.1.130 Encourage Energy Conservation. Continue to pursue funding sources and program partnerships for energy saving and conservation. Encourage developers to utilize energy-saving designs and building materials, including measures related to the siting of buildings, landscaping, and solar access. The City will continue to enforce state requirements, including Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, for energy conservation in new residential projects.

The City will post and distribute information to residents and property owners on currently available weatherization and energy conservation programs, including annual mailing in City city utility billings. The Citycity will refer individuals interested in utility assistance to the appropriate local provider and to nonprofit organizations that may offer utility assistance. City efforts could include the following:
 Provide information regarding incentives for energy efficiency and electrification, rebate programs, and energy audits available through Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), BayREN, and other relevant organizations.
 Refer residents and businesses to energy conservation programs such as Build It Green and LEED for Homes.
 Develop incentives, such as expedited plan check, for developments that are utilizing green building.
 Promote funding opportunities for green buildings, including available rebates and funding through the California Energy Commission.
 Provide resource materials regarding green building and conservation programs on the Citycity website and at the Planning and Building Counter.

Responsible Agency: City Building Official, Community Development Department, in association with energy providers

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing

Non-Quantified Objective: Increase energy efficiency, lower energy and construction cost burdens on housing for lower-income and special needs households, increase public awareness and information on energy conservation opportunities and assistance programs for new and existing residential units, and comply with State energy conservation requirements. Make information available on the City’s website and in public places, such as City Hall, by March 2023.

B191

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 7 - 9 Funding Source: General Fund, developers, energy providers

Implements: Policy 1.3

1.1.141 Green Building Encouragement. Continue to encourage “green building” practices in new and existing housing development and neighborhoods. The Citycity will continue to provide information on green building programs and resources on the Citycity website and at City Hall.

The City shall continually analyze current technologies and best practices and update the informational material as necessary. The Citycity will continue to promote the Energy Upgrade California program, which provides incentives for energy-saving upgrades to existing homes.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department

Implementation Schedule: Annually reviewing local building codes to ensure consistency with State-mandated green buildings standards. Make updated information available on the City’s website and in public places, such as City Hall, by March 2023.

Non-Quantified Objective: Encourage green building practices

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 1.3

Goal 2: Assist in the Development of Housing
Facilitate the development of a broad array of housing types to meet the City’s fair share of regional housing needs and accommodate new and current Antioch residents of diverse ages and socioeconomic backgrounds.

Policy 2.1 Development Capacity. Provide adequate residential sites for the production of new for- sale and rental residential units for existing and future residents.

Policy 2.2 New Housing Opportunities. Facilitate the development of new housing for all economic segments of the community, including lower-income, moderate-, and above moderate-income households.

Policy 2.3 Housing Funding. Actively pursue and support the use of available County, State, and federal housing assistance programs.

Policy 2.4 Developer Engagement. Proactively assist and cooperate with non-profit, private, and public entities to maximize opportunities to develop affordable housing and to spread affordable housing throughout the city rather than concentrate it in one portion of the community.

B192

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
7-10
C. IMPLEMENTING PROGRAMS

2.1.1 Inventories. Using the City’s GIS database, create and maintain an inventory that identifies sites planned and zoned for residential development for which development projects have yet to be approved. This database shall also have the ability to identify sites that have the potential for development into emergency shelters, or mixed-use areas.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department and GIS staff

Implementation Schedule: Database to be developed within six months of Housing Element adoption; to be updated and maintained on a regular basis.

Non-Quantified Objective: Maintenance of an inventory of available sites for use in discussions with potential developers and evaluating the City’s ability to meet projected future housing needs.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 2.1

2.1.2 Adequate Sites for Housing; No Net Loss. The City has identified adequate sites to accommodate its fair share of extremely low-, very low-, and low-income housing for this Housing Element planning period. The inventory includes sites where multi-family residential development at a minimum net density of 30 du/ac and up to 35 du/ac is permitted by right. The City will support construction of new housing for homeownership and rental units on vacant and non-vacant sites identified in the sites inventory.

Per Government Code Section 65863, which limits the downzoning of sites identified in the Housing Element unless there is no net loss in capacity and the community can still identify “adequate sites” to address the regional housing need, the City shall ensure that any future rezoning actions do not result in a net loss in housing sites and/or capacity to meet its RHNA. To ensure compliance with SB 166, the City will develop a procedure to track:
 Unit count and income/affordability assumed on parcels included in the sites inventory.  Actual units constructed and income/affordability when parcels are developed.  Net change in capacity and summary of remaining capacity in meeting remaining RHNA.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department (Planning Division)

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing

Non-Quantified Objective: Prevention of net loss of housing sites and capacity for extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing. Provide the sites inventory on City website and update the inventory at least semi-annually. Develop procedure for monitoring No Net Loss by the end of 2023.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 2.1
B193

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 7 - 1 1

2.1.3 Meet with Potential Developers. Facilitate the development of a range of housing types and opportunities to meet the need for providing both affordable and above moderate- income housing.

Meet with prospective developers as requested, both for profit and non-profit, on the City of Antioch’s development review and design review processes, focusing on City requirements and expectations. Discussion will provide ways in which the City’s review processes could be streamlined without compromising protection of the public health and welfare, and funding assistance available in the event the project will meet affordable housing goals. The Citycity will use feedback from developer discussions to understand developers’ experiences with the City’s permitting process and where there are points of friction.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department,
Implementation Schedule: Ongoing meetings as requested.  Develop post-entitlement survey by end of January 2023, which will be distributed to applicants of housing development projects following completion of project construction.  Schedule at least five (5) meetings per year with developers to identify ways to potentially improve the city’s development review and/or building permitting processes.

Non-Quantified Objective: To facilitate the development review process by ensuring a clear understanding on the part of developers as to City expectations for their projects and timeline.

Discussion is also anticipated to function as a feedback loop, and assist the City in minimizing the costs of the development review process to new residential development.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 2.2, Policy 2.4

2.1.4 Promote Loan Programs. Although the City no longer funds its own first-time homebuyers loan program, it will provide information to eligible buyers about loan programs offered by the California Housing Finance Agency and any other similar programs that may become available.

Responsible Agency: City of Antioch (Housing Coordinator)

Implementation Schedule: The Housing Coordinator will prepare a “fact sheet” annually to hand out to the inquiring public. The fact sheet is updated annually after July 1.

Non-Quantified Objective: Increase awareness of funds available for eligible first-time homebuyers.

Funding Source: City of Antioch CDBG & Housing Programs

Implements: Policy 2.3

2.1.5 Affordable Housing Program Inventory; Pursue Available Projects . Explore and inventory the variety of potential financial assistance programs from both the public and private sectors to provide more affordable housing units. The Housing Coordinator will provide B194

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
7-12
assistance to the City in preparation of applications for potential financial assistance programs.

Additionally, the Housing Coordinator, on an annual basis, will specify which programs the City should apply for. All available local, State, federal, and private affordable housing programs for new housing and for the conservation and/or rehabilitation of existing housing will be pursued, including, but not limited to the following:
 County Mortgage Revenue Bond program (proceeds from the sale of bonds finances the development of affordable housing).
 County Mortgage Credit Certificate Program (buy down of interest rates for lower-income households).
 Calhome Program (to assist in the development of for-sale housing for lower-income households).
 FDIC Affordable Housing Program (assistance for rehabilitation costs and closing costs for lower-income households).
 HELP Program (for preservation of affordable housing and rehabilitation of housing).  Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) (for rehabilitation of lower-income and senior housing).
 HUD Single-Family Property Disposition Program (for rehabilitation of owner-occupied housing).
 Loan Packaging Program (for development and rehabilitation of affordable housing for lower-income households and seniors).
 Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Programs (for development of rental housing and preservation of existing affordable housing for large family units).  McAuley Institute (for new housing or rehabilitation of housing for lower-income households).
 Mercy Loan Fund (for new housing or for rehabilitation of housing for the disabled and lower-income households).
 Neighborhood Housing Services (for rehabilitation of housing for lower-income households).  Section 8 Housing Assistance (rent subsidies for very low-income households).  Section 223(f) Mortgage Insurance for Purchase/Refinance (for acquisition and development of new rental housing).
 Section 241(a) Rehabilitation Loans for Multi-Family Projects (for energy conservation and rehabilitation of apartments).
 Neighborhood Stabilization Program (acquire and redevelop foreclosed properties).

Responsible Agency: City of Antioch (Housing Coordinator)

Implementation Schedule:
 The Housing Coordinator will maintain, and annually review an ongoing list of reviews potential funding opportunities available to affordable housing developments on an annual basis with budget review.
 Additionally, the Coordinator will assist the city in pursuit of federal, state, and private funding for low- and moderate-income housing by applying for state and federal monies annually for direct support B195

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 7 - 1 3 of lower-income housing construction and rehabilitation, specifically for development of housing affordable to extremely low-income households.

Non-Quantified Objective: Maximize access to governmental and private housing programs, and thereby facilitate achievement of other Housing Element objectives.

Funding Source: CDBG, General Fund; funding from programs pursued

Implements: Policy 2.2, Policy 2.3

2.1.6 Housing for Extremely Low-Income Households. Encourage the development of housing units for households earning less than 30 percent of the Median Family Income (MFI) for Contra Costa County. Specific emphasis shall be placed on the provision of family housing and non- traditional housing types such as single-room occupancy units and transitional housing. The City will encourage development of housing for extremely low-income households through a variety of activities such as targeted outreach to for-profit and non-profit housing developers; providing financial or in-kind technical assistance, fee support, land-write downs, and/or expedited/priority processing; identifying grant and funding opportunities; and/or offering additional incentives to supplement density bonus provisions in State law. With implementation of the Housing Element, more sites will be zoned to densities up to 35 units per acre, which will offer additional opportunities to provide housing for extremely low-income households.

Responsible Agency: City of Antioch CDBG & Housing Programs

Implementation Schedule: Outreach to developers on at least an annual basis; apply for or support applications for funding on an ongoing basis; review and prioritize local funding at least twice in the planning period.

Quantified Objective: Encourage and facilitate construction of 175 units affordable to extremely low-income households to meet RHNA.

Funding Source: CDBG

Implements: Policy 2.2

2.1.7 Support Non-Profit Housing Sponsors. Support qualified non-profit corporations with proven track records in their efforts to make housing more affordable to lower and moderate- income households and for large families. This effort will include :
 Continue to pursue federal, state, and private funding for supportive services and housing opportunities for special needs individuals by applying for state and federal monies annually for direct support of housing construction and rehabilitation, specifically for development of housing affordable to special needs households served by non-profit housing sponsors.  Pproviding funding, as available, and supporting grant applications for the development of housing affordable to lower income, and/or special needs households  I identifying available sites for housing development, and City involvement in the development of such sites.

B196

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
7-14
 WThe City will also w ork with the Multi-Faith ACTION Coalition and Hope Solutions (Formerly Contra Costa Interfaith Housing (CCIH) ) to rezone sites to allow housing on properties owned by religious institutions, as identified in the sites inventory , to allow for infill residential development as described within Program 3.1.4.
 Continue focused outreach efforts to non-profit organizations on an annually, and on an ongoing as requested basis to develop partnerships for housing development affordable to lower income and/or special needs households.

In addition, the City will promote affordable development by encouraging developers to use the State and City density bonus program. Recent amendments to the Zoning Ordinance modified development standards and other regulations to make it easier to develop on infill parcels.

Responsible Agency: City of Antioch CDBG & Housing Programs

Implementation Schedule: OngoingMeet with (3)three non-profit organizations annually, to discuss upcoming funding opportunities, and potential opportunity sites for the development of housing affordable to lower income and/or special needs households.

Non-Quantified Objective: By supporting these entities in their efforts, increase the production of affordable housing to meet other objectives of the Housing Element.

Funding Source: Private sources, CDBG

Implements: Policy 2.3, Policy 2.4

2.1.8.a Promote Development of ADUs as Affordable Housing. Continue to promote and facilitate the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) throughout the City of Antioch to accommodate the City’s RHNA obligations.

Annually monitor the production and affordability of ADUs and JADUs to evaluate the progress made towards assumptions made within the City’s Housing Site Inventory. As necessary, take alternative actions (i.e., further ADU incentives, or rezonings) as appropriate within six months of evaluation if assumptions are not met.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department (Planning Division)

Implementation Schedule:
 Resources currently provided to residents on the City’s website,  Annually monitor and review ADU/JADU production in relation to assumptions of Housing Site Inventory,
 Take appropriate alternative actions as necessary within 6 months of annual review if assumptions of Housing Site Inventory are not met.

Quantified Objective: Permitting of 17 ADUs annually, totaling 136 ADUs over the entirety of the planning period.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 2.2
B197

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 7 - 1 5

2.1.8.b ADU/JADU Loans. Partner with Habitat for Humanity to create an ADU/JADU loan product to assist homeowners in constructing ADUs/JADUs for rental housing. The program design could provide loans to homeowners to construct ADUs or JADUs with public money that would be repaid with the rental income from the completed ADU/JADU.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department (Planning Division) and Housing Coordinator

Implementation Schedule: Program design completed by 2025 and program launch by 2026.

Funding and approvals granted for five (5) ADUs by December 2026 and then five (5) ADUs annually thereafter.

Quantified Objective: Achievement of objectives for development of new housing for lower- and moderate-income households potentially in the city’s higher opportunity areas. Generation of economic opportunities for homeowners.

Funding Source: Housing Successor Funds or PLHA for construction loan and General Fund for marketing the program

Implements: Policy 2.2

2.1.9 Housing and Resources for Unhoused PopulationsIndividuals. Encourage the provision of housing opportunities and resources for unhoused individuals, through a variety of actions, including:
 Continue to advertise city and county resources available to unhoused individuals on the city’s website, including available cooling and warming centers, shower and laundry services, community food and produce resources, emergency shelter facilities, and community service providers.  Continue to collaborate with Contra Costa County on the provision of shelter and services for unsheltered individuals including participation in the County’s Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Review and Ranking Committee which determines the allocation of State ESG funds intended to provide housing and services to unhoused persons
 Continue to support operation of the Don Brown Shelter at 1401 West 4 th Street in the City which provides emergency shelter to 20 individuals living with severe mental illness and provides them with counseling and supportive services through Anka Behavioral Health to provide Continuum of Care to provide participate work to connect unhoused residents to available resources as appropriate  Continue discussion with the County Continuum of Care staff and nonprofit affordable housing agencies to support realize the vision of a potentialdevelopment of a CARE Center/Homeless Housing project on a 5-acre site with Emergency Shelter Overlay that the Citycity sold to the County in 2020.

The project would provide permanent supportive housing for extremely- and very low-income individuals and could include SROs or studio apartments given Contra Costa County’s lack of this type of housing product currently.
 Amend the Zoning Ordinance by the end of January 31, 2023, to allow “supportive housing” as defined by AB 2162 (2018) within all zoning districts which allow for multi-family development. Supportive housing uses shall be reviewed consistent with the review of residential uses within the same zoning district.
 Amend the Zoning Ordinance by the end of January 31, 2023, to rezone approximately 46 parcels to the City’s R-35 zoning district which allows for development of multi-family uses between 25 and 35 B198

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
7-16
dwelling units per acre, at and above that of the city’s default density necessary to accommodate housing for lower-income residents.
 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow for “low barrier navigation centers” as defined by AB 101 (2019) within mixed use and non-residential zoning districts which allow for multi-family development, and permitted through a streamlined, ministerial process.

Responsible Agency: Housing Coordinator

Implementation Schedule:
 Refer and connect 10 unhoused residents to available resources per year.  Meet with County Continuum of Care staff by June 2023 to discuss County plans for the 5-acre site located within the City’s Emergency Shelter Overlay.
 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to ensure compliance with AB 2162 (2018) by the end of January 31, 2023.
 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to ensure compliance with AB 101 (2019) by the end of January 31, 2023. On-Going

Quantified Objective:

Development of 30-50 units for extremely low- and very low-income households during the planning period.

Funding Source: Available Grant Funding

Implements: Policy 2.2, Policy 2.3

2.1.10 Inclusionary Housing. Initiate a feasibility study for an inclusionary housing ordinance for City Council consideration. The ordinance would generally require that the development of new market-rate housing units include a percentage of units that are affordable at specific income levels or that in-lieu payment be made. The revenue generated from in-lieu fees would be used to generate funding for the development of affordable housing in the city. Funds collected from in-lieu fees could be used for the following purposes:
 New construction of affordable housing.
 Acquisition/rehabilitation of housing and addition of affordability covenants.  Permanent supportive housing/transitional and emergency shelters.  Down payment assistance program.
 Rental assistance programs.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department / Public Safety and Community Resources Department

Implementation Schedule: Initiate public engagement and outreach by December 2023

B199

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 7 - 1 7 Quantified Objective: Development of 30-50 units for extremely low- very low-, and/or low- income households during the planning period.

Funding Source: General Funds

Implements: Policy 2.2, Policy 2.3

2.1.11 Missing Middle Housing. Review the development standards, including but not limited to especially relative to height, FAR/density, lot size, parking requirements, and lot coverage to determine if any development standards are a constraint to the development of facilitate missing middle housing which refers to a range of multi-unit or clustered housing types compatible in scale with single-family homes that help meet the growing demand for walkable urban living.

These types provide diverse housing options along a spectrum of affordability, including duplexes, fourplexes, and bungalow courts.

Develop objective design standards for duplexes, triplexes, and quadsmissing middle typologies and consider financial incentives for missing middle housing projects (e.g., property tax abatement, permitting fee support, waiving public improvement requirements). Incentives could be limited to the Viera area where missing middle housing is envisioned in this Housing Element.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department (Planning Division)

Implementation Schedule:
 Development of standards review and objective standards to be completed by March 2023.  Review of development standards and financial incentives by June 2024.

Quantified Objective: Development of 60 units of missing middle housing by end of planning pperiod.d.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 2.1, Policy 2.2

2.1.12 Prioritize Very Low- and Low-Income Housing Development. The City will encourage water providers to give priority to very low- and low-income housing developments in case of a water shortage pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.7. The City will also provide a copy of the 2023–2031 Housing Element upon its adoption to local water providers and the operators of the public sewer system and encourage them to give priority to very low- and low- income housing developments pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.7.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department (Planning Division)

Implementation Schedule: Providers provided Housing Element withing 30 days of its adoption.

Quantified Objective: None.

Funding Source: General Fund

B200

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
7-18
Implements: Policy 2.1
Goal 3: Special Needs Housing
Facilitate the development of special purpose housing to meet the needs of the elderly, persons with disabilities, large families, female-headed households, and the unhoused.

Policy 3.1 Maximize Housing Opportunities . Identify and maximize opportunities to expand housing opportunities for those residents of the city who have special housing needs, including the elderly, disabled, large families, female-headed households, and the unhoused.

Policy 3.2 Senior Housing. Support development and maintenance of affordable senior rental and ownership housing and supportive services to facilitate maximum independence and the ability of seniors to remain in their homes and/or the community.

Policy 3.3 Persons with Disabilities. Address the special needs of persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities, through provision of supportive and accessible housing that allows persons with disabilities to live independent lives.

Policy 3.4 Housing and Services for the Unhoused. Implement the Contra Costa Interagency Council on Homelessness strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness and work cooperatively with local agencies to provide a continuum of care for the homeless, including interim/emergency housing, permanent supportive affordable housing, and access to services.

D. IMPLEMENTING PROGRAMS

3.1.1 Housing Opportunities for Special Needs Groups . Expand housing opportunities to meet the special housing needs of the elderly; persons with disabilities, including those who have developmental disabilities; large families; female-headed households; farmworkers, and the unhoused individuals. Encourage the development of housing opportunities which typically serve special needs groups by facilitating the development of emergency shelters, transitional housing, single room occupancy (SRO) units, ADUs and JADUs, residential care facilities, and high-density multi-family housing, including:
 Continue to support affordable housing development for special-needs groups throughout the city, including in areas that are predominantly single-family residential. Special needs groups include seniors; persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities; female-headed households; and homeless persons, to reduce the displacement risk for these residents from their existing homes and communities.
 Continue to promote the use of the density bonus ordinance, and application process streamlining, to encourage affordable housing, with an emphasis on encouraging affordable housing in high-resource areas and areas with limited rental opportunities currently  Facilitate the approval process for land divisions, lot line adjustments, and/or specific plans or master plans resulting in parcel sizes that enable affordable housing development  Develop a program by April 30, 2024, to prioritize City funding proposals to affordable housing developments that are committed to supporting special needs residents (e.g., unhoused populations, extremely low income, seniors, disabled populations, single-female households).

B201

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 7 - 1 9  Amend the Zoning Ordinance by the end of January 31, 2023, to allow “supportive housing” as defined by AB 2162 (2018) within all zoning districts which allow for multi-family development. Supportive housing uses shall be reviewed consistent with the review of multi-family uses within the same zoning district.
 Amend the Zoning Ordinance by January 31, 2023, to allow for “low barrier navigation centers” as defined by AB 101 (2019) as a permitted use, by-right within mixed use and non-residential zoning districts which allow for multi-family development and subjected to streamlined review and approval.  Amend the Zoning Ordinance by January 31, 2023, to rezone 46 parcels to the city’s R-35 zoning district which allows for the by-right development of multi-family uses between 25 and 35 dwelling units per acre, at and above that of the city’s default density necessary to accommodate housing for lower-income residents.
 Develop and adopt Multi-family Residential Objective Design Standards by the end of January 31, 2023, to simplify and facilitate the review, permitting and development of multi-family residential uses within the City’s R-10, R-20, R-25, and R-35 zoning districts.  Amend the Zoning Ordinance by September 30, 2023, to allow for residential care facilities and group homes for 7 or more persons within zoning districts that permit residential development.  Amend the Zoning Ordinance by September 30, 2023, to allow for “transitional housing” as defined, as a permitted use in zones allowing residential uses, subject to the standards and procedures of residential uses in the same zone.
 Consistent with State law, the Zoning Ordinance will help increase housing opportunities for special needs groups by facilitating the development of emergency shelters, transitional housing, single room occupancy (SRO) units, ADUs and JADUs, residential care facilities, and high-density multi-family housing. Transitional housing is now explicitly defined and listed as a residential use and SRO units are defined as a form of multi-family housing subject to the standards and requirements applicable to comparable multi-unit residential facilities. Residential care facilities serving six or fewer people are permitted as a residential use. Facilities serving seven or more residents may be subject to a use permit, but any standard requirements or conditions imposed on such facilities must be comparable to those imposed on other group residential facilities. Additionally, densities up to 35 units per acre are now permitted in high-density residential districts. This will offer additional opportunities to provide housing for special needs groups.
 The City shall also develop sources of predevelopment financing through available Federal, State, and private sources (i.e., HOME and CDBG) to assist non-profit developers.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing
 Amend the Zoning Ordinance by January 31, 2023, to allow for “low barrier navigation centers” as defined by AB 101 (2019)
 Amend the Zoning Ordinance by the end of January 31, 2023, to allow “supportive housing” as defined by AB 2162 (2018)
 Amend the Zoning Ordinance by January 31, 2023, to rezone 46 parcels to the city’s R-35 zoning district
B202

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
7-20
 Develop a program by April 30, 2024, to prioritize City funding proposals to affordable housing developments that serve special needs individuals

Non-Quantified Objective: Maximize opportunities to address the housing needs of special needs groups within the city.

Funding Source: State and Federal housing funds, CDBG, NSP

Implements: Policy 3.1, Policy 3.2, Policy 3.3, Policy 3.4

3.1.2 Senior Housing. The City will seek opportunities to develop affordable senior housing when collaborating with affordable housing developers in proximity to, and accessible to, commercial and civic services and public transit. The City will also strive to allow older adults to age in place.

The City will partner with the Antioch Senior Center and service providers such as AARP to promote home rehabilitation programs to seniors on fixed incomes.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing, project-based.

Non-Quantified Objective: Facilitate housing that is affordable for lower-income seniors.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 3.1, Policy 3.2

3.1.3 Incentives for Special Needs Housing . Enable special needs groups to access appropriate housing through the reasonable accommodation ordinance. This ordinance gives persons with disabilities the opportunity to request reasonable accommodation from zoning laws when they are a barrier to equal housing access pursuant to State and federal law. The City has approved such requests such as reducing the number of required parking stalls in order to accommodate a handicap van parking stall at the Don Brown Homeless Emergency Center, which provides services to the homeless and disabled populations. The City has also approved the conversion of a bedroom into a semi-independent living space for a person with a disability without requiring the provisions of Section 9-5.3904 as it pertains to second units.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing as projects are proposed.

Non-Quantified Objective: Continue to provide reasonable accommodations to encourage the development of specialized housing for persons with disabilities.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 3.1, Policy 3.3

3.1.4 Coordination with Agencies Serving the Unhoused Population . Continue to cooperate coordinate with public and private agencies and service providers, such as the Contra Costa B203

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 7 - 2 1 Continuum of Care, which to develop housing (including transitional housing), and provide services to unhoused residentsfamily counseling, and employment programs , including:
 for the unhoused population. The City will cC ontinue to pursue federal, state, and private funding for supportive services and housing opportunities for unhoused individuals by applying for state and federal monies annually for direct support of lower-income housing construction and rehabilitation, specifically for development of housing affordable to extremely low-income households.  fund services for the unhoused through CDBG. The City shall monitor Annually monitor statistics from police, County agencies, and private organizations regarding shelter needs to determine routinely evaluate if Antioch is meeting the needs of its Antioch’s unhoused populationresidents.  AThe City will a ssist the County as needed to implement the County’s Built for Zero commitment, which aims to functionally eliminate homelessness through the creation and regular updating of including assisting in the created of a By-Name List of homeless veterans and the chronically homeless individuals in the community to help communities getprovide a clearer picture of who needs help, how many people are being housed and how many people are entering or returning to homelessness each monththe housing needs of unhoused residents .
 The City will also workCoordinate with and support Multi-Faith ACTION Coalition and Hope Solutions, formerly Contra Costa Interfaith Housing (CCIH) in the implementation of its their scattered-site permanent housing program. This program seeks to provide housing for 48 chronically homeless adults struggling with mental health and other complex issues. In addition to obtaining affordable permanent housing, residents in this program receive intensive support from a mobile service team of case managers and mental health clinicians who visit them in their homes. Case managers partner with residents to set goals specific to their unique needs including mental health, sobriety, and employment needs, and access to essentials such as food and primary health care. This supportive housing model is cost-effective and successful in preventing high-cost emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and incarceration, while offering dignity and support to chronically homeless adults. This is a new housing model for CCIH, which already provides permanent housing and/or supportive services at four affordable housing sites, serving more than 1,000 formerly homeless and very low-income Contra Costa residents.

Responsible Agency: City of Antioch CDBG & Housing Programs, Contra Costa County Health Services Department, and public service agencies

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing
 The Housing Coordinator will maintain, and annually review an ongoing list of funding opportunities available to affordable housing developments, including those targeted for extremely low income and unhoused residents.
 Additionally, the Coordinator will assist the city in pursuit of federal, state, and private funding for low- and moderate-income housing by applying for state and federal monies annually for direct support of lower-income housing construction and rehabilitation, specifically for development of housing affordable to extremely low-income households and unhoused residents.

Non-Quantified Objective: Develop housing self-sufficiency for those who are currently unhoused by working with appropriate agencies to implement housing and employment programs.

Quantified Objective: Forty (40) percent reduction in number of unsheltered persons counted in Antioch during the 2030 PIT count.

B204

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
7-22

Funding Source: HUD, HCD, CDBG, and private funds

Implements: Policy 3.1, Policy 3.4

3.1.5. Emergency Shelters and Supportive and Transitional Housing. [SW2]Continue to implement the Zoning Ordinance toTo maintain compliance with State Law (SB 2) related to accommodate emergency shelters, and transitional and supportive housing for homeless individuals and families and persons with disabilities. In June 2014, the City established a new Emergency Shelter Overlay District in June 2014 that complies with the requirements of State law by providingprovides for the by-right approval of establishment of emergency shelters which comply with objective design standards included within Section 9-5.3839 of the Zoning Ordinance, without discretionary zoning approval, within the city’s emergency shelter overlay district.
 To retain compliance with state law, the city will revise Section 9-5.1703.1 of the Zoning Code Off- Street Parking Requirements by Use , to remove the per-bed parking stall requirement associated with emergency shelters. With this amendment, the City has sites with sufficient capacity to meet the local need for emergency shelters.
 Amend the Zoning Ordinance by the end of January 31, 2023, to allow “supportive housing” as defined by AB 2162 (2018) within all zoning districts which allow for multi-family development. Supportive housing uses shall be reviewed consistent with the review of multi-family uses within the same zoning district.
 Amend the Zoning Ordinance by September 30, 2023, to allow for “transitional housing” as defined, as a permitted use in zones allowing residential uses, subject to the standards and procedures of residential uses in the same zone.

The CitycCity will also continue to monitor implementation of the Zoning Code to determine if further changes are needed to meet applicable requirements of State and federal law.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, CDBG & Housing Programs

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing. Review Zoning Ordinance for consistency with AB 2162 and AB 101 by July 2023. Amend Section 9-5.1703.1 of the Zoning Code Off-Street Parking Requirements by Use, to remove the per-bed parking stall requirement associated with emergency shelters y September 30, 2023.

Non-Quantified Objective: Compliance with SB 2 and AB 2162.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 3.1, Policy 3.4

3.1.6 Zoning for Employee Housing. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to explicitly define and provide zoning provisions for employee housing in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5, 17021.6, and 17021.8. Specifically, the Ordinance shall be amended to do the following:

B205

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 7 - 2 3  Any employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer employeesfewer employees shall be deemed a single-family structure. Employee housing shall not be included within the definition the definition of a boarding house, rooming house, hotel, dormitory, or other similar term.
 No conditional use permit, zoning variance or other zoning clearance shall be required of employee housing that serves six or fewer employees that is not required of a family dwelling of the same type in the same zone.
 Any employee housing consisting of 12 units or 36 beds or less designed for use by a family or household shall be deemed an agricultural use.
 No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other discretionary zoning clearance shall be required of this employee housing for up to 12 units or 36 beds that is not required of any other agricultural activity in the same zone.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department

Implementation Schedule: Within 18 months of Housing Element adoption.

Non-Quantified Objective: Compliance with Health and Safety Code regarding Employee Housing.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 3.1

3.1.7 Farmworker Housing. Ensure affordable units for extremely-, very-low, and low-income households made available to farmworkers, including seasonal, monolingual, migrant workers, and their families. The City will also participate in the Bay Area Regional Agricultural Plan as appropriate. The Bay Area Regional Agricultural Plan has the following objectives: 1) explore regional strategies for the conservation of agricultural land, (e.g., joint powers authority, financing mechanisms, land trust) thus reducing the greenhouse gas emissions associated with urbanization; (2) help local governments plan land-use strategies to protect agricultural land that might otherwise be developed; and (3) explore farmworker housing including programs, policies, and legislation. By working together, public agencies can leverage each other’s knowledge, advocate regionally and on a State level for legislative changes, and partner on funding opportunities

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department and Housing Coordinator

Implementation Schedule: Identify and reach out to Bay Area Regional Agricultural Plan to be on their contact list with in 1 year of Housing Element adoption.

Non-Quantified Objective: Compliance with State and regional objectives to support California’s agricultural industry and the employees who are a critical part of the Bay Area’s economy, geography, and history.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 3.1
B206

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
7-24

3.1.87 Rental Assistance. Continue to leverage local, State, and federal funding, as available, to maintain and continue rental assistance and financial assistance programs that were created to keep individuals housed and prevent homelessness during and following the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Responsible Agency: City of Antioch CDBG & Housing Programs, Contra Costa County Health Services Department, and public service agencies

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing

Non-Quantified Objective: Homelessness prevention

Funding Source: HUD, CDBG, Housing Successor, and private funds

Implements: Policy 3.1, Policy 3.4

3.1.98 Housing and Services for those Those with Disabilities. The city will support and encourage the development of housing for individuals and households with disabilities, including persons with developmental disabilities to increase housing mobility opportunities for such households including but not limited to:
 Continue focused outreach efforts to non-profit organizations, such as the Regional Center of the East Bay, on an annual, and on an ongoing as requested basis to develop partnerships for housing development affordable to individuals with disabilities  Continue to coordinate with the Regional Center of the East Bay to inform Antioch households of individuals with developmental disabilities, of the resources available to them  Continue to support affordable housing development for special-needs groups, including those with developmental disabilities, throughout the city, including in areas that are predominantly single-family residential.
 Continue to pursue federal, state, and private funding for supportive services and housing opportunities for special needs individuals by applying for state and federal monies annually for direct support of housing construction and rehabilitation, specifically for development of housing affordable to special needs households, including those with developmental disabiltiies, served by non-profit housing sponsors.

Providing funding, as available, and supporting grant applications for the development of housing affordable to individuals with developmental disabilities  To the extent practicable, use affordable housing funds for the construction of permanent supportive housing in developments in which 10-25% of units are set aside for persons with disabilities.

Affirmatively market units to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, their families, and service providers, such as the Regional Center of the East Bay. Explore funding options for continuing community-based services for possible expansion of services, particularly for persons with psychiatric disabilities.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, CDBG and Housing Coordinator

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing. Coordinate with regional offices and developers at least annually to pursue housing opportunities.

B207

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 7 - 2 5 Non-Quantified Objective: Maximize opportunities to address the housing needs of special needs groups within the Citycity.

Funding Source: State and Federal housing funds, CDBG, NSP

Implements: Policy 3.1, Policy 3.3
Goal 4: Elimination of Government Constraints
Remove governmental constraints inhibiting the development of housing required to meet identified needs in Antioch.

Policy 4.1 Procedures Refinement. Review and modify standards and application processes to ensure that City standards do not act to constrain the production of affordable housing units.

Policy 4.2 Zoning Code Amendments. The City will review and rezone sites assumed to meet the RHNA to ensure zoning and general plan designations are compatible and comply with State law.

Policy 4.3 Monitoring. Consistently monitor and review the effectiveness of the Housing Element programs and other City activities in addressing the housing need.

E. IMPLEMENTING PROGRAMS

4.1.1 Maintain a Streamlined, Affordable Application Process . Continue efforts to identify ways to streamline and improve the development review process, as well as eliminate any unnecessary delays and restrictions in the processing of development applications, consistent with maintaining the ability to adequately review proposed projects. The City will utilize input received from developers to assist in identifying means to implement this program, which will include the development and launch of online permitting software. Undertake a regular review to ensure that development review fees are the minimum necessary to recover costs. The City will review development review procedures and fee requirements on an annual basis. If, based on its review, the City finds development review procedures or fees unduly impact the cost or supply of housing, the City will make appropriate revisions to ensure the mitigation of these identified impacts. The City could utilize a committee of relevant stakeholders to review the approval process and identify improvements. Potential improvements could include:
 Continue to provide one-stop-shop permitting processes or a single point of contact where entitlements are coordinated across City approval functions (e.g., planning, public works, building) from entitlement application to certificate of occupancy.  Publicly posting status updates on project permit approvals on the City’s website.  Establishing priority permit processing or reduced plan check times for high priority projects, such as ADUs/JADUs, multi-family housing, or homes affordable to lower- or moderate-income households.
 Consolidating fee schedules across departments to simplify administration and allow people to obtain schedules and documentation in one location. This would include gathering information from outside agency fees.

B208

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
7-26
Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance will also make it possible to further streamline and improve the process by permitting certain developments by right. The City will also continue to implement SB 35, SB 330, and other State laws to ensure ministerial review for eligible projects.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, City Engineer, and Building Official

Implementation Schedule: Annual review, revisions as found appropriate. Launch of online permitting software by Fall 2023.

Non-Quantified Objective: Minimize the costs of residential development within Antioch attributable to the time it takes to review development applications and plans.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 4.1

4.1.2 Residential Development Impact Fee Ordinances . Ensure that new residential development is adequately served by public facilities and services by continuing to implement the Development Impact Fee Program. Based on the findings of an impact fee study completed in April 2022 by the County Costa County Planning Collaborative, typical impact fees in Antioch are lower than other jurisdictions in the county, both as a raw number and as a share of total project fees. Antioch’s impact fees equate to approximately 30 percent of the countywide average for both single-family and multi-family projects. The study found that single-family homes in Antioch are typically subject to impact fees in the amount of $15,370 per unit and multi-family projects are subject to approximately $6,530 per unit. The Development Impact Fee Ordinance provides certainty of fees for developers. The fee was based on the projected costs of capital facility, equipment and infrastructure improvements necessary to serve the new development within the City.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing, project-based.

Non-Quantified Objective: Continually ensure provision of adequate public facilities and services to new and existing residential development.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 4.1, Policy 4.3

4.1.3 Density Bonus Ordinance. The city will review the Zoning Ordinance annually and amend, as needed, was amended to bring City’s requirements into compliance with State law. Continue to monitor implementation to identify further changes that may be required.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department

Implementation Schedule: OngoingReview annually and amend as necessary for compliance

Non-Quantified Objective: Ensure that City density bonus provisions comply with State requirements.

B209

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 7 - 2 7

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 4.3

4.1.4 Pre-Application Conferences. Continue pre-application conferences for applicants to assist developers in meeting City requirements and development expectations.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing, project-based.

Non-Quantified Objective: Minimize development review time and costs for new residential projects.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 4.1

4.1.5 Development Standards Handouts. Regularly update handouts on development standards and provide the public information on the application requirements and permitting process.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department

Implementation Schedule: Update handouts on a semiannual basis and when development standards are modified.

Non-Quantified Objective: Minimize development review time and costs for new residential projects.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 4.1

4.1.6. Review and Revise Residential Parking Requirements . Conduct a comprehensive study of best practices for related to parking requirements to evaluate the city’s parking requirements and identify, as and appropriate and dependent on the Study’s findings, potential amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance depending on the findings. Additionally:
 Continue tThe City recently amended the City’s Zoning Ordinance to allow reduction of parking requirements that may constrain residential development. The amendments established procedures broadening the authority ofby the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission to allow approve reductions in parking requirements for senior housing developments, developments of less than 50 units and within 0.5 miles of a major transit stop, infill developments of less than 30 units, and developments reusing historic structures, without approval of a variance.  Continue to promote the use of the State density bonus, including design waivers and concessions related to parking requirements to encourage the development of affordable housing B210

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
7-28
 Amend the City’s Zoning Ordinance by the end of September 30, 2023, to ensure compliance with AB 2097 (2022) which prohibits minimum parking requirements for eligible housing developments within half a mile of a major transit stop
 to a project’s normally required number of parking spaces and modifications to development standards for parking areas. The amended provisions allow modification to parking requirements without requiring approval of a variance. However, many applicants continue to elect to provide all required parking, indicated the need to better understand the market conditions and best practices for cities like Antioch.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing
 Amend the City’s Zoning Ordinance by the end of September 30, 2023, to ensure compliance with AB 2097(2022)
Conduct comprehensive study of parking requirements and consider potential amendments to parking requirements by December 31, 2024.


Non-Quantified Objective: Allow a reduction or amendment to the parking requirements of projects as appropriate.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 4.3

4.1.7 Streamlined Approvals. Implement the recommendation of the City’s Strategic Infill Housing Study, completed in early 2021, to allow certain commercial sites to develop residential uses through a streamlined, non-discretionary process. The City will also continue to ministerially approve projects with 50 percent of their units affordable to lower-income households, consistent with State law, and will develop an application for SB 35 projects. The City shall also allow housing developments with at least 20 percent affordable housing by-right on lower- income housing sites that have been counted in previous Housing Element cycles, consistent with Government Code Section 65583.2(c).

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing. Commercial Infill Housing Objective Design Standards adopted in April 2022. Establishment of SB 35 application and by-right rezonings complete by beginning of 6th Cycle planning period.

Non-Quantified Objective: Minimize the use of discretionary review by permitting with by-right review.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 4.1, Policy 4.2, Policy 4.3

B211

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 7 - 2 9

4.1.8 Monitor Effects of Regional Fees. Like other jurisdictions in the county, Antioch is subject to regional transportation impact fees levied by Contra Costa County. The City shall monitor the effects of these fees on housing costs and production, and continue to work with the East Contra Costa County Regional Fee and Financing Authority (ECCCRFFA), a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) that levies the fee and operates through the TRANSPLAN Committee, County to ensure that the fees are equitable and appropriately applied and adjusted. The City shall also support, and work with the ECCCRFFACounty to pursue, a fee reduction or exemption for high-density housing near transit, and affordable housing developments, as feasible.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department

Implementation Schedule: Periodic and ongoing, as fees are reevaluated.

Non-Quantified Objective:
 Continue to appoint one City Council Member and one Planning Commissioner to represent the City of Antioch on the ECCCRFFA.
 Continue to participate in regular meetings of the JPA, and work with the other members of the ECCRFFA to pursue and support reductions to the regional fee for higher-density residential uses near major transit stops and affordable housing developments.  Ensure that the Regional Transportation Impact Fee does not overly burden housing production in Antioch, particularly affordable and/or high-density housing.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 4.3

4.1.9 Missing Middle Permitting Process. Establish middle housing densities and building types in the Zoning Code through a forthcoming zoning action and allow these products by-right in certain zones, subject to objective development standards. The intent of this program is to ensure that approval for middle housing is no more difficult than approval for a single-family home.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department

Implementation Schedule: Establish of middle housing densities and definition in Zoning Code by 2024.

Quantified Objective: Streamlined approval process and facilitate development of 60 moderate- income housing units.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 4.1, Policy 4.3

4.1.10 R-35 Zone. Remove the inconsistency currently in the R-35 section of the Zoning Ordinance that requires a minimum density of 30 du/acre but also allows projects less than 30 du/acre.

Revise the Zoning Ordinance to remove the provision allowing projects less than 30 du/ac re.

B212

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
7-30
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department

Implementation Schedule: Zoning Ordinance updated by March 2023.

Non-Quantified Objective: Facilitate the development of diverse housing types and address land use controls that are a constraint to development.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 4.2

4.1.11 CEQA Streamlining. Continue to allow eligible projects to use CEQA streamlining provisions, such as Infill Exemptions, Class 32 Exemptions, and Community Plan Exemptions (15183).

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing

Non-Quantified Objective: Streamline housing development.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 4.1

4.1.12 Removing Barriers to Rehabilitation Programs. Remove the two-year lien requirement for homeowners participating in the City’s home rehabilitation program in partnership with Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley.

Responsible Agency: Housing

Implementation Schedule: January 2025

Non-Quantified Objective: Remove barriers to housing conservation

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 4.1

4.1.13 Multi-family Objective Development Design Standards. Develop city-wide objective development design standards to utilize for review of multi-family residential projects instead of subjective design review processes. The objective development design standards will be posted on the City’s city’s website for developers and other stakeholders to easily reference and will not be overly cumbersome to implement.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department

Implementation Schedule: Adoption of the objective standards will be concurrent with the adoption of the Housing Element, and will be implemented as part of the review process in B213

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 7 - 3 1 tandem with adoption of the Housing Element, and they will be used for project review by June 2023.

Non-Quantified Objective: Streamline housing development.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 4.1

4.1.14 Rezoning and Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments. Perform the rezonings and amendments to the General Plan and applicable specific plans/focus area plans (e.g., East Lone Tree Specific Plan, Eastern Waterfront Employment Focus Area) to allow residential development on sites identified in the Housing Sites Inventory. The required rezonings and amendments are identified in Table 6-10 of the Housing Element.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department

Implementation Schedule: Adoption of the rezoning and amendments will be in tandem with adoption of the Housing Element. Sites will be rezoned by the beginning of the Planning Period.

Quantified Objective: Ensure availability of sites for up to 810 new units of housing.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 4.2
Goal 5: Fair Housing
Provide equal housing opportunities for all existing and future Antioch residents.

Policy 5.1 Ending Housing Discrimination. Encourage and support the enforcement of laws and regulations prohibiting discrimination in lending practices and in the sale or rental of housing.

Policy 5.2 Increased Integration and Opportunity. Increase available financial resources for affordable housing in order to better fund efforts to foster stable residential integration and increased access to opportunity. Increase integration by increasing the supply of affordable housing for families in higher opportunity areas.

Policy 5.3 Affordable Housing. Provide for the production of additional affordable housing through market incentives and improvements.

Policy 5.4 Anti-Displacement. Reduce the displacement of low-income communities of color by enhancing protections for vulnerable tenants and homeowners and preserving affordable housing in areas that are gentrifying or at risk of gentrification.

Policy 5.5 Improved information-sharing and coordination. Improve communications and coordination between jurisdictions, service providers, and agencies in the County.

B214

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
7-32
F. IMPLEMENTING PROGRAMS

5.1.1 Fair Housing Services. Continue to contract with ECHO Housing and Bay Area Legal Aid or other similar organizations to provide fair housing counseling and tenant/landlord counseling.

Continue to refer cases and questions to the appropriate fair housing service provider for enforcement of prohibitions on discrimination in lending practices and in the sale or rental of housing. Provide Additionally, the City will create written materials in English, and Spanish and Tagalog, explaining how complaints can be filed. The materials will be available at City Hall in the Community Development DepartmentPublic Safety and Community Resources Department , City Manager’s office, the City’s website and throughout the community in places such as bus stops, public libraries, community centers, local social centers, and other public locations. In addition, the City can assist the Contra Costa County Consortium with the following efforts:- Efforts will include:
 Educate landlords on criminal background screening in rental housing (using HUD fair housing guidance) and explore the feasibility of adopting ordinances.  Develop and disseminate a best-practices guide to credit screening in the rental housing context in order to discourage the use of strict FICO score cut-offs and overreliance on eviction records.
 Develop and distribute informational brochure on inclusionary leasing practices, including with licenses where applicable.
 Increase outreach to LGBTQ and immigrant stakeholder groups to provide “know your rights” materials regarding housing discrimination.
 Continue and increase outreach and education activities for all protected classes.  Include education on new requirements of the Right to a Safe Home Act in outreach activities to both landlords and the public.
 For publicly supported housing, develop protocols to ensure responsiveness to reasonable accommodation requests.

Responsible Agency: City of Antioch CDBG & Housing Programs, ECHO Housing

Implementation Schedule: The City maintains annual contracts with ECHO Housing and Bay Area Legal Aid. Referrals are ongoing. The written materials are completed and available.

Non-Quantified Objective: City assistance to eliminate housing discrimination within the community.
 Provide Fair Housing services to a minimum of 50 Antioch tenants and landlords annually who require information regarding fair housing and discrimination, or complainants alleging discrimination based on federal, state, and local protected classes.
 Conduct Fair Housing testing of a minimum of five apartment complexes annually based on complaints received.

Funding Source: CDBG

B215

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 7 - 3 3 Implements: Policy 5.1

5.1.2 Implement Americans Withwith DisabilititesDisabilities Act (ADA) Fair Housing Act?. Continue to use local permitting and approval processes to ensure all new multi-family construction meets the accessibility requirements of the federal and relevant State Fair Housing Actsregulations.

Responsible Agency: Community Development

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing on a project basis

Non-Quantified Objective: Ensuring accessibility of new housing

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 5.1

5.1.3 Incentivize Accessible Units. Incentivize developers through development standards concessions or fee waivers/reductions to increase the number of accessible units beyond the federal requirement of 5% for subsidized developments.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department

Implementation Schedule: Menu of incentives created by January 2024 and outreach to developers by June 2024

Non-Quantified Objective: Encouraging new housing choices and affordability for populations with special needs housing.

Quantified Objective: Two projects that go beyond the federal minimum of 5% accessible units for subsidized projects.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 5.2, Policy 5.3

5.1.4 Prioritize Funding for Hard to Serve Residents. Develop a program to prioritize City funding proposals for City-funded affordable housing that are committed to supporting hard to serve residents (e.g., unhoused populations, extremely low income, special needs).

Responsible Agency: City of Antioch, Housing
Implementation Schedule: Program designed completed by April 2024.

Non-Quantified Objective: Encouraging new housing choices and affordability for populations with special needs housing.

Quantified Objective: Reduce unsheltered unhoused population by 40%. Construction of 190 units of housing for extremely-low income individuals.

B216

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
7-34
Funding Source: Program creation provided by General Fund. Potential City funding is indeterminate (see Program 5.1.13).

Implements: Policy 5.2, Policy 5.3

5.1.54 Environmental Justice. Develop and implement Environmental Justice policies to improve quality of life in EJ neighborhoods. EJ policies are being developed in conjunction with the Housing Element.

Responsible Agency: City of Antioch, Housing

Implementation Schedule: Adoption of EJ policies by February March 2023.

Non-Quantified Objective: Alleviate disparate impacts experienced by households living in EJ neighborhoods, especially impacts related to environmental outcomes.

Quantified Objective: Improve CalEnviroScreen composite score in EJ area by 10 percent.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 5.2, Policy 5.3

5.1.65 Home Repairs. Continue to fund minor home repairs and implement a preference for projects in the following order:
1) Projects in the Sycamore neighborhood (i.e., Antioch's ethnically concentrated area of poverty)
2) Projects in EJ neighborhoods
3) Projects in census tracts with lower median incomes The City will affirmatively market the home repair program to residents in these areas, such as through a targeted mailings and posting of flyers in the subject census tracts in English, Spanish, and Tagalog.

Responsible Agency: City of Antioch, Housing

Implementation Schedule: Conduct publicity campaign for the program once annually in addition to hosting information on City website.

Non-Quantified Objective: Conserve and improve assets in areas of lower opportunity and concentrated poverty.

Quantified Objective: Rehabilitation of 40 homes in target neighborhoods.

Funding Source: CDBG and General Fund ?

Implements: Policy 5.2, Policy 5.4

B217

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 7 - 3 5

5.1.76 Monitor At-Risk Projects. Monitor affordable housing projects that are at risk of conversion to market rate. Support regional and local efforts to examine displacement of affordable housing and lower income households. Assist with the retention of special needs housing that is at risk of expiring affordability requirements.

Responsible Agency: City of Antioch Housing Dept.Public Safety and Community Resources Department, Housing Program.

Implementation Schedule: Preservation strategies established and outreach to non-profit partners by January 2031.

Non-Quantified Objective: Preserve existing affordable housing.

Quantified Objective: Preservation of 54 units before 2032.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 5.2, Policy 5.3

5.1.87 Economic Development in EJ Neighborhoods. Promote economic development in the EJ neighborhoods and Sycamore neighborhood in particular. The City will prioritize economic development and infrastructure expenditures in and around lower-income and environmental justice neighborhoods, to enhance business and housing opportunities. This could include facade improvements and small business grant recipients. The City will explore methods for providing low-interest loans and below-market leases for tax-foreclosed commercial properties to low- income residents seeking to start businesses within the EJ neighborhoods.

Responsible Agency: City of Antioch, Economic Development, Public Works, and Planning

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing

Non-Quantified Objective: Place-based strategies to encourage community conservation and revitalization.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 5.2

5.1.98 Tenant Protections. Pursue the development of citywide tenant protection policies for consideration by the City Council. These policies would address, but not necessarily be limited to, anti-harassment, just cause eviction, Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA), Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA) and rent stabilization. The process would include inclusive public outreach with tenants, community-based organizations, landlords and other interested community members. The goal of this effort is to prepare and present an implementing ordinance for City Council consideration. This needs to be updated as this ordinance has passed and enforcement will be through the City Attorney’s office, not housing.

Do you need specifics? In Fall 2022 the City of Antioch City Council adopted a Rent Stabilization Ordinance which caps rental increases at the lesser of 3%, or 60% of annual CPI increase.

B218

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
7-36
Responsible Agency: City of Antioch City Attorney’s OfficePublic Safety and Community Resources

Department

Implementation Schedule: Initiate public engagement and outreach process by June 2023.

Non-Quantified Objective: Protect approximately 13,509 households from displacement and preserve housing affordability.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 5.4

5.1.109 Fair Housing Training. ThroughPartner with ECHO Housing and/or Bay Area Legal Aid, continue to perform fair housing training for landlords and tenants. Attendance at a fair housing training will become a condition for approval of landlords' business licenses. The tTraining would includes information on reasonable accommodation and source of income discrimination, as well as other fair housing information with emphasis on certain topics driven by housing complaint data and information from stakeholders.

Responsible Agency: ECHO Housing and/or Bay Area Legal Aid in partnership with the City

Implementation Schedule: Program design to track attendance and condition business license approval completed by January 2024. Program launch March 2024.

Non-Quantified Objective: Protect existing residents from displacement and enforce Fair fair Housing housing laws

Quantified Objective: Conduct 2-3 4 to 6four to six workshops per year on fair housing rights. and resources.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 5.1

5.1.1110 Fair Housing Webpage. Continue to maintain a webpage specific to fair housing including resources for residents who feel they have experienced discrimination, information about filing fair housing complaints with HCD or HUD, and information about protected classes under the Fair Housing Act.

Responsible Agency: City of Antioch Public Safety and Community Resources, Housing program in partnership with ECHO Housing and/or Bay Area Legal Aid

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing

Non-Quantified Objective: Enforce Fair Housing laws

B219

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 7 - 3 7 Quantified Objective: Increase participants in fair housing programs by 5 five percent.

Funding Source: General FundCDBG

Implements: Policy 5.1

5.1.1211 Right to Reasonable Accommodations. Ensure that all multi-family residential developments contain signage to explain the right to request reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities as a condition of business license approval. Make this information available and clearly transparent on the City's website in English, Spanish, and Tagalog and fund landlord training and outreach on reasonable accommodations.

Responsible Agency: City of Antioch

Implementation Schedule: Information added to City website by January 2024.

Non-Quantified Objective: Enforce Fair Housing laws.

Quantified Objective: Increased reasonable accommodation requests and fulfilled requests by 10 ten percent.

Funding Source: General Fund

Implements: Policy 5.1

5.1.13 12 Financial Resources. Support the County’s exploration of a countywide affordable housing bond issuance that would support efforts to develop permanent supportive housing, to build affordable housing for families, and to preserve affordable housing in areas undergoing gentrification and displacement. Efforts to support a bond issue could include the posting of informational materials regarding the need for affordable housing and the possible uses of bond proceedings on government agency websites.

Responsible Agency: CDBG and Housing Coordinator

Implementation Schedule: Earliest option for a bond measure would be on the 2024 ballot.

Implementation of Program 5.1.15, Promote ADUs as Affordable Housing would also help with implementation of this program.

Non-Quantified Objective: Assistance for the City to achieve their very low- and low-income RHNA units

Funding Source: CDBG and General Fund

Implements: Policy 5.3

5.1.1413 Enhancing Housing Mobility Strategies. Consistent with the Housing sites Sites inventoryInventory, rezone sites throughout the city to permit multi-family units in areas where it was not previously allowed, including areas with relatively higher median incomes and relatively newer housing stock.

B220

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
7-38

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department

Implementation Schedule: By January 2023

Non-Quantified Objective: Remove barriers to housing in areas of opportunity and strategically enhancing access.

Funding Source: CDBG and General Fund

Implements: Policy 5.2, Policy 5.3

5.1.1514 Inter-Agency and Inter-Jurisdictional Coordination. Continue funding and supporting multi-agency collaborative efforts for legal services, including organizations that do not receive Legal Services Corporation funding and are able to represent undocumented residents. Explore and participate in an ongoing working group of representatives from Consortium, PHA, and local housing and community development staff, along with representatives of local and regional transportation, education, climate/energy, and health agencies.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, and Public Safety and Community Resources Department, and Housing Coordinator.

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing .

Non-Quantified Objective: Assistance for the City to achieve preservation goals .

Funding Source: CDBG and General Fund

Implements: Policy 5.1

5.1.16 15 Promote ADUs as Affordable Housing. Finance construction of JADU units to provide rental income or caregiver/other housing for lower income homeowners through the provision of lower interest loans to be paid with rental income. This program complements Implementation Program 2.1.8.b, ADU/JADU Loans, in which the CitycCity partners with Habitat for Humanity to create an ADU/JADU loan product to assist homeowners in constructing ADUs/JADUs for rental housing. Loan recipients would be required to affirmatively market their ADU to populations with disproportionate housing needs, including persons with disabilities, Hispanic households, Black households, and female-headed households. This would include translation of materials into Spanish and sharing information with community organizations that serve these populations, such as legal service or public health providers.

Responsible Agency: Housing & CDBG programs, Habitat for Humanity, ECHO Housing (Tenant/Landlord and Fair Housing Education).City Partnership with Habitat for Humanity

Implementation Schedule:
 Program design completed by June 2025.
 Annual grant funding to program proposed at $500,000.

B221

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 7 - 3 9  Funding and approvals granted for five5 ADUs by Dec 2026 and then 5 five ADUs annually thereafter.

Non-Quantified Objective:

Annually increase housing stock by 4-5four to five units by providing extremely and very low- income (0-50 percent% AMI) homeowners with low-interest loans, design and construction management assistance, and education on landlord and tenant laws and responsibilities.

Increase housing mobility by generating wealth for low-income homeowners and by facilitating the development of ADUs that are affordable to lower-income households in areas with relatively higher incomes

Quantified Objective: Subsidized development of 25 ADUs by the end of the Planning planning Periodperiod.

Funding Source:: Housing Successor Funds or and PLHA

Implements: Policy 5.3

5.1.1716 Schools. Increase and stabilize access to proficient schools supporting regular lines of communications between Antioch school district school boards and school district staff with the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County to ensure that districts take into account the needs of low-income residents in redistricting and investment decisions, particularly for residents of public and assisted housing in the region. To the extent possible, focus the development of new family-friendly affordable housing in school districts and school zones with lower rates of school- based poverty concentration, and incentivize new market-rate multi-family development in high performing school zones to include more bedrooms in affordable apartments for families with children.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department and Housing Coordinator

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing

Non-Quantified Objective: Increased opportunities for low-income residents

Funding Source: CDBG

Implements: Policy 5.2

5.1.1817 Encouraging New Housing Choices. Require affordable housing developments be affirmatively marketed to households with disproportionate housing needs, including persons with disabilities, Hispanic households, Black households, and female-headed households. This would include translation of materials into Spanish and Tagalog and sharing information with community organizations that serve these populations, such as legal service or public health providers. All marketing plans would include strategies to reach groups with disproportionate housing needs.

Responsible Agency: Community Development Department

Implementation Schedule: Ongoing. Marketing plans are submitted at time of building inspection.

Non-Quantified Objective: Encouraging new housing choices and affordability.

B222

7. HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
7-40

Quantified Objective: Affordable housing projects and available affordable units are advertised to at least 3 community organizations.

Funding Source: CDBG

Implements: Policy 5.3

G. QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
Table 7-1 summarizes the quantified objectives for the 2023-2031 planning period.

TABLE 7-1 QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES: 2023-2031
Program/Income Level
Quantified Objective
(Dwelling Units or Households)
New Construction
Extremely and Very Low-Income 132
Low-Income 340
Moderate-Income 190
Above Moderate-Income 400
Total 1,705
Rehabilitation
Extremely and Very Low-Income 0
Low-Income 20
Moderate-Income 10
Above Moderate-Income --
Total 30
Preservation/Conservation 54
Extremely Low-Income 20
Very Low-Income 21
Low-Income 41
Moderate-Income --
Above Moderate- Income --

B223
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 8-1

PARTICIPATION
This Housing Element has been shaped by community feedback throughout all phases of its development.

A variety of in-person and digital tools were used to solicit input, including surveys, community meetings, and interviews. This chapter Chapter describes the community participation activities conducted during the development of the draft Draft Housing Element and the adoption of the final Final Housing Element.

A. DEVELOPMENT OF THE DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
To avoid meeting fatigue and avoid duplicating efforts where appropriate, it was important to draw from prior planning efforts. As part of the Contra Costa County Consortium, Antioch was involved with the County’s adoption of the 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan in May 2020 and the 2020-2025 Analysis of Impediments/Assessment to Fair Housing Choice in June 2019. Both these efforts included robust community engagement, including stakeholder meetings; six community meetings, including one in Antioch in June 2018; four meetings with housing choice voucher participants and public housing residents, including one in Antioch in August 2018; and a survey that garnered 297 responses. The Housing Element drew from these prior plans and their community engagement results as a starting point.

Community engagement specific to the Housing Element update reached a wide range of stakeholders, including City staff from other departments, residents, employees, housing advocates, developers, service agencies, and other organizations addressing housing and special needs. Key stakeholders, agencies, and organizations were contacted individually for input to ensure that the Housing Element accurately reflects a broad spectrum of the community and prioritizes needs appropriately. In addition, a dedicated website hosted by the City was used throughout the entirety of the project. The page was updated with public- facing materials on a rolling basis and included information on the project schedule, upcoming outreach opportunities, and drafts of deliverables available for public review and comment. Key documents were translated into Spanish and the City’s built-in web translation tool can be used to translate all web content into Spanish, Chinese, and Filipino.

See Appendix E, Public Engagement Input for more information on the public participation process.

Engagement was carried out in three phases, as described below.

B224

8. PARTICIPATION
8-2
B. PHASE 1 – INTRODUCE PROJECT
The first phase of the engagement process sought to
introduce to the community what a Housing Element is and what it seeks to accomplish. Materials were also publicized to explain the Environmental Hazards Element Update and Environmental Justice (EJ) requirements triggered by the Housing Element Update. This phase sought to empower
the community with the vocabulary and knowledge to
provide meaningful input throughout the update process.

Interviews were conducted with three community-based
organizations (CBOs) who were consulted to identify the best methods to engage the populations they serve.

C. PHASE 2 – UNDERSTAND EXISTING

CONDITIONS
In the second phase, the focus was on soliciting community and stakeholder input on housing constraints, resources, opportunities, and housing needs, including needs for
special populations. The City conducted four interviews, two housing groups Four interviews; two focus groups,
(one with housing and homelessness organizations and one with Spanish-speaking residents),; and a community meeting were used to understand constraints and opportunities for residential development and Antioch’s most pressing
housing needs. By establishing a strong on-the-ground
understanding of Antioch’s existing conditions, the City was able to pragmatically propose feasible solutions. This WHAT WE HEARD – PHASE 1

INTRODUCTION PROJECT
 Regional groups in East Contra Costa
County identified Antioch as one of the
highest need areas.
 Affordability and habitability/safety are
consistently cited as the top concerns
related to housing in Antioch, especially
related to people with disabilities, low-
income families with children, and
Antioch’s unhoused population.

WHAT WE HEARD – PHASE 2

UNDERSTAND EXISTING CONDITIONS
 There is a lack of affordable housing with
adequate amenities, including access to
transit, safety features, case
management for fair housing on-site, and
childcare.
 CBOs and residents see a need for more
tenant protections, including
discrimination and harassment
protection, just cause policies, and rent
control.
 There are barriers for low-income
homeowners to access rehabilitation
funding.
 Potential development is highly
dependent on the quality of existing
infrastructure and environmental
constraints.

B225

8. PARTICIPATION
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 8-3 on-the-ground understanding was informed by talking to City staff, community leaders, CBOs, and residents.

D. PHASE 3 – EXPLORE AND REFINE REFINE SOLUTIONS
The final phase of engagement was used to formulate
realistic and community-supported solutions to address
housing challenges in the community. Working sessions
with City staff and stakeholders, two public meetings (one in English and one bilingual English/Spanish), and an online survey in English and Spanish were all part of this phase.

The survey garnered 35 responses across both languages, as detailed in Appendix E, Public Engagement Input.

In addition, the Public Review draft was widely publicized for public comment, included via emails to project
followers and stakeholders, and posted on the project
website. The Public Review draft was made available for a the 30-day public comment period between May 12, 2022 , and June 11, 2022, consistent with Assembly Bill (AB) 215 requirements.

E. AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING (AFFH)
Changes in Housing Element Law since the last cycle require the careful consideration of populations who have historically been excluded from planning processes and deliberate and proactive actions to remove WHAT WE HEARD – PHASE 3

EXPLORE AND REFINE SOLUTIONS
 Residents are concerned about being
priced out of their homes.
 Residents are concerned about tenant
harassment and unlawful housing
discrimination.
 Residents are interested in city-assisted
down payment programs to allow for
more opportunities for homeownership.

B226

8. PARTICIPATION
8-4
barriers to participation. Consistent with the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) guidance, the following best practices were utilized to include public participation from all economic segments of the community.

Consultations with CBOs were held to determine the methods, locations, messaging, and hours most conducive to engaging historically excluded communities, including low-income households and those with disabilities. A summary of the methods is as follows:
 Public meetings scheduled outside of working hours.
 Closed captioning and on-call tech support provided at virtual public meetings.  Robust and diverse meeting publicity implemented digitally and in person.  Interviews, focus groups, and a community meeting conducted completely in Spanish to make participants feel more comfortable sharing their stories, ideas, and perceptions in their native language.
 Publication of a Housing Guide one pager (shown above) explaining terms to avoid jargon and make information more accessible.
 Partnership with First Five to conduct Spanish-language meeting with their members in a format comfortable and familiar to participants.
 Use of stipends and incentives to remove barriers to participation among lower-income households.

F. SUMMARY OF OUTREACH ACTIVITIES
This section summarizes key outreach activities. See Appendix E, Public Engagement Input for more information.

1. NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan for the Contra Costa County Consortium included a needs assessment that evaluated disproportionate housing needs. The plan was informed by feedback from local and regional stakeholders, such as residents and organizations involved in affordable housing, fair housing, homeless programs, and other community development activities. The process ensured outreach and opportunities for the involvement of affected persons including lower-income persons and families, persons living in lower-income areas, people of color, non-English speaking persons, and persons with disabilities. The Consortium also sought input from other public and private agencies that provide emergency housing for those who are homeless, assisted housing for special needs populations, transitional housing, health services, mental health services, social services, infrastructure needs, as well as those agencies who provide fair housing and tenant/landlord services and ensure compliance with Civil Rights laws and regulations.

2. STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUPS
See Table 8-1 for information on stakeholder interviews and focus groups conducted as part of the Housing Element update.

On February 19, 2022, InterEthnica and Urban Planning Partners led a focus group for Spanish speakers.

The purpose of the meeting was to outline Housing Element and E J Element nvironmental Justice updates and to gain feedback from participants regarding their experience in Antioch. Many of the participants B227

8. PARTICIPATION
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 8-5 spoke of the rising cost of housing and stated that access to safe affordable housing was one of the most important issues facing them and others in Antioch. Additionally, participants discussed the lack of youth services within the city. In total, seven community members participated in the focus group.

B228

8. PARTICIPATION
8-6
TABLE 8-1 S TAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUPS
Organization Interview Date Interview Topic(s)
Independent Living Resources October 20, 2021 Housing needs, engagement best practices Antioch First 5 Center October 25, 2021 Housing needs, engagement best practices ECHO Fair Housing October 25, 2021 Fair housing, engagement best practices AMCAL Multi-Housing Inc. December 3, 2021
Developer perspective: Housing housing constraints
and opportunities, economic feasibility, city’s
processes, potential policies
CBO Focus Group including:
 ECHO Fair Housing
 Shelter Inc
 Contra Costa Senior Legal Services
 Bay Area Legal Aid (BALA)
 Habitat for Humanity East
Bay/Silicon Valley
 Saint Vincent de Paul Most Holy
Rosary Conference
 East Bay Housing Organizations
(EBHO)
December 13, 2021 Fair housing, housing needs, segregation, housing choice
CityVentures December 22, 2021 Developer perspective: Housing housing constraints and economic feasibility, potential policies
Spanish Speakers Focus Group February 19, 2022 Housing needs, fair housing, and environmental justice Contra Costa Health Services April 5, 2022 Environmental justice and climate change Antioch First 5 April 19, 2022 Environmental justice and engagement best practices Contra Costa Health Services April 25, 2022 Environmental justice and community health Source: Urban Planning Partners and InterEthnica, 2021-2022.

3. CITY-WIDE COMMUNITY MEETINGS
The City of Antioch, along with the consultant team, Urban Planning Partners, held three community meetings throughout the Housing Element update process. The first Community Engagement Meeting was on February 17, 2022. The purpose of the meeting was to outline the Housing Element updates and, discuss the incorporation of Environmental JusticeEJ policies, and to gain feedback from the community on additional needs and their vision for the city. The meeting was held virtually and utilized breakout rooms and a live poll to gather community feedback. The brief presentation about the contents and goals of the Housing Element update and Environmental JusticeEJ policies, including the findings to date about related trends and needs and a draft of the site inventory, was followed by a breakout room discussion to receive feedback. Following the discussion, groups reconvened to share what each group discussed and receive any additional ideas. Nineteenth (19)There were 19 community members who participated virtually in addition to 12 representatives of housing housing-related nonprofit organizationss and City staff observers.

The second community meeting was held on April 13, 2022. The purpose of the workshop was to gain feedback from the community on goals identified within the Housing Element update. The meeting was held virtually and utilized live polls and discussion to gather community feedback. The presentation contained information about the contents and goals of the Housing Element update, alongside an update on findings related to environmental justiceEJ findings. The presentation was followed by a discussion.

B229

8. PARTICIPATION
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 8-7 During the discussion, community members shared their personal stories regarding housing in Antioch and provided feedback regarding the five goals of the Housing Element update. Ten community members participated virtually in addition to six representatives of housing related nonprofits and City staff observers.

On May 4, 2022, a bilingual English-Spanish virtual community meeting was held in partnership with First Five. First Five is a trusted community organization in the Latinx community and has been active in identifying housing issues for its members and advocating for solutions. Twenty-one (21)At its peak, 21 people attended the meeting at its peak. This workshop was designed to ensure voices of the Latinx community were heard and the content and format of the April meeting was refined in collaboration with First Five with this in mind. Whiteboard exercises were used at the beginning and end of the meeting to collect feedback on housing needs in Antioch and to get feedback on draft goals and programs. After a brief presentation, robust discussion followed primarily centered on fair housing concerns and potential solution.

4. POLICY SURVEY
Following the community meeting, a survey was
publicized by the City and distributed to
community members and organizations, with the
intent to reach more members of the community
than were represented during the meeting. The
questionnaire included questions on which housing
policies and strategies residents were most
interested in, including strategies for promoting
new housing development, increasing housing
affordability, and addressing fair housing concerns.

Participants were asked to rate potential strategies
by their level of support for each one.

5. STUDY SESSIONS AND PUBLIC

HEARINGS
Study sessions occurred with the Planning
Commission and City Council on Wednesday, October 6, 2021, and Tuesday, October 26, 2021, respectively, to introduction introduce the project and the community engagement strategy.

Commissioners were particularly interested in Antioch’s EJ neighborhoods and understanding the metrics behind that determination. Councilmembers were supportive of efforts to meet people where they are to ensure engagement efforts reach Antioch’s diverse community.

A Planning Commission study session focused on EJ was held on November 17, 2021. The Planning Commission was interested in the effect that the environmental justiceEJ designation would have on the businesses within the identified areas. Commissioners wanted to ensure that proper engagement was being conducted to reach seniors and immigrant communities.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
The Public Review Draft Housing Element was available for public review and comment for 30 days between May 16, 2022, and June 15, 2022. Consistent with AB 215, the availability of the draft Draft Housing Element was publicized online and all project followers were emailed. The Planning Commission SURVEY RESULTS: KEY FINDINGS
 Respondents are interested in a variety of housing
types, especially housing for seniors, interim/
transitional housing for people looking to transition
from homelessness and reserving multi-family
units for low-income residents.
 Antioch needs more of both rental and ownership
units.
 Respondents hope for more programs that help
people experiencing homelessness and financial
assistance programs for people who cannot afford
housing.
 There is a need for more affordable housing near
transit and jobs and better infrastructure in
underserved neighborhoods.
 Respondents are concerned about tenant
harassment and unlawful housing discrimination.

B230

8. PARTICIPATION
8-8
received a presentation on the Public Review Draft Housing Element on May 18, 2022 . , and City Council also received a presentation on and discussed the Public Review Draft Housing Element at Study Sessions held on June 14, 2022, and June 28, 2022.

PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSIONS
At the Planning Commission Study Session for the Public Review Draft Housing Element held on May 18, 2022, comments from the public, which included several members of First 5 Contra Costa’s East County Regional Group, focused on the need for tenant protections inclusive but not limited to rent control measures and just cause and anti-harassment ordinances. These protections, according to the public, are necessary to prevent the displacement of renters in Antioch who are experiencing substantial rent increases, harassment from landlords, and cost burden. Following public comment, Planning Commissioners inquired on what protections the city City currently has in place for renters, and whether the various protections mentioned during public comment could be utilized to satisfy HCD AFFH requirements of the Housing Element. Several Commissioners supported the additional exploration and analysis of tenant protections by s [SJS1][SW2]taff. Other Commissioners expressed concern that such tenant protections were not long-term solutions to housing supply and affordability in the community but supported additional analysis and exploration into the protections. Planning Commission approved the Public Review Draft Housing Element to be reviewed by City Council but did request an additional Study Session to be scheduled with Planning Commissioners for June 1, 2022.

A second Planning Commission Study Session for the Public Review Draft Housing Element was held on June 1, 2022, at the request of Planning Commissioners. No members of the public signed up to speak at this Study Session. At this Study Session Commissioners requested clarification on a number of miscellaneous items throughout the Public Review Draft, including the distribution of affordable housing sites throughout the city, in relation to environmental justiceEJ areas identified within the Element, and what housing measures the City presently has in place. Commissioners expressed a desire to explore more tenant and community right to own provisions, rent-deposit alternatives, down-payment assistance programs and universal income programs – especially for households in environmental justiceEJ areas. No action was taken by Commissioners at this Study Session.

CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSIONS
At the City Council Study Session for the Public Review Draft Housing Element held on June 14, 2022, many residents and members of community benefit organizations (CBOs), including but not limited to First 5 Contra Costa’s East County Regional Group, Monument Impact, and ACCE offered public comment on the Public Review Housing Element Draft. Speakers from the public requested that the Public Review Draft Housing Element, specifically proposed Policy Program 5.1.9. Tenant Protections, be revised to include more robust and proactive tenant protection measures. Speakers emphasized the prevalence of steep rental increases and instances of extreme cost-burden by households throughout the city, as well as instances of landlord harassment including unjustified threats of eviction, and general neglect of maintenance requests and property upkeep. Speakers requested additional protections, beyond, and more inclusive than, those offered by the State’s AB 1482 including the exploration and adoption of rent control measures, and anti-harassment and just cause ordinances. Additionally, public comment was received which requested that the Public Review Draft Housing Element, specifically proposed Policy [SJS3][SW4]2.1.10, Inclusionary Housing, be revised to include more comprehensive language regarding the City of Antioch’s commitment to initiate a feasibility study for an inclusionary housing ordinance.

Following Public Comment, the Mayor and City Council members discussed providing a recommendation to staff to explore the tenant protection measures mentioned by the Public for inclusion within the Draft Housing Element. As part of discussion many Council Members expressed disapproval for the City’s city’s B231

8. PARTICIPATION
A N T I O C H H O U S I N G E L E M E N T 2 0 2 3 - 2 0 3 1 8-9 rapidly rising rents, and the cost burdening and displacement of Antioch residents, but did state they would ’d need to see ordinance language prior to supporting any tenant protection measures. Staff advised Council Members that staff can analyze tenant protection measures mentioned by the public, and revise policy language within the Housing Element to address public comments. Staff further advised that while staff can provide revised policy language within the Draft Housing Element regarding tenant protections, the City cannot adopt these protections through the Housing Element update process. Such tenant protections would have to be developed, informed through public input, and subsequently heard and adopted by City Council, separate from the Housing Element process. The meeting adjourned with City Council authorizing staff to revise policy language within the Draft Housing Element related to tenant protections and inclusionary housing, for further discussion at a City Council Study Session to be held on June 28, 2022.

Based on the public comments heard at the June 14, 2022, Study Session, staff revised the Draft Housing Element to include additional language within proposed policies regarding Tenant Protections and Inclusionary Housing. These revised policies are contained within Chapter 7, Housing Goals, Policies, and Programs of this Element and were presented at the June 28, 2022, City Council Study Session.

At the City Council Study Session on June 28, 2022, several residents and members of community benefit organizations (CBOs), including but not limited to First 5 Contra Costa’s East County Regional Group, ACCE and Monument Impact, offered public comment on the Public Review Housing Element Draft.

Public comments echoed what was heard at the June 14, 20222022, Session with many members of the public expressing concern regarding skyrocketing rents, threats of eviction from landlords, and neglect of properties by landlords at various rental properties across the Citycity. While many members of the public supported the revised policy language within the Draft Housing Element regarding tenant protections, they also expressed a desire and need for an accelerated timeline for adoption of these tenant protections. Following public comment, the mayor addressed the Meeting Chambers and advised that the public’s sentiments were heard and understood, and that the City was looking into how to expedite the drafting, review and adoption of tenant protection measures, sooner than the timelines mentioned in the Draft Housing Element. The mayor reiterated that it is the City’s intent to explore these tenant protection measures, and that future policy language proposed to be included in such protections would be brought before the City Council at a later date for consideration. The Study Session adjourned with a vote to transmit the Public Draft Housing Element to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review.

Note: In September 2022, the City of Antioch adopted a Rent Stabilization Ordinance, as discussed within Program 5.1.8. Tenant Protections. This Ordinance has been codified within Section 11-1 of the City’s Municipal Code.

It is anticipated that the final Final Housing Element will be heard for adoption by the Planning Commission and City Council at public hearings in November/December January 20222023.

B232

HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT:

ANTIOCH

B233

B234
A-i

0.1 Table of Contents
1 Summary of Key Facts .................................................................................................. 1 2 Population, Employment and Household Characteristics ....................................................... 3

2.1 Population .......................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Age .................................................................................................................. 4

2.3 Race and Ethnicity ................................................................................................ 6

2.4 Employment Trends ............................................................................................... 7

2.4.1 Balance of Jobs and Workers ............................................................................ 7

2.4.2 Sector Composition ...................................................................................... 11

2.4.3 Unemployment ............................................................................................ 12

2.5 Extremely Low-Income Households ........................................................................... 13

2.6 Tenure ............................................................................................................. 17

2.7 Displacement ..................................................................................................... 21 3 Housing Stock Characteristics ...................................................................................... 22

3.1 Housing Types, Year Built, Vacancy, and Permits .......................................................... 22

3.2 Assisted Housing Developments At-Risk of Conversion ..................................................... 24

3.3 Substandard Housing ............................................................................................. 26

3.4 Home and Rent Values .......................................................................................... 26

3.5 Overpayment and Overcrowding ............................................................................... 30 4 Special Housing Needs ................................................................................................ 39

4.1 Large Households ................................................................................................. 39

4.2 Female-Headed Households .................................................................................... 40

4.3 Seniors ............................................................................................................. 42

4.4 People with Disabilities ......................................................................................... 43

4.5 Homelessness ..................................................................................................... 45

4.6 Farmworkers ...................................................................................................... 51

4.7 Non-English Speakers ............................................................................................ 55

B235
A-ii A PPENDIX A: HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: ANTIOCH

0.2 List of Figures
Figure 1: Population Growth Trends ........................................................................................ 4 Figure 2: Population by Age, 2000-2019 .................................................................................... 5 Figure 3: Senior and Youth Population by Race ........................................................................... 6 Figure 4: Population by Race, 2000-2019 .................................................................................. 7 Figure 5: Jobs in a Jurisdiction .............................................................................................. 8 Figure 6: Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence .......................... 9 Figure 7: Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group ........................................................................... 10 Figure 8: Jobs-Household Ratio ............................................................................................. 11 Figure 9: Resident Employment by Industry .............................................................................. 12 Figure 10: Unemployment Rate ............................................................................................. 13 Figure 11: Households by Household Income Level ...................................................................... 14 Figure 12: Households by Household Income Level ...................................................................... 15 Figure 13: Household Income Level by Tenure ........................................................................... 16 Figure 14: Poverty Status by Race .......................................................................................... 17 Figure 15: Housing Tenure ................................................................................................... 18 Figure 16: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder ..................................................................... 19 Figure 17: Housing Tenure by Age .......................................................................................... 20 Figure 18: Housing Tenure by Housing Type .............................................................................. 20 Figure 19: Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure ............................................................... 21 Figure 20: Housing Type Trends ............................................................................................ 22 Figure 21: Housing Units by Year Structure Built ........................................................................ 23 Figure 22: Vacant Units by Type ............................................................................................ 24 Figure 23: Substandard Housing Issues..................................................................................... 26 Figure 24: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units ....................................................................... 27 Figure 25: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) ............................................................................... 28 Figure 26: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units ................................................................... 29 Figure 27: Median Contract Rent ........................................................................................... 30 Figure 28: Cost Burden by Tenure .......................................................................................... 31 Figure 29: Cost Burden by Income Level .................................................................................. 32 Figure 30: Cost Burden by Race ............................................................................................. 33 Figure 31: Cost Burden by Household Size ................................................................................ 34 Figure 32: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level ........................................................ 35 Figure 33: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity ........................................................................ 36 Figure 34: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity ................................................................ 37 Figure 35: Overcrowding by Race........................................................................................... 38 Figure 36: Household Size by Tenure ...................................................................................... 39 Figure 37: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms ....................................................................... 40 Figure 38: Household Type .................................................................................................. 41 Figure 39: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status .............................................................. 42 Figure 40: Senior Households by Income and Tenure.................................................................... 43 Figure 41: Disability by Type ................................................................................................ 44 Figure 42: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Contra Costa County ........................... 46 Figure 43: Number of Unsheltered Individuals by Contra Costa County Cities ...................................... 47 Figure 44: Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations, Contra Costa County ..................... 48 Figure 45: Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, Contra Costa County ............................. 49 Figure 46: Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Contra Costa County ............... 50 Figure 47: Farm Operations and Farm Labor by County, Contra Costa County ...................................... 54 Figure 48: Population with Limited English Proficiency................................................................. 55 B236
A-iii

0.3 List of Tables
Table 1: Population Growth Trends ......................................................................................... 3 Table 2: Housing Permitting ................................................................................................. 24 Table 3: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion ............................................................................. 25 Table 4: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age .......................................................... 45 Table 5: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence ................................................... 45 Table 6: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness ............................................... 51 Table 7: Farm Operations and Farm Labor by County ................................................................... 52 Table 8: Migrant Worker Student Population ............................................................................. 54

B237
A-iv APPENDIX A: HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: ANTIOCH

B238
A-1
1 SUMMARY OF KEY FACTS
This section is a more in-depth version of Chapter 2: Housing Needs. The majority of this appendix comes from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) / Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Data Packets prepared for each jurisdiction in the Bay Area. • Population – Generally, the population of the Bay Area continues to grow because of natural growth and because the strong economy draws new residents to the region. The population of Antioch increased by 24.3% from 2000 to 2020, which is above the growth rate of the Bay Area. • Age – In 2019, Antioch’s youth population under the age of 18 was 27,630 and senior population 65 and older was 13,547. These age groups represent 24.8% and 12.2%, respectively, of Antioch’s population.
• Race/Ethnicity – In 2020, 27.8% of Antioch’s population was White while 21.1% was African American, 12.1% was Asian, and 33.2% was Latinx. People of color in Antioch comprise a proportion above the overall proportion in the Bay Area as a whole. 1 • Employment – Antioch residents most commonly work in the Health & Educational Services industry. From January 2010 to January 2021, the unemployment rate in Antioch decreased by 5.1 percentage points. Since 2010, the number of jobs located in the jurisdiction increased by 3,450 (17.9%). Additionally, the jobs-household ratio in Antioch has increased from 0.55 in 2002 to 0.67 jobs per household in 2018.
• Number of Homes – The number of new homes built in the Bay Area has not kept pace with the demand, resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness. The number of homes in Antioch increased, 3.7% from 2010 to 2020, which is below the growth rate for Contra Costa County and below the growth rate of the region’s housing stock during this time period.
• Home Prices – A diversity of homes at all income levels creates opportunities for all Antioch residents to live and thrive in the community.
‒ Ownership The largest proportion of homes had a value in the range of $250k-$500k in 2019.

Home prices increased by 122.4% from 2010 to 2020.
‒ Rental Prices – The typical contract rent for an apartment in Antioch was $1,610 in 2019.

Rental prices increased by 50.8% from 2009 to 2019. To rent a typical apartment without cost burden, a household would need to make $64,560 per year. 2 • Housing Type – It is important to have a variety of housing types to meet the needs of a community today and in the future. In 2020, 77.7% of homes in Antioch were single family detached, 4.7% were single family attached, 4.1% were small multifamily (2-4 units), and 12.4% were medium or large multifamily (5+ units). Between 2010 and 2020, the number of single-family units increased more

1 The Census Bureau’s American Community Survey accounts for ethnic origin separate from racial identity. The numbers reported here use an accounting of both such that the racial categories are shown exclusive of Latinx status, to allow for an accounting of the Latinx population regardless of racial identity. The term Hispanic has historically been used to describe people from numerous Central American, South American, and Caribbean countries. In recent years, the term Latino or Latinx has become preferred. This report generally uses Latinx, but occasionally when discussing US Census data, we use Hispanic or Non-Hispanic, to clearly link to the data source. 2 Note that contract rents may differ significantly from, and often being lower than, current listing prices.

B239
A-2 A PPENDIX A: HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: ANTIOCH
than multi-family units. Generally, in Antioch, the share of the housing stock that is detached single family homes is above that of other jurisdictions in the region. • Cost Burden – The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development considers housing to be affordable for a household if the household spends less than 30% of its income on housing costs. A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30% of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” In Antioch, 20.3% of households spend 30%-50% of their income on housing, while 20.8% of households are severely cost burden and use the majority of their income for housing.
• Displacement/Gentrification – According to research from The University of California, Berkeley,

31.3% of households in Antioch live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement, and 19.2% live in areas at risk of or undergoing gentrification. 6.8% of households in Antioch live in neighborhoods where low-income households are likely excluded due to prohibitive housing costs. There are various ways to address displacement including ensuring new housing at all income levels is built.
• Neighborhood – No residents in Antioch live in neighborhoods identified as “Highest Resource” or “High Resource” areas by State-commissioned research, while 89.6% of residents live in areas identified by this research as “Low Resource” or “High Segregation and Poverty” areas. These neighborhood designations are based on a range of indicators covering areas such as education, poverty, proximity to jobs and economic opportunities, low pollution levels, and other factors. 3 • Special Housing Needs – Some population groups may have special housing needs that require specific program responses, and these groups may experience barriers to accessing stable housing due to their specific housing circumstances. In Antioch, 15.2% of residents have a disability of any kind and may require accessible housing. Additionally, 18.7% of Antioch households are larger households with five or more people, who likely need larger housing units with three bedrooms or more. 20.4% of households are female-headed families, which are often at greater risk of housing insecurity.

Note on Data
Many of the tables in this report are sourced from data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey or U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, both of which are samples and as such, are subject to sampling variability. This means that data is an estimate, and that other estimates could be possible if another set of respondents had been reached. We use the five-year release to get a larger data pool to minimize this “margin of error” but particularly for the smaller cities, the data will be based on fewer responses, and the information should be interpreted accordingly.

3 For more information on the “opportunity area” categories developed by HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, see this website: https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp. The degree to which different jurisdictions and neighborhoods have access to opportunity will likely need to be analyzed as part of new Housing Element requirements related to affirmatively furthering fair housing.

B240
A-3
2 POPULATION, EMPLOY MENT AND HOUSEHOLD

CHARACTERISTICS

2.1 Population
The Bay Area is the fifth-largest metropolitan area in the nation and has seen a steady increase in population since 1990, except for a dip during the Great Recession. Many cities in the region have experienced significant growth in jobs and population. While these trends have led to a corresponding increase in demand for housing across the region, the regional production of housing has largely not kept pace with job and population growth. Since 2000, Antioch’s population has increased by 24.3%; this rate is above that of the region as a whole, at 14.8%. In Antioch, roughly 13.2% of its population moved during the past year, a number 0.2 percentage points smaller than the regional rate of 13.4%.

In 2020, the population of Antioch was estimated to be 112,520 (see Table 1). From 1990 to 2000, the population increased by 45.6%, while it increased by 13.1% during the first decade of the 2000s. In the most recent decade, the population increased by 9.9%. The population of Antioch makes up 9.8% of Contra Costa County.
4 Table 1: Population Growth Trends
Geography 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Antioch 62,195 73,209 90,532 100,035 102,372 109,804 112,520 Contra Costa
County 803,732 863,335 948,816 1,016,372 1,049,025 1,113,341 1,153,561 Bay Area 6,020,147 6,381,961 6,784,348 7,073,912 7,150,739 7,595,694 7,790,537 Universe: Total population
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series

4 To compare the rate of growth across various geographic scales, Figure 1 shows population for the jurisdiction, county, and region indexed to the population in the year 1990. This means that the data points represent the population growth (i.e. percent change) in each of these geographies relative to their populations in 1990.

B241
A-4 A PPENDIX A: HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: ANTIOCH

Figure 1: Population Growth Trends
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series Note: The data shown on the graph represents population for the jurisdiction, county, and region indexed to the population in the first year shown. The data points represent the relative population growth in each of these geographies relative to their populations in that year.

For some jurisdictions, a break may appear at the end of each decade (1999, 2009) as estimates are compared to census counts.

DOF uses the decennial census to benchmark subsequent population estimates.

2.2 Age
The distribution of age groups in a city shapes what types of housing the community may need in the near future. An increase in the older population may mean there is a developing need for more senior housing options, while higher numbers of children and young families can point to the need for more family housing options and related services. There has also been a move by many to age-in-place or downsize to stay within their communities, which can mean more multifamily and accessible units are also needed.

In Antioch, the median age in 2000 was 31.1; by 2019, this figure had increased, landing at around 36 years. More specifically, the population of those under 14 has decreased since 2010, while the 65-and- over population has increased (see Figure 2).

B242
A-5

Figure 2: Population by Age, 2000-2019
Universe: Total population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001

Looking at the senior and youth population by race can add an additional layer of understanding, as families and seniors of color are even more likely to experience challenges finding affordable housing.

People of color5 make up 41.2% of seniors and 69.9% of youth under 18 (see Figure 3).

5 Here, we count all non-white racial groups
B243
A-6 A PPENDIX A: HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: ANTIOCH

Figure 3: Senior and Youth Population by Race
Universe: Total population
Notes: In the sources for this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity, and an overlapping category of Hispanic / non-Hispanic groups has not been shown to avoid double counting in the stacked bar chart.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-G)

2.3 Race and Ethnicity
Understanding the racial makeup of a city and region is important for designing and implementing effective housing policies and programs. These patterns are shaped by both market factors and government actions, such as exclusionary zoning, discriminatory lending practices and displacement that has occurred over time and continues to impact communities of color today6. Since 2000, the percentage of residents in Antioch identifying as White has decreased – and by the same token the percentage of residents of all other races and ethnicities has increased – by 30.6 percentage points, with the 2019 population standing at 30,883 (see Figure 4). In absolute terms, the Hispanic or Latinx population increased the most while the White, Non-Hispanic population decreased the most.

6 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America. New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing.

B244
A-7

Figure 4: Population by Race, 2000-2019
Universe: Total population
Notes: Data for 2019 represents 2015-2019 ACS estimates. The Census Bureau defines Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity separate from racial categories. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015- 2019), Table B03002

2.4 Employment Trends

2.4.1 Balance of Jobs and Workers
A city houses employed residents who either work in the community where they live or work elsewhere in the region. Conversely, a city may have job sites that employ residents from the same city, but more often employ workers commuting from outside of it. Smaller cities typically will have more employed residents than jobs there and export workers, while larger cities tend to have a surplus of jobs and import workers. To some extent the regional transportation system is set up for this flow of workers to the region’s core job centers. At the same time, as the housing affordability crisis has illustrated, local imbalances may be severe, where local jobs and worker populations are out of sync at a sub-regional scale.

One measure of this is the relationship between workers and jobs. A city with a surplus of workers “exports” workers to other parts of the region, while a city with a surplus of jobs must conversely “import” them. Between 2002 and 2018, the number of jobs in Antioch increased by 35.0% (see Figure 5).

B245
A-8 A PPENDIX A: HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: ANTIOCH

Figure 5: Jobs in a Jurisdiction
Universe: Jobs from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment Notes: The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the census block level. These are crosswalked to jurisdictions and summarized.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files, 2002-2018

There are 49,236 employed residents, and 21,541 jobs7 in Antioch - the ratio of jobs to resident workers is 0.44; Antioch is a net exporter of workers.

Figure 6 shows the balance when comparing jobs to workers, broken down by different wage groups, offering additional insight into local dynamics. A community may offer employment for relatively low- income workers but have relatively few housing options for those workers - or conversely, it may house residents who are low wage workers but offer few employment opportunities for them. Such relationships may cast extra light on potentially pent-up demand for housing in particular price categories. A relative surplus of jobs relative to residents in a given wage category suggests the need to import those workers, while conversely, surpluses of workers in a wage group relative to jobs means the community will export those workers to other jurisdictions. Such flows are not inherently bad, though over time, sub-regional imbalances may appear. Antioch has more low-wage residents than low- wage jobs (where low-wage refers to jobs paying less than $25,000). At the other end of the wage spectrum, the city has more high-wage residents than high-wage jobs (where high-wage refers to jobs paying more than $75,000) (see Figure 6).8

7 Employed residents in a jurisdiction is counted by place of residence (they may work elsewhere) while jobs in a jurisdiction are counted by place of work (they may live elsewhere). The jobs may differ from those reported in Figure 5 as the source for the time series is from administrative data, while the cross-sectional data is from a survey.
8 The source table is top-coded at $75,000, precluding more fine grained analysis at the higher end of the wage spectrum.

B246
A-9

Figure 6: Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence
Universe: Workers 16 years and over with earnings
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data 2015-2019, B08119, B08519

Figure 7 shows the balance of a jurisdiction’s resident workers to the jobs located there for different wage groups as a ratio instead - a value of 1 means that a city has the same number of jobs in a wage group as it has resident workers - in principle, a balance. Values above 1 indicate a jurisdiction will need to import workers for jobs in a given wage group. At the regional scale, this ratio is 1.04 jobs for each worker, implying a modest import of workers from outside the region (see Figure 7).

B247
A-10 A PPENDIX A: HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: ANTIOCH

Figure 7: Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group
Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment Notes: The ratio compares job counts by wage group from two tabulations of LEHD data: Counts by place of work relative to counts by place of residence. See text for details.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs); Residence Area Characteristics (RAC) files (Employed Residents), 2010-2018

Such balances between jobs and workers may directly influence the housing demand in a community.

New jobs may draw new residents, and when there is high demand for housing relative to supply, many workers may be unable to afford to live where they work, particularly where job growth has been in relatively lower wage jobs. This dynamic not only means many workers will need to prepare for long commutes and time spent on the road, but in the aggregate it contributes to traffic congestion and time lost for all road users.

If there are more jobs than employed residents, it means a city is relatively jobs-rich, typically also with a high jobs to household ratio. Thus bringing housing into the measure, the jobs-household ratio in Antioch has increased from 0.55 in 2002, to 0.67 jobs per household in 2018 (see Figure 8).

B248
A-11

Figure 8: Jobs-Household Ratio
Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment; households in a jurisdiction Notes: The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the census block level. These are crosswalked to jurisdictions and summarized. The ratio compares place of work wage and salary jobs with households, or occupied housing units. A similar measure is the ratio of jobs to housing units. However, this jobs-household ratio serves to compare the number of jobs in a jurisdiction to the number of housing units that are actually occupied. The difference between a jurisdiction’s jobs-housing ratio and jobs-household ratio will be most pronounced in jurisdictions with high vacancy rates, a high rate of units used for seasonal use, or a high rate of units used as short-term rentals.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs), 2002-2018; California Department of Finance, E-5 (Households)

2.4.2 Sector Composition
In terms of sectoral composition, the largest industry in which Antioch residents work is Health & Educational Services, and the largest sector in which Contra Costa residents work is Health & Educational Services (see Figure 9). For the Bay Area as a whole, the Health & Educational Services industry employs the most workers.

B249
A-12 A PPENDIX A: HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: ANTIOCH

Figure 9: Resident Employment by Industry
Universe: Civilian employed population age 16 years and over Notes: The data displayed shows the industries in which jurisdiction residents work, regardless of the location where those residents are employed (whether within the jurisdiction or not). Categories are derived from the following source tables:

Agriculture & Natural Resources: C24030_003E, C24030_030E; Construction: C24030_006E, C24030_033E; Manufacturing, Wholesale & Transportation: C24030_007E, C24030_034E, C24030_008E, C24030_035E, C24030_010E, C24030_037E; Retail:

C24030_009E, C24030_036E; Information: C24030_013E, C24030_040E; Financial & Professional Services: C24030_014E, C24030_041E, C24030_017E, C24030_044E; Health & Educational Services: C24030_021E, C24030_024E, C24030_048E, C24030_051E; Other: C24030_027E, C24030_054E, C24030_028E, C24030_055E Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C24030

2.4.3 Unemployment
In Antioch, there was a 5.1 percentage point decrease in the unemployment rate between January 2010 and January 2021 (see Figure 10). Jurisdictions through the region experienced a sharp rise in unemployment in 2020 due to impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic, though with a general improvement and recovery in the later months of 2020.

B250
A-13

Figure 10: Unemployment Rate
Universe: Civilian noninstitutional population ages 16 and older Notes: Unemployment rates for the jurisdiction level is derived from larger-geography estimates. This method assumes that the rates of change in employment and unemployment are exactly the same in each sub-county area as at the county level. If this assumption is not true for a specific sub-county area, then the estimates for that area may not be representative of the current economic conditions. Since this assumption is untested, caution should be employed when using these data. Only not seasonally- adjusted labor force (unemployment rates) data are developed for cities and CDPs.

Source: California Employment Development Department, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), Sub-county areas monthly updates, 2010-2021.

2.5 Extremely Low-Income Households
Despite the economic and job growth experienced throughout the region since 1990, the income gap has continued to widen. California is one of the most economically unequal states in the nation, and the Bay Area has the highest income inequality between high- and low-income households in the state.9 In Antioch, 41.5% of households make more than 100% of the Area Median Income (AMI),10 compared to

18.5% making less than 30% of AMI, which is considered extremely low-income (see Figure 11).

9 Bohn, S.et al. 2020. Income Inequality and Economic Opportunity in California. Public Policy Institute of California.
10 Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. Households making between 80 and 120 percent of the AMI are moderate-income, those making 50 to 80 percent are low-income, those making 30 to 50 percent are very low-income, and those making less than 30 percent are extremely low-income. This is then adjusted for household size.

B251
A-14 A PPENDIX A: HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: ANTIOCH

Figure 11: Households by Household Income Level
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. The data that is reported for the Bay Area is not based on a regional AMI but instead refers to the regional total of households in an income group relative to the AMI for the county where that household is located. Local jurisdictions are required to provide an estimate for their projected extremely low-income households (0-30% AMI) in their Housing Elements. HCD’s official Housing Element guidance notes that jurisdictions can use their RHNA for very low-income households (those making 0-50% AMI) to calculate their projected extremely low-income households. As Bay Area jurisdictions have not yet received their final RHNA numbers, this document does not contain the required data point of projected extremely low-income households. The report portion of the housing data needs packet contains more specific guidance for how local staff can calculate an estimate for projected extremely low-income households once jurisdictions receive their 6th cycle RHNA numbers.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release

B252
A-15

Figure 12: Households by Household Income Level
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. The data that is reported for the Bay Area is not based on a regional AMI but instead refers to the regional total of households in an income group relative to the AMI for the county where that household is located.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release

Regionally, more than half of all households make more than 100% AMI, while 15% make less than 30% AMI. In Contra Costa County, 30% AMI is the equivalent to the annual income of $34,850 for a family of four. Many households with multiple wage earners – including food service workers, full-time students, teachers, farmworkers and healthcare professionals – can fall into lower AMI categories due to relatively stagnant wages in many industries.

HCD’s guidance notes that instead of using use U.S. Census data to calculate the percentage of very low-income RHNA that qualifies for extremely low-income households, local jurisdictions can presume that 50% of their RHNA for very low-income households qualifies for extremely low-income households.

In Antioch, the RHNA for very low-income households is 792, which means that half, or 396 units, will qualify for extremely low-income households.

Throughout the region, there are disparities between the incomes of homeowners and renters.

Typically, the number of low-income renters greatly outpaces the amount of housing available that is affordable for these households.

In Antioch, the largest proportion of renters falls in the 0%-30% of AMI income group, while the largest proportion of homeowners are found in the Greater than 100% of AMI group (see Figure 13).

B253
A-16 A PPENDIX A: HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: ANTIOCH

Figure 13: Household Income Level by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release

Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents.11 These economic disparities also leave communities of color at higher risk for housing insecurity, displacement or homelessness. In Antioch, Black or African American (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents experience the highest rates of poverty, followed by Other Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents (see Figure 14).

11 Moore, E., Montojo, N. and Mauri, N., 2019. Roots, Race & Place: A History of Racially Exclusionary Housing the San Francisco Bay Area. Hass Institute.

B254
A-17

Figure 14: Poverty Status by Race
Universe: Population for whom poverty status is determined Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income. For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the population for whom poverty status is determined for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the population for whom poverty status is determined.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17001(A-I)

2.6 Tenure
The number of residents who own their homes compared to those who rent their homes can help identify the level of housing insecurity – ability for individuals to stay in their homes – in a city and region. Generally, renters may be displaced more quickly if prices increase. In Antioch there are a total of 34,028 housing units, and fewer residents rent than own their homes: 39.7% versus 60.3% (see Figure 15). By comparison, 34.1% of households in Contra Costa County are renters, while 44% of Bay Area households rent their homes.

B255
A-18 A PPENDIX A: HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: ANTIOCH

Figure 15: Housing Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003

Homeownership rates often vary considerably across race/ethnicity in the Bay Area and throughout the country. These disparities not only reflect differences in income and wealth but also stem from federal, state, and local policies that limited access to homeownership for communities of color while facilitating homebuying for white residents. While many of these policies, such as redlining, have been formally disbanded, the impacts of race-based policy are still evident across Bay Area communities.12 In Antioch, 38.4% of Black households owned their homes, while homeownership rates were 71.9% for Asian households, 56.0% for Latinx households, and 71.2% for White households. Notably, recent changes to state law require local jurisdictions to examine these dynamics and other fair housing issues when updating their Housing Elements.

12 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law : a forgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing.

B256
A-19

Figure 16: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for th e white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003(A-I)

The age of residents who rent or own their home can also signal the housing challenges a community is experiencing. Younger households tend to rent and may struggle to buy a first home in the Bay Area due to high housing costs. At the same time, senior homeowners seeking to downsize may have limited options in an expensive housing market.

In Antioch, 56.5% of householders between the ages of 25 and 44 are renters, while 22.8% of householders over 65 are (see Figure 17).

In many cities, homeownership rates for households in single-family homes are substantially higher than the rates for households in multi-family housing. In Antioch, 73.8% of households in detached single-family homes are homeowners, while 6.9% of households in multi-family housing are homeowners (see Figure 18).

B257
A-20 A PPENDIX A: HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: ANTIOCH

Figure 17: Housing Tenure by Age
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25007

Figure 18: Housing Tenure by Housing Type
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25032 B258
A-21

2.7 Displacement
Because of increasing housing prices, displacement is a major concern in the Bay Area (see Figure 19).

Displacement has the most severe impacts on low- and moderate-income residents. When individuals or families are forced to leave their homes and communities, they also lose their support network.

The University of California, Berkeley has mapped all neighborhoods in the Bay area, identifying their risk for gentrification. They find that in Antioch 31.3% of households live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement and 19.2% live in neighborhoods at risk of or undergoing gentrification.

Equally important, some neighborhoods in the Bay Area do not have housing appropriate for a broad section of the workforce. UC Berkeley estimates that 6.8% of households in Antioch live in neighborhoods where low-income households are likely to be excluded due to prohibitive housing costs.13

Figure 19: Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure
Universe: Households
Notes: Displacement data is available at the census tract level. Staff aggregated tracts up to jurisdiction level using census 2010 population weights, assigning a tract to jurisdiction in proportion to block level population weights. Total household count may differ slightly from counts in other tables sourced from jurisdiction level sources. Categories are combined as follows for simplicity: At risk of or Experiencing Exclusion: At Risk of Becoming Exclusive; Becoming Exclusive; Stable/Advanced Exclusive At risk of or Experiencing Gentrification: At Risk of Gentrification; Early/Ongoing Gentrification; Advanced Gentrification Stable Moderate/Mixed Income: Stable Moderate/Mixed Income Susceptible to or Experiencing Displacement: Low- Income/Susceptible to Displacement; Ongoing Displacement Other: High Student Population; Unavailable or Unreliable Data Source: Urban Displacement Project for classification, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 for tenure.

13 More information about this gentrification and displacement data is available at the Urban Displacement Project’s webpage: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/. Specifically, one can learn more about the different gentrification/displacement typologies shown in Figure 18 at this link:
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/typology_sheet_2018_0.png. Additionally, one can view maps that show which typologies correspond to which parts of a jurisdiction here:
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/san-francisco/sf-bay-area-gentrification-and-displacement B259
A-22 A PPENDIX A: HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: ANTIOCH
3 HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS

3.1 Housing Types, Year Bu ilt, Vacancy, and Permits
In recent years, most housing produced in the region and across the state consisted of single-family homes and larger multi-unit buildings. However, some households are increasingly interested in “missing middle housing” – including duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, cottage clusters and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). These housing types may open up more options across incomes and tenure, from young households seeking homeownership options to seniors looking to downsize and age-in-place.

The housing stock of Antioch in 2020 was made up of 77.7% single family detached homes, 4.7% single family attached homes, 4.1% multifamily homes with 2 to 4 units, 12.4% multifamily homes with 5 or more units, and 1.1% mobile homes (see Figure 20). In Antioch, the housing type that experienced the most growth between 2010 and 2020 was Single-Family Home: Detached.

Figure 20: Housing Type Trends
Universe: Housing units
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series

Production has not kept up with housing demand for several decades in the Bay Area, as the total number of units built and available has not yet come close to meeting the population and job growth experienced throughout the region. In Antioch, the largest proportion of the housing stock was built 1980 to 1999, with 15,182 units constructed during this period (see Figure 21). Since 2010, 2.9% of the current housing stock was built, which is 1,012 units.

B260
A-23

Figure 21: Housing Units by Year Structure Built
Universe: Housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034 Vacant units make up 3.8% of the overall housing stock in Antioch. The rental vacancy stands at 4.2%, while the ownership vacancy rate is 1.2%. Of the vacant units, the most common type of vacancy is For Rent (see Figure 22).14
Throughout the Bay Area, vacancies make up 2.6% of the total housing units, with homes listed for rent; units used for recreational or occasional use, and units not otherwise classified (other vacant) making up the majority of vacancies. The Census Bureau classifies a unit as vacant if no one is occupying it when census interviewers are conducting the American Community Survey or Decennial Census. Vacant units classified as “for recreational or occasional use” are those that are held for short- term periods of use throughout the year. Accordingly, vacation rentals and short-term rentals like AirBnB are likely to fall in this category. The Census Bureau classifies units as “other vacant” if they are vacant due to foreclosure, personal/family reasons, legal proceedings, repairs/renovations, abandonment, preparation for being rented or sold, or vacant for an extended absence for reasons such as a work assignment, military duty, or incarceration.
15 In a region with a thriving economy and housing
market like the Bay Area, units being renovated/repaired and prepared for rental or sale are likely to represent a large portion of the “other vacant” category. Additionally, the need for seismic retrofitting in older housing stock could also influence the proportion of “other vacant” units in some jurisdictions.16

14 The vacancy rates by tenure is for a smaller universe than the total vacancy rate first reported, which in principle includes the full stock (3.8%). The vacancy by tenure counts are rates relative to the rental stock (occupied and vacant) and ownership stock (occupied and vacant) - but exclude a significant number of vacancy categories, including the numerically significant other vacant. 15 For more information, see pages 3 through 6 of this list of definitions prepared by the Census Bureau:
https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/definitions.pdf.
16 See Dow, P. (2018). Unpacking the Growth in San Francisco’s Vacant Housing Stock: Client Report for the San Francisco Planning Department. University of California, Berkeley.

B261
A-24 A PPENDIX A: HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: ANTIOCH

Figure 22: Vacant Units by Type
Universe: Vacant housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25004 Between 2015 and 2019, 882 housing units were issued permits in Antioch. 79.6% of permits issued in Antioch were for above moderate-income housing, 10.1% were for moderate-income housing, and 10.3% were for low- or very low-income housing (see Table 2).

Table 2: Housing Permitting
Income Group Value
Above Moderate Income Permits 702
Very Low Income Permits 90
Moderate Income Permits 89
Low Income Permits 1
Universe: Housing permits issued between 2015 and 2019
Notes: HCD uses the following definitions for the four income categories: Very Low Income: units affordable to households making less than 50% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Low Income: units affordable to households making between 50% and 80% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Moderate Income: units affordable to households making between 80% and 120% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Above Moderate Income: units affordable to households making above 120% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located.

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 5th Cycle Annual Progress Report Permit Summary (2020)

3.2 Assisted Housing Developments At-Risk of Conversion While there is an immense need to produce new affordable housing units, ensuring that the existing affordable housing stock remains affordable is equally important. Additionally, it is typically faster and less expensive to preserve currently affordable units that are at risk of converting to market-rate than it is to build new affordable housing.

B262
A-25
The data in Table 3 below comes from the California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database, the state’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing. However, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the state, and there are subsidized units and at-risk units that are not captured in this data table. There are 1,301 assisted units in Antioch in the Preservation Database.

Of these units, none are at High Risk or Very High Risk of conversion.17 However, there are 4 units that are at moderate risk and 50 units at low risk at converting within the next 10 years. These units are discussed in Chapter 2, Housing Needs.

Table 3: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion
Income Antioch Contra Costa County Bay Area
Low 1301 13403 110177
Moderate 0 211 3375
High 0 270 1854
Very High 0 0 1053
Total Assisted Units in Database 1301 13884 116459
Universe: HUD, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), USDA, and CalHFA projects. Subsidized or assisted developments that do not have one of the aforementioned financing sources may not be included.

Notes: While California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database is the state’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the state. Consequently, there may be at-risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table. California Housing Partnership uses the following categories for assisted housing developments in its database: Very-High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate within the next year that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non- profit, mission-driven developer. High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 1-5 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. Moderate Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 5-10 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. Low Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in 10+ years and/or are owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

Source: California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database (2020)

17 California Housing Partnership uses the following categories for assisted housing developments in its database:

Very-High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate within the next year that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 1-5 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

Moderate Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 5-10 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

Low Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in 10+ years and/or are owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

B263
A-26 A PPENDIX A: HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: ANTIOCH

3.3 Substandard Housing
Housing costs in the region are among the highest in the country, which could result in households, particularly renters, needing to live in substandard conditions in order to afford housing. Housing conditions are an important indicator of quality of life. Like any asset, housing ages and deteriorates over time. If not regularly maintained, structures can deteriorate and discourage reinvestment, depress neighborhood property values, and even become health hazards. Thus, maintaining and improving housing quality is an important goal for communities.

Generally, there is limited data on the extent of substandard housing issues in a community. However, the Census Bureau data included in the graph below gives a sense of some of the substandard conditions that may be present in Antioch. For example, 1.6% of renters in Antioch reported lacking a kitchen and 0.7% of renters lack plumbing, compared to 0.3% of owners who lack a kitchen and 0.3% of owners who lack plumbing.

Figure 23: Substandard Housing Issues
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25053, Table B25043, Table B25049 An indication of the quality of the housing stock is its general age. Typically, housing over 30 years old is likely to have rehabilitation needs that may include plumbing, roof repairs, foundation work, and other repairs. Among the housing stock, 59.1 percent of the housing units in Antioch were built since 1990. The remaining 40.9 percent of the housing stock is over 30 years old, meaning rehabilitation needs could be necessary in certain homes. In addition, the City’s Code Enforcement Division estimates that approximately 10-15% percent of the housing stock needs rehabilitation.

3.4 Home and Rent Values
Home prices reflect a complex mix of supply and demand factors, including an area’s demographic profile, labor market, prevailing wages and job outlook, coupled with land and construction costs. In the Bay Area, the costs of housing have long been among the highest in the nation. The typical home value in Antioch was estimated at $524,890 by December of 2020, per data from Zillow. The largest B264
A-27
proportion of homes were valued between $250k-$500k (see Figure 24). By comparison, the typical home value is $772,410 in Contra Costa County and $1,077,230 the Bay Area, with the largest share of units valued $250k-$500k (county) and $500k-$750k (region).

Figure 24: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units
Universe: Owner-occupied units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25075 The region’s home values have increased steadily since 2000, besides a decrease during the Great Recession. The rise in home prices has been especially steep since 2012, with the median home value in the Bay Area nearly doubling during this time. Since 2001, the typical home value has increased 149.9% in Antioch from $210,060 to $524,890. This change is above the change in Contra Costa County, and above the change for the region (see Figure 25).

B265
A-28 A PPENDIX A: HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: ANTIOCH

Figure 25: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)
Universe: Owner-occupied housing units
Notes: Zillow describes the ZHVI as a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given region and housing type. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. The ZHVI includes all owner-occupied housing units, including both single-family homes and condominiums. More information on the ZHVI is available from Zillow. The regional estimate is a household-weighted average of county-level ZHVI files, where household counts are yearly estimates from DOF’s E-5 series For unincorporated areas, the value is a population weighted average of unincorporated communities in the county matched to census-designated population counts.

Source: Zillow, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)
Similar to home values, rents have also increased dramatically across the Bay Area in recent years.

Many renters have been priced out, evicted or displaced, particularly communities of color. Residents finding themselves in one of these situations may have had to choose between commuting long distances to their jobs and schools or moving out of the region, and sometimes, out of the state.

In Antioch, the largest proportion of rental units rented in the Rent $1500-$2000 category, totaling

34.9%, followed by 25.3% of units renting in the Rent $1000-$1500 category (see Figure 26). Looking beyond the city, the largest share of units is in the rent for $1500-$2000 category.

B266
A-29

Figure 26: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units
Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25056 Since 2009, the median rent has increased by 50.8% in Antioch, from $1,210 to $1,610 per month (see Figure 27). In Contra Costa County, the median rent has increased 28.8%, from $1,300 to $1,680. The median rent in the region has increased significantly during this time from $1,200 to $1,850, a 54% increase.18

18 While the data on home values shown in Figure 25 comes from Zillow, Zillow does not have data on rent prices available for most Bay Area jurisdictions. To have a more comprehensive dataset on rental data for the region, the rent data in this document comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, which may not fully reflect current rents. Local jurisdiction staff may want to supplement the data on rents with local realtor data or other sources for rent data that are more current than Census Bureau data.

B267
A-30 A PPENDIX A: HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: ANTIOCH

Figure 27: Median Contract Rent
Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Notes: For unincorporated areas, median is calculated using distribution in B25056.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data releases, starting with 2005-2009 through 2015-2019, B25058, B25056 (for unincorporated areas). County and regional counts are weighted averages of jurisdiction median using B25003 rental unit counts from the relevant year.

3.5 Overpayment and Overcrowding
A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30% of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” Low-income residents are the most impacted by high housing costs and experience the highest rates of cost burden. Spending such large portions of their income on housing puts low-income households at higher risk of displacement, eviction, or homelessness.

Renters are often more cost-burdened than owners. While the housing market has resulted in home prices increasing dramatically, homeowners often have mortgages with fixed rates, whereas renters are more likely to be impacted by market increases. When looking at the cost burden across tenure in Antioch, 24.5% of renters spend 30% to 50% of their income on housing compared to 20.6% of those that own (see Figure 28). Additionally, 34.3% of renters spend 50% or more of their income on housing, while 12.5% of owners are severely cost-burdened.

B268
A-31

Figure 28: Cost Burden by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B25091 In Antioch, 20.8% of households spend 50% or more of their income on housing, while 20.3% spend 30% to 50%. However, these rates vary greatly across income categories (see Figure 29). For example, 77.0% of Antioch households making less than 30% of AMI spend the majority of their income on housing. For Antioch residents making more than 100% of AMI, just 0.2% are severely cost-burdened, and 90.8% of those making more than 100% of AMI spend less than 30% of their income on housing.

B269
A-32 A PPENDIX A: HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: ANTIOCH

Figure 29: Cost Burden by Income Level
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents. As a result, they often pay a greater percentage of their income on housing, and in turn, are at a greater risk of housing insecurity.

American Indian or Alaska Native, Non-Hispanic residents are the most cost burdened with 47.9% spending 30% to 50% of their income on housing, and Black or African American, Non-Hispanic residents are the most severely cost burdened with 31.8% spending more than 50% of their income on housing (see Figure 30).

B270
A-33

Figure 30: Cost Burden by Race
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Large family households often have special housing needs due to a lack of adequately sized affordable housing available. The higher costs required for homes with multiple bedrooms can result in larger families experiencing a disproportionate cost burden than the rest of the population and can increase the risk of housing insecurity.

In Antioch, 17.5% of large family households experience a cost burden of 30%-50%, while 18.4% of households spend more than half of their income on housing. Some 20.9% of all other households have a cost burden of 30%-50%, with 21.3% of households spending more than 50% of their income on housing (see Figure 31).

B271
A-34 A PPENDIX A: HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: ANTIOCH

Figure 31: Cost Burden by Household Size
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
When cost-burdened seniors are no longer able to make house payments or pay rents, displacement from their homes can occur, putting further stress on the local rental market or forcing residents out of the community they call home. Understanding how seniors might be cost-burdened is of particular importance due to their special housing needs, particularly for low-income seniors. 43.7% of seniors making less than 30% of AMI are spending the majority of their income on housing. For seniors making more than 100% of AMI, 91.0% are not cost-burdened and spend less than 30% of their income on housing (see Figure 32).

B272
A-35

Figure 32: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level Universe: Senior households
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For own ers, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose- Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Ar ea (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metr o area where this jurisdiction is located.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Overcrowding occurs when the number of people living in a household is greater than the home was designed to hold. There are several different standards for defining overcrowding, but this report uses the Census Bureau definition, which is more than one occupant per room (not including bathrooms or kitchens). Additionally, the Census Bureau considers units with more than 1.5 occupants per room to be severely overcrowded.

Overcrowding is often related to the cost of housing and can occur when demand in a city or region is high. In many cities, overcrowding is seen more amongst those that are renting, with multiple households sharing a unit to make it possible to stay in their communities. In Antioch, 2.3% of households that rent are severely overcrowded (more than 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 0.8% of households that own (see Figure 33). In Antioch, 6.5% of renters experience moderate overcrowding (1 to 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 2.1% for those own.

B273
A-36 A PPENDIX A: HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: ANTIOCH

Figure 33: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Overcrowding often disproportionately impacts low-income households. As shown in Figure 34, the income group that experiences the most overcrowding are households making 31-50% of the AMI.

B274
A-37

Figure 34: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Communities of color are more likely to experience overcrowding similar to how they are more likely to experience poverty, financial instability, and housing insecurity. People of color tend to experience overcrowding at higher rates than White residents. In Antioch, the racial group with the largest overcrowding rate is Asian / API (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) (see Figure 35).

B275
A-38 A PPENDIX A: HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: ANTIOCH

Figure 35: Overcrowding by Race
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non- Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25014

B276
A-39
4 SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS

4.1 Large Households
Large households often have different housing needs than smaller households. If a city’s rental housing stock does not include larger apartments, large households who rent could end up living in overcrowded conditions. In Antioch, for large households with 5 or more persons, most units (54.3%) are owner occupied (see Figure 36). In 2017, 25.5% of large households were very low-income, earning less than 50% of the area median income (AMI).

Figure 36: Household Size by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25009 The unit sizes available in a community affect the household sizes that can access that community.

Large families are generally served by housing units with 3 or more bedrooms, of which there are 25,651 units in Antioch. Among these large units with 3 or more bedrooms, 26.6% are owner-occupied and 73.4% are renter occupied (see Figure 37).

B277
A-40 A PPENDIX A: HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: ANTIOCH

Figure 37: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms
Universe: Housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25042

4.2 Female-Headed Households
Households headed by one person are often at greater risk of housing insecurity, particularly female- headed households, who may be supporting children or a family with only one income. In Antioch, the largest proportion of households is Married-couple Family Households at 49.1% of total, while Female- Headed Households make up 20.4% of all households.

B278
A-41

Figure 38: Household Type
Universe: Households
Notes: For data from the Census Bureau, a “family household” is a household where two or more people are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. “Non-family households” are households of one person living alone, as well as households where none of the people are related to each other.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11001 Female-headed households with children may face particular housing challenges, with pervasive gender inequality resulting in lower wages for women. Moreover, the added need for childcare can make finding a home that is affordable more challenging.

In Antioch, 32.7% of female-headed households with children fall below the Federal Poverty Line, while

8.1% of female-headed households without children live in poverty (see Figure 39).

B279
A-42 A PPENDIX A: HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: ANTIOCH

Figure 39: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status
Universe: Female Households
Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17012

4.3 Seniors
Senior households often experience a combination of factors that can make accessing or keeping affordable housing a challenge. They often live on fixed incomes and are more likely to have disabilities, chronic health conditions and/or reduced mobility.

Seniors who rent may be at even greater risk for housing challenges than those who own, due to income differences between these groups. The largest proportion of senior households who rent make 0%-30% of AMI, while the largest proportion of senior households who are homeowners falls in the income group Greater than 100% of AMI (see Figure 40).

B280
A-43

Figure 40: Senior Households by Income and Tenure
Universe: Senior households
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose- Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Ar ea (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metr o area where this jurisdiction is located.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release

4.4 People with Disabilities
People with disabilities face additional housing challenges. Encompassing a broad group of individuals living with a variety of physical, cognitive and sensory impairments, many people with disabilities live on fixed incomes and are in need of specialized care, yet often rely on family members for assistance due to the high cost of care.

When it comes to housing, people with disabilities are not only in need of affordable housing but accessibly designed housing, which offers greater mobility and opportunity for independence.

Unfortunately, the need typically outweighs what is available, particularly in a housing market with such high demand. People with disabilities are at a high risk for housing insecurity, homelessness and institutionalization, particularly when they lose aging caregivers. Figure 41 shows the rates at which different disabilities are present among residents of Antioch. Overall, 15.2% of people in Antioch have a disability of any kind that may require accessible housing, which is a higher percentage than the County (11.1 percent) and the region (9.6 percent).19

19 These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed.

B281
A-44 A PPENDIX A: HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: ANTIOCH

Figure 41: Disability by Type
Universe: Civilian noninstitutionalized population 18 years and over Notes: These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed. The Census Bureau provides the following definitions for these disability types:

Hearing difficulty: deaf or has serious difficulty hearing. Vision difficulty: blind or has serious difficulty seeing even with glasses. Cognitive difficulty: has serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions. Ambulatory difficulty: has serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs. Self-care difficulty: has difficulty dressing or bathing. Independent living difficulty:
has difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18102, Table B18103, Table B18104, Table B18105, Table B18106, Table B18107.

State law also requires Housing Elements to examine the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities. Developmental disabilities are defined as severe, chronic, and attributed to a mental or physical impairment that begins before a person turns 18 years old. This can include Down’s Syndrome, autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and mild to severe mental retardation. Some people with developmental disabilities are unable to work, rely on Supplemental Security Income, and live with family members. In addition to their specific housing needs, they are at increased risk of housing insecurity after an aging parent or family member is no longer able to care for them. 20 In Antioch, of the population with a developmental disability, children under the age of 18 make up

41.4%, while adults account for 58.6%.

20 For more information or data on developmental disabilities in your jurisdiction, contact the Golden Gate Regional Center for Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties; the North Bay Regional Center for Napa, Solano and Sonoma Counties; the Regional Center for the East Bay for Alameda and Contra Costa Counties; or the San Andreas Regional Center for Santa Clara County.

B282
A-45
Table 4: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age Age Group Value
Age 18+ 816
Age Under 18 576
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services is responsible for overseeing the coordination and delivery of services to more than 330,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction-level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction.

Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Age Group (2020) The most common living arrangement for individuals with disabilities in Antioch is the home of parent/family/guardian.

Table 5: Population wi th Developmental Disabilities by Residence Residence Type Value
Home of Parent /Family /Guardian 980
Community Care Facility 233
Independent /Supported Living 73
Intermediate Care Facility 62
Foster /Family Home 31
Other 5
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services is responsible for overseeing the coordination and delivery of services to more than 330,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction-level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction.

Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type (2020)

4.5 Homelessness
Homelessness remains an urgent challenge in many communities across the state, reflecting a range of social, economic, and psychological factors. Rising housing costs result in increased risks of community members experiencing homelessness. Far too many residents who have found themselves housing insecure have ended up unhoused or homeless in recent years, either temporarily or longer term.

Addressing the specific housing needs for the unhoused population remains a priority throughout the region, particularly since homelessness is disproportionately experienced by people of color, people with disabilities, those struggling with addiction and those dealing with traumatic life circumstances. In Contra Costa County, the most common type of household experiencing homelessness is those without children in their care. Among households experiencing homelessness that do not have children, 75.9% are unsheltered. Of homeless households with children, most are sheltered in emergency shelter (see Figure 42).

B283
A-46 A PPENDIX A: HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: ANTIOCH

Figure 42: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Contra Costa County
Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019)
Contra Costa County is commonly divided into West County, Central County, and East County regions.

There were modest regional shifts in the number of unsheltered people sleeping in each region of the county from 2018 to 2020. In 2020, there was an almost even split across the three regions. People were identified in 30 incorporated cities and unincorporated jurisdictions across the county during the PIT count. Antioch and Richmond each had 15% of the unsheltered population, the highest percentages in the County (see Figure 42).

B284
A-47

Figure 43: Number of Unsheltered Individuals by Contra Costa County Cities Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Source: Contra Costa County: Annual Point in Time Count Report People of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents. Consequently, people of color are often disproportionately impacted by homelessness, particularly Black residents of the Bay Area. In Contra Costa County, Black (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents represent 33.8% of the homeless population but only 8.7% of the overall population of Contra Costa County (see Figure 44).

B285
A-48 A PPENDIX A: HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: ANTIOCH

Figure 44: Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations, Contra Costa County
Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. HUD does not disaggregate racial demographic data by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness. Instead, HUD reports data on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness in a separate table. Accordingly, the racial group data listed here includes both Hispanic/Latinx and non-Hispanic/Latinx individuals.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I) In Contra Costa, Latinx residents represent 16.6% of the population experiencing homelessness, while Latinx residents comprise 25.4% of the general population (see Figure 45).

B286
A-49

Figure 45: Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, Contra Costa County Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. The data from HUD on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for individuals experiencing homelessness does not specify racial group identity.

Accordingly, individuals in either ethnic group identity category (Hispanic/Latinx or non-Hispanic/Latinx) could be of any racial background.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I) Many of those experiencing homelessness are dealing with severe issues – including mental illness, substance abuse and domestic violence – that are potentially life threatening and require additional assistance. In Contra Costa County, homeless individuals are commonly challenged by severe mental illness, with 519 reporting this condition (see Figure 13). Of those, some 70.1% are unsheltered, further adding to the challenge of handling the issue.

B287
A-50 A PPENDIX A: HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: ANTIOCH

Figure 46: Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Contra Costa County
Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level.

These challenges/characteristics are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one challenge/characteristic. These counts should not be summed.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019)
In Antioch, the student population experiencing homelessness totaled 409 during the 2019-20 school year and increased by 9.1% since the 2016-17 school year. By comparison, Contra Costa County has seen a 4.4% increase in the population of students experiencing homelessness since the 2016-17 school year, and the Bay Area population of students experiencing homelessness decreased by 8.5%. During the 2019-2020 school year, there were still some 13,718 students experiencing homelessness throughout the region, adding undue burdens on learning and thriving, with the potential for longer term negative effects.

The number of students in Antioch experiencing homelessness in 2019 represents 18.5% of the Contra Costa County total and 3.0% of the Bay Area total.

B288
A-51
Table 6: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness Academic Year Antioch Contra Costa County Bay Area
2016-17 375 2,116 14,990
2017-18 276 2,081 15,142
2018-19 397 2,574 15,427
2019-20 409 2,209 13,718
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public schools
Notes: The California Department of Education considers students to be homeless if they are unsheltered, living in temporary shelters for people experiencing homelessness, living in hotels/motels, or temporarily doubled up and sharing the housing of other persons due to the loss of housing or economic hardship. The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography.

Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achiev ement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020)

4.6 Farmworkers
Across the state, housing for farmworkers has been recognized as an important and unique concern.

Farmworkers are generally considered a special housing needs group due to their limited income and the often-unstable nature of their employment. Farmworkers generally receive wages that are considerably lower than other jobs and may have temporary housing needs. While many traditional affordable housing programs and policies will assist farmworkers, there are unique needs and circumstances for agricultural workers that need to be considered and explored.

While overall the Bay Area has shifted away from our historical agricultural economic base, Bay Area counties still preserve strong agricultural roots. And yet, the responsibility for farmworker housing is not just with these counties. In many counties, farmworkers choose to live within incorporated cities due to the diversity and availability of housing, proximity to schools and other employment opportunities for other family members, and overall affordability. Per the USDA, farmworkers often commute long distances to work for various employers but are considered permanent workers and residents in their home communities. For these permanent or settled farmworkers, the USDA estimates that these workers commute up to 75 miles for work and then return to their homes. • SETTLED/PERMANENT -- Today’s farmworkers are more settled and typically live in one location. • COMMUTE UP TO 75 MILES -- Per the USDA, today’s farmworkers can commute up to 75 miles to the workplace. Based on this, the need for housing for agricultural workers is not just the responsibility of Bay Area counties with a robust agricultural economy. • FAMILIES – Farmworkers today are more likely to have families and are looking for schools, employment for a spouse/partner and a location to live in the provides a community.

Farmworkers and day laborers are an essential component of California’s agriculture industry. Farmers and farmworkers are the keystone of the larger food sector, which includes the industries that provide farmers with fertilizer and equipment; farms to produce crops and livestock; and the industries that process, transport, and distribute food to consumers.

B289
A-52 A PPENDIX A: HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: ANTIOCH
Table 7: Farm Operations and Farm Labor by County
2002 2007 2012 2017 County (%) Bay Area (%)
Alameda Permanent 577 465 355 305 51% 1.8%
Seasonal 369 737 449 288 49% 1.6%
Totals 946 1,202 804 593 100% 1.7%
Contra Costa Permanent 730 578 509 450 34% 2.6%
Seasonal 1,874 1,295 1,540 860 66% 4.7%
Totals 2,604 1,873 2,049 1,310 100% 3.7%
Napa Permanent 2,916 2,631 3,732 4,290 43% 24.8%
Seasonal 7,855 5,202 6,125 5,734 57% 31.4%
Totals 10,771 7,833 9,857 10,024 100% 28.2%
Marin Permanent 245 130 510 697 55% 4.0%
Seasonal 246 59 562 577 45% 3.2%
Totals 491 189 1,072 1,274 100% 3.6%
San Mateo Permanent 2,226 1,697 1,320 978 74% 5.7%
Seasonal 852 911 402 343 26% 1.9%
Totals 3,078 2,608 1,722 1,321 100% 3.7%
Santa Clara Permanent 1,696 2,842 2,243 2,418 58% 14.0% Seasonal 3,760 2,747 1,994 1,757 42% 9.6%
Totals 5,456 5,589 4,237 4,175 100% 11.7%
San Francisco Permanent 0 0 0 0 0% 0.0%
Seasonal 0 0 0 0 0% 0.0%
Totals 0 0 0 0 0% 0.0%
Solano Permanent 2,735 1,474 1,387 1,453 58% 8.4%
Seasonal 2,921 1,339 1,459 1,060 42% 5.8%
Totals 5,656 2,813 2,846 2,513 100% 7.1%
Sonoma Permanent 5,597 5,458 5,900 6,715 47% 38.8%
Seasonal 9,870 8,341 7,810 7,664 53% 41.9%
Totals 15,467 13,799 13,710 14,379 100% 40.4%
Bay Area Permanent 16,722 15,275 15,956 17,306 49% 100.0% Seasonal 27,747 20,631 20,341 18,283 51% 100.0%
Totals 44,469 35,906 36,297 35,589 100% 100.0%
Universe: Hired farm workers (including direct hires and agricultural service workers who are often hired through labor contractors)
Notes: Farm workers are considered seasonal if they work on a farm less than 150 days in a year, while farm workers who work on a farm more than 150 days are considered to be permanent workers for that farm.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers (2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor

B290
A-53
Farmworker households are often compromised of extended family members and, as a result, many farmworker households tend to have difficulties securing safe, decent, and affordable housing. Far too often, farmworkers are forced to occupy substandard homes or live in overcrowded situations.

Additionally, farmworker households:
• tend to have high rates of poverty;
• live disproportionately in housing that is in the poorest condition; • have extremely high rates of overcrowding;
• have low homeownership rates.

Based on recent farmworker studies in the greater Bay Area (San Mateo and Monterey County), these are some of the key issues/trends affecting farmworkers.  High unmet needs for agricultural workforce housing; often housing in poor repair and overcrowding.
 Financial needs to support small agricultural producers/employers and employees that can’t afford market rate housing.
 Difficult to attract and retain employees due to the lack of housing availability.  Flow of foreign agricultural workers into the U.S. has declined sharply. The Bay Area is seeing a shift to more permanent workers versus seasonal workers. (2002 permanent workers equaled 38%; 2017 permanent workers equal 49%.)
 Desire for housing to be decoupled from employment and housing for families with most farmworkers living in urban communities.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Census of Farmworkers, the number of permanent farm workers in Contra Costa County has decreased since 2002, totaling 450 in 2017, while the number of seasonal farm workers has decreased, totaling 860 in 2017 (see Figure 47).

B291
A-54 A PPENDIX A: HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: ANTIOCH

Figure 47: Farm Operations and Farm Labor by County, Contra Costa County Universe: Hired farm workers (including direct hires and agricultural service workers who are often hired through labor contractors)
Notes: Farm workers are considered seasonal if they work on a farm less than 150 days in a year, while farm workers who work on a farm more than 150 days are considered to be permanent workers for that farm.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers (2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor

In Antioch and Contra Costa County, there were no reported students of migrant workers in the 2019-20 school year. The trend for the region for the past few years has been a decline of 2.4% in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year.

Table 8: Migrant Worker Student Population
Academic Year Antioch Contra Costa County Bay Area
2016-17 0 0 4,630
2017-18 0 0 4,607
2018-19 0 0 4,075
2019-20 0 0 3,976
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public schools
Notes: The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography.

Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table FARM-01.

B292
A-55

4.7 Non-English Speakers
California has long been an immigration gateway to the United States, which means that many languages are spoken throughout the Bay Area. Since learning a new language is universally challenging, it is not uncommon for residents who have immigrated to the United States to have limited English proficiency. This limit can lead to additional disparities if there is a disruption in housing, such as an eviction, because residents might not be aware of their rights or they might be wary to engage due to immigration status concerns. In Antioch, 6.5% of residents 5 years and older identify as speaking English not well or not at all, which is above the proportion for Contra Costa County. Throughout the region the proportion of residents 5 years and older with limited English proficiency is 8%.

Figure 48: Population with Limited English Proficiency
Universe: Population 5 years and over
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B16005

B293
A-56 A PPENDIX A: HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: ANTIOCH

B294
A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-i APPENDIX B: AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF AB 686 ........................................................................................ 1 Analysis Requirements ..................................................................................................................... 1 Sources of Information ..................................................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF FAIR HOUSING ISSUES .................................................................................................. 2 Fair Housing Enforcement and Capacity ........................................................................................... 2 Segregation and Integration ............................................................................................................. 2 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty ..................................................................... 3 Access to Opportunity ...................................................................................................................... 4 Disproportionate Housing Needs and Displacement Risk ................................................................. 4 Outreach .......................................................................................................................................... 4 ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING .......................................................................................................... 9 Fair Housing Enforcement and Capacity ........................................................................................... 9 Segregation and Integration ........................................................................................................... 16 Disparities in Access to Opportunity ............................................................................................... 60 Disproportionate Housing Needs .................................................................................................... 80 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) .................................................. 94 Identification of Contributing Factors ............................................................................................. 97 ANALYSIS OF SITES INVENTORY ...................................................................................................... 104 FAIR HOUSING ACTION PLAN ............................................................................................................ 115

B295
B-ii A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure B-1: Racial Dot Map of Antioch (2020) .................................................................................. 20 Figure B-2: Racial Isolation Index Values for Antioch Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) ................................................................................................. 232323 Figure B-3: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Antioch Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) ................................................................................................ 252525 Figure B-4: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation in Antioch Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) ......................................................................................... 26 Figure B-5: Diversity Index Score, 2018 ............................................................................................ 28 Figure B-6: Racial Demographics by Block Group, Percent of Total Non-White Population, 2018 ........................................................................................................... 29 Figure B-7: Asian Residents per Block Group, 2019 .......................................................................... 30 Figure B-8: Black Residents per Block Group, 2019 .......................................................................... 30 Figure B-9: Hispanic or Latino Residents per Block Group, 2019 ...................................................... 31 Figure B-10: White Residents per Block Group, 2019 ......................................................................... 31 Figure B-11: American Indian and Alaska Native Residents per Block Group, 2019 ........................... 32 Figure B-12: Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Residents per Block Group, 2019 ............... 32 Figure B-13: Population by Race ........................................................................................................ 33 Figure B-14: Comparing the Share of People of Color in Antioch and Vicinity to the Bay Area (2020) .................................................................................................................... 34 Figure B-15: Racial Dot Map of Antioch and Surrounding Areas (2020) ............................................. 35 Figure B-16: Income Dot Map of Antioch (2015) ................................................................................ 38 Figure B-17: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Antioch Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ................................................................................................ 39 Figure B-18: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Antioch Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ................................................................................................ 41 Figure B-19: Income Group Theil’s H Index Values for Antioch Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ................................................................................................ 42 Figure B-20: Median Income per Block Group, 2019 .......................................................................... 43 Figure B-21: Percent of Households in Poverty per Block Group, 2019 ............................................. 43 Figure B-22: Poverty Status by Race .................................................................................................. 44 Figure B-23: Income Dot Map of Antioch and Surrounding Areas (2015) ........................................... 46 Figure B-24: Income Demographics of Antioch Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) 48
Figure B-25: Percent of Persons with a Disability per Block Group, 2019 .......................................... 51 Figure B-26: Percent of Children in Married Couple Households per Block Group, 2019 .................... 54 Figure B-27: Percent of Children in Single Female-Headed Households per Block Group, 2019 56
Figure B-28: 2022 TCAC Opportunity Map by Census Tract, Antioch ................................................ 63 Figure B-29: 2022 TCAC/HCD Education Score by Census Tract, Antioch .......................................... 68 Figure B-30: 2022 TCAC Opportunity Map Economic Score by Census Tract .............................. 747474 Figure B-31: 2022 TCAC Opportunity Map Environmental Score by Census Tract ............................. 76 Figure B-: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder ....................................................................... 82 Figure B-: Substandard Housing Issues .......................................................................................... 84 Figure B-34: Cost Burden by Income Level ........................................................................................ 86 B296
A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-iii Figure B-: Cost Burden by Tenure .................................................................................................. 87 Figure B-: Cost Burden by Race ...................................................................................................... 88 Figure B-: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Contra Costa County ................ 89 Figure B-: Number of Unsheltered Individuals by Contra Costa County Cities ............................... 89 Figure B-: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity ........................................................................... 91 Figure B-: Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure .............................................................. 92 Figure B-: RHNA Distribution and EJ, R/ECAP and Low-Income Areas ......................................... 107 Figure B-: RHNA Distribution and Access to Opportunity ............................................................ 108 Figure B-43: Sites Inventory and Asian Residents per Block Group, 2019 ......................................... 110 Figure B-: Sites Inventory and Hispanic or Latino Residents per Block Group, 2019 ..................... 110 Figure B-45: Sites Inventory and Black Residents per Block Group, 2019 .......................................... 111 Figure B-46: Sites Inventory and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Residents per Block Group, 2019 ........................................................................................................ 111 Figure B-47: Sites Inventory and White Residents per Block Group, 2019 ........................................ 112 Figure B-: Sites Inventory and Median Income per Block Group, 2019 .......................................... 113 Figure B-49: Sites Inventory and Percent of Households in Poverty per Block Group, 2019 .............. 113 Figure B-50: Sites Inventory and Displacement Typology ................................................................ 114

LIST OF MAPS
Map 1: Minority Concentrated Areas ........................................................................................ 36 Map 2: Distribution of Percentage of Population with Low to Moderate Income Levels …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..47
Map 3: Distribution of Population with a Disability ................................................................... 52 Map 4: Distribution of Percentage of Children in Married-Couple Households .......................... 53 Map 5: Distribution of Percentage of Children in Female-Headed, No-Spouse or No- Partner Households ....................................................................................................... 55 Map 6: Distribution of Percentage of Renter Units with Housing Choice Vouchers ................... 58 Map 7: Location Affordability Index .......................................................................................... 59 Map 8: Composite Score of TCAC Opportunity Areas in Contra Costa County .......................... 62 Map 9: TCAC Opportunity Areas’ Education Score in Contra Costa County .............................. 67 Map 10: Public Transit Routes in Contra Costa County ................................................................ 69 Map 11: Residential Proximity to Job Locations in Contra Costa County ............................... 737373 Map 12: TCAC Opportunity Areas’ Economic Score in Contra Costa County ........................ 747474 Map 13: TCAC Opportunity Areas’ Environmental Score in Contra Costa County ................ 767676 Map 14: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Results in Contra Costa County ......................................................77 Map 15: Healthy Places Index in Contra Costa County ................................................................ 78 Map 16: Distribution of Percentage of Overpayment by Renters in Contra Costa County …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..85
Map 17: Distribution of Percentage of Overcrowded Households in Contra Costa County ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………90
Map 18: Sensitive Communities as Defined by the Urban Displacement Project......................... 93 Map 19: R/ECAPs in Contra Costa County ................................................................................... 95 Map 20: Expanded R/ECAPs in Contra Costa County ................................................................... 95 Map 21: Median Household Income in Contra Costa County ....................................................... 97

B297
B-iv A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G

B298
A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-v

LIST OF TABLES
Table B-1: Stakeholder Interview and Focus Group Findings, City of Antioch 2021 .......................... 6 Table B-2: Local Housing, Social Services, and Legal Service Organizations in Contra Costa County ................................................................................................................. 10 Table B-3: Number of DFEH Housing Complaints in Contra Costa County (2020) .......................... 12 Table B-4: Number of FHEO Filed Cases by Protected Class in Contra Costa County (2015–2020) ................................................................................................................... 13 Table B-5: ECHO Fair Housing Complaint Log - Action(s) Taken/Services Provided ....................... 14 Table B-6: ECHO Fair Housing Complaint Log – Outcomes ............................................................ 14 Table B-7: ECHO Fair Housing Fair Housing Audit Results .............................................................. 15 Table B-8: Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Antioch ........................................ 22 Table B-9: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Antioch .................................. 24 Table B-10: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation within Antioch ........................................ 26 Table B-11: Neighborhood Racial Segregation Levels in Antioch ..................................................... 27 Table B-12: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Antioch............................ 39 Table B-13: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Antioch...................... 40 Table B-14: Theil’s H Index Values for Income Segregation within Antioch ...................................... 41 Table B-15: Neighborhood Income Segregation Levels in Antioch ................................................... 42 Table B-16: Regional Income Segregation Measures ........................................................................ 45 Table B-17: Population by Income Group, Antioch, and the Region ................................................. 47 Table B-18: Households by Income Category and Tenure in Contra Costa County ........................... 49 Table B-19: Percentage of Populations by Disability Types .............................................................. 50 Table B-20: Percentage of Population with Disabilities by Age ........................................................ 50 Table B-21: Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps ................................................... 61 Table B-22: Opportunity Indicators, by Race/Ethnicity ..................................................................... 64 Table B-23: Home Loan Application Denial Rates by Race/Ethnicity in Contra Costa County .......... .79 Table B-24: Demographics of Households with Housing Problems in Contra Costa County …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..80
Table B-25: Household Type and Size .............................................................................................. 81 Table B-26: White Population and Median Household Income of RCAAs in Contra Costa County ………………………………………………………………………………………………97
Table B-27: Lower Income Sites Distribution .................................................................................. 107 Table B-28: Fair Housing Action Plan ..............................................................................................115

B299
B300
A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF AB 686
In January 2017, Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686) introduced an obligation to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) into California state law. AB 686 defined “affirmatively further fair housing” to mean “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combat discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity” for persons of color, persons with disabilities, and other protected classes.

ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS
All Housing Elements adopted on or after January 1, 2021, must contain an Assessment of Fair Housing consistent
with the core elements of the federal Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing Final Rule of July 16, 2015, and California Assembly Bill 686 (2018). The Assessment of
Fair Housing must include the following components: a
summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the
City’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, an analysis of segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities, an assessment of contributing factors, and identification and prioritization of fair housing goals and actions.

The analysis must address patterns at a regional and local level and trends in patterns over time. This analysis compares the City of Antioch to both Contra Costa County (County) and the wider nine-county Bay Area Region (Region) for the purposes of promoting more inclusive communities.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION
The primary data sources for the AFFH analysis are:
 Data Packets and Segregation Reports provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in collaboration with UC Merced.
 U.S. Census Bureau’s Decennial Census (referred to as “Census”) and American Community Survey (ACS).
 Contra Costa County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice January 2020-2025 (2020 AI). (referred to as “the 2020 AI” or “Contra Costa County AI”).  Local Knowledge (e.g., Findings or reports from City departments or community-based organizations).

The 2020 AI is a collaborative effort by a number of local governments and public housing authorities in Contra Costa County. The AI identifies impediments that may prevent equal housing access and develops solutions to mitigate or remove such impediments. Due to the population of Antioch, fair housing issues are typically handled as part of larger county consortium rather than on the local level, but the following analysis does provide a local analysis of fair housing within Antioch. Additionally, Under State law, affirmatively furthering fair
housing means “taking meaningful actions, in
addition to combatting discrimination, that
overcome patterns of segregation and foster
inclusive communities free from barriers that
restrict access to opportunity based on protected
characteristics.” These characteristics can include,
but are not limited to race, religion, sex, marital
status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial
status, or disability.

B301

B-2 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G there are local, regional, and state assistance and resources available to residents looking for affordable housing within Antioch.

In addition, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has developed a statewide AFFH Data Viewer which consists of map data layers from various data sources and provides options for addressing each of the components within the full scope of the assessment of fair housing.

The data source and time frame used in the AFFH mapping tools may differ from the ACS data in the 2020 AI. While some data comparisons may have different time frames (often different by one year), the differences do not affect the identification of possible trends.

SUMMARY OF FAIR HOUSING ISSUES
This section includes a high-level summary of each of the AFFH topics required by HCD. The topics are analyzed in more detail in section C.

FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT AND CAPACITY
The City of Antioch does not provide direct mediation services, but it partners with ECHO Housing and Bay Area Legal Services to provide mediation and other services, provides resources on the City website, and directs residents to appropriate agencies and resources for fair housing assistance. While these organizations provide valuable assistance, the capacity and funding that they have is generally insufficient. Greater resources would enable stronger outreach efforts, including populations that may be less aware of their fair housing rights, such as limited English proficiency and LGBTQ residents. The City of has made recent efforts to partner with nonprofits to engage in greater outreach to the Hispanic community in order to encourage greater participation in government service programs—generally resulting in increased outreach efforts, but “with declining success.”1 Additionally, while Antioch reported significant new outreach programming for people experiencing homelessness (as well as production of additional housing units), it also faces a severe continuing lack of available funding and services to support this population. It also supported the activities of ECHO Housing, which has engaged in testing, audits, public education, and outreach (in English and Spanish) within the city.

SEGREGATION AND INTEGRATION
The racial and ethnic composition of Antioch diverges significantly from those of the County and the Region and has changed significantly over time. In particular, Antioch has much higher Black and Hispanic population concentrations than both the County and the Region and lower non-Hispanic White and Asian or Pacific Islander population concentrations. The growth in the Black population stands in stark contrast to a County with flat Black population and a region with a declining Black population. Antioch also has higher concentrations of persons with disabilities across all categories than both the County and the Region, particularly for persons with cognitive disabilities. The City’s comparatively low-cost housing market and fast pace of growth likely contribute to the continued differences between the City and County in terms of the composition of the population. While Antioch

1 City of Antioch 2017-18 CAPER, available at https://www.antiochca.gov/fc/cdbg/FY-2017-18-CAPER.pdf.

B302

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-3 provides a more affordable option for lower-income households seeking for-sale and ownership housing, the high cost of housing in surrounding areas in the Bay Area continues to serve as a barrier for many low- and moderate-income households.

Segregation is primarily a regional and inter-municipal phenomenon (e.g., Black residents in particular are segregated in Antioch, but the areas from which they are disproportionately excluded are other parts of the County and Region, not other neighborhoods within Antioch). Antioch is one of the most diverse jurisdictions in the region. However, there are concentrations of low-income households, people with disabilities, and people experiencing poverty in certain parts of the city. In particular, the northwest portion of the city on either side of California Route 4 is an area that the city should target resources towards.

RACIALLY AND ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF POVERTY
Identifying Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) facilitates an understanding of entrenched patterns of segregation and poverty due to the legacy effects of historically racist and discriminatory housing laws. In Contra Costa County, the only area that meets the official HUD definition of a R/ECAP is in Concord. However, according to the 2020 AI, when a more localized definition is used that considers the Bay Area’s high cost of living, 12 additional census tracts qualify as R/ECAPs. In Antioch, the census tract known as the Sycamore neighborhood is considered a R/ECAP. According to data provided by the City based on data from the Urban Institute,2 the Sycamore neighborhood (i.e., census tract 307202) has 680 extremely low-income renters and is in the 96th percentile statewide for housing instability risk.3 It is in 97th percentile on the Urban Institute’s Equity Subindex, which is based on the shares of people of color, extremely low-income renter households, households receiving public assistance, and people born outside the US. According to City staff, the renters in this neighborhood are predominantly BIPOC women with children.4 Local organizations sited the age and condition of housing stock in this area as a contributing factor; the homes near Highway 4 are older, smaller, and less expensive in this area and neighborhoods with newer housing stock are often resistant to welcoming residents with lower incomes (e.g., voucher holders).

2 Where to Prioritize Emergency Rental Assistance to Keep Renters in Their Homes – Antioch. 2021. Available at https://www.urban.org/features/where-prioritize-emergency-rental-assistance-keep-renters-their-homes?cm_ven= ExactTarget&cm_cat=LAB_Prioritizing+Rental+Assistance_CoC+%26+HUD+grantees&cm_pla=All+Subscribers&cm_ite=new +tool+developed+by+a+team+of+Urban+Institute+researchers&cm_ainfo=&&utm_source=urban_EA&&utm_medium=email &&utm_campaign=prioritizing_rental_assistance&&utm_term=lab&&utm_content=coc_hudgrantees .

Urban Institute, 2021.Where to Prioritize Emergency Rental Assistance to Keep Renters in Their Homes, May 14. 3 Calculated based on shared of people living in poverty, renter-occupied housing units, severely cost-burdened low-income renters, severely overcrowded households, and unemployed people. 4 House, Teri, CDBG & Housing Consultant, City of Antioch. 2021. Personal communication with Urban Planning Partners, July 15.

B303

B-4 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G

ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
Most tracts within Antioch are identified as being
Low Resource, with a few in the southeast bordering
with Brentwood and Oakley as Moderate Resource.

Compared to the rest of the County and Region, the
TCAC Composite score shows that Antioch has lower
opportunity areas and lower access to resources for
its residents.

DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS AND

DISPLACEMENT RISK
There are significant disparities in the rates of renter and owner-occupied housing by race/ethnicity in
Contra Costa County, although Antioch has
significantly higher homeownership rates for
Hispanic and Black residents than in the County as a whole. Renters are more cost-burdened than owners. In Antioch, approximately 25 percent of renters spend 30 to 50 percent of their income on housing compared to 20.6 percent of those that own. Additionally, 34.3 percent of renters spend 50 percent or more of their income on housing, while 12.5 percent of owners are severely cost-burdened.

Overcrowding is also more prevalent in rental households.

As lower-income residents have been displaced from more expensive parts of the Bay Area, poverty in Eastern Contra Costa County has increased dramatically. From 2000-2014, the increase in poverty in Antioch was among the highest in the Bay Area. Displacement is thus perpetuating segregation as low- income people of color increasingly concentrate in east County. The University of California, Berkeley found that in Antioch, 31.3 percent of households live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement and 19.2 percent live in neighborhoods at risk of or undergoing gentrification.

OUTREACH
In addition to fair housing enforcement, it is critical that the community participation process in Antioch also reflects community conditions, and that the goals and strategies to address fair housing issues are both targeted and feasible. Throughout the Housing Element update, best practices from the HCD guidance on AFFH were used, including using a variety of meeting types and locations, ample time for public review, translating key materials, conducting meetings and focus group fully in Spanish to create a safe space for residents to provide feedback in their native language, avoiding overly technical language, and consulting key stakeholders who can assist with engaging low-income households and protected classes. Overall, the goals for this outreach were to reach and include the voices of those in protected classes and increase resident participation overall. Chapter 8, Participation of this Housing Element describes all community engagement activities undertaken during the update process and how community feedback was incorporated into the Housing Element. Table B-1 below shows key findings related to AFFH from our stakeholder meetings and surveys.

TCAC and Access of Opportunity
The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)
measures access to opportunity in order to place
affordable housing in locations where residents can
have access to resources. TCAC utilizes data on
economic mobility, educational achievement, and
environmental health to create an access to opportunity index. TCAC identifies areas from highest to lowest
resource by assigning scores between 0–1 for each
domain by census tracts where higher scores indicate
higher “access” to the domain or higher “outcomes.”
Refer to Table 12 for a list of domains and indicators for measuring access to opportunity. Composite scores are
a combination score of the three domains that do not
have a numerical value but rather rank census tracts by the level of resources (low, moderate, high, highest).

B304

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-5 In addition to the outreach done specifically for this Housing Element update, the Contra Costa Consortium and public housing authorities engaged a wide range of stakeholders and members of the community in the process of creating the 2020 AI. Outreach efforts included the dissemination of a survey, in-person meetings with an array of stakeholders and agencies, and community meetings to engage with residents across Contra Costa County. While we are able to utilize many of these findings in the Housing Element, we also reached out to additional stakeholders and spoke to some of the same organizations to follow up on issues specific to Antioch in 2021.

For the two community-wide meetings held on February 17, 2022, and April 13, 2022, a diligent effort was made to include all economic segments of the community and/or their representatives. A detailed description of this effort is described in Appendix E: Public Engagement Output.

The City of Antioch reported in its 2017-18 Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) that the City has made recent efforts to partner with nonprofits to engage in greater outreach to the Hispanic community in order to encourage greater participation in government service programs—generally resulting in increased outreach efforts, but “with declining success.” Additionally, Antioch reported significant new outreach programming for people experiencing homelessness, it also faces a severe continuing lack of available funding and services to support this population. It also supported the activities of ECHO housing, which has engaged in testing, audits, public education, and outreach (in English and Spanish) within the city.

Summary
The City has engaged key stakeholders throughout its Housing Element update, including but not limited to housing and community development providers, lower-income community members, members of protected classes, representative advocacy organizations, fair housing agencies, independent living centers, and homeless service agencies. As described in Chapter 8 and Appendix E, proactive methods were used to reach a broad and diverse audience, and feedback from the community shaped the findings related to housing constraints and the Assessment of Fair Housing as well as the policies and programs included in Chapter 7.

B305

B-6 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G TABLE B-1: STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW AND FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS, CITY OF ANTIOCH 2021 Stakeholder Summary of Findings
Independent Living Resources
Through educational empowerment and
advocacy, ILRs’ main goal is to incorporate
those with disabilities into the community. ILR
offers free services for persons with disabilities
and seniors, their families and the agencies
which serve them.
 The biggest issue regionally and in Antioch is a lack of affordable housing. Some people are living in cars, having a hard time paying application fees. Application fees are a huge issue as people aren’t able to cover that. Credit reports are also an issue.
 People living on social security can’t afford housing.  There is a need for more project-based vouchers.

First 5 Center
Serves families with prenatal babies through 5
years old, and in Antioch they are about 50%
Hispanic Latinos and Spanish-speakers.

 Antioch Change, a regional group of community parents, identified Antioch as one of the highest need areas in East County in terms of housing disparities. Preliminary findings from recent data collection directly from First 5 families found that the top two concerns related to housing in Antioch are: affordability - close to half of families listed affordability as their biggest concern. Habitability and safety related to the housing that is available to those interviewed was the second concern.
 Residents in Antioch worry most about rent increases and paying back any debt they have (to the landlord).
 A successful housing program addresses lifestyle amenities that allow for the elderly and families to have access to safe open spaces, like parks, and security and adequate lighting in their neighborhoods, access to transit, and allows people to be proud of living there, not afraid of walking outside and connecting with people. Childcare is also crucial.
 It is important to ensure that landlords create a non-hostile space and fix things that are broken.

ECHO Fair Housing
Educates tenants and landlords about their
housing rights, state, federal, and local laws,
especially related to building codes. Intervenes
when the landlord or tenant breaks housing
laws. ECHO’s role is to advocate not for the
landlord or tenant specifically but rather the
housing law.
 Availability of affordable housing is the biggest concern, especially in regards to disparities between groups of people and opportunities they are offered.
 Successful housing projects require strong community outreach; raise awareness, education, communication—communities need more information and resources made available to them.
 Calls that come to us from Antioch come disproportionately from people with disabilities.
 Collaborating across nonprofits in regards to ensuring people receive the information about their rights and resources is important.  There is opportunity for Antioch to lead the region to push for more federal funds to help promote homeownership.

Shelter Inc
Integrates case management to help address
the root causes of homelessness. Services
include eviction prevention, and multiple
housing solutions including interim and long-
term housing.
 Veterans who have experienced trauma during their military service become very selective about where they want to live. They do not want to be around people with addiction problems.
 Many senior veterans are losing their homes due to not having a rent control system.
 If the landlord does nothing to fix a home that’s falling apart, they sometimes evict people instead of fixing it.
 The homeless near the lake have a limited perimeter of where they are able to walk to, but there are transportation options within their walkable perimeter.
 There is a need for a living facility with wraparound services for the unhoused.
 The pandemic has left a gap where in-person resource fairs used to help people find housing and job information, technical training, and computer skills.
 There is a perception that more growth in terms of housing leads to a risk of additional crime and the city is growing too fast.

B306

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-7 TABLE B-1: STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW AND FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS, CITY OF ANTIOCH 2021 Stakeholder Summary of Findings
CC Senior Legal Services
A non-profit organization dedicated to
providing free civil legal services to Contra
Costa County residents who are 60 or older.
 For seniors on fixed incomes, rents go up during market cycles and Social Security does not keep up. If they do get evicted it is hard to find something comparable and affordable, which is increasingly tough at their age.
 Outreach methods are not driven by data on what works. Providers need to determine how people get information, especially people who aren’t currently aware of resources. Someone went door to door and found that most people are not aware of the senior services currently provided.

Bay Area Legal Aid
Provide low-income clients with free civil legal
assistance, including legal advice and counsel,
effective referrals, and legal representation.

The largest civil legal aid provider serving seven
Bay Area counties.
 Without strong rent control, people are being priced out and evicted not just for non-payment. In Antioch, tenants can be evicted for no reason, and once that happens many landlords do not accept people who have evictions on their record.
 The strongest way to protect people with a changing environment in Antioch (i.e. the new BART station) is to implement a just cause eviction policy.

Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley
Partnered with The City of Antioch to provide
health and safety, property maintenance,
energy efficiency, and disability
accommodation repairs to low and moderate-
income homeowners within the city limits.
 Low-income homeowners are not able to repair their homes so they are living in tender conditions and there is a barrier to accessing any funding.
 In order to access federal funding for home repairs, if you live in a flood zone, you need flood insurance which is cost prohibitively expensive for many homeowners.
 Mobile homes cannot secure loans for home repairs because they are not considered real property.
 Antioch’s grant and loan program requires that a lien be placed on a home for two years. There is a fear that folks will use the funding to fix up their homes and then turn around and sell, but in the 11 jurisdictions where Habitat administers programs, they do not see that happening.

Antioch is the only city that requires filing a lien in order to issue a grant for repairs. It turns people off because they are scared by a lien, and the amount of time it takes to administer is too long.

Saint Vincent de Paul Most Holy Rosary
Conference
A group funded by the parishioners of Most
Holy Rosary and St. Ignatius of Antioch
Catholic Churches. They help with rent,
deposits, utility bills and furniture.
 There is some natural economic segregation between north of the freeway and south of the freeway because we have an old area with smaller, cheaper homes and the newer areas are more expensive. The racial mix over all though is pretty well mixed up.
 Better outreach so people know where to get resources is crucial. At a minimum need to make sure people know to call 211 for information.  Displacement affects Antioch most in the sense that people are being priced out of other parts of the Bay and coming to Antioch, not that they’re getting priced out from Antioch.
 The population growth has meant that there are multiple families in one single-family home, which has consequences for parking. A lack of affordable housing in other regions has caused overcrowding in Antioch.

East Bay Housing Organizations
EBHO brings together community members,
public officials, nonprofit housing developers,
residents, service providers, planners,
professionals, and advocates to work together
to ensure everyone has a safe, healthy, and
affordable place to call home.
 It is important to make sure affordable housing opportunities are distributed throughout the community and are not segregated to only particular neighborhoods or sections of the city.
 In Contra Costa County, funding for affordable housing is constrained because the County does not have an adequate vehicle for a local match (affordable housing bond or other local resources that can provide a local match). Without this, projects are less competitive for the federal tax credits.
 Transportation options are limited for those without a private vehicle and leads to employment challenges. Long commutes also decrease the quality of life, and every area of the Bay needs to do its share to B307

B-8 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G TABLE B-1: STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW AND FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS, CITY OF ANTIOCH 2021 Stakeholder Summary of Findings
build more housing. Just because other communities are not doing it doesn’t mean Antioch should stop. We have a big regional need.  There are not enough strong tenant protections in Antioch and East Contra Costa County. Just cause, rent control, or even a tenant anti- harassment ordinance is needed.
 The moratorium on evictions has made EBHO aware of landlords harassing their tenants to constructively evict individuals and families from their homes when they could not use other means.

Source: City of Antioch and Urban Planning Partners, 2021.

B308

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-9

ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
This Assessment of Fair Housing analyzes fair housing issues in Antioch and compares Antioch to the County and Region.

FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT AND CAPACITY
Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity refers to the ability of a locality and fair housing entities to disseminate information related to fair housing laws and rights and provide outreach and education to community members. Enforcement and outreach capacity also includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, obtaining remedies, and engaging in fair housing testing. Fair housing issues that may arise in any jurisdiction include but are not limited to:
 Housing design that makes a dwelling unit inaccessible to an individual with a disability.  Discrimination against an individual based on race, national origin, familial status, disability, religion, sex, or other characteristic when renting or selling a housing unit.  Disproportionate housing needs including cost burden, overcrowding, substandard housing, and risk of displacement.

Pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act [Government Code Section 12921 (a)], the opportunity to seek, obtain, and hold housing cannot be determined by an individual’s “race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or military status, genetic information, or any other basis prohibited by Section 51 of the Civil Code.” These characteristics are commonly referred to as protected classes. The Fair Employment and Housing Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act are the primary fair housing laws in California. California State law extends anti- discrimination protections in housing to several classes that are not covered by the federal Fair Housing Act of 1968, including prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The City of Antioch does not provide direct mediation services, but it does contract with various Bay Area organizations to provide fair housing, social and legal resources services to residents. See Implementing Program 5.1.1. Fair Housing Services within Chapter 7, Housing Goals, Policies, and Programs of the Housing Element. These organizations are listed below in Table B-2 along with an assessment of how accessible the organization’s website and services are to persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP).on the City website and directs residents to appropriate agencies and resources for fair housing assistance. Fair housing outreach and education is imperative to ensure that those experiencing discrimination know when and how to seek help. Accordingly, the cCity prioritizes the advertising of available fair housing resources via the cCity’s website and social media pages as well as at City Hall within the Public Safety and Community Resources Department and throughout the community in community centers, libraries, and other public locations. See Implementing Program

1.1.8. Safe Housing Outreach7 within Chapter 7, Housing Goals, Policies, and Programs of the Housing Element. Several organizations provide fair housing, social, and legal services in Antioch and/or Contra Costa County, as shown in Table B-2. Also included in Table B-2 is an assessment of how accessible the website and services are to persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP).

B309

B-1 0 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G TABLE B-2: L OCAL HOUSING, SOCIAL SERVICES, AND LEGAL SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Name Focus Areas Service Area Website Accessibility Address Phone Website Eden Council
of Hope &
Opportunity
(ECHO) Fair
Housing
Housing counseling agency
that provides education
and charitable assistance.

In Contra Costa County,
ECHO Fair Housing
provides fair housing
services, first-time home
buyer counseling and
education, and
tenant/landlord services
(rent review and eviction
harassment programs are
available only in Concord).

Alameda, Contra Costa,
and Monterey Counties,
and the Cities of Alameda,
Antioch, Concord,
Hayward, Livermore,
Monterey, Oakland,
Pleasanton, Richmond,
Salinas, San Leandro,
Seaside, Union City, &
Walnut Creek
Navigating the ECHO
website may be difficult for
the limited-English
proficient (LEP) population
due to the website being
predominantly English.

However, the website has
some options to translate
the homepage to other
languages.
301 W. 10th St Antioch,
CA 94509
(925) 732-3919 http://www.echofairhousi
ng/
Bay Area
Legal Aid
Largest civil legal aid
provider serving seven Bay
Area counties. Has a focus
area in housing
preservation and
homelessness task force to
provide legal services and
advocacy for those in need.

San Rafael, Napa,
Richmond,
Oakland, San Francisco,
Redwood City, & San Jose
The organization provides
translations for their online
resources to over 50
languages and uses
volunteer
interpreters/translators to
help provide language
access. Its legal advice line
provides counsel and
advice in different
languages. Specific to
Contra Costa County,
tenant housing resources
are provided in English and
Spanish.
1735 Telegraph Ave
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 663-4755 https://baylegal.org/
Shelter Inc. Provides case management
services, employment
assistance, and housing
search assistance to low-
income households at risk
of experiencing
homelessness and people
with disabilities.

Contra Costa, Solano, and
Sacramento counties.

Navigating the Shelter Inc
website may be difficult for
the limited-English
proficient (LEP) population
due to the website being in
English and lacking options
to translate.

P.O. Box 5368
Concord, CA 94524
(925) 335-0698 https://shelterinc.org/
Contra Costa
Senior Legal
Services
A non-profit organization
dedicated to providing free
civil legal services to Contra
Contra Costa County The website can be
translated to Chinese,
Filipino, and Spanish.
2702 Clayton Rd #202
Concord, CA 94519
(925) 609-7900 https://www.ccsls.org/
B310

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-11 Name Focus Areas Service Area Website Accessibility Address Phone Website Costa County residents
who are 60 or older.

Linked resources are
primarily offered in English
and Spanish.

Pacific
Community
Services, Inc.
(PCSI)
Private non-profit housing
agency that serves East
Contra Costa County (Bay
Point, Antioch, and
Pittsburg). Programs
include Foreclosure
Prevention,
Homeownership
Counseling, Rental
Counseling, Tenant and
Landlord Rights, and Fair
Housing Education and
Outreach.

Bay Point, Antioch, &
Pittsburgh
Though promising overall,
the website lacks contact
information, resources, and
accessibility on their
website.
329 Railroad Ave,
Pittsburg, CA 94565
(925) 439-1200 http://pacomserve.org/
Fair Housing
Advocates of
Northern
California
(FHANC)
Non-profit agency that
provides fair housing
information and literature
in a number of different
languages.

Primarily serves Marin,
Sonoma, and Solano
County but also has
resources to residents
outside of the above
geographic areas. Fair
housing services provided
to residents outside of
Marin, Sonoma, or Solano
County include foreclosure
prevention services &
information, information
on fair housing law for the
housing industry, and other
fair housing literature
Majority of the fair housing
literature is provided in
Spanish and English, with
some provided in
Vietnamese and Tagalog.
1314 Lincoln Ave. Suite
A
San Rafael, CA 94901
(415)457-5025 https://www.fairhousingn
orcal.org/
Source: Alameda County 2020 AI; C4 (Contra Costa County Collaborative), 2022; and Urban Planning Partners personal communication with Teri House, CDBG & Housing Consultant and Shelter Inc, Contra Costa Legal Services, Bay Area Legal Aid, and ECHO, 2022.

B311
A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-1 2 Fair Housing Enforcement
California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has statutory mandates to protect the people of California from discrimination pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Ralph Civil Rights Act, and Unruh Civil Rights Act (with regards to housing), as listed below.  FEHA. Prohibits discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions), gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, military or veteran status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, and genetic information, or because another person perceives the tenant or applicant to have one or more of these characteristics.  Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, Section 51). Prohibits business establishments in California from discriminating in the provision of services, accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges to clients, patrons and customers because of their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status.
 Ralph Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, Section 51.7). Guarantees the right of all persons within California to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of political affiliation, or on account of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, immigration status, or position in a labor dispute, or because another person perceives them to have one or more of these characteristics.

Fair housing complaints can be used as an indicator to identify characteristics of households experiencing discrimination in housing. Based on DFEH Annual Reports, Table B-3 shows the number of housing complaints filed by Contra Costa County to DFEH between 2015 and 2020. A slight increase in the number of complaints precedes the downward trend from 2016 to 2020.

TABLE B-3: N UMBER OF DFEH HOUSING COMPLAINTS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (2020) Year Housing Unruh Civil Rights Act
2015 30 5
2016 32 2
2017 26 26
2018 22 2
2019 22 2
2020 20 1
Note that fair housing cases alleging a violation of FEHA can also involve an alleged Unruh violation as the same unlawful activity can violate both laws. DFEH creates companion cases that are investigated separately from the housing investigation.

Source: California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, 2021.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (HUD FHEO) enforces fair housing by investigating complaints of housing discrimination. Table B-4 shows the number of FHEO Filed Cases by Protected Class in Contra Costa County between 2015 and B312

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-1 3 2020. A total of 148 cases were filed within this time period, with disability being the top allegation of basis of discrimination followed by familial status, race, national origin, and sex. These findings are consistent with national trends stated in FHEO’s FY 2020 State of Fair Housing Annual Report to Congress where disability was also the top allegation of basis of discrimination.

TABLE B-4: N UMBER OF FHEO FILED CASES BY PROTECTED CLASS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (2015–2020) Year
Number of
Filed Cases Disability Race National Origin
Sex Familial Status
2015 28 17 4 2 2 4
2016 30 14 8 7 5 6
2017 20 12 3 5 1 5
2018 31 20 6 3 4 9
2019 32 27 4 4 4 1
2020 7 4 1 0 2 1
Total 148 94 26 21 18 26
Percentage of Total Filed Cases
*Note that cases may be filed on more
than one basis.

63.5% 17.5% 14.2% 12.2% 17.6%
Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) Filed Cases, 2021.

Table B-4 indicates that the highest number of fair housing complaints are due to discrimination against those with disabilities, followed by income source, race, and national origin.

ECHO Fair Housing provides additional fair housing services in Contra Costa County and at times provides mediation to households facing housing discrimination before these actions are reported to public authorities. Therefore, it is important to include their analysis as well. A summary of ECHO’s Fair Housing Complaint Log on fair housing issues, actions taken, services provided, and outcomes can be found in Tables B-5 and B-6. Services that were not provided include case tested by phone; case referred to HUD; and case accepted for full representation. As shown in Tables B-5 and B-6, the most common action(s) taken or services provided are providing clients with counseling, followed by sending testers for investigation, and conciliation with landlords. Regardless of actions taken or services provided, almost 45 percent of cases are found to have insufficient evidence, and only about 12 percent of all cases resulted in successful mediation.

Fair Housing Testing
Fair housing testing is a randomized audit of property owners’ compliance with local, state, and federal fair housing laws. Initiated by the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division in 1991, fair housing testing involves the use of an individual or individuals who pose as prospective renters for the purpose of determining whether a landlord is complying with local, state, and federal fair housing laws.

B313

B-1 4 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G TABLE B-5: ECHO FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINT LOG -– ACTION(S) TAKEN/SERVICES PROVIDED Protected Class
Testers Sent for
Investigation
Referred to
Attorney
Conciliation
with Landlord
Client Provided
with Counseling
Client Provided
with Brief
Service
Grand
Total
Race 21 0 0 2 0 23
Marital Status 0 0 0 1 0 1
Sex 0 0 0 0 0 0
Religion 0 0 0 0 0 0
Familial Status 0 0 0 3 0 3
Sexual Orientation 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sexual Harassment 0 0 0 1 0 1
Income Source 15 0 1 7 1 24
Disability 7 1 14 33 5 60
National Origin 13 0 0 1 0 14
Other 0 0 1 11 5 17
Total 56 1 16 59 11 143
Source: ECHO Fair Housing (2020-2021).

TABLE B-6: ECHO FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINT LOG – OUTCOMES
Protected Class
Counseling
Provided to
Landlord
Counseling
Provided to
Tenant
Education
to
Landlord
Insufficient
Evidence
Preparing
Site Visit
Referred to

DFEH/HUD
Successful
Mediation
Grand
Total
Race 0 0 2 20 0 1 0 23
National Origin 0 0 1 13 0 0 0 14
Marital Status 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Sex 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disability 2 25 2 12 0 4 15 60
Religion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sexual
Orientation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Familial Status 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3
Income Source 3 3 0 16 1 0 1 24
Sexual
Harassment 0 8 2 2 1 4 0 17
Other 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total 5 39 7 64 2 10 16 143
Source: ECHO Fair Housing (2020-2021).

ECHO conducts fair housing investigations in several jurisdictions through Contra Costa County. Every year they conduct an audit of rental properties in local communities to see how well they are conforming to fair housing laws. A different protected class is selected each year as the focus of the audit. Table B-7 reveals that there was differential treatment found in Antioch in the Fiscal Year 2019- B314

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-1 5 2020 (when testing discrimination based on racial voice identification) and Fiscal Year 2020-2021 (when testing discrimination based on the use of Housing Choice Vouchers to pay rent). Based on the information from ECHO, the City of Antioch had less discrimination based on racial voice identification (8 percent of cases) than Concord (40 percent) or the unincorporated County (15 percent). However, it had more source of income discrimination than any of the other three jurisdictions tested.

TABLE B-7: ECHO FAIR HOUSING FAIR HOUSING AUDIT RESULTS

Fiscal Year

2017-2018
Fiscal Year
2018-2019
Fiscal Year
2019-2020
Fiscal Year
2020-2021
Antioch
Differential Treatment 0 0 1 2
No Differential Treatment 13 13 11 10
Antioch Differential Treatment (Percentage of Total) 0% 0% 8% 17% Concord
Differential Treatment 3 0 2 0
No Differential Treatment 2 5 3 5
Concord Differential Treatment (Percentage of Total) 60% 0% 40% 0% Contra Costa County
Differential Treatment 0 0 3 1
No Differential Treatment 17 17 17 21
County Differential Treatment (Percentage of Total) 0% 0% 15% 5% Walnut Creek
Differential Treatment 0 0 0 0
No Differential Treatment 5 5 5 5
Walnut Creek Differential Treatment (Percentage of
Total) 0% 0% 0% 0%
Source: ECHO Fair Housing Fair Housing Audit Reports.

The 2020 Contra Costa County AI did not report any findings on fair housing testing on the county level.

However, the 2020 AI did identify that private discrimination is a problem in Contra Costa County that continues to perpetuate segregation. Based on fair housing testing conducted in the City of Richmond, it was found that there was significant differential treatment in favor of White testers over Black testers in 55 percent of phone calls towards 20 housing providers with advertisements on Craigslist. Because Whites receive better services, they tend to live in neighborhoods apart from minority groups.

Conclusion
Fair housing outreach and education is imperative to ensure that those experiencing discrimination know when and how to seek help. While the City of Antioch does not provide direct mediation services, it does provide resources on the City website and directs residents to several organizations throughout the County that do and to resources for fair housing assistance. Additionally, the City of Antioch contracts with various fair housing and legal service providers to provide fair housing services to B315

B-1 6 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G residents, and ensure compliance with all applicable state housing laws. These organizations are listed above in Table B-2 and referenced within Program 5.1.1. Fair Housing Services within Chapter 7, Housing Goals, Policies, and Programs of the Housing Element. In Contra Costa County and Antioch, similar to national trends, disability is the top allegation of basis of discrimination. Antioch has also been found to have differential treatment in the private housing market by landlords, specifically due to perceptions of race and the use of Housing Choice Vouchers. However there are no known fair housing settlement cases in the City.

SEGREGATION AND INTEGRATION
This section begins with background information
and then analyzes racial segregation first at the
neighborhood level within Antioch and then at a
larger scale to compare regional trends in Contra
Costa County and Bay Area region to Antioch. It
then examines income segregation at the
neighborhood level and then regional level. The
section closes out with the geographic distribution
of persons with special housing needs, including
persons with disabilities, familial status (large
families, female-headed no-spouse/no-partners
households), and households using Housing Choice
Vouchers (HCVs).

The majority of the information in this section is provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in collaboration with UC Merced, and a regional Contra Costa County analysis provided by C4.

Therefore, parenthetical references are used in the same manner as they were quoted in the reports they were pulled from, as opposed to footnotes.

Background
Defining Segregation
Segregation is the separation of different demographic groups into different geographic locations or communities, meaning that groups are unevenly distributed across geographic space. Segregation can exist wholly within a particular city where certain neighborhoods have concentrations of protected class members. Segregation can also exist between municipalities and even across County boundaries within a broader metropolitan area such as the Bay Area.

Segregation is not only a racial matter. For example, for persons with disabilities, segregation also includes residence in congregate and/or institutional facilities that allow for limited interaction with people who do not have disabilities, regardless of where those dwellings are located. Segregation can also occur by income level, familial status, age, or by households who use subsidized Housing Choice Vouchers. However, segregation by race has been studied the most and has the most available data.

Definition of Terms – Segregation Types
Neighborhood level segregation (within a jurisdiction, or intra-city): Segregation of race, income, or other groups can occur from neighborhood to neighborhood within a city. For example, if a local jurisdiction has a population that is 20% Latinx, but some neighborhoods are 80% Latinx while others have nearly no Latinx residents, that jurisdiction would have segregated neighborhoods.

City level segregation (between jurisdictions in a region, or inter-city): Race, income, and other divides also occur between jurisdictions in a region. A region could be very diverse with equal numbers of white, Asian, Black, and
Latinx residents, but the region could also be highly
segregated with each city comprised solely of one racial group.

B316

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-1 7 This section examines two spatial forms of segregation: neighborhood level segregation within a local jurisdiction and city level segregation between jurisdictions in the Bay Area.

There are many factors that have contributed to the generation and maintenance of segregation.

Historically, racial segregation stemmed from explicit discrimination against people of color, such as restrictive covenants, redlining, and discrimination in mortgage lending. This history includes many overtly discriminatory policies made by federal, state, and local governments (Rothstein 2017).

Segregation patterns are also affected by policies that appear race-neutral, such as land use decisions and the regulation of housing development.

Segregation by race, income, and other characteristics has resulted in vastly unequal access to public goods such as quality schools, neighborhood services and amenities, parks and playgrounds, clean air and water, and public safety (Trounstine 2015). This generational lack of access for many communities, particularly people of color and lower income residents, has often resulted in poor life outcomes, including lower educational attainment, higher morbidity rates, and higher mortality rates (Chetty and Hendren 2018, Ananat 2011, Burch 2014, Cutler and Glaeser 1997, Sampson 2012, Sharkey 2013).

Integration, by contrast, consists of both relative dispersion or lack of concentration of protected class members and, for persons with disabilities, residence in settings like permanent supportive housing that provide opportunities for interaction with persons who do not have disabilities. As the passage of the Fair Housing Act by Congress in 1968 was, in large measure, a response to pervasive patterns of residential racial segregation to which government action contributed significantly, segregation and integration are essential topics in any fair housing planning process.

There are several ways to measure segregation in a given jurisdiction or region, many of which will be defined and used throughout this analysis.

Segregation Patterns in the Bay Area
Across the San Francisco Bay Area, White residents and above moderate-income residents are significantly more segregated from other racial and income groups. The highest levels of racial segregation occur between the Black and White populations when examining the whole Bay Area. The amount of racial segregation both within Bay Area cities and across jurisdictions in the region has decreased since the year 2000.5 This finding is consistent with recent research from the Othering and Belonging Institute at UC Berkeley, which concluded that “[a]lthough 7 of the 9 Bay Area counties were more segregated in 2020 than they were in either 1980 or 1990, racial residential segregation in the region appears to have peaked around the year 2000 and has generally declined since.”6 However, compared to cities in other parts of California, Bay Area jurisdictions have more neighborhood level segregation between residents from different racial groups and other protected characteristics (e.g., disability, familial status). Additionally, there is more racial segregation between Bay Area cities compared to other regions in the state.

5 UC Merced Urban Policy Lab and ABAG/MTC Staff, 2022. AFFH Segregation Report: Antioch. 6 For more information, see https://belonging.berkeley.edu/most-segregated-cities-bay-area-2020 .

B317

B-1 8 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G Segregation and Land Use
It is difficult to address segregation patterns without an analysis of both historical and existing land use policies that impact segregation patterns. Land use regulations influence what kind of housing is built in a city or neighborhood and these land use regulations in turn impact demographics: they can be used to affect the number of houses in a community, the number of people who live in the community, the wealth of the people who live in the community, and where within the community they reside (Trounstine 2018). Given disparities in wealth by race and ethnicity, the ability to afford housing in different neighborhoods, as influenced by land use regulations, is highly differentiated across racial and ethnic groups (Bayer, McMillan, and Reuben 2004).7
While some people of color have benefited greatly from the tech and property boom in the Bay Area, they remain overrepresented in communities like Antioch, which struggled with foreclosure and bankruptcy since the Great Recession and are underrepresented in the areas that have experienced high property appreciation. Antioch’s history has included many instances of racism and exclusion — it is a former "sundown town" where Chinese residents were banned from walking city streets after sunset, and African Americans in the postwar era knew they were largely unwelcome after dark. And as Alex Schafran, author of The Road to Resegregation: Northern California and the Failure of Politics, explains, "Antioch is thus simultaneously the radical face of integration and a key example of twenty- first-century resegregation. Like all forms of segregation, the racialized and stratified landscapes in which this crisis has played out are not simply products of market forces, demographic change, or economic shifts. They are products of the culmination of innumerable political decisions... on land use, housing, transportation, environmental protection, and much more, decisions about how and for whom to build cities and towns and regions and neighborhoods... some of which were outright racist or classist."

7 Using a household-weighted median of Bay Area county median household incomes, regional values were $61,050 for Black residents, $122,174 for Asian/Pacific Islander residents, $121,794 for white residents, and $76,306 for Latinx residents. For the source data, see U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B19013B, Table B19013D, B19013H, and B19013I.

B318

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-1 9 Racial Segregation
Ethnic and racial composition of a region is useful in analyzing housing demand and any related fair housing concerns as it tends to demonstrate a relationship with other characteristics such as household size, locational preferences, and mobility. Prior studies have identified socioeconomic status, generational care needs, and cultural preferences as factors associated with “doubling up”—households with extended family members and non-kin. These factors have also been associated with ethnicity and race. Other studies have also found minorities tend to congregate in metropolitan areas though their mobility trend predictions are complicated by economic status (minorities moving to the suburbs when they achieve middle class) or immigration status (recent immigrants tend to stay in metro areas/ports of entry).

Neighborhood Level Racial Segregation (within Antioch)
Racial dot maps are useful for visualizing how multiple racial groups are distributed within a specific geography. The racial dot map of Antioch in Figure B-Error! Reference source not found.1 below offers a visual representation of the spatial distribution of racial groups within the jurisdiction. Generally, when the distribution of dots does not suggest patterns or clustering, segregation measures tend to be lower. Conversely, when clusters of certain groups are apparent on a racial dot map, segregation measures may be higher. As shown in Figure B-1 and consistent with feedback from community members, there is a great diversity of races and ethnicities throughout Antioch races appear fairly integrated within Antioch and there are no glaring concentrations of one race or ethnicity in one geographic area. However also evident in Figure B-1 is that tan dots, representing Latinx residents, and green dots, representing black residents, appear to be clustered and overrepresented in relation to other races, in the northwest portion of the city north of State Road 4.

As discussed within the “Disparities in Access to Opportunities” section later in this Appendix, census tract number 3072.02, located within this northwest portion of the city and bordered by State Road 4 to the south, L Street to the east, railroad tracks to the north, and Somersville Road to the west is designated “high segregation and poverty” according to California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) opportunity maps. Areas designated high segregation and poverty on TCAC opportunity maps Definition of Terms - Geographies
Neighborhood: In this section, “neighborhoods” are approximated by tracts.1 Tracts are statistical geographic units defined by the U.S. Census Bureau for the purposes of disseminating data. In the Bay Area, tracts contain on average 4,500 residents.

Nearly all Bay Area jurisdictions contain at least two census tracts, with larger jurisdictions containing dozens of tracts.

Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction is used to refer to the 109 cities, towns, and unincorporated county areas that are members of ABAG.

Though not all ABAG jurisdictions are cities, this section also uses the term “city” interchangeably with “jurisdiction” in some places.

Region: The region is the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, which is comprised of Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Marin County, Napa County, San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Solano County, and Sonoma County. _____________________
1 Throughout this section, neighborhood level segregation measures are calculated using census tract data. However, the racial dot maps in Figure 1 and Figure 5 use data from census blocks, while the income group dot maps in Figure 8 and Figure 12 use data from census block groups. These maps use data derived from a smaller geographic scale to better show spatial differences in where different groups live. Census block groups are subdivisions of census tracts, and census blocks are subdivisions of block groups. In the Bay Area, block groups contain on average 1,500 people, while census blocks contain on average 95 people.

B319

B-2 0 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G are areas with at least 30% percent of the population falling below the federal poverty line and a concentration of black, Hispanic, Asian, or all persons of color above that of the county.

Figure B-1: Racial Dot Map of Antioch (2020)
Universe: Population. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.

Note: The plot shows the racial distribution at the census block level for City of Antioch and vicinity. Dots in each census block are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of people.

B320

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-2 1 Isolation Index
There are many ways to quantitatively measure
segregation. Each measure captures a different aspect of the ways in which groups are distribution within a
community. One way to measure segregation is by using
an isolation index. An isolation index is a measurement of segregation, based on the exposure members of
each racial group in a jurisdiction can expect to have
with members of other racial groups. Isolation indexes
measure the “experience” of members of different racial groups within the neighborhoods of a community by
measuring what percentage of their neighborhood is
comprised of individuals of the same racial group.

Within the City of Antioch, the most isolated racial group is Latinx residents. Antioch’s isolation index of

0.384 for Latinx residents means that the average Latinx resident lives in a neighborhood that is 38.4 percent Latinx. Other racial groups are less isolated, meaning they may be more likely to encounter other racial groups in their neighborhoods. The isolation index values for all racial groups in Antioch for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table B-8 below. Among all racial groups in this jurisdiction, the White population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020.

The “Bay Area Average” column in Table B-8 provides the average isolation index value across Bay Area jurisdictions for different racial groups in 2020.8 The data in this column can be used to compare the levels of segregation experienced by racial groups in the city of Antioch to that of the overall Bay Area.

However, it is important to note that while isolation indices are useful segregation measurements, they provide a more accurate evaluation of segregation trends when analyzed in conjunction with the overall demographics of an area. For example, Table B-8 indicates the Bay Area average isolation index value for Black/African American residents is 0.053, meaning that the average Black/African American Bay Area resident lives in a neighborhood that is 5.3 percent Black/African American. The isolation index for Black/African American residents in the city of Antioch is 0.22, meaning the average Black/African American resident in Antioch lives in a neighborhood that is 22 percent Black/African American. While initial comparison of these two indices might suggest greater racial isolation and therefore segregation among Black/African American residents in the city versus the Bay Area, tThese higher indices values in Antioch are likely partially attributed related to Antioch’s greater level of demographic diversity than that of the larger Bay Area region. While Black/African American residents make up just 5.6 percent of the Bay Area’s regional population, they make up over 21 percent of the city of Antioch’s population,

8 This average only includes the 104 jurisdictions that have more than one census tract, which is true for all comparisons of Bay Area jurisdictions’ segregation measures in this report. The segregation measure is calculated by comparing the demographics of a jurisdiction’s census tracts to the jurisdiction’s demographics, and such calculations cannot be made for the five jurisdictions with only one census tract (Brisbane, Calistoga, Portola Valley, Rio Vista, and Yountville).

Isolation Index
The isolation index compares each neighborhood’s
composition to the jurisdiction’s demographics as
a whole.

This index ranges from 0 to 1. Higher values
indicate that a particular group is more isolated
from other groups.

Isolation indices indicate the potential for contact
between different groups. The index can be
interpreted as the experience of the average
member of that group. For example, if the isolation
index is .65 for Latinx residents in a city, then the
average Latinx resident in that city lives in a
neighborhood that is 65% Latinx.

B321

B-2 2 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G nearly 4 times that of the Bay Area. Therefore, the proportionately larger percentage of Black/African American residents within the city of Antioch, compared to that of the Bay Area, is therefore likely why Black residents in Antioch are more likely to see other Black residents in their neighborhoods.

TABLE B-8: R ACIAL ISOLATION INDEX VALUES FOR SEGREGATION WITHIN ANTIOCH Race
Antioch
Bay Area
Average
2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.101 0.141 0.173 0.245
Black/African American 0.119 0.183 0.220 0.053
Latinx 0.246 0.338 0.384 0.251
White 0.581 0.390 0.245 0.491
Universe: Population.

Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.

Figure B-2 below shows how racial isolation index values in Antioch compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions. In this figure, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each racial group, the spread of dots represents the range of isolation index values among Bay Area jurisdictions.

Additionally, the black line within each racial group notes the isolation index value for that group in Antioch, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average for the isolation index for that group. According to the chart below, the city has isolation indices for Asian/Pacific Islander and White residents that are below the Bay Area averages, indicating lower levels of isolation among these groups within Antioch. Conversely, the city’s isolation indices for Black/African American and Latinx residents are above that of the Bay Area average. Rather than these indices representing greater levels of isolation and segregation within the city of Antioch, tAs previously discussed, Antioch’s higher indices among these two groups is likely partially attributed to the larger proportion of the city’s population comprised of these racial groups than that of the Bay Area. However, as discussed within the “Disparities in Access to Opportunity” section of this Appendix. one census tract (Tract Number 3072.02) in the northwest portion of the city, bordered by State Road 4 to the south, L Street to the east, railroad tracks[AR1] to the north, and Somersville Road to the west is designated “High Segregation and Poverty” according to California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) opportunity maps. Areas designated high segregation and poverty on TCAC opportunity maps are areas with at least 30 percent% of the population falling below the federal poverty line and a concentration of black, Hispanic, Asian, or all persons of color above that of the county. hey’re likely due to the city’s demographic population which is comprised of larger proportions of these racial groups than the Bay Area region as a whole, as explained above.

B322

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-2 3

Figure B-2: Racial Isolation Index Values for Antioch Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.

Dissimilarity Index
Another way to measure segregation is by using a
dissimilarity index, which measures the percentage of a certain group’s population that would have to move to a different census tract in order to be evenly distributed with a city or metropolitan area in relation to another group.

According to the 2020 AI, segregation in Antioch is
primarily an inter-jurisdictional rather than an intra- jurisdictional phenomenon, meaning it is more apparent
when comparing Antioch to other jurisdictions rather
than within Antioch. Antioch has a high concentration of people of color and those residents live across the cities’ neighborhoods. This qualified, yet predominant trend of inter-city, rather than intra-city, segregation explains why the County and the region have relatively high levels of segregation as measured by the Dissimilarity Index,
but the County’s cities generally do not. This is consistent with the isolation index data analyzed as part of this
Assessment.

Dissimilarity Index:

The dissimilarity index ranges from 0 to 1. Higher
values indicate that groups are more unevenly
distributed (e.g., they tend to live in different
neighborhoods).

This index measures how evenly any two groups
are distributed across neighborhoods relative to
their representation in a city overall. The
dissimilarity index at the jurisdiction level can be
interpreted as the share of one group that would
have to move neighborhoods to create perfect
integration for these two groups.

For example, if a city’s Black/White Dissimilarity
Index was 0.65, then 65 percent of Black residents
would need to move to another neighborhood in
order for Blacks and Whites to be evenly
distributed across all neighborhoods in the city. An
index score above 0.6 is considered high, while 0.3
to 0.6 is considered moderate, and below 0.3 is
considered low.

B323

B-2 4 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G Table B-9 below provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in Antioch between White residents and residents who are Black, Latinx, or Asian/Pacific Islander. The table also provides the dissimilarity index between White residents and all residents of color in the jurisdiction, and all dissimilarity index values are shown across three time periods (2000, 2010, and 2020). Racial dissimilarity has decreased between 2000 and 2020 for all comparisons, with the greatest decrease occurring in the Black/African American vs. White dissimilarity index. In Antioch, the highest levels of segregation, as measured by this index, is between Asian and White residents. Antioch’s Asian/White dissimilarity index of 0.281 means that 28.1 percent of Asian (or White) residents would need to move to a different neighborhood to create perfect integration between Asian residents and White residents.

This is the opposite of the Bay Area Average, which shows that Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White dissimilarity index is the lowest of all racial comparisons for the region. Except for the Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White index, all other dissimilarity indices are lower in Antioch than the rest of the Region.

This trend is also shown visually in Figure B-3 where each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction, the black line notes the dissimilarity index values in Antioch, and the dashed red lines represent the Bay Area averages.

TABLE B-9: R ACIAL DISSIMILARITY INDEX VALUES FOR SEGREGATION WITHIN ANTIOCH Race
Antioch
Bay Area
Average
2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.304 0.332 0.281 0.185 Black/African American vs. White 0.283 0.247 0.205 0.244 Latinx vs. White 0.171 0.151 0.118 0.207
People of Color vs. White 0.164 0.171 0.132 0.168
Universe: Population.

Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.

Shown another way, Figure B-B-3 compares dissimilarity index values in City of Antioch to regional averages. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each racial group pairing, the spread of dots represents the range of dissimilarity index values among Bay Area jurisdictions.

Additionally, the black line within each racial group pairing notes the dissimilarity index value in Antioch, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average for the dissimilarity index for that pairing.

B324

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-2 5

Figure B-3: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Antioch Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.

Theil’s H Index
The Theil’s H Index can be used to measure segregation
between all groups within a jurisdiction.

The Theil’s H Index values for neighborhood racial
segregation in Antioch for the years 2000, 2010, and
2020 can be found in Table B-10 below. Between 2010
and 2020, the Theil’s H Index for racial segregation in Antioch declined, suggesting that there is now less
neighborhood level racial segregation within the
jurisdiction. In 2020, the Theil’s H Index for racial
segregation in Antioch was lower than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions, indicating that neighborhood level racial segregation in Antioch is less than in the average Bay Area city.

Theil’s H Index:

This index measures how diverse each
neighborhood is compared to the diversity of the
whole city. Neighborhoods are weighted by their
size, so that larger neighborhoods play a more
significant role in determining the total measure of
segregation.

The index ranges from 0 to 1. A Theil’s H Index
value of 0 would mean all neighborhoods within a
city have the same demographics as the whole
city. A value of 1 would mean each group lives
exclusively in their own, separate neighborhood.

For jurisdictions with a high degree of diversity
(multiple racial groups comprise more than 10% of
the population), Theil’s H offers the clearest
summary of overall segregation.

B325

B-2 6 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G TABLE B-10: T HEIL’S H INDEX VALUES FOR RACIAL SEGREGATION WITHIN ANTIOCH Antioch
Bay Area
Average
Index 2000 2010 2020 2020
Theil's H Multi-racial 0.039 0.038 0.030 0.042
Universe: Population.

Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.

Figure B-4 below shows how Theil’s H index values for racial segregation in Antioch compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions in 2020. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction.

Additionally, the black line notes the Theil’s H index value for neighborhood racial segregation in Antioch, and the dashed red line represents the average Theil’s H index value across Bay Area jurisdictions.

Figure B-4: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation in Antioch Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.

The following Table B-11 combines the three indices presented thus far. In general, Antioch has lower isolation levels for Asian/Pacific Islander and White persons, but higher for Black/African American and Latinx persons, and lower dissimilarity levels for all categories except Asian/Pacific Islander. Theil’s H Multi-racial index has decreased over time and is less than the Bay Area average.

B326

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-2 7 TABLE B-11: N EIGHBORHOOD RACIAL SEGREGATION LEVELS IN ANTIOCH Antioch
Bay Area
Average
Index Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Isolation
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.101 0.141 0.173 0.245
Black/African American 0.119 0.183 0.220 0.053
Latinx 0.246 0.338 0.384 0.251
White 0.581 0.390 0.245 0.491
Dissimilarity
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.304 0.332 0.281 0.185 Black/African American vs. White 0.283 0.247 0.205 0.244 Latinx vs. White 0.171 0.151 0.118 0.207
People of Color vs. White 0.164 0.171 0.132 0.168
Theil's H Multi-Racial All 0.039 0.038 0.030 0.042
Universe: Population.

Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census of Population and Housing, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.

Diversity Index
One final way to measure segregation is by using a
diversity index. Figure B-5 shows the diversity index score by Census Block Group in Antioch and the surrounding
region. The diversity index provides a summary of racial and ethnic diversity and measures the likelihood
(expressed as a percent) that two people chosen at random from each area will belong to different racial or ethnic groups. The figure shows that most of Antioch has a diversity index score of over 70, meaning that there is more than a 70 percent chance that two residents from each Block Group will belong to different racial or ethnic groups, depending on the Block Group. There are several Block Groups in the southeast and northwest portions of the city that have the highest level of diversity index, at above 85. There are no Block Groups with diversity index scores below 70. Compared to the wider region, Figure B-5 shows that Antioch, along with Pittsburgh, has significantly more areas with particularly high diversity index scores above 85. Taken together, these trends suggest that Antioch is more diverse than the surrounding region.

In Antioch, Isolation, Dissimilarity, Theil’s H, and Diversity Index data confirms that, with regard to segregation in the city, the primary dynamic of segregation in Antioch is between the city of Antioch and other communities in the County and Region, not between neighborhoods in Antioch. This is consistent with Figure B-6, which shows the percent of total non-White residents per block group. As shown in Figure B-6, most block groups in Antioch are at least 61 percent non-White. The average resident of each race or ethnicity lives in a Census Tract that is between 32.9 percent and 38.1 percent White, between 17.2 percent and 21.1 percent Black, between 27.0 percent and 33.8 percent Hispanic,

Diversity Index
Measures the likelihood (expressed as a percent)
that two people chosen at random from each area
will belong to different racial or ethnic groups.

B327

B-2 8 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G

Figure B-5: Diversity Index Score, 2018
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer. and between 11.8 percent and 16.7 percent Asian. These are relatively narrow bands. One aspect of residential patterns in the City of Antioch that is unique from those of the Region is that Asian exposure to Blacks is actually higher than Black isolation. This cuts against the regional trend of relatively greater overlap between White and Asian concentration.

The 2020 regional AI concluded that, in the city of Antioch, levels of segregation are low for all groups, but Asians and Pacific Islanders face the lowest levels of segregation, followed by Blacks. Hispanics are, by far, the least segregated group. This data is instructive of the manner in which segregation is a regional and inter-municipal phenomenon. Black residents in particular are segregated in Antioch, but the areas from which they are disproportionately excluded are other municipalities and unincorporated areas throughout the County and the Region, not other neighborhoods within the City of Antioch.

While segregation is lower in Antioch than in other jurisdictions nearby, there are still some geographic trends in regards to race and ethnicity that are important to highlight. Within the City of Antioch, the 2020 AI found the following:
 Asians and Pacific Islanders do not have heavy concentrations in Antioch but are primarily located south of State Route 4 and, in particular, in the southeastern portion of Antioch, as well in a few census tracts in the northwest (Figure B-7).
 There is a concentration of Black residents in the northwestern portion of City of Antioch along both sides of State Route 4 (Figure B-8). The 2020 AI also concluded that there are concentrations of Black residents in more recently built subdivisions in the southeastern portion of the city.

B328

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-2 9

Figure B-6: Racial Demographics by Block Group, Percent of Total Non-White Population, 2018
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer.  Hispanic residents are spread throughout Antioch but appear to be more highly concentrated along State Route 4, especially north of State Route 4 (Figure B-9).  Non-Hispanic White residents are spread throughout Antioch. It is worth noting that even in the census tracts in Antioch with higher concentrations of Non-Hispanic White residents, the proportion of White residents is still lower than the White population share in the region (Figure B-10).
 American Indian and Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Residents do not have a large enough population to draw conclusions on segregation within the city (Figures B-11 and B-12).

The AI also found that within Antioch, there is a concentration of individuals of:
 Mexican national origin relatively concentrated in the northern and, in particular, the northwestern portions of the City of Antioch.
 Filipino national origin largely concentrated in the central and southern portions of the city.  Nigerian-Americans largely concentrated in the central and southern portions of the city.

There are no apparent areas of concentration for individuals of El Salvadoran and Nicaraguan national origin.

B329

B-3 0 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G

Figure B-7: Asian Residents per Block Group, 2019
Source: ACS 2019 5-year estimates, Table B02001.

Figure B-8: Black Residents per Block Group, 2019
Source: ACS 2019 5-year estimates, Table B02001.

B330

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-3 1

Figure B-9: Hispanic or Latino Residents per Block Group, 2019 Source: ACS 2019 5-year estimates, Table B03002.

Figure B-10: White Residents per Block Group, 2019
Source: ACS 2019 5-year estimates, Table B02001.

B331

B-3 2 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G

Figure B-11: American Indian and Alaska
Native Residents per Block Group, 2019
Note: This map uses different percentage groups than the previous maps due to the relatively low proportion of American Indian and Alaska Native residents in Antioch compared to other racial groups.

Source: ACS 2019 5-year estimates, Table B02001.

Figure B-12: Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Residents per Block Group, 2019
Note: This map uses different percentage groups than the previous maps due to the relatively low proportion of Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander residents in Antioch compared to other racial groups.

Source: ACS 2019 5-year estimates, Table B02001.

B332
A P
P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-3 3 Regional Racial Segregation (between Antioch and other jurisdictions) At the regional level, segregation is measured between cities instead of between neighborhoods. This section compares Antioch to the County and the Region.

Figure B-13 demonstrates population trends by showing the racial composition of Antioch, Contra Costa County, and the Bay Area. The racial and ethnic composition of Antioch diverges significantly from the composition of the County and the Region and has changed significantly over time. In particular, Antioch has much greater Black and Hispanic population concentrations than both the County and the Region and lower non-Hispanic White and Asian or Pacific Islander population concentrations. The Native American population concentration is also slightly higher. Trends in Hispanic and Asian or Pacific Islander population over time roughly mirror those in the County and the Region despite a slightly faster rate of Hispanic population growth than in the Region and a lower baseline Asian or Pacific Islander population in 1990. The growth in the Black population, however, stands in stark contrast to a County with flat Black population and a region with declining Black population. Antioch accounts for a majority of total Black population growth in the County since 1990.

Figure B-13: Population by Race
Notes: Data for 2019 represents 2015-2019 ACS estimates.

The Census Bureau defines Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity separate from racial categories. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002. 12% 17% 27%
21% 8%
6%
28% 44% 39%
6%
5% 5%
33% 26% 24%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Antioch Contra Costa
County
Bay Area
Percent of Population
Hispanic or Latinx
Other Race or Multiple Races, Non-Hispanic
White, Non-Hispanic
Black or African American, Non-Hispanic
Asian / API, Non-Hispanic
American Indian or Alaska Native, Non-Hispanic
B333

B-3 4 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G Antioch and the Region
The map in Figure B-14 below also illustrates regional differences in racial composition among Bay Area jurisdictions. This map demonstrates how the percentage of people of color in Antioch and surrounding jurisdictions compares to the Bay Area as a whole:
 Jurisdictions shaded orange have a share of people of color that is less than the Bay Area as a whole, and the degree of difference is greater than five percentage points.  Jurisdictions shaded white have a share of people of color comparable to the regional percentage of people of color (within five percentage points).
 Jurisdictions shaded grey have a share of people of color that is more than five percentage points greater than the regional percentage of people of color.

Antioch’s populations is made of up a greater share of people of color than the Bay Area’s general composition.

Figure B-14: Comparing the Share of People of Color in
Antioch and Vicinity to the Bay Area (2020)
Universe: Population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.

Note: People of color refer to persons not identifying as non-Hispanic white. The nine-county Bay Area is the reference region for this map.

B334

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-3 5 Racial dot maps can also be used to explore the racial demographic differences between different jurisdictions in the region. Figure B-15 below presents a racial dot map showing the spatial distribution of racial groups in Antioch as well as in nearby Bay Area cities.

Figure B-15: Racial Dot Map of Antioch and Surrounding Areas (2020) Universe: Population.

Note: The plot shows the racial distribution at the census block level for City of Antioch and vicinity. Dots in each census block are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of people.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.

Antioch and the County
Contra Costa County is a large, diverse jurisdiction in which people of color comprise a majority of the population. However, diversity and integration are not synonymous, and the County has areas of racial and ethnic concentration as well as more integrated cities and neighborhoods.

The racial and ethnic demographics of the County are similar but not identical to those of the broader Bay Area Region. Overall, the County is slightly more heavily non-Hispanic White and slightly more heavily Hispanic than the region. The region is more heavily non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander than the County. For all other racial or ethnic groups, the demographics of the County and the Region mirror each other.

B335

B-3 6 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G According to the 2020 AI, the areas of segregation found throughout Contra Costa County include:
 Black residents concentrated in the cities of Antioch, Hercules, Pittsburg, and Richmond and the unincorporated community of North Richmond.
 Hispanic residents concentrated in the cities of Pittsburg, Richmond, and San Pablo; in specific neighborhoods within the cities of Antioch, Concord, and Oakley; and in the unincorporated communities of Bay Point, Montalvin Manor, North Richmond, and Rollingwood.
 Asians and Pacific Islanders concentrated in the Cities of Hercules and San Ramon, unincorporated communities of Camino Tassajara and Norris Canyon, and within neighborhoods in the cities of El Cerrito and Pinole.
 Non-Hispanic White residents concentrated in the cities of Clayton, Lafayette, Orinda, and Walnut Creek; in the Town of Danville; and in the unincorporated communities of Alamo, Alhambra Valley, Bethel Island, Castle Hill, Diablo, Discovery Bay, Kensington, Knightsen, Port Costa, Reliez Valley, San Miguel, and Saranap.
 There are also concentrations of non-Hispanic Whites within specific neighborhoods in the cities of Concord, Martinez, and Pleasant Hill. In general, the areas with the greatest concentrations of non-Hispanic Whites are located in the southern portions of central County.

HCD’s AFFH Data viewer provides information on the proportion on non-white residents at the block group level (Map 1) and illustrate the trends listed above from the 2020 AI.

Map 1: Minority Concentrated Areas
B336

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-3 7 Income Segregation
In addition to racial segregation, this Assessment of Fair Housing analyzes income segregation within Antioch and between Antioch and the County and Region.

Neighborhood Level Income Segregation within Antioch
Income segregation can be measured using similar indices as racial segregation. Income dot maps are useful for visualizing segregation between multiple income groups at the same time. The income dot map of Antioch in Figure B-16 below offers a visual representation of the spatial distribution of income groups within the jurisdiction. As with the racial dot maps, when the dots show lack of a pattern or clustering, income segregation measures tend to be lower, and conversely, when clusters are apparent, the segregation measures may be higher as well.

Definition of Terms - Income Groups
When analyzing segregation by income, this report uses income group designations consistent with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation and the Housing Element:

Very low-income: individuals earning less than 50% of Area Median Income (AMI) Low-income: individuals earning 50%-80% of AMI
Moderate-income: individuals earning 80%-120% of AMI
Above moderate-income: individuals earning 120% or more of AMI Additionally, this report uses the term “lower-income” to refer to all people who earn less than 80% of AMI, which includes both low-income and very low-income individuals.

The income groups described above are based on U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) calculations for AMI. HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County).

B337

B-3 8 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G

Figure B-16: Income Dot Map of Antioch (2015)
Universe: Population.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate- Income Summary Data.

Note: The plot shows the income group distribution at the census block group level for City of Antioch and vicinity. Dots in each block group are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of individuals.

Isolation Index
The isolation index values for all income groups in Antioch for the years 2010 and 2015 can be found in Table B-12 below.9 Very low-income residents are the most isolated income group in Antioch. Antioch’s isolation index of 0.432 for these residents means that the average very low-income resident in Antioch lives in a neighborhood that is 43.2 percent very low-income. Among all income groups, the very low- income population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming more segregated from other income groups between 2010 and 2015. Antioch’s isolation of very low-income residents (0.432) is greater than the isolation of these residents in the Bay Area on average (0.269). Antioch does not experience as much isolation of wealth as the Bay Area on average. The Bay Area, on average, has a high isolation index of .507 for above-moderate income households, meaning higher income households live in neighborhoods where over half of the population is also higher income. In Antioch,

9 This report presents data for income segregation for the years 2010 and 2015, which is different than the time periods used for racial segregation. This deviation stems from the data source recommended for income segregation calculations in HCD’s AFFH Guidelines. This data source most recently updated with data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. For more information on HCD’s recommendations for calculating income segregation, see page 32 of HCD’s AFFH Guidelines.

B338

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-3 9 the above moderate-income households are in neighborhoods where 37.3 percent of the households are also above-moderate income.

TABLE B-12: INCOME GROUP ISOLATION INDEX VALUES FOR SEGREGATION WITHIN ANTIOCH Income Group
Antioch Bay Area
Average
2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.358 0.432 0.269
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.183 0.182 0.145
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.211 0.205 0.183
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.428 0.373 0.507
Universe: Population.

Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate- Income Summary Data.

Figure B-17 below shows how income group isolation index values in Antioch compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions.

Figure B-17: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Antioch Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate- Income Summary Data.

B339

B-4 0 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G Dissimilarity Index
Table B-13 below provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in Antioch between residents who are lower-income (earning less than 80 percent of AMI) and those who are not lower-income (earning above 80 percent of AMI), consistent with the requirements described in HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo.10 Segregation in Antioch between lower-income residents and residents who are not lower-income increased between 2010 and 2015. Additionally, Table B-13 shows dissimilarity index values for the level of segregation in Antioch between residents who are very low-income (earning less than 50 percent of AMI) and those who are above moderate-income (earning above 120 percent of AMI). This supplementary data point provides additional nuance to an analysis of income segregation, as this index value indicates the extent to which a jurisdiction’s lowest and highest income residents live in separate neighborhoods.

Table B-13 and Figure B-18 illustrate income dissimilarity within Antioch and the region. As shown in Table B-13, the average dissimilarity index between lower-income residents and other residents in a Bay Area jurisdiction is 0.198, so on average 19.8 percent of lower-income residents in an average Bay Area jurisdiction would need to move to a different neighborhood within the jurisdiction to create perfect income group integration in that jurisdiction. In 2015, the income segregation in Antioch between lower-income residents and other residents was higher than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions. This means that the lower-income residents are more segregated from other residents within Antioch compared to other jurisdictions in the region.

TABLE B-13: INCOME GROUP DISSIMILARITY INDEX VALUES FOR SEGREGATION WITHIN ANTIOCH Income Group
Antioch Bay Area
Average
2010 2015 2015
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.288 0.314 0.198
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.404 0.419 0.253
Universe: Population.

Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.

10 For more information, see page 32 of HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo.

B340

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-4 1

Figure B-18: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Antioch Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate- Income Summary Data.

Theil’s H Index
The Theil’s H Index values for neighborhood income group segregation in Antioch for the years 2010 and 2015 can be found in Table B-14 below. By 2015, the Theil’s H Index value for income segregation in Antioch was about the same amount as it had been in 2010. As shown in Figure B-19, in 2015, the Theil’s H Index value for income group segregation in Antioch was higher than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions, indicating there is more neighborhood level income segregation in Antioch than in the average Bay Area city.

TABLE B-14: T HEIL’S H INDEX VALUES FOR INCOME SEGREGATION WITHIN ANTIOCH Index
Antioch Bay Area
Average
2010 2015 2015
Theil’s H Multi-income 0.069 0.077 0.043
Universe: Population.

Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.

B341

B-4 2 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G

Figure B-19: Income Group Theil’s H Index Values for Antioch Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate- Income Summary Data.

Table B-15 compares all three measures of economic segregation within Antioch and the Region. The conclusion from this table, that Antioch is experiencing economic segregation and at levels greater than the Regional average, is consistent with local knowledge from community organizations that neighborhoods closer to State Route 4 tend to be lower income than newer houses in the southern area of the city. In particular, neighborhoods north of State Route 4 have been identified as neighborhoods where lower income residents are concentrated. This pattern is also clear on the following maps (Figures B-20 and B-21) which show that, spatially, lower-income households and households experiencing poverty are concentrated in the northwest. Additionally, higher income households are concentrated in the south, where there are very few instances of households in poverty.

TABLE B-15: N EIGHBORHOOD INCOME SEGREGATION LEVELS IN ANTIOCH Index Income Group
Antioch Bay Area
Average
2010 2015 2015
Isolation
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.358 0.432 0.269
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.183 0.182 0.145
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.211 0.205 0.183
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.428 0.373 0.507
Dissimilarity
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.288 0.314 0.198
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.404 0.419 0.253
Theil's H Multi-racial All 0.069 0.077 0.043
Universe: Population.

Source: Income data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.

B342

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-4 3

Figure B-20: Median Income per Block Group, 2019
Source: ACS 2019 5-year estimates, Table B19013.

Figure B-21: Percent of Households in Poverty per
Block Group, 2019
Source: ACS 2019 5-year estimates, Table B17001
B343

B-4 4 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to White residents.11 These economic disparities also leave communities of color at higher risk for housing insecurity, displacement, or homelessness. In Antioch, Black or African American (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents experience the highest rates of poverty, followed by Other Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents (see Figure B-22).

Figure B-22: Poverty Status by Race
Universe: Population for whom poverty status is determined Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income. For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the population for whom poverty status is determined for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the population for whom poverty status is determined.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17001 (A-I).

Regional Income Segregation (between Antioch and other jurisdictions) Regional Context
Income segregation between jurisdictions in the region can also be analyzed by calculating regional values for the segregation indices discussed previously. Table B-16 presents dissimilarity index, isolation index, and Theil’s H index values for income segregation for the entire nine-county Bay Area in 2010 and 2015. These measures were calculated by comparing the income demographics of local

11 Moore, E., Montojo, N. and Mauri, N., 2019. Roots, Race & Place: A History of Racially Exclusionary Housing the San Francisco Bay Area. Hass Institute.

B344

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-4 5 jurisdictions to the region’s income group makeup. For example, looking at 2015 data, Table B-16 shows the regional isolation index value for very low-income residents is 0.315 for 2015, meaning that on average very low-income Bay Area residents live in a jurisdiction that is 31.5 percent very low- income. The regional dissimilarity index for lower-income residents and other residents is 0.194 in 2015, which means that across the region 19.4 percent of lower-income residents would need to move to a different jurisdiction to create perfect income group integration in the Bay Area as a whole. The regional value for the Theil’s H index measures how diverse each Bay Area jurisdiction is compared to the income group diversity of the whole region. A Theil’s H Index value of 0 would mean all jurisdictions within the Bay Area have the same income demographics as the entire region, while a value of 1 would mean each income group lives exclusively in their own separate jurisdiction. The regional Theil’s H index value for income segregation decreased slightly between 2010 and 2015, meaning that income groups in the Bay Area are now slightly less separated by the borders between jurisdictions.

TABLE B-16: R EGIONAL INCOME SEGREGATION MEASURES
Index Group 2010 2015
Isolation Index Regional Level
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.277 0.315
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.157 0.154
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.185 0.180
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.467 0.435
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.186 0.194
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.238 0.248
Theil's H Multi-income All Income Groups 0.034 0.032
Universe: Population.

Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.

Income Level
Figure B-23 below presents an income dot map showing the spatial distribution of income groups in Antioch as well as in nearby Bay Area jurisdictions.

Each year, HUD receives custom tabulations of American Community Survey (ACS) data from the U.S.

Census Bureau. Known as the "CHAS" data (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy), it demonstrates the number of households in need of housing assistance by estimating the number of households that have certain housing problems and have income low enough to qualify for HUD’s programs (primarily 30, 50, and 80 percent of median income). HUD defines a Low to Moderate Income (LMI) area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI (based on HUD income definition of up to 80 percent of the AMI).

B345

B-4 6 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G

Figure B-23: Income Dot Map of Antioch and Surrounding Areas (2015) Universe: Population.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate- Income Summary Data.

Note: The plot shows the income group distribution at the census block group level for City of Antioch and vicinity. Dots in each block group are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of individuals.

Map 2 shows the LMI areas in Contra Costa County by block group. Most of central Contra Costa County has less than 25 percent of LMI populations. Block groups with high concentrations of LMI (between 75 and 100 percent of the population) can be found clustered around Antioch, Pittsburg, Richmond, and San Pablo. There are also small pockets with high percentages of LMI population around Concord. Other areas of the county have a moderate percentage of LMI population (25–75 percent).

B346

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-4 7

Map 2: Distribution of Percentage of Population with Low to Moderate Income Levels The income demographics in Antioch for the years 2010 and 2015 can be found in Table B-17 below.

The table also provides the income composition of the nine-county Bay Area in 2015. As of that year, Antioch had a higher share of very low-income residents than the Bay Area as a whole, a higher share of low-income residents, a higher share of moderate-income residents, and a lower share of above moderate-income residents.

TABLE B-17: P OPULATION BY INCOME GROUP, ANTIOCH, AND THE REGION Income Group
Antioch Bay Area
2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 28.49% 34.82% 28.7%
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 16.22% 16.63% 14.3%
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 20.34% 19% 17.6%
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 34.95% 29.55% 39.4%
Universe: Population.

Source: Data for 2015 is from Housing U.S. Department of and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate- Income Summary Data.

B347

B-4 8 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G Figure B-24 below compares the income demographics in Antioch to other Bay Area jurisdictions.12 Each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each income group, the spread of dots represents the range of that group’s representation among Bay Area jurisdictions. The smallest range is among jurisdictions’ moderate-income populations, while Bay Area jurisdictions vary the most in the share of their population that is above moderate-income. Additionally, the black lines within each income group note the percentage of Antioch population represented by that group and how that percentage ranks among other jurisdictions. Antioch’s share of very low-income residents is much higher than other jurisdictions, ranking 13th out of 109. Conversely, it has one of the lowest concentrations of above- moderate income households, ranking 97th out of 109.

Figure B-24: Income Demographics of Antioch Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate- Income Summary Data.

Income Segregation by Tenure
Table B-18 lists Contra Costa County households by income category and tenure. Based on the above definition, 38.7 percent of Contra Costa County households are considered LMI as they earn less than 80

12 While comparisons of segregation measures are made only using the 104 jurisdictions with more than one census tract, this comparison of jurisdiction level demographic data can be made using all 109 jurisdictions.

B348

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-4 9 percent of the HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI). Almost 60 percent of all renters are considered LMI compared to only 27.5 percent of owner households.

TABLE B-18: H OUSEHOLDS BY INCOME CATEGORY AND TENURE IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Income Distribution Overview Owner Renter Total
Household Income <= 30% HAMFI 7.53% 26.95% 14.40%
Household Income >30% to <=50% HAMFI 8.85% 17.09% 11.76% Household Income >50% to <=80% HAMFI 11.12% 15.16% 12.55% Household Income >80% to <=100% HAMFI 8.98% 9.92% 9.31% Household Income >100% HAMFI 63.52% 30.89% 51.98%
Total Population 248,670 135,980 384,645
Source: HUD Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) CHAS Data; 2011–2015 ACS.

Geographic Distribution of Special Needs Populations
As mentioned at the beginning of the section on Segregation and Integration, segregation is not solely a racial matter. Segregation can also occur by familial status or for persons with disabilities who have limited interaction outside of congregate and/or institutional facilities. This section evaluates segregation of these segments of the population.

Persons with Disabilities
Background
In 1988, Congress added protections against housing discrimination for persons with disabilities through the FHA, which protects against intentional discrimination and unjustified policies and practices with disproportionate effects. The FHA also includes the following unique provisions to persons with disabilities: (1) prohibits the denial of requests for reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities, if necessary, to afford an individual equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; and (2) prohibits the denial of reasonable modification requests. With regards to fair housing, persons with disabilities have special housing needs because of the lack of accessible and affordable housing, and the higher health costs associated with their disability. In addition, many may be on fixed incomes that further limit their housing options.

Disability Status in Antioch, the County, and Region
According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates, 118,603 residents (10.9 percent of Contra Costa County’s population) reported having one of six disability types listed in the ACS (hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, and independent living). The percentage of residents detailed by disability are listed in Table B-19 below. Though Contra Costa County has a higher percentage of population with disabilities, the county’s overall disability statistics are fairly consistent with the greater Bay Area, with ambulatory disabilities making up the greatest percentage of disabilities, followed by independent living, cognitive, hearing, self-care, and vision disabilities. Across the Bay Area and Contra Costa County, the percentage of individuals with disabilities also increases B349

B-5 0 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G with age, with the highest percentage of individuals being those 75 years and older. Refer to Table B-20 for the distribution of percentages by age.

TABLE B-19: P ERCENTAGE OF POPULATIONS BY DISABILITY TYPES Disability Type City of Antioch Contra Costa County Bay Area* Hearing 3.2% 2.9% 2.6%
Vision 2.9% 1.8% 1.7%
Cognitive 6.7% 4.4% 3.9%
Ambulatory 7.3% 5.9% 5.4%
Self-Care Difficulty 2.9% 2.4% 2.4%
Independent Living Difficulty 5.7% 5.2% 5.1%
Percentage of Total Population with Disability 15.2% 10.9% 9.8% * Bay Area refers to San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley, CA Metro Area.

Source: 2019 ACS 5-year Estimates.

TABLE B-20: P ERCENTAGE OF POPULATION WITH DISABILITIES BY AGE Age City of Antioch Contra Costa County Bay Area*
Under 5 years 0.7% 0.8% 0.6%
5 - 17 years 5.7% 4.9% 3.7%
18 - 34 years 6.6% 6.2% 4.3%
35 - 64 years 12.5% 9.7% 8.7%
65 - 74 years 24.4% 21.5% 20.5%
75 years and over 48.1% 51.2% 50.0%
* Bay Area refers to San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley, CA Metro Area.

Source: 2019 ACS 5-year Estimates.

As shown in the tables above, Antioch has higher concentrations of persons with disabilities across all categories than both the County and the Region. The gap is particularly large for persons with cognitive disabilities. Figure B-25 shows that there are some concentrations of persons with disabilities in the northern half of the city and particularly in northwest parts of Antioch. This finding raises questions about whether there may be concentrations of congregate settings for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities in Antioch, such as group homes, because of the combination of relatively low housing costs combined with a concentration of detached single-family homes.

B350

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-5 1

Figure B-25: Percent of Persons with a Disability per
Block Group, 2019
Source: ACS 2019 5-year estimates, Table B18101.

In terms of geographic dispersal across the County, there is a relatively homogenous dispersal of persons with a disability, especially in Central Contra Costa County, where most census tracts have less than 10 percent of individuals with disabilities. Towards Eastern Contra Costa County, the Western boundary, and parts of Southern Contra Costa County, however, the percentage of population with disabilities increases to 10–20 percent. Pockets where over 40 percent of the population has disabilities can be observed around Martinez, Concord, and the outskirts of Lafayette. Comparing Map 3 and Map 4, note that areas with a high percentage of populations with disabilities correspond with areas with high housing choice voucher (HCV) concentration (24 percent of people who utilize HCVs in Contra Costa County have a disability). Though use of HCVs does not represent a proxy for actual accessible units, participating landlords remain subject to the FHA to provide reasonable accommodations and allow tenants to make reasonable modifications at the tenant’s expense. Areas with a high percentage of persons with disabilities also correspond to areas with high percentages of low- and moderate- income communities.

B351

B-5 2 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G

Map 3: Distribution of Population with a Disability
Familial Status
Under the FHA, housing providers (e.g., landlords, property managers, real estate agents, property owners) may not discriminate because of familial status. Familial status refers to the presence of at least one child under 18 years old, pregnant persons, or any person in the process of securing legal custody of a minor child (including adoptive or foster parents). Examples of familial status discrimination include refusing to rent to families with children; evicting families once a child joins the family (through birth, adoption, or custody); enforcing overly restrictive rules regarding children’s use of common areas; requiring families with children to live on specific floors, buildings, or areas; charging additional rent, security deposit, or fees because a household has children; advertising a preference for households without children; and lying about unit availability.

Families with children often have special housing needs due to lower per capita income, the need for affordable childcare, the need for affordable housing, or the need for larger units with three or more bedrooms. Single parent households are also protected by fair housing law. Of particular consideration are female-headed households, who may experience greater housing affordability challenges due to typically lower household incomes compared to two-parent households. Often, sex and familial status intersect to compound the discrimination faced by single mothers.

B352

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-5 3 Map 4 indicates that most children living in Contra Costa County live in married-couple households, especially in central parts of the county where the percentage of children in such households exceeds 80 percent. Census tracts adjacent to these areas also have relatively high percentages of children living in married-couple households (60 - 80 percent). Compared to most of the County, Antioch has fewer children in married-couple households. As shown in Map 4 and Figure B-26, census tracts with single parent households families are concentrated in the northwest part of the city.

Map 4: Distribution of Percentage of Children in Married-Couple Households

B353

B-5 4 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G

Figure B-26: Percent of Children in Married Couple Households per Block Group, 2019
Source: ACS 2019 5-year estimates, Table B09005.

Map 5 depicts the concentration of households headed by single mothers in the County by Census Tract. Areas of concentration include Antioch, as well as Richmond, San Pablo, Rodeo, Bay Point, Pittsburg, and the unincorporated county west of Concord. Those communities are also areas of high minority populations. By contrast, central County, in general, and the portions of central County south of Concord have relatively low concentrations of children living in female-headed households (less than 20 percent). These tend to be more heavily White or White and Asian and Pacific Islander communities.

As shown in Map 5, there is some concentration of single female-headed households in Antioch around Highway 4, and in one census tract towards the south of the city. The area near Highway 4 is also the area with the most single-parent households, as shown in Map 5. Almost one-third (31 percent) of Antioch’s households with children are in single female-headed households (Figure B-27).

B354

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-5 5

Map 5: Distribution of Percentage of Children in Female-Headed, No-Spouse or No-Partner Households

In Antioch, the female percentage of the population exceeds that of the County and the Region, and the trend over time, also in contrast to the County and the Region, has been toward a more heavily female population. The City’s increasing Black population share may partially explain this trend. As of the 2012-2016 ACS 5-Year Estimates, 52.1 percent of Black residents in the Region were female as opposed to just 50.7 percent of all residents of the Region. Antioch also has had a much higher share of children residing within its boundaries than either the County or the Region and a lower share of elderly individuals since 1990. The City of Antioch follows the same broad regional trend of increasing youth population (and declining working age adult population) between 1990 and 2000 followed by a reversal of that pattern. The elderly population has undergone slow but steady growth, albeit from a lower baseline than in the County and the Region.

B355

B-5 6 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G

Figure B-27: Percent of Children in Single Female-Headed Households per Block Group, 2019
Source: ACS 2019 5-year estimates, Table B09005.

Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV)
HCVs are a form of HUD rental subsidy issued to a low-income household that promises to pay a certain amount of the household’s rent. Prices, or payment standards, are set based on the rent in the metropolitan area, and voucher households must pay any difference between the rent and the voucher amount. Participants of the HCV program are free to choose any rental housing that meets program requirements.

An analysis of the trends in HCV concentration can be useful in examining the success of the program in improving the living conditions and quality of life of its holders. One of the objectives of the HCV program is to encourage participants to avoid high-poverty neighborhoods and encourage the recruitment of landlords with rental properties in low-poverty neighborhoods. HCV programs are managed by Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), and the programs assessment structure (Section Eight Management Assessment Program) includes an “expanding housing opportunities” indicator that B356

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-5 7 shows whether the PHA has adopted and implemented a written policy to encourage participation by owners of units located outside areas of poverty or minority concentration.

A study using US Census data conducted by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research found a positive association between the HCV share of occupied housing and neighborhood poverty concentration, and a negative association between rent and neighborhood poverty.13 This means that HCV use was concentrated in areas of high poverty where rents tend to be lower. In areas where these patterns occur, the program has not succeeded in moving holders out of areas of poverty.

In Contra Costa County, the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County (HACCC) administers approximately 7,000 units of affordable housing under the HCV program (and Shelter Care Plus program). Northwest Contra Costa County is served by the Richmond Housing Authority (RHA) that administers approximately 1,851 HCVs. North-central Contra Costa County is served by the Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburg (HACP), which manages 1,118 tenant-based HCVs.

The HCV program serves as a mechanism for bringing otherwise unaffordable housing within reach of low-income populations. As shown in Map 6, the program appears to be most prominent in heavily Black and Hispanic areas in western Contra Costa County and in predominantly Black, Hispanic, and Asian areas in the northeast of the County. Central Contra Costa County largely has no data on the percentage of renter units with HCVs. The correlation between low rents and a high concentration of HCV holders holds true for Antioch, as well as in the areas around San Pablo, Richmond, Martinez, and Pittsburg. As previously discussed, Antioch is a racially diverse city that is relatively more integrated than much of the Bay Area. There does not appear to be a pattern between higher concentration of HCV holders and race; the census tracts with the highest concentration of HCVs holders in Antioch are not in census tracts that have the fewest White people.

The prevailing standard of affordability in the United States is paying 30 percent or less of a family’s income on housing. However, this fails to account for transportation costs, which have grown significantly as a proportion of household income since this standard was established. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the 1930s, American households spent just 8 percent of their income on transportation. Since then, as a substantial proportion of the U.S. population has migrated from center cities to surrounding suburbs and exurbs and come to rely more heavily (or exclusively) on cars, that percentage has steadily increased, peaking at 19.1 percent in 2003. As of 2013, households spent on average about 17 percent of their annual income on transportation, second only to housing costs in terms of budget impact. And for many working-class and rural households, transportation costs actually exceed housing costs.

13 US Department of Housing and urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research, 2003. Housing Choice Voucher Location Patterns: Implications for Participants and Neighborhood Welfare. https://www.huduser.gov/publications/pdf/location_paper.pdf B357

B-5 8 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G

Map 6: Distribution of Percentage of Renter Units with Housing Choice Vouchers Map 7 shows the Location Affordability Index in Contra Costa County. The Index was developed by HUD in collaboration with DOT under the federal Partnership for Sustainable Communities. This index provides estimates of household housing and transportation costs at the neighborhood level, indicated as “gross rent” in Map 7. As shown in Map 7, the majority of Contra Costa County has a median gross rent of $2,000–$2,500. Central Contra County (areas between Danville and Walnut Creek) have the highest rents around $3,000 or more. The most affordable tracts in the county are along the perimeter of the County in cities like Richmond, San Pablo, Pittsburg, and Martinez.

B358

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-5 9

Map 7: Location Affordability Index
The more affordable areas in Antioch are those in the
north of city, which corresponds to where the city’s
older housing stock is located. Antioch’s
comparatively low-cost housing market and fast pace
of growth likely contributes to the continued
differences between Antioch and the County in terms
of the composition of the population. While Antioch
provides a more affordable option for lower-income
households seeking for-sale and ownership housing,
the high cost of housing in surrounding areas in the
Bay Area continues to serve as a barrier for many low-
and moderate-income households.

The AI also found that, in Antioch, homeownership
rates are highest in the southern and northeastern
portions of the city and are lowest in the northwestern and central parts. The southern portion of the city is
more heavily Asian and Pacific Islander than the city
TCAC Opportunity Maps
TCAC Opportunity Maps display areas by highest to
lowest resources by assigning scores between 0–1 for
each domain by census tracts where higher scores
indicate higher “access” to the domain or higher
“outcomes.” Refer to Table 12 for a list of domains and indicators for opportunity maps. Composite scores are a combination score of the three domains that do not
have a numerical value but rather rank census tracts by the level of resources (low, moderate, high, highest, and high poverty and segregation). The opportunity maps
also include a measure or “filter” to identify areas with poverty and racial segregation. The criteria for these
filters were:

Poverty: Tracts with at least 30 percent of population
under the federal poverty line;
Racial Segregation: Tracts with location quotient higher than 1.25 for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or all people of color in comparison to the County.

B359

B-6 0 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G as a whole while northeastern Antioch is more heavily White than the city as a whole. Areas with low homeownership rates are predominantly Black and Hispanic. These patterns of homeownership loosely resemble patterns of single-parent households (see Map 5 and Figure B-27), indicating that single- parent households are more likely to be in neighborhoods with more renters. This is also important to recognize as it can be hard to support children with only one income. The exception of this is the most southern block group, which has relatively high rates of single female-headed homes.

Through the community outreach process, it was clear that residents and service providers of Antioch are aware of some level of economic segregation between north of the freeway and south of the freeway. This is due to differences in the era of the housing stock. For example, older and smaller homes are predominate north of the freeway and newer subdivisions are located in the southern parts of the city. The area northwest of the highway is a particularly important area towards which to target policies and funding given the concentration of lower-income residents there. Additionally, there are areas where people with disabilities are concentrated all around the freeway, and particularly to the south of it, so the city should ensure that those areas are well equipped for accessibility.

Conclusion
The City of Antioch does not face significant issues with racial segregation within the City, as races appear fairly integrated throughout the City. The city’s isolation indices for Black/African American and Latinx residents are above that of the Bay Area average, but this is likely due to the city’s demographic population which is comprised of larger proportions of these racial groups than the Bay Area region as a whole. In 2020, the Theil’s H Index for racial segregation in Antioch was lower than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions, indicating that neighborhood level racial segregation in Antioch is less than in the average Bay Area city. Levels of segregation are low for all groups, but Asians and Pacific Islanders face the lowest levels of segregation, followed by Blacks. Generally, racial segregation in Antioch is primarily an inter-jurisdictional rather than an intra-jurisdictional phenomenon, meaning it is more apparent when comparing Antioch to other jurisdictions rather than within Antioch. The population of non-White population groups has grown rapidly in Antioch compared to many other parts of the Bay Area, especially in regards to the Black population which is declining in most cities across the region.

While Black residents are concentrated in Antioch, as well as Hispanic residents in certain neighborhoods, Asians and Pacific Islander and Non-Hispanic Whites are concentrated in other cities mostly in Central Contra Costa County.

However, Antioch does face some issues with income segregation, as lower-income households and households experiencing poverty tend to live in the northwest portion of the City above or near the highway. There are also more households with lower incomes in Antioch generally compared to many other cities in the region, as well as persons with disabilities, households headed by single mothers, and households paying rent using Housing Choice Vouchers.

DISPARITIES IN ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
AB 686 requires the needs assessment to include an analysis of access to opportunities to approximate the link between place-based characteristics (e.g., education, employment, safety, the environment) and critical life outcomes (e.g., health, wealth, life expectancy). Ensuring access to opportunity means B360

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-6 1 both improving the quality of life for residents of low-income communities, as well as supporting residents’ mobility and access to ‘high resource’ neighborhoods.

California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) Opportunity Maps TCAC Maps are opportunity maps created by the California Fair Housing Task Force (a convening of HCD and TCAC) to provide research and evidence-based policy recommendations to further HCD’s fair housing goals of (1) avoiding further segregation and concentration of poverty and (2) encouraging access to opportunity through land use policy and affordable housing, program design, and implementation. These opportunity maps identify census tracts with highest to lowest resources, segregation, and poverty and are used by TCAC to distribute funding for affordable housing in areas with the highest opportunity through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program.

TABLE B-21: D OMAINS AND LIST OF INDICATORS FOR OPPORTUNITY MAPS Domain Indicator
Economic
Poverty
Adult Education
Employment
Job Proximity
Median Home Value

Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Pollution Indicators and Values Education
Math Proficiency
Reading Proficiency
High School Graduation Rates
Student Poverty Rates
Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, 2020. Methodology for the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December.

The maps identify areas within every region of the state “whose characteristics have been shown by research to support positive economic, educational, and health outcomes for low-income families – particularly long-term outcomes for children.”14 High resource areas have high index scores for a variety of opportunity indicators such as high employment rates, low poverty rates, proximity to jobs, high educational proficiency, and limited exposure to environmental health hazards. High resource tracts are areas that offer low-income residents the best chance of a high quality of life, whether through economic advancement, high educational attainment, or clean environmental health. Moderate resource areas have access to many of the same resources as the high resource areas but may have fewer job opportunities, lower performing schools, lower median home values, or other factors that lower their indexes across the various economic, educational, and environmental indicators. Low resource areas are characterized as having fewer opportunities for employment and education, or a lower index for other economic, environmental, and educational indicators. These areas have greater quality of life needs and should be prioritized for future investment to improve opportunities for current and future residents.

14 California Fair Housing Task Force. December 2020. Methodology for the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map. Available at:
https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity/2021-hcd-methodology.pdf B361

B-6 2 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G Information from opportunity mapping can help highlight the need for housing policies and programs that would help to remediate conditions in low resource areas or areas of high segregation and poverty, and to encourage better access for low- and moderate-income and BIPOC households to housing in high resource areas.

Map 8 provides a visual representation of TCAC Opportunity Areas in Contra Costa County based on a composite score, where each tract is categorized based on percentile rankings of the level of resources within the region. The only census tracts in Contra Costa County considered an area of high segregation and poverty is are located in Martinez, and the city of Antioch as seen in Map 8 and B-28 .below.

Concentrations of low resource areas are located in the northwestern and eastern parts of the county (Richmond to Hercules and Concord to Oakley, including Antioch); census tracts with the highest resources are located in central and southern parts of the county (San Ramon, Danville, Moraga, and Lafayette).

Map 8: Composite Score of TCAC Opportunity Areas in Contra Costa County As illustrated in Map 8 and Figure B-28, most tracts within Antioch are identified as being Low Resource, with a few in the southeast bordering with Brentwood and Oakley as Moderate Resource.

Compared to the rest of the County and Region, the TCAC Composite score shows that Antioch has lower opportunity areas and lower access to resources for its residents. Additionally, one census tract B362

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-6 3 (Tract Number 3072.02) in the city, bordered by State Road 4 to the south, L Street to the east, railroad tracks to the north, and Somersville Road to the west is designated “High Segregation and Poverty”.

Areas designated high segregation and poverty on TCAC opportunity maps are areas with at least 30 percent% of the population falling below the federal poverty line and a concentration of black, Hispanic, Asian, or all persons of color above that of the county.

Figure B-28: 2021 2022 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map by Census Tract, Antioch Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer.

Opportunity Indices
This section presents the HUD-developed index scores based on nationally available data sources to assess residents’ access to key opportunity assets in comparison to the County. Table B-22 provides index scores or values (the values range from 0 to 100) for the following opportunity indicator indices:
 School Proficiency Index: The school proficiency index uses school-level data on the performance of 4th grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have high-performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing elementary schools. The higher the index value, the higher the school system quality is in a neighborhood.  Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the index value, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood.

B363

B-6 4 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G  Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region (i.e., the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA). The higher the transit trips index value, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit.  Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the index value, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.
 Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a region/CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood.  Environmental Health Index: The environmental health index summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the index value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block-group.

Each index score is broken down by race for three geographic areas—Antioch, Contra Costa County, and the Region—in Table B-22 and then discussed in the following subsections.

TABLE B-22: O PPORTUNITY INDICATORS, BY RACE/ETHNICITY
Jurisdiction
School
Proficiency

Index
Labor
Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index

ANTIOCH, CA CDBG
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 22.56 30.15 24.46 83.09 7.95 59.95
Black, Non-Hispanic 25.66 33.09 25.50 82.19 9.49 60.45 Hispanic 20.35 27.88 25.74 84.22 10.14 59.64
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 31.67 38.48 23.85 79.69 7.59 60.92 Native American, Non-Hispanic 20.82 28.62 25.02 84.02 8.65 59.67 Population Below Federal Poverty Line
White, Non-Hispanic 16.02 23.23 25.14 85.39 11.06 58.81 Black, Non-Hispanic 17.14 25.53 27.98 86.06 10.09 60.06 Hispanic 18.56 25.69 26.54 85.51 11.31 59.96
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 18.71 37.27 27.15 82.35 4.46 59.50 Native American, Non-Hispanic 30.59 25.01 23.29 82.43 7.71 55.86

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA CDBG
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 74.72 74.56 27.41 84.84 44.18 44.10 Black, Non-Hispanic 36.81 45.07 59.18 88.47 28.03 13.85 B364

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-6 5 Jurisdiction
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor
Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Hispanic 40.36 44.93 48.70 87.28 26.61 24.31
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 65.80 72.19 39.54 85.69 37.71 33.05 Native American, Non-Hispanic 54.84 57.48 37.81 86.12 32.53 33.29 Population Below Federal Poverty Line
White, Non-Hispanic 60.31 62.04 33.74 86.08 39.30 35.94 Black, Non-Hispanic 26.40 33.02 65.33 90.19 29.63 9.03 Hispanic 25.79 32.96 57.37 88.77 23.69 16.25
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 50.76 54.83 51.09 88.76 38.63 20.53 Native American, Non-Hispanic 19.34 33.06 69.36 89.92 25.71 3.71

SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND-HAYWARD, CA REGION
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 68.00 77.73 61.60 89.61 53.62 52.77 Black, Non-Hispanic 35.49 48.24 73.95 91.57 44.97 41.29 Hispanic 40.70 53.14 68.52 90.88 43.12 49.42
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 60.11 69.56 74.80 91.16 43.83 52.24 Native American, Non-Hispanic 49.78 59.51 65.61 90.75 47.17 47.91 Population Below Federal Poverty Line
White, Non-Hispanic 59.40 70.03 68.91 91.45 52.89 47.27 Black, Non-Hispanic 28.72 41.04 78.75 92.91 48.54 39.75 Hispanic 30.99 44.75 72.07 91.86 43.84 46.32
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 53.44 62.02 82.72 93.88 54.16 42.80 Native American, Non-Hispanic 38.58 53.06 81.90 93.24 52.00 44.54 Note: American Community Survey Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability.

Source: AFFHT Data Table 12; Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; NATA.

Education Outcomes
Housing and school policies are mutually reinforcing, which is why it is important to analyze access to educational opportunities when assessing fair housing. At the most general level, school districts with the greatest amount of affordable housing tend to attract larger numbers of LMI families (largely composed of minorities). Test scores tend to be a reflection of student demographics with Black/Hispanic/Latino students routinely scoring lower than their White peers, meaning less diverse schools with higher test scores tend to attract higher-income families to the school district. This is a fair housing issue because as higher-income families move to the area, the overall cost of housing rises and an exclusionary feedback loop is created, leading to increased racial and economic segregation across districts as well as decreased access to high-performing schools for non-White students.

B365

B-6 6 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G According to the Contra Costa County AI, academic outcomes for low-income students are depressed by the presence of high proportions of low-income classmates; similarly situated low-income students perform at higher levels in schools with lower proportions of low-income students. The research on racial segregation is consistent with the research on poverty concentration: positive levels of school integration led to improved educational outcomes for all students. Thus, it is important wherever possible to reduce school-based poverty concentration and to give low-income families access to schools with lower levels of poverty and greater racial diversity.

The 2021 TCAC Opportunity Areas Education Composite Score for a census tract is based on math and reading proficiency, high school graduation rate, and student poverty rate indicators. The score is broken up by quartiles, with the highest quartile indicating more positive education outcomes and the lowest quartile signifying fewer positive outcomes.

There are 19 public school districts in Contra Costa County, in addition to 124 private schools and 19 charter schools. Map 9 shows that the northwestern and eastern parts of the county have the lowest education domain scores (less than 0.25) per census tracts, especially around Antioch, Richmond, San Pablo, Pittsburg, the unincorporated County east of Clayton, and Concord and its northern unincorporated areas. Census tracts with the highest education domain scores (greater than 0.75) are in central and southern parts of the county (bounded by San Ramon on the south; Orinda and Moraga on the west; and Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Clayton, and Brentwood on the north). Overlaying Map 8 and Map 9 reveals that areas with lower education scores correspond with areas with lower income households (largely composed of minorities) and vice versa. With reference to Table B-22, we also see that index values for school proficiency are higher for White residents, indicating a greater access to high quality schools regardless of poverty status.

B366

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-6 7

Map 9: TCAC Opportunity Areas’ Education Score in Contra Costa County Locally, within Antioch a majority of the city is designated as “less positive education outcome” and are colored orange on Figure B-29. Select eastern portions of the city have slightly more positive educational outcomes, including those that are colored yellow and light green on the below figureThe scores for education range from the least positive outcome in the northern tracts of Antioch, to the second least positive outcome approaching the southeast, and one census tract bordering Brentwood in the second quartile (see Figure B-29). Antioch does not have any census tracts with educational outcomes in the highest quartile.

B367

B-6 8 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G

Figure B-29: 2021 2022 TCAC/HCD Education Score by Census Tract, Antioch Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer.

Transportation Outcomes
Access to public transit increases household access to opportunity and is of paramount importance to households affected by low incomes and rising housing prices, especially because lower-income households are often transit dependent. Public transit should strive to link lower-income persons, who are often transit dependent, to major employers where job opportunities exist. Access to employment via public transportation can also reduce welfare usage and increase housing mobility, which enablesby enabling residents to locate housing outside of traditionally low-income neighborhoods.

Transportation opportunities are depicted by two indices: (1) the transit trips index and (2) the low transportation cost index. The transit trips index measures how often low-income families in a neighborhood use public transportation. The index ranges from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating a higher likelihood that residents in a neighborhood utilize public transit. The low transportation cost index measures cost of transportation and proximity to public transportation by neighborhood. It too varies from 0 to 100, and higher scores point to lower transportation costs in that neighborhood.

Neither index, regardless of poverty level, varies noticeably across racial/ethnic categories. All races and ethnicities score highly on both indices with values close in magnitude. If these indices are accurate depictions of transportation accessibility, it is possible to conclude that all racial and ethnic classes have high and relatively equal access to transportation at both the jurisdiction and regional levels. If B368

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-6 9 anything, both indices appear to take slightly higher values for non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics, suggesting better access to transit and lower costs for these protected groups.

Contra Costa County is served by rail, bus, and ferry transit but the quality of service varies across the county. Much of Contra Costa County is connected to other parts of the East Bay as well as to San Francisco and San Mateo County by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail service. The Richmond-Warm Springs/South Fremont and Richmond-Daly City/Millbrae Lines serve El Cerrito and Richmond during peak hours while the Antioch-SFO Line extends east from Oakland to serve Orinda, Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Contra Costa Center/Pleasant Hill, Concord, and the Pittsburg/Bay Point station. An eastward extension, commonly known as eBART, began service on May 26, 2018. The extension provides service beyond the Pittsburg/Bay Point station to the new Pittsburg Center and Antioch stations. BART is an important form of transportation that helps provide Contra Costa County residents access to jobs and services in other parts of the Bay Area. The Capitol Corridor route provides rail service between San Jose and Sacramento and serves commuters in Martinez and Richmond.

Map 10: Public Transit Routes in Contra Costa County
In contrast to rail transportation, bus service is much more fragmented in the County and regionally.

Several different bus systems including Tri-Delta Transit, AC Transit, County Connection, and WestCAT provide local service in different sections of the County. In the Bay Area, there are 18 different agencies B369

B-7 0 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G that provide bus service. The lack of an integrated network can make it harder for transit riders to understand how to make a trip that spans multiple operators and add costs during a daily commute. For example, an East Bay Regional Local 31-Day bus pass is valid on County Connection, Tri-Delta Transit, and WestCAT, but cannot be used on AC Transit. Additionally, these bus systems often do not have frequent service. In central Contra Costa, County Connection buses may run as infrequently as every 45 to 60 minutes on some routes.

Within Contra Costa, transit is generally not as robust in east County despite growing demand for public transportation among residents. The lack of adequate public transportation makes it more difficult for lower-income people in particular to access jobs. Average transit commutes in Pittsburg and Antioch exceed 70 minutes. In Brentwood, average transit commute times exceed 100 minutes.

Transit agencies that service Contra Costa County include County Connection, Tri Delta Transit, WestCAT, AC Transit, and BART. The County Connection Bus (CCCTA) is the largest bus transit system in the county that provides fixed-route and paratransit bus service for communities in Central Contra Costa. Other non-Contra Costa agencies that provide express service to the County include the following:
 San Francisco Bay Ferry (Richmond to SF Ferry Building)  Golden Gate Transit (Line 40)
 WHEELS Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (Route 70x)  SolTrans (Route 80/82 and the Yellow Line)
 Capitol Corridor (Richmond/Martinez to cities between Auburn and San Jose)  Fairfield & Suisun Transit (Intercity express routes)  Altamont Corridor Express (commute-hour trains from Pleasanton)  Napa Vine Transit (Route 29)

B370

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-7 1

Map 10: Public Transit Routes in Contra Costa County
Longer commute times may result from a lack of proximate jobs or from poor transportation access.

Higher percentages of workers have longer commute times in northeastern Contra Costa County.

Average percentages of workers with long commutes are generally highest in the census tract quintiles throughout Contra Costa County with large populations of protected groups. For instance, on average,

37.7 percent of workers in the quintile of census tracts with “Very High” non-Hispanic Black populations have long commutes, whereas less than 29 percent have long commutes in the quintile of tracts with the smallest (i.e., “Very Low”) Black populations. Zero (0.0) percent of jobs in Antioch are within a half mile of high-frequency transit. Similar differences are evident when examining the percentage of low- income households within a half mile of high-frequency full-day or rush-hour transit.

In Antioch, 0.0 percent of low-income households live near high-frequency transit, which can be attributed to the overall. This is likely due to the lack of high-frequency transit in general in Antioch.

BART does provide high-quality transit with headways of 15 minutes on weekdays. However, the Antioch BART Station is primarily surrounded by vacant land and parking lots (it is an end-of-the-line station that many commuters use). Access to BART is crucial for Antioch residents for job accessibility.

Antioch’s BART service frequency is 15 minutes on the weekdays and 20 minutes for nights and weekends. The average duration of a trip to San Francisco from Antioch BART station is about 1 hour and 15 minutes. However, unforeseeable major delays in BART schedules and maintenance heavily B371

B-7 2 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G increase commute times from departing from Antioch.15 Overall, access to employment and services can be hindered for some County residents because of existing transportation infrastructure.

Economic DevelopmentOutcomes
Employment opportunities are depicted by two indices: (1) the labor market engagement index and (2) the jobs proximity index. The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood, taking into account the unemployment rate, labor-force participation rate, and percent with a bachelor’s degree or higher. The index ranges from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating higher labor force participation and human capital. The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a neighborhood to jobs in the region by measuring the physical distances between jobs and places of residence. It too varies from 0 to 100, and higher scores point to better accessibility to employment opportunities.

In Contra Costa County, non-Hispanic Whites and non-Hispanic Asians/Pacific Islanders are at the top of the labor market engagement index with scores of 74.56 and 72.19 respectively. Non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics score the lowest in the county with scores around 45 overall, and 33 for those living below the federal poverty line. (Refer to Table B-22 for a full list of indices.) Antioch is consistent with this trend, with its labor market index score ranging from a low of 27.88 for Hispanics and a high of 38.48 for non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islanders. In Antioch, non-Hispanic Blacks have a higher labor market index (33.09) than non-Hispanic Whites (30.15). However, Antioch’s scores (ranging from 27.88 to 38.48) are substantially lower than the County’s (ranging from 44.93 to 74.56) and the Region’s (ranging from

48.24 to 77.73). Even Antioch’s highest score – for non-Hispanic Asians/Pacific Islanders – is still substantially less than the lowest score for the County and the Region. Based on this index, Antioch therefore has less labor force participation and human capital than its peers.

Map 11 shows the spatial variability of jobs proximity in Contra Costa County. Tracts extending north from Lafayette to Martinez and its surrounding unincorporated areas have the highest index values followed by its directly adjacent areas. Cities like Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, and Hercules have the lowest index scores (less than 20). Hispanic residents have the least access to employment opportunities with an index score of 26.61 whereas White residents have the highest index score of

44.18. In the City of Antioch, the jobs proximity index numbers are significantly lower, ranging from

7.59 for Asian or Pacific Islanders (4.46 for those below the federal poverty line) to 10.14 for Hispanics.

This is in stark contrast to the County overall where Asians or Pacific Islanders experience relatively high jobs proximity and Hispanics face the lowest. In the Bay Area region, scores are much higher than the County and the city of Antioch ranging from Hispanics with scores around 43 to non-Hispanics Whites at 53.62.

15 Bay Area Rapid Transit, 2018. BART to Antioch: What riders need to know about our new service, May 25, https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2018/news20180525#:~:text=How%20frequent%20is% 20service%3F,weekends%20which%20are%2020%20minutes.

B372

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-7 3

Map 11: Residential Proximity to Job Locations in Contra Costa County The TCAC Economic scores for both the county and city are, shown in Maps 12 and Figure B-30 below, .

Similar to the jobs proximity map above, areas with higher economic outcomes are those located closer to job centers such as Oakland and San Francisco, or along high-quality transit routes connecting to these centers.

Therefore, areas such as eastern Contra Costa County have some of the are the least positive outcomes, with the exception of some tracts in Oakley, Brentwood, and Concord which have slightly higher scores. In the City of Antioch, all census tracts are designated “less than positive” economic outcomes. in all tracts of Antioch, likely due to the low job proximity reflected in the opportunity indices. This is also true for many of the surrounding jurisdictions, with the exception of some tracts in Oakley, Brentwood, and Concord which have slightly higher scores. The most positive economic outcome scores for TCAC in the region are closer to the job hubs of Oakland and San Francisco.

B373

B-7 4 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G

Map 12: TCAC Opportunity Areas’ Economic Score in Contra Costa County

Figure B-30: 2022 TCAC Opportunity Map Economic Score by Census Tract Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer.

B374

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-7 5 Environment
The Environmental Health Index summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. Index values range from 0 to 100 and the higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block-group. There are modest differences across racial and ethnic groups in neighborhood access to environmental quality. Racial/ethnic groups in the County haveCounty have scores ranging from low 13.85 to mid–40s. Non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics have the lowest scores amongst all residents in Contra Costa County with scores of 13.85 and

24.31 respectively;respectively, whereas non-Hispanic Whites have the highest scores (44.10) amongst all residents in Contra Costa County. Asian/Pacific Islanders and Native American residents have scores around 33 (refer to Table B-22). These scores are much lower than in the City of Antioch, where the Environmental Health Index ranges from 55.86 to 60.92 for all racial groups, including those below the federal poverty line. In the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Region, scores range from 39.75 (Black, Non-Hispanic below the poverty line) to 52.77 (White, Non-Hispanic above poverty line).

CalEnviroScreen was developed by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to evaluate pollution sources in a community while accounting for a community’s vulnerability to the adverse effects of pollution. Measures of pollution burden and population characteristics are combined into a single composite score that is mapped and analyzed. Higher values on the index indicate higher cumulative environmental impacts on individuals arising from these burdens and population factors.

This means that, unlike the Environmental Health Index analyzed above, higher CalEnviroScreen values indicate worse environmental outcomes. In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants), CalEnviroScreen also considers socioeconomic factors such as educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment.

CalEnviroScreen also serves as the mapping indicator for the State’s TCAC Opportunity Maps which help visualize anticipated environmental outcomes of areas.

Map 13 and B-31 below displays the Environmental Score for Contra Costa County based on CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Pollution Indicators and Values that identify communities in California disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution and face vulnerability due to socioeconomic factors. The census tracts scoringtracts scoring in the highest 25 percent of census tracts were designated as disadvantaged communities. Several census tracts in northern Antioch are counted among these disadvantaged communities, as are census tracts in North Richmond, Richmond, Pittsburg, San Pablo, Rodeo, and Oakley.

B375

B-7 6 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G

Map 13: TCAC Opportunity Areas’ Economic Environmental Score in Contra Costa County

Figure B-31: 2022 TCAC Opportunity Map Environmental Score by Census Tract Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer.

B376

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-7 7 Map 14 shows updated scores for CalEnviroScreen 4.0 released by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Generally speaking, adverse environmental impacts are concentrated around the northern border of the county (Bay Point to Pittsburg) and the western border of the county (Richmond to Pinole). Areas around Concord to Antioch have moderate scores and the rest of the county have relatively low scores. From central Contra Costa County, we see an almost radial gradient effect of green to red (least to most pollution) moving to the outer parts of the county.

Within Antioch, census tracts located in northern half of the city, typically around or north of the State Route 4 highway, tend to score higher on CalEnviroScreen 4.0. The northern most census tract in the city, 6013305000, has the highest overall percentile score at 93 and a pollution burden percentile of 74.

These northern neighborhoods are primarily comprised people of color, older homes, and a younger population than southern portions of the city. Additionally, the northern part of the city is primarily where industrial sites have historically been located.

Map 14: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Results in Contra Costa County

B377

B-7 8 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G Health and Recreation
Residents should have the opportunity to live a healthy life and live in healthy communities. The Healthy Places Index (HPI) is a tool that allows local officials to diagnose and change community conditions that affect health outcomes and the wellbeing of residents. The HPI tool was developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California to assist in comparing community conditions across the state. The HPI tool combined 25 characteristics related to housing, education, economic, and social factors into a single indexed HPI Percentile Score, where lower percentiles indicate less positive health and recreation conditions.

Map 15 shows the HPI percentile score distributions for Contra Costa County. The majority of the County falls in the highest quarter, indicating healthier conditions. These areas have a lower percentage of minority populations and higher median incomes. Cities with the lowest percentile ranking, which indicates less healthy conditions, are Pittsburg, San Pablo, and Richmond. These areas have higher percentages of minority populations and lower median incomes.

Map 15: Healthy Places Index in Contra Costa County

B378

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-7 9 Within Antioch, there tends to be poorer health outcomes in the northern portion of the city. On CalEnviroScreen 4.0, many census tracts north or near State Route 4 score 55 or above for pollution burden percentile, with the northernmost census tract scoring at 74 (mentioned earlier). Nearly all census tracts located north of the highway have a score of 99 for Asthma.

Home Loans
A key aspect of fair housing choice is equal access to credit for the purchase or improvement of a home, particularly considering the continued impacts of the lending/credit crisis. In the past, credit market distortions and other activities such as “redlining” were prevalent and prevented some groups from having equal access to credit. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in 1977 and the subsequent Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) were designed to improve access to credit for all members of the community and hold the lender industry responsible for community lending. Under HMDA, lenders are required to disclose information on the disposition of home loan applications and on the race or national origin, gender, and annual income of loan applicants.

However, lending discrimination continues to be a contributing factor to disproportionate housing needs, as class groups who struggle to obtain access to loans are more likely to experience housing problems such as cost burdens, overcrowding, and substandard housing, and are more likely to be renters rather than homeowners. When banks and other financial institutions deny loan applications from people of color, they are less likely to achieve home ownership and instead must turn to the rental market. As Contra Costa’s rental housing market grows increasingly unaffordable, Blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately impacted. Table B-23 below shows that home loan applications by Black/Hispanic/Latino individuals are uniformly denied at higher rates than those of Whites or Asians.

Because Blacks and Hispanics in the region are denied loans at far higher rights than Whites and Asians, their families are far more likely to have less access to quality education, healthcare, and employment.

When minorities are unable to obtain loans, they are far more likely to be relegated to certain areas of the community. While de jure segregation (segregation that is created and enforced by the law) is currently illegal, the drastic difference in loans denied between Whites and minorities perpetuates de facto segregation, which is segregation that is not created by the law, but which forms a pattern as a result of various outside factors, including former laws.

TABLE B-23: H OME LOAN APPLICATION DENIAL RATES BY RACE/ETHNICITY IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Race/Ethnicity

FHA, FSA/RHA,
and VA Home-
Purchase Loans
Conventional
Home-Purchase
Loans
Refinance
Loans
Home
Improvement
Loans
Multi-Family
Homes
White, non-Hispanic 9.2% 8.0% 16.6% 19.5% 9.5%
Black, non-Hispanic 14.8% 13.5% 27.1% 34.6% 29.4%
Asian, non-Hispanic 13.1% 9.8% 15.2% 19.3% 12.3%
Hispanic 11.3% 12.0% 22.3% 31.0% 28.6%
Source: Contra Costa County AI (2020).

B379
B
-8 0 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G Conclusion
Overall, Antioch faces the challenge of generally having lower opportunity areas and lower access to resources, jobs, and transportation for its residents compared to other parts of the County and Region.

However, Antioch does provide the opportunity for more lower cost housing compared to many other parts of the Region. In addition to the quantitative data provided in this analysis, qualitative approaches to understanding local knowledge for this Housing Element (e.g., focus groups, interviews) have made it clear that there is a need in Antioch for housing programs that address lifestyle amenities that allow for the elderly and families to have access to safe open spaces like parks; security and adequate lighting in their neighborhoods; access to transit; and amenities and services that allow people to be proud of living in Antioch, not afraid of walking outside and connecting with people. Childcare is also crucial.

DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS
The following subsection assesses the extent to which protected classes, particularly members of racial and ethnic minority groups, experience disproportionate housing needs and are at risk for displacement. Disproportionate housing needs generally refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) developed by the Census for HUD provides detailed information on housing needs by income level for different types of households in Contra Costa County. Housing problems considered by CHAS include:
 Housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income;  Severe housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income;  Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room); and  Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom).

According to the Contra Costa County AI, a total of 164,994 households (43.9 percent) in the County experience any one of the above housing problems; 85,009 households (22.6 percent) experience severe housing problems. Based on relative percentage, Hispanic households experience the highest rate of housing problems regardless of severity, followed by Black households and ‘Other’ races. Table B-24 lists the demographics of households with housing problems in the County.

TABLE B-24: D EMOGRAPHICS OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH HOUSING PROBLEMS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Total Number
of Households
Households with
Housing Problems
Households with
Severe Housing Problems
White 213,302 80,864 37.91% 38,039 17.83%
Black 34,275 19,316 56.36% 10,465 30.53%
Asian/Pacific Islander 51,353 21,640 42.14% 10,447 20.34% Native American 1,211 482 39.80% 203 16.76%
Other 10,355 5,090 49.15% 2,782 26.87%
Hispanic 65,201 37,541 57.58% 23,002 35.28%
Total 375,853 164,994 43.90% 85,009 22.62%
Source: Contra Costa County AI (2020).

B380

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-8 1 The 2020-2025 Contra Costa County Consolidated Plan found that 1,930 owners and 2,320 renters need housing assistance in Antioch, due to housing problems such as lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities, overcrowding, housing cost burden greater than 30 percent of household income, or zero/negative income.

There are significant disparities between the rates of housing problems that larger families (households of five or more people) experience and the rates of housing problems that families of five or fewer people experience. Larger families tend to experience housing problems more than smaller families.

Non-family households in Contra Costa experience housing problems at a higher rate than smaller family households, but at a lower rate than larger family households. Table B-25 lists the number of households with housing problems according to household type.

TABLE B-25: H OUSEHOLD TYPE AND SIZE
Household Type
No. of Households with
Housing Problems
Family Households (< 5 people) 85,176
Family Households (> 5 people) 26,035
Non-family Households 53,733
Source: Contra Costa County AI (2020).

Homeownership Rates
Homeownership rates often vary considerably across race/ethnicity in the Bay Area and throughout the country. These disparities not only reflect differences in income and wealth but also stem from federal, State, and local policies that limited access to homeownership for communities of color while facilitating homebuying for White residents. While many of these policies, such as redlining, have been formally disbanded, the impacts of race-based policy are still evident across Bay Area communities.16 The subprime foreclosure crisis also hit multiple communities in Contra Costa County extremely hard.

Cities that had concentrations of Black and Hispanic populations when the foreclosure crisis hit experienced areas of concentrated foreclosure activity at the height of the foreclosure crisis.

Concentrated foreclosures in predominantly Black and Hispanic communities wiped out significant wealth among Black and Hispanic homeowners, both those who lost their homes to foreclosure and those whose home equity was diminished by declining home values. This loss of wealth imposed an additional barrier to Black and Hispanic homeowners using their accumulated wealth to purchase homes in and relocate to affluent communities with small Black and Hispanic populations in central County.

In addition, the nationally documented trend of poor maintenance of real estate owned (REO) properties following foreclosure, particularly in communities of color, resulted in the deterioration of the physical condition of neighborhoods in a manner that, in the demographically changing communities of east County, could accelerate White Flight (the movement of White residents from

16 See, for example, Rothstein, R., 2017. The color of law: a forgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing.

B381

B-8 2 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G cities to predominantly White suburbs). Many owners of REO properties opted not to bring those homes back to the market for sale, instead choosing to rent out single-family homes. This trend has accelerated patterns of racial succession in east County and undermined stable integration. Disparities in housing tenure by race and ethnicity continue throughout the region. Antioch, which has undergone starker and less stable demographic change than any other community in the County, is a prime example of this phenomenon. Between the 2005-2007 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates and the 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, the homeownership rate in the city of Antioch dropped from 72.9 percent to 61.5 percent while the percentage of occupied housing units that are in structures with five or more units barely increased from 12.2 percent to 13.0 percent.

Today, there are significant disparities in the rates of renter and owner-occupied housing by race/ethnicity in Contra Costa County, although Antioch has significantly higher homeownership rates by Hispanic and Black residents than in the County as a whole. In Antioch, 38.4 percent of Black households owned their homes, while homeownership rates were 71.9 percent for Asian households,

71.2 percent for White households, and 56.0 percent for Latinx households (see Figure B-3032).

Figure B-32: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 (A-I).

B382

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-8 3 Substandard Housing
Housing costs in the region are among the highest in the country, which could result in households, particularly renters, needing to live in substandard conditions in order to afford housing. Generally, there is limited data on the extent of substandard housing issues in a community. However, the Census Bureau data included in Figure B-31 33 below gives a sense of some of the substandard conditions that may be present in Antioch. For example, 1.6 percent of renters in Antioch reported lacking a kitchen and 0.7 percent of renters lack plumbing, compared to 0.3 percent of owners who lack a kitchen and 0.3 percent of owners who lack plumbing. While these percentages are low, they are higher than the overall trend in Contra Costa County, where 0.86 percent of households lack complete kitchen facilities and 0.39 percent of households lack complete plumbing facilities.

Code enforcement data can also be used to evaluate substandard housing issues. Code enforcement in Antioch is complaint-driven, meaning the Code Enforcement Division investigates properties when a complaint has been filed and therefore only sees a portion of potential code violations that may exist.

Within the period from January 1, 2016 to October 25, 2021 there were also 1,126 code enforcement violation cases opened and investigated in the City of Antioch. Of these cases, 16 percent were related to work done without a building permit and approximately 6 percent were related to fences. The remaining cases range widely, but approximately 9 percent of all cases were issued by tenants. Key word searches of the complaints found that many of the cases mention mold (182 mentions), vermin (63 mentions of “vermin” and 30 for mice or rats), leaks (79), general disrepair or dilapidation (46), and/or cockroaches (43). Approximately 4 percent of all cases mentioned safety, either by the inspector or the person who filed the complaint.17 Safety issues included but were not limited to collapsing roofs, unsafe wiring or electrical, mold, unlit or unsafe staircases, and gas leaks.

17 Note that the same word could appear more than once related to one complaint. These findings provide a general but imprecise understanding of the content of the complaints.

B383

B-8 4 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G Figure B-33: Substandard Housing Issues
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Per HCD guidance, this data should be supplemented by local estimates of units needing to be rehabilitated or replaced based on recent windshield surveys, local building department data, knowledgeable builders/developers in the community, or nonprofit housing developers or organizations.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25053, Table B25043, Table B25049.

Housing Cost Burden[AR2][AR3]
A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30 percent of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” Low-income residents are the most impacted by high housing costs and experience the highest rates of cost burden. Spending such large portions of their income on housing puts low-income households at higher risk of displacement, eviction, or homelessness.

Referring to Map 16, we see concentrations of cost burdened renter households in and around Antioch, as well as San Pablo, Pittsburg, west Brentwood and Oakley, East San Ramon, and northern parts of Concord towards unincorporated areas. In these tracts, over 80 percent of renters experience cost burdens. Majority of east Contra Costa has 60 percent to 80 percent of renter households that experience cost burdens; west Contra Costa has 20 percent to 40 percent of renter households that experience cost burdens. Census tracts with a low percentage of cost-burdened households are located between San Ramon and Martinez on a north-south axis. In these tracts, less than 20 percent of renter households experience cost burdens.

B384

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-8 5

Map 16: Distribution of Percentage of Overpayment by Renters in Contra Costa County In Antioch, 20.8 percent of households spend 50 percent or more of their income on housing, while 20.3 percent spend 30 to 50 percent. However, these rates vary greatly across income categories. For example, 77.0 percent of Antioch households making less than 30 percent of AMI spend the majority of their income on housing. For Antioch residents making more than the median income, just 0.2 percent are severely cost-burdened, and 90.8 percent of those making more than the median income spend less than 30 percent of their income on housing.

B385

B-8 6 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G

Figure B-34: Cost Burden by Income Level
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release.

Renters are often more cost-burdened than owners. While the housing market has resulted in home prices increasing dramatically, homeowners often have mortgages with fixed rates, whereas renters are more likely to be impacted by market increases. When looking at the cost burden across tenure in Antioch, 24.5 percent of renters spend 30 to 50 percent of their income on housing compared to 20.6 percent of those that own (see Figure B-3532). Additionally, 34.3 percent of renters spend 50 percent or more of their income on housing, while 12.5 percent of owners are severely cost-burdened.

B386

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-8 7

Figure B-3235: Cost Burden by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B25091.

There are also relationships between cost burden and race/ethnicity. People of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to White residents. As a result, they often pay a greater percentage of their income on housing, and in turn, are at a greater risk of housing insecurity. American Indian or Alaska Native, Non-Hispanic residents are the most cost burdened with

47.9 percent spending 30 to 50 percent of their income on housing, and Black or African American, Non- Hispanic residents are the most severely cost burdened with 31.8 percent spending more than half of their income on housing (see Figure B-3336).

B387

B-8 8 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G

Figure B-3336: Cost Burden by Race
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release.

Homelessness
Homelessness remains an urgent challenge throughout the region, reflecting a range of social, economic, and psychological factors. Addressing the specific housing needs for the unhoused population remains a priority for the City of Antioch, particularly since homelessness is disproportionately experienced by people of color, people with disabilities, those struggling with addiction, and those dealing with traumatic life circumstances. In Contra Costa County, the most common type of household experiencing homelessness is those without children in their care. Among households experiencing homelessness that do not have children, 75.9 percent are unsheltered. Of homeless households with children, most are sheltered in emergency shelter (see Figure B-3437).

Crucially, there remain an estimated 238 individuals in Antioch who are experiencing unsheltered homelessness who have a need for supportive housing, which is a higher number than almost all other jurisdictions in Contra Costa County (see Figure B-3538).

B388

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-8 9

Figure B-3437: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Contra Costa County
Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area County is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019).

Figure B-3538: Number[SJS4] of Unsheltered Individuals by Contra Costa County Cities
Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Source: Contra Costa County: Annual Point in Time Count Report.

B389

B-9 0 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G Overcrowded Households
Overcrowding occurs when the number of people living in a household is greater than the home was designed to hold. There are several different standards for defining overcrowding, but this report defines it as housing units with more than one person per room (including dining and living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen). Map 17 indicates that Contra Costa County in general has low levels of overcrowded households. Tracts in San Pablo, Richmond, and Pittsburg with higher percentages of non-White population show higher concentrations of overcrowded households compared to the rest of the county.

Map 17: Distribution of Percentage of Overcrowded Households in Contra Costa County Overcrowding is often related to the cost of housing and can occur when demand in a city or region is high. In many cities, overcrowding is seen more amongst those that are renting, with multiple households sharing a unit to make it possible to stay in their communities. In Antioch, 2.3 percent of households that rent are severely overcrowded (more than 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 0.8 percent of households that own (see Figure B-3639). In Antioch, 6.5 percent of renters experience moderate overcrowding (1 to 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 2.1 percent for those own.

B390

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-9 1 Figure B-3639: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release.

Displacement
Displacement of residents due to economic pressures is a major contributing factor to segregation in Contra Costa County and the Bay Area. The Bay Area has been facing a major affordable housing crisis for years due to factors including insufficient housing production, especially in predominantly non- Hispanic White high-opportunity areas, and a strong regional economy boosted by the growth of the technology industry. Rising rents contribute to evictions, especially in areas with lower household incomes.18 Developers may also seek to capitalize on rising property values by making improvements in housing in order to attract more affluent and largely White individuals. Displacement can occur as speculators rehabilitate homes to resell at higher prices, renovate rental units, or convert rental units into more expensive condominiums.19 Because of increasing housing prices, displacement is a major concern in the Bay Area. Displacement has the most severe impacts on low- and moderate-income residents. When individuals or families are forced to leave their homes and communities, they also lose their support network.

The University of California, Berkeley has mapped all neighborhoods in the Bay area, identifying their risk for gentrification. They find that in Antioch, 31.3 percent of households live in neighborhoods that

18 Cat Schuknect, Richmond Has Contra Costa’s Highest Number of Sheriff-Enforced Evictions, Document Shows, RICHMOND CONFIDENTIAL (Dec. 5, 2016), http://richmondconfidential.org/2016/12/05/richmond-has-highestrate-of-sheriff-enforced- evictions-in-county-doc..
19 Celina Chan, Viviana Lopez, Sydney Cespedes, & Nicole Montojo. 2015.Concord: Signs of Speculation in the Monument Corridor, http://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/concord_final.pdf.

B391

B-9 2 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G are susceptible to or experiencing displacement and 19.2 percent live in neighborhoods at risk of or undergoing gentrification (see Figure B-3740 below). Equally important, some neighborhoods in the Bay Area do not have housing appropriate for a broad section of the workforce. UC Berkeley estimates that 6.8 percent of households in Antioch live in neighborhoods where low-income households are likely to be excluded due to prohibitive housing costs.20

Figure B-3740: Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure Universe: Households
Notes: Displacement data is available at the census tract level. Staff aggregated tracts up to jurisdiction level using census 2010 population weights, assigning a tract to jurisdiction in proportion to block level population weights. Total household count may differ slightly from counts in other tables sourced from jurisdiction level sources. Categories are combined as follows for simplicity: At risk of or Experiencing Exclusion: At Risk of Becoming Exclusive; Becoming Exclusive; Stable/Advanced Exclusive At risk of or Experiencing Gentrification: At Risk of Gentrification; Early/Ongoing Gentrification; Advanced Gentrification Stable Moderate/Mixed Income: Stable Moderate/Mixed Income Susceptible to or Experiencing Displacement: Low- Income/Susceptible to Displacement; Ongoing Displacement Other: High Student Population; Unavailable or Unreliable Data.

Source: Urban Displacement Project for classification, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 for tenure.

Despite increasing housing prices, much of Contra Costa remains relatively affordable compared to the rest of the Bay Area.21 From 2011-2015, Contra Costa County gained thousands of net residents from Alameda County, San Mateo County, and San Francisco.22 In particular, many individuals are moving to the Eastern portions of Contra Costa County where housing prices are generally lower. As previously discussed, the Black population in Antioch has risen sharply since 2000, more than doubling from 2000

20 More information about this gentrification and displacement data is available at the Urban Displacement Project’s webpage:
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/.
21 Richard Scheinin, Bay Area rents: still rising, but starting to level off, Mercury News (August 11, 2016, 10:44 PM), http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/07/21/bay-area-rents-still-rising-but-starting-to-level-off/. 22 Census Mapping Tool, https://flowsmapper.geo.census.gov.

B392

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-9 3 to 2010, while the Black population has declined in much of the Bay area including in the City of Richmond. As lower-income residents have been displaced from more expensive parts of the Bay Area, poverty in Eastern Contra Costa County has increased dramatically. From 2000-2014, the increase in poverty in Antioch was among the highest in the Bay Area.23 Displacement is thus perpetuating segregation as low-income people of color increasingly concentrate in east County.

UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project states that a census tract is a sensitive community if the proportion of very low-income residents was above 20 percent in 2017 and the census tracts meets two of the following four criteria: (1) Share of renters above 40 percent in 2017; (2) Share of Non-White population above 50 percent in 2017; (3) Share of very low-income households that are also severely rent burdened households above the county median in 2017; or (4) Nearby areas have been experiencing displacement pressures. Using this methodology, sensitive communities were identified in areas between El Cerrito and Pinole; Pittsburg, Antioch and Clayton; East Brentwood; and unincorporated land in Bay Point. Small pockets of sensitive communities are also found in central Contra Costa County from Lafayette towards Concord (refer to Map 18).

Map 18: Sensitive Communities as Defined by the Urban Displacement Project

23 Joaquin Palomino, As Bay Area Poverty Shifts from Cities to Suburbia, Services Lag, San Francisco Chronicle, (December 31, 2015), http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/As-poverty-spreads-to-new-Bay-Area-suburbs6730818.php.

B393

B-9 4 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G Conclusion
In Antioch, Black and Hispanic households, as well as large families, overall have disproportionate housing needs or face challenges in their housing situation in a variety of forms spanning both the rental and homeownership markets. Despite comparatively affordable housing in Antioch, there remains high levels of cost burden across several subsections of the population compared to surrounding areas. Antioch also has a disproportionate amount of unhoused individuals within the city who have unique needs to address.

RACIALLY AND ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF POVERTY (R/ECAPS) Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) are geographic areas with significant concentrations of poverty and minority populations. HUD developed a census-tract based definition of R/ECAP that relies on a racial and ethnic concentration threshold and a poverty test. The threshold states that an area with a non-White population of 50 percent or more would be identified as a R/ECAP; the poverty test defines areas of extreme poverty as areas where 40 percent or more of the population live below the federal poverty line or where the poverty rate is three times the average poverty rate for the metropolitan area (whichever is lower). Thus, an area that meets either the racial or ethnic concentration, and the poverty test would be classified as a R/ECAP. Identifying R/ECAPs facilitates an understanding of entrenched patterns of segregation and poverty due to the legacy effects of historically racist and discriminatory housing laws.

In Contra Costa County, the only area that meets the official definition of a R/ECAP is Monument Corridor in Concord (highlighted with red stripes in Map 19 below).

Expanded R/ECAPs in Contra Costa County
According to the 2020 Contra Costa County AI, however, the HUD definition that utilizes the federal poverty rate is not suitable for analysis in the San Francisco Bay Area due to the high cost of living. The HUD definition would severely underestimate whether an individual is living in poverty. The Contra Costa County AI proposes an alternate definition of a R/ECAP that includes majority-minority census tracts that have poverty rates of 25 percent or more. Under this definition, twelve other census tracts would qualify as R/ECAPs in the areas of Antioch, Bay Point, Concord, Pittsburg, North Richmond, Richmond and San Pablo (refer to Map 20).

B394

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-9 5

Map 19: R/ECAPs in Contra Costa County

Map 20: Expanded R/ECAPs in Contra Costa County
Source: Contra Costa County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice January 2020-2025 (2020 AI).

Note: The 2020 AI does not provide a legend for the map shown above nor does it name the specific 12 additional R/ECAPs identified. The map shows the general location of the expanded R/ECAPs identified in the County.

B395

B-9 6 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G In Antioch, there is one relatively small R/ECAP. It is located in the area between State Route 4 (on the southern end) and railroad tracks (on the northern end). Somerville Road and L Street form the eastern and western boundaries. This neighborhood is known colloquially in Antioch as the Sycamore neighborhood. According to data provided by the City based on data from the Urban Institute,24 this census tract (Tract 307202) has 680 extremely low-income renters and is in the 96th percentile statewide for housing instability risk.25 It is in 97th percentile on the Urban Institute’s Equity Subindex, which is based on the shares of people of color, extremely low-income renter households, households receiving public assistance, and people born outside the US. According to City staff, the renters in this neighborhood are predominantly single-parent BIPOC women with children.26 Local organizations sited the age and condition of housing stock in this area as a contributing factor; the homes near Highway 4 are older, smaller, and less expensive in this area and neighborhoods with newer housing stock are often resistant to welcoming residents with lower incomes (e.g., voucher holders).

Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) are defined by the HUD as communities with a large proportion of affluent and non-Hispanic White residents. According to a policy paper published by HUD, non-Hispanic Whites are the most racially segregated group in the United States. In the same way neighborhood disadvantage is associated with concentrated poverty and high concentrations of people of color, distinct advantages are associated with residence in affluent, White communities. RCAAs are currently not available for mapping on the AFFH Data Viewer. As such, an alternate definition of RCAA from the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs is used in this analysis. RCAAs are defined as census tracts where (1) 80 percent or more of the population is White, and (2) the median household income is $125,000 or greater (slightly more than double the national median household income in 2016).

By cross-referencing Map 1 and Map 21, we can see a string of RCAAs running from Danville to Lafayette that tapers off towards Walnut Creek. This aligns with the cities’ racial demographic and median income (summarized in Table B-26 below). Although not all census tracts/block groups meet the criteria to qualify as RCAAs, there is a tendency for census block groups with higher White populations to have higher median incomes throughout the county.

24 Where to Prioritize Emergency Rental Assistance to Keep Renters in Their Homes – Antioch. 2021. Available at https://www.urban.org/features/where-prioritize-emergency-rental-assistance-keep-renters-their- homes?cm_ven=ExactTarget&cm_cat=LAB_Prioritizing+Rental+Assistance_CoC+%26+HUD+grantees&cm_pla=All+Subscrib ers&cm_ite=new+tool+developed+by+a+team+of+Urban+Institute+researchers&cm_ainfo=&&utm_source=urban_EA&&utm _medium=email&&utm_campaign=prioritizing_rental_assistance&&utm_term=lab&&utm_content=coc_hudgrantees .

Urban Institute, 2021.Where to Prioritize Emergency Rental Assistance to Keep Renters in Their Homes, May 14. 25 Calculated based on shared of people living in poverty, renter-occupied housing units, severely cost-burdened low-income renters, severely overcrowded households, and unemployed people. 26 House, Teri, CDBG & Housing Consultant, City of Antioch, 2021. Personal communication with Urban Planning Partners, July 15.

B396

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-9 7 TABLE B-26: W HITE POPULATION AND MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME

OF RCAAS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
City White Population
Median Household
Income (2019)
Danville 80.53% $160,808
Lafayette 81.23% $178,889
Walnut Creek 74.05% $105,948
Source: DataUSA.io (2019)

Map 21: Median Household Income in Contra Costa County

IDENTIFICATION OF CONTRIBUTING FACTORS
This section identifies local and regional conditions that have contributed to the fair housing issues identified above, including economic and social issues, regulations, and historic events. These factors have been identified through review of the 2020 AI as well as stakeholder outreach.

B397

B-9 8 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G Regional Housing Crisis
As has been abundantly documented, the San Francisco Bay Area is in the midst of a housing affordability crisis that has stretched the resources of middle- and upper-middle income households while displacing low-income households. This dynamic contributes to segregation in Antioch and surrounding cities in Contra Costa County in a few distinct ways.

First, because housing supply is so constrained and housing prices are so high, new private development tends to go on the market at a very high price point, especially in central County. Given the correlation between race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status in the Region, this means that White and Asian and Pacific Islander households can disproportionately afford newly constructed housing while Black and Hispanic households cannot. Thus, in the absence of policy interventions such as inclusionary zoning, new development tends to reproduce existing patterns of segregation.

Second, longtime low-income communities of color within the Region, such as historically Black West Oakland and the historically Hispanic Mission District in San Francisco, have undergone significant gentrification as a result of infill development and the rehabilitation and flipping of existing structures to meet demand from high-income and middle-income households seeking proximity to jobs, transit, and other amenities. Displaced households have few options in the urban core of the Region or in high- opportunity suburbs and, instead, often relocate to communities at the edges of the Region. East Contra Costa County and Antioch in particular are frequent destinations for these displaced households. In the case of Antioch, the city did not have an existing base of racial and ethnic diversity.

The shift of population can hold the fleeting promise of integration, but, in practice and without strategic policy interventions, integration is only a brief prelude to resegregation.

Community service providers confirmed that East Contra Costa County faces significant pressure because of a lack of affordable housing regionally and in Antioch. Despite Antioch being relatively affordable compared to the region, there is a lack of diversity in housing types (overwhelmingly single- family homes), which limits housing opportunities for elderly residents looking to downsize, people experiencing or at risk of homelessness, and people with disabilities. Additionally, due to a lack of an adequate vehicle for a local match, such as an affordable housing bond of other local resource that can provide a local match, affordable projects in the County are less competitive for federal tax credits.

Displacement of Residents Due to Economic Pressures
Displacement of residents due to economic pressures is a major contributing factor to segregation in many parts of Contra Costa County and the Bay Area. Rising housing prices have contributed to the displacement of many low-income residents throughout the Bay Area, as well as other factors like proximity to major transit stations and the prevalence of rehabilitating homes to resell or rent at higher prices. The Urban Displacement Project (UDP), an initiative of the University of California, Berkeley and the University of California, Los Angeles conducted research on gentrification and displacement in the Bay Area. The UDP conducted a 2015 study which concluded that nearly 48 percent of Bay Area neighborhoods are experiencing displacement though not all displacement is due to economic B398

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-9 9 pressures.27 One key theme of the study is that displacement is a regional phenomenon linked to the broader economic pressures of housing costs and job markets. Parts of Antioch were identified as undergoing displacement, but the primary way displacement is perpetuating segregation in Antioch is that low-income people of color throughout the Bay Area increasingly concentrate in east Contra Costa County.

Despite increasing housing prices, Antioch remains relatively affordable compared to the rest of the Bay Area. Many Black residents have moved to east County communities or further out. In Antioch, the Black population has risen sharply since 2000, more than doubling from 2000 to 2010, while the Black population has declined in much of the Bay area including in the City of Richmond. As lower-income residents have been displaced from more expensive parts of the Bay Area, poverty in Eastern Contra Costa County has increased dramatically. 28 From 2000-2014, the increase in poverty in Bay Point and Antioch was the highest in the Bay Area.29
Community service providers identified that the lack of local tenant protections like rent control or just cause eviction policies have disproportionately impacted low-income families and seniors living on social security. The Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (AB 1482) protects tenants in California from rent increases above certain thresholds and also requires landlords to have just cause (which include at-fault just cause and no-fault just cause) before evicting tenants who have continuously and lawfully occupied a residential property for at least 12 months. However, AB 1482 does not protect tenants who have not lived continuously for a year in a property and these provisions will also sunset on January 1, 2030.

Community service providers reported eviction as an issue in Antioch and cited that once a tenant is evicted, it is hard to find replacement housing because many landlords do not accept people who have evictions on their record. For evicted seniors, it is increasingly hard to find something affordable as they age and their income does not grow. Community organizations also cited a need for a tenant anti- harassment ordinance, as the eviction moratorium led community organizations to be more aware of landlords harassing their tenants to effectively evict individuals and families from their homes when they could not use other means. Additionally, landlords sometimes evict residents instead of fixing something in the home that the tenant has requested be fixed.

Lack of Community Revitalization Strategies
Lack of community revitalization strategies is a significant contributing factor to the increasing segregation of Black and Hispanic residents in Antioch. A lack of decent jobs and a slow recovery from the foreclosure crisis has contributed to the increased concentration of poverty and of people of color in these communities. From 1945 until 2012, California operated local redevelopment agencies (RDAs), designed to revitalize blighted neighborhoods and, importantly, devote 20 percent of allocated funds to affordable housing. In response to budget concerns, the RDAs were disbanded in 2012, and

27 Urban Displacement Project, University of California, Berkeley, Executive Summary, http://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/images/urban_displacement_project_- _executive_summary.pdf 28 Joaquin Palomino, As Bay Area Poverty Shifts from Cities to Suburbia, Services Lag, SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, (Dec. 31, 2015), http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/As-poverty-spreads-to-new-Bay-Area-suburbs6730818.php. 29 Race, Inequality, and the Resegregation of the Bay Area, URBAN HABITAT (Nov. 2016), http://urbanhabitat.org/sites/default/files/UH%20Policy%20Brief2016.pdf.

B399

B-1 0 0 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G successor agencies were designated to wind down the RDA activities. The lack of community revitalization strategies is a product of this loss of funding. Community revitalization strategies are not absent, but rather the extent of those strategies is not commensurate with the total need.

The successor to the Antioch Redevelopment Agency is the Antioch City Council. As factories started closing in the 1960s, people started moving away from the industrial town of Antioch, and the downtown area suffered with the loss of retailers following residents. According to the 2020 AI, past revitalization efforts have been largely considered failures; the constant recipe suggested over the years has been the addition of high-density housing downtown, which would provide nearby customers for shops and restaurants. The four east County cities (Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, and Pittsburg) have also launched a website, eastcounty4you.com, to connect businesses and development opportunities in the region. The website promotes available sites, demographics, and business reports, and allows side-by-side comparison of communities to highlight the advantages of locating a business there.

Lack of Investments in Specific Neighborhoods
Lack of private investment in specific neighborhoods is a contributing factor to segregation in areas of Black and Hispanic population concentration. One indicator of a lack of private investment in low- income neighborhoods is the distribution of grocery stores across a residential area. Traveling more than one mile in urban areas and ten miles in rural areas to a grocery store classifies an area as a food desert. According to the AI, food deserts in Contra Costa County line up roughly with the expanded selection of R/ECAPs, including northwestern Antioch, the Iron Triangle area of Richmond, and areas in Pittsburg, Bay Point, and North Richmond/San Pablo. Census tracts in northwestern Antioch are identified as potential food deserts given there are areas where more than 100 housing units do not have a vehicle and are more than 0.5 miles from the nearest supermarket. Pharmacies are often located within grocery stores, but to supplement the food deserts previously identified, there are an abundance of CVS and Walgreens pharmacies available throughout the County. Downtown Antioch north of the State Route 4 seems to be lacking in pharmacies.

An indicator of a lack of public investment in certain neighborhoods is the condition of paved roads and sidewalks. Residents can report potholes and other road/traffic problems on www.seeclickfix.com. The interactive map is not a perfect resource due to reporting bias (people in affluent neighborhoods are more likely to report problems, and more likely to have the computer access to do so) the inability to sort by date (perhaps some of the older reports have since been resolved), and general knowledge about town of the reporting function. Nevertheless, per this reporting, it seems clear that affluent areas like San Ramon, Walnut Creek, Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda, and Brentwood have few reports of potholes or poor road conditions, although the residents do tend to use the website to report other issues such as illegal dumping, graffiti, and homeless camps. Unsurprisingly, less affluent areas such as Antioch and Richmond have more road issues reported.

Community Opposition to Housing
As described in the 2020 AI, community opposition to affordable housing is a significant contributing factor to segregation in the Region and parts of Contra Costa County. California in general, and Contra B400

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-1 0 1 Costa County in particular, have a strong Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) movement. NIMBY sentiment often reflects a desire to preserve the quaint, semi-rural character of an area and protect against overcrowding, traffic, and the obstruction of views. In some cases, it can also indicate thinly veiled racism under the guise of “preserving neighborhood character;” in other cases, even when not rooted in racism, it may have the same effect of exclusion. In California, NIMBYism is most often driven by a fear that increased housing construction will lower the values of existing homes.30 The problem is so extreme in California, that even renters feel the localized effects. These fluctuations in home value can lead to massive displacement (compounded by the already extreme market rent prices in the Bay Area), and even homelessness.31 In Contra Costa County, people in the Western portion of the County worry about Alameda and San Francisco County residents moving in and driving up housing costs.32 In contrast to the NIMBYs, who tend to be baby boomers, well-settled in their homes and with a vested interest in preserving “neighborhood quality,” a corresponding YIMBY (Yes In My Back Yard) movement has emerged. So-called YIMBYs tend to be millennials crippled by exorbitant rental prices and pushing for an increase in the supply of housing. The movement is tech-funded, with people like Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman supporting the movement so that his employees will be able to afford to live near their jobs. It is possible to overcome community opposition, but that community opposition can add cost and delay that lead developers to explore opportunities in alternative areas where community opposition is less prevalent.

Lack of Regional Cooperation
Lack of local and regional cooperation is a contributing factor to segregation. Many high opportunity areas with predominantly Non-Hispanic White populations in Contra Costa County have been vehemently opposed to State legislation or local proposals that would bring more affordable housing development in their cities.33 According to the 2020 AI, opponents of residential racial integration have historically used calls for local control to mask their discriminatory intent. Thus, localism in Contra Costa County is impeding integration.

Lack of regional cooperation is also a contributing factor to R/ECAPs and disparities in access to opportunity in the Region, Contra Costa County, and Antioch. In the Bay Area, many cities have not

30 Katy Murphy, ‘Homes for human beings’: Millennial-driven anti-NIMBY movement is winning with a simple message, Mercury News (Nov. 13, 2017, 3:10 AM), https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/12/homes-forhuman-beings-millennial- driven-anti-nimby-movement-is-winning-with-a-simple-message/.(“California has built so few homes over the past four decades that it needs as many as 100,000 more per year in its high-cost metro areas – nearly double what it typically constructs – just to keep prices from rising faster than the national average, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.”) 31 More than 25% of the national homeless population lives in California – roughly 114,000 people. Jennifer Medina, California Today: State’s Homeless Population Drives National Increase, NEW YORK TIMES (Dec. 21, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/ 2017/12/21/us/california-today-states-homeless-population-drives-nationalincrease.html. Of additional concern is the California Ellis Act, which allows landlords to evict all of their tenants and “go out of business.” This law is commonly used to convert properties into condos which will not be subject to rent control. See chart and map of no-fault evictions via the Ellis Act. Ellis Act Evictions, ANTI EVICTION MAPPING PROJECT, http://www.antievictionmappingproject.net/ellis.html. 32 Aaron Davis, Contra Costa Communities Seek Solutions to Housing Crisis, NIMBYism, East Bay Times (Dec. 15, 2017), (https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/12/15/contra-costa-communities-seek-solutions-to-housingcrisis-nimbyism/ 33 News and Talk Tops in Overall Local Radio Market, SANTA CRUZ SENTINEL (Mar. 10, 2006), http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/article/NE/20180419/NEWS/180419655.

B401

B-1 0 2 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G met their RHNA goals, which represent the jurisdiction’s “fair share” of the region’s housing need.

Generally, Bay Area governments do not permit enough housing to meet their RHNA targets for low- income housing. Cities that do not permit their “fair share” of housing place greater housing pressure on other jurisdictions that are more likely to permit housing. It is also important to note that a lack of permitting may reflect market forces as developers may lack an incentive to apply for permits to build affordable housing. A lack of regional cooperation may help artificially constrain regional housing supply and contribute to R/ECAPs as low-income people of color may have few affordable housing options outside of R/ECAPs.

Service providers in Antioch admit that it is frustrating that surrounding areas do not contribute their fair share, but that it is important for Antioch to do their part to hopefully lead the region and meet state requirements.

Land Use and Zoning Laws
Land use and zoning laws are a significant contributing factor to the segregation of Black and Hispanic residents throughout the County and the Region. In general throughout the Bay Area, people of color disproportionately occupy high-density housing, which can generally be built only in areas zoned for multi-family homes, multiple dwellings, or single-family homes on small lots. This tends to segregate people of color into the municipal areas zoned for high-density housing. There is a strong political drive to ensure single-family neighborhoods remain single-family neighborhoods, which has increasingly led the State to remove local land use control from jurisdictions in order to facilitate greater production of ADUs and missing middle housing in single-family neighborhoods.

One of the most effective tools to combat segregation is an inclusionary zoning ordinance, which requires a certain percentage of multi-family units to be reserved for low-income tenants. California’s AB 1505 authorizes localities to adopt inclusionary zoning ordinances, with requirements that in lieu fees, off-site development, and other alternatives be available to developers in implementing the law.

Antioch does not have inclusionary zoning or a local density bonus that goes beyond State law even though the city has among the greatest concentrations in the County of both low-income and non- white populations. Antioch’s high- and medium-density residential zones lie mostly within the northern half of the city. This correlates with the locations of higher concentrations of low-income households and non-white populations in Antioch.

Private Discrimination
ECHO Fair Housing conducted fair housing testing through randomized audit of property owners’ compliance with local, State, and federal fair housing laws. A different protected class is selected each year as the focus of the audit. Differential treatment was found in Antioch in the Fiscal Year 2019-2020 (when testing discrimination based on racial voice identification) and Fiscal Year 2020-2021 (when testing discrimination based on the use of Housing Choice Vouchers to pay rent).

Further, lending discrimination is a major contributing factor to segregation. The AI found in the applications for various types of loans that Blacks and Hispanics (or Latinos) are uniformly denied at higher rates than those of Whites or Asians. When someone is unable to obtain loans, they are far more B402

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-1 0 3 likely to be relegated to certain areas of the community.34 While de jure segregation (segregation that is created and enforced by the law) is currently illegal, the drastic difference in loans denied between Whites and minorities perpetuates de facto segregation, which is segregation that is not created by the law, but which forms a pattern as a result of various outside factors, including former laws. Similarly, lending discrimination is a significant contributing factor to R/ECAPs, as minorities are less likely to be homeowners than Whites and thus more likely to be concentrated in high poverty communities.

Lending discrimination directly contributes to economic segregation, which prevents minorities from living in thriving areas and instead relegates them to struggling neighborhoods.

Lending discrimination is also a contributing factor to disparities in access to opportunity. Wealth is commonly derived from home equity, particularly for minority families. The inability to purchase a home will not only impact the current applicants, but also future generations to come. Because Blacks and Hispanics in the region are denied loans at far higher rights than white and Asians, their families are far more likely to have less access to quality education, healthcare, and employment. Lending discrimination also greatly contributes to disproportionate housing needs, as class groups who struggle to obtain access to loans are more likely to experience housing problems such as cost burdens, overcrowding, and substandard housing. When banks and other financial institutions deny minorities’ loan applications, those groups cannot achieve home ownership and instead must turn to the rental market. As Contra Costa’s rental housing market grows increasingly unaffordable, Blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately impacted.

Availability of jobs and transit
The type and availability of public transportation and jobs both contribute to Antioch’s relatively lower access to opportunity. Nearly two-thirds of the jobs in Contra Costa County are located in central County. Moreover, much of the County serves as a bedroom community for other Bay Area counties.

According to the 2020 AI, Contra Costa County has the highest percentage of residents who commute outside of their county for work in the Bay Area. Many east County residents who have moved to the area in search of affordable housing face long commutes to job centers, as east County has relatively few jobs despite large population growth. Low-wage workers may also be willing to commute longer distances to access jobs in neighboring cities such as Oakland and Emeryville that have higher minimum wage rates than their own communities. Jurisdictions in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties have not coordinated their minimum wage increases and pay differences between jurisdictions can exceed $1 per hour.

Within Contra Costa County, transit is generally not as robust in east County despite growing demand for public transportation among residents. The lack of adequate public transportation makes it more difficult for lower-income people in particular to access jobs. Average transit commutes in Antioch exceed 70 minutes. Data from MTC indicates that transit is the third largest expense for low-income families second only to housing and food spending. Since low-income riders often have to utilize

34 Angela Hanks, Danyelle Solomon, & Christian E. Weller, Systemic Inequality: How America’s Structural Racism Helped Create the Black-White Wealth Gap, American Progress (February 21, 2018), https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/ reports/2018/02/21/447051/systematic-inequality/.

B403

B-1 0 4 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G multiple transit systems on their commute, transit costs can be extremely high and burdensome as commuters then have to pay multiple different fares. Despite having housing costs that are below the Bay Area regional average, Antioch has significantly higher average transit costs, when compared to the Bay Area average. This is largely due to the high rate of car ownership in Antioch and the comparatively long commute distance. According to the 2020 AI, Antioch residents have the longest overall commute, longer transit commute time, and longest drive alone commute time of any city in the Bay Area.

In May of 2018, rail service reached east County with the completion of the eBART (East Contra Costa BART) extension from the Pittsburg/Bay Point station to Antioch. The Antioch BART Station provides transportation from Antioch to other parts of the Bay Area but given its status as an end of the line station and its location in the middle of a freeway, the station primarily serves users with cars. The BART station may defray some of the cost of travel by decreasing time spent driving, but it is not easily accessible to those without cars.

BART service only began in Antioch in 2018 and implementation of the Hillcrest Station Specific Plan, which will enable greater transit-oriented development around the station, is ongoing. This means that there are limited residents how have safe and convenient access to BART via pedestrian or bicycle access. Additionally, bus service in Contra Costa County, like much of the Bay Area is fragmented.

Several different bus systems including Tri-Delta Transit, AC Transit, County Connection, and WestCat provide local service in different sections of the County and 18 different bus agencies serve the larger Bay Area. The lack of an integrated network can make it harder for transit riders to understand how to make a trip that spans multiple operators and add costs during a daily commute.

ANALYSIS OF SITES INVENTORY
Government Code Section 65583(c)(10) requires the sites inventory to be analyzed with respect to AFFH to ensure that affordable housing is dispersed equitably throughout the city rather than concentrated in areas of high segregation and poverty or low resource areas that have seen historic underinvestment. This section compares the sites inventory to the fair housing indicators in this assessment. It discusses how the inventory improves and avoids exacerbating fair housing issues in the city, avoids isolating or concentrating the RHNA by income group in certain areas of the community, and relates to local knowledge and other relevant factors. This section also discusses the distribution of sites relative to patterns of segregation and integration, R/ECAPs, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk.

Unit Distribution – EJ Neighborhoods, R/ECAPs, and Access to Opportunity As mentioned above, the city does not have high-opportunity areas; the vast majority of the city is considered Low Resource by TCAC except for neighborhoods on the easternmost edge of the city.

Additionally, while there are no R/ECAPs using HCD’s definition, the city of Antioch does include one census tract known as the Sycamore neighborhood (census tract 307202) that is considered a R/ECAP when using a more localized definition that considers the Bay Area’s high cost of living.

B404

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-1 0 5 Antioch also has neighborhoods that are considered “disadvantaged communities” under State law. “Disadvantaged communities” are areas within the city where a combination of social, economic, and environmental factors disproportionately affect health outcomes. They are identified as census tracts that are at or below the statewide median income and experience disproportionate environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health outcomes. For purposes of this Housing Element, these neighborhoods are referred to as EJ neighborhoods given that “disadvantaged communities” is not a preferred term for residents of these neighborhoods.

There are 12 census tracts in Antioch that are considered low-income areas, and they make up 7,905 acres of the city, or approximately 41 percent of the entire city. Of these 12 census tracts, there are 5 that are disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation. These 5 census tracts are Antioch’s EJ neighborhoods and they make up 3,460 acres of the city, or approximately 18 percent of the total city area.

In addition to generally spreading the RHNA equally across the city, special attention was made to avoid placing low-income units in the EJ and low-income neighborhoods, as well as distributing moderate and above moderate-income units evenly throughout the city so as to not concentrate higher median incomes in any one part of the city. These efforts are intended to address historical patterns of racial segregation in housing throughout the country which disproportionately affect persons of color.

Figure B-3841 shows the distribution of sites on top of the EJ neighborhoods (in purple) and low-income areas (in blue). The R/ECAP Sycamore neighborhood is shown in a darker blue and is included in the area of land that is considered an EJ neighborhood. Sites that would include affordable units (referred to as affordable housing sites) are shown in hatching.35 As shown in Figure B-3841, affordable housing sites are not identified in the Sycamore neighborhood and are sparingly identified in the EJ neighborhoods. Similarly, moderate, and above-moderate income housing sites (i.e., non-affordable housing sites) are located throughout the city, inclusive of low-income areas, colored light blue in Figure B-3841, and a small number of sites located within environmental justice areas, shown as purple in the figure.

Figure B-3942 shows the distribution of sites on top of the TCAC access to opportunity index. Although Antioch does not have high opportunity areas, local knowledge indicates that areas in the south have new housing stock and higher median incomes and are not as impacted by environmental hazards. For this reason, sites in the southern and eastern portions of the city were sought prioritized for locating affordable housing. Accordingly, sSix affordable housing sites, shown in a red hatching, are located in the City’s city’s two moderate resource census tracts to plan for affordable housing sites near newer housing stock, serving higher median incomes, and promote economic integration. Similarly, moderate and above moderate-income sites, shown as green in the figure, are evenly distributed throughout the city as well, to discourage the concentrating of income levels in any one part of the city.

35 All sites with affordable units are anticipated to be mixed-income projects with units ranging from very low-income to above moderate-income, but the term “affordable housing site” is used for clarity.

B405

B-1 0 6 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G The distribution of housing is further analyzed within Table B-27 below which shows the distribution of sites and units across these neighborhoods compared to the city at large. As shown in the table, 10 percent of affordable sites are located in EJ neighborhoods and only 4 percent of units identified to satisfy the lower-income RHNA are identified in EJ neighborhoods. Looking citywide, 18 percent of the city is located in an EJ neighborhood. This confirms that sites are not disproportionately concentrated in EJ areas and in fact the opposite is true; affordable units are less likely to be in an EJ neighborhood than otherwise indicated by the spread of EJ neighborhoods in the city. Furthermore, although only 14 percent of the city’s land area is a moderate resource area (and much of this area is undeveloped), 16 percent of the affordable housing units are sited in these two census tracts.

B406

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-1 0 7 TABLE B-27: L OWER INCOME SITES DISTRIBUTION

Percentage of
Land Area
Number of
Affordable
RHNA
Sites
Percentage of
Affordable
RHNA Sites
Number of
Affordable
RHNA Units
Percentage of
Affordable
RHNA Units
In low-income neighborhoods 41% 24 58% 829 55%
In EJ neighborhoods 18% 4 10% 62 4%
Outside low-income and EJ
neighborhoods* 45% 11 27% 445 29%
In Moderate Resource Neighborhoods 14% 6 15% 241 16%
Citywide 100% 41 100% 1,515 100%
Notes: Rows do not total the citywide number given that all EJ neighborhoods are also low-income neighborhoods. Consolidated sites with common ownership (i.e., consolidated sites B and G at Windsor Drive and Jessica Court, respectively) are counted as one site each. *Sites in this category are still in TCAC Low Resource census tracts but are outside of the lower-income census tracts and EJ areas shown in purple and blue in Figure 3-7.

Source: City of Antioch and Urban Planning Partners, 2022

Figure B-3841: RHNA Distribution and EJ, R/ECAP and Low-Income Areas

B407

B-1 0 8 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G

Figure B-42: RHNA Distribution and Access to Opportunity

A larger portion of the city is considered below the statewide median income than considered an EJ neighborhood; 41 percent of the entire city is considered a low-income neighborhood. As shown in Table B-27, 58 percent of affordable sites and 55 percent of affordable units are identified in these census tracts. Therefore, there are more affordable housing sites and units in low-income census tracts than the city baseline of 41 percent of all land area. However, this does not indicate that sites are disproportionately located in these areas. As shown in Figure B-3841, affordable housing sites are dispersed throughout the city. Moreover, approximately 3,400 acres on the City’s southern edge are undeveloped and given the City’s goals to encourage infill development and limit sprawl, this area of the city was not considered a suitable area to encourage housing development. The decision to focus on infill development limited the availability of land by approximately 18 percent. Excluding the roughly 3,400 acres of undeveloped land in the south, the census tracts that are below the median income then make up half of the available land for the sites inventory. The dispersion rate of 55 percent of affordable units being located in a low-income census tract is then on par with 50 percent of the whole city’s available land area that is in a low-income census tract. The 55 percent of affordable units that are in the low-income neighborhoods is a reasonable dispersion given the availability of limited availability of land and the wide expanse of low-income neighborhoods in the city and that the low-income census tracts are often near transportation and services. The Citycity will utilize strategies to encourage B408

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-1 0 9 housing mobility and to protect existing residents with the intent to avoid creating disproportionate impacts for residents in lower-income neighborhoods. In addition, all projects in the EJ and low-income neighborhoods are anticipated to be mixed-income projects bringing investment and economically diverse residents to these parts of the city.

Potential Effects on Economic and Racial Segregation
As discussed above, the primary racial segregation Antioch exhibits is a regional and inter-city phenomenon, meaning that BIPOC residents in Antioch (especially Black residents) are excluded from other parts of the Region but are not concentrated in neighborhoods within Antioch. The city does exhibit patterns of economic segregation though with concentrations of lower incomes and people experiencing poverty in the northwest portion of the city.

Figures B-4340 through B-4549 show the sites inventory overlaid on socioeconomic data by census tract. Sites that are planning to include units that are affordable to very low- and low-income households are shown in red hatch marks and sites for moderate- and above moderate-income households are in green. The distribution of sites is unlikely to exacerbate existing patterns of economic segregation or to create racial segregation, as demonstrated by the following facts:
 The one census tract with the highest median income includes one site and it is an affordable housing site.
 The census tracts with the lowest median incomes have a mix of affordable and market-rate sites to bring a balanced approach of adding investment in these communities while also providing anchors against displacement risk where it is highest I northwestern Antioch.  The sites inventory identifies only one site in the census tract experiencing the greatest rates of poverty, which is Antioch’s R/ECAP (the Sycamore neighborhood). The sites inventory includes one market-rate site here. It does not site low-income units in areas with a greater concentration of low- income households.
 Sites in the northwest with higher rates of poverty do not include affordable housing sites in order to avoid concentrations of low-income residents in one area of Antioch.  Antioch’s racial and ethnic diversity is spread throughout the city and the sites inventory does not disproportionately place sites in areas with greater populations of people of color. The areas of Antioch that do have higher rates of White residents are identified to accommodate affordable housing units.
 Sites with 100 percent market rate units (i.e., units that are identified for moderate- and above- moderate incomes) are spread throughout the city but they are not located in the census tract with the highest median income.

B409

B-1 1 0 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G

Figure B-434041: Sites Inventory and Asian Residents per Block Group, 2019

Figure B-4442: Sites Inventory and Hispanic or Latino Residents per Block Group, 2019
B410

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-1 1 1

Figure B-454243: Sites Inventory and Black Residents per Block Group, 2019

Figure B-464344: Sites Inventory and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Residents per Block Group, 2019
B411

B-1 1 2 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G

Figure B-474345: Sites Inventory and White Residents per Block Group, 2019

B412

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-1 1 3 Figure B-484446: Sites Inventory and Median Income per Block Group, 2019

Figure B-494547: Sites Inventory and Percent of Households in Poverty per Block Group, 2019

Potential Effects on Displacement Risk and Disproportionate Housing Needs As previously discussed, renters are disproportionately affected by housing needs including overpayment, overcrowding, and displacement risk. With implementation of the Housing Element, there is some potential to ease overcrowding and cost burden as there will be more housing options available for a variety of income levels in all areas of the city. Figure B-4649 shows the inventory of sites on top of gentrification and displacement typology, as mapped by the Urban Displacement Project. As shown in Figure B-4946, the southern half of Antioch is categorized as stable moderate/mixed income.

This is the area where mixed-income projects that include affordable units are identified, which can help ensure the stability and economic diversity of this area. Figure B-4649 shows northwestern Antioch at risk of gentrification while the central portions of Antioch in the north and west are low- income/susceptible to displacement. Given EJ issues also concentrated in the northwestern part of the city, many of the census tracts with displacement vulnerability and gentrification risk were expressly avoided as areas to place housing. As a result, little development is anticipated in the Housing Element in northwest Antioch and sites that are identified in these areas are primarily market-rate development so as to not concentrate lower-income populations in the northwest. The addition of some market-rate B413

B-1 1 4 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G development in this area has the potential to add to the intensity of the displacement and gentrification risk. However, the City has included programs to protect vulnerable residents from displacement, including implementation of tenant protections consistent with AB 1482. Additionally, the sites identified in the low-income/susceptible to displacement neighborhoods include affordable housing sites. The development of affordable units in these neighborhoods would help protect Antioch residents from displacement. Finally, the displacement map in Figure B-4649 shows two census tracts in northeastern Antioch at risk of becoming exclusive. The sites identified in this part of Antioch are primarily sites for missing middle housing along Viera Avenue and mixed-income projects with affordable units along 18th Street and Hillcrest Avenue. By increasing the diversity of housing types and facilitating the development of multi-family housing, including potentially affordable units, the sites inventory would counteract current trends of potential exclusion in this area.

Figure B-504648: Sites Inventory and Displacement Typology Notes: Consolidated site G at Jessica Court is not visible on the map given discrepancies with APNs. These sites are in eastern Antioch in the stable moderate/mixed income category.

Source: Housing Element Site Selection (HESS) Tool and Urban Displacement Project.

B414

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-1 1 5

FAIR HOUSING ACTION PLAN
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583 (c)(10)(A)(v), the Housing Element includes several policies and programs to proactively address fair housing issues. Table 3-4 below summarizes the fair housing issues, contributing factors, and implementation programs included in the Housing Element to affirmatively further fair housing in Antioch within each of the four HCD-recommended Action Areas.

TABLE B-28: F AIR HOUSING ACTION PLAN
Actions Fair Housing Issues Contributing Factors Implementation Action Area 1. Enhancing housing mobility strategies
Action 1.1: Consistent with the sites
inventory, rezone sites throughout the city
to permit multi-family units in areas where
it was not previously allowed, including
areas with relatively higher median
incomes and relatively newer housing
stock.

Persons with disabilities
and Hispanic and Black
households are
concentrated in census
tracts with low median
incomes and older
housing stock.

Lack of high
opportunity areas; lack
of affordable housing;
lack of accessible
affordable units.

Objectives: Remove
barriers to housing in
areas of opportunity and
strategically enhancing
access.

Quantified Objectives:

Rezoning six sites in the
City’s Moderate Resource
census tracts

Responsible Party:

Community Development
Department

Timeline: January 2023
Action 1.2: Incentivize the creation of
ADUs to provide housing that is affordable
in higher opportunity areas. In partnership
with Habitat for Humanity (or other similar
providers), create an ADU/JADU loan
product to assist homeowners in
constructing ADUs/JADUs for rental
housing. The program design could provide
loans to homeowners to construct ADUs or
JADUs with public money that would be
repaid with the rental income from the
completed ADU/JADU. Loan recipients
would be required to affirmatively market
their ADU to populations with
disproportionate housing needs, including
persons with disabilities, Hispanic
households, Black households, and female-
headed households. This would include
translation of materials into Spanish and
sharing information with community
organizations that serve these populations,
such as legal service or public health
providers.

Persons with disabilities
have disproportionate
housing needs.

Lack of high
opportunity areas; lack
of affordable rental
housing; lack of
accessible affordable
units.

Objectives: Increase housing
mobility by generating
wealth for low-income
homeowners and by
facilitating the development
of ADUs that are affordable
to lower-income households
in areas with relatively
higher incomes

Quantified Objectives:

Subsidized development of
25 ADUs by the end of the
Planning Period

Responsible Party: City
Partnership with Habitat for
Humanity

Timeline: Program design
completed by June 2025.

Funding and approvals
granted for 5 ADUs by Dec
2026 and then 5 ADUs
annually thereafter.

B415

B-1 1 6 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G Actions Fair Housing Issues Contributing Factors Implementation Action Area 2. Encouraging new housing choices and affordability in high resource areas and outside of areas of concentrated poverty.

Action 2.1: Require affordable housing
developments be affirmatively marketed to
households with disproportionate housing
needs, including persons with disabilities,
Hispanic households, Black households,
and female-headed households. This would
include translation of materials into
Spanish and Tagalog and sharing
information with community organizations
that serve these populations, such as legal
service or public health providers. All
marketing plans would include strategies to
reach groups with disproportionate housing
needs.

Persons with disabilities
and Hispanic and Black
households are
concentrated in census
tracts with low median
incomes and older
housing stock.

Lack of high
opportunity areas;
Lack of affordable
housing and especially
affordable housing in
high opportunity
areas; Lack of
accessible affordable
units.

Objectives: Encouraging
new housing choices and
affordability

Quantified Objectives:

Affordable housing projects
and available affordable
units are advertised to at
least three community
organizations

Responsible Party:

Community Development
Department

Timeline: Ongoing.

Marketing plans are
submitted at time of building
inspection.

Action 2.2: Incentivize developers through
direct subsidies, development standards
concessions, or fee waivers/reductions to
increase the number of accessible units
beyond the federal requirement of 5% for
subsidized developments.

Persons with disabilities
have disproportionate
housing needs and
persons with disabilities
are most likely to file fair
housing complaints.

Lack of accessible
affordable units; Lack
of access to economic
opportunity;
Concentration in low
income and low
opportunity census
tracts.

Objectives: Encouraging
new housing choices and
affordability for populations
with special needs housing

Quantified Objectives: Two
projects that go beyond the
federal minimum of 5%
accessible units for
subsidized projects

Responsible Party: City of
Antioch, Planning Dept

Timeline: Menu of
incentives created by
January 2024 and outreach
to developers by June 2024
Action 2.3: Develop a program to
prioritize City funding proposals for
City-funded affordable housing that
are committed to supporting hard to
serve residents (e.g., unhoused
populations, extremely low income,
special needs)
Persons with disabilities
have disproportionate
housing needs and
persons with disabilities
are most likely to file fair
housing complaints.

Antioch has higher
numbers of unhoused
residents and disabled
residents than other
cities in the county.

Lack of accessible
affordable units; Lack
of access to economic
opportunity;
Concentration in low
income and low
opportunity census
tracts.

Objectives: Encouraging
new housing choices and
affordability for populations
with special needs housing

Quantified Objectives:

Reduce unsheltered
unhoused population by
40%. Construction of 190
units of housing for
extremely-low income
individuals.

Responsible Party: City of
Antioch, Housing

B416

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-1 1 7 Actions Fair Housing Issues Contributing Factors Implementation Timeline: Program designed
completed by April 2024.

Action Area 3. Improving place-based strategies to encourage community conservation and revitalization including preservation of existing affordable housing.

Action 3.1: Develop and implement EJ
policies to improve quality of life in EJ
neighborhoods.

Hispanic households are
concentrated in EJ
neighborhoods.

Lack of high
opportunity areas;
Lack of affordable
housing in high
opportunity areas;
Lack of accessible
affordable units;
Concentration of
NOAH (i.e., older
housing stock) in EJ
neighborhoods.

Objectives: Alleviate
disparate impacts
experienced by households
living in EJ neighborhoods,
especially impacts related to
environmental outcomes.

Quantified Objectives:

Improve CalEnviroScreen
composite score in EJ area
by 10%.

Responsible Party: City of
Antioch, various
departments.

Timeline: Adoption of EJ
policies by February 2023.

Action 3.2: Continue to fund minor home
repairs and implement a preference for
projects in the following order:
1) Projects in the Sycamore neighborhood
(i.e., Antioch's ethnically concentrated area
of poverty)
2) Projects in EJ neighborhoods
3) Projects in census tracts with lower
median incomes
The City will affirmatively market the home
repair program to residents in these areas,
such as through a targeted mailings and
posting of flyers in to the subject census
tracts in English, Spanish, and Tagalog.

Hispanic households are
concentrated in EJ
neighborhoods.

Lack of affordable
housing in high
opportunity areas;
Lack of high
opportunity areas;
Concentration of
NOAH (i.e., older
housing stock) in EJ
neighborhoods.

Objectives:

Conserve and
improve assets in areas of
lower opportunity and
concentrated poverty.

Quantified Objectives:

Rehabilitation of 40 homes
in target neighborhoods.

Responsible Party: City of
Antioch Housing Dept.

Timeline: Conduct publicity
campaign for the program
once annually in addition to
hosting information on City
website.

Action 3.3: Monitor affordable housing
projects that are at risk of conversion to
market rate. Support regional and local
efforts to examine displacement of
affordable housing and lower income
households. Assist with the retention of
special needs housing that is at risk of
expiring affordability requirements.

Hispanic and Black
households and persons
with disabilities have
disproportionate
housing needs.

Historic discrimination
and continued
mortgage denials;
Concentration in low
opportunity census
tracts; High housing
costs and low wages
Objectives: Preserve
existing affordable housing

Quantified Objectives:

Preservation of 54 units
before 2032.

Responsible Party: City of
Antioch, Housing

Timeline: Preservation
strategies established and
outreach to non-profit
partners by January 2031.

Action 3.4: Promote economic
development in the EJ neighborhoods and
Sycamore neighborhood in particular. The
Persons with disabilities
and Hispanic and Black
households are
Lack of high
opportunity areas;
Lack of access to
Objectives: Place-based
strategies to encourage
B417

B-1 1 8 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G Actions Fair Housing Issues Contributing Factors Implementation City will prioritize economic development
and infrastructure expenditures in and
around lower-income and environmental
justice neighborhoods, to enhance business
and housing opportunities. This could
include facade improvements and small
business grant recipients. The City will
explore methods for providing low-interest
loans and below-market leases for tax-
foreclosed commercial properties to low-
income residents seeking to start
businesses within the EJ neighborhoods.
concentrated in census
tracts with low median
incomes and older
housing stock.
economic opportunity;
Concentration of
NOAH (i.e., older
housing stock) in EJ
neighborhoods.
community conservation and
revitalization

Responsible Party: City of
Antioch, Economic
Development, Public Works,
and Planning

Timeline: Ongoing.

Adoption of EJ policies by
February 2023.

Action Area 4. Protecting existing residents from displacement Action 4.1: Establish tenant protections to
implement AB 1482 with measures related
to relocation, documentation, and right to
return policy in eviction cases.

Persons with disabilities
and Black and Hispanic
households have
disproportionate
housing needs and
persons with disabilities
are most likely to file fair
housing complaints.

Lack of accessible
affordable units;
Concentration in low
income and low
opportunity census
tracts; Historic
discrimination and
continued mortgage
denials; High housing
costs and low wages
Objectives: Protect
residents from displacement
and preserve housing
affordability.

Responsible Party: City of
Antioch, Housing Dept.

Timeline: Staffing plan and
program design established
by April 2024.

Action 4.2: Partner with ECHO Housing
and/or Bay Area Legal Aid to perform fair
housing training for landlords and tenants.

Attendance at a fair housing training will
become a condition for approval of
landlords' business licenses. The training
would include information on reasonable
accommodation and source of income
discrimination, as well as other fair housing
information with emphasis on certain
topics driven by housing complaint data
and information from stakeholders.

Persons with disabilities
and Black and Hispanic
households have
disproportionate
housing needs and
persons with disabilities
are most likely to file fair
housing complaints.

Lack of accessible
affordable units; Lack
of understanding of
reasonable
accommodation
requirements by
landlords and property
owners.

Objectives: Protect existing
residents from displacement
and enforce Fair Housing
laws

Quantified Objectives:

Conduct 2-3 workshops per
year on fair housing rights
and resources

Responsible Party: ECHO
Housing and/or Bay Area
Legal Aid in partnership with
the City

Timeline: Program design to
track attendance and
condition business license
approval completed by
January 2024. Program
launch March 2024.

Action 4.3: Continue to maintain a
webpage specific to fair housing including
resources for residents who feel they have
experienced discrimination, information
about filing fair housing complaints with
HCD or HUD, and information about
protected classes under the Fair Housing
Act.

Persons with disabilities
and Black and Hispanic
households have
disproportionate
housing needs and
persons with disabilities
are most likely to file fair
housing complaints.

Lack of accessible
affordable units; Lack
of understanding of
reasonable
accommodation
requirements by
landlords and property
owners.

Objectives: Enforce Fair
Housing laws

Quantified Objectives:

Increase participants in fair
housing programs by 5%

Responsible Party: City of
Antioch in partnership with
ECHO Housing and/or Bay
Area Legal Aid
B418

A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G B-1 1 9 Actions Fair Housing Issues Contributing Factors Implementation

Timeline: Ongoing
Action 4.4: Ensure that all multi-family
residential developments contain signage
to explain the right to request reasonable
accommodations for persons with
disabilities as a condition of business
license approval. Make this information
available and clearly transparent on the
City's website in English, Spanish, and
Tagalog and fund landlord training and
outreach on reasonable accommodations.

Persons with disabilities
have disproportionate
housing needs and are
most likely to file fair
housing complaints with
HUD.

Lack of accessible
affordable units;
Concentration in low
income and low
opportunity census
tracts; Lack of
understanding of
reasonable
accommodation
requirements by
landlords and property
owners.

Objectives: Enforce Fair
Housing laws

Quantified Objectives:

Increased reasonable
accommodation requests
and fulfilled requests by 10%

Responsible Party: City of
Antioch

Timeline: Information added
to City website by January
2024.

B419

B-1 2 0 A P P E N D I X B : A F F I R M A T I V E L Y F U R T H E R I N G F A I R H O U S I N G

B420
APPENDIX C: CITY OF ANTIOCH HOUSING SITE INVENTORY
Site Number Assessor Parcel
Number APN No Dashes Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Current General Plan Designation
Proposed General
Plan Amendment
Existing Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Rezoning
Proposed
Minimum Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Proposed Max
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel Size
(Gross Acres) Vacancy Rounded VLI Rounded LI Rounded Mod Rounded Above Mod
Rounded
Total
1 051-061-001 051061001 1650 VIERA AVE Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.42 Nonvacant 0 0 1 1 2 2 051-061-002 051061002 1700 VIERA AVE Antioch CA 94509 Medium Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.92 Nonvacant 0 0 2 2 4 3 051-061-003 051061003 1730 VIERA AVE Antioch CA 94509 Medium Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.92 Nonvacant 0 0 2 2 4 4 051-062-004 051062004 1839 STEWART LN 94509 Medium Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.26 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 5 051-062-005 051062005 1829 STEWART LN Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.29 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 6 051-062-006 051062006 1705 VIERA AVE Antioch CA 94509 Medium Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.42 Nonvacant 0 0 1 1 2 7 051-062-010 051062010 1853 STEWART LN Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 1.65 Nonvacant 0 0 4 4 8 8 051-071-001 051071001 1524 VIERA AVE Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.93 Nonvacant 0 0 2 2 4 9 051-071-002 051071002 1550 VIERA AVE Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.51 Nonvacant 0 0 1 1 2 10 051-071-003 051071003 1560 VIERA AVE Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.41 Nonvacant 0 0 1 1 2 11 051-071-004 051071004 1574 VIERA AVE Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.47 Nonvacant 0 0 1 1 2 12 051-071-005 051071005 1600 VIERA AVE Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.12 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 13 051-071-006 051071006 1606 VIERA AVE Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.82 Nonvacant 0 0 2 2 4 14 051-071-008 051071008 1588 VIERA AVE Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.46 Nonvacant 0 0 1 1 2 15 051-071-011 051071011 1636 VIERA AVE Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.46 Nonvacant 0 0 1 1 2 16 051-071-012 051071012 1628 VIERA AVE Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.44 Nonvacant 0 0 1 1 2 17 051-072-005 051072005 1537 VIERA AVE Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.46 Nonvacant 0 0 1 1 2 B421
Site Number Assessor Parcel
Number APN No Dashes Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Current General Plan Designation
Proposed General
Plan Amendment
Existing Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Rezoning
Proposed
Minimum Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Proposed Max
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel Size
(Gross Acres) Vacancy Rounded VLI Rounded LI Rounded Mod Rounded Above Mod
Rounded
Total
18 051-072-006 051072006 1540 WALNUT AVE Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.4 Nonvacant 0 0 1 1 2 19 051-072-007 051072007 1554 WALNUT AVE Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.51 Nonvacant 0 0 1 1 2 20 051-072-013 051072013 1549 VIERA AVE Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.49 Nonvacant 0 0 1 1 2 21 051-072-014 051072014 1565 VIERA AVE Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.87 Nonvacant 0 0 2 2 4 22 051-072-015 051072015 1863 BOWN LN Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.23 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 23 051-072-016 051072016 1877 BOWN LN Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.23 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 24 051-072-017 051072017 1568 WALNUT AVE Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.23 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 25 051-072-018 051072018 1580 WALNUT AVE Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.22 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 26 051-073-001 051073001 1605 VIERA AVE Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.3 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 27 051-073-002 051073002 1601 VIERA AVE Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.22 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 28 051-073-003 051073003 1837 VINE LN Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.205 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 29 051-073-004 051073004 1845 VINE LN Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.205 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 30 051-073-005 051073005 1859 VINE LN Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.21 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 31 051-073-006 051073006 1867 VINE LN Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.21 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 32 051-073-007 051073007 1881 VINE LN Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.21 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 33 051-073-008 051073008 1897 VINE LN Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.85 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 34 051-073-009 051073009 1905 VINE LN Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.3 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 35 051-073-011 051073011 1965 VINE LN Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.46 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 B422
Site Number Assessor Parcel
Number APN No Dashes Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Current General Plan Designation
Proposed General
Plan Amendment
Existing Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Rezoning
Proposed
Minimum Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Proposed Max
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel Size
(Gross Acres) Vacancy Rounded VLI Rounded LI Rounded Mod Rounded Above Mod
Rounded
Total
36 051-073-012 051073012 1585 WALNUT AVE Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.86 Nonvacant 0 0 2 2 4 37 051-073-014 051073014 1537 WALNUT AVE Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.51 Nonvacant 0 0 1 1 2 38 051-073-015 051073015 1523 WALNUT AVE Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.34 Nonvacant 0 0 1 1 2 39 051-073-016 051073016 1551 WALNUT AVE Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.39 Nonvacant 0 0 1 1 2 40 051-073-017 051073017 1927 VINE LN Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.24 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 41 051-073-018 051073018 1945 VINE LN Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.26 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 42 051-073-019 051073019 1567 WALNUT AVE Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.23 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 43 051-073-020 051073020 1559 WALNUT AVE Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.23 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 44 051-074-001 051074001 1966 VINE LN Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.2 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 45 051-074-002 051074002 1954 VINE LN Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.23 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 46 051-074-003 051074003 1936 VINE LN Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.22 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 47 051-074-005 051074005 1898 VINE LN Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.22 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 48 051-074-006 051074006 VINE LN & VIERA AVE,
Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.22 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 49 051-074-007 051074007 1870 VINE LN Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.22 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 50 051-074-008 051074008 1854 VINE LN Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.36 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 51 051-074-009 051074009 1836 VINE LN Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.29 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 52 051-074-010 051074010 1633 VIERA AVE Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.528 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 53 051-074-011 051074011 1908 VINE LN Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.22 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 B423
Site Number Assessor Parcel
Number APN No Dashes Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Current General Plan Designation
Proposed General
Plan Amendment
Existing Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Rezoning
Proposed
Minimum Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Proposed Max
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel Size
(Gross Acres) Vacancy Rounded VLI Rounded LI Rounded Mod Rounded Above Mod
Rounded
Total
54 051-074-012 051074012 1920 VINE LN Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.22 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 55 051-081-001 051081001 1400 VIERA AVE Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.17 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 56 051-081-002 051081002 1410 VIERA AVE Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.78 Nonvacant 0 0 2 2 4 57 051-081-003 051081003 1428 VIERA AVE Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.9 Nonvacant 0 0 2 2 4 58 051-081-004 051081004 1452 VIERA AVE Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.45 Nonvacant 0 0 1 1 2 59 051-081-006 051081006 1470 VIERA AVE Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.95 Nonvacant 0 0 2 2 4 60 051-081-007 051081007 1490 VIERA AVE Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.46 Nonvacant 0 0 1 1 2 61 051-081-008 051081008 1500 VIERA AVE Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.91 Nonvacant 0 0 2 2 4 62 051-082-002 051082002 1497 WALNUT AVE Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.85 Nonvacant 0 0 2 2 4 63 051-082-003 051082003 1473 WALNUT AVE Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.43 Nonvacant 0 0 1 1 2 64 051-082-004 051082004 1957 SANTA FE AVE Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.64 Nonvacant 0 0 1 1 2 65 051-082-005 051082005 1915 SANTA FE AVE Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.75 Nonvacant 0 0 2 2 4 66 051-082-006 051082006 1887 SANTA FE AVE Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.81 Nonvacant 0 0 2 2 4 67 051-082-007 051082007 1859 SANTA FE AVE Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.45 Nonvacant 0 0 1 1 2 68 051-082-008 051082008 1831 SANTA FE AVE Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.74 Nonvacant 0 0 2 2 4 69 051-082-009 051082009 1429 VIERA AVE Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.77 Nonvacant 0 0 2 2 4 70 051-082-010 051082010 WALNUT AV & SANTA FE
AV, Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.43 Vacant 0 0 1 1 2 71 051-082-011 051082011 1939 SANTA FE AVE Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.39 Nonvacant 0 0 1 1 2 B424
Site Number Assessor Parcel
Number APN No Dashes Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Current General Plan Designation
Proposed General
Plan Amendment
Existing Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Rezoning
Proposed
Minimum Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Proposed Max
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel Size
(Gross Acres) Vacancy Rounded VLI Rounded LI Rounded Mod Rounded Above Mod
Rounded
Total
72 051-082-012 051082012 SANTA FE AV & VIERA AVE,
Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.38 Nonvacant 0 0 1 1 2 73 051-082-013 051082013 1503 WALNUT AVE Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.42 Nonvacant 0 0 1 1 2 74 051-082-014 051082014 1515 WALNUT AVE Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.43 Nonvacant 0 0 1 1 2 75 051-083-001 051083001 1528 WALNUT AVE Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.91 Nonvacant 0 0 2 2 4 76 051-083-002 051083002 1506 WALNUT AVE Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.45 Nonvacant 0 0 1 1 2 77 051-083-004 051083004 1866 SANTA FE AVE Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 1.38 Nonvacant 0 0 4 4 8 78 051-083-005 051083005 1834 SANTA FE AVE Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.46 Nonvacant 0 0 1 1 2 79 051-083-006 051083006 1471 VIERA AVE Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.46 Nonvacant 0 0 1 1 2 80 051-083-009 051083009 1509 VIERA AVE Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.91 Nonvacant 0 0 2 2 4 81 051-083-010 051083010 1487 VIERA AVE Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.16 Nonvacant 0 0 0 0 0 82 051-083-012 051083012 1495 VIERA AVE Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.75 Nonvacant 0 0 2 2 4 83 051-100-022 051100022 2101 E 18TH ST Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 8 Nonvacant 0 0 24 24 48 84 051-120-020 051120020 1650 TREMBATH LN Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 1.48 Nonvacant 0 0 0 8 8 85 051-120-021 051120021 1710 TREMBATH LN Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 1.25 Nonvacant 0 0 0 7 7 86 051-120-024 051120024 1450 TREMBATH LN
Antioch, CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 1.01 Nonvacant 0 0 0 6 6 87 051-120-025 051120025 1550 TREMBATH LN Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 1.02 Nonvacant 0 0 0 6 6 88 051-130-001 051130001 1305 ST CLAIRE DR Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 1.01 Nonvacant 0 0 0 6 6 89 051-130-002 051130002 1277 SAINT CLAIRE DR
Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 1.01 Nonvacant 0 0 0 6 6 B425
Site Number Assessor Parcel
Number APN No Dashes Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Current General Plan Designation
Proposed General
Plan Amendment
Existing Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Rezoning
Proposed
Minimum Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Proposed Max
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel Size
(Gross Acres) Vacancy Rounded VLI Rounded LI Rounded Mod Rounded Above Mod
Rounded
Total
90 051-140-001 051140001 1705 TREMBATH LN Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 1.69 Nonvacant 0 0 0 10 10 91 051-140-003 051140003 1625 TREMBATH LN Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 1.23 Nonvacant 0 0 0 7 7 92 051-140-006 051140006 1501 TREMBATH LN Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.98 Nonvacant 0 0 0 5 5 93 051-140-007 051140007 1425 TREMBATH LN Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.98 Nonvacant 0 0 0 5 5 94 051-140-012 051140012 1613 ST CLAIRE DR Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 1 Nonvacant 0 0 0 6 6 95 051-140-013 051140013 1525 ST CLAIRE DR Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 1 Nonvacant 0 0 0 6 6 96 051-140-014 051140014 1423 ST CLAIRE DR Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.65 Nonvacant 0 0 0 3 3 97 051-140-015 051140015 1420 ST CLAIRE DR Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.98 Nonvacant 0 0 0 5 5 98 051-140-019 051140019 88 MIKE YORBA WAY
Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.36 Nonvacant 0 0 0 2 2 99 051-140-020 051140020 1675 TREMBATH LN Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.39 Nonvacant 0 0 0 2 2 100 051-140-025 051140025 1620 ST CLAIRE DR Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 1.11 Nonvacant 0 0 0 6 6 101 051-140-026 051140026 1520 ST CLAIRE DR Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 1.87 Nonvacant 0 0 0 11 11 102 051-140-027 051140027 1651 ST CLAIRE DR Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.48 Nonvacant 0 0 0 2 2 103 051-140-028 051140028 1715 ST CLAIRE DR Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.49 Nonvacant 0 0 0 2 2 104 051-140-035 051140035 1575 TREMBATH LN Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR S R-20 0 20 0.98 Nonvacant 0 0 0 5 5 105 051-200-076 051200076 HOLUB LN & E 18TH ST,
Antioch CA 94509 Convenience
Commercial Amend to HDR P-D R-35 25 35 1.08 Vacant 7 4 4 11 26 106 051-200-037 051200037 1841 HOLUB LN, Antioch CA 94509 Convenience Commercial Amend to HDR R-35 -- 25 35 4.4 Nonvacant 28 16 17 46 107 107 051-200-038 051200038 HOLUB LN, Antioch CA 94509 High Density Residential None R-35 -- 25 35 4.99 Vacant 32 18 20 52 122 B426
Site Number Assessor Parcel
Number APN No Dashes Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Current General Plan Designation
Proposed General
Plan Amendment
Existing Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Rezoning
Proposed
Minimum Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Proposed Max
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel Size
(Gross Acres) Vacancy Rounded VLI Rounded LI Rounded Mod Rounded Above Mod
Rounded
Total
108 051-200-039 051200039 HOLUB LN, Antioch CA 94509 High Density Residential None R-35 -- 25 35 5.71 Vacant 37 21 23 60 141 109 051-230-028 051230028 3200 E 18TH ST, Antioch CA 94509 Eastern Waterfront
Employment Focus
Area - Business Park
General Plan Text
Amendment P-D R-35 25 35 1.286 Vacant 8 4 5 13 30
110 051-400-027 051400027 WILSON ST AND E 18TH ST 94509 Eastern Waterfront
Employment Focus
Area - Business Park
General Plan Text
Amendment P-D R-20 0 20 1.204 Vacant 0 0 9 9 18
111 052-042-044 052042044 3901 HILLCREST AVE
Antioch CA 94509 Open Space Amend to HDR P-D R-35 25 35 1.62 Nonvacant 10 6 6 17 39 112 052-342-010 052342010 WILDFLOWER DR &
HILLCREST AV, Antioch CA 94531 Low Density Residential Amend to HDR R-6 R-35 25 35 3.77 Vacant 24 14 15 39 92 113 053-060-055 053060055 NEROLY RD & COUNTRY
HILLS DR, Antioch CA 94509
East Lone Tree Specific
Plan Focus Area - Res.

Open Space
None S-P - 0 20 0.525 Vacant 0
114 053-060-056 053060056 NEROLY RD & COUNTRY
HILLS DR, Antioch CA 94509
East Lone Tree Specific
Plan Focus Area - Res.

Open Space
None S-P - 0 20 0.606 Vacant 0
115 053-060-057 053060057 NEROLY RD & COUNTRY
HILLS DR, Antioch CA 94509
East Lone Tree Specific
Plan Focus Area - Res.

Open Space
None S-P - 0 20 7.219 Vacant 0
116 055-071-106 055071106

LONE TREE WAY &

COUNTRY HILLS DR,
Antioch CA
94509 Business Park Amend to HDR P-D R-35 25 35 3.628 Vacant 23 13 14 38 88 117 055-071-107 055071107

LONE TREE WAY &

COUNTRY HILLS DR,
Antioch CA
94509 Business Park Amend to HDR P-D R-35 25 35 2.322 Vacant 15 8 9 24 56 118 055-071-108 055071108 LONE TREE WAY & DEER
VALLEY RD, Antioch CA 94509 Business Park Amend to HDR P-D R-35 25 35 9.54 Vacant 62 36 38 100 236 119 055-071-113 055071113

LONE TREE WAY &

COUNTRY HILLS DR,
Antioch CA
94509 Business Park Amend to HDR P-D R-20 12 20 0.96 Vacant 0 0 5 5 10 120 056-130-014 056130014 5200 HEIDORN RANCH RD
Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR P-D R-35 25 35 1.95 Nonvacant 12 7 7 20 46 121 056-130-011 056130011 5320 HEIDORN RANCH RD
Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR P-D R-35 25 35 5.04 Nonvacant 33 19 20 53 125 B427
Site Number Assessor Parcel
Number APN No Dashes Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Current General Plan Designation
Proposed General
Plan Amendment
Existing Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Rezoning
Proposed
Minimum Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Proposed Max
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel Size
(Gross Acres) Vacancy Rounded VLI Rounded LI Rounded Mod Rounded Above Mod
Rounded
Total
122 065-071-020 065071020 1205 A St Antioch CA 94509 A Street Interchange Focus Area - Residential
General Plan Text
Amendment C-O R-20 12 20 0.31 Nonvacant 0 0 1 1 2
123 065-110-006 065110006 810 WILBUR AVE, Antioch
CA 94509 High Density Residential None R-25 - 20 25 2.86 Vacant 4 0 0 70 74 124 065-110-007 065110007 701 WILBUR AVE, Antioch CA 94509 High Density Residential None R-25 R-35 25 35 2.5 Nonvacant 16 9 10 26 61 125 065-161-025 065161025 301 E 18TH ST Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR C-2 R-20 12 20 0.31 Nonvacant 0 0 1 1 2 126 065-262-026 065262026 E 18TH ST & BLOSSOM DR,
Antioch, CA 94509 Neighborhood
Community Commercial Amend to HDR R-20 -- 0 20 1.3 Vacant 0 0 10 10 20 127 065-262-035 065262035 1015 E 18TH ST Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density Residential Amend to HDR R-20 -- 0 20 0.675 Vacant 0 0 5 5 10 128 067-093-022 067093022 A ST & PARK LN, Antioch CA 94509 A Street Interchange
Focus Area -
Commercial
General Plan Text
Amendment C-O R-20 0 20 0.32 Vacant 0 0 2 2 4
129 067-103-017 067103017 A ST Antioch CA 94509
A Street Interchange
Focus Area -
Commercial
General Plan Text
Amendment C-O R-20 12 20 1.774 Vacant 0 0 10 10 20
130 068-051-015 068051015 1805 CAVALLO RD, Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR R-20 -- 0 20 0.47 Vacant 0 0 3 3 6 131 068-051-049 068051049 1801 CAVALLO RD Antioch
CA 94509 Neighborhood
Community Commercial Amend to HDR R-20 -- 0 20 0.47 Vacant 0 0 3 3 6 132 068-051-050 068051050 504 E 18TH ST, Antioch CA 94509 Neighborhood Community Commercial Amend to HDR R-20 -- 0 20 0.087827 Vacant 0 0 0 0 0 133 068-082-057 068082057 TERRACE DR & E 18TH ST,
Antioch CA 94509 Neighborhood
Community Commercial Amend to HDR C-2 R-20 12 20 0.659 Vacant 0 0 3 3 6 134 068-252-041 068252041 2721 WINDSOR DR, Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR R-6 R-35 25 35 1.57 Vacant 10 5 6 16 37 135 068-252-042 068252042 WINDSOR DR & IGLESIA CT,
Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR R-6 R-35 25 35 0 Vacant 0 0 0 0 0 136 068-252-043 068252043 WINDSOR DR & IGLESIA CT,
Antioch CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR R-6 R-35 25 35 0 Vacant 0 0 0 0 0 B428
Site Number Assessor Parcel
Number APN No Dashes Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code Current General Plan Designation
Proposed General
Plan Amendment
Existing Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Rezoning
Proposed
Minimum Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Proposed Max
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel Size
(Gross Acres) Vacancy Rounded VLI Rounded LI Rounded Mod Rounded Above Mod
Rounded
Total
137 068-252-045 068252045 2709 WINDSOR DR, Antioch
CA 94509 Medium Low Density
Residential Amend to HDR R-6 R-35 25 35 0 Vacant 0 0 0 0 0 138 071-370-026 071370026 3351 CONTRA LOMA BLVD,
Antioch CA 94509 Public/Institutional Amend to HDR R-6 R-20 0 20 1 Nonvacant 0 0 8 8 16 139 072-400-036 072400036 CACHE PEAK DR & GOLF
COURSE RD, Antioch CA 94531 Convenience
Commercial Amend to HDR P-D R-35 25 35 2.01 Vacant 13 7 8 21 49 140 072-400-039 072400039 4655 GOLF COURSE RD,
Antioch CA 94531 Convenience
Commercial Amend to HDR P-D R-35 25 35 2 Nonvacant 13 7 8 21 49 141 072-400-040 072400040 CACHE PEAK DR & GOLF
COURSE RD, Antioch CA 94531 Convenience
Commercial Amend to HDR P-D R-35 25 35 0.212 Vacant 0 0 2 2 4 142 072-450-013 072450013 DALLAS RANCH RD, Antioch
CA 94509 Office Amend to HDR P-D R-35 25 35 1.5 Vacant 9 5 6 15 35 143 074-080-026 074080026 DELTA FAIR BLVD & BELLE
DR, Antioch CA 94509 High Density Residential None R-35 -- 25 35 12.262 Nonvacant 80 46 50 129 305 144 074-080-028 074080028 DELTA FAIR BLVD & E
LELAND RD, Antioch CA 94565 High Density Residential None R-35 -- 25 35 0.494 Vacant 0 0 6 6 12 145 074-080-029 074080029 DELTA FAIR BLVD, Antioch
CA 94509 High Density Residential None R-35 -- 25 35 1.117 Nonvacant 7 4 4 11 26 146 074-080-030 074080030 DELTA FAIR BLVD, Antioch
CA 94565 High Density Residential None R-35 -- 25 35 5.5 Vacant 36 20 22 58 136 147 074-122-016 074122016 DELTA FAIR BLVD, Antioch
CA 94509
Western Antioch
Commerical Focus Area -
Regional Commercial
General Plan Text
Amendment C-3 R-20 0 20 0.6 Vacant 0 0 4 4 8
148 074-123-004 074123004 DELTA FAIR BLVD &
FAIRVIEW DR, Antioch CA 94509
Western Antioch
Commerical Focus Area -
Regional Commercial
General Plan Text
Amendment C-3 R-35 25 35 1.75 Vacant 11 6 7 18 42
149 074-123-005 074123005 FAIRVIEW DR, Antioch CA 94509 Western Antioch
Commerical Focus Area -
Regional Commercial
General Plan Text
Amendment C-3 R-35 25 35 1.45 Vacant 9 5 5 15 34
150 074-343-034 074343034 2100 L ST, Antioch CA 94509 Convenience Commercial Amend to HDR C-1 R-20 12 20 1.5 Vacant 0 0 9 9 18 151 075-460-001 075460001