Antioch City Council
August 8, 2023

17. The final privateparkdesignshall be reviewedand approvedby the Parks and RecreationCommissionprior to the issuanceof a buildingpermitfor the park.

18. The private park shall meet all the City's park design standards current at the time of park construction and shall include a color scheme soothing for children with visual sensitivities.

19. The developer shall disclose to each property owner in the development that the Contra Costa Water District property that borders the development contains hydrological improvements and related service structures which may be altered or expanded by the Water District.

20. All units shall have two covered and enclosed parking spaces in a garage.

Up to 50% of the parking spaces may be tandem parking.

21. The project shall be built in conformance with the Su Property Design Guidelines, dated received by the Community Development Department on October 30, 2020, unless modified by the conditions of approval or the Planned Development Ordinance for the project. Major deviations from or modification to the Design Guidelines shall be approved by the Planning Commission. Minor deviations may be approved by the Zoning Administrator.

22. The landscaping plans shall be revised to use non- invasive, drought tolerant, native plants. The revisions shall be shown on the final landscaping plan submittal.

23. A Community Facilities District (CFD) for fire protection shall be required for this project. The developer shall enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District regarding the establishment of the CFD or annexation of the property into an existing CFD.

24. The park shall be designed to be an all-abilities park.

25. The project shall provide speed humps/ speed bumps at the entrance of the project. The design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit.

B20
RESOLUTION NO 2022/ 09
JANUARY 11, 2022

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing recommendation was passed and adopted bytheCityCounciloftheCityofAntioch, at a regularmeetingthereof, heldonthe 11th day of January, 2022 by following vote:

AYES: Council Members District 3 Ogorchock, District 4 Wilson and Mayor Pro Tern ( District 2) Barbanica
NOES: Council Members District 1 Torres- Walker
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
RECUSED: Mayor Thorpe

ELIZABETH HOUSEHOLDER
City Clerk of the City of Antioch
B21

ATTACHMENT C
C1
J
Agenda Item #

STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of August 8, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
PREPARED BY: Zoe Merideth, Senior Planner
SUBMITTED BY: Kevin Scudero, Acting Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution Adopting Transportation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact Analysis Guidelines

RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution adopting the Transportation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact Analysis Guidelines.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct cost associated with the adoption of the Transportation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact Analysis Guidelines (“Guidelines”). The consultant costs to develop the Guidelines were included as part of the Housing Element effort and partially paid for with grant funding from the State. Additionally, there will not be ongoing costs associated with having adopted Guidelines because existing staff will be reviewing development projects against the Guidelines in addition to other City standards.

DISCUSSION
Background
Senate Bill (“SB”) 743 signed by the Governor in 2013, changed the way transportation impacts are identified. The legislation directed the Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”) to consider different metrics for identifying transportation impacts under the California Environme ntal Quality Act ( “CEQA”). Prior to SB 743, cities used Level of Service (“LOS”) to determine a project’s transportation impact. In 2018, OPR determined that V ehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) is the preferred transportation impact metric and updated the CEQA Guidelines accordingly. Additionally, OPR gave cities a deadline of July 1, 2020 to begin implementing the new law. For cities, implementation requires that VMT be analyzed as the metric for measuring CEQA compliance, however cities may choose to retain LOS-based standards. Since July 1, 2020, the City has been using VMT in its CEQA documents, as required by SB 743, and following the Contra Costa Transportation Authority methodology when completing VMT analyses. Meanwhile, as Antioch City Council Report
August 8, 2023 Agenda Item #J 2
part of the Housing Element eff ort, the City has been working with a consultant to draft Antioch specific VMT and LOS standards for the City.

LOS vs. VMT

Historically, Antioch and other jurisdictions have used LOS as the threshold for analyzing the significance of impacts to transportation infrastructure under CEQA, as well as in the General Plan and other transportation policies. As a measure of congestion or roadway capacity, LOS assigns a letter grade (A = below capacity or low congestion, through F = at or exceeding capacity, high congestion) to intersections or roadway segments based on the average delay experienced by drivers given the traffic conditions . Until SB 743, cities had been using LOS to analyze a project’s transportation impacts under CEQA.

California has now shifted away from using LOS in the CEQA process because measuring congestion using LOS has had the unintended consequence of encouraging urban sprawl. Under the use of LOS, roadway widenin g and other infrastructure improvements have incentivized new development to locate in more remote areas, since these areas have little congestion compared to urban environments. This outcome, combined with large differentials in the cost of urban housing in certain parts of the state, has resulted in greater vehicle use , traffic congestion, and greenhouse gas emissions overall because people must travel longer distances to reach destinations. This is particularly true when employment and residential neighb orhoods are located far apart.

Although LOS may no longer be used as a measure of CEQA transportation impacts, SB 743 does not prevent a city f rom continuing to analyze LOS as part of its transportation planning and project analysis.

VMT is a measure of the amount and distance a project causes people to drive, including consideration of the number of passengers in vehicles (vehicle occupancy). Said another way, VMT is the total number of miles travelled by motor vehicles among a given population over a de fined period of time, most often measured as daily or annual VMT .

Typically, developments at a greater distance from other land uses, and developments located in areas with poor access to non-auto modes of travel, will generate more driving than developments located in the vicinity of other complementary uses. The use of VMT as an impact metric encourages infill development and a mix of land uses, which have smaller environmental impacts and reduce the need to drive. VMT as an impact metric also encourages the use of active transportation and transit, which have smaller environmental footprints than vehicle travel. VMT data is already gathered and used t o calculate air quality and greenhouse gas emissions as part of the CEQA analysis.

Transportation Impact Analysis

SB 743 does not prevent a city from continuing to analyze LOS outside of CEQA review for transportation planning or analysis purposes. LOS is referenced throughout the City’s General Plan and specific transportation -related policies. LOS may continue to be assessed relative to City standards during development review, to promote the City’s interest in maintaining and operating a functional roadway network. Beyond LOS, a Antioch City Council Report
August 8, 2023 Agenda Item #J 3
transportation impact analysis ( “TIA”) can also examine the project’s on -site circulation, the need to signalize a new intersection, or other roadway improvements that may be required to reduce the adverse effects of a project on nearby traffic . The recommendations of a TIA can be added as conditions of approval to a project. The Guidelines provide direction, based on the City’s General Plan and best industry practice, of when a project requires a TIA. Currently, the City requires a TIA, separate from the CEQA analysis, when a project includes a General Plan Amendment ( “GPA”) that changes the land use or is expected to generate greater than 50 vehicle trips affecting an intersection of Circulation Element Roadways du ring the morning or evening peak hour.

TIAs are also required of developers at staff discretion based on concerns about a project’s site circulation or impact. The Guidelines will create consistent standards of when a TIA is needed and what the TIA needs to include.

Under the Guidelines, a TIA will be required in the following conditions:

1. Projects that do not meet any of the Vehicle Miles Traveled screening criteria outlined in section 5.2.2 of these guidelines.

2. When project -generated traffic is expected to be greater than 100 vehicle trips during the morning or evening peak hour.

3. When a project includes a GPA that changes the land use or is expected to generate greater than 50 vehicle trips affecting an intersection of Circulation Element Roadways during the morning or evening peak hour.

A focused TIA may be required in lieu of a full TIA under any of the foll owing circumstances:

• When project traffic will affect an intersection or roadway segment in the vicinity of the project site where there are known traffic concerns. • Any project that contains a “drive through” function. • When the project will substantially change the off ‐site transportation system or result in diversion of traffic to other routes, including physical changes such as street closures or access restrictions, lane reductions, new traffic signals or stop signs, disruption of sidewalk or bikeway co ntinuity or safety, relocation or obstruction of transit stops, etc.
• When the project produces fewer than 100 morning or evening peak hour trips. • When the project is within 1,000 feet of a freeway on‐ramp. • When the proposed project may be presumed to have a less‐than‐significant VMT impact through screening criteria, to verify the presumption.

In addition to determining when a TIA is required, the Guidelines address the process for preparing the TIA and what items need to be included in it. Finally, the Guidelines define Antioch City Council Report
August 8, 2023 Agenda Item #J 4
the methodology used for the LOS analysis, selection of study intersections , traffic counting protocol, among other topics.

VMT

A project’s impact on transportation is one of the environmental topics reviewed under CEQA. When it is determined that a project may have “significant impacts,” mitigation measures may be required, s uch as changes in project scope and scale, or alternative transportation infrastructure. In 2018, OPR issued guidance for how cities should implement VMT, including determining what is a significant impact regarding VMT. In developing the VMT criteria, sta ff maintained OPR’s recommended thresholds of significance, believing this was the most legally defensible approach. These thresholds of significance are:

• For residential projects, a project would cause substantial additional VMT if it exceeds 85 percent of existing citywide household VMT per capita. • For office projects, a project would cause substantial additional VMT if it exceeds 85 percent of the existing countywide VMT per employee. • For regional retail projects a project would cause substantial additional VMT if it exceeds 85 percent of the baseline Bay Area total VMT per service population. • Mixed-Use Projects – shall be divided into their individual constituent parts and evaluated against their individual components’ standards.

In addition to identif ying thresholds of significance, the Guidelines outline screening criteria that may be used to identify types, characteristics, and/or locations of land use projects that would not exceed these VMT thresholds of significance. If a project or components of the project meet any of the screening criteria, then it is presumed VMT impacts would be less than significant for the project or component of the project and a detailed VMT analysis is not required. The screening criteria are broken into three parts , each defining categories of projects that may be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT : project type, low VMT area screening, and proximity to transit. For example, under the project type criterium, a small scale, local -serving retail project is assumed to not generate a significant impact because these projects attract trips that would have otherwise travelled farther away to reach a similar destination.

If a project is determined to not fall into any of the screening criteria, then a full VMT assessment will be required. The Guidelines describe the process of using the Contra Costa Trans portation Authority’s model to determine if a significant VMT impact is present. If a significant impact is found, the Guidelines include mitigation measures that can be adopted to mitigate the VMT impacts. The Guidelines are consistent with the required C EQA methodology of studying a project to see if the project will generate significant impacts, and, if so, developing mitigation measures in an attempt to mitigate those impacts to be within acceptable parameters.

Antioch City Council Report
August 8, 2023 Agenda Item #J 5
Conclusion

Adopting the Guidelines allows the City to comply with State law and provide established and consistent criteria for analyzing impacts of development projects under CEQA and the City’s General Plan. The policy will facilitate the buildout of the General Plan by providing standards from which to evaluate projects.

ENVIRONMENTAL

The Guidelines are exempt from CEQA under Section 15061(b)(3), the “Common Sense” Exemption. This exemption can be used when it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. The Guidelines provide standards and procedures for transportation review does not authorize or approve any actual changes in the physical environment. Based on the above information, the Guidelines are exempt from CEQA under the “Common Sense” Exemption.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution adopting the adopting the Transportation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact Analysis Guidelines

Exhibit A: Transportation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact Analysis Guidelines

ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2023/**

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANTIOCH

ADOPTING THE TRANSPORTATION AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED

IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
WHEREAS, Senate Bill ("SB") 743, enacted in 2013 and codified in Public Resources Code section 21099, required changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (“ CEQA”) Guidelines regarding the criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects;
WHEREAS, in 2018, the Governor' s Office of Planning and Research ( “OPR") proposed, and the California Natural Resources Agency adopted, CEQA Guidelines section 15064. 3 that identifies vehicle miles traveled (“VMT")— meaning the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project —as the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project' s transportation impacts under CEQA; WHEREAS, as a result, OPR has determined that automobile delay, as measured by "level of service" and othe r similar metrics, is no longer an appropriate metric for evaluating a project's environmental impacts under CEQA; WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines section 15064. 3 became effective on July 1, 2020; WHEREAS, the City has analyzed and drafted appropriate VMT thresholds of significance, considering local conditions and guidance from OPR and is supported by substantial evidence;
WHEREAS, the City also analyzed and drafted appropriate transportation impact analysis criteria based on the General Plan’s policies and considering local conditions; WHEREAS, the Transportation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact Analysis Guidelines contain the VMT and transportation impact analysis guidelines drafted by the City;
WHEREAS, the Transportation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact Analysis Guidelines is not considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act under the common sense exemption (CEQA Guidelines 150361(b)(3)) because it will not have a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change or effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public meeting on August 8, 2023, considered all public comments received, the presentation by City staff, the staff report, and all other pertinent documents regarding the proposed request.

A1
RESOLUTION NO. 2023/**
August 8, 2023

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Antioch hereby approves Transportation and Vehicle Miles Traveled Impact Analysis Guidelines attached hereto as Exhibit A.
* * * * * * *
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Antioch at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 8th day of August 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
_____________________________________

ELIZABETH HOUSEHOLDER

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANTIOCH
A2
City of Antioch
Transportation and
VMT Impact Analysis
Guidelines
June 2023
A3

EXHIBIT A
Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 SB 743 and the Updated CEQA Guidelines ................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis and Local Transportation Assessment ............................................. 3

1.2.1 Local Transportation Analysis (Non-CEQA Analysis) .................................................................................. 3

2.0 Developing the Scope of Work ............................................................................................. 5

2.1 Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) ............................................................................................................................ 5

2.2 Focused Transportation Memorandum ....................................................................................................................... 5

2.3 Traffic Scoping Memorandum ......................................................................................................................................... 5

3.0 Transportation Impact Study Format ................................................................................... 7

4.0 Local Transportation Analysis (Non-CEQA Assessment) .................................................. 10

4.1 Level of Service Analysis...................................................................................................................................................10

4.1.1 LOS Analysis Methodologies ..............................................................................................................................10

4.1.2 Queuing Assessment .............................................................................................................................................11

4.1.3 Selection of Study Intersections ........................................................................................................................11

4.1.4 Traffic Counting Protocol .....................................................................................................................................11

4.2 Level of Service Policies ....................................................................................................................................................12

4.2.1 Operational Thresholds ........................................................................................................................................13

4.2.2 Operational Improvements .................................................................................................................................14

4.3 Analysis Scenarios...............................................................................................................................................................14

4.4 Project Assessment ............................................................................................................................................................15

4.4.1 Trip Generation ........................................................................................................................................................15

4.4.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment ....................................................................................................................16

4.5 Other Analyses .....................................................................................................................................................................17

4.5.1 Site Plan Review .......................................................................................................................................................17

5.0 CEQA Assessment .................................................................................................................. 18

5.1 CEQA Significance Criteria ..............................................................................................................................................18

5.2 VMT Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................18

5.2.1 VMT Thresholds of Significance ........................................................................................................................18

5.2.2 Project VMT Screening .........................................................................................................................................19

5.2.3 VMT Assessment for Non-Screened Development ...................................................................................21

5.2.4 VMT Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................................................................22 A4

5.3 Other Environmental Considerations ..........................................................................................................................26 A5

City of Antioch TIA Guidelines 1

1.0 Introduction
The purpose of these Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines is to establish general procedures and requirements for the preparation of transportation impact studies for development projects within the City of Antioch. In general, they are designed for use by transportation engineering and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) professionals because of their technical contents. The term “guideline” is important in that the City recognizes that every project and study context is unique. The guidelines are intended as a checklist for study preparers to be sure that all required study items are included. They establish a uniform approach, methodology, and tool set to evaluate the effects of land use decisions and related transportation projects on the City transportation system. They are not intended to eliminate professional judgment or creativity. However, the need for and final scope of a TIA shall be determined by the City of Antioch. This is intended to be a “living document” and will be updated periodically to reflect newly acquired data and relevant policies.

The primary objectives of these guidelines are to provide:
• Guidance in determining if and when a Transportation Impact Analysis is needed; • Consistency and uniformity in the identification of transportation impacts of proposed land uses; • An early guidance to establish assumptions, data requirements, study scenarios and analysis methodologies prior to beginning the TIA; and
• Early coordination during the planning phases of a project to facilitate the preparation of a TIA .

These guidelines are intended to ensure that a TIA will address the potential effects of a proposed development on the transportation system of the City, giving sufficient attention to all modes of travel, in accordance with the goals of the City’s General Plan. Note that these are only guidelines, and the information provided herein does not constitute a complete scope of work for any particular transportation analysis. The guidelines provide a broad overview of analysis procedures, while a tailored scope of work is required to match the size and complexity of transportation issues associated with a particular project. The City Engineer, under the authority of the Public Works Director and recommendations from the Traffic Engineer, will make the final decision on the need for a transportation study.

1.1 SB 743 and the Updated CEQA Guidelines
Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), signed by the Governor in 2013, changed the way transportation impacts are identified. Specifically, the legislation directed the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to consider different metrics for identifying transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act .

OPR finalized updates to the CEQA Guidelines in December 2018; the updated CEQA Guidelines identify vehicle miles of travel (VMT) as the preferred transportation impact metric. The updated CEQA Guidelines state that, as of July 2020, all lead agencies must use VMT as the new transportation metric for identifying impacts of land use projects.

A6

City of Antioch TIA Guidelines
June 2023
2 The updated CEQA guidelines include revised Appendix G Checklist questions for transportation impact evaluation. The four questions are:

Would the project:

1. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including public transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

2. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

3. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?

4. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Question 2 is the implementation of the SB 743 requirement. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b) reads, in part, as follows:
(1) Land Use Projects. Vehicle-miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.

(2) Transportation Projects. Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152.

(3) Qualitative Analysis. If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the vehicle miles traveled for the particular project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the project’s vehicle miles traveled qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc. For many projects, a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be appropriate.

(4) Methodology. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.

A7

City of Antioch TIA Guidelines 3

1.2 CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis and Local Transportation Assessment
One of the fundamental roles of government agencies is the construction and maintenance of public infrastructure facilities including roadways, rail and bus facilities, bicycle and pedestrian inf rastructure, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, stormwater treatment facilities, parks, and other public facilities. When private development occurs, it is the responsibility of government to ensure that there are adequate public facilities to serve incremental population and employment growth. For the transportation system, one way to address this issue has been the preparation of a Transportation Impact Analysis.

For the past several decades, the preparation of a TIA within the City of Antioch was integ rated into the CEQA process, in which the TIA was used primarily to analyze a project’s impacts under CEQA. However, with the passage of SB 743, changes to this process are necessary. Specifically, a TIA may need to be prepared as a stand-alone document, as part of the project approval process, including information for the decision makers that is not required as part of the CEQA process (e.g. Level of Service assessments).

The purpose of this TIA Guidelines document is to provide instructions for analyzing the potential transportation impacts of proposed development projects, for purposes of both the CEQA and non-CEQA transportation evaluations. These guidelines present the recommended methodology that should generally be utilized in the preparation of TIAs. These recommendations are general guidelines, and the City of Antioch may modify the TIA requirements based on the unique characteristics of a particular project.

1.2.1 Local Transportation Analysis (Non-CEQA Analysis) SB 743 does not prevent a city from continuing to analyze delay or Level of Service (LOS) outside of CEQA review for other transportation planning or analysis purposes (i.e., general plans, impact fee programs, corridor studies, congestion mitigation, or ongoing network monitoring); but these metrics may no longer constitute the sole basis for CEQA impacts. If a project is required to prepare a CEQA traffic analysis, or if the project is anticipated to generate 50 or more peak hour trips, then a local transportation analysis will be required, however, the City retains the discretion to require a local transportation analysis be prepared for any project.

The City’s General Plan has a standard of LOS D or better, with exception to regional commercial portions of the Antioch Planning Area in which intersections within 1,000 feet of a freeway interchange may have a low LOS E (volume-to-capacity ratio between 0.90-0.94). Residential and commercial portions of the Rivertown Focus Area and freeway interchanges may have a high LOS D (v/c ratio of 0.85 to 0.89).

Residential and arterial roadways in non-Regional Commercial areas may have a mid-range LOS D (v/c ratio of 0.83 to 0.87).

LOS can continue to be assessed relative to this standard during development review, to promote the City’s interest in maintaining and operating a functional roadway network. However, assessment of a development project’s effect on intersection level of service must be conducted outside the CEQA process. The assessment can be performed as part of a General Plan consistency assessment. City A8

City of Antioch TIA Guidelines
June 2023
4 planning and traffic engineering staff will define the scope and methodology for project -level of service analysis as part of the development review process.

A9

City of Antioch TIA Guidelines 5

2.0 Developing the Scope of Work
A transportation impact analysis will be required by the City to assess the transportation effects of development projects on the existing and/or planned street system under the conditions described below.

2.1 Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA)

1. Projects that do not meet any of the Vehicle Miles Traveled screening criteria outlined in section

5.2.2 of these guidelines.

2. When project-generated traffic is expected to be greater than 100 vehicle trips during the morning or evening peak hour.

3. When a project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) that changes the land use or is expected to generate greater than 50 vehicle trips affecting an intersection of Circulation Element Roadways during the morning or evening peak hour.

2.2 Focused Transportation Memorandum
The City may require a focused transportation memorandum in lieu of a full transportation analysis under any of the following circumstances:
• When project traffic will affect an intersection or roadway segment where there are known traffic concerns in the vicinity of the project site.
• Any project that contains a “drive through” function. • W
hen the project will substantially change the off-s
ite transportation system or result in diversion
of traffic to other routes, including physical changes such as street closures or access restrictions, lane reductions, new traffic signals or stop signs, disruption of sidewalk or bikeway continuity or safety, relocation or obstruction of transit stops, etc. • W
hen the project produces fewer than 100 morning or evening peak hour trips. • W
hen the project is within 1,000 feet of a freeway on
-r
amp.
• W
hen the proposed project may be presumed to have a less-t han-s
ignificant VMT impact
through screening criteria, but the presumption needs to be verified.

T
he scope of the focused traffic memorandum would be reviewed by City staff, but at minimum should show that the project would not result in any significant effect on any transportation facility or mode.

2.3 Traffic Scoping Memorandum
Prior to the initiation of the preparation of a full Transportation Impact Analysis or Focused Transportation Memorandum, a Traffic Scoping Memorandum shall be prepared and submitted to City staff for approval.

The Traffic Scoping Memorandum should detail the proposed scope of work and include the following elements:
(1) Brief Project Description
(2) CEQA VMT Assessment
A10

City of Antioch TIA Guidelines
June 2023
6 a. VMT Screening Criteria Check
b. Provision of Average VMT Values
i. Antioch average VMT/resident or VMT/employee, whichever is appropriate. ii. Contra Costa County average VMT/employee
iii. Applicable VMT for the project’s Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) c. Trip Generation using the latest edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual or other appropriate source
i. Land Use Type
ii. Daily Rate and Daily Trip Generation Estimate
iii. AM and PM peak hour rates and estimated trip generation iv. Pass-By and Diverted-Linked Trip Estimates
d. Trip Distribution
e. List of Proposed Study Intersections
f. Proposed Analysis Scenarios
i. Land use assumptions
ii. Roadway network Assumptions
A11

City of Antioch TIA Guidelines 7

3.0 Transportation Impact Study
Format
The content and level of analysis necessary to evaluate a project will vary and are dependent on the scope of land use proposal and location within the city. All transportation impact studies will be generally organized and contain the information provided in the following outline. Additional study elements may be required by the City Traffic Engineer.

1. Executive Summary
a. Project Description and Analysis Parameters
b. Key Findings and Recommendations
i. CEQA Findings and Recommendations
ii. Local Transportation Analysis (Non-CEQA) Findings and Recommendations

2. Introduction
a. Study Purpose
b. Project Description
c. Site Location and Study Area Boundaries
d. Analysis Scenarios
e. Analysis Methods
f. Regulatory Setting – Applicable Plans and Policies
g. Significance Criteria

3. Project Characteristics
a. Project Description
b. Project Trip Generation
c. Project Trips Distribution and Assignment

4. Site Plan Review
a. Vehicular Circulation
i. On-Site Queuing and Storage Assessment
b. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
c. Emergency Vehicle Access
d. Transit Facilities
e. Parking
i. City Code Requirements
ii. Parking Demand

5. Existing Conditions
a. Existing Roadway System
A12

City of Antioch TIA Guidelines
June 2023
8 b. Existing Pedestrian Facilities
c. Existing Bicycle Facilities
d. Existing Transit Service
e. Existing Traffic Counts
f. Existing Operations Assessment
g. Existing Queuing Analysis

6. Existing with Project Conditions
a. Existing with Project Traffic Volumes
b. Analysis of Existing with Project Conditions
i. Intersection Operations Assessment
ii. Queuing Assessment
iii. Signal Warrants

7. Near-Term Traffic Conditions (5 years)
a. Near-Term Roadway Assumptions
b. Approved and Pending Near-Term Projects
c. Near-Term Traffic Forecasts
d. Analysis of Near-Term Conditions
i. Intersection Operations Assessment
ii. Queuing Assessment
iii. Signal Warrants

8. Cumulative Traffic Conditions
a. Cumulative Roadway Assumptions
b. Cumulative Traffic Forecasts
c. Analysis of Cumulative Conditions
i. Intersection Operations Assessment
ii. Queuing Assessment
iii. Signal Warrants

9. Environmental Assessment (CEQA)
a. Vehicle Miles Traveled
i. VMT Screening Review
ii. Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment
iii. VMT Reductions, if applicable
b. Pedestrian System Impacts
c. Bicycle System Impacts
d. Transit System Impacts
e. Emergency Vehicle Access Impacts
f. Vehicular Circulation/Hazardous Features

10. Summary of Findings
A13

City of Antioch TIA Guidelines 9

11. Appendix
a. Traffic Counts
b. Intersection Operations Calculations
c. Traffic Signal Warrant Calculations
A14

City of Antioch TIA Guidelines
June 2023
10 4.0 Local Transportation Analysis
(Non-CEQA Assessment)

4.1 Level of Service Analysis
When evaluating the impacts of development projects on the performance of the City’s transportation facilities, the City applies operational standards to ensure the levels of growth and development provided in the City’s General Plan Land Use Element are sufficiently accommodated.

4.1.1 LOS Analysis Methodologies
The method used for evaluating Level of Service (LOS) at signalized and unsignalized intersections shall be the method defined in the latest version of the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), unless directed otherwise by the City. This method bases intersection operations on the average vehicular control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move -up time, stopped delay, and acceleration delay. The average delay for intersections should be calculated using the latest version of Synchro analysis software (Trafficware), unless directed otherwise by the city.

Roundabout intersections should be analyzed using the latest version of the SIDRA Intersection software (SIDRA Solutions). Freeway mainline segment LOS and ramp junction LOS shall be analyzed using the latest HCM operational analysis consistent with Caltrans’ Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines.

4.1.1.1 Intersection Operational Analysis Assumptions
In general, the operations analysis at study intersections should utilize data and information collected in the field. Where field data is unavailable, default values presented in the latest version of the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual may be used with City staff approval. Unless otherwise directed by City staff, the following shall be used in operational analysis:
• P eak Hour Factors – existing conditions assessments shall incorporate peak hour factors from traffic counts. Future year conditions shall use a default factor of 0.95, or lower based on engineering judgement.

• H eavy Vehicle Percentages – should be based on counts.

• Sp eed Limits – from field observations.

• Sig nal Timings – should be obtained from Caltrans or City staff as appropriate. Where signal timing cards are not available, timing and phasing can be collected in the field.

If an intersection’s geometry, phasing, or timing is not compatible with the latest version of the T
ransportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual, an alternative methodology may be employed. The TIA should describe the methodology used and its appropriateness for the condition.

A15

City of Antioch TIA Guidelines 11

4.1.2 Queuing Assessment
Using the latest versions of the Simtraffic (Trafficware) and SIDRA (SIDRA Solutions) intersection analysis software, 95th percentile queue lengths will be reported for approach lanes to study intersections. Where the addition of project traffic is found to increase queue lengths at locations wherein the available storage is exceeded, improvement measures will be developed and proposed.

4.1.3 Selection of Study Intersections
The scope of the transportation analysis shall include the following intersections:
• All intersections adjacent to the project site;
• All proposed driveways and/or access points to the existing roadway network from the project site;
• All signalized or all-way stop controlled intersections at which the project may result in a violation of City LOS policy; and
• All side-street stop-controlled intersection(s) at which the project may result in a violation of City LOS policy.

Study intersections should be selected without consideration of jurisdictional boundaries. Additional study intersections may be selected after City staff has reviewed the trip generation, distribution, and assignment of a proposed project.

4.1.4 Traffic Counting Protocol
Traffic counts shall be conducted as follows:

1. Three-hour peak period counts of vehicles, pedestrians, heavy vehicles, and bicyclists are required for all study intersections. Typical analysis will include both weekday morning (6a.m. - 9a.m.) and evening (4p.m. - 7p.m.) peak periods, unless otherwise directed by the City. Counts shall be recorded at 5-minute or 15-minute intervals, tallied by turning movement for vehicles and bicyclists and by crossing leg for pedestrians.

2. During Fair Weather – Counts should be conducted in fair weather, without rain, flooding, heavy winds, or other adverse weather conditions that could disrupt the flow of traffic.

3. Counts shall be conducted on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday of a non-holiday week when public schools are in session.

4. Typical School Day – Counts should be taken on typical school days avoiding half days, late start days and early-dismissal days whenever possible. Note that currently City of Antioch schools operate on early-dismissal schedules on Wednesdays.

5. No Major Road Closings – If temporary road closings have occurred that affect traffic flow at the count location, the count should be postponed until the road is re-opened. If the road closing is to be for an extended period, and a count needs to be conducted, the count results should be A16

City of Antioch TIA Guidelines
June 2023
12 annotated to reflect the road closure conditions.

6. No Construction Activity – Counts should not be conducted in the presence of construction activity that could disrupt the arrival or departure of traffic at the count location.

7. No Collisions or Special Events – If a collision or special event the vicinity of the count location, or if such an event occurs during the count, the count should be discarded, and repeated at a later date.

4.1.4.1 Field Observations
The transportation consultant should observe each study intersection during peak hours of analysis and document their field observations. This should note the following:
• Field observations of delay match calculated delay
• Freeway ramp effects on local streets, including ramp meter spillback • Uneven lane demand and usage
• P
resence and effect of on
-s
treet parking
• P
edestrian and bicycle safety issues
• Transit routes and location of transit stops
• C
ut-t
hrough traffic in neighborhoods
• Sig
ht distance issues
• Intersection saturation that may explain low peak period traffic counts • Queuing and storage length
• Issues affecting transit operations
• Truck routes

4.2 Level of Service Policies
Although not a CEQA metric, intersection levels of service are required to be assessed for General Plan compliance and to identify potential transportation improvements that could be implemented as part of the project to improve the overall operations of the transportation system for all travel modes. The City of Antioch strives to maintain level of service D operations for signalized intersections, unless other standards are adopted by CCTA or other regional agency.

The project could have a noticeable effect on local and regional travel if it would:
• Cause an increase in traffic which is s ubstantial in relation to the traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, or delay and congestion at intersections) or
• Change the condition of an existing street (e.g., stree t closures, changing direction of travel) in a manner that would substantially change access or traffic load and capacity of the street system.

A17

City of Antioch TIA Guidelines 13

4.2.1 Operational Thresholds
Recommendations will be designed to enhance mobility for all travel modes, including transit vehicles, without degrading or precluding the provision of planned bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities.

4.2.1.1 Intersection Level of Service Thresholds
Intersection or roadway improvements shall be recommended if project-generated traffic causes existing or planned facilities' traffic operations to deteriorate from acceptable levels to below the thresholds described in Table 1.

TABLE 1: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS
Control Type LOS Standard
On Route of Regional Significance
Signalized Intersection Conditions decline from LOS high-D (an average delay of 55 seconds for signalized intersections) or better to LOS E or F, based on the HCM LOS method, with the addition of project traffic.

Signalized Intersection Would the project deteriorate already unacceptable operations by adding three or more seconds of vehicle delay by adding traffic.

Unsignalized Intersection
Would the operations of an unsignalized study intersection decline from acceptable to unacceptable with the addition of project traffic (i.e. LOS D to E or F) with traffic signal warrants being met.

Not on Route of Regional Significance
Signalized Intersection
Conditions decline from LOS Low-E (an average delay of 65 seconds for signalized intersections) or better to a high- LOS E or F, based on the HCM LOS method, with the addition of project traffic for intersections within 1,000 feet of a freeway interchange.

Signalized Intersection Conditions decline from LOS high-D (an average delay of 55 seconds for signalized intersections) or better to a LOS E or F, based on the HCM LOS method.

Signalized Intersection
Conditions decline from LOS mid-D (an average delay of 50 seconds for signalized intersections) or better to a high-LOS D, LOS E or F, based on the HCM LOS method, with the addition of project traffic for residential and arterial roadways in non-regional commercial areas.

Signalized Intersection Would the project deteriorate already unacceptable operations by adding three or more seconds of vehicle delay at a signalized intersection by adding traffic.

Unsignalized Intersection
Would the operations of an unsignalized study intersection decline from acceptable to unacceptable with the addition of project traffic (i.e. LOS D to E or F) with traffic signal warrants being met.

For the Caltrans freeway facilities, the operational standards and significance criteria are established by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) acting as the designated Congestion Management Agency (CMA) representing the jurisdictions of Contra Costa County. As the acting CMA, the CCTA establishes the traffic LOS standards for all state highway facilities in Contra Costa County, which supersede the general Caltrans operational standard for all state highways. 1

1 2013 Contra Costa Congestion Management Plan, Contra Costa County Authority, Walnut Creek, CA, 94598, December 19, 2013.

A18

City of Antioch TIA Guidelines
June 2023
14 4.2.1.2 Queuing Thresholds
Where the addition of project traffic is found to increase 95th percentile queue lengths at locations wherein the available storage is exceeded, improvement measures will be developed and proposed.

4.2.2 Operational Improvements
The traffic analysis must recommend appropriate treatments for the transportation system to offset operational deficiencies that are found to have exceeded operational standards for the City of Antioch.

Furthermore, as appropriate, the traffic analysis must disclose any secondary operational deficiencies that the proposed treatments could generate. For example, the secondary operational deficiency generated b y adding approach lanes to an intersection could include an increase in pedestrian crossing time. The project should pay their proportionate share of improvements that would provide acceptable operations.

In addition, projects are required to participate in the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Finance Authority (ECCRFFA) regional fee program as appropriate.

4.3 Analysis Scenarios
The transportation operations analysis shall include the following scenarios:

1. Existing Conditions – This scenario evaluates transportation facilities based on volumes, lane geometry and traffic controls at the time of analysis. Where existing traffic volumes are demonstrated to be substantially below recent historical counts, the recent historical counts may be more appropriate to use for the existing conditions and for forecasting purposes to represent a sufficiently conservative estimate of "typical" conditions. The city will confirm the use of traffic counts through feedback on the Traffic Scoping Memorandum produced by the traffic consultant .

2. Existing plus Project Conditions – Existing Conditions with the addition of traffic from the proposed project.

3. Near-term Conditions – Existing Conditions with the addition of trips added by the buildout of approved and planned projects in the study area expected to be complete in the next 5 years.

Traffic volume growth rate for Near-Term conditions shall be approved by the City through the Traffic Scoping Memorandum.

4. Near-term plus Project Conditions – Near-term Conditions with the addition of traffic from the proposed project.

5. Cumulative Conditions – This scenario evaluates horizon year conditions with the implementation of all approved land use changes and any development that is consistent with the General Plan and expected to occur within the time frame of the project. It will also include transportation projects programmed for implementation prior to the horizon year and any programmed capital improvements. Unless otherwise directed by the city, cumulative forecasts should be developed using the latest available version of the CCTA travel demand model , accessible from the CCTA.

A19

City of Antioch TIA Guidelines 15

6. Cumulative plus Project Conditions – Cumulative Conditions with the addition of traffic from the proposed project.

4.4 Project Assessment
The TIA should include a detailed description of the project, including factors which quantify traffic generation, (e.g., dwelling units, square feet of office space, persons to be employed, restaurant seats ). A detailed site plan shall be provided that includes access, circulation, parking, and loading as applicable.

The project description should include the following information:

1. Site Location. Location of the project site, address, and cross streets; information regarding the project site's lot area, existing and proposed zoning.

2. Building Area/Project Density. Existing and proposed total gross square footage for each land use type and the number of units for residential uses, including the net changes for each type of use.

3. Employees. Existing and proposed estimated number of employees and/or dwelling units by type of use, including net changes.

4. Of
f-Street Parking. Existing and proposed number of off
-s
treet parking spaces and whether any
on-s
treet or off-street parking spaces will be removed.

5. I
ngress/Egress. Figure identifying parking spaces, the proposed egress and ingress to the parking garage or lot, the circulation pattern within the parking facility and the number and location of parking spaces for the disabled (accessible parking spaces).

6. Lo
ading Spaces. Existing and proposed number of off-s
treet and on-s
treet freight loading spaces
as well as any proposed changes affecting on-s
treet loading spaces.

7. S
ite Circulation. Detailed plans showing vehicular and pedestrian site access, including location of curb cuts for both existing and proposed uses, and internal vehicular circulation, presented in standard architectural or engineering scale.

8. Lo
ading/Trash Storage. Figure showing the location, dimensions and access to the off -s
treet
freight loading spaces as well as the on-s
ite location for trash and garbage storage.

9. B
icycle Parking. Identification of the location, number, type of bicycle parking spaces provided, and proposed primary access.

4.4.1 Trip Generation
Trip generation refers to the process of estimating the amount of vehicular traffic a project would add to the surrounding roadway system. Trip generation estimates shall be developed using the latest version of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. Trips should be calculated using the weighted average rates or rates from the regression equations as determined according to the guidelines in the ITE Trip Generation Manual.

Special consideration should be given for ITE rates based on antiquated data or a small sample, which may require use of other data sources or additional data collection to determine the appropriate trip generation. (Local trip generation surveys may be required if the project site is not compatible with any ITE land use codes, the land use code has fewer than five data points, the project size does not fall within A20

City of Antioch TIA Guidelines
June 2023
16 the range of ITE study site, or standard deviation is greater than 110 percent of the weighte d average rate).

O
ther trip generation rates may be approved by the city due to unique characteristics of a proposed project. In cases where the published ITE trip generation rates are based on very limited data, rates shall be verified through alternative source documents or local peak-period field observations of similar uses.

When ITE data is not available or if the available ITE categories are inadequate for a specific project, trips may be determined using other references such as the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) publications and other reputable sources, if approved by the City. Appropriate supporting information is required for the use of these other non-IT
E or SANDAG data sources.

Ne
w rates may be determined from similar land uses in the community for uses not updated or included in the ITE Trip Generation Manual or other acceptable data sources, subject to receipt of documentation acceptable to City staff. Local trip generation studies should follow the procedures prescribed in the ITE Trip Generation Manual.

4.4.1.1 Other Trip Generation Adjustments
The city may consider the following adjustments to trip generation if appropriate:

1. Trips generated by existing uses at the project site to be removed are already included in existing transportation counts and thus may be subtracted from the total project trip generation. A trip generation survey of the existing site is generally required for claiming this trip reduction and the results of the survey shall determine the reduction; however, ITE Trip Generation analysis may be substituted for a survey subject to the approval of City transportation staff. If the existing and proposed site differs by land uses and/or access points, existing trips shall be distributed and reassigned separately to the network as both positive and negative trips.

2. Pass-by, diverted, and linked trips are created by intermediate stops on a through trip. Pass-by trips are trips present on adjacent roadway facilities under existing conditions that enter the project site and then exit in the same direction of travel. They are attracted to the land use – typically service stations, fast food restaurants, and convenience stores – from an adjacent roadway with direct access to the project site. Diverted and linked trips are existing trips on nearby roadways that will divert from their existing routes to access the project site, typically larger retail development. These trips change existing through movements to turning movements or vice versa at nearby intersections. The latest edition of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook shall be used as the starting point to determine these reductions. Pass-by trip reductions shall only be applied to shopping centers greater than 10,000 square feet, gas stations, fast food restaurants, and convenience stores. Use of this reduction requires justification of the percent reduction based on existing volumes and an analysis of turning movements to and from the project driveways.

4.4.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment
Project trip distribution refers to the directions of approach and departure that vehicles would take to access and leave the site. A figure illustrating the percentage of peak hour project -g
enerated traffic going
to and from various destinations along the transportation network shall be included in the TIA. Trip A21

City of Antioch TIA Guidelines 17
distribution shall be based on the proposed land use, existing travel patterns, site access to major corridors, relative locations of complementary land uses, and model runs of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority travel demand model. Typically, CCTA model runs should only be used for a general trip distribution to and from the north, south, east, and west. Project trips should then be manually assigned to the driveways, intersections, and roadway segments according to the trip distribution, and account for any turning movement restrictions or other relevant roadway characteristics including relative level of congestion on available route options. The model should not be relied on for project trip assignment.

A preliminary trip distribution pattern should be submitted in the proposed project scope for review and approval by City staff. Trip distribution may be further refined after consultation with City staff, even after a transportation analysis work scope is agreed upon.

A
figure illustrating the assignment of peak hour project-o nly trips at the driveways, study intersections,
and roadway segments based on the trip distribution shall be included in the TIA. If the trip distribution is different between existing, near-t
erm, and cumulative conditions, a figure shall be provided for each different trip distribution and/or assignment with supporting discussion and justification. All assumptions shall have proper citation and justification for their use in the TIA. The trip distribution and assignment assumptions shall be submitted with the work scope for review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer, which the consultant should obtain before proceeding with subsequent traffic analysis.

4.5 Other Analyses
The following assessments should be included in the TIA as appropriate and directed by city staff.

4.5.1 Site Plan Review
The TIA will review and evaluate the site plan for the proposed project to ensure safe and efficient circulation of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians through the project site and on the roadways adjacent to the project site. The site plan review section will include evaluations of the following:

1. Site access and interface with roadway network including adequacy of turn- pocket lengths, driveway throat lengths, sight distance and level of service

2. Vehicular circulation and internal intersection operations

3. Emergency vehicle access and circulation

4. Pedestrian access and circulation within and adjacent to the site

5. Bicycle access and circulation within and adjacent to the site

6. Transit and shuttle vehicle circulation within and adjacent to the site

7. Pedestrian access to and from transit stops

8. Truck circulation and loading dock access

9. Level of parking supply in relation to code requirements and expected demand

10. Construction traffic evaluation and phasing (in the city’s right-of-way)

11. Bicycle parking

A22

City of Antioch TIA Guidelines
June 2023
18 5.0 CEQA Assessment

5.1 CEQA Significance Criteria
A project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would:

1. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance , or policy addressing the circulation system, including public transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

2. Conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

3. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment).

4. Result in inadequate emergency access.

CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) details the requirements regarding the implementation of SB 743 and the use of VMT in the assessment of transportation impacts.

5.2 VMT Analysis
A key element of SB 743, signed in 2013, is the elimination of automobile delay and LOS as the sole basis of determining CEQA impacts. The most recent CEQA guidelines, released in December 2018, recommend VMT as the most appropriate measure of project transportation impacts. However, SB 743 does not prevent a city from continuing to analyze delay or LOS as part of other plans (i.e., the general plan), studies, or ongoing network monitoring. These guidelines provide technical guidance regarding the assessment of VMT, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures for land development and transportation projects within the City of Antioch.

5.2.1 VMT Thresholds of Significance
The following are thresholds of significance related to substantial additional VMT:
• For residential projects, a project would cause substantial additional VMT if it exceeds 85 percent of existing citywide household VMT per capita.
• For office projects, a project would cause substantial additional VMT if it exceeds 85 percent of the existing countywide VMT per employee.
• For regional retail projects a project would cause substantial additional VMT if it exceeds 85 percent of the baseline Bay Area total VMT per service population. • Mixed-Use Projects – shall be divided into their individual constituent parts and evaluated against their individual components’ standards.

Additional guidance is provided below regarding review of other types of land uses.

A23

City of Antioch TIA Guidelines 19

5.2.2 Project VMT Screening
The following screening criteria may be used to identify types, characteristics, and/or locations of land use projects that would not exceed these VMT thresholds of significance. If a project or components of the project meet any of the below screening criteria, then it is presumed VMT impacts would be less than significant for the project or component of the project and a detailed VMT analysis is not required. It should be noted that City staff may deny the use of screening criteria if substantial evidence suggests that the project is not appropriate for screening.

There are three key screening criteria for projects: project type, project location in a low-VMT area, and project location near transit stations. A project only needs to meet one of the three screening criteria:

Project Type, Low VMT Area, or Proximity to Transit to be screened out. Projects that do not meet any of the identified screening criteria are required to conduct a detailed VMT assessment.

Screening Criteria 1: Project Type
Absent substantial evidence indicating that a project would generate a potentially significant level of VMT, the following types of projects should be expected to cause a less-than-significant impact under CEQA and would not require further VMT analysis.
• Small Projects: Small projects generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day. Based on research for small project triggers, this may equate to non-residential projects of 10,000 square feet or less and single-family residential projects of 10 units or less (or approximately 16 multi-family units), or otherwise generating less than 836 VMT per day.
• Small Scale, Local-Serving Retail: Local-serving retail projects are defined as projects of less than 50,000 square feet in size on the basis that they attract trips that would otherwise travel longer distances. Local-serving retail generally improves the convenience of shopping and other activities close to home and has the effect of reducing vehicle travel. • Affordable Housing: Projects that provide affordable housing can be presumed to have a less than-significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. This exemption only applies t
o projects that provide 100% affordable housing.
• Public services: Police stations, fire stations, public utilities, and parks do not generally generate VMT. Instead, these land uses are often built in response to development from other land uses (e.g., office and residential). Therefore, these land uses can be presumed to have less-than- significant impacts on VMT. However, this presumption would not apply if the project is sited in a location that would require employees or visitors to travel substantial distances and the project is not located within ½ mile of a major transit stop or does not meet the small project screening criterion.

Screening Criteria 2: Low VMT Area Screening
Re
sidential and employment-gen
erating projects located within a low-VMT generating area of the city (i.e., lower than baseline average levels, based on the significance thresholds in this document) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. For this screening, CCTA’s Travel Demand Model shall be utilized to compare the project’s characteristics to land A24

City of Antioch TIA Guidelines
June 2023
20 uses currently in the low-VM T area and for individual traffic analysis zones (TAZs). TAZs are geographic polygons like census block groups used to represent areas of homogenous travel behavior. For the low VMT area screening to be satisfied, the analyst must verify that the project land uses would not alter the existing built environment in such a way as to increase the rate or length of vehicle trips (e.g. the proposed project is consistent with existing land use in the area, the project would be expected to contribute VMT consistent with existing land use in the area, and the project would not significantly alter travel patterns in the area).

A l
ow VMT area is defined as follows:
• Fo
r housing projects: TAZs that have a baseline home -bas ed VMT per capita that is 85% or less of
the existing City-wi
de average.
• Fo
r employment-ge
nerating projects: TAZs that have baseline home-wor
k VMT per employee that
is 85% or less of the existing countywide average.

To
identify if the project is in a low VMT-ge
nerating area, the analyst may review the screening maps provided as Figure 1 (residential project mapping) and Figure 2 (employment-generating project mapping) attached to this document. Additionally, as noted above, the analyst must identify if the project is consistent with the existing land use (e.g., if the project is proposing single-fam ily housing, there should
be existing single-fa
mily housing of approximately the same density) within that TAZ and use professional judgement that there is nothing unique about the about the project that would otherwise be misrepresented utilizing the data from the travel demand model.

Sc
reening Criteria 3: Proximity to Transit
Projects located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA2) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. This includes residential, retail, office projects, or mixed-use projects proposed within half a mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor. In Antioch, this includes the existing Antioch BART station and the Antioch -

2 A TPA is defined as a half mile area around an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor per the definitions below. The City has discretion to measure the half-mile based on a straight radius or walking routes. The straight radius method will maximize the footprint of the TPA and allow for the greatest amount of potential project screening. Using the walking route method will decrease the land area subject to potential TPA screening but will increase the likelihood that development projects located in this area have a less than 1/2 mile walking distance to the transit station. Academic research has demonstrated that walking distance is an important factor that influences the choice to take transit and thereby reduce VMT. For more background on this, see the following article: http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/20111018UCB- ITS-VWP-2011-

5.pdf).

Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.3 - ‘Major transit stop’ means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.’ Note that this requirement means that both intersecting routes must have the 15-minute or less frequency of service interval.

Pub. Resources Code, § 21155 - For purposes of this section, a ‘high-quality transit corridor’ means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.

A25

City of Antioch TIA Guidelines 21
Pittsburg Amtrak Station. This presumption would not apply, however, if project-specific or location- specific information indicates that the project will still generate significant levels of VMT. For example, the presumption might not be appropriate if the project:

1. Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;

2. Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the projec t than required by the City (if the City requires the project to supply parking);

3. Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy/Plan Bay Area;

4. Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income residential units; or

5. Has a retail component that is greater than 50,000 square feet.

Projects in proximity to an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high -quality transit corridor that do not satisfy all these criteria should prepare a detailed VMT analysis.

5.2.3 VMT Assessment for Non-Screened Development
Projects that do not meet any of the screening criteria above as well as project for which evidence suggests the project is not appropriate for screening should complete a VMT analysis and forecasting through the CCTA model to determine if they have a significant VMT impact. This analysis shall include “project generated VMT” and “project effect VMT” estimates for the project TAZ(s) under the following scenarios:
• Baseline Conditions – This data is available from the CCTA travel demand model; analysts should use caution to ensure that the baseline values calculated are reflective of values at the time that the Notice of Preparation for a project is released (consistent with guidance from OPR). The screening maps also provide the baseline VMT per service population in the City of Antioch.

• Baseline Plus Project - The project land use would be added to the project TAZ or a separate TAZ would be created to contain the project land uses. A full base year model run would be performed and VMT changes must be isolated for the project TAZ and across the full model network. The model output must include reasonableness checks of the production and attraction balancing to ensure the project effect is accurately captured.

• Cumulative No Project– This data is available from the CCTA travel demand model. The cumulative year shall be confirmed with City staff prior to beginning the cumulative analysis. Land use projects are often represented in the assumed growth of the cumulative year population and employment. It may be appropriate to remove land use growth that represents the Project from the cumulative year model to represent the cumulative no project scenario.

• Cumulative Plus Project - The project land use would either be added to the project TAZ or a separate TAZ would be created to contain the project land uses. The addition of project land uses may need to be accompanied by a reallocation of a similar amount of land use from other TAZs; especially if the proposed project is significant in size such that it could change other future A26

City of Antioch TIA Guidelines
June 2023
22 developments. If project land uses are simply added to the cumulative no project scenario, then the analysis should reflect this limitation in the methodology and acknowledge that the analysis may overestimate the project’s effect on VMT.

The model output should include total VMT, which includes all vehicle trips and trip purposes, and VMT per service population (population plus employment), home based VMT per resident for residential, and home-based-work VMT per worker for employment uses. Total VMT (by speed bin) is needed as an input for air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG), and energy impact analysis while total VMT per service population is recommended for transportation impact analysis.

Both Baseline plus Project and Cumulative plus Project scenarios noted above will summarize different types of VMT: (1) project generated VMT per service population, home based VMT per resident for residential, and home-based-work VMT per worker for employment uses and comparing those back to the appropriate benchmark noted in the thresholds of significance, and (2) the project effect on VMT, comparing how the project changes VMT compared to the no project condition.

Project-generated VMT shall be extracted from the travel demand forecasting model using the origin- destination trip matrix and shall multiply that matrix by the final assignment skims . The project-effect on VMT shall be estimated using the appropriate boundary and extracting the total link -level VMT for both the no project and with project condition.

5.2.4 VMT Mitigation Measures
To mitigate VMT impacts, the following general choices are available to projects:

1. Modify the project’s design features and/or land uses to reduce project trips or reduce trip length.

2. Moving the proposed development to a more travel-efficient area (i.e. area with access to high quality transit, or other transportation solutions that reduce the length/number of trips).

3. Implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce VMT generated by the project.

Proposed projects shall utilize the latest version of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (“CAPCOA”) Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures document to estimate the maximum feasible VMT mitigation. However, it should be noted that most of the data used to develop the CAPCO A mitigation strategies are based on projects from urban or relatively dense suburban areas. The effectiveness of VMT mitigations will vary from project to project based on the surrounding land use context, the combination of its uses, and the availability of alternative transportation modes. The proposed project’s transportation impact analysis must quantifiably demonstrate, through the use of reliable calculation tools, proposed VMT mitigations will result in the estimated reductions when applied to the project.

The following VMT mitigation strategies should be considered for the mitigation of project VMT impacts.

Project/Site Level Strategies
A27

City of Antioch TIA Guidelines 23

1. Increase diversity of land uses – This strategy focuses on inclusion of mixed uses within projects or in consideration of the surrounding area to minimize vehicle travel in terms of both the number of trips and the length of those trips. This strategy may not be feasible for smaller projects or projects subject to limited uses due to zoning such as single-family residential uses.

2. Increase density
– This strategy focuses on increasing residential density within projects, which can be associated with lower VMT per capita. Increased residential density in areas with high jobs access may have a greater VMT change than increases in areas with lower jobs access. This measure also applies at the city and community level, with neighborhoods of higher density typically having lower VMT per capita.

3. Increase transit accessibility
– This strategy focuses on ensuring site design favors access to existing or planned transit stations and is commonly referred to as Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). This strategy includes maximizing the amount of developable space within walking distance to transit stations (typically considered a radius of ¼ to ½ mile of a transit station), including a central transit station in the site design, and/or deemphasizing automobile facilities such as vehicle parking, garages, and driveways.

4. Limit par
king supply – This strategy focuses on eliminating or reducing parking requirements, creating maximum parking requirements, and providing shared parking to encourage alternative transportation mode choices by residents and employees. This measure applies to various types of projects such as residential, office, retail, and mixed-use projects in urban or suburban contexts.

5. Unbundle par
king costs – This strategy separates parking costs from property costs removing the burden from those who do not utilize parking spaces and requiring those who wish to do so to purchase parking spaces at an additional cost. This measure has the same applicability as the “Limit Parking Supply” strategy.

6. Encourage telecommuting
– This strategy relies on effective internet access/speeds, flex space, and/or accessory office units for individual project sites/buildings that provide the opportunity for telecommuting. The effectiveness of the strategy depends on the ultimate building tenants; this should be a factor in considering the potential VMT reduction, as tenants may change over time.

7. Provide rid
e-sharing programs – This strategy includes measures such as designating a proportion of parking spaces exclusive to ride sharing vehicles, providing adequate loading, and unloading areas for passengers of ride-sharing vehicles and generating a web site or message board for ride coordination. The focus of this strategy is to increase the vehicle occupancy by ride sharing between people driving similar trips, which will result in fewer cars, and thus a decrease in VMT.

8. Implement su
bsidized or discounted transit program – This strategy focuses on providing daily or monthly transit passes at a discounted cost to encourage participants to change modes from cars to transit, which would reduce VMT. These passes can be subsidized by the employer, school, or development. Revenue from parking can be used to offset the cost of the program.

A28

City of Antioch TIA Guidelines
June 2023
24 9. Provide employer sponsored shuttle – This type of program entails an employer purchasing or leasing vans for employee use, which will provide service to nearby transit stations and surrounding commercial centers. This strategy is appropriate for office, industrial, and mixed -use projects. In some cases, this can be employed as a community strategy with emplo yers within a particular area pooling resources to provide shuttles to transit.

10. Price w orkplace parking – This strategy focuses on pricing parking, so employees consider alternative modes to commute to work. It may include explicitly charging for parking for its employees, implementing above market rate pricing, validating parking only for invited guests, not providing employee parking and transportation allowances, and educating employees about available alternatives.

11. Employee par
king cash out – This strategy requires employers to provide employees with a choice of forgoing current subsidized or free parking for a cash payment equivalent to the cost of the parking space to the employer. This strategy provides an incentive for people who could walk, bike, or take transit to work but choose not to because they receive free parking and have little incentive to use other modes.

City/Community Level Strategies

12. Provide pedestrian network improvements – This strategy focuses on creating a pedestrian network and connecting projects to nearby destinations via pedestrian pathways. Projects in the City of Antioch range in size, so the emphasis of this strategy for smaller projects would likely be the construction of network improvements that connect the project sites directly to nearby destinations. For larger projects, this strategy could focus on the development of a robust pedestrian network within the project itself or closing gaps that could connect the project to other areas. This strategy could also include improvements that improve the safety outcomes for people walking, especially walking to/from transit stops. Alternatively, implementation could occur through an impact fee program or benefit/assessment district based on local or regional plans.

13. Provide traffic calming measures and low-s
tress bicycle network improvements – This strategy
combines the CAPCOA research focused on traffic calming to provide a low-stress bicycle network. Traffic calming creates networks with low vehicle speeds and volumes that are more conducive to walking and bicycling. Implementation options are similar to those for providing pedestrian network improvements. One potential change in this strategy over time is that e -bikes (and e-scooters) could extend the effective range of travel on the bicycle network, which could enhance the effectiveness of this strategy.

14. Implement market price public parking (on-s
treet) – This strategy focuses on implementing a
market-based pricing strategy for on-street parking within central business districts, employment centers, and retail centers to encourage “park once" behavior. This measure deters parking spillover from project supplied parking to other public parking nearby, which undermine the A29

City of Antioch TIA Guidelines 25
vehicle miles traveled benefits of project pricing. It may also generate sufficient area -wide mode shifts to justify increased transit service to the area.

15. I ncrease transit service frequency and speed – This strategy focuses on improving transit service convenience and travel time competitiveness with driving. While the City of Antioch has fixed route rail and bus service that could be enhanced by returning to pre-pandemic service conditions, it is possible that new forms of low-cost, demand-responsive transit service could be provided. Given land use density in Antioch, this strategy may be limited to traditional commuter transit where trips can be pooled at the start and end locations or require new forms of demand - responsive transit service. The demand-responsive service could be provided as subsidized trips by contracting to private transportation network companies (TNCs) or Taxi companies. Note that implementation of this strategy would require regional or local agency implementation, substantial changes to current transit practices, and would not likely be applicable for individual development projects. Additionally, this strategy is only effective in VMT reduction if it includes a pooling element to increase average vehicle occupancy.

16. Implement a car-s
haring program – This strategy reduces the need to own a vehicle or reduces the number of vehicles owned by a household by making it convenient to access a shared vehicle for those trips where vehicle use is essential. Note that implementation of this strategy would require regional or local agency implementation and coordination and would not likely be applicable for individual development projects.

The above list should not be considered exhaustive, an
d projects can propose other TDM measures if
appropriate and desired.

5.2.4.1 VMT Mitigation Measure Effectiveness
An important consideration when combining TDM measures is whether a maximum VMT reduction should be applied based on the land use context. The CAPCOA methodology identifies VMT reduction maximums based on community types tied to land use context. The caps are applied at each step of the VMT reduction calculation (i.e., at the strategy scale, the combined strategy scale, and the global scale).

However, these caps are not based on research related to the effectiveness of VMT reduction strateg ies in different land use contexts. The cap differences are largely based on VMT generation differences within different land use contexts and serves as a proxy for potential limits on VMT reduction strategy effectiveness. For suburban jurisdictions such as Antioch, CAPCOA identifies a global VMT reduction maximum of 15 percent. Table 2 presents a summary of the maximum allowable reductions recommended for individual VMT mitigation measures based on the available research and the City’s local context. For projects adjacent to the City’s BART station, a higher VMT reduction could be realized.

However, it is not expected that projects located adjacent to the BART station would result in a VMT impact that would need to be mitigated.

A30

City of Antioch TIA Guidelines
June 2023
26 TABLE 2: VMT MITIGATION MEASURE REDUCTION CAPS
Mitigation Measure Maximum Allowable Reduction
Increase Diversity of Land Uses 5 percent
Increase Density 3 percent
Increase Transit Accessibility 5 percent
Limit Parking Supply 5 percent
Unbundle Parking Costs 5 percent
Encourage Telecommuting 2 percent
Provide Ridesharing Programs 4 percent
Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program 5 percent Provide Employer Sponsored Shuttle/Vanpool 4 percent
Price Workplace Parking 5 percent
Employee Parking Cashout 3 percent
Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements 2 percent
Provide Traffic Calming Measures and Low-Stress Bicycle Network Improvements 1 percent
Implement Market Price Public Parking (on-street) 3 percent Increase Transit Service Frequency and Speed 3 percent
MAXIMUM COMBINED 15 percent

Each of the TDM measures described above can be combined with others to increase the effectiveness of VMT mitigation; however, the interaction between the various TDM measures is complex and sometimes counter intuitive. Generally, with each additional measure implemented, a VMT reduction is achieved, but the incremental benefit of VMT reduction may diminish. To quantify the VMT reduction that results from combining TDM measures, the analyst must consider multiplicative dampening as outlined in the CAPCOA documentation.

5.3 Other Environmental Considerations
As noted in the Introduction, the updated CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist contains three additional criteria beyond the VMT evaluation criteria (checklist item 2) discussed in the preceding section.

They are listed below.

Would the project:

1. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

3. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?

4. Result in inadequate emergency access?
A31

City of Antioch TIA Guidelines 27
TIAs should address these three questions, considering the unique characteristics of the project, including its location, size, design, use mix, transportation and urban form context, and other relevant details. In the assessment of transit, bicycle and pedestrian network, the following standards of significance shall be used.

Transit System - The project would create a significant impact related to transit service if the following criteria is met:

1. The project interferes with existing transit facilities or precludes the construction of planned transit facilities.

Bicycle System - The project would create a significant impact related to the bicycle system if any of the following criteria are met:

1. The project disrupts existing bicycle facilities; or

2. The project interferes with planned bicycle facilities; or

3. The project c reates inconsistencies with adopted bicycle system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards.

Pedestrian System - The project would create a significant impact related to the pedestrian system if any of the following criteria are met:

1. The project disrupts existing pedestrian facilities; or

2. The project interferes with planned pedestrian facilities; or

3. The project c reates inconsistencies with adopted pedestrian system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards.

A32
!
Black Diamond
Mines RPr
Lower Sherman
Island
Wildlife Area
Contra
Loma RP
East 18th Street
Hillcrest Av
DeerValleyRd
Bridgehead Road
EastTregallas Rd
Buchanan Rd
Somersville Road
Empire Avenue
GStreet
Golf Course Road
Sycamore Drive
Lone Tree Wy
LoveridgeRoad
CavalloRd
James Donlon Bl
West 10th Street
Pittsburg-Antioch Hw
Sand Creek Road
Laurel Rd
San Jose Avenue
CenturyBoulevard
West Tregallas Rd
Davison Drive
Shady Willow Ln
A StreetDelta Fair Boulevard
Concord Avenue
West 18th St Main Street
Neroly Road
L St
Wicklow Wy
CañadaValleyRoad
Central Bl
West 2nd Street
VistaGrandeDr
AmericanAvenue
West 6th Street
Wilbur Avenue
Heidorn Ranch Road
Balfour Road
CountryHillsDrive
Prewett RanchRoad
DeerValleyRoad
LoneTreeWy
·160
·4
Legend
15% below City of Antioch Average
Between 15% - 0% below City of Antioch Average
Above City of Antioch Average
TAZ with no Residents
City Boundary
City of Antioch - Home-Based Vehicle-Miles Traveled Per Resident City of Antioch-Wide Average Home-Based VMT per Resident: 21.6 City of Antioch SB 743 Implementation
Source: CCTA T ravel Demand Model
Figure 1

0.5-mile Transit
Station Buffer
A33
!
Black Diamond
Mines RPr
Lower Sherman
Island
Wildlife Area
Contra
Loma RP
East 18th Street
Hillcrest Av
DeerValleyRd
Bridgehead Road
EastTregallas Rd
Buchanan Rd
Somersville Road
Empire Avenue
GStreet
Golf Course Road
Sycamore Drive
Lone Tree Wy
LoveridgeRoad
CavalloRd
James Donlon Bl
West 10th Street
Pittsburg-Antioch Hw
Sand Creek Road
Laurel Rd
San Jose Avenue
CenturyBoulevard
West Tregallas Rd
Davison Drive
Shady Willow Ln
A StreetDelta Fair Boulevard
Concord Avenue
West 18th St Main Street
Neroly Road
L St
Wicklow Wy
CañadaValleyRoad
Central Bl
West 2nd Street
VistaGrandeDr
AmericanAvenue
West 6th Street
Wilbur Avenue
Heidorn Ranch Road
Balfour Road
CountryHillsDrive
Prewett RanchRoad
DeerValleyRoad
LoneTreeWy
·160
·4
Legend
15% below Contra Costa County average
Between 15%-0% below Contra Costa County average
Above Contra Costa County average
TAZ with no Employees
City Boundary
City of Antioch - Commute Vehicle-Miles Traveled Per Worker Contra Costa County-Wide Average Commute VMT per Worker: 14.9 City of Antioch SB 743 Implementation
Source: CCTA T ravel Demand Model
Figure 2

0.5-mile Transit
Station Buffer
A34

5 Agenda Item #

STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of August 8, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
SUBMITTED BY: Zoe Merideth, Senior Planner
APPROVED BY: Kevin Scudero, Acting Community Development Director SUBJECT: Design Guidelines Zoning Text Amendment and Residential Objective Design Standards

RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:
1) Introduce by title only and waive the further reading of the ordinance amending Section 9-5.2609 of the Antioch Municipal Code regarding design guidelines (Attachment A).
2) Adopt the resolution approving the Single Family and Missing Middle Objective Design Standards.

FISCAL IMPACT
There are no direct fiscal impacts incurred by the City for the approval of this ordinance or the design guidelines.

DISCUSSION
Request
The City of Antioch is requesting a Zoning Text Amendment to Antioch Municipal Code Title 9, Chapter 5, Article 26: Design Review Duties and Responsibilities to adopt Objective Design Standards. The City of Antioch is also requesting the adoption of Single Family and Missing Middle Residential Objective Design Standards.

Environmental Review
The Zoning Text Amendment and Objective Design Standard (“ ODS”) are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15061(b)(3), the “Common Sense” Exemption. This exemption can be used when it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance may have a significant effect on the Antioch City Council Report
August 8, 2023 Agenda Item #5 2
environment. The ordinance merely amends the Antioch Municipal Code requirements for the applicability of design guidelines and objective design standards. The zoning text amendment does not directly or indirectly authorize or approve any actual changes in the physical environment. When a specific development project occurs that is subject to the ordinance it will be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA, if applicable.

Similarly, the ODS provides standards that a housing developer must adhere to but does not authorize or approve any actual changes in the physical environment. Based on the above information, this zoning text amendment and ODS are exempt from CEQA under the “Common Sense” Exemption.

Background
In recent years, the State legislature has adopted and amended several housing and land use laws. Some of these bills have c hanged the typical planning and approval process for housing projects. Specifically, Senate Bill (“SB”) 35, SB 330, SB 8 include provisions that require the streamlining of the entitlement process and require the use of “objective standards” during the review process.
• SB 35 (2017) streamlines housing development approvals on infill sites that comply with “objective standards,” meet minimum affordability requirements, are not environmentally sensitive, and if the developer pays prevailing wage and uses a “skilled and trained workforce” for projects over a certain threshold. • SB 330, The Housing Crisis Act (2019) prohibits cities, in part, from imposing or enforcing subjective design standards on housing developments where housing is an allowable use. The l egislation also creates a preliminary application process for housing development projects.
• SB 8 (2021) builds upon SB 330 by expanding the definition of a “housing development project” to include single family dwelling units.

These bills feature the requirement for objective standards for housing projects. The Housing Crisis Act states that a development standard is objective if it involves no “personal or subjective judgement by a public official.” Residential projects that me et certain requirements, including consistency with applicable objective standards, must be approved.

In addition to new State laws placing requirements on housing production, grant funding to aid in housing production also became available. In 2020, the City of Antioch was awarded a $310,000 grant from a program authorized by Senate Bill 2, the Building Homes and Jobs Act. This funding source provides local governments with reimbursement grants and technical assistance to prepare plans and process improvements that achieve the following objectives: streamline housing approvals; facilitate housing affordability (particularly for lower - and moderate-income households); and accelerate housing production. City staff, in consultation with PlaceWorks, proposed to use this funding to create General Plan and zoning policies to support high density Antioch City Council Report
August 8, 2023 Agenda Item #5 3
residential development on underutilized commercial sites, which became the Commercial Infill Housing project.

The City Council approved the General Plan amendments, zo ning text and map amendments, and objective design standards for the infill housing on ten commercial sites in April 2022. After the completion of the project, the City had remaining grant funds and asked PlaceWorks to use these funds to create objective d esign standards for single family and missing middle residential projects. PlaceWorks developed the Single Family and Missing Middle Objective Design Standards (ODS) document. Separately, through the Housing Element effort, PlaceWorks completed multifam ily objective design standards that the City Council approved in January 2023.

The Housing Element also includes a policy (2.1.11) regarding missing middle housing, and, in part, requires the development of objective design standards for missing middle housing typologies. The missing middle section of the ODS will fulfill this portion of the policy. With the approval of the ODS, the City will have objective design standards for all types of residential developments.

At the July 19, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission voted 4-0, with three members absent, to recommend approval of the zoning text amendment . The Commission also recommended in a 4-0 vote, with three members absent, to recommend approval of the ODS, with the changes discussed below.

Objective Design Standards
The Housing Crisis Act states that a development standard is objective if it involves no “personal or subjective judgement by a public official.” The Antioch Municipal Code (AMC) already contains some objective zoning standards, such as height limits, setbacks, and lot coverage maximums. Additionally, the City currently has Citywide Design Guidelines, which were adopted in 2009, that include many subjective standards for the development of both residential and commercial projects. (The current Citywide Design Guidelines are available here: https://www.antiochca.gov/community-development- department/planning-division/design-review/) Simultaneous to the adoption of the ODS, the City will amend the AMC to allow the non-residential portions of the Citywide Design Guidelines to remain in effect while incorporating the City’s object ives standards for residential projects.

As stated above, the City has already adopted objective design standards for Commercial Infill Housing sites and multifamily projects. The remaining residential projects the City lacks objective design standards f or are single family projects and missing middle projects. Missing middle is a term used to describe single family home scaled developments with multiple units. Examples of this type of housing include duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and cottage courts . A cottage court, as defined in the ODS, is “a group of small, detached housing units arranged around a shared court visible from the street.”
Antioch City Council Report
August 8, 2023 Agenda Item #5 4
The goal of the new ODS is to create measurable and verifiable standards for single family and missing middle projects. The standards should result in the same consistency determination no matter who is reviewing the project, and applicants and staff should make the same determinations regarding the standards. Typically, an objective design standard uses language such as “shall” or “must” rather than subjective “should” or “may” phrasing. In practice, this can be seen in the proposed standard for sound wall design.

The proposed ODS states:

Perimeter walls along arterials shall incorporate one of the following design variations at least every 40 feet in length:
• Change in height of at least twenty percent of the total wall height. • Change in material, texture or color.
• Break in the wall plane, including projecting or recessed areas.

In contrast to this standard with a verifiable distance for the variation, the current Citywide Design Guidelines state, “perimeter walls should be architecturally enhanced and should use materials and colors that complement the neighborhood’s architectural style” and “in designing sound walls, rhythm and sequence should be employed to establish consistent, recognizable patterns that create a sense of familiarity and comfort. They also provide a sense of progression, unless continued indefinitely. Rhythm an d sequence should be created using both articulation in the barrier wall and/or landscaping.” Neither of these guidelines provide measurable and verifiable standards and are open to interpretation as to what constitutes an “architecturally enhanced” wall or what amount of articulation in the wall creates a “rhythm and sequence” that satisfies the design guideline.

The contrast between the existing Citywide Design Guidelines subjective standards and the ODS can also be seen in the building form and articulation requirements. The Citywide Design Guidelines state “Residential homes shall incorporate articulation on all facades, including variation in massing, roof forms, and wall planes, as well as surface articulation.” Additional standards add some specificity, such as requiring “the main entrance to a home shall be clearly identifiable and shall be articulated with projecting or recessed forms so as to create a covered landing that will provide shelter from the weather,” but they still lack objective requir ements. In contrast the ODS includes a section for entryways and includes standards for both porches and recessed entryway. The standards provide specific dimensional and design requirements including the overhang of a recessed entry “shall include an eave or roof form at least six feet wide that extends at least two feet from the main wall plane.” The ODS provides an opportunity for a variety of building forms while maintaining minimum standards.

In developing the ODS, PlaceWorks based the standards on the existing Citywide Design Guidelines and current best practices for objective standards based on their experiences working in other cities. In the wall example above, PlaceWorks took the City’s current standard of architecturally enhanced walls and converted it to an objective standard. The new standards provide developers opportunities to choose a variety of options to accomplish a given objective, such as allowing a developer to choose one enhancement Antioch City Council Report
August 8, 2023 Agenda Item #5 5
out of a list of design treatments. Using this metho d, the standards will create the opportunity for a variety of architectural styles while guaranteeing that a minimum level of design will also be provided.

The current Citywide Design Guidelines include a standalone section for the Rivertown residential area. The proposed ODS follows the Citywide Design Guidelines by also including a standalone section related to homes within the Rivertown area. Given the unique historic nature and architecture of the Rivertown area, the ODS’s proposed standards allow for development and redevelopment of the Rivertown area in a context specific way. Proposed standards were developed to support the Downtown Specific Plan’s policy that calls for new buildings to “reflect the historic character and traditional architecture of the Rivertown Historic District.” The ODS’s standards require preservation of the original façade of homes, to the extent possible, and incorporating design strategies that complement the historic design of structures over 50 years old. The Rivertown standards are designed to provide a number of flexible yet objective design options that are based upon the previous design guidelines.

The ODS also introduces a new category of standards for missing middle housing. As described above, missing middle housing is single family scaled developments of multifamily housing, which is in the “middle” between single family low-density homes and high-density multifamily housing. While this type of housing was common, it began to disappear in the mid-twentieth century, and go “missing,” with the adoption of restrictive zoning codes across the country. Today, trends are once again changing and missing middle housing is becoming increasingly common as infill projects and redevelopment projects occur on smaller lots and c loser to historic downtown areas. With the Housing Element, staff rezoned several smaller sites, including the Viera area, to allow multifamily housing. As these sites are typically too small to accommodate a multifamily apartment complex, staff wanted to create standards for a variety of missing middle housing types that could be applied to these sites. Given the diversity of missing middle housing types, from duplexes to cottage courts, the ODS provides basic standards for site design, orientation and acc ess, and building design, while allowing for variations in site design and product type. The goal of the standards is to allow flexible building typologies while maintaining high quality designs.

Planning Commission Meeting
At the July 19, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission voted 4-0, with three members absent, to recommend approval of the zoning text amendment. The Commission also recommended in a 4-0 vote, with three members absent, to recommend approval of the ODS, with six changes. No members of the public spoke on the item. The Commission discussed the ODS and recommended the following six changes shown as underline and strikethrough:

1. Standard 3.1.1.C Driveway Centerline. Two-car wide Driveways shall include a decorative centerline element at least one-foot wide composed of pavers, colored concrete, aggregate, brick banding or other decorative treatment to break up uninterrupted concrete surfaces to no more than 12’ wide sections.

Antioch City Council Report
August 8, 2023 Agenda Item #5 6

2. Under Standard 3.2.1.A Front Elevation Massing: Contrasting Materials or Finish on Floors. Application of color, siding, panels or materials that vary from the primary exterior finish, to at least 40% of the total elevation area of one story of the building. All materials shall comply with standards in Section 3.2.4 Design Detail.

3. Standard 3.3.3.B Prohibited Materials. Chain link and barbed wire are prohibited from use for all residential fencing. Exceptions for chain link fencing may be made for the following: Fencing not visible from streets adjacent to the property; Chain link with integrated slats of wood or vinyl; Gates at entries into side yards.

4. Standard 3.3.4.D Inappropriate Lighting. No permanently installed outdoor lights shall be permitted that blink, revolve, flash, or change intensity.

5. Standard 3.6.3.D Corner Unit Design. Units located on corner lots have shall incorporate at least two of the following design details enhancements:
» Functional shutters on the street-facing windows
» Wrap-around decorative horizontal cladding
» Chimneys
» Roof gables or other projections

6. Standard 3.6.4.C Bicycle Parking. All common open spaces shall provide parking racks for at least four bicycles at each pedestrian entry to the open space.

The resolution recommending approval of the ODS (Attachment B), includes a recital stating that the Planning Commission’s six reco mmendations will be approved and incorporated into the final ODS document. If the Council does not agree with some or all the Planning Commission’s recommended changes, then the Council may make amendments when making a motion.

Applicability and Zoning Text Amendment
Currently, the Citywide Design Guidelines are codified in the AMC’s Zoning Code under Article 26: Design Review Duties and Responsibilities. To codify the new ODS and clarify that the Citywide Design Guidelines for residential projects no longer apply, a Zoning Text Amendment is required. The amendment clarifies which chapters of the Citywide Design Guidelines are still applicable, codifies the ODS, and the process for amending the ODS in the future. Additionally, the amendment clarifies the applicability of the ODS to ministerial projects and outlines the process for obtaining an exception to the ODS.

Finally, the amendment also clarifies the applicability and exception process for the already adopted Multifamily Objective Design Standards.

Antioch City Council Report
August 8, 2023 Agenda Item #5 7

ATTACHMENTS
A. Design Guidelines Zoning Text Amendment Ordinance
B. Resolution approving the ODS
Exhibit A: Single Family and Missing Middle Objective Design Standards C. Draft Meeting Minutes from the July 19, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting ORDINANCE NO. _____
AN O

RDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANTIOCH
AMENDING § 9-5.2609 OF THE ANTIOCH MUNICIPAL CODE
REGARDING DESIGN GUIDELINES (LA2023-0002)
T
he City Council of the City of Antioch does ordain as follows:

SEC
TION 1:

The City Council is committed to tak ing the steps necessary to promote and protect the public health, safety and general welfare. The City of Antioch has the authority to make and enforce within its limits all ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws. (Cal. Const. art. XI § 7) including, but not limited to, all rights and powers that are expressly granted and necessarily or fairly implied by state law.

SEC
TION 2:

The City Council finds that the public necessity requires the proposed zoning ordinance amendments to impose requirements within the City of Antioch that are consistent with State law; said amendments are not detrimental to properties within Antioch, and that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment is in conformance with the Antioch General Plan.

SEC
TION 3:

At its regular meeting of July 19, 2023, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the Ordinance amending § 9-5.2609 of the Antioch Municipal Code.

SEC
TION 4:
§ 9-5. 2609 is amended as follows:
§ 9-5 .2609 DESIGN GUIDELINES AND OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS. (A) The Planning Commission shall have the authority to develop and recommend for Council approval design guidelines and objective design standards to establish criteria for the review of those matters required to come before the Commission. The guidelines and standards may include criteria for site planning, landscape treatment, building design, and signs.
(B) The Citywide Design Guidelines, with the exception of Chapter 6 – Residential Design Guidelines prepared by Downtown Solutions and dated October 2009, are herein incorporated by reference.
(C) New construction and exterior remodels of residential uses are subject to the Single Family and Missing Middle Objective Design Standards and the Multi-Family Objective Design Standards, which may be adopted, amended, and repealed by City Council resolution.
(D) The Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission and the City Council shall adhere to the adopted guidelines and standards, as amended, in site plan and design review as required in § 9-5.2607, and no such application shall be approved, unless it complies with the adopted guidelines and, unless findings can be made pursuant to

ATTACHMENT A
A1
2 division (GC) of this section. Findings are not required to be made for development applications deemed complete prior to the adoption of this section. (E) Ministerial residential projects shall be subject to the adopted standards and shall be reviewed against the adopted standards at building permit submittal. Findings are not required to be made for development applications deemed complete prior to the adoption of this section.
(F) In circumstances where conflicts arise between the design guidelines and standards and specific requirements of the zoning ordinance, then the design guidelines zoning ordinance shall supersede the zoning ordinance design guidelines and standards requirements.
(GC) In order to grant a waiver from adopted design guidelines and objective standards for projects, except as pursuant to division (H), the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission or the City Council shall find at least one of the following:
(1) That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including, but not limited to, size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the design guidelines is not feasible; or (2) That the overall project has a quality design, the majority of the project is consistent with the design guidelines and minor discrepancies with the design guidelines will not create a development that is undesirable or unsightly; or (3) That the project features a unique theme or style that is not addressed in the design guidelines, but the overall project is of such extraordinary design quality that the project will not create a development that is undesirable or unsightly. (H) In order to allow modifications to the adopted Multi-family Objective Design Standards, the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission or City Council shall follow the procedure set forth in § 9-5.702.

SEC
TION 5: Sever ability.

If any section, subsection, provision or part of this ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the remainder of this ordinance, and the application of such provision to other person or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby and shall remain in full force and effect and, to that end, the provisions of this ordinance are severable.

SEC
TION 6. CE QA.

The above amendments to the City’s Municipal Code are not considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act under the common sense exemption ( CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3) because the proposed amendments will not have a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change or effect on the environment.

SEC
TION 7: Pu blication; Effective Date
This ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days from and after the date of its adoption and shall be published once within fifteen (15) days upon passage and adoption in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the City of Antioch. * * *
* * * *
A2
3 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the forgoing ordinance was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Antioch, held on the 8th of August 2023, and passed and adopted at a regular meeting thereof, held on the ____ day of _____ 2023, by the following vote:

A
YES:

N
OES:

ABS
ENT:

ABS
TAIN:

LAMAR A. THORPE

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ANTIOCH
A
TTEST:

ELIZABETH HOUSEHOLDER

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANTIOCH
A3
RESOLUTION NO. 2023/XX
RE

SOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANTIOCH

ADOPTING SINGLE FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE OBJECTIVE DESIGN

STANDARDS
W
HEREAS, through various actions in recent years, the State Legislature has declared that the availability of housing is of vital statewide importance and that governments have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development of housing for all segments of the community; W
HEREAS, Senate Bill 2 was part of package of housing bills adopted in 2017 aimed at addressing the state’s housing shortage and high housing costs by making funding available to all local governments in California for the preparation, adoption and implementation of plans that streamline housing approvals, facilitate housing affordability (particularly for lower - and moderate- income households), and accelerate housing production; and
W
HEREAS, the City of Antioch (“City”) applied for and received a $310,000 grant from a program authorized by SB 2 to create a General Plan Amendment and related zoning amendments to support high- density residential development on underutilized commercial sites;
W
HEREAS, a Request for Proposals was issued and PlaceWorks was selected to complete the project and the process commenced in January 2021 to develop the Commercial Infill Housing (CIH) Overlay District and CIH Objective Design Standards; W
HEREAS, the public participated in development and review of the standards through stakeholder meetings, one Planning Commission meeting, one City Council meeting, and three Economic Development Committee and/or Subcommittee meetings to review the CIH Objective Design Standards;
W
HEREAS, on April 12, 2022, the Antioch City Council adopted the CIH Objective Design Standards to provide key, objective requirements for the development of multifamily residential and mixed-use development within the City’s CIH Overlay District; W
HEREAS, the City did not expend all of its SB 2 grant funding and contracted with PlaceWorks to use the remaining funds to develop Single Family and Missing Middle Objective Design Standards;
W
HEREAS, recent changes in State law, including SB 35, SB 330, and SB 8, require municipalities to review housing development projects and single family homes against objective design standards;
W
HEREAS, the Single Family and Missing Middle Objective Design Standards are based on the City’s current subjective Citywide Design Guidelines, which were reworded and edited to become objective standards, as required by State law;

ATTACHMENT B
B1
RESOLUTION NO. 2023/**
August 8, 2023

W
HEREAS, the Single Family and Missing Middle Objective Design Standards is not considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act under the common sense exemption (CEQA Guidelines 150361(b)(3)) because it will not have a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change or effect on the environment; W
HEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 19, 2023, considered all public comments received, the presentation by City staff, the staff report, and all other pertinent documents regarding the proposed request; W
HEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Single Family and Missing Middle Objective Design Standards with the following six changes:

1. Standard 3.1.1.C Driveway Centerline. Two-c ar wide Driveways shall include a decorative centerline element at least one-foot wide composed of pavers, colored concrete, aggregate, brick banding or other decorative treatment to break up uninterrupted concrete surfaces to no more than 12’ wide sections.

2. Under Standard 3.2.1.A Front Elevation Massi ng: Contrasting Materials or Finish on Floors. Application of color, siding, panels or materials that vary from the primary exterior finish, to at least 40% of the total elevation area of one story of the building. All materials shall comply with standards in Section 3.2.4 Design Detail.

3. Standard 3.3.3.B Prohibited Materials. Chain link and barbed wire are prohibited from use for all residential fencing. Exceptions for chain link fencing may be made for the following: Fencing not visible from streets adjacent to the property; Chain link with integrated slats of wood or vinyl; Gates at entries into side yards.

4. Standard 3.3.4.D Inappropriate Lighting. No permanently installed outdoor lights shall be permitted that blink, revolve, flash, or change intensity.

5. St
andard 3.6.3.D Corner Unit Design . Units located on corner lots have shall incorporate at least two of the following design details enhancements:
» Functional shutters on the street-facing windows
» Wrap-around decorative horizontal cladding
» Chimneys
» Roof gables or other projections

6. Standard 3.6.4.C Bicycle Parking . All common open spaces shall provide parking racks for at least four bicycles at each pedestrian entry to the open space; W
HEREAS, a public hearing notice was published in the East County Times and posted in three public places pursuant to California Government Code Section 65090 on Jul7 28, 2023 for the public hearing held on August 8, 2023; B2
RESOLUTION NO. 2023/**
August 8, 2023

W
HEREAS, on August 8, 2023, the City Council duly held a public hearing on the matter, and received and considered evidence, both oral and documentary; and W
HEREAS, the City Council considered all public comments received, the presentation by City staff, the staff report, and all other pertinent documents regarding the proposed request.

NO
W, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Antioch approves the Single Family and Missing Middle Objective Design Standards attached hereto as Exhibit A , including the following changes recommended by the Planning Commission:
(
1) Standard 3.1.1.C Driveway Centerline. Two -c ar wide Driveways shall include a decorative centerline element at least one -foot wide composed of pavers, colored concrete, aggregate, brick banding or other decorative treatment to break up uninterrupted concrete surfaces to no more than 12’ wide sections.
(
2) Under Standard 3.2.1.A Front Elevation Massing: Contrasting Materials or Finish on Floors. Application of color, siding, panels or materials that vary from the primary exterior finish, to at least 40% of the total elevation area of one story of the building. All materials shall comply with standards in Section

3.2.4 Design Detail.
(
3) Standard 3.3.3.B Prohibited Materials. C hain link and barbed wire are prohibited from use for all residential fencing. Exceptions for chain link fencing may be made for the following: Fencing not visible from streets adjacent to the property; Chain link with integrated slats of wood or vinyl; Gates at entries into side yards.
(
4) Standard 3.3.4.D Inappropriate Lighting. No permanently installed outdoor lights shall be permitted that blink, revolve, flash, or change intensity. (5) S
tandard 3.6.3.D Corner Unit Design. Units located on corner lots have shall incorporate at least two of the following design details enhancements:
» Functional shutters on the street-facing windows
» Wrap-around decorative horizontal cladding
» Chimneys
» Roof gables or other projections
(
6) Standard 3.6.4.C Bicycle Parking . All common open spaces shall provide parking racks for at least four bicycles at each pedestrian entry to the open space.

B3
RESOLUTION NO. 2023/**
August 8, 2023

* * * * * * * * *
I
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Antioch at a regular meeting thereof held on the 8h day of August 2023, by the following vote:

A
YES:

N
OES:

ABS
ENT:

ABS
TAIN:
_______
______________________________

ELIZABETH HOUSEHOLDER

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANTIOCH
B4
Page | 5

EXHIBIT A
S

INGLE FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS B5
Single-Family and
Missing Middle Residential
Objective Design Standards
Public Review Draft | July 2023
B6
ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE www.placeworks.com
Prepared by:
2040 Bancroft Way, Suite 400
Berkeley, California 94704
t 510.848.3815
B7
SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 1 Single-Family and Missing Middle Residential
Objective Design Standards
Public Review Draft | July 2023

CITY OF ANTIOCH
City Council
» Lamar Thorpe, Mayor
» Tamisha Torres-Walker, Council Member District 1
» Michael Barbanica, Mayor Pro Tem, District 2
» Lori Ogorchock, Council Member District 3
» Monica Wilson, Council Member District 4
Planning Commission
» Kristina Gutilla, Chair
» Kevin Riley, Vice-Chair
» Milanka Schneiderman
» Robert Martin
» Kerry L. Motts
» Christian Hills
» Warren Lutz
Staff
» Zoe Merideth, Senior Planner
» Kevin Scudero, Senior Planner

CONSULTANTS
PlaceWorks
» Bruce Brubaker
» Greg Goodfellow
Acknowledgements
B8
2 SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS City of Antioch Table of Contents

1. Introduction 3

1.1 Purpose and Goals 3

1.2 User Guide 3

1.3 Relationship to State and City Regulations 4

1.4 Review Process 4

2. Development Standards 6

3. Objective Design Standards 7

3.1 Site Design Standards 7

3.1.1 Building and Driveway Orientation 7

3.1.2 Context Sensitivity 8

3.2 Building Design Standar ds 8

3.2.1 Massing and Articulation 8

3.2.2 Entryways 10

3.2.3 Garage Size and Form 11

3.2.4 Design Detail 12

3.2.5 Windows 13

3.2.6 Roofs 13

3.3 Landscaping and Lighting Standards 14

3.3.1 Front Yard Landscaping 14

3.3.2 Plantings 15

3.3.3 Walls and Fences 15

3.3.4 Exterior Lighting 16

3.4 Rivertown Historic Design Standards 16

3.4.1 Site Design 16

3.4.2 Building Orientation and Design 16

3.4.3 Building Detail 18

3.5 Missing Middle housing Design Standar ds 18

3.5.1 Site Design 19

3.5.2 Building Design 21

3.6 Neighborhood Design Standar ds 22

3.6.1 Entries and Edges 22

3.6.2 Circulation 23

3.6.3 Lot and Site Variation 23

3.6.4 Common Open Space 24

3.6.5 Neighborhood Lighting 25

3.6.6 Landscaping 25

4. Definitions 27
Appendix: Single-Family and Missing Middle Objective Design Standards Checklist XX Table of Contents
B9
SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 3 City of Antioch 1. Introduction

1.2 User Guide
This document contains objective design standards for
six topic areas. The first three areas apply to all single family residential sites and structures. These areas, and the developments to which they apply, include:

1. Site Design
The standards in this section apply to all single
family residential development projects.

2. Building Design
The standards in this section apply to all single
family residential development projects.

3. Landscaping and Lighting
The standards in this section apply to all single
family residential development projects.

4. Rivertown Historic District Design
This section includes additional design standards
that apply only to single family development in An-
tioch’s Rivertown historic neighborhood. This area
is bounded by the San Joaquin River on the north,
L Street to the west, 10th Street to the south, and
“A” Street to the east. Standards in Sections 1-3 also
apply to single family development in this district.

5. Missing Middle Housing Design
This section includes site and building design
standards for a subset of residential development
known as “Missing Middle” housing. This includes a
variety of housing types, from duplexes to cottage
courts, with higher densities and smaller footprints
than single family residences.

6. Neighborhood Design
The standards in this section apply to residential
subdivisions and neighborhoods. While standards
in the first three sections apply to individual houses
within subdivisions, these standards govern larger
circulation, landscaping, open spaces and other

1.1 Purpose and Goals
The Single Family Residential (SFR) and Missing Middle
(MM) Objective Design Standards provide objective
requirements for the design of single family residential development and “missing middle” housing types such
as duplexes and triplexes. “Land use” is a description of what kind of building or development is on a property,
and single family residential land uses cover the largest area of all land uses in the City of Antioch. Therefore, SFR housing is a defining element of local character and community in Antioch.

These Objective Design Standards will ensure that new
development creates buildings and landscapes that are
in keeping with the physical and architectural character of Antioch. Unlike design guidelines, objective
design standards are written to have “no personal or
subjective judgment by a public official and is uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform
benchmark or criterion available and knowable by
both the development applicant and the public official
prior to submittal.” In other words, the goal of these
objective design standards is to provide a clear and
straight forward application and approval process for
single family housing construction in the city.

1. Introduction
B10
4 SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS City of Antioch 1. Introduction
features of entire neighborhoods. They do not apply
to the development of single sites.

All individual topics or subtopics begin with a design
intent statement, followed by specific standards.

The intent statements are provided to help the
reader understand the overarching principle behind
the standard requirements and do not serve as
review criteria.

A checklist listing the objective design standard
requirements is provided in the appendix of this
document. This checklist should be filled out by the
applicant and reviewed by staff to indicate whether
the applicant’s project meets the requirements for
non-discretionary staff review.

1.3 Relationship to State and
City Regulations
The following describes how these objective design
standards relate to and comply with State and City
regulations:
» California State Senate Bill (SB) 35. SB 35 requires
the availability of a streamlined ministerial
approval process for multifamily residential
developments to increase the supply of housing
in jurisdictions that have not yet made sufficient
progress toward meeting their regional housing
need allocation (RHNA). As part of the streamlining
process, jurisdictions are required to establish
objective design standards for multifamily
residential development.
» General Plan. The Land Use Element of the City of
Antioch General Plan includes the goal of providing
opportunities for achieving quality design and
avoiding the “sameness present in many suburban
communities.” The Community Vision of The
General Plan calls for protecting the character of
residential neighborhoods, and some of these
standards are adapted from a set of general
architectural design policies established in the
Element.
» Zoning Ordinance. All development must comply
with the regulations within the City of Antioch’s
Zoning Ordinance. These objective design
standards are applicable to new SFR housing
built on parcels in Districts in which single-family
development is permitted, each of which is
identified and described further in the City’s Zoning
Ordinance. In addition, residential subdivisions
must continue to comply with the city’s Subdivision
Design Standards, Section 9-4.600 of the Antioch
Municipal Code (AMC).
» Downtown Specific Plan. The area contained
within the Downtown Specific Plan represents a
unique zoning district (DSP Downtown Specific
Plan District). Development here is subject to the
regulations and standards in the Plan. In addition,
the Rivertown Historic District is located in the Plan
area. Per Plan policy, “New buildings shall reflect
the historic character and traditional architecture
of the Rivertown Historic District.” The Plan calls
for a traditional SFR aesthetic and designs that
are compatible with existing neighborhoods.

The Rivertown-specific historic design standards
contained in this document were developed to
support these policies.

1.4 Review Process
Only applicants with projects on sites on the Antioch
Zoning Map where SFR or MM housing is permitted
by-right (see Table 1) can apply for ministerial design review. As demonstrated by the following summaries,
the SFR or MM project review process depends on
the type of project, the property status and associated subdivision actions.
» Single Family Residential on already subdivided
parcel. Applicants for projects that do not require
map processing shall submit plans directly to
the Building Services Division, which administers
state and local building construction regulations,
including the California Building Code, Title 24.

Concurrent with the Building Services Division’s
review, the application will be routed to the
Planning Division for review of compliance with
these objective design standards and the city’s
B11
SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 5 City of Antioch 1. Introduction
Zoning Ordinance. Such projects are ministerial
and exempt from CEQA.
» Residential Subdivision and Missing Middle
housing. Following a required pre-application
conference with staff from multiple departments,
applicants for residential subdivisions or Missing
Middle housing shall submit plans to the city,
which will be routed to various departments for
entitlements and subdivision map processing.

Individual units of such projects shall be reviewed
for compliance with these objective design
standards during entitlements phase, alongside
evaluation for conformance with the General Plan,
Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. Such
projects require CEQA review, possibly in the form
of Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration or
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

If a project does not meet one or more of the objective design standards, the applicant can amend their
application to comply, or when appropriate, the City
of Antioch’s Zoning Administrator can administratively
approve minor deviations (e.g., when the applicant can
demonstrate that site design/layout would be improved
or that there is a constraint that would make complying with a standard infeasible given site layout, etc.) from the objective design standards.

For deviations not deemed minor by the Zoning
Administrator, the applicant can choose to go before
the Planning Commission for design review approval.

The project will still be reviewed for conformance with the SFR and MM Objective Design Standards by the
Planning Commission while taking into consideration
whether the deviation(s) from the standards is
appropriate. SFR, duplex or triplex development
projects are typically categorically exempt from
environmental review per CEQA Section 15013, Class
3—New construction of small structures. However,
there are exceptions for projects that, due to location, may include an environmental resource of hazardous or
critical concern designated by a federal, state or local agency.

B12
City of Antioch 2. Development Standards
6 SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS Table 1 Single Famil y and Missing Middle Development Standards, by Zoning District

1. Single family residential setbacks. Arterial street: minimum 30-foot setback with 30-foot landscaping on all frontages. Collector street: minimum 25-foot setback and landscaping for front yard and 10-foot street side yard setback with landscaping. Local street: minimum 20-foot front yard setback with 20 foot of landscaping and 10-foot street side yard setback with landscaping.

2. Multi-family residential setbacks. Arterial street: minimum 15-foot setback with 15-foot landscaping on all frontages. Collector street: minimum 15-foot setback and landscaping for front yard and 15-foot street side yard setback with landscaping. Local street: minimum 10-foot front yard setback with 20 foot of landscaping and 10-foot street side yard setback with landscaping.

Zoning
District
Max.

Building
Height
Min.

Building
Site
Min. Lot Width
Max. Lot
Coverage
Min.

Density
Allowed
Max.

Density
Allowed
(DU/
acre)
Min.

Front
Yard
Min. Side Yard Min.

Rear
YardCorner Interior Corner Interior
RE TBD through planned development process
RR TBD through planned development process
R-4 35 6,000 65 60 40% NA 4 Note 1 Note 1 5 20
R-6 35 6,000 65 60 40% NA 6 Note 1 Note 1 5 20
R-10 45 6,000 65 60 40% NA 10 Note 1,2 Note 1,2 5 10
R-20 45 20,000 70 70 40% NA 20 Note 2 Note 2 5 10
Downtown Specific Plan District Zones
MDR 30 3,300 NA 33 60% NA 12 15 5 5 15
HDR 30 2,500 NA 50 60% NA 18 15 5 5 15
MU 45 5,000 NA 50 100% NA 28 0 0 0 0
C-N 35 10,000 NA 100 75% NA 16 0 0 0 0

2. Development Standards
Table 1 contains development standards for all zoning districts in which SFR and MM development is permitted by- right. These standards are from Section 9-5.601 of the Antioch Municipal Code and are not superseded by the design standards in this document.

B13
City of Antioch 3. Objective Design Standards
SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 7

3. Objective Design Standards

3.1 Site Design Standards
The following standards apply to individual single-
family lots, developed individually or as part of a
subdivision.

3.1.1 Building and Driveway
Orientation
Intent
Provide visually interesting residential streetscapes
with open, pedestrian character.

Standard 3.1.1.A Orientation to Street
The main elevation of single-family homes shall face
the primary public or private street on which the lot
is located. In addition, the main entry to single-family homes shall also be located on the elevation facing the primary public or private street.

Standard 3.1.1.B Access to Main Entry
A minimum four-foot wide pedestrian walkway, other
than the driveway, shall provide direct access from the sidewalk to the main entry.

Standard 3.1.1.C Driveway Centerline
Two-car wide driveways shall include a decorative
centerline at least one-foot wide composed of pavers,
colored concrete, aggregate, brick banding or other
decorative treatment.

Single family homes facing the primary street and with
dedicated walkways from sidewalk to entries.

B14
City of Antioch 3. Objective Design Standards
8 SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS

3.1.2 Context Sensitivity
Intent
Preservation of privacy, provision of light and air
and reduced impacts of bulk and mass on adjacent
single-family homes.

Standard 3.1.2.A Off-parallel window placement
Upper-floor windows facing dwellings within 15 feet
of the property line shall be offset by a minimum of
twelve inches, as measured from the window frame,
from the adjacent property window frame to avoid
direct view into adjacent properties.

Standard 3.1.2.B Daylight Plane Standard
No portion of the building volume shall encroach into
a daylight plane starting at a point that is 28 feet above the property line abutting any adjacent lot with an
existing single-family or multifamily residential use of two stories or less and sloping upward at a 45-degree
angle toward the interior of the lot.

3.2 Building Design Standards
The following standards apply to all individual single- family homes, duplexes and triplexes located on a
single lot.

3.2.1 Massing and Articulation
Intent
Design homes that avoid bulky, monolithic or messy
appearance through various points of visual interest
and coordinated external elements.

Front Elevation
Standard 3.2.1.A Front Elevation Massing
Building elevations on which the main entry is located
shall include at least two of the following massing
strategies, compliant with the associated standards:
» Single Floor Projection. A façade projection on the
lower or upper floor that projects project at least
one foot from the main wall plane, with a total
area of at least 80 feet and capped by a gable, eave
or other roof form.
» Multi-Floor Projection. A façade projection
extending from ground level to the upper floor
ceiling that projects at least one foot from the
main wall plane, with a total area of at least 124
feet, and capped by a gable or other roof form.

Multi-floor projections shall comply with the
standards in Section 3.3.1.1.2 Separation of Floors.
» Massing Break. A break in the main wall plane of
at least two feet that extends from ground level to
the upper floor ceiling. The break shall be located
so as to separate primary façade elements such as
entries and garages, and picture windows.
» Bay Window. A protruding window, such as a bay
window, which is at least two feet in depth.

Figure 1. Daylight Plane Encroachment.

B15
City of Antioch 3. Objective Design Standards
SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 9 » Second Floor Stepback. A minimum two-foot,
street-facing stepback applied to the second
floor. The setback shall span at least 60% of the
total street-facing building elevation and shall be
covered with an eave or roof component that
matches the primary roof form of the building.
» Contrasting Materials or Finish on Floors.

Application of color, siding, panels or materials that
vary from the primary exterior finish, to at least
40% of the total elevation area of one story of the
building. All materials shall comply with standards
in Section 3.2.4 Design Detail.

Front elevation massing strategies, top to bottom: Single floor façade projections, multi-floor façade projections and massing breaks in the main wall plane.

Additional front elevation massing strategies, top to
bottom: Bay window placement, second floor stepbacks and contrasting materials on floors.

B16
City of Antioch 3. Objective Design Standards
10 SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS

3.2.2 Entryways
Intent
Create visually prominent and accessible entries
that contribute to building design and neighborhood
character.

Standard 3.2.2.A Porch or Recess Requirement
Main entryways shall incorporate a porch, recessed
entryway, or a combination of porch and recessed
entryway.

Standard 3.2.2.B Porch Standards
Main entryway porches shall comply with the following:
» Area. Porches shall include a covered area that
extends 4-10 feet from the wall plane on which
the door is located and have a minimum area of 36
feet. If combined with a recessed entry, the total
area of recess and porch shall have a minimum
area of 36 feet.
» Height. Porch roofs shall have maximum height of
12 feet.
» Design. Porch posts, columns and roofs shall
include the same exterior materials and color
palette as the primary structure.

Standard 3.2.2.C Recessed Enty Standards
Recessed entryways shall comply with the following:
» Depth. Recessed entries shall be recessed at least
two feet from the wall plane on which the door is
located to create a covered landing area.
» Overhang. Recessed entries shall include an eave
or roof form at least six feet wide that extends at
least two feet from the main wall plane.

Main entryway porch showing appropriate width, height and compatible materials and colors.

Recessed entryway and associated eave of appropriate depth and width.

B17
City of Antioch 3. Objective Design Standards
SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 11

3.2.3 Garage Size and Form
Intent
Ensure that garages and garage openings do not
dominate the design of residential frontages.

Standard 3.2.3.A  Design Sensitive Approach
All garages shall be designed and located to limit their visual presence, using one of the following techniques:
» Design sensitive front garage. Garages located at
the front building elevation shall comply with the
following standards:
» The width shall not exceed 60 percent of
the total width of the front elevation of the
building.
» The garage shall be prohibited from projecting
from the surrounding wall plane.
» The garage shall include either 1) an overhang
at least 12 inches deep with the same materials
and color palette as the primary roof form,
or 2) a recess of at least 12 inches from the
surrounding wall plane.
» Side accessible attached garage. Such garages
shall be located a minimum of 12 feet behind the
main elevation of the home.
» Detached or attached rear garage. Such garages
shall be located at the rear of residential lots and
be made accessible from a side lot driveway or
from the rear .

Standard 3.2.3.B Complementary Garage Door
Design
The color and design of all garage doors shall vary from the immediately adjacent wall plane and shall match
colors used on exterior details of the home.

Figure 2. Side garage location and access.

Front garage with sensitive design features such as
proportional width and recess from surrounding wall plane.

Rear garages with access from rear driveway.

B18
City of Antioch 3. Objective Design Standards
12 SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS

3.2.4 Design Detail
Intent
Promote materials, finishes and colors that increase
the visual quality of individual homes and public
frontages.

Materials
Standard 3.2.4.A Material Mix
Up to four materials and four finishes may be used
consistently on each building facade.

Standard 3.2.4.B Appropriate Building Materials
Materials used on building finishes shall be high quality and durable. Appropriate building materials include:
» Brick, rock, and stone, or a veneer of these
materials
» Smooth troweled stucco
» Poured in place concrete
» Cementitious board
» Glass
» Plaster or stucco
» Ceramic tiles (as a secondary material)
» Slate tiles
» Stainless Steel
» Finished and painted wood trim
» Wood, aluminum, copper, steel, and vinyl clad
frames for windows and doors
Standard 3.2.4.C Prohibited Materials
The following materials shall be prohibited from use on finishes:
» Porous materials
» Plywood
» Vinyl siding
» Faux materials such as foam material that
replicates “stone” or “brick.”
» Plastic or vinyl
Standard 3.2.4.D Exterior Material Wrapping
Decorative material and design treatments used on
front elevations shall extend to the fence line on each side elevation, at a minimum.

Color
Standard 3.2.4.E Limit
The number of colors on the entire building exterior
shall be limited to a maximum of five colors (or five
tones of the same color), including trim and accent
colors.

Standard 3.2.4.F Functional Elements
All vents, gutters, downspouts, flashings, electrical
conduits, etc., shall be painted to match the color of
the adjacent surface. Exception made be made for
contrasting gutters and downspouts that are a feature
of Spanish-style architecture.

B19
City of Antioch 3. Objective Design Standards
SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 13

3.2.5 Windows
Intent
Provide windows that provide well-proportioned
articulation to building façades while adding visual
interest, scale and character.

Standard 3.2.5.A Window Perimeter
All windows shall include one of the following
perimeter design details:
» Trim at least two inches wide around the entire
window.
» A minimum two-inch recess from the surrounding
exterior wall plane.

Standard 3.2.5.B Front Window Detail
Windows located on front building façades shall be
articulated with at least one of the following details, in addition to trim requirements in Standard 3.3.5.1.1:
» Sills
» Kickers
» Functional shutters
» Awnings
Standard 3.2.5.C Side Elevation Offset
Windows on the side elevations of two-story buildings
shall be staggered horizontally by a minimum of six
inches from center, between floors.

3.2.6 Roofs
Intent
Design rooflines that contribute to visual interest,
neighborhood character and durability of the home.

Roof Form
Standard 3.2.6.A Street Fronting Roofline
Roof surfaces that face front property lines and are
wider than 30 feet shall be vertically articulated at least once every 30 feet, with at least one of the following
techniques:
» A change in height of at least four feet
» A roof dormer
» A change in roof orientation
» A change in roof form that projects at least three
feet above the main roofline.

Standard 3.2.6.B Restricted Roof Forms
Superficial roof forms, such as “mansards,” affixed to
the building are prohibited.

A wide, street-facing roofline with vertical articulation, changes in height and orientation and projecting forms.

B20
City of Antioch 3. Objective Design Standards
14 SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS

3.3 Landscaping and Lighting
Standards
The following standards shall apply to individual single- family lots and structures in order to create attractive street frontages and support local character .

3.3.1 Front Yard Landscaping
Intent
Ensure that front yards are defined by well-
maintained landscaping and plantings that enhance
residential buildings and visible outdoor spaces.

Standard 3.3.1.A Required Coverage
All portions of required front yards, except those
occupied by walkways and allowable motor vehicle
parking and storage areas, shall be landscaped
according to the following standards:
» At least 75 percent organic plant material,
including grasses, trees and shrubs; and
» No more than 25 percent inorganic ground cover,
including decomposed granite, decorative pavers
and river rock.
» Gravel surfaces are prohibited in all front yard
areas except for secondary pathways less than 4’
wide.

Standard 3.3.1.B Design Diversity
A variety of heights, textures, and colors shall be used in the front yard landscape palette.

Standard 3.3.1.C Utility Screening
All utility appurtenances such as transformers and
generators that cannot be undergrounded or located
in side or rear yards shall be screened with one of the following:
» Dense, U-shaped shrubs or plantings at least as tall
as the utility and that do not prevent access to the
utility.
» Architectural structures composed of at least
one material used on the home and that do not
prevent access to the utility.

Front yard landscaping defined by a variety of heights, colors and textures.

B21
City of Antioch 3. Objective Design Standards
SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 15

3.3.3 Walls and Fences
Intent
Provide walls and fences that are durable and
appealing design components rather than monolithic
barriers.

Standard 3.3.3.A Open Fencing
Fences in the required front yard setback parallel to the street shall not be solid or opaque. Fences shall have a partially open design characterized by boards or slats
spaced no more than four inches apart, lattice, posts,
or other visually penetrable design strategy. Fences
behind the front elevation of the house may be solid.

Standard 3.3.3.B Prohibited Materials
Chain link and barbed wire are prohibited from use for
all residential fencing.

Standard 3.3.3.C Trash Storage Enclosure
Single family lots shall include a location for the storage of trash receptacles (waste wheelers, etc.) which is
screened from public view by a fence or architectural
enclosure that includes at least one material or color
found on the primary residential structure.

Standard 3.3.3.D Trash Storage Access
All trash storage enclosures shall be made accessible by a minimum three-foot wide paved pathway from the
enclosure to the front driveway or other paved area of
the front yard.

3.3.2 Plantings
Intent
Compose landscapes with diverse, robust plant types
that are well-integrated into other components of
site design.

Standard 3.3.2.A Planting Size
All proposed shrubs except accent, color or ground
cover planting shall be a minimum five-gallon size.

Standard 3.3.2.B Tree Protection
No irrigated landscape area shall be permitted within a 10-foot radius around a landmark or heritage tree with
a trunk diameter of 48 inches and/or in excess of 40
feet above natural grade in height.

Standard 3.3.2.C Automatic Sprinkler Controllers
Automatic irrigation controllers shall be installed to
ensure that landscaped areas will be watered properly.

Backflow preventors and anti-siphon valves shall be
provided in accordance with current codes.

Standard 3.3.2.D Sprinkler Heads
Sprinkler heads and risers shall be protected from car
bumpers. “Pop-up” heads shall be used near curbs
and sidewalks. The landscape irrigation system shall be designed to prevent run-off and overspray.

B22
City of Antioch 3. Objective Design Standards
16 SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS

3.3.4 Exterior Lighting
Intent
Provide outdoor lighting that increases residential
safety without impacting adjacent properties or
rights-of-way.

Standard 3.3.4.A Downward Facing Requirement
All building- and ground-mounted lighting shall be
located and fully shielded so that no light is emitted
above a 90-degree angle.

Standard 3.3.4.B Entryway Illumination
The front porch, landing or other recessed entryway
shall include a lighting element consistent with the
design, materials and/or color of the home.

Standard 3.3.4.C Ground-Mounted Lighting
Ground-mounted lighting to illuminate driveway edges,
landscaped areas or stair approaches shall be limited to three feet tall.

Standard 3.3.4.D Inappropriate Lighting
No outdoor lights shall be permitted that blink, revolve, flash, or change intensity.

3.4 Rivertown Historic Design
Standards
The following standards apply to new single-family
residential development in Rivertown, the historic
district bounded by the San Joaquin River on the north, L Street to the west, 10th Street to the south, and “A” Street to the east.

Intent
Preserve the historic integrity of Rivertown while
maintaining citywide single family residential design
priorities.

3.4.1 Site Design
Standard 3.4.1.A Front Yard Parking Limitation
All parking spaces provided beyond the required
minimum number of covered parking spaces shall
be located in side yard driveways of allowable motor
vehicle parking and storage areas, or in rear yards
accessible from side yard driveways.

3.4.2 Building Orientation and
Design
Building Orientation
Standard 3.4.2.A Orientation to Rivertown Features
Single family homes in Rivertown that are adjacent to
the San Joaquin River or an historic public paseo or
plaza, shall be oriented such that the front building
façade, including the primary entryway, provides direct physical access and line of sight to that feature.

Standard 3.4.2.B Ground Floor Height
The ground floor of single family homes in Rivertown
shall be raised at least 24 inches above the sidewalk to support the transition from public to private realm.
» Exception: Ground floors may be lowered to
12 inches above the sidewalk to accommodate
accessibility.

B23
City of Antioch 3. Objective Design Standards
SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 17 Historic Design Compatibility
Standard 3.4.2.C Historic Scale
Single family homes adjacent to a historic structure
shall have the same number of stories as the adjacent
structure and have an overall height within five feet of the adjacent structure. An exception is provided where
a two-story house may be located next to an existing
one-story house.

Standard 3.4.2.D Façade Width
New or renovated single family homes in Rivertown
shall reinforce the existing facade rhythm with total
façade no more than 10 feet wider than façades of
adjacent properties.

Standard 3.4.2.E Historic Design
Single family homes in Rivertown adjacent to a
structure 50 years old or over shall incorporate at least two of the following design strategies for compatibility with that structure:
» Roof pitch within 10 degrees of the adjacent roof.
» Horizontal articulation such as siding, cladding
and floor separation that is parallel to that of the
adjacent resource.
» Complementary articulation that includes window
proportions and window spacing dimensions
within 15 percent of the adjacent structure.
» Application of at least one shared façade material.

Standard 3.4.2.F Preservation of Original Façade
Redevelopment of historic structures into single family homes shall maintain the integrity the original building façade by:
» Reusing, to the highest degree possible, the
original façade materials.
» Maintaining, to the highest degree possible, the
pattern and style of façade openings, including
windows, primary entryways, porches and
balconies.
» Maintaining, to the highest degree possible, visual
separation of first and second floor facades.

Standard 3.4.2.G Flat Roof Requirements
Flat roofs shall be permitted in Rivertown if the roof form is consistent with the roof line adjacent buildings, including:

Figure 3. Historic
compatibility
standards, including
similar roof pitch,
parallel horizontal
articulation,
complimentary
window proportions
and shared façade
materials.

B24
City of Antioch 3. Objective Design Standards
18 SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS » The height of the roof is consistent with adjacent
roof heights through, if needed, the use of
parapets.
» The design of the roof is characterized by cornice,
eave, parapet or other forms found on adjacent
roofs.

3.4.3 Building Detail
Standard 3.4.3.A Facade Components
The front façades of single family homes in Rivertown
shall include at least two of the following traditional components:
» Oversized display or “picture” windows on the
ground floor
» Arched entryways or windows
» Balconies
» Porches
Standard 3.4.3.B Window Trim
Single family homes in Rivertown shall include
minimum 3.5-inch wide trim around doors and
windows.
» Exception: Windows and doors of Spanish, Mission
and Mediterranean-style style homes shall be
recessed at least 3.5 inches.

Standard 3.4.3.C Color Approval
Project applicants shall submit color renderings that
demonstrate compliance with the following standards:

1. Walls and other large expanses shall be limited to
soft tones, natural tomes, light pastels and neutral
colors.

2. Architectural details shall be accentuated using
contrasting colors.

3. Primary and more intense colors shall be limited to
ornamental and accent elements.

4. No more than three colors shall be used on any
façade, including unpainted brick or stone.

3.5 Missing Middle housing
Design Standards
The following design standards apply to multifamily
housing types designed to be compatible in scale with
single-family homes. These development types include:
» Duplexes, side-by-side and stacked (2 units)
» Triplexes (3 units)
» Fourplexes (4 units)
» Cottage Courts (4-8 units)
These housing types have smaller single unit footprints and greater overall densities than single family homes.

Therefore, certain site and building design standards
vary from those for single-family homes. All other
single family residential design standards in this
document apply to missing middle housing types.

Due to the variation in densities, not all missing middle projects are permitted in every zoning district where
single family residential is permitted by-right (see Table 1). Unlike single family homes, these development
types are also allowed in higher density zoning districts such as the R-20 District. The following standards apply only to projects in compatible zoning districts.

The following standards are allowed to provide
flexibility for the diverse approaches to missing middle housing design. Design standards for townhomes and
high density multifamily development are located in
the City’s Multi-Family Residential Objective Design
Standards.

B25
City of Antioch 3. Objective Design Standards
SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 19

3.5.1 Site Design
Intent
These are intended to reduce the perception of
density and encourage the thoughtful integration of
units into existing residential areas.

Building Frontage at Setback
Orientation and Access
Standard 3.5.1.A Front Setback
» No more than 85 percent of the total building
façade length shall abut the minimum front
setback line.

Standard 3.5.1.B Elevation Orientation
» The main elevation of duplexes, triplexes and
fourplexes shall be oriented to the primary public
or private street on which the lot is located.
» The common open space formed by detached
structures of a cottage courtyard development
shall open to the primary public or private street
on which the lot is located.

Standard 3.5.1.C Entryway Orientation
Entryways shall be oriented per the following
standards:
» Where a single building entrance provides access
to multiple interior unit entrances, that external
entrance shall be located on the elevation facing
the primary public or private street.
» Where each unit has a separate entrance, at
least two of those entrances shall be located on
the elevation facing the primary public or private
street.
» Entries to individual units of cottage courtyard
developments shall face, and be directly accessible
from, the common courtyard area.

Duplex with main elevation and combined entrance facing the primary street.

Duplex with main elevation and two separate entrances
facing the primary street.

B26
City of Antioch 3. Objective Design Standards
20 SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS Standard 3.5.1.D Entryway Access
A minimum six -foot wide walkway shall provide direct
access from the sidewalk to all combined, multi-unit
entryways. A minimum four-foot wide walkway shall
provide direct access from the sidewalk to all separate unit entrances.

Standard 3.5.1.E Private Street Placement
» Private streets serving more than one lot shall be
placed such they abut the least number of existing
adjacent single-family zoned properties.
» Private streets providing access to corner lots shall be located beyond the midpoint of the distance
between the street intersection and lot line.

Standard 3.5.1.F Vehicle Parking
Vehicle parking areas of duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and cottage courtyard shall be located to the side or
rear of the lot.

New courtyard developments showing common spaces open
to the street and unit entries facing the common spaces.

B27
City of Antioch 3. Objective Design Standards
SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 21

3.5.2 Building Design
Intent
To encourage neighborhood scale and pedestrian
orientation of missing middle housing structures.

Standard 3.5.2.A Differentiation of Units
For Duplexes:
» Duplexes shall be designed to either 1) emulate a
single larger house by composing a façade that has
a single simple roof form and no material definition
between units; or 2) express the presence of two
units within a single building by creating separate
but complementary roof forms on each unit and/
or a vertical material definition between units
that extends from the ground to the top of wall.

The vertical material definition can consist of one
of the following: a 3 ½” minimum width board; a
minimum 6” deep notch in the wall; or a building
offset of 6” minimum between units.

For Triplexes or Fourplexes:
» Triplexes or Fourplexes, due to their inherently
larger volume, shall express the presence of
multiple units within a single building by creating
separate but complementary roof forms on each
unit and/or a vertical material definition between
units that extends from the ground to the top of
wall. The vertical material definition can consist of
one of the following: a 3 ½” minimum width board;
a minimum 6” deep notch in the wall; or a building
offset of 6” minimum between units.

Standard 3.5.2.B Main Entryway Design
Entryways shall comply with the following standards:
» Duplex, side-by-side: Entries to each unit shall
be incorporated into one or two front-facing
porch(es), stoop(s) or recess(es).
» Duplex, stacked: Separate entries to each “stack”
of units incorporated into separate, front-facing
porches, stoops or recesses.
» Triplex and Fourplex: Entries to each unit
incorporated into one or more front-facing
porch(es), stoop(s) or recess(es).

Standard 3.5.2.C Cluster Mailbox Design
Mailboxes clusters serving groups of lots or clusters of units shall meet the following standards:
» Clusters and associated structures shall be
designed using one more exterior finish materials
or colors used on the residential units with which
the mailboxes are associated.
» Cluster design and location shall conform to all U.S.

Post Office requirements.

Duplex that emulates a single house with a unified roof form and façade.

Duplex that highlights the different units through separate roof forms, vertical definition and offset units.

B28
City of Antioch 3. Objective Design Standards
22 SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS

3.6 Neighborhood Design
Standards
The following standards shall apply to the design
of subdivisions and other complete residential
neighborhoods with new rights-of-way. These
standards shall be used in conjunction with the City’s
Subdivision Design Standards, AMC Section 9-4.600.

3.6.1 Entries and Edges
Intent
Provide neighborhood entryways and edges that
introduce neighborhood character and create friendly
neighborhood access.

Arterial Entry Drive
At least one entry into the residential neighborhood
shall be developed as an Arterial Entry Drive with the
following features:

Standard 3.6.1.A Entry Drive Design
The Arterials Entry Drive shall be distinguished
through the use of at least two of the following design elements:
» Two- to three--foot tall architectural monument
sign composed of stone, brick, wood or other
natural materials. Monument signs shall include a
solid base at least eighteen (18) inches in height.
» Textured, colored or stamped roadway paving from
the neighborhood property line to the first interior
intersection.
» Public art or water feature with integrated
neighborhood signage.
» Minimum four-foot wide landscaped median
with integrated signage from the neighborhood
property line to the first interior intersection.
» Special landscaping on both sides of the entry
drive that includes both specimen trees and larger
background trees.

Standard 3.6.1.B Entry Drive Lighting
Shielded street lighting on poles 10 to 20 feet high shall be provided on at least one side of the Arterial Entry
Drive, extending from the neighborhood property line
to the first interior intersection.

Border Design
The borders of all residential subdivisions and
neighborhoods at arterial streets shall include
a combination of structural perimeter walls and
landscape features, compliant with the following
standards, to soften edges and contribute to
neighborhood character .

Standard 3.6.1.C Perimeter Wall Design
Perimeter walls along arterials shall incorporate one of the following design variations at least every 40 feet in length:
» Change in height of at least twenty percent of the
total wall height.
» Change in material, texture or color.
» Break in the wall plane, including projecting or
recessed areas.

Standard 3.6.1.D Perimeter Wall Construction
All perimeter walls shall be of masonry construction
using brick or stone. Precast or prefabricated perimeter walls of any material shall be prohibited.

Standard 3.6.1.E Perimeter Landscaping
Neighborhood perimeters shall incorporate landscaping
designs in which plantings are paired with perimeter
walls. A combination of grasses, ground covers and
shrubs or vines shall be planted no greater than two
feet from the base of the perimeter wall or fence.

Standard 3.6.1.F Perimeter Trees
Trees selected from the City of Antioch Approved Street Tree List and at least 15 gallons in size with a one-inch diameter at breast height (dbh) shall be planted
a maximum of 30 feet apart along neighborhood
perimeters.

B29
City of Antioch 3. Objective Design Standards
SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 23

3.6.2 Circulation
Intent
Provide a circulation system that facilitates
neighborhood connectivity and ensures pedestrian
and bicycle safety.

Connectivity
Standard 3.6.2.A Dead Ends
Dead-end streets, with the exception of cul-de-sacs,
pedestrian pathways, bicycle facilities and multi-modal pathways shall be prohibited in residential subdivisions.

Standard 3.6.2.B Common Spaces
All parks and common spaces shall be directly
accessible by at least one street and one pedestrian
pathway, bicycle facility and/or multimodal pathway.

Standard 3.6.2.C External Connectivity
New arterial and collector streets within a subdivision or neighborhood shall be aligned with surrounding
existing and planned streets to create a continuous
street pattern.

Standard 3.6.2.D Cul-de-Sacs
The ends of all cul-de-sacs longer than 500 feet shall
include a pedestrian connection to another street,
multi-modal pathway or common open space.

Standard 3.6.2.E Pedestrian Pathway Design
Pedestrian pathways or sidewalks shall be separated
from streets by a minimum four-foot wide planted
buffer and incorporate canopy or shade trees planted
at least every 24 feet on center .

3.6.3 Lot and Site Variation
Intent
Avoidance of repetitive lot patterns and building
placement.

Standard 3.6.3.A “T” Intersection Restriction
Lots located at “T” intersections shall be offset from
the point of intersection, such that driveway access,
main entries and line of sight are not centered with the approaching right-of-way.

Standard 3.6.3.B Unit Design Variation
Subdivisions with more than four units shall include at least three models, each with a distinct floor plan and elevation design.

Standard 3.6.3.C Adjacent Building Design
No home shall be located adjacent to, or across the
street from, a home with the with the same floor plan
or building elevation.

Standard 3.6.3.D Corner Unit Design
Units located on corner lots have shall incorporate at
least two of the following design details enhancements:
» Functional shutters on the street-facing windows
» Wrap-around decorative horizontal cladding
» Chimneys
» Roof gables or other projections
Corner unit with roof gables and wrap-around cladding.

B30
City of Antioch 3. Objective Design Standards
24 SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS

3.6.4 Common Open Space
Intent
Create active and passive common open spaces, each
of which contributes to equitable access, safety, and
service to residents who are differently abled or with
special needs.

Active and Passive Recreation
Common open spaces in residential neighborhoods and
subdivisions shall include active and passive assets to accommodate all neighborhood residents , as provided
for by the following standards :

Standard 3.6.4.A Active Assets
Common open spaces shall facilitate movement and
exercise by including at least three of the following
active recreation assets:
» Play Structures
» Exercise machines
» Fitness series
» Play Courts
» Swing sets
» Jogging path
» Dog play area
Standard 3.6.4.B Passive Assets
Common open spaces shall facilitate outdoor relaxation
and rest with at least three of the following passive
recreation assets:
» Seating or benches
» Permanent picnic or game tables
» Planters within incorporated seating
» Permanent shade structures
» Dog waste station
Standard 3.6.4.C Bicycle Parking
All common open spaces shall provide parking racks for
at least four bicycles.

Inclusive Play
Community parks shall be made accessible to and safe
for residents with special needs and abilities through
compliance with the following standards.

Standard 3.6.4.D Equitable Access
Community parks shall be directly accessible from
adjacent sidewalk(s) via an interrupted hardscaped
pathway at least five feet wide.

Standard 3.6.4.E Enclosed Play Areas
Play areas of community parks shall be clearly defined
by a one- to two-foot tall planter or seating structure for supervising adults. The enclosure shall include at
least two, minimum five-foot wide access points.

Standard 3.6.4.F Diverse Equipment
Play equipment shall include a combination of
swinging, balancing, climbing, spinning, sliding and
rocking components to accommodate individuals
across the needs spectrum.

Standard 3.6.4.G Safe Surfaces
All non-turf active play areas shall be underlain by soft ground cover such as mulch, safety playground mats or
poured in place rubber .

Standard 3.6.4.H Color Palette
The color palette of play equipment and structures
shall be limited to muted or natural tones. Vibrant,
neon and bold primary colors are prohibited.

Accessibility and Safety
Standard 3.6.4.I Maximum Landscaping Height
Internal or border landscaping of common open spaces
shall not exceed four feet in height when fully mature.

B31
City of Antioch 3. Objective Design Standards
SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 25

3.6.5 Neighborhood Lighting
Intent
Provide lighting that ensures multimodal safety,
pedestrian scale and design compatibility.

Standard 3.6.5.A Pedestrian Lighting
All areas used by pedestrians and cyclists shall be
illuminated at night. Such areas include:
» Pedestrian pathways
» Bicycle facilities
» Multi-modal pathways
» Open spaces
Standard 3.6.5.B Street Lighting
Street lighting shall be installed inside the project along the network of internal streets.

Standard 3.6.5.C Inappropriate lighting
No lights that blink, revolve, flash, or change intensity shall be permitted in residential neighborhoods.

Standard 3.6.5.D Shielding
All pole-mounted pedestrian and street lighting shall be shielded to minimize glare and prevent spill over onto
adjacent properties.

3.6.6 Landscaping
Intent
Include landscaping and plantings that enhance
quality of single family residential neighborhoods
and the local environment.

Protection of Natural Features
Standard 3.6.6.A Tree Protection During Construction
An ISA-Certified Arborist or Landscape Architect
shall be retained during demolition, grading and
construction to ensure existing protected trees are
protected as required in permit documents. Tree
protection plans shall be included in the planning
permit plan set as well as all demolition, grading and
building permit drawings.

Standard 3.6.6.B Other Natural Features
Significant natural features (including wetlands,
streams, rock outcroppings, unique habitats, etc.) on
a site shall be protected or incorporated into the site design in a manner deemed appropriate in a study
submitted by a certified biologist and approved by the
City prior to project grading and construction.

Sustainable Landscaping
Standard 3.6.6.C Invasive Species Restriction
All plant materials shall be native California or non-
invasive, drought tolerant species adaptable to the
Antioch climate. All species identified in the California Invasive Plant Council’s (Cal-IPC) Inventory of Invasive Plants are prohibited.

Standard 3.6.6.D Natural Turf Restriction
Natural turf in public areas shall be limited to play
fields, dog runs and other active recreational areas of common open spaces.

Neighborhood playground with a muted color palette,
diverse play equipment and integrated seating, surrounded by a hardscaped path.

B32
City of Antioch 3. Objective Design Standards
26 SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS Standard 3.6.6.E Artificial Turf Restriction
Artificial turf in public areas shall be limited to
playgrounds, accent areas, and pedestrian pathways
of open common open spaces. No artificial turf shall
be installed within five feet of a tree root crown
(measured in all directions).

Standard 3.6.6.F Recycled Irrigation Requirement
Landscape irrigation systems shall utilize recycled water systems, if available. If recycled water is available,
salt-tolerant plant materials shall be selected.

Standard 3.6.6.G Low Maintenance Planting Design
Plants shall be selected and landscapes designed to
ensure that plants will grow to maturity without regular clipping or pruning at pathways, curbs or buildings.

Standard 3.6.6.H Inorganic Material Restriction
Inorganic ground cover (gravel, river rock, etc.) is not an alternative for plant material. It shall cover no more than 35 percent of the total landscape area.

Landscape Design
Standard 3.6.6.I Design Concepts
All landscaped areas shall include at least two of the
following planting design concepts:
» Specimen trees (48-inch box or more) in informal
groupings or rows at major focal points.
» Use of planting to create shadow and patterns
against walls.
» Use of planting to soften building lines and
emphasize the positive features of the site.
» Use of flowering vines on walls, arbors, or trellises. » Trees to create canopy and shade, especially in
common open spaces.

Plantings
Standard 3.6.6.J Mulching
All planting areas shall be mulched to a minimum depth
of three inches.

Standard 3.6.6.K Interference with Utilities
Plant materials shall be placed so they do not restrict access to emergency apparatus such as fire hydrants
or fore alarm boxes or disturb overhead lines or
underground utilities. Trees and large shrubs shall be
placed as follows:
» A minimum of 6 feet between the center of trees
and the edge of a driveway, a water meter, gas
meter, and sewer laterals.
» A minimum of 20 feet between the center of trees
and the beginning of curb returns at intersections
to keep trees out of the line-of-sight triangle at
intersections.
» A minimum of 15 feet between the center of trees
and large shrubs to utility poles and streetlights.
» A minimum of 8 feet between the center of
trees or large shrubs and fire hydrants and fire
department sprinkler and standpipe connections.

Standard 3.6.6.L Staking and Root Barriers
All young trees shall be securely staked with double
staking and/or guy-wires. Root barriers shall be
required for any tree placed within 10 feet of pavement or other conditions where roots could disrupt adjacent
paving/curb surfaces.

Standard 3.6.6.M Irrigation Enclosures
All irrigation systems shall be designed to reduce
vandalism by placing controls in appropriate
enclosures.

Standard 3.6.6.N Right-of-Way Landscaping
The landscape design requirements in standards

3.6.6.4.1 through 3.6.6.4.4, above, shall be applied
to landscaped areas along arterial, collector and local streets.

B33
City of Antioch 4. Definitions
SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 27

4. Definitions
» Arterial Entry Drive: The portion of an arterial
street that functions as the primary vehicular
entrance to a subdivision.
» Arterial Street: Any street or road passing adjacent
to or through a subdivision which carries the major
flow of traffic and for which the traffic entering
from side roads and streets may be controlled.
» Collector Street: Any street within a subdivision
which carries or will carry traffic from local streets
to the system of arterial streets.
» Cottage Court: A group of small, detached housing
units arranged around a shared court visible from
the street.
» Courtyard: Outdoor area that is primarily open
to the sky and surrounded by buildings, walls or a
combination of the two.
» Courtyard Building: A detached structure
consisting of multiple side-by-side and/or stacked
dwelling units oriented around a courtyard or
multiple courtyards.
» Cul-de-sac: A street which connects to another
street only at one end.
» Daylight Plane: An angled building height
limitation that regulates the massing of buildings
and defines the building envelope within which all
new structures or additions must be contained.

Daylight plane requirements are intended to
provide for light and air, and to limit the impacts of
bulk and mass on adjacent properties.
» Dormer: A roofed structure, often containing a
window, that projects vertically beyond the plane
of a primary pitched roofline.
» Duplex, stacked: A detached structure that
consists of two dwelling units arranged one above
the other, each with an entry from the street.
» Duplex, side-by-side: A detached structure that
consists of two dwelling units arranged side-by-
side, each with an entry from the street.
» Eave: The edge of a roof which projects beyond
the wall plane, forming an overhang.
» Elevation: The exterior wall or face of a building
extending vertically from the grade to the top of a
parapet wall or eave, and horizontally across the
entire width of the building.
» Fourplex: A detached structure with four dwelling
units, two on the ground floor and two above, with
shared or individual entries from the street.
» Frontage: The width of a lot or block measured
along the property line adjacent to the street.
» Gable: A roof structure consisting of two sections
whose upper horizontal edges meet to form its
ridge.
» Local Street: Any street which serves local
neighborhood traffic only and which, because of
its location with reference to other streets, will not
become a collector street or is a cul-de-sac street
not designed for future extension.
» Mansard: A roof type having two slopes on every
side, the lower slope being steeper than the upper .
» Monument Sign: A free-standing sign that is
mounted to the ground that is often placed at
entries to a building or development.
» Parapet: A low protective wall along the edge of
a roof, bridge or balcony of diverse design and
materials.
» Porch: A covered, sometimes partly closed area at
the entrance to a building, usually projecting from
the wall having a separate roof.
» Primary Frontage: Edge of the closest building to
the street bordering the property. If there are two
streets bordering the property, the street with
the Main Entry Drive or Shared Entry Drive is the
Primary Frontage.
» Primary Street: Street where the highest level of
vehicle, pedestrian, and/or bicycle circulation is
anticipated for a development project.

B34
City of Antioch
28 SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS » Setback: The required distance from the nearest
elevation of a structure to the property line on
which it is located.
» Stepback: A change in the vertical plane of a multi-
story building created by setting the upper story
building elevation away from the story(ies) below.
» Subdivision: The division of any improved or
unimproved land, shown on the latest equalized
county assessment roll as a unit or as contiguous
units, for the purpose of sale, lease, or financing,
whether immediate or future.
» Townhouse: A single unit or series of attached
units side-by-side that generally have front doors
on one side and garages on the back side. Most
townhouses have two-car garages, either two
spaces wide or two tandem spaces (end to end).
» Walkway: A way designed for use by pedestrians
and not intended for use as a way for motor-driven
vehicles.

B35
City of Antioch
SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 29 B36
B37
City of Antioch
31 SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS31 Appendix:

Single-Family and Missing Middle
Objective Design Standards
Checklist

PLACEHOLDER PAGEPLACEHOLDER PAGE
B38
City of Antioch
SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 32 City of Antioch Single-Family and
Missing Middle Objective Design Standards Checklist
Name of Applicant:

Date:

Project Address:

Project Application # (City staff to fill out):

Objective Design Standards Checklist Items
Applicant Evaluation Staff Evaluation By:

Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Drawing Reference

2.1 Site Design Standards

2.1.1 Residential-Only Project Site Entries (fill in all entry drive types that apply) Main Entry Drive
A: Curb and Gutter
B: Sidewalk
C: Street Lighting
D: Landscaping and Street Trees
E: Gates
F: Curb Ramps
G: Bicycle Facilities
Secondary Entry Drives
H: Gates
Residential Podium Entry Drive
I: ADA Compliance
J: Driveway Widths and Clearances Compliance
K: Pedestrian Entries
Development Type (check all that apply):

Residential Surface-parked
Townhouses
Multi-family Complex
Horizontal Mixed Use
Vertical Mixed Use
Residential Podium
Project Site Context (check all that apply):

Situated adjacent to existing residential development
Situated adjacent to commercial development

PLACEHOLDER PAGEPLACEHOLDER PAGE
B39
City of Antioch
33 SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS33 Objective Design Standards Checklist Items
Applicant Evaluation Staff Evaluation By:

Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Drawing Reference
Design of Trash and Storage Facilities
E: Screening
F: Gates
G: Sizing
H: Roof
I: Drainage

2.1.7 Open Space Areas
General
A: Minimum Required Usable Open Space
B: Siting
C: Usability
D: Safety Railings
Common Open Space
E: Minimum Dimensions
F: Visibility
G: Pedestrian Walkways
H: Seating
I: Amenity Features
J: Play Areas
K: Openness and Buildings
L: Rooftops
M: Buildings
Private Open Space
N: Accessibility
O: Minimum Dimensions
P: Openness
Q: Enclosure

2.2 Building Design Standards

2.2.1 Building Massing and Articulation
General Standards
A: Massing Breaks
B: Horizontal Stepback
C: Architectural Detail

PLACEHOLDER PAGEPLACEHOLDER PAGE
B40
City of Antioch
SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 34 Objective Design Standards Checklist Items
Applicant Evaluation Staff Evaluation By:

Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Drawing Reference
D: Architectural Design Features
E: Façade Articulation
F: Rooflines
G: Window Design
H: Window Shade Features
Townhouses
I: Attached Units Limit
J: Roof Form
Vertical Mixed Use
K: Ground Floor Height
L: Pedestrian-Oriented Features

2.2.2 Entryways
General
A: Primary Building Entry Orientation
B: Primary Building Entry Enhancement
C: Building Entry Size
Townhouses
D: Entry Details
E: Entry Connections
Vertical or Horizontal Mixed Use
F: Ground Floor Elevation
G: Entry Design

2.2.3 Building Materials and Finishes
A: Appropriate Building Materials
B: Brick and Stone Veneer
C: Inappropriate Building Materials

2.2.4 Windows/Glazing
A: Street Frontage
B: Orientation and Proportion
C: Recess
D: Glazing
E: Subdivision and Mullions

PLACEHOLDER PAGEPLACEHOLDER PAGE
B41
City of Antioch
35 SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS35 Objective Design Standards Checklist Items
Applicant Evaluation Staff Evaluation By:

Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Drawing Reference

2.1.2 Mixed-use Project Site Entries
New Shared Entry Drive
A: Independent Roadway
B: Curb and Gutter
C: Sidewalk
D: Street Lighting
E: Landscaping and Street Trees
F: Signage
Enhanced Shared Entry Drive
G: Sidewalk
H: Street Lighting
I: Landscaping and Street Trees
Separate Entry Drive
J: Main Entry Drive Compliance
K: Driveway Widths and Clearances Compliance
L: Signage and Landscaping
Vertical Mixed Use Entry Drive
M: ADA Compliance
N: Driveway Widths and Clearances Compliance
O: Pedestrian Entries

2.1.3 Street Frontage and Parking
Parking Site Design
A: Parking Siting
B: Maximum Width
C: Detached Garage
D: Attached Garage
E: Surface Parking or Carports Located to the Rear
of Building
F: Surface Parking Located to the Side of Building
G: Parking Siting at Secondary Frontage
H: Tuck-under Parking
I: Visitor Parking
J: Parking Courts
K: Driveways Number and Width

PLACEHOLDER PAGEPLACEHOLDER PAGE
B42
City of Antioch
SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 36 Objective Design Standards Checklist Items
Applicant Evaluation Staff Evaluation By:

Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Drawing Reference
Screening, Fencing, and Landscaping Buffers
L: Screening
M: Landscaping Buffer
N: Fencing along the Secondary Frontage

2.1.4 Context Sensitivity
Adjacent to Existing Residential Development
A: Windows
B: Daylight Plane
C: Parking
D: Landscape Buffers
Adjacent to Commercial Development
E: Separation Buffer
F: Fencing
G: Gate

2.1.5 Access
Pedestrian Access
A: Pedestrian Pathway Design
B: Landscape Buffer
C: Pedestrian Pathways
D: Pedestrian Pathway Amenities
Vehicle Access
E: Multi-family Complex Internal Circulation
F: Townhouse Internal Circulation
G: Podium Project Parking Access
Bicycle Access and Parking
H: Bicycle Parking
I: Bicycle Parking for Podium Projects

2.1.6 Service Access, Trash, and Storage Facilities
General
A: Provision of Storage Space
Access
B: Loading and Service Areas
C: Trash Enclosure Siting
D: Service Provider Access

PLACEHOLDER PAGEPLACEHOLDER PAGE
B43
City of Antioch
37 SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS37 Objective Design Standards Checklist Items
Applicant Evaluation Staff Evaluation By:

Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Drawing Reference

2.2.5 Projecting Elements
Awnings
A: Frequency
B: Projection
C: Height
D: Lighting
Balconies, Decks, and Trellises
E: Projection
F: Proportion
Bay Windows
G: Projection
H: Horizontal Separation
I: Design

2.2.6 Roofs
A: Appropriate Roof Materials
B: Inappropriate Roof Materials
C: Equipment Screening
D: Vent Pipes
E: Gutters/Downspouts
F: Roof Overhangs

2.3 Landscaping Standards

2.3.1 Plantings
A: Minimum Landscaped Area
B: Landscaping of Front Yards
C: Materials
D: Design
E: Ground Cover Materials
F: Size and Spacing
G: Tree Protection
H: Protection from Encroachment
I: Interference with Utilities
J: Automatic Sprinkler Controllers
K: Sprinkler Heads
L: Enclosures

PLACEHOLDER PAGEPLACEHOLDER PAGE
B44
City of Antioch
SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 38 Objective Design Standards Checklist Items
Applicant Evaluation Staff Evaluation By:

Yes No N/A Yes No N/A Drawing Reference

2.3.2 Wall and Fences
A: Inappropriate Fencing
B: High Activity Areas and Street Frontages
C: Material Durability
D: Visual Interest
E: Screening and Noise Mitigation

2.4 Lighting Standards

2.4.1 Pedestrian Lighting
A: Pedestrian Safety
B: Height
C: Inappropriate Lighting
D: Illumination Level
E: Street Lighting
F: Glare
G: Concealment

2.4.2 Parking Lot Lighting
A: Height
B: Illumination Level
C: Energy Efficiency
D: Glare

2.5 Signage Standards

2.5.1 General
A: Appropriate Residential Signage
B: Appropriate Mixed Use Signage

2.5.2 Monument Signs
A: Location
B: Sight Obstructions at Intersections
C: Frequency
D: Base

PLACEHOLDER PAGEPLACEHOLDER PAGE
B45
City of Antioch
39 SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS This page intentionally left blank.

B46
City of Antioch
SINGLE-FAMILY AND MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS 40 B47
B48

CITY OF ANTIOCH

PLANNING COMMISSION

Regular Meeting July 19, 2023 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers

1. CALL TO ORDER

Chair Gutilla called the meeting to order at 6:31
P.M. on Wednesday, July 19, 2023, in City
Council Chambers.

2. ROLL CALL

Present: Commissioners Schneiderman, Motts, Lutz and Chair Gutilla

Absent: Commissioners Martin, Hills and Vice Chair Riley Staff: Legal Counsel, Ruthann Ziegler
Senior Planner, Zoe Merideth
Senior Planner, Kevin Scudero
Minutes Clerk, Kitty Eiden

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Chair Gutilla led the Pledge of Allegiance.

4. EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS - None

5. PUBLIC COMMENT – None

6. CONSENT CALENDAR

6-1.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2023

6-2. Wild Horse Multifamily Project One Year Extension (PD -20-01, AR-21- 17)

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-18

On motion by Commissioner Motts, seconded by Commissioner Schneiderman , the Planning Commission members present unanimously approved the Consent Calendar. The motion carried the following vote:

AYES: Schneiderman, Motts, Lutz, Gutilla
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Hills, Martin, Riley

ATTACHMENT C
C1
Planning Commission
July 19, 2023 Page 2 of 5

7. NEW ITEM

7-1. Design Guidelines Zoning Text Amendment and Single Family and Missing Middle Residential Objective Design Standards (LA2023-0002) - The City of Antioch is requesting a Zoning Text Amendment to Antioch Municipal Code Title 9, Chapter 5, Article 26: Design Review Duties and Responsibilities to adopt Objective Design Standards. The City of Antioch is also requesting the adoption of Single Family and Missing Middle Residential Objective Design Standards. The project is applicable citywide.

Senior Planner Merideth introduced the item and Bruce Brubaker, Principal Architect / Placeworks presented the staff report dated July 19, 2023, recommending the Planning Commission 1) Adopt the resolution recommending the City Council adopt the ordinance amending § 9-5.2609 of the Antioch Municipal Code regarding design guidelines. 2) Adopt the resolution recommending the City Council approve a resolution for the Single Family and Missing Middle Objective Design Standards.

Chair Gutilla opened and closed the public comment period with no speakers requesting to speak.

In response to Commissioner Schneiderman, Senior Planner Merideth explained that checklists could be filled in with a PDF application and submitted electronically.

Commissioner Motts questioned if the roofline shadow issue would conflict with passive solar design.

Mr. Brubaker explained the standard presented had been utilized in the past by the City and was similar to other city standards. He noted if it was stricter, it would make it more difficult to develop the property and if reduced it may cast too much shadow on neighboring properties.

Commissioner Motts stated that he did not believe any developments had pursued passive solar; however, he would like to see that going forward. He added that he did not see a conflict at this point.

Commissioner Lutz questioned how the City would convey the new standards to applicants.

Senior Planner Merideth responded that the new standards would be posted on the City’s website and included in application materials. She added the zoning text amendment would also go to the City Council and at that time they would be available to the public.

She clarified that applications deemed complete follow ed standards in place at the time it was deemed complete. She explained that they were fairly similar to the existing residential design guidelines except now they were objective. She noted most homes were within planned development districts with set architecture and since most additions were to the backs of the homes, objective standards were not affecting them.

C2
Planning Commission
July 19, 2023 Page 3 of 5

Mr. Brubaker added that they had reviewed the city’s existing regulations and transformed them into objective standards.

Commissioner Lutz suggested the City conduct outreach to property owners in the northeast part of the City.

Senior Planner Merideth responded that staff could do more outreach for the Viera area of town.

In response to Chair Gutilla, Senior Planner Merideth stated most applicable projects would be new single family residential developments.

Following discussion and review of the objective design standards, Chair Gutilla made the following suggested revisions:

 Page 12 – Change the illustrative photos so that they did not imply stairs were a requirement leading to the front doors
 Page 12 – 3.1.1.C Driveway Centerline – add language to address three car driveways
 Page 13 – 3.2.1.A Front Elevation Massing – Single Floor Projection – remove “project” from the first sentence
 Page 14 – Contrasting Materials or Finish on Floors – remove “color” from first sentence
 Page 20 – Prohibited Materials – Allow chain-link fencing in the backyard when the property backed open space
 Page 21 – 3.3.4.D Inappropriate Lighting – clarify that this standard applied to fixed or permanent lighting
 Page 26 – 3.5.2.C Cluster Mailbox Design – Amend first bullet to read, “Clusters and associated structures shall be designed using one or more exterior finish…..”  Page 28 – 3.6.3.D Corner Unit Design – Remove third bullet “Chimneys”  Page 29 – 3.6.4.C Bicycle Parking – add “at every major pedestrian access to the park”

Discussion ensued regarding the above requested revisions to the Objective Design Standards.

Outside Legal Counsel Ziegler stated if there was agreement with the items previously discussed a motion could be made to adopt the resolutions with the addition that the consultant would add the items accordingly. She noted unless the Planning Commission wanted to see this item again, it would then go to the City Council.

In response to Commissioner Schneiderman, Senior Planner Scudero explained that most developers were aware of objective standards, and it was easy for staff to make them aware of them when they met with them. He noted it was the one-off parcel projects that may be hard to reach; however, they could put the information into the City’s newsletter and push it out on social media.

C3
Planning Commission
July 19, 2023 Page 4 of 5

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-19

On motion by Commissioner Schneiderman, seconded by Commissioner Lutz, the Planning Commission members present unanimously adopted the resolution recommending the City Council adopt the ordinance amending § 9 -5.2609 of the Antioch Municipal Code regarding design guidelines with the following changes:

 Page 12 – Standard 3.1.1.C Driveway Centerline - Breaking up the driveway in thirds in instances of triple wide driveways
 Page 14 – Contracting Materials or Finish on Floors - Removing color from the first sentence
 Page 20 – Standard 3.3.3.B Prohibited Materials - Clarify Chain link is only permissible on gates with slats for rv/vehicle f or sideyard access and in instances where fences were not visible from the street  Page 21 – Standard 3.3.4.D Inappropriate Lighting – Distinguish permanent lighting to allow for Christmas lights
 Page 28 – Standard 3.6.3.D Corner Unit Standard – remove chimneys  Page 29 – Standard 3.6.4.C Bicycle Parking – add “at every main entrance point into an open space”

The motion carried the following vote:

AYES: Schneiderman, Motts, Lutz, Gutilla
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Hills, Martin, Riley

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-20

On motion by Commissioner Schneiderman, seconded by Commissioner Motts, the Planning Commission members present unanimously adopted the Resolution recommending the City Council approve a resolution for the Single Family and Missing Middle Objective Design Standards with the following changes:

 Page 12 – Standard 3.1.1.C Driveway Centerline - Breaking up the driveway in thirds in instances of triple wide driveways
 Page 14 – Contracting Materials or Finish on Floors - Removing color from the first sentence
 Page 20 – Standard 3.3.3.B Prohibited Materials - Clarify Chain link is only permissible on gates with slats for rv/vehicle for sideyard access and in instances where fences were not visible from the street  Page 21 – Standard 3.3.4.D Inappropriate Lighting – Distinguish permanent lighting to allow for Christmas lights
 Page 28 – Standard 3.6.3.D Corner Unit Standard – remove chimneys  Page 29 – Standard 3.6.4.C Bicycle Parking – add “at every main entrance point into an open space”

C4
Planning Commission
July 19, 2023 Page 5 of 5

The motion carried the following vote:

AYES: Schneiderman, Motts, Lutz, Gutilla
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Hills, Martin, Riley

8. ORAL/WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

8-1. August 2, 2023 meeting is cancelled.

Chair Gutilla announced the August 2, 2023, Planning Commission meeting was cancelled.

Senior Planner Merideth announced Director of Community Development Ebbs had left the City and Senior Planner Scudero had been appointed as Acting Director of Community Development and Monique had been hired as Community Development Technician.

Senior Planner Scudero provided an update on recruitment efforts for the staffing vacancies within the Community Development Department.

9. COMMITTEE REPORTS

Commissioner Motts reported that the TRANSPLAN meeting had been cancelled.

10. NEXT MEETING: August 16, 2023

Chair Gutilla announced the next Planning Commission meeting would be held on August 16, 2023.

11. ADJOURNMENT

On motion by Commissioner Schneiderman, seconded by Commissioner Motts, the Planning Commission members present unanimously adjourned the meeting at 7:56
P.M. The motion carried the following vote:

AYES: Schneiderman, Motts, Lutz, Gutilla
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Hills, Martin, Riley

Respectfully submitted:

KITTY EIDEN, Minutes Clerk

C5

8 Agenda Item #
S

TAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DAT
E: Regular Meeting of August 8, 2023
T
O: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
S
UBMITTED BY: Kwame P. Reed, Acting City Manager/Economic Development Director
SUBJ
ECT: Resolution to Support Local, State, and Federal Efforts to Exonerate the Port Chicago 50

RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution to support local, state, and federal efforts to exonerate the Port Chicago 50.

F

ISCAL IMPACT
The recommended action has no fiscal impact.

DI

SCUSSION
This item is for discussion and possible action by the City Council.

BACKG
ROUND
On the night of July 17, 1944, two transport vessels loading ammunition at the Port Chicago naval base in Concord, California, were suddenly engulfed in a gigantic explosion, the incredible blast of which wrecked the naval base and heavily damaged the town of Port Chicago.

E
veryone on the pier and aboard the two ships were killed instantly —some 320 American naval personnel, 200 of whom were African American enlisted men; and another 390 military and civilian personnel were injured, including 226 African American enlisted men. This single, stunning disaster accounted for nearly one- fifth of all African American naval casualties during the whole of World War II and was the worst home front disaster of the war.

T
he blame for the explosion went to the African American munitions handlers who had been killed in the disaster yet had not been properly trained in the handling of those explosives. Weeks later, seamen were ordered back to work loading munitions at the same location. Two- hundred fifty-eight African American sailors were ordered to load these munitions, but due to what they felt were unsafe work conditions and themselves not being adequately trained in the proper handling of munitions, they refused orders.

Antioch City Council Report
August 8, 2023 Agenda Item#8 2
After being threatened with the death penalty, 208 of these men reluctantly returned to work. However, the remaining 50 were court -martialed and sentenced to 17 years in prison.

A
fter the war had ended in 1945, the Navy announced that 47 of the 50 men would be released to active duty. Two remained in a hospital recuperating from injuries, while a third remained in prison due to bad conduct. Eventually, those of the 50 who had not committed later offenses were given a general discharge from the Navy under honorable conditions. Yet their convictions were never rescinded, and the “Port Chicago 50” carried with them charges of mutiny until they died.

AT

TACHMENTS
A. Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 2023/XXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANTIOCH

SUPPORTING LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL EFFORTS TO EXONERATE THE PORT CHICAGO 50

WHEREAS, on July 17, 1944, the deadliest home front disaster of World War II took place when a tragic explosion occurred at the Port Chicago Naval Magazine in Contra Costa County killing 320 men (of whom 202 were African American) and wounding 390 (of whom 233 were African American);
WHEREAS, Port Chicago Naval Magazine was racially segregated and all sailors loading munitions at the time of the explosion were African American; WHEREAS, the surviving sailors were entitled to standard survivors’ leave but were denied leave and ordered to clean up after the disaster; WHEREAS, the surviving sailors were ordered back to handling high explosives before an investigation could determine the cause of the deadly explosion; WHEREAS, 258 ammunition handlers engaged in peaceful work stoppage rather than return under the same unsafe working conditions;
WHEREAS, 50 of these men were unlawfully charged with mutiny, prosecuted as guilty, and sentenced to prison;
WHEREAS, three weeks after the work stoppage, a Naval Court of Inquiry report confirmed working conditions and pr actices enforced by Port Chicago leadership were in violation of Naval safety regulations and federal safety code; WHEREAS, the actions of the sailors, the public mutiny trial, and public advocacy from Thurgood Marshall , Chief Counsel of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ( “NAACP”) Legal Defense and Education Fund (1940- 1961) initiated the desegregation of the Navy in February 1946; WHEREAS, there have been several attempts over the years to appeal the decision, but all have failed;
WHEREAS, starting in the 1990s, Congressman George Miller worked to preserve the history of the Port Chicago 50 and worked towards their exoneration, and in 1992, his legislation designated the site of the Port Chicago Naval Magazine as a national memorial, which is managed by the National Park Service; RESOLUTION NO. 2023/XXX
August 8, 2023

WHEREAS, in 2009, President Obama signed legislation to incorporate Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial as a full and permanent unit of our National Park System;
WHEREAS, the East Bay Regional Park District received part of the Concord Naval Weapons Station through a Public Benefit Conveyance on July 19, 2019, and has named the park the Thurgood Marshall Regional Park – Home of the Port Chicago 50, which honors the courage and legacy of the P ort Chicago 50 and all those who sacrificed their lives in our nation’s ongoing struggle for social justice, racial equality, and workers’ rights;
WHEREAS, Naval historians now recognize the actions of the Port Chicago 50 potentially saved lives and changed the Navy for the better; WHEREAS, in 2022, the City of Concord, the City of Albany, and the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors each passed resolutions supporting local, state, and federal efforts to exonerate the sailors wrongfully convicted of mutiny following the Port Chicago disaster of 1944;
WHEREAS, in 2022, the State of California successfully passed SJR -15 urging the President of the United States and Congress to restore honor to the sailors unjustly blamed for, and the sailors convicted of mutiny following the Port Chicago disaster, and to rectify any mistreatment by the military of those sailors, including the full exoneration of those who were convicted at courts-martial;
WHEREAS, in 2023, US Representative Mark DeSaulnier (CA -11), US Representative Barbara Lee (CA-12), and US Representative Jo hn Garamendi (CA-08) introduced a resolution recognizing the victims of the Port Chicago disaster and calling for the exoneration of the Port Chicago 50; and
WHEREAS, in June 2023, the Philadelphia 15 were exonerated by Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin Parker. This case serves as an example and pathway to exonerate the Port Chicago 50.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The Antioch City Council does hereby support these and all efforts to exonerate the Port Chicago 50 and recognize their service to our country.

Section 2. The Antioch City Council recognizes the efforts that this case presents in our nation’s struggle for social justice, racial equity, and workers’ rights.

RESOLUTION NO. 2023/XXX
August 8, 2023

Section 3. The Antioch City Council affirms support for all future efforts which urge the President, Congress of the United States, and Secretary of the Navy to take all necessary actions to restore honor to, and rectify the mistreatment by the United States Military of, any sailors who were unjustly blamed for and convicted of mutiny after the Port Chicago disaster, which occurred in the town of Port Chicago, California, in 1944.

Section 4. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption.
* * * * * *

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Antioch at a regular meeting thereof held on the 8 th day of August 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

___________________________________

ELIZABETH HOUSEHOLDER

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANTIOCH

9 Agenda Item #
S

TAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DAT
E: Regular Meeting of August 8, 2023
T
O: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
S
UBMITTED BY: Kwame P. Reed, Acting City Manager/Economic Development Director
SUBJ
ECT: Discussion on Hiring of Retired Police Officers

RECOMMENDED ACTION
It i s r ecommended that t he City C ouncil discuss t he id ea of potentiall y hirin g r etired police officers.

FISCAL IMPACT
The recommended action has no fiscal impact.

DISCUSSION
This item is for discussion and was placed on the agenda in response to a request by Councilmember Barbanica. The Acting City Manager, the Antioch Police Department, and the Human Resour ces Department are engaged in discussions to address current vacancies at the Police Department as so on as possible.

Councilmember Barbanica suggested that the City consider hiring retired police officers to provide temporary co verage for ce rtain non- sworn du ties within t he P olice Department. The Acti ng City M anager will consider all opt ions a nd make necessary efforts to address the current staffing concerns in the Police Department.

ATTACHMENTS
None