Agenda packet, regular meeting, second session — Antioch City Council, May 27, 2025 (part 1 of 3)

ANNOTATED AGENDA
Antioch City Council

SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
Including the Antioch City Council acting as
Housing Successor to the Antioch Development Agency

Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2025
Time: 4:00 P.M. – Closed Session
5:00 P.M. – Special Meeting/Study Session
7:00 P.M. – Regular Meeting

Place: Council Chambers
200 ‘H’ Street
Antioch, CA 94509

City Council meetings are televised live on Comcast channel 24, AT&T U-verse channel 99, or live stream (at www.antiochca.gov). Please see the inside cover for detailed Speaker Rules.

PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES BEFORE ENTERING COUNCIL CHAMBERS.

Ron Bernal, Mayor Melissa Rhodes, City Clerk
Louie Rocha, Mayor Pro Tem (District 2) Jorge R. Rojas, City Treasurer Tamisha Torres-Walker, Council Member District 1
Donald P. Freitas, Council Member District 3 Bessie Marie Scott, City Manager Monica E. Wilson, Council Member District 4 Derek Cole, Interim City Attorney

ACCESSIBILITY: In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and California law, it is the policy of the City of Antioch to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to everyone, including individuals with disabiliti es. If you are a person with a disability and require information or materials in an appropriate alternative format; or if you require any other accommodation, please contact the ADA Coordinator at the number or address below at least 72 hours prior to the meeting or when you desire to receive services. Advance notification within this guideline will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. The City’s ADA Coordinator can be reached @ Phone: (925) 779-6950, and e-mail: [email protected].

ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL -1- MAY 27, 2025

Notice of Availability of Reports
This agenda is a summary of the actions proposed to be taken by the City Council. For almost every agenda item, materials have been prepared by the City staff for the Council's consideration. These materials include staff reports which explain in detail the item before the Council and the reason for the recommendation. The materials may also include resolutions or ordinances which are proposed to be adopted. Unless otherwise noted, City Council actions include a determination that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply. The Council meets regularly on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the mo nth at 7:00 p.m., with Closed Sessions often occurring before or after the regular meeting. City Council Agendas, including Staff Reports are posted onto our City’s Website 72 hours before each Council Meeting. To be notified when the agenda packets are posted onto our City’s Website, simply click on this link: Notifications – City of Antioch, California (antiochca.gov) and enter your e-mail address to subscribe. To view the agenda information, click on the following link: City Council – City of Antioch, California (antiochca.gov) . Questions may be directed to the staff member who prepared the staff report, or to the City Clerk's Office, who will refer you to the appropriate person.

Notice of Opportunity to Address Council
The public has the opportunity to address the City Council on each agenda item. To address the Council, fill out a Speaker Request form and place in the Speaker Card Tray near the City Clerk before the meeting begins. This will enable us to call upon you to speak. Comments regarding matters not on this Agenda may be addressed during the "Public Comments" section. No one may speak more than once on an agenda item or during “Public Comments”. The Speaker Request forms are located at the entrance of the Council Chambers. Please see the Speaker Rules on the inside cover of this Agenda.

4:00 P.M. ROLL CALL – CLOSED SESSION – for Council Members – Council Members District 3 Freitas, District 4 Wilson, Mayor Pro Tem (District 2) Rocha, and Mayor Bernal [Council Member District 1 Torres-Walker – Absent]

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

PUBLIC COMMENTS for Closed Session – None

CLOSED SESSION:

1) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION – pursuant to California Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1)): Trent Allen, et al. v. City of Antioch, et al., U.S.D.C. N. Dist. Cal. Case No. 3:23-cv-01895- VC (and consolidated cases).

A report was given to the City Council by Legal Counsel; No reportable action taken

2) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS – pursuant to California Government Code section 54956.8; Property: East 18th Street and Wilson Street (APN 051 -400-027), Antioch, CA; Negotiating Parties: City of Antioch Negotiators: Bessie Marie Scott, City Manager and Derek Cole, Interim City Attorney; Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Negotiator:

Aaron J. McAlister, Deputy Fire Chief; Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment.

No reportable action taken

ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL -2- MAY 27, 2025

CLOSED SESSION – Continued

3) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS – pursuant to California Government Code section 54956.8; Property: Approximately 2,540 square feet of property adjacent to 1 Marina Plaza (APN 066 -010-017), Antioch, CA; Negotiating Parties: City of Antioch Negotiators: Bessie Marie Scott, City Manager, Brad Helfenberger, Assistant City Manager, Derek Cole, Interim City Attorney; Negotiating Parties: Sean McCauley, Owner of Adjacent Property; Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment.

No reportable action taken

4:03 P.M. ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION

5:03 P.M. ROLL CALL – SPECIAL MEETING/STUDY SESSION – for Council Members – Council Members District 3 Freitas, District 4 Wilson, Mayor Pro Tem (District 2) Rocha, and Mayor Bernal
[Council Member District 1 Torres-Walker – Absent]

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

STUDY SESSION

SM-1. HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM 2.1.10: POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF

AN INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE
Direction provided to staff
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council discuss, receive public comments, and provide direction to staff.

6:29 P.M. MOTIONED TO ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING/STUDY SESSION

7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL – REGULAR MEETING – for City /City Council Members acting as Housing Successor to the Antioch Development Agency – Council Members District 3 Freitas, District 4 Wilson, Mayor Pro Tem (District 2) Rocha, and Mayor Bernal
[Council Member District 1 Torres-Walker – Absent]

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

CITY ATTORNEY TO REPORT OUT ON CLOSED SESSION

ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL -3- MAY 27, 2025

COUNCIL MOTIONED TO CONTINUE REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS #6 AND #7, AND CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA #N TO A FUTURE MEETING; APPROVED 4/0

PUBLIC COMMENTS – Members of the public may comment only on unagendized items.

The public may comment on agendized items when they come up on this Agenda.

1. PROCLAMATIONS

• National Police Week, May 11 – 17, 2025
• Pride Month, June 2025
Approved, 4/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council approve the proclamations.

2. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF CIVIC AND COMMUNITY EVENTS

➢ JUNETEENTH – A Freedom Celebration: June 19, 2025

▪ Williamson Ranch Park
Lone Tree Way (cross street Hillcrest Avenue), Antioch, CA

CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COMMUNICATIONS

MAYOR’S COMMENTS

3. PRESENTATION – Land Use Housing Planning and Permitting Presentation, presented by David A. Storer, Interim Community Development Director and Derek Cole, Interim City Attorney

4. CONSENT CALENDAR for City /City Council Members acting as Housing Successor to the Antioch Development Agency

A. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING/CLOSED SESSION MINUTES FOR MAY 12, 2025
Approved, 4/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council approve the Special Meeting/Closed Session minutes.

ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL -4- MAY 27, 2025

CONSENT CALENDAR for City /City Council Members acting as Housing Successor to the Antioch Development Agency – Continued

B. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 13, 2025 Continued, 4/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council continue the Meeting Minutes.

C. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 20, 2025 Continued, 4/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council continue the Special Meeting Minutes.

D. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL WARRANTS
Approved, 4/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council approve the warrants.

E. APPROVAL OF HOUSING SUCCESSOR WARRANTS
Approved, 4/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council approve the warrants.

F. REJECTION OF CLAIM: KARL BROWNLEE JR.

Rejected, 4/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council reject the claim submitted by Karl Brownlee Jr.

G. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE 2025-26 FISCAL YEAR
Reso No. 2025/90 Adopted, 4/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution selecting the California per capita personal income cost of living growth factor for Fiscal Year 2025 -26, selecting the population percent change certified by the State Department of Finance for Fiscal Year 2025-26, and establishing the appropriations limit for the 2025-26 Fiscal Year as $192,606,384.

ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL -5- MAY 27, 2025

CONSENT CALENDAR for City /City Council Members acting as Housing Successor to the Antioch Development Agency – Continued

H. CONSIDERATION OF BIDS FOR THE PAVEMENT PLUGS AND LEVELING COURSES AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS PROJECT (P.W. 709-2)
Council motioned to continue to the next meeting, 4/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution:

• Rejecting the bid submitted by JV Lucas Paving, Inc. as nonresponsive;

• Awarding the construction agreement for the Pavement Plugs and Leveling Courses at Various Locations Project to the lowest, responsive, and responsible bidder, Consolidated Engineering, Inc.; and

• Approving an agreement with Consolidated Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $2,189,924 and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute the Agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney.

I. CONSIDERATION OF BIDS FOR THE NICK RODRIGUEZ COMMUNITY/SENIOR CENTER ROOF REPLACEMENT (P.W. 397-13)
Reso No. 2025/91 Adopted, 4/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution to reject all bids for the Nick Rodriguez Community/Senior Center Roof Replacement and direct staff to re-bid the project.

J. SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE STREETS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE CITY OF ANTIOCH AND THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD AND AUTHORIZING THE

CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
Reso No. 2025/92 Adopted, 4/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Second A mendment to the Streets Cooperative Agreement between the City of Antioch and the City of Brentwood including easement deeds and administrative documents as may be necessary to carry-out the agreement; and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute a Second Amendment to the agreement, and future amendments necessary as improvements are constructed in a form approved by the City Attorney.

ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL -6- MAY 27, 2025

CONSENT CALENDAR for City /City Council Members acting as Housing Successor to the Antioch Development Agency – Continued

K. MULTI-YEAR COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH HONEYWELL BUILDING SOLUTIONS

FOR HVAC MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS AT CITY FACILITIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,526,797.91
Reso No. 2025/93 Adopted, 4/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving a Sourcewell Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Honeywell Building Solutions for HVAC Maintenance and Repairs at City Facilities for a term of three (3) years ending June 30, 2028 in the amount of $885,811.87 with an option to extend an additional two (2) years ending June 30, 2030, in the amount of $640,986.04 for a total five (5) year agreement amount of $1,526,797.91. This total amount includes $100,000 for each contract year for parts and service s of aging HVAC components and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute the Cooperative Purchasing Agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney.

L. UPDATE TO FISCAL AGENT FOR VIOLENCE PREVENTION STRATEGIC PLANNING

AGREEMENT
Reso No. 2025/94 Adopted, 4/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving an update to the fiscal agent for the City’s strategic planning agreement with Hope and Heal Fund, changing the fiscal agent from New Venture Fund to Pinyon Foundation.

M. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTING

SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANTIOCH AND TM CONSULTING INC., IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $38,000, FOR A TOTAL AGREEMENT AMOUNT OF $113,000 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE

THE AMENDMENT
Reso No. 2025/95 Adopted, 4/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the First Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement between the City of Antioch and TM Consulting Inc., in an Amount Not to Exceed $ 38,000 for a total Agreement Amount of $113,000 with a term ending June 30, 2025 and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute the First Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement between the City of Antioch and TM Consulting Inc., in a form approved by the City Manager and City Attorney

ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL -7- MAY 27, 2025

CONSENT CALENDAR for City /City Council Members acting as Housing Successor to the Antioch Development Agency – Continued

N. CITY COUNCIL OVERNIGHT TRAVEL TO CHICHIBU JAPAN ON JULY 16-26, 2025 Continued to a future meeting, 4/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council authorize overnight travel for Council Member Torres -Walker to Chichibu, Japan from July 16-26, 2025, for a sister-city cultural exchange representing the City of Antioch. It is further recommended that the City Council authorize the associated expenditures in an amount not to exceed $2,201.51.

O. ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE FIRST

AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SHIELD PROTECTION & PUBLIC SAFETY, INC., DBA SPEARHEAD PROTECTION, FOR

PRIVATE SECURITY SERVICES OF CITY -OWNED ASSETS AND PARKING LOT S IN THE RIVERTOWN/DOWNTOWN AREA IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $100,000 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025–26
Reso No. 2025/96 Adopted, 4/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Shield Protection & Public Safety, Inc., DBA Spearhead Protection, to continue providing private security services for City -owned assets and parking lots in the Rivertown/Downtown area, in an amount not to exceed $100,000 for Fiscal Year 2025–26.

P. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CLASS SPECIFICATIONS UPDATES FOR THE ANTIOCH POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION (APOA) AND THE ANTIOCH POLICE

SWORN MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (APSMA) WITH NO SALARY CHANGES Reso No. 2025/97 Adopted, 4/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the updated class specifications for positions within the Antioch Police Officers’ Association (APOA) and the Antioch Police Sworn Management Association (APSMA).

ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL -8- MAY 27, 2025

CONSENT CALENDAR for City /City Council Members acting as Housing Successor to the Antioch Development Agency – Continued

Q. APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO. 1 FOR THE CALIFORNIA VIOLENCE INTERVENTION & PREVENTION (CALVIP) PROGRAM EVALUATION WITH EVIDENT CHANGE Reso No. 2025/98 Adopted, 4/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager or designee to approve Amendment No. 1 to the consulting services agreement with Evident Change, increasing the contract amount by $85,302 to support the extended evaluation of the City’s California Violence Intervention and Prevention (CalVIP) Cohort 4 grant program. The amendment increases the total contract amount from $89,705 to an amount not to exceed $175,007 and extends the term of the agreement through June 30, 2026.

R. DISPLAY OF THE PRIDE PROGRESS FLAG AT CITY HALL
Reso No. 2025/99 Adopted, 4/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution directing the City Manager or designee to fly the Pride Progress Flag at City Hall throughout the month of June 2025 in recognition of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer or Questioning, Intersex, Asexual or Allies Community Pride Month in the City of Antioch.

S. APPROVAL OF TREASURER’S REPORT FOR MARCH 2025
Received and filed, 4/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council receive and file the March 2025 Treasurer’s Report.

T. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 22, 2025 Continued, 4/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council continue the Special Meeting Minutes.

ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL -9- MAY 27, 2025

PUBLIC HEARING

5. PROPOSED UPDATES TO THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2025 Reso No. 2025/100 Adopted Excluding Marina Fees with direction to staff to bring back additional information regarding marina fee increases, 4/0 Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution updating and approving the Master Fee Schedule effective July 1, 2025.

COUNCIL REGULAR AGENDA

6. AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ONE DAY

AT A TIME WITH FISCAL SPONSOR COMMUNITY INITIATIVES, INCREASING THE AGREEMENT AMOUNT BY $587,174 TO AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $927,980, FOR THE 2022 -25 CITY OF ANTIOCH’S CALIFORNIA VIOLENCE INTERVENTION AND

PREVENTION (CALVIP) PROGRAM
[Continued to a future meeting, 4/0]
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the second amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with One Day at a Time (ODAT), with fiscal sponsor Community Initiatives, for the City of Antioch’s 2022 –2025 California Violence Intervention and Prevention (CalVIP) gr ant.

The amendment increases the total contract amount by $587,174 to an amount not to exceed $927,980 and extends the term of the agreement through June 30, 2026.

7. AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ADVANCE PEACE INCREASING THE AMOUNT BY $50,000 FOR SUPPORT OF THE CITY OF ANTIOCH’S CALIFORNIA VIOLENCE INTERVENTION AND PREVENTION PROGRAM (CALVIP)
[Continued to a future meeting, 4/0]
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the third amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with Advance Peace for Technical
Assistance/Support, Training and development for the 2022 -25 City of Antioch’s California Violence Intervention and Prevention (CalVIP) i n the amount of $50,000 and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute the third amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney.

ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL -10- MAY 27, 2025

PUBLIC COMMENTS

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS – Council Members report out various activities and any Council Member may place an item for discussion and direction on a future agenda. Timing determined by Mayor and City Manager – no longer than 90 days.

MOTION TO ADJOURN – After Council Communications and Future Agenda Items, the Mayor will make a motion to adjourn the meeting. A second motion is required, and then a majority vote is required to adjourn the meeting.

Motioned to adjourn the meeting at 10:33 p.m. Approved, 4/0

ANNOTATED AGENDA
Antioch City Council

SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
Including the Antioch City Council acting as
Housing Successor to the Antioch Development Agency

Date: Tuesday, May 27, 2025
Time: 4:00 P.M. – Closed Session
5:00 P.M. – Special Meeting/Study Session
7:00 P.M. – Regular Meeting

Place: Council Chambers
200 ‘H’ Street
Antioch, CA 94509

City Council meetings are televised live on Comcast channel 24, AT&T U-verse channel 99, or live stream (at www.antiochca.gov). Please see the inside cover for detailed Speaker Rules.

PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES BEFORE ENTERING COUNCIL CHAMBERS.

ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL -1- MAY 27, 2025

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

PUBLIC COMMENTS for Closed Session – None

CLOSED SESSION:

A report was given to the City Council by Legal Counsel; No reportable action taken

Aaron J. McAlister, Deputy Fire Chief; Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment.

No reportable action taken

ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL -2- MAY 27, 2025

CLOSED SESSION – Continued

No reportable action taken

4:03 P.M. ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

STUDY SESSION

SM-1. HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM 2.1.10: POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF

AN INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE
Direction provided to staff
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council discuss, receive public comments, and provide direction to staff.

6:29 P.M. MOTIONED TO ADJOURN SPECIAL MEETING/STUDY SESSION

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

CITY ATTORNEY TO REPORT OUT ON CLOSED SESSION

ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL -3- MAY 27, 2025

COUNCIL MOTIONED TO CONTINUE REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS #6 AND #7, AND CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA #N TO A FUTURE MEETING; APPROVED 4/0

PUBLIC COMMENTS – Members of the public may comment only on unagendized items.

The public may comment on agendized items when they come up on this Agenda.

1. PROCLAMATIONS

• National Police Week, May 11 – 17, 2025
• Pride Month, June 2025
Approved, 4/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council approve the proclamations.

2. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF CIVIC AND COMMUNITY EVENTS

➢ JUNETEENTH – A Freedom Celebration: June 19, 2025

▪ Williamson Ranch Park
Lone Tree Way (cross street Hillcrest Avenue), Antioch, CA

CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS/COMMUNICATIONS

MAYOR’S COMMENTS

3. PRESENTATION – Land Use Housing Planning and Permitting Presentation, presented by David A. Storer, Interim Community Development Director and Derek Cole, Interim City Attorney

4. CONSENT CALENDAR for City /City Council Members acting as Housing Successor to the Antioch Development Agency

ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL -4- MAY 27, 2025

CONSENT CALENDAR for City /City Council Members acting as Housing Successor to the Antioch Development Agency – Continued

B. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 13, 2025 Continued, 4/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council continue the Meeting Minutes.

C. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 20, 2025 Continued, 4/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council continue the Special Meeting Minutes.

D. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL WARRANTS
Approved, 4/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council approve the warrants.

E. APPROVAL OF HOUSING SUCCESSOR WARRANTS
Approved, 4/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council approve the warrants.

F. REJECTION OF CLAIM: KARL BROWNLEE JR.

Rejected, 4/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council reject the claim submitted by Karl Brownlee Jr.

STAFF REPORT

ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL -5- MAY 27, 2025

CONSENT CALENDAR for City /City Council Members acting as Housing Successor to the Antioch Development Agency – Continued

• Rejecting the bid submitted by JV Lucas Paving, Inc. as nonresponsive;

• Awarding the construction agreement for the Pavement Plugs and Leveling Courses at Various Locations Project to the lowest, responsive, and responsible bidder, Consolidated Engineering, Inc.; and

J. SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE STREETS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE CITY OF ANTIOCH AND THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD AND AUTHORIZING THE

ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL -6- MAY 27, 2025

CONSENT CALENDAR for City /City Council Members acting as Housing Successor to the Antioch Development Agency – Continued

K. MULTI-YEAR COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH HONEYWELL BUILDING SOLUTIONS

L. UPDATE TO FISCAL AGENT FOR VIOLENCE PREVENTION STRATEGIC PLANNING

M. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTING

ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL -7- MAY 27, 2025

CONSENT CALENDAR for City /City Council Members acting as Housing Successor to the Antioch Development Agency – Continued

O. ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE FIRST

AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SHIELD PROTECTION & PUBLIC SAFETY, INC., DBA SPEARHEAD PROTECTION, FOR

P. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CLASS SPECIFICATIONS UPDATES FOR THE ANTIOCH POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION (APOA) AND THE ANTIOCH POLICE

ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL -8- MAY 27, 2025

CONSENT CALENDAR for City /City Council Members acting as Housing Successor to the Antioch Development Agency – Continued

S. APPROVAL OF TREASURER’S REPORT FOR MARCH 2025
Received and filed, 4/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council receive and file the March 2025 Treasurer’s Report.

T. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 22, 2025 Continued, 4/0
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council continue the Special Meeting Minutes.

ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL -9- MAY 27, 2025

PUBLIC HEARING

COUNCIL REGULAR AGENDA

6. AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ONE DAY

The amendment increases the total contract amount by $587,174 to an amount not to exceed $927,980 and extends the term of the agreement through June 30, 2026.

ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL -10- MAY 27, 2025

PUBLIC COMMENTS

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS

Motioned to adjourn the meeting at 10:33 p.m. Approved, 4/0

SM-1
Agenda Item #

STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

DATE: Special Meeting of May 27, 2025

SUBMITTED BY: Greg Goodfellow, Senior Associate II, PlaceWorks

APPROVED BY: David A. Storer, AICP, Interim Community Development Director

SUBJECT: Housing Element Implementation Program 2.1.10: Possible adopti on of an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Study Session

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends that the City Council provide feedback and direction on the possible adoption of an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact as a result of the City Council providing staff feedback as part of the study session. Should the City Council choose to ad opt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in the future there would likely be a fiscal impact due to increased staffing and administrative costs to implement the ordinance. There is also the possibility of additional revenue generation for housing production should the City Council choose to adopt an in-lieu fee as an alternative means of compliance.

DISCUSSION
The City is currently studying the feasibility and adoption of an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO). An IHO, often referred to as inclusionary zoning, is a zoning ordinance that requires developers to allocate a percentage of housing un its in market-rate developments as affordable, or below-market rate (BMR) units. T he feasibility study is consistent with Program 2.1.10 of the City’s state-certified 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Housing Element.

Staff is recommending that the City Council review components o f an IHO, including the Financial Feasibility Analysis and results of community outreac h. Guided discussion questions are in the consultant’s Study Session presentation (see Attachment A).

Antioch City Council Report
May 27, 2025 Agenda Item # SM-1 2

BACKGROUND
Inclusionary Housing in California
Inclusionary housing regulation, or inclusionary zoning, has be en used for decades in California to produce affordable housing. Inclusionary ordinanc es require that a specific percentage of units in market-rate development projects be offered at below-market rates.

These percentages are known as inclusionary requirements. Nearl y 200 cities and counties in California have adopted IHOs, including Contra Cost a County and multiple jurisdictions in Contra Costa County. Examples of local IHOs ar e summarized in Attachment B.

Antioch has considered adopting an IHO since approximately 2009. Past City leadership concluded that market rate housing in Antioch was already adequ ately affordable. In 2016, the Contra Costa Grand Jury released a report titled Where will we Live: The Affordable Housing Waiting List is Closed. The report recommended that Antioch should consider adopting an IHO. The City responded to this recommenda tion on August 9, 2016, stating that the City, assuming 2000-2009 home values, “a lready provides a diversity of housing options and is accessible to households of all income levels...” Therefore, an IHO was “not warranted and is not reasonable.”

The inclusion of Program 2.1.10 in the Antioch Housing Element is indicative of current statewide and local housing challenges and new housing prioriti es. Technical analyses and community outreach performed as part of the Housing Element demonstrate the need for housing-forward policies and the potential value of an IHO.

Legal Context
California jurisdictions have the legal right to adopt an IHO as a local land use regulation, similar to a traditional zoning or development standard. This is consistent with Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution, which grants cities t he power “to make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations.” This is referred to as local “police power.”

The following court decisions and laws have shaped the current legal status of IHOs in California:

2009. Palmer/Sixth Street Properties L.P. v. City of Los Angele s. The California Court of Appeal ruled that inclusionary housing requ irements for rental housing violated the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. This Act allows landlords to set initial monthly rent and increase the rent each time a u nit is vacated. After this decision, most jurisdictions with inclusionary housing ordinances that included rental housing stopped applying the rental requirement. 2013. Latinos Unidos del Valle de Napa y Solano v. County of Na pa. The California Court of Appeal ruled that inclusionary units qualif y as affordable units for purposes of the Density Bonus Law. As a result, developers can use the same affordable units to fulfill both inclusionary housing requirements and density bonus requirements.

Antioch City Council Report
May 27, 2025 Agenda Item # SM-1 3

2010-2015. California Building Assn. v. of San Jose 61 Cal.4th 435. In 2010, the California Building Industry Association (CBIA) filed a lawsuit against San Jose, alleging the City’s inclusionary requirements constituted an “exaction" that needed to be justified by the impact of the housing project. In 2015, the California Supreme Court ruled that inclusionary requirements are not exactions an d are constitutionally legitimate as long as they bear "a real and substantial relationship to the public interest."
2017. Assembly Bill 1505. AB 1505 is known as the “Palmer Fix.” It reaffirms the authority of local governments to include inclusionary requirements for rental units.

It amends Section 65850 of the California Government Code and a dds Section 65850.01. It provides for circumstantial review by California D epartment of Housing and Community Development (HCD) of financial feasibilit y studies to ensure that inclusionary requirements do not “unduly constrain” the production of housing. It also requires IHOs that include rental requirements to “provide alternative means of compliance.”

To summarize, the adoption and content of IHOs are governed by the following basic legal parameters:

IHOs may include requirements for rental and/or for-sale housi ng projects.

IHOs may include different requirements for:
o Rental and for-sale housing projects.
o Projects of different sizes and locations.
o Housing units of different levels of affordability.

Affordable units that fulfill inclusionary requirements may al so be used to fulfill California State Density Bonus law requirements.

Unlike development impact fees, which are subject to AB 1600, the Mitigation Fee Act, IHOs do not require nexus studies. These are economic anal yses that establish the relationship between new development and the impact fee charged.

HCD may ask to review financia l feasibility studies of IHOs that require more than 15% of rental projects to be affordable, in jurisdictions that have failed to meet at least 75 percent of their share of above-moderate income Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA).

These studies assess the financial impacts of affordability requirements on the local housing market. They are not a legal requirement of IHOs.

IHOs with rental housing requirements must provide alternative m e a n s o f compliance, such as payment of in-lieu fees, dedication of land for affordable housing, or off-site construction of affordable housing.

Antioch City Council Report
May 27, 2025 Agenda Item # SM-1 4 Income and Affordability in Contra Costa County
IHOs accommodate State-designated levels of housing affordabili ty. California categorizes housing based on how affordable it is to households with different income levels. The three categories of affordable housing typically accommodated in IHOs are:
Very Low-Income (VLI) Housing. Units affordable to households earning 0-50% of the Area Median Income (AMI).
Low-Income (LI) Housing . Units affordable to households earning 51-80% of AMI.
Moderate Income (MI) Housing. Units affordable to households earning 80-120% of AMI.

IHOs typically include different requirements for these three above income levels.

The State also recognizes Above-Moderate Income (AMI) Housing, which are units affordable to households earning more than 120% of AMI. However, this affordability level is not provided for in IHOs.

The Area Median Income in Contra Costa County is $159,800. The following table shows incomes of households of various sizes, within each affordable income level. These figures were released by the California Department of Housing a nd Community Development, effective April 25, 2025. The figures are updated annually for each county.

Antioch City Council Report
May 27, 2025 Agenda Item # SM-1 5 The following table includes gross rent limits in Contra Costa County. The table shows the maximum rents, for units of various sizes, which are affordable to households of each income level.

BASIC CONTENTS OF INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCES
Local jurisdictions have flexibility regarding the contents of IHOs, within the legal parameters outlined above. However, most IHOs in California inc lude the following regulatory components:

Threshold Project Size. This is the minimum project size below which projects are not subject to the affordable housing production requiremen ts. Common threshold project size ranges from five to 10 units.
Income and Affordability Requirements. These are the core of the IHO. They are the percentages of total housing units that are required to be affordable. The majority of ordinances require that eligible projects include 1 0 to 25 percent affordable units. Requirements may range from a single requirement for all project types and all affordability levels, to a range of requirements based on project size and type and/or for units of various affordability levels. Vari ations in affordability requirements are demonstrated in local IHOs (see Attachment B). In-Lieu Fee Regulation . Most IHOs in California offer developers the option of paying a fee rather than building the required affordable units. Typically, these in- lieu fees are transferred to a Housing Trust Fund (HTF) dedicat ed to affordable housing. Antioch does not have an HTF and would need to establi sh one to administer in-lieu fees. In-lieu fees are not a legally required component of IHOs. Alternative Compliance Options. Most IHOs include local options for complying with inclusionary requirements, other than constructing the req uired affordable units on-site. As noted, IHOs that include requirements for ren tal housing are legally required to include at least one such option. Examples of alternative compliance options include, but are not limited to:
o Off-site construction of affordable units.

Antioch City Council Report
May 27, 2025 Agenda Item # SM-1 6

o Dedication or donation of land to the jurisdiction, for constr uction of affordable housing.
o Partnerships with affordable housing developers on affordable housing projects.
o Acquisition and rehabilitation of existing units to affordable units. Developer Incentives. Many IHOs include incentives for developers to comply with requirements. These incentives reduce the potential burden of affordability requirements. Examples of incentives include, but are not limited to:
o Waiving of various permitting fees.
o Modifications to zoning and development standards.
o Local density bonus, in addition to State Density Bonus. Affordable Unit Standards. These are physical and planning standards to ensure that BMR units are of the same quality as market rate units. Ot her standards regulate the sale, resale and deed restriction parameters of BM R units, to ensure that BMR units remain affordable for a prescribed period of time.

Not all IHOs contain all these regulations, and others include additional regulation.

Attachment B is a summary of regulation of a group of existing IHOs in Contra Costa County, for review.

INCLUSIONARY HOUSING AND REGIONAL TOC POLICY
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) adopted a revi sed version of its Transportation-Oriented Communities (TOC) Policy in October 202 3 . T h e T O C P o l i c y seeks to support the region’s transit investments by ensuring communities around transit stations are places where residents of all abilities, income le vels, and racial and ethnic backgrounds can live.

The TOC Policy requires specific planning tools and policies be put in place within ½-mile of transit stations as a prerequisite for the receipt of future One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) funding. the Antioch BART Station is subject to compliance with the TOC Policy. The City is currently in the process of bringing the station area into c ompliance with MTC’s TOC Policy.

TOC Policy requirements consist of four elements:

1. Minimum residential and commercial office densities for new development.

2. Affordable housing production, preservation and protection, and business stabilization to prevent displacement.

3. Transit station access and circulation.

4. Parking management.

Affordable Housing and TOC Compliance
Per MTC’s TOC Guidelines, jurisdictions will fulfill element #2, above, by adopting, among other housing policies, two policies dedicated to affordable ho using production. One of those acceptable policies is an inclusionary housing program or ordinance.

Antioch City Council Report
May 27, 2025 Agenda Item # SM-1 7

To comply with the TOC Policy, a jurisdiction’s inclusionary zo ning policy must meet the following minimum requirements:

The policy must apply to newly constructed residential or mixe d-use residential projects. The policy must apply to ownership and rental units. The policy may exempt properties with fewer than 11 units, stu dent housing, 100% affordable housing, senior housing, or other special housing types. The policy must require at least 15% of units be deed-restrict ed affordable housing units.
For rental units, the policy’s affordability requirements must require the income mix of affordable units to average out to 80% of AMI or less, with no affordable rental units available to households above 120% of AMI. For ownership units, the policy’s affordability requirements must require the income mix of affor dable units to average out to 120% of AMI or less, with no affordable ownershi p units available to households above 150% of AMI. Jurisdictions should require d eeper levels of affordability where feasible or through offering additional incentives. A policy with an income mix that does not meet this standard will not be cons idered compliant, even if the policy was based on a financial feasibility analysis. The policy may require less than 15% affordable units if:
o The jurisdiction provides an analysis showing that an alternative requirement is economically equivalent to the 15% standard (for example, a policy that required fewer units a t a deeper affordability level, such as 1 0% of units affordable to households earning less than 50% of AMI). OR o A financial feasibility analysis (completed within 24 months o f the date that inclusionary zoning policy was adopted) found that a 15% requirement was not feasible.
The policy may require more than 15% affordable units. Affordable units must have recorded documents that set binding maximum rent or price restrictions to ensure affordability. These requirements must restrict rents and sales prices to affordable levels as defined by the rules of any applicable state or federal affordable housing program. These restrictions must also ensure affordability for at least 55 years for rental housing or at le ast 45 years for ownership housing.
Per state law, inclusionary zoning must allow for alternative means of compliance (e.g., paying in-lieu fees to support affordable housing develo pment, building affordable units off-site, or dedicating land for the construct ion of affordable housing). For compliance with the TOC Policy, a jurisdiction with an in-lieu fee that typically results in a payment of less than $100,000 per afford able unit, must provide a justification for why the fee will result in at least as many restricted affordable housing units as would be required of a project providing onsite units.

INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROCESS IN ANTIOCH
The State of California requires each jurisdiction to update it s General Plan Housing Element on a regular cycle. The primary function of the Housing Element is to establish a State-certified land use and policy plan to accommodate the j urisdiction’s Regional Antioch City Council Report
May 27, 2025 Agenda Item # SM-1 8

Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). RHNA is mandated by California law and requires local jurisdictions to plan for their ‘fair share’ of housing units at all affordability levels.

The City of Antioch’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Housing Element was certified on October 12, 2023. It responds to the following Antioch RHNA allocation for affordable housing units:

Very Low-Income: 792 units
Low-Income: 456 units
Moderate Income: 493 units

The Antioch Housing Element includes multiple programs to fulfi ll the City’s RHNA. One of these is Program 2.1.10:

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

The City entered into an agreement with PlaceWorks, Inc. on May 1, 2024, to prepare the Antioch Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Project (IHO Project), c onsistent with Program

2.1.10. Per Program 2.1.10, the IHO Project does not assume that Antioc h will adopt an IHO.

Rather, all components of an IHO will be studied, and an IHO wi ll be proposed by staff for Planning Commission and City Council review.

ANTIOCH IHO PROJECT COMPONENTS
The following components of the IHO Project have been completed for City Council review and consideration.

Financial Feasibility Analysis
As noted, jurisdictions are not legally required to study the i mpacts of inclusionary requirements on the financial feasibility of local housing projects. However, these studies provide evidence that IHOs do not “unduly constrain the product ion of housing” and will allow property owners to have a “fair and reasonable rate of re turn.” They can also Antioch City Council Report
May 27, 2025 Agenda Item # SM-1 9

demonstrate that inclusionary requirements can be increased wit hout constraining housing production.

PlaceWorks completed a Draft Financial Feasibility Analysis (FFA) (Attachment C) for the City of Antioch, dated March 20, 2025. Feasibility impacts were ascertained by comparing the difference between the financial performance of a fully mar ket-rate version of a housing project and one that includes a required number of affo rdable units, while also receiving any available density bonus under State law. The FFA process is summarized as follows:

1. Antioch Market Survey. In July and August of 2024, PlaceWorks used real estate industry software to complete a survey of Antioch housing costs , including single family, multifamily and townhome prices and rents.

2. Housing Project Prototypes . PlaceWorks developed five housing project prototypes in coordination with City staff. The prototypes refl ect current housing trends, pipeline projects and regulation in Antioch. The FFA includes three for-sale housing prototypes and two for-rent housing prototypes.

3. Pro Forma Analyses . PlaceWorks prepared pro forma analyses of the fully market-rate housing prototypes to identify whether, and how, va rious affordability requirements could be supported by each. The pro formas rely on multi-year cash flow projections to achieve the most accurate evaluation of project feasibility. The pro formas assess the impacts of multiple affordability requirements, including:
15 percent requirements for VLI, LI and MI housing.
10 percent requirements for VLI, LI and MI housing.
Five percent requirement for VLI housing.

The FFA relies on the following industry-accepted metrics to determine project feasibility:
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is used for the for-sale project s. An IRR of 15 percent is generally considered the minimum threshold of financial feasibility.

Cash-on-Cash Yield (CoC) is used for the rental projects. A Co C of six percent is generally considered the minimum threshold of financial feasibility.

The following are summary results of the draft FFA. These resul ts may shift slightly with the introduction of new inputs such as updated City of Antioch Community Facilities District (CFD) property tax payments. The FFA conclusions are not expected to change.

Antioch City Council Report
May 27, 2025 Agenda Item # SM-1 10

FFA Results Summary: For-Sale Prototypes
The following table summarizes the results of the pro forma analysis for the three for-sale development protypes, which include:
Prototype 1: Large-lot single family subdivision
Prototype 2: Small-lot single family subdivision
Prototype 3: 70-unit townhome development

FIINANCIAL FEEASIBILITY SUUMMARY, FOOR-SSALE PPROTOTYPES Prototype 1: Large Lot SFD Prototype 2 Small Lot SFD
Prototype 3: Townhome
DDevelopment
Fully Market Rate Scenario
No Inclusionary Housing 18.3% 21.0% 20.6%
15% Inclusionary Requirements
15% Very Low-Income -1.6% 26.5% 15.5%
15% Low-Income -7.1% 19.9% 12.8%
15% Moderate Income -14.3% 11.1% 19.9%
10% Inclusionary Requirements
10% Very Low-Income -2.6% 24.6% 16.3%
10% Low-Income -5.3% 21.8% 12.6%
10% Moderate Income -12.1% 13.4% 19.8%
5% Inclusionary Requirement
5% Very Low-Income -1.3% 24.4% 18.2%

As shown in the table, the Fully Market-Rate Scenarios of all t hree prototypes are financially feasible, assuming an IRR threshold of 15 percent. However, under various inclusionary scenarios, multiple for-sale prototypes saw a sign ificant drop in IRR, such that they would not be financially feasible without additional densities. Prototype 1 would be extremely sensitive to inclusionary requirements. It w ould not achieve a 15 percent IRR under any of the inclusionary requirement scenarios, even with State density bonus maximized.
Prototype 2 would remain financially feasible under most of the inclusionar y requirement scenarios. It would not achieve a 15 percent IRR under the 15 percent Moderate Income requirement or 10 percent Moderate Income requi rement. This is not surprising, as these scenarios offer the lowest density increases under State density bonus law.
Prototype 3 would also remain financially feasible under most inclusionary scenarios. It would not achieve 15 percent IRR under the 15 percent Low-Income requirement and 10 percent Moderate Income requirement.

Antioch City Council Report
May 27, 2025 Agenda Item # SM-1 11

FFA Result Summary: Rental Prototypes
The following table summarizes the results of the pro forma ana lysis for the two rental protypes, which include:
Prototype 4: Medium/High Density Multifamily Apartments Prototype 5: High Density Multifamily Apartments

FIINANCIAL FEEASIBILITY SUUMMARY, RENTAL PPROTOTYPES

Prototype 4: Medium/High Density
Multifamily
Prototype 5: High Density
Multifamily
Fully Market Rate Scenario
No Inclusionary Housing 6.1% 6.6%
15% Inclusionary Requirements
15% Very Low-Income 6.2% 6.3%
15% Low-Income 4.9% 6.4%
15% Moderate Income 5.2% 6.8%
10% Inclusionary Requirements
10% Very Low-Income 6.1% 6.3%
10% Low-Income 4.8% 6.4%
10% Moderate Income 5.0% 6.6%
5% Inclusionary Requirement
5% Very Low-Income 6.1% 6.3%

As shown in the table, the Fully Market-Rate Scenarios of both prototypes are financially feasible, assuming a CoC threshold of six percent. However, the financial impacts of the inclusionary requirements differ between the two prototypes:
Prototype 4 would maintain feasibility only under requirements for Very Lo w- Income units. This is primarily because construction of VLI uni ts allows for the greatest density increase under State Density Bonus law. Protype 5 would maintain feasibility under all seven inclusionary scenarios.

It should be noted that the density increases required to make rental projects feasible would also require additional building heights and potential pa rking regulation exemptions, both of which are potential challenges to project development.

The full FFA includes detailed analyses of density, physical fo rm, costs, revenues, and feasibility of each prototype.

Antioch City Council Report
May 27, 2025 Agenda Item # SM-1 12

Project Outreach
In addition to technical analysis, input from residents, stakeh olders and developers will help inform a locally appropriate ordinance. The IHO project in cludes the following outreach efforts, each dated separately:
Community Survey. The IHO Project team released an online survey on October 15, 2024, to assess community awareness and support of inclusio nary housing.

Over 50 community members have responded to the survey. The following trends have emerged:
o Need for ongoing education and outreach . Over 60% of responders are either “Unfamiliar” or “Somewhat familiar” with IHOs.
o General support for inclusionary housing. Over 80% of responders either “Fully” or “Somewhat” support an IHO in Antioch.
o N eed f o r d iv ers e h o u sin g. Over 60% of responders feel an IHO should apply to both rental and for-sale development, citywide. o Mixed opinion regarding alternatives. The survey lists a series of potential alternative compliance options and asks responders rate their v alue. No clear trends in local support for IHO alternatives have emerged. o Focus on in-lieu fees. In-lieu fees are a topic of community concern. Many responders provided specific feedback regarding the benefits, l iabilities, calculation, management and allocation of these fees.
Developer Focus Group. The IHO Project team conducted a virtual Focus Group with local housing developers on December 5, 2024. Attendees we re shown the results of preliminary feasibility analyses for a 15 percent inclusionary requirement.

A guided discussion was conducted. Key feedback from developers included:
o Concern over reliance on density bonus . Developers stressed that maintaining feasibility under inclusionary regulation is often based on maximizing State density bonus. However, the costs associated w ith constructing denser, taller projects may outweigh financial ret urns.

Developers described Antioch as a “secondary market” that cannot support multifamily projects over three stories tall, which may limit additional density. o Necessity of in-lieu fees . Developers stated that if the City were to adopt an IHO, it should include the option to pay in-lieu fees. Participants stressed that real estate is unpredictable, and that these fees offer vital “stability and clarity” in the IHO process. Because of this certainty, most de velopers will choose the in-lieu fee option.
o Value of in-lieu fees. Developers stated that in-lieu fees can be transferred to affordable housing developers who specialize in maximizing f unds and partnerships for affordable housing projects. Developers stress ed that partnering with affordable housing developers in mixed-income developments often provides the greatest number of affordable units at the lowest income levels.
o Barriers to for-sale affordable housing . Developers stressed that the difficulty of qualifying for home loans may impede the function of an IHO.

Per participants, lower income households in Contra Costa typic ally face Antioch City Council Report
May 27, 2025 Agenda Item # SM-1 13

severe economic barriers to mortgage qualification, including a n adequate down payment. As such, requiring the construction of for-sale units for very low-income or low-income households may be an unproductive path toward privately subsidized affordable housing.

Community Workshop. Staff and PlaceWorks conducted a bilingual, interactive virtual Community Workshop on February 4, 2025. Participants were introduced to the IHO project and responded to a series of Zoom-based polls regarding various IHO topics. The polls included the following questions:

1. What household affordability levels do you want to see accommodated in Antioch?
o 64% of responders selected Very Low-Income households as the m ost needed.

2. What bedroom counts are most needed in affordable units in Antioch? o 67% of responders selected 2-3 bedroom units.

3. What type of affordable housing units does Antioch need? o “For-rent apartments” was identified as the most needed housi ng type, and “for-sale single family homes” was identified as the least needed.

4. Should the default requirement in Antioch's IHO be “constructing affordable units with the option to pay a fee,” or “paying a fee with the option to construct affordable units?”
o 67% of responders selected “constructing affordable units with the option to pay a fee.”

5. Select areas of Antioc h where new affordable housing will provide extra benefit to future residents.
o The two answers that received the most selections were “In and n e a r downtown” and “Around the BART Station.”

6. What are the most important aspects of affordable units created by the IHO? o The two answers that received the most selections were “They a re evenly distributed across the development site” and “Their exterior de sign and construction quality matches the market rate units.”

7. Participants were asked whether 1) They support adopting an IHO and to identify issues the City Council should consider ensuring the IHO is effective, or 2) They do not support adopting an IHO and to identify alternative approaches to increasing affordable housing.
o 78 percent of participants stated they support adopting an IHO . Comments included:

Antioch City Council Report
May 27, 2025 Agenda Item # SM-1 14

The need to place upper limits on IHO requirements.
The value of collaborating with developers on a 15% IHO requirement near transit.
Lack of support for in-lieu fees, which require significant st aff resources to administer.
o 22 percent of participants stated they do support adopting an IHO.

Comments included:
The City should purchase land for 100% affordable housing. Thi s is the only way to build the minimum of more than 1 new affordable home for every market rate home.
Antioch is already largely affordable; the City should focus o n fully staffing the police force and bringing anchor businesses to downtown and shopping mall.
IHOs benefit only a few who can secure the units, while drivin g up costs for everyone else. Antioch should look for alternative so urces of funding that do not drive up housing costs.

Jurisdictional Staffing Survey/Interviews. PlaceWorks will develop an IHO Staffing Plan as part of its agreement with the City. To unders tand the staff resources required to administer and manage an IHO, PlaceWorks released an online survey (dated November 5, 2024) for staff of local juris dictions that participate in IHO administration. Staff from Concord, Contra C osta County, Richmond, Pittsburg and Walnut Creek have participated. The fol lowing is a summary of feedback:
o 75% of responders answered that 1-3 staff members work on IHO administration at any given time. 25% answered 4-6 staff members. o 75% of responders answered that IHO-related work “fluctuates,” m a k i n g long-term staff planning difficult.
o Nearly all responders indicated that staff from the Planning/B uilding department and the local Housing Authority work IHO administrat ion. It should be noted that Antioch does not have a Housing Authority. o Responders were asked to estimate the number of staff hours de dicated to IHO administration each week. At the lower end, one jurisdiction answered 3 hours total, and another answered 4 hours total. At the high end, three jurisdictions answered “5-10 hours” per week, while another sta ted that “It could be 10 percent or more of staff's time.” Responders stress ed that workload is based on the size of a jurisdiction’s portfolio of affordable units. o Responders were asked to describe components of IHO administra tion that require specialized staff knowledge. Sample responses include:
Resale restrictions oversight & compliance.
Preparation of the deed restriction Agreement along with other legal document templates.
Calculation of the maximum sales prices.
Ongoing monitoring and property tracking.
Staffing over the period of affordability because deed restric tions can be 55 years and that is a long-term staff commitment.

Antioch City Council Report
May 27, 2025 Agenda Item # SM-1 15

The initial sale of homeownership units, especially through a lottery process.
o Responders were asked to offer staffing direction or insights for a jurisdiction considering an IHO. Sample responses include:
Training, developing template agreements, resale restriction process, buyer eligibility verification, and overall monitoring a r e areas that should be understood.
The city should ask itself how they would like to manage this program. Would they rather collect in lieu fees to fund afforda ble housing projects, or would they want to require the constructio n of affordable housing over multiple development projects? The result of the second [scenario] is that there would be more projects with fewer units that require monitoring by the city. [In] the first scenario…there would potentially be more units in the single project…and the city will need to pull together experienced staff to execute these financ ial transactions.
I would suggest contracting out the administration of this pro gram.

PlaceWorks completed a Draft IHO Staffing Insights and Recommendations Memo based on this process (see Attachment D).

Planning Commission Study Session. Staff and PlaceWorks conducted an IHO Study Session with the Antioch Planning Commission on April 16, 2 0 2 5 .

PlaceWorks made a background presentation and solicited Planning Commission feedback using a series of prepared questions. The Planning Com mission was generally supportive of staff recommendations (see Staff Recomm endations, below) and expressed a series of concerns and recommendations r egarding the potential IHO. These include:
o Monitoring and enforcement. Commissioners expressed concerns a bout if, and when, required IHO units will be built. Commissioners stres sed the need for robust monitoring of project construction.
o On-site construction will result in distributed affordable hou sing.

Commissioners stated that on-site construction of required BMR units is preferrable to off-site construction or use of in-lieu fees because it reduces the potential for “pockets” of affordable housing in Antioch. o Use of in-lieu fees. Commissioners are concerned that reliance on in-lieu fees may result in delays in affordable housing construction.

Commissioners stated that Antioch should create a detailed plan for the use of in-lieu fees and stressed that construction of on-site units p e r I H O requirements is preferable to collecting fees.
o Dense housing in Antioch. Commissioners highlighted the relati onship between density bonus and inclusionary housing. Antioch’s abili ty to accommodate the increases in project density that may result fr om compliance with an IHO.

Antioch City Council Report
May 27, 2025 Agenda Item # SM-1 16

o Need for evaluation. Commissioners recommended that the City t ake a measured approach to the potential IHO. One commissioner stated t h a t Antioch should develop a series of quantitative metrics or perf ormance indicators to assess the success of the potential ordinance in its first year.

The results should be used to revise the affordability requirements or other components of the ordinance.
o Support for outsourcing. One Commissioner stated that tracking the ongoing affordability of all IHO units; including revi ewing developer a greements, future resales and buyer eligibility; requires resources and expertise beyond that of planning staff. Commissioners expressed support for pot entially outsourcing IHO monitoring to a third-party consultant. o Public comment. Four members of the public spoke at the Study Session.

Three commenters representing the East Bay Housing Organization s (EBHO), Hope Solutions, and Contra Costa County Multi-Faith ACT ION Coalition, spoke in support of the potential IHO. One public sp eaker representing North Cal Carpenters Local Union 152 asked if the IHO would include labor standards.

STAFF RECCOMENDATIONS
Staff recommends the following general direction for IHO regula tion, based on housing priorities established in Housing Element Program 2.1.10 and results of the Antioch IHO Project to date:

Prioritize on-site construction of affordable units.
Include a 15% total inclusionary requirement; potentially high er. o Allocate the total inclusionary requirement across individual income categories.
Include an in-lieu fee option.
o Consider the viability of combination compliance: Part on-site construction and part in-lieu fee payments.
o Establish a Housing Trust Fund as a necessary repository of in -lieu fees. Include at least one other alternative compliance option. Include developer incentives.
Require affordable units constructed under the IHO to remain a ffordable in perpetuity.
Consider MTC TOC Policy requirements for IHOs, to ensure that Antioch remains eligible for future OBAG funding.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This study session and the resulting City Council discussion an d possible direction will not cause a direct or indirect physical change to the environme nt. As such, they do not constitute a CEQA “project” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 21065 – P r o j e c t . N o environmental review is required. This determination reflects t he City’s independent judgment and analysis.

Antioch City Council Report
May 27, 2025 Agenda Item # SM-1 17

ATTACHMENTS
A. May 27, 2025, City Council Study Session presentation B. Existing IHOs in Contra Costa County
C. Inclusionary Hous ing Ordinance Financial Feasibility Analysis D. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Draft Staffing Insights and R ecommendations Memo
E. April 16, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes
F. Public Comment Letters Received

Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance
City of Antioch
City Council Study Session
May 27, 2025
ATTACHMENT "A"
A1
City of Antioch Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

PROJECT TEAM
City of Antioch
Zoe Merideth, Planning Manager
Kevin Scudero, Principal Planner
David Storer, Interim Director, Community Development Department PlaceWorks, Inc.

Greg Goodfellow, Project Manager
David Early, FAICP , LEED AP , Principal-in-Charge
Steve Gunnells, Chief Economist
A2
City of Antioch Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

STATE HOUSING ALLOCATION
Income Affordability Level: $159,800 Average Median Income (AMI) 31-50% AMI 51-80% AMI 81-120% AMI Over 120% AMI
6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
Very Low
Income (VLI)
Low Income
(LI)
Moderate
Income (MI)
Above Moderate Income
(AMI) TOTAL
792 456 493 1,275 3,016

26.3% 15.1% 16.3% 42.3% 100%
A3
City of Antioch Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

STATE HOUSING ALLOCATION
Income Level Total RHNA Units Required Annual
Average
Required Monthly
Average
Very Low (VLI) 792 99 8
Low (LI) 456 57 5
Moderate (M) 493 62 5
Above Moderate
(M+)
1,2715 159 13
Combined 3,016 377 31
A4

LEGAL AND LOCAL CONTEXTS

PROJECT FORM AND FEASIBILITY

OUTREACH PROCESS
6:45
7:00
7:30

2. RECOMMENDATIONS & NEXT STEPS5.

3. 4.

CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION 6.

INTRODUCTION 1.

A5
Introduction
A6
City of Antioch Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

CC STUDY SESSION GOALS

1. Introduce inclusionary housing and City project

2. Review legal, political and technical components of IHO

3. Review community and stakeholder feedback

4. Collect City Council input
A7
City of Antioch Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING 101
Requires new projects to set
aside % of units as affordable
» Privately-subsidized affordable
housing.
» Typically includes aalternatives and
incentives to avoid constraining
housing production.
» Included in zoning code.
Why in Antioch?
» Housing in Antioch historically
considered “accessible.”
» Affordability crisis across state.
» City’s State “fair share” is 1,741 VLI,
LI and MI units.
» IHO study program established in
certified Housing Element.
» HE goal: Construction of 360-460
affordable units.

A8
Legal and
Local
Contexts
A9
City of Antioch Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

IH LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Adopted via local government’s “police power”
» Like all zoning.
Land use regulation, not impact fee
» Must only relate to the “general welfare.”
» Not subject to AB 1600, Mitigation Fee Act.
» Does not require a nexus study.
Units qualify for State Density Bonus
» Developers may increase market rate units in projects.

A10
City of Antioch Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
15 PERCENT “SWEET SPOT”?
No legal minimum or maximum IH requirement
Must not “unduly constrain the production of housing” AB 1505: Rental requirement >15%
» May trigger submittal of financial feasibility analysis to State. » Must offer alternative means of compliance.
» Determined to be threshold of potential constraint.
MTC TOC Policy: Requires at least 15% LI requirement
A11
City of Antioch Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
COMMON OPTION: IN-LIEU FEES
Option in most IHOs
Deposited to Housing Trust Fund
NOT an impact fee = no nexus study

1. Affordability Gap
Method
» Difference between
market price for unit and
what a low-income
household can afford.

2. Production Cost
Method
» Difference between cost of
developing an affordable
unit and income generated
by an affordable unit.

3. Indexed Fees Method
» Local formula based on
density, location, community
value.
» Per sq. ft. x gross floor area.

A12
City of Antioch Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
WHAT IS “LOW INCOME” IN 2025?
Median Family Income in Contra Costa County: $159,800
Household Size Very Low Income:
50% AMI
Low Income: 80%
AMI
Moderate
Income:
120% AMI
1 $55,950 $87,550 $134,250
2 $63,950 $100,050 $153,400
3 $71,950 $112,550 $172,600
4 $79,900 $125,050 $191,750
5 $86,300 $135,100 $207,100
6 $92,700 $145,100 $222,450
7 $99,100 $155,100 $237,750
8 $105,500 $165,100 $253,100
A13
City of Antioch Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
WHAT IS “AFFORDABLE”?
Contra Costa County Gross Rent Limits, June 1, 2024
Bedroom Count Very Low Income:
50% AMI
Low Income: 80%
AMI Fair Market Rent
Studio $1,362 $2,179 $1,825
1 $1,460 $2,336 $2,131
2 $1,752 $2,803 $2,590
3 $2,024 $3,238 $3,342
4 $2,258 $3,613 $3,954
5 $2,491 $3,986 $4,547
A14
City of Antioch Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
Local Housing Pressure
63% households “rent burdened:” Spend more than 30% of income on rent Lower Displacement Risk
Income Group Displacement
Income Groups Displacement
At Risk of Displacement
Low Data Quality
A15
A16
City of Antioch Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

CONTRA COSTA IHO TRENDS
15% “sweet spot” reflected
» 5% to 20% range
In-lieu fee option available
Rental housing requirements skew to lower incomes (LI, VLI) Off-site construction alternatives common
Incentives vary
» DDensity bonus/FAR increase
» Decrease size/amenities for BMR units
A17
Project Form
and Feasibility
A18
A19
City of Antioch Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

DRAFT FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
How will IHO requirements impact financial return?
Compares returns of 5 market rate projects to inclusionary scenarios » Based on current market survey.
» Accounts for hard & soft costs.
» Inclusionary scenarios assume State density bonus.

A20
City of Antioch Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

FOR-SALE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
Feasibility
Threshold:
15% IRR
Large Lot SF Subdivision Small Lot SF Subdivision Townhome Development Fully Market Rate Scenario
No Inclusionary Housing 18.3% 21.0% 20.6%
15% Inclusionary Requirements
15% Very Low-Income -1.6% 26.5% 15.5%
15% Low-Income -7.1% 19.9% 12.8%
15% Moderate Income -14.3% 11.1% 19.9%
10% Inclusionary Requirements
10% Very Low-Income -2.6% 24.6% 16.3%
10% Low-Income -5.3% 21.8% 12.6%
10% Moderate Income -12.1% 13.4% 19.8%
5% Inclusionary Requirement
5% Very Low-Income -1.3% 24.5% 18.2%
A21
City of Antioch Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

FOR-RENT DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
Feasibility
Threshold:
6% CoC Yield
Medium/High Density
Apartments
High Density
Apartments
Fully Market Rate Scenario
No Inclusionary Housing 6.1% 6.6%
15% Inclusionary Requirements
15% Very Low-Income 6.2% 6.3%
15% Low-Income 4.9% 6.4%
15% Moderate Income 5.2% 6.8%
10% Inclusionary Requirements
10% Very Low-Income 6.1% 6.3%
10% Low-Income 4.8% 6.4%
10% Moderate Income 5.0% 6.6%
5% Inclusionary Requirement
5% Very Low-Income 6.1% 6.3%
A22
Outreach
Process
A23
City of Antioch Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Online survey
Community meeting with live
polling
Stakeholder/developer focus
group
General support for citywide
IHO for rental and for-sale
projects
Prioritize construction with fee
option
Land dedication and off-site
construction options
Ease compliance for developers
A24
City of Antioch Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
PLANNING COMMISSION: APRIL 16, 2025
Overall PC support for IHO:
» Enforce and monitor construction
» Avoid pockets of affordability: On-site preferred
» Don’t “kick affordability down the road” via
fees
» Can density be too high for Antioch?
» Jobs-housing imbalance and housing demand
» Assess carefully: start at 15%, monitor with
KPIs, reevaluate.
» Project threshold: Under 5 units not beneficial
» Support for outsourcing
Public speakers
» Hope Solutions
» Multi-Faith ACTION Coalition
» East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO)
» North Cal Carpenters Local Union 152
A25
Recommendations
& Next Steps
A26
City of Antioch Inclusionary Housing Ordinance

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Prioritize on-site construction
» Affordable in perpetuity.
15% total inclusionary
requirement; potentially higher
» Flexibility across income categories.
Include in-lieu fee option
» Consider combination: Part on-site
construction part fee payment.
» Begin Housing Trust Fund process.
Allow for additional alternative
compliance.
Add meaningful developer
incentives.
Assess compliance with MTC
TOC Policy.
» City remains eligible for future OBAG
funding.

A27
A28
Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance
City of Antioch
City Council Study Session
May 27, 2025
A29
Examples of IHOs in Contra Costa County
Jurisdiction
Rental
Housing
Requirements
For-Sale
Housing
Requirements
In-Lieu
Fee Option
Alternative
Compliance
Options
Developer
Incentives
Contra Costa County 15% total with speciﬁc
allocations to income levels
15% total with speciﬁc
allocations to income levels Yes Off-site development; land conveyance; combination
Density bonus; fee waivers;
modiﬁcations to zoning
standards
Pittsburg 6% ELI to 10% VLI 9% LI and 6% VLI; 20% LI Per City approval Off-site construction; payment of public subsidies
Smaller lot and unit sizes,
different interior ﬁnishes for
IH units; reduced parking
requirements
Richmond 12.5% VLI to 17% MI 10% VLI to 17% MI Yes Land Donation N/A Walnut Creek 6% VLI to 10% LI 6% VLI to 10% MI Yes Off-site construction; land dedication
Reduced size and different
interior ﬁnishes for IH units
Concord 6% total 15% total Yes Off-site development; non- proﬁt partnerships Density bonus; FAR increase
Pleasant Hill 5% VLI; 10% LI or 20% LI
ADUs
5% VLI; 10% LI or 20% LI
ADUs Per City approval Off-site development N/A
El Cerrito 5 units to MI; 5% LI 12% MI Yes N/A N/A
Lafayette 9% LI or MI; 6% VLI
15% MI (downtown single
family); 9% LI or MI and 6%
VLI (downtown multifamily)
Yes
Off-site development;
provision of f or-rent units
rather than for-sale or fee
Reduced size and different
interior ﬁnishes for IH units;
provision of ADUs as IH units
ATTACHMENT "B"
MMarch 26, 2025
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
Financial Feasibility Analysis
Administrative Draft
Prepared for:

City of Antioch
Prepared by:

PLACEWORKS
2040 BANCROFT, SUITE 400
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704
510.848.3815
WWW.PLACEWORKS.COM
ATTACHMENT "C"
C1
i
Table of Contents
Introduction................................................... ............................................................... ............... ES-1 Background .................................................... ............................................................... .............. ES-1 Methodology .................................................................................................................. ............. ES-2 Feasibility Impact ........................................................................................................... .............. ES-4

1.1 Feasibility Studies Vs Nexus Studies ................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 Limits of Feasibility Studies ................................. ............................................................. 1 -2

1.3 Legal Backgound............................................. ............................................................... ... 1-2

1.4 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Components ................................................................. 1-4

1.5 Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing .......................................................................... 1-5

2.1 Housing Need in Antioch .................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Analytical Approach......................................... ............................................................... .. 2-2

2.3 Density Bonus Units ........................................... .............................................................. 2-4

3.1 Affordable Housing Payments for For-sale Housing.......................................................... 3-1

3.2 For-Sale Development Prototypes and analyses............................................................... 3-3

3.3 Disposition R equirements .............................................................................................. 3-17

4.1 Affordable Household Rents ............................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 For-Rent Development Prototypes and analyses .............................................................. 4-2 AAppendices
Appendix A: Antioch Market Survey: Single Family Sales Data Appendix B: Antioch Market Survey: Multifamily Sales Data Appendix C: Antioch Market Survey: Townhome Sales Data Appendix D: Antioch Market Survey: Multifamily Rent Data C2
ii

TTABLES
Table ES-1: City of Antioch 6th Cycle RHNA Allocation ........................................................................ ..... ES-1 Table ES-2: 15% VLI Inclusionary Analysis, For-Sale Development Prototypes ......................................... ES-6 Table ES-3: Feasibility Summary, For-Sale Prototypes ......................................................................... ...... ES-6 Table ES-4: Feasibility-3 Summary, Rental Development Prototypes ........................................................ ES-7 Table ES-5: Feasibility Summary, rental Prototypes ........................................................................... ....... ES-8 Table 1-1: State Density Bonus Allowances .................................................................................... ............ 1-5 Table 2-1: City of Antioch 6th Cycle RHNA Allocation ......................................................................... ........ 2-1 Table 2-2: Density Bonus as Percentage Increase in market-rate Units by Income .................................... 2-4 Table 3-1: HCD Income Limits by Household Size and Income Classification; Contra Costa County ........... 3-2 Table 3-2: Calculation of Affordable-Housing sales Price by Household Size and Income Classification (All data in 2024 Dollars); Antioch; 2024 ............................................................................... 3-2 Table 3-3: Prototype 1 Housing Sizes and Sales Values ........................................................................ ....... 3-4 Table 3-4: Number of Units by Type and Affordability ......................................................................... ....... 3-5 Table 3-5: Summary of Units ................................... ............................................................... .................... 3-5 Table 3-6: Prototype 1 Project Income ........................................................................................ ............... 3-5 Table 3-7: Prototype 1 Project Costs ......................................................................................... .................. 3-6 Table 3-8: Prototype 1 Financial Feasibility Summary ......................................................................... ....... 3-7 Table 3-9: Prototype 1 Feasibility Summary ................................................................................... ............ 3-7 Table 3-10: Prototype 2 Housing Sizes and Sales Values ....................................................................... ...... 3-8 Table 3-11: Number of Units by Type and Affordability ........................................................................ ...... 3-9 Table 3-12: Summary of Units ................................................................................................. ................... 3-9 Table 3-13: Prototype 2 Project Income ....................................................................................... ............ 3-10 Table 3-14: Prototype 2 Project Costs......................................................................................... .............. 3-11 Table 3-15: Prototype 2 Financial Feasibility Summary ........................................................................ .... 3-12 Table 3-16 Prototype 2 Feasibility Summary ................................................................................... ......... 3-12 Table 3-17: Prototype 3 Housing Unit Sizes and Sales Values .................................................................. . 3-13 Table 3-18: Number of Units by Type and Affordability ........................................................................ .... 3-14 Table 3-19: Unit Summary ..................................................................................................... ................... 3-14 Table 3-20: Prototype 3 Project Income ....................................................................................... ............ 3-14 Table 3-21: Prototype 3 Project Costs......................................................................................... .............. 3-15 Table 3-22: Prototype 3 Financial Feasibility Summary ........................................................................ .... 3-16 Table 3-23: Prototype 3 Feasibility Summary .................................................................................. ......... 3-16 Table 4-1: Calculation of Affordable Rents by Household Size and Income Classification (All data in 2024 Dollars); Antioch; 2024 ............................................................... .................................. 4-2 Table 4-2: Prototype 4 Housing Sizes and Monthly Rents (Assuming a 9.1 percent Rent increase) ............ 4-3 Table 4-3: Number of Units by Type and Affordability ......................................................................... ....... 4-4 Table 4-4: Unit Summary ...................................................................................................... ...................... 4-4 Table 4-5: Prototype 4 Project Income ........................................................................................ ............... 4-4 Table 4-6: Prototype 4 Project Costs ......................................................................................... .................. 4-5 Table 4-7: Prototype 4 Financial Feasibility Summary ......................................................................... ....... 4-6 Table 4-8: Prototype 4 Feasibility Summary ................................................................................... ............ 4-7 Table 4-9: Prototype 5 Housing Sizes and Monthly Rents ....................................................................... .... 4-7 C3
iii
Table 4-10: Number of Units by Type and Affordability ........................................................................ ...... 4-8 Table 4-11: Unit Summary ..................................................................................................... ..................... 4-8 Table 4-12: Prototype 5 Project Income ....................................................................................... .............. 4-9 Table 4-13: Prototype 5 Project Costs......................................................................................... .............. 4-10 Table 4-14: Prototype 5 Financial Feasibility Summary ........................................................................ .... 4-11 Table 4-15: Prototype 5 Feasibility Summary ........................................................................................... 4- 11

ES-1
Executive Summary

INTRODUCTION
The City of Antioch’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Housing Element was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on October 12, 2023. Program 2.1.10, Inclusionary Housing, of the Antioch Housing Element calls for the city to “Initiate a feasibility study for an inclusionary housing ordinance for City Council consideration.”1 Inclusionary housing ordinances (IHO) require that new market-rate residential development projects include a certain percentage of housing units at rents or sale prices that are affordable to lower-income households.

The objective of Program 2.1.10 is to develop 360 to 460 affordable units during the 2023-2031 planning period.

PlaceWorks, Inc. was engaged by the City of Antioch to prepare the City’s IHO, including this financial feasibility analysis (FFA). The FFA is intended to identify and understand the impacts that inclusionary housing requirements would have on the economic feasibility of building new, market-rate housing in the City. The FFA will assist the City in adopting policies that balance the simultaneous goals of creating more affordable housing while continuing to encourage market-rate housing development, so as to best serve the needs of all City residents.

BACKGROUND
The State of California requires every jurisdiction to adequately plan for its community’s housing needs, as specified by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The RHNA breaks down the amount of housing units needed in each jurisdiction by income category, ranging from Very-Low Income to Above Moderate Income. Antioch has a 6th cycle RHNA of 3,016 total units. Table ES-1 displays the City’s RHNA breakdown by income levels.

TTAABLE EES--11:: CCIITY OF AANNTIOCH 66TTH CCYYCLE RRHNA AALLLOCATION IIncome Group UUnits PPercent
Very Low-Income (0-50% of AMI) 792 26.3%
Low-Income (51-80% of AMI) 456 15.1%
Moderate Income (81-120% of AMI) 493 16.3%
Above Moderate-Income (More than 120% of AMI) 1,275 42.3% TTOTAL 33,016 1100%
Source: Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031.

1 Ibid, page 7-16.

ES-2

METHODOLOGY
The economic impact of an inclusionary housing requirement on a housing project is ascertained by comparing the difference between the financial performance of a fully market-rate version of the project and one that includes the required number of below-market rate (BMR) units, while also receiving any available density bonus and other allowed incentives.

To complete this comparison, PlaceWorks prepared detailed analyses that assess the financial impact of seven inclusionary requirements on five prototypical housing projects approved by the city. The analyses identify the following:
The impact on feasibility of three different 15 percent affordability requirements:
o A 15 percent requirement for VLI units.
o A 15 percent requirement for LI units.
o A 15 percent requirement for MI units.
The impact on feasibility of three different 10 percent affordability requirements:
o A 10 percent requirement for VLI units.
o A 10 percent requirement for LI units.
o A 10 percent requirement for MI units.
The impact on feasibility of a 5 percent requirement for VLI units.

New housing developments that provide required inclusionary housing are eligible for an increase in the number of market rate units, over and above the zoning maximum. The number of additional units varies based on the percentage of units that are affordable and at what income level the units are affordable.

The largest density bonus is allowed for 15 percent of the units provided at a cost that is affordable to very low-income households. Such projects can exceed the zoning density by 50 percent. However, as discussed in subsequent sections, physically achieving that density can be challenging. Generally, if a project with a 50 percent density bonus can be physically accommodated on a site, then lesser density bonuses could also be accommodated. The presentation and discussion of each prototype uses a starting point of providing 15 percent of the units affordable to very low-income households and a corresponding 50 percent density bonuses. However, the discussion of the prototype feasibility also provides additional information about the other income levels and the 10 percent and five percent inclusionary requirements.

DEVELOPMENT PROTOYPES
PlaceWorks developed five housing development prototypes that reflect recent development projects in Antioch and are consistent with local land use regulation. Each prototype reflects inputs such as recent pipeline projects, allowable densities and zoning regulations, and residential market conditions to provide for the most accurate analysis possible within the limitations of a financial feasibility assessment.

ES-3
As part of the work to develop the prototypes, PlaceWorks completed a market survey of home sales and rental rates to estimate achievable values of each protype. The PlaceWorks team used a recent software (Chrome) extension called Comp Crunch to download detailed residential rental and sales in Antioch from aggregators such as Zillow and Trulia, in August of 2024. Datasets include:

1. Multifamily residential rents and sale prices

2. Single family residential rents and sale prices

3. Townhome residential rents and sale prices
For-Sale Prototypes
PlaceWorks defined the following three development protypes for for-sale housing based on our review of recently constructed and permitted housing projects in Antioch:
Prototype 1: Large Lot, Single Family Development. Low-density single-family housing subdivision at a gross density of 4.0 dwelling units per acre.
Prototype 2: Small Lot, Single Family Development. Medium-density single-family housing subdivision at a gross density of 10.0 dwelling units per acre Prototype 3: For-Sale Townhouse Development. Medium-density townhome project comprising 70 side-by-side residential units at a gross density of 14.9 units per acre.

Rental Protypes
PlaceWorks defined the following two development protypes for for-rent housing based on our review of recently constructed and permitted housing projects in Antioch:
Prototype 4: Medium/High Density Multifamily Flats. Medium-scale apartment development with 83 units at a gross density of 20.2 units per acre.
Prototype 5: High Density Multifamily Flats. Large-scale apartment development with 237 units at a gross density of 26.9 units per acre.

The prototypes do not reflect any particular lot, parcel or location in Antioch. The financial feasibility of any prototype on a specific site would be expected to vary.

PRO FORMA ANALYSES
PlaceWorks prepared pro forma analyses for the market-rate development prototypes to identify whether, and how, various affordability requirements could be supported by each. The pro formas rely on multi-year cash flow projections to achieve the most accurate evaluation of project feasibility. The following metrics were used to determine project feasibility:
IInternal Rate of Return, 15% minimum. Internal Rate of Return (IRR) was calculated to assess the feasibility of for-sale prototypes. IRR measures the developer’s return on investment with a discounted cash flow model. It is based on the net cash flow for each year during project planning, construction, and sale. The key feasibility question is whether cash flows from sales are large enough to pay back the initial investment, plus a sufficient return to compensate for the investment risk. For real estate investments, an IRR of 15 percent is generally considered the minimum threshold of financial feasibility.

ES-4
CCash-on-Cash Yield, 6% minimum. PlaceWorks calculated cash-on-cash yield (CoC) to assess the financial feasibility of the for-rent prototypes. CoC is an industry standard that measures the net revenue relative to the developer’s investment for the first full year of occupancy. A CoC of six percent is generally considered the minimum threshold of financial feasibility.

FEASIBILITY IMPACT
The financial feasibility of each development prototype was analyzed under the following:

1. Market Rate Scenario. This scenario consists of a fully market rate development prototype, without the introduction of affordability requirements.

2. Inclusionary Scenarios. Each of these scenarios includes the density, number of units and unit types of the market rate scenario, but with one of the seven different required percentages of BMR units. These scenarios also includes the maximum number of new units allowed under California’s Density Bonus Law (Cal. Gov. Code Sections 65915 – 65918).

Feasibility impact analyses also includes discussions of the BBase Scenario for each prototype. This scenario accounts for the affordability requirement but not state density bonus. It is used to illustrate the development implications of increased density, such as changes in the number of market rate and BMR units, as well as unit types.

FOR-SALE PROTOTYPES
Table ES-1 summarizes the financial feasibility of the Market Rate and 15 percent VLI inclusionary scenario for each for-sale development prototype. The table also includes the Base Scenarios to illustrate the breakdown of market rate and below market rate units that result when the 15 percent VLI affordability requirements are applied to the Fully Market Rate Scenario. As will be explained further, this analysis provides details of the 15 percent VLI inclusionary requirement for each prototype, as this scenario is a “starting point” that provides for the greatest density bonus under state law.

Table ES-2 provides a feasibility summary for the for-sale prototypes under all the seven inclusionary scenarios. As shown in Table ES-2, the Fully Market Rate Scenarios of all three for-sale residential development prototypes are financially feasible, assuming an IRR threshold of 15 percent. This is not surprising, as they are indicative of existing and planned development in the City. However, under various inclusionary scenarios, multiple for-sale prototypes saw a significant drop in IRR, such that they would not be financially feasible without additional densities:
Prototype 1, Large Lot Subdivision, would be extremely financially sensitive to inclusionary zoning.

It would not achieve a 15 percent IRR under any of the inclusionary requirement scenarios, even with State density bonus maximized.
Prototype 2, Small Lot Subdivision, would remain financially feasible under most of the inclusionary requirements scenarios. It would not achieve a 15 percent IRR under only the 15 percent Moderate Income requirement and 10 percent Moderate Income requirement. These scenarios offer the lowest density increases under State density bonus law.

ES-5
Prototype 3, For-Sale Townhouse Development, would also remain financially feasible under most inclusionary scenarios. It would only not achieve 15 percent IRR under the 15 percent LI requirement and 10 percent MI requirement.

ES-6
TTAABLE EES--22:: 115% VVLI IINNCLUSIONARY AANNALYSIS,, FFOOR--SSAALE DDEEVELOPMENT PPRROTOTYPES

PPrototype 1: LLarge Lot SFD PPrototype 2 SSmall Lot SFD PPrototype 3: TTownhome Development FFully Market
RRate Scenario
115%
Inclusionary
With Density
BBonus
Fully Market
RRate
15%
Inclusionary
With Density
BBonus
Fully Market
RRate Scenario
15%
Inclusionary
With Density
BBonus
Market-Rate
Units 220 187 297 303 258 410 70 59 94
BMR Units 0 33 33 0 45 45 0 11 11
Total Units 220 220 330 303 303 455 70 70 105
Feasibility
((IRR) 18.3% -1.5% 19.9% 24.1% 20.6% 15.5%

TAABLE ES--3:: FFEASIBILITY SSUMMARY,, FFOR--SAALE PRROTOTYPES Prototype 1: Large Lot SFD Prototype 2 Small Lot SFD
Prototype 3: Townhome
DDevelopment
Fully Market Rate Scenario
No Inclusionary Housing 18.3% 21.0% 20.6%
15% Inclusionary Requirements
15% Very Low-Income -1.5% 26.5% 15.5%
15% Low-Income -7.1% 19.9% 12.8%
15% Moderate-Income -14.3% 11.1% 19.9%
10% Inclusionary Requirements
10% Very Low-Income -2.6% 24.6% 16.3%
10% Low-Income -5.3% 21.8% 12.6%
10% Moderate-Income -12.0% 13.4% 19.8%
5% Inclusionary Requirement
5% Very Low-Income -1.3% 24.5% 18.2%

C10

ES-7

RENTAL PROTOTYPES
Table ES-3 summarizes the financial feasibility of the Market Rate and 15 percent VLI inclusionary scenario for each rental development prototype. The table also includes the Base Scenarios to illustrate the breakdown of market rate and below market rate units that result when the affordability requirements are applied to the Fully Market Rate Scenario.

Table ES-4 provides a feasibility summary for the rental prototypes under all the seven inclusionary scenarios. As shown in Table ES-4, the Fully Market Rate Scenarios of both rental residential development prototypes are financially feasible based on a cash-on-cash yield threshold of six percent. However, the financial impacts of various inclusionary requirements differ between the prototypes:
Prototype 4, Medium/High Density Multifamily Flats, maintains feasibility only under requirements for VLI units. This is primarily because construction of VLI units allows for the greatest density increase under State Density Bonus law. Protype 5, High Density Multifamily Flats, maintains feasibility under all seven inclusionary scenarios.

TTABLE ES-4: 15% VLI INCLUSIONARY ANALYSIS, RENTAL DEVELOPMENT PROTOTYPES

Prototype 4: Medium/High Density
Multifamily Flats
Prototype 5: High Density
Multifamily Flats
Fully Market
RRate Scenario
15%
Inclusionary
With Density
BBonus
Fully Market
RRate Scenario
15%
Inclusionary
With Density
BBonus
Market-rate Units 83 71 113 237 201 320
BMR Units 0 12 12 0 36 36
Total Units 83 83 125 237 237 356
Feasibility (Cash
oon cash yield) 6.1% 6.1% 6.6% 6.3%

C11

ES-8
TTAABLE EES--55:: FFEEASIBILITY SSUUMMARY,, RRENTAL PPRROTOTYPES

PPrototype 4: Medium/High Density
Multifamily Flats
Prototype 5: High Density
Multifamily Flats
Fully Market Rate Scenario
No Inclusionary Housing 6.1% 6.6%
15% Inclusionary Requirements
15% Very Low-Income 6.1% 6.3%
15% Low-Income 4.9% 6.4%
15% Moderate-Income 5.2% 6.9%
10% Inclusionary Requirements
10% Very Low-Income 6.1% 6.3%
10% Low-Income 4.8% 6.4%
10% Moderate-Income 5.0% 6.6%
5% Inclusionary Requirement
5% Very Low-Income 6.1% 6.3%

OVERALL FEASIBILITY
This analysis finds:
An inclusionary housing requirement is not financially feasible to achieve with conventional single-family detached housing developments in Antioch. Subsequent work on this project will evaluate a potential in-lieu fee for an inclusionary housing requirement and its potential applicability to single-family detached housing development. An inclusionary housing requirement appears to be feasible for other types of development.

However, the feasibility is contingent on two important factors that the city will need to consider and, if moving forward with an inclusionary housing program, will need to incorporate into its ordinance:

1. Not all income levels are feasible for each type of development. If the city were to adopt a program, it should have a general percentage inclusionary requirement—i.e., 5 or 10 or 15 percent of the units should be restricted to occupancy by and be affordable to income- qualified households—but the developer should be allowed the flexibility to determine whether those units would be affordable to very low-income, low-income, or moderate- income households.

2. Achieving the densities allowed under the density bonus law in order to compensate for the costs of providing affordable housing may require a shift to more dense housing products. In other words, a small-lot, single-family detached housing development may need to incorporate a large number of townhomes to accommodate additional market-rate units, instead of being restricted to single-family detached units. Similarly, a multifamily project may need to be built taller and with reduced parking to achieve the allowable densities. These tradeoffs should factor into the consideration of an inclusionary housing requirement and C12

ES-9
should be acknowledged in the ordinance if the city moves forward with an inclusionary housing requirement.

C13

1-1

1. Introduction
The City of Antioch 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Housing Element (HE) was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on October 12, 2023. Housing Element Program 2.1.10, Inclusionary Housing, calls for the city to “Initiate a feasibility study for an inclusionary housing ordinance for City Council consideration.”2 Inclusionary housing ordinances (IHO) require that new market-rate residential development projects include a certain percentage of housing units at rents or sale prices that are affordable to lower-income households.

As stated in the Housing Element, the objective of Program 2.1.10 is to develop 360 to 460 affordable units during the 2023-2031 planning period.

PlaceWorks, Inc. was engaged by the City of Antioch to prepare the City’s IHO, including this financial feasibility analysis (FFA). The FFA is intended to identify the impacts that inclusionary housing requirements would have on the economic feasibility of building new, market-rate housing in the City.

The FFA will assist the City in adopting IHO regulations that facilitate affordable housing provision while continuing to encourage market-rate housing development.

Two key factors must be considered in the creation of inclusionary housing requirements:

1. The requirements should balance the interests of developers against the public benefit created by the production of affordable units.

2. The inclusionary housing requirements cannot deprive housing developers of a fair and reasonable return on their investment.

1.1 FEASIBILITY STUDIES VS NEXUS STUDIES
Feasibility studies and nexus studies are related yet serve different purposes. As explained further in Section 1.3, below, IHOs are typically adopted as local land use regulations via a jurisdiction’s use of its police power. Feasibility studies for IHOs determine the quantity of affordable housing that proposed development project(s) can bear while remaining financially feasible to develop.

In contrast, nexus studies do not assess project financial feasibility. Nexus studies are used to quantify various impact(s) of new development, calculate the cost of the impact(s), and determine the resulting fees to be imposed as a development condition. In the case of affordable housing, nexus studies document how much a proposed development project (either residential or non-residential) would contribute to the need for affordable housing and determine a maximum legally defensibility impact fee.

Ultimately, the jurisdiction can charge any fee up to that amount. Oftentimes, for affordable housing, cities account for financial feasibility and impose a fee lower than the maximum amount.

2 Ibid, page 7-16.

C14

1-2

1.2 LIMITS OF FEASIBILITY STUDIES
Feasibility studies differ from real estate appraisals, which establish a value for a specific property based on data from comparable properties and projects. The primary difference between an appraisal and a feasibility study is the scope. An appraisal is focused on a single property and is intended to provide an accurate estimate of the value of that property. A feasibility study is intended to represent an approximate typical value for a type of development that could occur on many different properties within a jurisdiction. The values of that theoretical development may vary greatly across different properties and with different developers.

Feasibility studies involve more complex calculations based on a wider variety of data. While market data on home sales prices and rents is available, feasibility studies also rely on data and assumptions about land values, construction costs, operating costs, unit sizes, parking costs, and other topics. As such, feasibility studies must be understood as approximations.

Finally, feasibility studies depend on specific input assumptions and are thus more open to interpretation than appraisals. While two certified appraisers are likely to return very similar property value estimates in most cases, two well-conducted financial feasibility studies may still draw varying conclusions about the impact of inclusionary housing requirements on project feasibility.

1.3 LEGAL BACKGOUND
Article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution grants each city and county the power “to make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” This is referred to as the police power of local governments. California Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code, §§ 65000 to 66035) establishes the Legislature’s intent to “provide only a minimum of limitation in order that counties and cities may exercise the maximum degree of control over local zoning matters.”
Approximately 200 jurisdictions in California, pursuant to their police power, have adopted IHOs that require developers to ensure that a certain percentage of housing units in a new development be affordable to VLI, LI and MI households. The majority of these include requirements for both for-sale and rental residential development projects.

A series of legal cases and legislation adopted by the State of California Legislature guide the creation and implementation of IHOs. These include, in chronological order:
PPalmer/Sixth Street Properties L.P. v. City of Los Angeles. In 2009, the California Court of Appeal ruled that the local affordable housing requirements imposed by the City of Los Angeles violated the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Costa-Hawkins). Costa-Hawkins allows landlords to set the initial monthly rent for a new unit, and then to increase the monthly rent to the market level each time a unit is vacated. The Court found that the imposition of long-term income and affordability restrictions on rental apartment units is a violation of this provision.

After the Palmer decision, most jurisdictions with inclusionary housing ordinances that included rental housing stopped applying the rental requirement. Some jurisdictions replaced affordable housing production models with a linkage or impact fee methodology.

C15

1-3
LLatinos Unidos del Valle de Napa y Solano v. County of Napa. In 2013, the California Court of Appeal, held that inclusionary units qualify as affordable units for purposes of the Density Bonus Law. As a result of the ruling, developers can use the same affordable units to fulfill both inclusionary housing requirements and density bonus requirements. However, in order to exercise this option, the more stringent of the two programs’ requirements must be applied. California Building Assn. V. of San Jose (2015) 61 Cal.4th 435. In 2010, the City of San Jose adopted an inclusionary housing ordinance that applied a 15 percent inclusionary requirement.

The California Building Industry Association (CBIA) filed a lawsuit alleging that the requirements constituted an “exaction" that needed to be justified by the impact of the project. In a 2015, the California Supreme Court ruled that inclusionary requirements are not exactions, stating that they are “constitutionally legitimate” so long as the enforcement "bears a real and substantial relationship to the public interest." The court cited the need to increase the number of affordable units in California and the desirability of economically diverse communities.

This case has been widely interpreted to mean that an in-lieu fee payment option in an inclusionary housing program is not subject to the requirements of California Government Code §66000, the “Mitigation Fee Act.”
Assembly Bill 1505. AB 1505 was passed in 2017 and is known as the “Palmer Fix,” as it reaffirms the authority of local governments to include inclusionary requirements for rental units. AB 1505 amends Section 65850 of the California Government Code and adds Section 65850.01. It supersedes the holding in Palmer, to the extent that the decision conflicts with a local jurisdiction’s authority to adopt inclusionary housing programs on residential rental developments. It provides for limited, circumstantial review by HCD of financial feasibility studies in order to ensure that inclusionary housing programs do not “unduly constrain” the production of housing.

Per AB 1505, HCD retains the right to review the financial feasibility of only IHOs that require more than 15 percent of rental units be made affordable to households at 80 percent or less of the area median income (AMI), and for which one of the following applies:

1. The jurisdiction has failed to meet at least 75% of its RHNA allocation for above moderate income units. This test is measured on a pro-rated basis over the planning period, which is set at a minimum of five years; or

2. HCD finds that the jurisdiction has not submitted their Housing Element report for at least two consecutive years.

Even in cases where these criteria are met, HCD will only request evaluation of an IHO feasibility analysis based on information in the jurisdiction’s Housing Element, Annual Progress Report, stakeholder comment letter, phone call, news article, or at the request of a third-party.

Finally, HCD will not review the actual inclusionary housing program pursuant to AB 1505. HCD’s review is limited to a review of the financial feasibility study.

At this time Antioch has not met 75% of its recently-released 6th cycle RHNA allocation (see Section 2.1).

As such, should Antioch adopt an IHO whereby more than 15 percent of rental units are required to be restricted at less than 80% of AMI, HCD has the right to review this FFA.

C16

1-4

1.4 INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE COMPONENTS
The majority of inclusionary housing ordinances in California are comprised of a similar set of regulatory components. These include:

1. TThreshold Project Size. Most inclusionary housing programs include a minimum threshold project size below which projects are not subject to the affordable housing production requirements. Typically, this threshold is between three to 10 units.

2. Applicable Geography. Most jurisdictions establish blanket affordability requirements that apply to all local projects. Some jurisdictions with diverse real estate landscape impose varying requirements for different subareas.

3. Income and Affordability Requirements. Income and housing affordability requirements are the key components of inclusionary housing. They vary throughout California. The majority of IHOs require that eligible projects include 10 to 20 percent affordable units. The following variations are common:
The inclusionary requirements vary for different levels of household affordability, including VLI, LI and MI households.
A sliding scale of inclusionary requirements for projects of varying size, developed to reduce the potentially disproportionate impact of inclusionary housing requirements on smaller projects. The length of the covenant period imposed on inclusionary units. However, the standards of 45 years for ownership housing units and 55 years for rental units set by California Health and Safety Code (H&SC) Section 33413 are commonly used.

4. Inclusionary Fulfillment Options. According to Cal. Gov. Code Section 65850 (g), jurisdictions may adopt IHOs with rental development requirements with the condition that they offer developers alternatives for fulfilling the affordable housing requirements. The most common options are:
Payment of an in-lieu fee, equal to the cost of constructing the required units, to a local housing trust fund or other mechanism to assist in the development of affordable housing units within the community. In-lieu fees can also be transferred to developers that specialize in affordable housing and have access to local, state and federal public funding sources that may support greater affordability than inclusionary housing requirements.
Construction of a defined percentage of income restricted units in an off-site location. The dedication or donation of land to the jurisdiction that is appropriate for the development of affordable housing.
The acquisition and rehabilitation of existing units.

5. Development & Design Standards. Most IHOs include standards to ensure that affordable units are built with the same construction and design quality as market rate units and are distributed evenly among market rates units rather than clustered or isolated in the development site.

C17

1-5

1.5 DENSITY BONUS AND INCLUSIONARY HOUSING

1.5.1 STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW
California’s Density Bonus Law (Cal. Gov. Code Sections 65915 – 65918) provides developers with tools to build affordable housing. The law requires jurisdictions to provide density bonuses based on a sliding scale, including up to a 50% increase in project densities depending on the amount of affordable housing provided.

The density bonus provides one method for developers to improve the feasibility of their project while still complying with an inclusionary housing ordinance. As stated in Section 2.4, Latinos Unidos del Valle de Napa y Solano v. County of Napa held that inclusionary units qualify as affordable units for purposes of Density Bonus Law. The case confirmed that the density bonus is a financial tool available to help developers achieve inclusionary housing requirements. Density bonus is commonly used to reduce the financial impact created by the imposition of inclusionary housing requirements. It should be noted, however, that payment of an in-lieu fee to meet inclusionary housing requirements does not qualify for density bonus.

Table 1-1 shows the scale of allowable state density bonus for increasing percentages of affordable units.

TTABLE 1-1: STATE DENSITY BONUS ALLOWANCES
Affordable Unit Percentage
((Of Pre-BBonus Unit Total)
Very Low Income Density
BBonus Low Income Density Bonus
Moderate Income Density
BBonus (For-SSale Projects Only)
5% 20% - -
6% 22.5% - -
7% 25% - -
8% 27.5% - -
9% 30% - -
10% 32.5% 20% 5%
11% 35% 21.5% 6%
12% 38.75% 23% 7%
13% 42.5% 24.5% 8%
14% 46.25% 26% 9%
15% 50% 27.5% 10%
16% 50% 29% 11%
17% 50% 30.5% 12%
18% 50% 32% 13%
19% 50% 33.5% 14%
20% 50% 35% 15%

C18

1-6

1.5.2 LOCAL DENSITY BONUS
The City of Antioch’s adopted density bonus ordinance is included in Chapter 5, Article 35, of the Antioch Municipal Code. The ordinance was amended in 2014 to bring the City into compliance with State law and further modified in 2020 to mirror the State ordinance. Section 9-5.3502(H) of the City’s density bonus ordinance includes a provision which automatically adopts revisions to the State Density Bonus law as adopted by State Legislature.

C19

2-1

2. Methodology
The financial feasibility impact of an inclusionary housing requirement on a market-rate project is the difference between financial performance of a fully market rate development project and one that provides the required number of below-market rate (BMR) units, along with any density bonus and other incentives. Most commonly, this difference is measured as the difference in the rate of return that the developer would expect for the equity invested in the project. The difference can also be measured as the difference in the market-rate sales values or rents for units in the market-rate and those of the BMR development, when holding the rate of return equal. It can also be measured as the difference in the residual land value (how much the developer can afford to pay to acquire the development site) between the market-rate and the BMR development projects, keeping the rate of return equal.

2.1 HOUSING NEED IN ANTIOCH
Antioch has a history of successfully planning for state-mandated housing requirements.

The State of California requires every jurisdiction to adequately plan for its community’s housing needs, as specified by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The RHNA breaks down the amount of housing units needed in each jurisdiction by income category, ranging from Very-Low Income to Above Moderate Income. Antioch has a 6th cycle RHNA of 3,016 total units. Table 2-1 displays the City’s RHNA breakdown by income levels.

TTAABLE 22--11:: CCIITY OF AANNTIOCH 66TTH CCYYCLE RRHNA AALLLOCATION IIncome Group UUnits PPercent
Very Low-Income (0-50% of AMI) 792 26.3%
Low-Income (51-80% of AMI) 456 15.1%
Moderate Income (81-120% of AMI) 493 16.3%
Above Moderate-Income (More than 120% of AMI) 1,275 42.3% TTOTAL 33,016 1100%
Source: Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031.

As shown in Table 2-1, 42.3% of the Antioch’s RHNA requirement is dedicated to homes affordable to Above Moderate-Income households. A potential IHO would not include requirements for these homes.

The City’s RHNA directs that the City will need to plan for the construction of 493 Moderate, 456 Low- and 792 Very Low- Income housing units by 2031.

Inclusionary housing is one tool that will help the City to fulfill its affordable housing needs. Accomplishing state and local housing goals will require an additional combination of planning and zoning strategies, city policy decisions and regional coordination.

C20

2-2
This report summarizes the results of detailed financial feasibility analyses to assess the impact on feasibility of the requested inclusionary housing requirements on a series of prototypical housing projects. The analyses identify the following:
The impact on feasibility of three different 15 percent affordability requirements:
o A 15 percent requirement for VLI units.
o A 15 percent requirement for LI units.
o A 15 percent requirement for Moderate Income units.
The impact on feasibility of three different 10 percent affordability requirements:
o A 10 percent requirement for VLI units.
o A 10 percent requirement for LI units.
o A 10 percent requirement for Moderate Income units.
The impact on feasibility of a 5 percent requirement for VLI units.

The presentation and discussion of each prototype uses a starting point of providing 15 percent of the units affordable to very low-income households and a corresponding 50 percent density bonuses.

However, the discussion of the prototype feasibility also provides additional information about the other income levels and the 10 percent and five percent inclusionary requirements.

2.2 ANALYTICAL APPROACH
The basic structure of the analysis is the development and application of financial feasibility pro formas for a set of housing project prototypes reflecting current development trends in Antioch and the region.

The analyses include:

1. Creation of residential development prototypes that are representative of new and planned market-rate development in the City of Antioch.

2. Estimation of market-rate sales prices and rents for the prototypes.

3. Calculation of the sales prices and rents the reflect affordable housing payments.

4. Calculation of the percentage of units that could be designated as inclusionary housing units while maintaining project financial feasibility.

C21

2-3

2.2.1 DEVELOPMENT PROTOTYPES
PlaceWorks developed a total of five for-sale and for-rent housing development prototypes that reflect recent development patterns in Antioch. The protypes were created using multiple inputs to ensure they are representative of local development patterns and provide for accurate analysis within the limitations of a financial feasibility assessment. These inputs include:
Ongoing consultation with City staff regarding current residential project applications to the City, desired housing development types, applicant inquiries and State input. Evaluation and integration of recently-constructed and approved single- and multi-family for-sale projects and rental projects.
Evaluation of housing project characteristics, densities and designs contained in multiple Antioch “Pipeline Project” lists obtained from city staff.

Project data from City of Antioch Housing Element and related documents.

Details of each development prototype are included in Chapters 3 and 4.

2.2.2 MARKET SURVEY
PlaceWorks completed a comprehensive local market survey of home sales and rent prices to estimate achievable values of the development protypes. In August of 2024, PlaceWorks used a Chrome software extension developed by the real estate industry to download and compile detailed market data from real estate aggregators Zillow and Trulia.

PlaceWorks’ survey of real estate sales prices included individual datasets for:
Single family homes
Multifamily homes
Townhomes

PlaceWorks’ survey of real estate rental prices included individual datasets for:
Single family homes
Multifamily homes
Townhomes

Each listing in both surveys includes:
Home type
Listing process/rent
Square footage
Price/rent per square foot
Number of bedrooms
Number of bathrooms

Raw results of the market survey are available in Appendices A through D.

C22

2-2

2.2.3 CALCULATION OF AFFORDBALE HOME PRICES & RENTS
PlaceWorks calculated affordable home values and rental process for inclusion in the pro form process.

These values were calculated using California Health & Safety Code (H&SC) Section 50052.5 calculation methodology.

Details and results of the calculation process are included in Section 3.1.

2.2.4 PRO FORMA ANALYSES
PlaceWorks prepared a series of dynamic pro formas for each development prototype to identify whether, and how, each market-rate housing project could support various affordability requirements.

Unlike static pro formas, dynamic pro formas rely on multi-year cash flow projections. This type of modeling requires a greater number of assumptions and inputs than static modelling. It allows for the most accurate evaluation of the feasibility of real estate projects. This approach facilitated calculation of the following metrics:
IInternal Rate of Return. PlaceWorks calculated Internal Rate of Return (IRR) to assess the feasibility of the for-sale development prototypes. IRR measures the developer’s return on investment with a discounted cash flow model. It is more complex and more accurate than a simple return on cost metric. It is based on the net cash flow for each year during the planning, construction, and sale (for a for-sale product) or operation (for a for-rent product). Equity investors typically use IRR because it allows them to compare different investment opportunities.

In the initial years, a developer invests money into a project and then, in later years, receives return in the form of the sales value of the residential dwelling units, after repaying the construction loan. IRR can also be used with for-rent products (in which case the return is the annual net cash flow from operations and the ultimate sale of the project after a typically five- year holding period to capitalize on depreciation tax benefits). The key feasibility question is whether these later cash flows are large enough to pay back the initial investment plus a sufficient return to compensate for the investment risk. The IRR is essentially the rate that generates a $0 net present value for the series of cash flows. For real estate investments, an IRR of 15 percent is generally considered the threshold for a proposed project to be considered financially feasible. Cash-on-Cash Yield. PlaceWorks calculated Cash-on-Cash Yield to assess the financial feasibility of for-rent development prototypes. With for-rent residential projects, the developer may own and operate the project for an indeterminate number of years. IRR is a less effective evaluation metric because it requires a specific time horizon for the sale of the project and the final return. The cash-on-cash yield is an industry standard metric for rental projects, and it measures the net revenue relative to the developer’s investment for the first full year of occupancy. Specifically, it is calculated by dividing the expected net operating income (NOI), after debt service and taxes, by the required equity investment the developer puts up. For real estate investments, a cash-on-cash yield of six percent or more is generally considered the threshold for a proposed project to be considered financially feasible.

C23

2-3
RResidual Land Value. Residual land value is the amount that a developer can afford to pay to acquire a site for development and a achieve a financially feasible rate of return. Residual land value is most often used to compare two or more alternatives for a development site or two or more land use regulations by determining which generates the highest residual land value.

However, a portion of the financial impact of inclusionary housing requirements can be absorbed by landowners in the form of lower residual land values (RLV). The impact of decreased RLV is reflected differently in financial feasibility analyses statewide, with no preferred direction. As detailed further in Chapters 3 and 4, PlaceWorks analyzed the financial feasibility of market-rate and BMR development prototypes assuming that the residual land value would remain the same.

2.2.5 SCENARIO ANALYSIS
The financial feasibility of each development prototype was analyzed under the following scenarios:

1. Fully Market Rate Scenario. This scenario consists of the density, number of units and unit type established in the original market-rate development prototype, without the introduction of affordability requirements.

These scenarios also includes the maximum number of new units allowed under California’s Density Bonus Law (Cal. Gov. Code Sections 65915 – 65918). The seven requirement scenarios are:
15 percent VLI units.
15 percent LI units.
15 percent MI units.
10 percent VLI units.
10 percent LI units.
10 percent MI units.
5 percent VLI units.

Each prototype analysis also includes a Base Scenario, which consists of the density, number of units and unit type established in the market rate scenario, as well as the affordability requirements of the inclusionary scenario. However, it does not include density bonus units. As such, it is not included in the feasibility analyses. It is used to illustrate the development implications of changing density programs on a development project that complies with affordability requirements, including changes in the number of market rate and below market rate units, and unit types.

2.2.6 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
PlaceWorks’ pro forma modelling includes sensitivity analyses that test the impact of a range of changes to key inputs. This type of analysis looks at the extent to which feasibility would be impacted under changing market or other assumptions. Inputs altered as part of the sensitivity analysis include:
Rental rates.

C24

2-4
Home values.
Project densities.
Combinations of housing project product type, such as multifamily units, single family homes, and townhouses.

2.3 DENSITY BONUS UNITS
Most of the housing being built in Antioch today is owner-occupied. With ownership housing, the primary affordable housing challenge is that, even at a reduced price, each household must still have the ability to pay (a down payment and meet debt-to-income limits) and the willingness to pay (credit score) to qualify for a conventional mortgage. As a result, many VLI, LI and MI households cannot afford to buy the typical for-sale unit in Antioch.

Because households have to qualify for mortgage financing to buy a home (even one created under an IHO), inclusionary housing programs tend to target MI households. However, the Antioch Housing Element has identified the development of 360 to 460 affordable units for households of various income levels as the specific objective of a future IHO. A combination of income levels impacts the manner in which for-sale projects may benefit from State Density Bonus law, which provides differing percentages for bonus market-rate housing units based on income level, as shown in Table 2-2.

TTAABLE 22--22:: DDEENSITY BBOONUS AS PPEERCENTAGE IINNCREASE IN MARKET--RRATE UUNNITS BY IINNCOME PPercentage of Affordable Units Provided: 115%% Affordable 110% Affordable 55% Affordable Household Income Class
Very Low-Income 50% Uni t Increase 32.5% Unit Increase 20% Unit Increase Low-Income 27.5% Unit Increase 20% Unit Increase 0% Unit Increa se Moderate-Income 10% Unit Increa se 5% Unit Increase 0% Unit Inc rease

There is no State density bonus for LI or MI affordable units if they comprise less than 10 percent of the total number of units in a project. Some inclusionary housing programs leave it to the developer to balance the number of affordable units by income classification in order to obtain the density bonus that best supports financial feasibility. However, there is no guarantee that the market in conjunction with an inclusionary housing program with such flexibility will produce housing for all income levels.

C25

3-1

3. For-Sale Development Prototypes
This chapter inlcudes PlaceWorks’ analyses of the impact of the seven different affordability requirements on the financial feasibility of three prototypical for-sale residential development projects.

Each prototype is representative of recent development activity in Antioch. The three protoypes include:
Prototype 1: Large Lot SFD Subdivision
Prototype 2: Small-lot SFD Subdivision
Prototype 3: For-Sale Townhouse Development
Each protoype discussion includes the results of the financial feasibility anlyses under the scenarios described in Section 2.2.5:

1. Fully Market Rate Scenario. This is the fully-market rate project.

2. Inclusionary Scenarios. Each of these scenarios inlcude a different affordability requirement and the assocaited maximum number of new units allowed under State Density Bonus Law.

As explained under Section 2.1, we first present detailed financial analyses of the 15 percent VLI inclusionary scenario for each prototype. This facailitates exploration and anlaysis of the impact of the maximum density bonus allowed under State law. For each prototype, we then summarize the feasibility of the six other inclusionary scenarious.

This chapter opens with a discussion of State affordability classifications and metrics. It concludes with a discussion of the potential need for disposition requirements in the inclusionary housing program, to establish purchaser qualifications and affordable unit resale restrictions.

3.1 AFFORDABLE HOUSING PAYMENTS FOR FOR-SALE

HOUSING
The housing payment considered to be affordable for a given household is determined by household size and income. The calculated affordable housing payment is unrelated to the size (square footage) of the dwelling units (provided it has the appropriate number of bedrooms), the type of housing (single-family detached, townhouse, or condo), or the market-rate price of the unit. Calculated affordable housing payments for for-sale housing are provided in the following sections.

3.1.1 HOUSING INCOME CLASSIFICATIONS
There are several related but distinct income classifications used for public programs. This analysis is based on the most common classification for housing programs, the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Income Limits. Table 3-1 provides the HCD income limits for Contra Costa County for 2024. The data indicate the maximum income that a household with a given number of people can earn and be included in each income classification.

C26

3-2
TTAABLE 3--1:: HCD INCOME LIMITS BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND INCOME CLASSIFICATION; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Number of People:: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Very Low-Income 54,500 62, 300 70,100 77,850 84, 100 90,350 96,55 0 102,800 Low-Income 84,600 96,650 108,750 120,800 130, 500 140,150 149,8 00 159,500 Moderate-Income 130,800 149,500 168,150 186, 850 201,800 216,75 0 231,700 246,650 Median Income 109,000 124,550 140,150 155,700 168,150 180,600 193,050 205,500 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2024 State Income Housing Limits.

Thus, a 3-person household with an annual income of $70,100 would be classified as VLI, while a 3-person family with an annual income of $108,750 would be classified as LI. When purchasing a home with some sort of public subsidy, support, or write-down, the household’s actual income is used to determine the affordable housing payment. For planning purposes, the maximum income for each income classification is used to determine the affordable housing payment and, thus, the affordable sales price.

3.1.2 AFFORDABLE-HOUSING SALES PRICES
The price that may be charged for affordable owner-occupied housing is based on annual income and household size. Affordable sales prices in Antioch are calculated in Table 3-2 for VLI, LI, and MI households.

TAABLE 3--2:: CCALCULATION OF AAFFORDABLE--HOOUSING SALES PRRICE BY HOOUSEHOLD SIIZE AND INNCOME CLLASSIFICATION (ALLL DATA IN 22024 DOOLLARS); ANNTIOCH; 20244
Household Size:: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Very Low--Income Households
Annual income limit 54,500 62,300 70,100 77,850 84,100 90,350 9 6,550 102,800 109,028 Affordable housing cost
(assumes 30% of annual
income limit)
16,350 18,690 21,030 23,355 25, 230 27,105 28,965 30,840 32,708 Annual utility allowance 229 282 334 389 440 472 504 504 504 Annual housing affordable
payment 13,602 15,306 17,022 18,687 19, 950 21,441 22,917 24,792 26,660 Monthly housing affordable
ppayment 1,134 1,276 1,419 1,557 1,663 1,787 1,910 2,066 2,222 Other housing costs 538 605 673 739 789 847 906 980 1,054 Mortgage payment 596 671 746 819 874 939 1,004 1,086 1,168 Affordable purchase price 110,473 124,312 138,249 151,772 162,030 174,139 186,127 201,356 216,530 Low--Income Households
Annual income 84,600 96,650 108,750 120,800 130,500 140,150 149,800 159,500 1 69,164 Affordable housing cost
(assumes 30% of annual
income limit)
25,380 28,995 32,625 36,240 39, 150 42,045 44,940 47,850 50,749 Annual utility allowance 229 282 334 389 440 472 504 504 504 Annual housing affordable
payment 22,632 25,611 28,617 31,572 33, 870 36,381 38,892 41,802 44,701 Monthly housing affordable
ppayment 1,886 2,134 2,385 2,631 2,823 3,032 3,241 3,484 3,725 Other housing costs 895 1,012 1,131 1,248 1,339 1,438 1,537 1,652 1,767 C27

3-3
TTAABLE 33--22:: CCAALCULATION OF AAFFFORDABLE--HHOOUSING SALES PPRRICE BY HHOOUSEHOLD SSIIZE AND IINNCOME CCLLASSIFICATION ((ALLL DDATA IN 220244 DDOOLLARS)); AANNTIOCH;; 220244
HHousehold Size:: 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99
Mortgage payment 991 1,122 1,254 1,383 1,484 1,594 1,704 1,831 1,958 AAffordable purchase price 1183,812 2208,007 2232,421 2256,421 2275,085 2295,479 3315,873 3339,507 3363,054 MModerate--IIncome Households
Annual income 130,800 149,500 168,150 186,850 201,800 216,750 231,700 246,650 261,598 Affordable housing cost
(assumes 30% of annual
income limit)
39,240 44,850 50,445 56,055 60, 540 65,025 69,510 73,995 78,479 Annual utility allowance 229 282 334 389 440 472 504 504 504 Annual housing affordable
payment 36,492 41,466 46,437 51,387 55, 260 59,361 63,462 67,947 72,431 MMonthly housing affordable
ppayment 33,041 33,456 33,870 44,282 44,605 44,947 55,289 55,662 66,036 Other housing costs 1,442 1,639 1,835 2,031 2,184 2,346 2,508 2,686 2,863 Mortgage payment 1,599 1,817 2,034 2,251 2,421 2,601 2,780 2,977 3,173 AAffordable purchase price 2296,381 3336,778 3377,152 4417,355 4448,810 4482,118 5515,425 5551,852 5588,273 NNotes to Table 3-2

1. Data for annual income limit by household size and income c lassification is from Table 3-1.

2. The total payment for housing costs for owner-occupied hous ing is considered to be 30 percent of household income.

3. Annual utility allowance data are based on the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County 2024 Utility Allowances.

4. The annual housing affordable payment is the affordable hou sing cost less the utility allowance. The monthly housing affordable payment is the annual payment divided by 12.

5. Other housing costs assume a 5 percent down payment and a 95 percent loan to value ratio and include 1.5 percent taxes, 1 percent annual private mortgage insurance, and 0.57 percent annual homeowners’ insurance.

6. The mortgage payment is the monthly housing affordable payment less other housing costs. The affordable purchase price is based on the mortgage payment and assumes a 30-year fixed rate mortgage with a 5 percent down payment and a 5.5 percent annual percentage rate.

3.2 FOR-SALE DEVELOPMENT PROTOTYPES AND ANALYSES
This section describes the three for-sale development prototypes analyzed in this report, and the results of their financial feasibility analyses.

PlaceWorks defined three development prototypes for for-sale housing based on our review of recently constructed and permitted housing projects in Antioch:
Prototype 1: Large Lot, Single Family Development. Low-density single-family housing subdivision at a gross density of 4.0 dwelling units per acre.
Prototype 2: Small Lot, Single Family Development. Medium-density single-family housing subdivision at a gross density of 10.0 dwelling units per acre Prototype 3: For-Sale Townhouse Development. Medium-density townhome project comprising 70 side-by-side residential units, for a gross density of 14.9 units per acre.

These prototypes are intended to reflect generalized development patterns that are typical and/or allowable under current planning and zoning and to provide a generalized indication of the financial C28

3-4
feasibility impacts of inclusionary housing requirements. The prototypes do not reflect any particular lot or parcel or location in the city. The financial feasibility of any prototypes on a specific site should be expected to vary from the generalized analysis provided below.

Each prototype includes detailed analyses of the impacts of a 15 percent VLI inclusionary housing scenario on project density, revenue, costs, and feasibility. It is assumed that State Density Bonus is maximized in these analyses.

This is followed by a summary feasibility analysis for each of the six other inclusionary housing scenarios described in Section 2.1.

3.2.1 PROTOTYPE 1: LARGE LOT, SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

3.2.1.1 PROTOTYPE DESCRIPTION
This prototype represents a historically common form of development in Antioch. The theoretical site is

55.0 acres in size. The base scenario includes 220 houses, 46 of which are BMR units, at a gross density of

4.0 units per acre. Table 3-3 shows the types of housing and estimated sales values.

TTAABLE 33--33:: PPRROTOTYPE 11 HHOOUSING SSIIZES AND SSAALES VVAALUES UUnit Type SSize (sq. ft.)
MMarket--Rate Sales
VValue
Below-Market-
RRate Sales Value Difference
3-Bedroom 1,970 730,000 153,500 -576,000 -79.0%
4-Bedroom 2,320 830,000 170,100 -659,000 -79.5%
5-Bedroom 2,750 1,125,000 189,600 -936,000 -83.1%
Notes to Table 3-3:

1. Unit types, sizes, and market-rate sales values are PlaceWo rks’ assumptions based on our assessment of the current market.

2. Below market-rate sales valu es are based on the data in Table 4-3, assuming that 3-bedroom units are a mix of 3- and 4- person households, 4-bedroom units are 5-person households, and 5-bedroom units are a mix of 7- and 8-person households.

As with all five analyses conducted for this report, PlaceWorks assessed the development implications of the base development scenario and seven inclusionary housing scenarios for this prototype. We compared the feasibility of the inclusionary housing scenarios to the fully market rate scenario. The number of each type/size of units resulting from the 15 percent VLI inclusionary housing scenario is provided in Table 3-4. As noted, this inclusionary housing scenario provides for the greatest number of additional units under State Density Bonus. Development summaries of the base scenario and 15 percent VLI scenario are shown in Table 3-5.
The base development scenario includes 220 total housing units. Per the inclusionary housing scenario presented here, 15 percent of the units (33 units) are for VLI households. A 15 percent VLI scenario would entitle the inclusionary housing alternative to a density bonus of 50 percent, or an additional 110 market-rate units. This brings the total potential size of the inclusionary housing scenario to 330 units. This is 6.0 units per acre on the hypothetical 55-acre site.

C29

3-5
TTAABLE 33--44:: NNUUMBER OF UUNNITS BY TTYYPE AAND AAFFFORDABILITY UUnit Type
BBase Development Scenario 115% VLI Inclusionary Scenario TTotal Number of Units BBelow MMarket--RRate Units MMarket--RRate Units TTootal NNumber of Units 3-Bedroom 8 80 12 108 1 120
4-Bedroom 8 80 12 108 1 120
5-Bedroom 6 60 9 81 9 90
TTotal 2220 33 297 3 330

TTAABLE 33--55:: SSUUMMARY OOF UUNNITSS
Base Development Scenario 15% VLI Inclusionary Scenario Market rate units 220 297
Below market-rate units 0 33
Total number of units 220 330
Site area (acres) 55 55
Gross density (du/acre) 4.0 6.0

3.2.1.2 PROJECT REVENUE
In the following discussion of project revenues, costs and feasibility, the performance of the 15 percent VLI inclusionary housing scenario, including maximum State density bonus, is compared to a fully market- rate version of the protype.

The estimated project revenue for Prototype 1 is presented in Table 3-6. The only income for each of the scenarios is the sales of the completed housing units. In the 15 percent VLI inclusionary housing scenario, the average per unit sales value, $803,000 (across all market-rate and BMR units), is 8.1 percent lower than the average in a fully market rate project.

TAABLE 3--6:: PPROTOTYPE 11 PPROJECT IINCOME
Fully Market Rate Project 15% VLI Inclusionary Scenario Average sales value 874,000 803,000
Gross sales value 192,300,000 265,000,000
Less sales commission and
marketing -9,610,000 -13,260,000
Total Net Sales Value 182,700,000 252,000,000
Notes to Table 3-6:

1. The average sales value is b ased on the sales values in Table 4-4 and the number of units in Table 4-5. The gross sales value is the average unit value multiplied by the total number of units.

2. The analysis assumes a 5.0 percent sales commission. The to tal net sales value is the gross sales value less the sales commission.

C30

3-6

3.2.1.3 PROJECT COSTS
Estimated project costs are provided in Table 3-7. The overall cost increases with additional units, from $142 million for the fully market rate project to $227 million for the inclusionary housing scenario. The cost per unit also increases, even with fixed costs, such as land acquisition, spread across more units, and less roadway per unit. The analysis estimates the per unit cost at $648,000 for the fully market rate project and $688,000 for the 15 percent VLI inclusionary housing scenario TTABLE 3-7: PROTOTYPE 1 PROJECT COSTS
Fully Market Rate Project 15% VLI Inclusionary Scenario Land Cost
Estimated property value 23,400,000 23,400,000
Due diligence 818,000 818,000
Estimated land acquisition cost 24,200,000 24,200,000
Hard Costs
Site work 10,920,000 27,400,000
Building construction 102,300,000 153,500,000
Hard cost subtotal 113,200,000 180,800,000
Soft Costs
Design, entitlement, and other soft costs @10.0% 11,320,000 18,080,000 Contingency @10.0% 11,320,000 18,080,000
Total development impact fees (includes city,
school district & other) 6,710,000 10,060,000
Soft costs subtotal 29,400,000 46,200,000
Total Development Cost
Total cost (before financing) 142,600,000 227,000,000
- per unit 648,000 688,000
Notes to Table 3-7:

1. The estimated property value is a PlaceWorks estimate based on our analysis of sales data, asking prices, and residual land values. The analysis assumes a 5 percent of land cost allowance for due diligence activities related to land acquisition. The cash flow model assumes monthly option payments of 1 percent of the estimated property value during the entitlement period, but the option payments are part of the overall payment for land acquisition rather than an additional cost.

2. Building construction costs are calculated on a per square foot basis for finished floor area and a separate square foot basis for garages. The per square foot costs are taken from Craftsman Book Company’s 2024 National Building Cost Manual, with the source’s recommended adjustments for local cost differential. As noted in the source, the per square foot cost estimates include all construction costs: labor, materials, equipment, plans, building permit, supervision, overhead, and profit.

3. Development impact fees are calculated as $18,561 per dwelling unit plus $5.17 per square foot (for school district fees).

The analysis assumes that development impact fees are charged to market-rate and below-market-rate units. The city could waive development impact fees for the below-market-rate units, which could lessen the need for other subsidies, primarily the extent of the additional density bonus.

3.2.1.4 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Table 3-8 summarizes the financial feasibility of the market rate and 15 percent VLI inclusionary scenarios. The analysis finds that the fully market rate project is financially feasible, generating an IRR of

18.3 percent. This is to be expected, however, because this is the type of development that has been occurring in Antioch. Requiring 15 percent VLI affordable housing and relying on the State Density Bonus Law to provide the incentive is not financially feasible, with an IRR of -1.5 percent.

C31

3-7
TTAABLE 33--88: PPRROTOTYPE 11 FFIINANCIAL FFEEASIBILITY SSUUMMARY F Fully Market Rate Project 115% VLI Inclusionary Scenario Development cost 166,800,000 251,000,000
Financing cost 2,190,000 3,330,000
Total project cost 169,000,000 255,000,000
Construction loan amount 37,500,000 52,700,000
Required equity 182,700,000 252,000,000
PProject IRR 118.3% --11.5%
Surplus/(Gap) w/15% IRR 2,600,000 -15,320,000
Residual land value w/15% IRR 26,800,000 8,860,000
NNotes to Table 3-8:

1. Financing cost includes construction loan fees of 2.5 perce nt and carried interest for a 6.85 annual percentage rate, based on data from realtyrates.com. The total project costs are the development cost, from Table 3-6, plus the financing cost.

2. The construction loan amount is based on 50 percent of land acquisition and 84 percent of other construction costs, based on data from realtyrates.com.

3. The IRR is an annual rate of return based on monthly cash flow, assuming a 6-month entitlement period, 4 months of site work, 18 months of construction, and 3 months to complete sales.

The analysis considered other alternatives to achieve financial feasibility. The inclusionary housing project would require a 63 percent reduction in the sales value of the land in order to be financially feasible. The analysis also assessed changes in market-rate sales value. If the market could support a 7.4 percent in the price for new market-rate housing, the inclusionary housing scenario would be financially feasible. As noted in Chapter 2, this analysis is based on current housing prices, so an increase in sales prices for market-rate units is not assumed in the feasibility assessment.

3.2.1.5 FEASIBILITY SUMMARY: INCLUSIONARY SCENARIOS
Table 3-9 summarizes the financial feasibility of the market rate scenario of Prototype 1, as compared to all seven inclusionary scenarios assessed in this analysis.

TAABLE 3--9: PRROTOTYPE 1 FEEASIBILITY SUUMMARY
L Large Lot, SFD Subdivision
Base Market Rate Project
No inclusionary housing 18.3%
15% Inclusionary Requirement
15% Very low income -1.5%
15% Low income -7.1%
15% Moderate income -14.3%
10% Inclusionary RRequirement
10% Very low income -2.6%
10% Low income -5.3%
10% Moderate income -12.0%
5% Inclusionary Requirement
5% Very low income -1.3%

C32

3-8
As shown in the Table 3-9, Prototype 1 would not be feasible under any inclusionary housing scenarios.

This is primarily due to the fact that the affordable units would have to be sold at a 79 to 83 percent reduction in price relative to the sales price of market-rate housing. Even a 50 percent increase in the allowable density fails to generate a return sufficient to compensate for this difference.

3.2.2 PROTOTYPE 2: SMALL LOT, SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED

HOUSING SUBDIVISION

3.2.2.1 PROTOTYPE DESCRIPTION
This prototype is similar to Prototype 1. It is a single-family detached residential subdivision, but it is developed at a higher gross density. The base scenario includes 303 houses on a 30.2-acre site, for a gross density of 10.0 units per acre. Table 3-10 shows the types of housing and estimated sales values. As will be discussed, the 15 percent VLI inclusionary scenario includes additional market rate and BMR townhouses, which are required to achieve the increase in density that is needed to make an inclusionary requirement feasible for this prototype.

TTAABLE 33--110:: PPRROTOTYPE 22 HHOOUSING SSIIZES AND SSAALES VVAALUES UUnit Type SSize (sq. ft.)
MMarket--Rate Sales
VValue
Below-Market-
RRate Sales Value Difference
Single--Family DDetached Housing
3-Bedroom 1,480 584,104 135,715 -448,389 -76.8%
4-Bedroom 1,970 682,251 153,490 -528,762 -77.5%
5-Bedroom 2,270 788,786 170,144 -618,642 -78.4%
Townhouses
2-Bed Townhouse 1,225 379, 206 135,715 -243,491 -64.2%
3-Bed Townhouse 1,460 462, 734 153,490 -309,244 -66.8%
3-Bed Townhouse 1,758 558, 862 153,490 -405,372 -72.5%
Notes to Table 3-10:

1. Unit types, sizes, and market-rate sales values are PlaceWo rks assumptions based on our assessment of the current market.

As with all five prototype analyses conducted for this report, PlaceWorks assessed the development implications of the base development scenario and even inclusionary housing scenarios for this prototype. We compared the feasibility of the inclusionary housing scenario to the fully market rate scenario. The number of each type & size of units resulting from in the 15 percent VLI inclusionary housing scenario is provided in Table 3-11. As noted, this inclusionary housing scenario provides for the greatest number of additional units under State Density Bonus. Development summaries of the base scenario and 15 percent VLI scenario are shown in Table 3-12. The base development scenario includes 303 total housing units. Per the inclusionary scenario presented here, 15 percent of the units (46 units) are for VLI income households.

C33

3-9
A 15 percent VLI scenario would entitle the inclusionary housing alternative to a density bonus of 50 percent, or an additional 152 market-rate units. This brings the total potential size of the inclusionary housing scenario to 455 units. This is 15.1 units per acre on the hypothetical 30.2- acre site.

TTAABLE 33--111: NNUUMBER OF UUNNITS BY TTYYPE AND AAFFFORDABILITY UUnit Type
Base Development Scenario 15% VLI Inclusionary Scenario Total Number of Units
Below-Market-
RRate Units Market--Rate Units
Total Number
oof Units
3-Bedroom 86 0 65 65
4-Bedroom 125 0 94 94
5-Bedroom 92 0 69 69
2-Bed Townhouse 13 51 64
3-Bed Townhouse 19 75 94
3-Bed Townhouse 14 55 69
Total 303 46 409 4 455

TAABLE 3--12: SUUMMARY OF UNNITS
Base Development Scenario 15% VLI Inclusionary Scenario Market rate units 303 409
Below market-rate units 0 46
Total number of units 303 455
Site area (acres) 30.2 30.2
Gross density (du/acre) 10.0 15.1

3.2.2.2 PROJECT REVENUE
The estimated project revenue for Prototype 2 is presented in Table 3-13. The only income for each of the scenarios is the sales of the completed housing units. In order to achieve the target gross density of

15.1 units per acre, the inclusionary housing scenario would require changing some of the detached units into townhouses, as well as adding additional market rate and BMR townhouses. The total number of townhouses required would be 227. As a result, the average per unit sales value, $545,000 (across all market-rate and BMR units), is 20.6 percent lower than the average in a fully market rate version of the project.

C34

3-10
TTAABLE 33--113: PPRROTOTYPE 22 PPRROJECT IINNCOME
FFully Market Rate Project 115% VLI Inclusionary Scenario Average sales value 687,000 545,000
Gross sales value 208,000,000 248,000,000
Less sales commission -10,400,000 -12,410,000
Total Net Sales Value 197,700,000 236,000,000
NNotes to Table 3-13:

1. The average sales value is b ased on the sales values in Table 4-8 and the number of units in Table 3-9. The gross sales value is the average unit value multiplied by the total number of units,

2. The analysis assumes a 6.0 percent sales commission. The total net sales value is the gross sales value less the sales commission.

3.2.2.3 PROJECT COSTS
The estimated project costs are provided in Table 3-14. The overall cost increases with additional units, rising from just over $163 million for the fully market rate version, to just over $196 million for the inclusionary housing scenario. However, the cost per unit decreases with fixed costs, such as land acquisition, spread across more units, and less roadway per unit with smaller lots sizes. The analysis estimates the per unit cost at $539,000 for the fully market rate scenario and $431,000 for the 15 percent VLI inclusionary housing scenario.

C35

3-11
TTAABLE 33--114: PPRROTOTYPE 22 PPRROJECT CCOOSTS

FFully Market Rate Project
115% VLI Inclusionary
Scenario
Land Cost
Estimated property value 17,760,000 17,760,000
Due diligence 621,579 621,579
Estimated land acquisition cost 18,380,000 18,380,000
Hard Costs
Site work 7,090,000 16,020,000
Building construction 121,900,000 137,100,000
Hard cost subtotal 129,000,000 153,100,000
Soft Costs
Design, entitlement, and other soft costs @10.0% 12,900,000 15, 310,000 Contingency @10.0% 12,900,000 15,310,000
Total development impact fees (includes city, school district & other) 8,550,000 12,390,000
Soft costs subtotal 34,400,000 43,000,000
Total Development Cost
Total cost (before financing) 163,400,000 196,200,000
- per unit 539,000 431,000
Notes to Table 3-14:

2. Building construction costs are calculated on a per square foot basis for finished floor area and a separate square foot basis for garages. The per square foot costs are taken from Craftsman Book Company’s 2022 National Building Cost Manual, with the source’s recommended adjustments for local cost differential. As noted in the source, the per square foot cost estimates include all construction costs: labor, materials, equipment, plans, building permit, supervision, overhead, and profit.

3. Development impact fees are calculated as $54,209 per single-family dwelling unit and $43,259 per townhouse unit. The analysis assumes that development impact fees are charged to market-rate and below-market-rate units. The city could waive development impact fees for the below-market-rate units, which could lessen the need for other subsidies, primarily the extent of the additional density bonus.

3.2.2.4 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Table 3-15 summarizes the financial feasibility of the market rate and 15 percent VLI inclusionary scenarios. The analysis finds that the market-rate project is financially feasible, generating an IRR of 19.9 percent. This is a very lucrative return, but it is not surprising given the density the scenario achieves. As shown in Table 3-15, the feasibility of Prototype 2 increases to 24.1 percent IRR with a 15 percent VLI affordable housing requirement and maximization of State Density Bonus Law.

C36

3-12
TTAABLE 33--115: PPRROTOTYPE 22 FFIINANCIAL FFEEASIBILITY SSUUMMARY FFully Market Rate Project 115% VLI Inclusionary Scenario Development cost 181,800,000 215,000,000
Financing cost 2,400,000 2,830,000
Total project cost 184,200,000 217,000,000
Construction loan amount 38,400,000 44,300,000
Required equity 197,700,000 236,000,000
Net project income 181,800,000 215,000,000
PProject IRR 119.9% 224.1%
Surplus/(Gap) w/15% IRR 4,240,000 8,510,000
Residual land value w/15% IRR 22,000,000 26,300,000
NNotes to Table 3-15:

2. The construction loan amount is based on 50 percent of land acquisition and 84 percent of other construction costs, based on data from realtyrates.com.

3. The IRR is an annual rate of return based on monthly cash flow, assuming a 6-month entitlement period, 4 months of site work, 18 months of construction, and 3 months to complete sales.

It is important to note, however, that this development prototype is financially feasible under an inclusionary housing requirement because the analysis assumes that many of the single-family detached housing units are replaced with single-family attached housing units in order to achieve the allowable density bonus. While this meets the standards of the state density bonus law, the market may not support this change in the housing product type.

3.2.2.5 FEASIBILITY SUMMARY: INCLUSIONARY SCENARIOS
Table 3-16 summarizes the financial feasibility of the market rate scenario of Prototype 2, as compared to all seven inclusionary scenarios assessed in this analysis.

TAABLE 3--16 PRROTOTYPE 2 FEEASIBILITY SUUMMARY
S Small Lot, SFD Subdivision
Base Market Rate PProject
No inclusionary housing 19.9%
15% Inclusionary Requirement
15% Very low income 24.1%
15% Low income 19.9%
15% Moderate income 11.1%
10% Inclusionary Requirement
10% Very low income 24.6%
10% Low income 21.8%
10% Moderate income -13.4%
5% Inclusionary Requirement
5% Very low income 24.5%
C37

3-13
As shown in Table 3-16, Prototype 2 could be financially feasible with 15, 10, and 5 percent inclusionary requirements, provided that the developer is able to choose which income category to serve. This prototype is not feasible when building for moderate-income households. As mentioned above, however, the financial feasibility is contingent on replacing some single-family detached housing units with attached housing units.

3.2.3 PROTOTYPE 3: FOR-SALE TOWNHOMES

3.2.3.1 PROTOTYPE DESCRIPTION
This prototype is for a medium-density townhome project. The development comprises 70 side-by-side residential units on a 4.7-acre site, for a gross density of 14.9 units per acre. In the base scenario, 10 of the 70 units are BMR units. Table 3-17 shows the types of housing and estimated sales values.

TTAABLE 33--117:: PPRROTOTYPE 33 HHOOUSING UUNNIT SSIIZES AND SSAALES VVAALUES UUnit Type SSize (sq. ft.)
MMarket-Rate
SSales Value
Below-Market-
RRate Sales Value Difference
2 bed / 2 bath 1,225 379, 206 135,715 -243,491 -64.2%
3 bed / 3 bath 1,460 462, 734 153,490 -309,244 -66.8%
3 bed / 3.5 bath 1,758 566,584 170,144 -396,441 -70.0%
Notes to Table 3-17:

1. Unit types, sizes, and market-rate sales values are PlaceWo rks’ assumptions based on our assessment of the current market.

2. Below market-rate sales valu es are based on the data in Table 3-3, assuming that 1-bedroom units are a mix of 1- and 2- person households, and 2-bedroom units are 3-person households.

As with all five analyses conducted for this report, PlaceWorks assessed the development implications of the base development scenario and seven inclusionary housing scenarios for this prototype. We compared the feasibility of the inclusionary housing scenarios to the fully market rate scenario. The number of each type/size of units resulting from the 15 percent VLI inclusionary housing scenario is provided in Table 3-18. As noted, this inclusionary housing scenario provides for the greatest number of additional units under State Density Bonus. Development summaries of the base scenario and 15 percent VLI scenario are shown in Table 3-19.
The base development scenario includes 70 townhomes. Per the inclusionary housing scenario presented here, 15 percent of the units (10 units) are for VLI households. The project density is about 15 units per acre on the 4.7-acre site.
The 15 percent VLI scenario would entitle the inclusionary housing alternative to a density bonus of 50 percent, or an additional 34 market-rate units. This brings the total potential size of the inclusionary housing scenario to 104 units. This is about 22.0 units per acre on the hypothetical

4.7-acre site.

C38

3-14
TTAABLE 33--118: NNUUMBER OF UUNNITS BY TTYYPE AND AAFFFORDABILITY UUnit Type
BBase Development
SScenario 15% VLI Inclusionary Scenario
Total Number of Units
Below-Market-
RRate Units Market--Rate Units
Total Number of
UUnits
2 bed / 2 bath 14 2 19 21
3 bed / 3 bath 35 5 47 52
3 bed / 3.5 bath 21 3 28 31
Total 70 10 94 1 104

TAABLE 3--19:: UUNIT SSUMMARY
Base Development Scenario 15% VLI Inclusionary Scenario Market rate units 70 94
Below market-rate units 0 10
Total number of units 70 104
Site area (acres) 4.7 4.7
Gross density (du/acre) 14.9 22.1

3.2.3.2 PROJECT REVENUE
The estimated project revenue for Prototype 3 is presented in Table 3-20. The only income for each of the scenarios is the sales of the completed housing units. In the 15 percent VLI inclusionary scenario, the average per unit sales value, $446,000 (across all market-rate and BMR units), is 6.5 percent lower than the average in a fully market rate version of the project.

TAABLE 3--20: PRROTOTYPE 3 PRROJECT INNCOME
Fully Market Rate Project 15% VLI Inclusionary Scenario Average sales value 477,000 446,000
Gross sales value 33,400,000 46,400,000
Less sales commission -1,670,000 -2,320,000
Total Net Sales Value 31,700,000 44,000,000
Notes to Table 3-20:

1. The average sales value is b ased on the sales values in Table 3-17 and the number of units in Table 3-18. The gross sales value is the average unit value multiplied by the total number of units.

2. The analysis assumes a 6.0 percent sales commission. The total net sales value is the gross sales value less the sales commission.

C39

3-15

3.2.3.3 PROJECT COSTS
Estimated project costs are provided in Table 3-21. The overall cost increases with additional units, rising from $26.5 million for the fully market rate project, to $40.6 million for the 15 percent VLI inclusionary housing scenario. With townhomes, there are fewer opportunities to spread costs across more units and lower costs with less road frontage constructed. To increase the density, each you could be built with a smaller footprint but with an additional story. However, higher townhouses may be less marketable.

Unlike the previous two scenarios, the cost per unit increases somewhat with an increasing number of units. The analysis estimates the per unit cost at $386,000 for the base scenario and $381,000 for the inclusionary housing scenario.

TTAABLE 33--221: PPRROTOTYPE 33 PPRROJECT CCOOSTS
FFully Market Rate Project 115% VLI Inclusionary Scenario Land Cost
Estimated property value 2,440,000 2,440,000
Due diligence 500,000 500,000
Estimated land acquisition cost 2,350,000 2,350,000
Hard Costs
Site work 1,845,000 2,310,000
Building construction 19,180,000 28,500,000
Hard cost subtotal 21,000,000 30,800,000
Soft Costs
Design, entitlement, and other soft costs @10.0% 2,100,000 3,080,000 Contingency @10.0% 2,100,000 3,080,000
Total development impact fees (includes city, school
district & other) 1,815,000 2,700,000
Soft costs subtotal 6,020,000 8,850,000
TTotal Development Cost
Total cost (before financing) 27,000,000 39,600,000
- per unit 386,000 381,000
NNotes to Table 3-21:

2. Building construction costs are calculated on a per square foot basis for finished floor area and a separate square foot basis for garages. The per square foot costs are taken from Craftsman Book Company’s 2022 National Building Cost Manual, with the source’s recommended adjustments for local cost differential. As noted in the source, the per square foot cost estimates include all construction costs: labor, materials, equipment, plans, building permit, supervision, overhead, and profit.

3. Development impact fees are c alculated as $33,024 per one-bedroom unit and $43,259 per two-bedroom unit. The analysis assumes that development impact fees are charged to market-rate and below-market-rate units. The city could waive development impact fees for the below-market-rate units, which could lessen the need for other subsidies, primarily the extent of the additional density bonus.

C40

3-16

3.2.3.4 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Table 3-22 summarizes the financial feasibility of the market rate and 15 percent VLI inclusionary scenarios. The analysis finds that the fully market rate project is financially feasible, generating an IRR of

20.6 percent. This is a very lucrative return, but it is not surprising given the density the scenario achieves.

As shown in Table 3-22, this prototype is financially feasible with a 15 percent VLI affordable housing requirement, although it is less lucrative than the market-rate scenario.

TTAABLE 33--222: PPRROTOTYPE 33 FFIINANCIAL FFEEASIBILITY SSUUMMARY FFully Market Rate Project 115% VLI Inclusionary Scenario Development cost 29,500,000 42,100,000
Financing cost 389,000 557,000
Total project cost 29,900,000 42,600,000
Required equity 6,050,000 8,310,000
Net project income 31,700,000 44,000,000
PProject IRR 220.6% 115.5%
Surplus/(Gap) w/15% IRR 650,000 153,500
Residual land value w/15% IRR 3,090,000 2,510,000
NNotes to Table 3-22:

2. The construction loan amount is based on 50 percent of land acquisition and 84 percent of other construction costs, based on data from realtyrates.com.

3. The IRR is an annual rate of return based on monthly cash flow, assuming a 6-month entitlement period, 4 months of site work, 18 months of construction, and 3 months to complete sales.

3.2.3.5 FEASIBILITY SUMMARY: INCLUSIONARY SCENARIOS
Table 3-23 summarizes the financial feasibility of the Prototype 3 market rate scenario and all seven inclusionary scenarios assessed in this analysis.

TAABLE 3--23:: PPROTOTYPE 33 FFEASIBILITY SSUMMARY
F For--Sale Townhouses
Base Market Rate Project
No inclusionary housing 20.6%
15% Inclusionary Requirement
15% Very low income 15.5%
15% Low income 12.8%
15% Moderate income 19.9%
10% Inclusionary Requirement
10% Very low income 16.3%
10% Low income 12.6%
10% Moderate income 19.8%
5% IInclusionary Requirement
5% Very low income 18.2%

C41

3-17
As shown in Table 3.23, the hypothetical townhouse project is generally financially feasible under 15, 10, and 5 percent inclusionary requirements provided that the developer is able to choose which income category to serve. With 15 and 10 percent inclusionary requirements, this protype is not financially feasible when providing housing affordable to moderate income households.

3.3 DISPOSITION REQUIREMENTS
An inclusionary ordinance will likely require that households purchasing an affordable unit qualify based on income and that the sales price qualify as affordable to that household. The program will also have to identify what restriction, if any, will be applied to future resales of these affordable units. Different state and federal programs have different requirements.

We recommend that the city’s ordinance restrict future resales so that the purchasing household also be income-qualified and the sales price represents an affordable housing payment for the purchasing household. We further recommend that this restriction be enforced by a deed restriction for a period of 45 years. This would be consistent with some federal affordable housing programs, but it is worth noting that it is unlikely that federal funding would be involved with mixed-income inclusionary housing projects.

As an alternative, Antioch could consider using provisions similar to the State Density Bonus Law. The original purchaser would still have to be income-qualified and the sales price would have to be qualified as affordable to the purchasing household. The purchasing household would not be restricted from selling the property in the future at then market-rates or to selling to households that are not qualified as low income. However, there would be an equity sharing agreement, and the city would receive the amount of the original sales price write-down and a proportional share of any appreciation in value.

Antioch could then use its share of the sales price to support other affordable housing projects and programs.

C42

3-18
This page intentionally left blank.

C43

4-1

4. Rental Housing Protoypes
This chapter includes PlaceWorks’ analyses of the impact of affordability requirements on the financial feasibility of two prototypical rental housing development projects. Each prototype is representative of recent development activity in Antioch. The two prototypes include:
Prototype 4: Medium/High Density Multifamily Flats. Medium-scale apartment development with 83 units at a gross density of 20.2 units per acre.
Prototype 5: High Density Multifamily Flats. Large-scale apartment development with 237 units at a gross density of 26.9 units per acre.

Each protoype discussion includes the results of the financial feasibility analysis under the scenarios described in Section 2.2.5:

1. Fully Market Rate Scenario. This is the fully-market rate project.

2. Inclusionary Scenarios. Each of these scenarios inlcude a different affordability requirement and the associated maximum number of new units allowed under State Density Bonus Law.

As explained under Section 2.1, we first present detailed financial analyses of the 15 percent VLI inclusionary scenario for each prototype. This facilitates exploration and analysis of the impact of the maximum density bonus allowed under State law. For each prototype, we then summarize the feasibility of the six other inclusionary scenarios.

This chapter also includes discussions of whether any of the scenarios would generate a feasibility surplus that could be used to pay a fee in lieu of providing affordable rental units on-site.

This chapter opens with a discussion of affordable household rents.

4.1 AFFORDABLE HOUSEHOLD RENTS
The affordable rent for a household is based on annual income and household size. Affordable rents are calculated in Table 4-1 for VLI, LI, and MI households.

C44

4-2
TTAABLE 44--11:: CCAALCULATION OF AAFFFORDABLE RREENTS BY HHOOUSEHOLD SSIIZE AND IINNCOME CCLLASSIFICATION ((ALLL DATA IN 220244 DDOOLLARS)); AANNTIOCH;; 220244
HHousehold Size: 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99
VVery LLow--IIncome HHouseholds
Annual income limit 54,500 62,300 70,100 77,850 84,100 90,350 9 6,550 102,800 109,028 Affordable housing cost
(assumes 30% of annual
income limit)
16,350 18,690 21,030 23,355 25, 230 27,105 28,965 30,840 32,708 Annual utility allowance 208 250 291 339 381 407 434 434 434 Annual affordable rent 13, 854 15,690 17,538 19, 287 20,658 22,22 1 23,757 25,632 27,500 MMonthly affordable rrent 1,155 1,308 1,462 1,607 1, 722 1,852 1,980 2,136 2,292 LLoow--IIncome HHouseholds
Annual income limit 84, 600 96,650 108,750 120, 800 130,500 140,1 50 149,800 159,500 169,164 Affordable housing cost
(assumes 30% of annual
income limit)
25,380 28,995 32,625 36,240 39, 150 42,045 44,940 47,850 50,749 Annual utility allowance 208 250 291 339 381 407 434 434 434 Annual affordable rent 22, 884 25,995 29,133 32, 172 34,578 37,16 1 39,732 42,642 45,541 MMonthly affordable rrent 1,907 2,166 2,428 2,681 2, 882 3,097 3,311 3,554 3,795 MModerate--IIncome HHouseholds
Annual income limit 130, 800 149,500 168,150 186,850 201,800 216 ,750 231,700 246,650 261,598 Affordable housing cost
(assumes 30% of annual
income limit)
39,240 44,850 50,445 56,055 60, 540 65,025 69,510 73,995 78,479 Annual utility allowance 208 250 291 339 381 407 434 434 434 Annual affordable rent 36, 744 41,850 46,953 51, 987 55,968 60,14 1 64,302 68,787 73,271 MMonthly affordable rrent 3,062 3,488 3,913 4,332 4, 664 5,012 5,359 5,732 6,106 NNotes to Table 4.1:

1. Data for annual income limit by household size and income c lassification is from Table 3-1.

2. The total affordable rent payment is considered to be 30 pe rcent of household income.

3. Annual utility allowance data are based on Contra Costa County Utility Allowances.

4. The annual housing affordable payment is the affordable hou sing cost less the utility allowance. The monthly housing affordable payment is the annual payment divided by 12.

4.2 FOR-RENT DEVELOPMENT PROTOTYPES AND ANALYSES
PlaceWorks defined two development scenarios for for-rent housing based on our review of recently constructed and permitted housing projects in Antioch:
Prototype 4: Medium/High Density Multifamily Flats. Medium-scale apartment development with 83 units at a gross density of 20.2 units per acre.
Prototype 5: High Density Multifamily Flats. Large-scale apartment development with 237 units at a gross density of 26.9 units per acre.

C45

4-3
These prototypes are intended to reflect typical for-rent multifamily development that can be expected to be built in Antioch. The prototypes are intended to provide a generalized indication of the financial feasibility impacts of inclusionary housing requirements. The prototypes do not reflect any particular lot or parcel or location in the city.

4.2.1 PROTOTYPE 4: MEDIUM-HIGH MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT

4.2.1.1 PROTOTYPE DESCRIPTION
This prototype represents a fairly common suburban multifamily development. At just over 20 units per acre, this scale of development is fairly easy to arrange on a site, and it is fairly easy to accommodate all required parking and open space. This prototype has a three-story apartment building with 83 units on

4.1 acres. Table 4-2 shows the types of residential units and estimated rents.

TTAABLE 44--22:: PPRROTOTYPE 44 HHOOUSING SSIIZES AND MMOONTHLY RREENTS ((ASSSUMING A 99.1 PPERCENT RREENT IINCREASE)) UUnit Type SSize (sq. ft.)
MMarket-Rate
Rents
Below-Market-
RRate Rents Difference
1-bedroom 850 2,168 1,191 -978 -45.1%
2-bedroom 950 2,211 1,393 -818 -37.0%
3-bedroom 1,200 2,265 1,575 -690 -30.5%
Notes to Table 4-2:

1. Unit types, sizes, and marke t-rate rents are PlaceWorks’ assumptions based on our assessment of the current market and reflect an increase of 9.1 percent over current market rents.

2. Below-market-rate rents are based on the data in Table 4-1, assuming that studio units are 1-person households, 1- bedroom units are occupied by a mix of 1- and 2-person households, 2-bedroom units are occupied by 3-person households, and 3-bedroom units are occupied by a mix of 3- and 4-person households.

As with all five prototype analyses conducted for this report, PlaceWorks assessed the development implications of the base development scenario and seven inclusionary housing scenarios for this prototype. We compared the feasibility of the inclusionary housing scenarios to the fully market rate scenario. The number of each type/size of units resulting from the 15 percent VLI inclusionary housing scenario is provided in Table 4-3. As noted, this inclusionary housing scenario provides for the greatest number of additional units under State Density Bonus. Development summaries of the base scenario and 15 percent VLI scenario are shown in Table 4-4.
The base development scenario includes 83 total housing units. Per the inclusionary housing scenario presented here, 15 percent of the units (13 units) are for VLI households. A 15 percent VLI scenario would entitle the inclusionary housing alternative to a density bonus of 50 percent, or an additional 42 market-rate units. This brings the total potential size of the inclusionary housing scenario to 125 units. This is about 30.5 units per acre on the hypothetical

4.1-acre site.

C46

4-4
TTAABLE 44--33: NNUUMBER OF UUNNITS BY TTYYPE AND AAFFFORDABILITY UUnit Type
BBase Development Scenario 115% VLI Inclusionary Scenario TTotal Number of Units
BBelow-Market-
RRate Units Market--Rate Units
Total Number of
UUnits
1-bedroom 32 5 43 48
2-bedroom 39 6 53 59
3-bedroom 12 2 16 18
Total 83 13 112 125

TAABLE 4--4:: UUNIT SSUMMARY

Base Development Scenario 15% VLI Inclusionary Scenario Market rate units 83 112
Below market-rate units 0 13
Total number of units 83 125
Site area (acres) 4.1 4.1
Gross density (du/acre) 20.2 30.5

4.2.1.2 PROJECT REVENUE
The estimated project revenue for Prototype 4 is presented in Table 4-5. The income for each of the scenarios is the monthly rents for the residential units. The estimated average monthly rent in the 15 percent VLI inclusionary housing scenario, $2,110 (across all market-rate and BMR units), is 4.0 percent lower than the average in a fully market rate version of the project. The analysis assumes a 33.5 percent allowance for vacancies and operations in the first full year of occupancy. The annual net operating income increases from $1.45 million in the fully market rate version, to $2.11 million in the inclusionary housing scenario.

TAABLE 4--5: PRROTOTYPE 4 PRROJECT INNCOME
Fully Market Rate Project 15% VLI Inclusionary Scenario Number of units 83 125
Average monthly rent 2,200 2,110
Gross annual income 2,190,000 3,170,000
Less vacancies and operations -735,000 -1,062,000
Annual net operating income 1,459,000 2,110,000
Notes to Table 4-5:

1. The average monthly rent is based on the rent by unit type in Table 4-3 and the number of units in Table 4-4. The gross annual income is the average monthly rent multiplied by 12 months.

2. The analysis assumes a 33.5 percent allowance for vacancies and operations. The national average across all apartments is

45.8 percent, based on data from realtyrates.com. A new apartment development in a community with very low multifamily vacancies can be expected to perform much better than the national average.

C47

4-5

4.2.1.3 PROJECT COSTS
The estimated project costs are provided in Table 4-6. The total development cost increases with additional units, rising from $21.62 million for the fully market rate project, to $32.19 million for the 15 percent VLI inclusionary housing scenario. However, the cost per unit decreases with fixed costs, such as land acquisition, spread across more units. The analysis estimates the per unit cost at 261,000 for the fully market rate project and 257,000 for the inclusionary housing scenario.

TTAABLE 44--66:: PPRROTOTYPE 44 PPRROJECT CCOOSTS

FFully Market Rate Project 115% VLI Inclusionary Scenario Land Cost
Estimated property value 2,130,000 2,130,000
Due diligence 500,000 500,000
Estimated land acquisition cost 2,050,000 2,050,000
Hard Costs
Site work 1,761,000 2,260,000
Building construction 14,940,000 22,600,000
Hard cost subtotal 16,700,000 24,900,000
Soft Costs
Design, entitlement, and other soft costs @10.0% 1,670,000 2,490,000 Contingency @10.0% 1,670,000 2,490,000
Total development impact fees (includes city,
school district & other)
1,612,000 2,240,000
Soft costs subtotal 4,950,000 7,210,000
TTotal Development Cost
Total cost (before financing) 21,600,000 32,100,000
- per unit 261,000 257,000
NNotes to Table 4-6:

2. Building construction costs are calculated on a per square foot basis for finished floor area and a separate square foot basis for garages. The per square foot costs are taken from Craftsman Book Company’s 2022 National Building Cost Manual, with the source’s recommended adjustments for local cost differential. As noted in the source, the per square foot cost estimates include all construction costs: labor, materials, equipment, plans, building permit, supervision, overhead, and profit.

3. Development impact fees are calculated as $29,000 per studio unit, $33,024 per 1-bedroom unit, and $43,259 per 2- or more bedroom unit. The analysis assumes that development impact fees are charged to market-rate and below-market-rate units. The city could waive development impact fees for the below-market-rate units, which could lessen the need for other subsidies, primarily the extent of the additional density bonus.

C48

4-6

4.2.1.4 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Table 4-7 summarizes the financial feasibility of a fully market-rate version of the project to the 15 percent VLI inclusionary housing scenario. The analysis finds that the fully market rate version of the project is financially feasible, generating a yield of 6.1 percent. Requiring 15 percent of the units to be affordable to VLI households while maximizing State Density Bonus law is also financially feasible, generating a yield of 6.1 percent.

TTAABLE 44--77:: PPRROTOTYPE 44 FFIINANCIAL FFEEASIBILITY SSUUMMARY F Fully Market Rate Project 115% VLI Inclusionary Scenario Development cost 23,800,000 34,200,000
Financing cost 123,700 180,400
Total project cost 23,900,000 34,400,000
Construction loan amount 4,930,000 6,800,000
Required equity 1,459,000 2,110,000
Year 1 NOI (before debt service and taxes) 23,800,000 34,200,000 CCash--oon--ccash yield 66.1% 66.1%
Surplus/(Gap) w/6% Yield 306,000 730,860
Residual land value w/6% yield 2,360,000 2,784,720
NNotes to Table 4-7:

2. The cash-on-cash yield annual rate of return in the first full year of occupancy based on the net operating income after debt service and taxes divided by the required equity investment.

The analysis indicates that this development prototype could be financially feasible with a 15 percent VLI affordable housing requirement. However, the feasibility is contingent upon going from a three-story apartment building to a 4-story apartment building and the developer provide less per unit parking in order to accommodate the increase to a density of 30 units per acre.

4.2.1.5 FEASIBILITY SUMMARY: INCLUSIONARY SCENARIOS
Table 4-8 summarizes the financial feasibility of the market rate scenario and all seven inclusionary scenarios assessed in this analysis.

C49

4-7
TTAABLE 44--88:: PPRROTOTYPE 44 FFEEASIBILITY SSUUMMARY M Medium/High Density Multifamily Flats
BBase Market Rate Project
No inclusionary housing 6.1%
115% Inclusionary Requirement
15% Very low income 6.1%
15% Low income 4.9%
15% Moderate income 5.2%
110% Inclusionary Requirement
10% Very low income 6.1%
10% Low income 4.8%
10% Moderate income 5.0%
55% Inclusionary Requirement
5% Very low income 6.1%

As shown in Table 4-8, the financial feasibility of Prototype 4 is dependent on the density increase associated with providing VLI units. The yield of Prototype 4 falls below 6.0 percent when it complies with all LI and MI inclusionary requirements. The analysis indicates that this prototype could be feasible with 10, 10, and 5 percent inclusionary requirements if the developer is allowed to choose which income category to serve. However, the feasibility is contingent on going to four stories and obtaining a parking reduction through the state density bonus law.

4.2.2 PROTOTYPE 5: LARGER-SCALE APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT

4.2.2.1 PROTOTYPE DESCRIPTION
This prototype represents a suburban multifamily development at a scale and density that is not currently common in Antioch but that does occur elsewhere in the state and is consistent with the direction of housing and development policy in the current Antioch general plan update. This prototype includes a four-story apartment building with 237 units on 8.8 acres, resulting in a gross density of 26.9 units per acre. Table 4-9 shows the types of residential units and estimated rents.

TTAABLE 44--99:: PPRROTOTYPE 55 HHOOUSING SSIIZES AND MMOONTHLY RREENTS UUnit Type SSize (sq. ft.)
MMarket--RRate
RRents
BBelow--MMarket--
RRate RRents DDifference
1-bedroom A 700 2,182 1,191 -992 -45.5%
1-bedroom B 870 2,215 1,191 -1,024 -46.2%
2-bedroom A 950 2,230 1,393 -837 -37.6%
2-bedroom B 1,085 2, 256 1,393 -863 -38.3%
2-bedroom C 1,115 2, 261 1,393 -869 -38.4%
3-bedroom A 1,250 2, 287 1,575 -712 -31.1%
NNotes to Table 4-9:

1. Unit types, sizes, and marke t-rate rents are PlaceWorks’ assumptions based on our assessment of the current market.

2. Below-market-rate rents are based on the data in Table 4-7, assuming that 1-bedroom units are occupied by a mix of 1- and 2-person households, 2-bedroom units are occupied by 3-person households, and 3-bedroom units are occupied by a mix of 3- and 4-person households.

C50

4-8
As with all five prototype analyses conducted for this report, PlaceWorks assessed the development implications of the base development scenario and seven inclusionary housing scenarios for this prototype. We compared the feasibility of the inclusionary housing scenarios to the fully market rate scenario. The number of each type/size of units resulting from the 15 percent VLI inclusionary housing scenario is provided in Table 4-10. As noted, this inclusionary housing scenario provides for the greatest number of additional units allowed under State Density Bonus law. Development summaries of the base scenario and 15 percent VLI scenario are shown in Table 4-11. The base development scenario includes 237 total housing units. Per the inclusionary housing scenario presented here, 15 percent of the units (36 units) are for VLI households. A 15 percent VLI scenario would entitle the inclusionary housing alternative to a density bonus of 50 percent, or an additional 119 market-rate units. This brings the total potential size of the inclusionary housing scenario to 356 units. This is about 40.5 units per acre on the hypothetical

8.8-acre site.

TTAABLE 44--110:: NNUUMBER OF UUNNITS BY TTYYPE AAND AAFFFORDABILITY UUnit Type
Base Development Scenario 15% VLI Inclusionary Scenario Total Number of Units
Below-Market-Rate
UUnits Market--Rate Units Tootal NNumber of Units
1-bedroom A 54 8 73 81
1-bedroom B 48 7 65 72
2-bedroom A 50 8 68 76
2-bedroom B 24 4 32 36
2-bedroom C 43 6 58 64
3-bedroom A 18 3 24 27
Total 237 36 320 3 356

TAABLE 4--111: UNNIT SSUMMARY
Base Development Scenario 15% VLI Inclusionary Scenario Market rate units 237 320
Below market-rate units 0 36
Total number of units 237 356
Site area (acres) 8.8 8.8
Gross density (du/acre) 26.9 40.5

4.2.2.2 PROJECT REVENUE
The estimated project revenue for Prototype 5 is presented in Table 4-12. The income for each of the scenarios is the monthly rents for the residential units. The estimated average monthly rent in the 15 percent VLI inclusionary housing scenario, $2,140 (across all market-rate and BMR units), is 4.0 percent lower than the average in a fully market rate version of the project. The analysis assumes a 33.5 percent allowance for vacancies and operations in the first full year of occupancy. The annual net operating C51

4-9
income increases from $4.22 million in the fully market rate version, to $6.07 million in the inclusionary housing scenario.

TTAABLE 44--1122:: PPRROTOTYPE 55 PPRROJECT IINNCOME
FFully Market Rate Project 115% VLI Inclusionary Scenario Number of units 237 356
Average monthly rent 2,230 2,140
Gross annual income 6,340,000 9,130,000
Less vacancies and operations -2,120,000 -3,060,000
Annual net operating income 4,220,000 6,070,000
NNotes to Table 4-12:

1. The average monthly rent is based on the rent by unit type in Table 4-3 and the number of units in Table 4-.4. The gross annual income is the average monthly rent multiplied by 12 months.

2. The analysis assumes a 33.5 pe rcent allowance for vacancies and operations. The national average across all apartments is

45.8 percent, based on data from realtyrates.com. A new apartment development in a community with very low multifamily vacancies can be expected to perform much better than the national average.

4.2.2.3 PROJECT COSTS
The estimated project costs are provided in Table 4-13. The overall cost increases with additional units, rising from $59.0 million for the fully market-rate project, to $91.4 million for the 15 percent VLI inclusionary housing scenario.

C52

4-10
TTAABLE 44--1133:: PPRROTOTYPE 55 PPRROJECT CCOOSTS

FFully Market Rate Project 115% VLI Inclusionary Scenario Land Cost
Estimated property value 4,560980,000 4,560980,000
Due diligence 500200,000 500200,000
Estimated land acquisition cost 4,4005,160,000 4,4005,160,000 Hard Costs
Site work 2,220,000 4,800,000
Building construction 43,100,000 65,600,000
Hard cost subtotal 45,300,000 70,400,000
Soft Costs
Design, entitlement, and other soft costs @10.0% 4,530,000 7,04 0,000 Contingency @10.0% 4,530,000 7,040,000
Total development impact fees (includes city,
school district & other) 4,600,000 6,900,000
Soft costs subtotal 13,660,000 21,000,000
TTotal Development Cost
Total cost (before financing) 59,000,000 91,400,000
NNotes to Table 4-13:

2. Building construction costs are calculated on a per square foot basis for finished floor area and a separate square foot basis for garages. The per square foot costs are taken from Craftsman Book Company’s 2022 National Building Cost Manual, with the source’s recommended adjustments for local cost differential. As noted in the source, the per square foot cost estimates include all construction costs: labor, materials, equipment, plans, building permit, supervision, overhead, and profit.

3. Development impact fees are c alculated as $33,024 per 1-bedroom unit and $43,259 per 2- or more bedroom unit. The analysis assumes that development impact fees are charged to market-rate and below-market-rate units. The city could waive development impact fees for the below-market-rate units, which could lessen the need for other subsidies, primarily the extent of the additional density bonus.

4.2.2.4 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Table 4-14 summarizes the financial feasibility of a fully market-rate version of the project to the 15 percent VLI inclusionary housing scenario. The analysis finds that both the fully market-rate project and 15 percent VLI scenario are financially feasible, generating yield of 6.6 percent and 6.3 percent, respectively. At a 6.6 percent yield, the base development scenario would generate a surplus of $6.5 million. At a 6.3 percent yield, the inclusionary scenario would generate a surplus of $4.3 million.

C53

4-11
TTAABLE 44--1144:: PPRROTOTYPE 55 FFIINANCIAL FFEEASIBILITY SSUUMMARY F Fully Market Rate PProject 115% VLI Inclusionary Scenario Development cost 63,600,000 96,000,000
Financing cost 332,000 509,000
Total project cost 63,900,000 96,500,000
Construction loan amount 12,820,000 18,630,000
Required equity 4,220,000 6,070,000
Year 1 NOI (before debt service and taxes) 63,600,000 96,000,000 CCash--oon--ccash yield 66.6% 66.3%
Surplus/(Gap) w/6% Yield 6,540,000 4,260,000
Residual land value w/6% yield 11,100,000 8,820,000
NNotes to Table 4-13:

2. The cash-on-cash yield annual rate of return in the first full year of occupancy based on the net operating income after debt service and taxes divided by the required equity investment.

The analysis indicates that this development prototype would be financially feasible with a 15% VLI inclusionary requirement. However, the feasibility is contingent on increasing the building height and reducing the amount of parking per unit.

4.2.2.5 FEASIBILITY SUMMARY: INCLUSIONARY SCENARIOS
Table 4-15 summarizes the financial feasibility of the Prototype 5 market rate scenario and all seven inclusionary scenarios assessed in this analysis.

TABLE 4-15: PROTOTYPE 5 FEASIBILITY SUMMARY

High Density
Multifamily Flats
Base Market Rate Project
No inclusionary housing 6.6%
15% Inclusionary Requirement
15% Very low income 6.3%
15% Low income 6.4%
15% Moderate income 6.9%
100% Inclusionary Requirement
10% Very low income 6.3%
10% Low income 6.4%
10% Moderate income 6.6%
5%% Inclusionary Requirement
5% Very low income 6.3%

C54

4-12
As shown in Table 4-15, Prototype 5 remains financially feasible under all inclusionary scenarios.

However, the feasibility is contingent on the need for additional stories and obtaining a parking reduction through the state density bonus law.

C55
........................................................................................................................

A PPENDIX A
A NTIOCH M ARKET S URVEY :

S INGLE F AMILY S ALES D ATA
C56

address price bed bath sqft pricePerSf lotArea lotAreaType homeType zestimate rentZestimate 822 W 4th St, Antioch, CA 94509 395000 2 1 1000 395 5227.2 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 408500 2524 1527 Sandy Way, Antioch, CA 94509 499999 3 1 996 502.01 8276.4 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 2684 5187 Grass Valley Way, Antioch, CA 94531 574888 3 2 1299 442.56 5000 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 560900 3094 1313 August Way, Antioch, CA 94509 499950 3 2 1021 489.67 5662.8 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 2580 4468 Deerfield Dr, Antioch, CA 94531 639000 5 3 2053 311.25 6098.4 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 3321 2331 Peachtree Cir, Antioch, CA 94509 585000 3 2 1603 364.94 7840.8 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 598900 2954 1703 Periwinkle Way, Antioch, CA 94531 528000 3 3 1636 322.74 2783.484 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 542200 2923 5220 Fairside Way, Antioch, CA 94531 545000 3 3 1496 364.3 4356 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 3041 65 Dunes Way, Antioch, CA 94509 549000 3 2 1075 510.7 9147.6 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 2843 4011 Royal Links Ct, Antioch, CA 94509 750000 3 3 1659 452.08 0.59 acres SINGLE_FAMILY 787100 3466 5525 Sierra Trail Way, Antioch, CA 94531 749000 4 4 2803 267.21 5235.912 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 753100 4048 5204 Puma Ct, Antioch, CA 94531 760000 4 3 2580 294.57 7840.8 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 3673 220 Cobblestone Dr, Antioch, CA 94509 619900 3 2 2022 306.58 7405.2 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 3163 5045 Carbondale Way, Antioch, CA 94531 890000 4 3 3360 264.88 0.27 acres SINGLE_FAMILY 4470 1015 W 4th St, Antioch, CA 94509 400000 3 1 1092 366.3 5227.2 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 2345 5132 Furlong Way, Antioch, CA 94531 598000 4 3 1697 352.39 5227.2 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 617900 3210 5 Inland Ct, Antioch, CA 94509 499900 3 3 1769 282.59 6534 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 3490 2101 Banyan Way, Antioch, CA 94509 400000 2 1 809 494.44 3920.4 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 2118 2432 Redwood Dr, Antioch, CA 94509 529000 3 3 1259 420.17 2613.6 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 2757 4216 Amargosa Dr, Antioch, CA 94531 674000 5 3 2312 291.52 5227.2 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 3517 3020 Larkspur Dr, Antioch, CA 94531 679000 4 3 2288 296.77 0.25 acres SINGLE_FAMILY 3372 2633 Whitetail Ct, Antioch, CA 94531 629999 3 2 2066 304.94 10742 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 614400 3296 75 S Lake Dr, Antioch, CA 94509 619950 3 2 1676 369.9 10018.8 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 3438 4624 Wolf Way, Antioch, CA 94531 660000 4 3 2221 297.16 4822.092 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 645300 3290 1912 Yellowstone Ct, Antioch, CA 94509 657000 4 3 2128 308.74 9147.6 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 697500 3131 3109 Barmouth Dr, Antioch, CA 94509 620000 4 2 1834 338.06 6534 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 646900 3559 5008 Union Mine Dr, Antioch, CA 94531 950000 6 4 3859 246.18 9147.6 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 4497 5117 Ebbetts Way, Antioch, CA 94531 675000 4 3 1987 339.71 SINGLE_FAMILY 666600 3414
2440 Johns Way, Antioch, CA 94531 688000 4 3 1987 346.25 6534 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 703400 3428 1223 Hillcrest Ave, Antioch, CA 94509 1299000 4 4 2021 642.75 0.61 acres SINGLE_FAMILY 1368100 4270 501 Black Oak Ct, Antioch, CA 94509 700000 4 3 2604 268.82 0.27 acres SINGLE_FAMILY 3948 1137 L St, Antioch, CA 94509 419000 3 1 1013 413.62 5005.044 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 420400 2334 615 W 12th St, Antioch, CA 94509 395000 2 1 924 427.49 3920.4 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 2328 5352 Thunderbird Ct, Antioch, CA 94531 849000 5 3 3360 252.68 9890 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY

3524 Rio Grande Dr, Antioch, CA 94509 569999 3 2 1245 457.83 6969.6 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 2873 2339 Shelbourne Way, Antioch, CA 94531 675000 4 3 2052 328.95 6534 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 3646 3136 Persimmon St, Antioch, CA 94509 549000 3 2 1058 518.9 3049.2 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 2836 2370 Peachtree Cir, Antioch, CA 94509 699000 4 3 1863 375.2 7840.8 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 2950 2805 D St, Antioch, CA 94509 535000 3 1 1115 479.82 5009.4 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 549300 2664 1220 W 7th St, Antioch, CA 94509 439000 3 1 1053 416.9 5001 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 439700 2371 408 W 10th St, Antioch, CA 94509 448000 2 1 1050 426.67 4996.332 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 2348 C57

3305 Bluejay Dr, Antioch, CA 94509 609000 3 2 1608 378.73 8712 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 3294 4456 Deerfield Dr, Antioch, CA 94531 699000 4 3 2560 273.05 6098.4 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 3409 5112 Paddock Ct, Antioch, CA 94531 699000 3 3 1797 388.98 6299 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 681500 3360 2834 Bellflower Dr, Antioch, CA 94531 759000 4 3 2288 331.73 7104 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 766800 3268 1305 W 7th St, Antioch, CA 94509 495000 2 2 1504 329.12 5001 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 479600 2723 1216 W 7th St, Antioch, CA 94509 434000 3 1 1053 412.16 5001 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 435600 2371 4131 Mattole Rd, Antioch, CA 94531 649000 4 3 2085 311.27 4791.6 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 3389 5342 Frisanco Way, Antioch, CA 94531 760000 4 2 2031 374.2 5227.2 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 768200 3561 109 W 15th St, Antioch, CA 94509 525000 3 2 1621 323.87 5227.2 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 3427 3284 Madrone St, Antioch, CA 94509 495000 3 2 1124 440.39 3920.4 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 2894 5188 Judsonville Dr, Antioch, CA 94531 1199900 4 3 3477 345.1 0.312902 acres SINGLE_FAMILY 1159400 4645 1232 Hillcrest Ave, Antioch, CA 94509 525000 3 2 1269 413.71 5662.8 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 573600 2850 4618 Imperial St, Antioch, CA 94531 760000 4 3 3002 253.16 0.41 acres SINGLE_FAMILY 799800 3881 1821 Mount Silliman Way, Antioch, CA 94531 649900 4 3 1869 347.73 4500 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 649200 3124 12 Beede Way, Antioch, CA 94509 769000 4 3 3732 206.06 0.25 acres SINGLE_FAMILY 4877 5210 Primrose Ct, Antioch, CA 94531 619000 3 3 1662 372.44 4791.6 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 3429 1929 Johnson Dr, Antioch, CA 94509 595000 3 2 1419 419.31 5388.372 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 2879 3366 S Francisco Way, Antioch, CA 94509 599000 3 2 1415 423.32 7920 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 579600 3053 5341 McDowell Valley Ln, Antioch, CA 94531 740000 3 3 2213 334.39 3920.4 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 3542 826 Gloucester St, Antioch, CA 94509 680000 4 3 2075 327.71 7840.8 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 3528 2825 Bonita Ave, Antioch, CA 94509 519900 3 2 1100 472.64 5227.2 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 2659 5025 Woodmont Way, Antioch, CA 94531 730000 4 3 2189 333.49 5245 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY

4584 Sand Dune Pl, Antioch, CA 94531 692990 4 3 2045 338.87 3050 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 692600 3774 5109 Paddock Ct, Antioch, CA 94531 725000 5 3 2216 327.17 6098.4 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 3494 2829 Longview Rd, Antioch, CA 94509 640000 3 2 1623 394.33 10454.4 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 3173 5129 Rodeo Ct, Antioch, CA 94531 699500 4 3 2114 330.89 4791.6 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 3746 2093 Catalpa Way, Antioch, CA 94509 762000 5 3 3392 224.65 5096.52 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 4085 Homes Available Soon, Park Ridge Crest NaN SINGLE_FAMILY 3654 5542 Hazelbrook Ct, Antioch, CA 94531 889900 6 4 3146 282.87 9148 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 861000 3914 5533 Sierra Trail Way, Antioch, CA 94531 869000 5 4 3529 246.25 5105.232 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 847500 4520 1304 W 9th St, Antioch, CA 94509 499000 3 1 1380 361.59 5000.688 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 486300 2356 2921 Honeysuckle Cir, Antioch, CA 94531 629900 4 2 1793 351.31 7475 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 3109 5541 Sierra Trail Way, Antioch, CA 94531 899000 5 4 3529 254.75 6096 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 883500 4537 3576 Country Side Way, Antioch, CA 94509 785000 4 3 2057 381.62 8276.4 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 3874 3505 Davi Pl, Antioch, CA 94509 689000 3 3 2278 302.46 6098.4 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 3413 3582 Mallard Way, Antioch, CA 94509 972950 5 3 3620 268.77 0.354109 acres SINGLE_FAMILY 945200 4432 5145 Arroyo Way, Antioch, CA 94531 615000 4 3 1680 366.07 5500 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 604000 3316 5445 Guenoc Valley Ln, Antioch, CA 94531 925000 4 3 2457 376.48 3920.4 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 3950 2548 Bluerock Dr, Antioch, CA 94531 735888 6 3 2813 261.6 5227.2 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 751200 3501 4597 Imperial Way, Antioch, CA 94531 799000 5 3 2698 296.15 7629 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 784900 3823 5621 Sierra Trail Way, Antioch, CA 94531 897000 5 4 3511 255.48 5227.2 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 4467 1018 Fitzuren Rd, Antioch, CA 94509 425000 2 1 1080 393.52 5662.8 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 433000 2236 C58

46 E Madill St, Antioch, CA 94509 529000 4 2 1312 403.2 5662.8 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 2739 2103 Banyan Way, Antioch, CA 94509 395000 2 1 809 488.26 3049.2 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 2117 2016 Aspen Ct, Antioch, CA 94509 758000 5 3 2899 261.47 10454.4 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 4324 5337 Cardinal St, Antioch, CA 94509 850317 4 3 2992 284.2 7405.2 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 830900 4935 Ridgeview Dr, Antioch, CA 94531 635500 3 3 1514 419.75 4356 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 4529 Pronghorn Way, Antioch, CA 94509 722000 4 3 2330 309.87 5227.2 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 3618 5235 Caneva Ct, Antioch, CA 94531 765900 4 3 1913 400.37 6300 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 750900 3617 5524 Shell Ridge Way, Antioch, CA 94531 899000 5 4 3529 254.75 6658 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 877900 4545 5221 Caneva Ct, Antioch, CA 94531 707500 3 2 1448 488.6 9640 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 689700 3156 2911 Sunflower Dr, Antioch, CA 94531 668500 3 3 1831 365.1 8125 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 648900 3128 3026 Hickorynut St, Antioch, CA 94509 998000 5 4 3414 292.33 0.271419 acres SINGLE_FAMILY 981100 4806 2904 Buckthorn Ct, Antioch, CA 94531 650000 4 3 2183 297.76 0.339532 acres SINGLE_FAMILY 630000 3510 4512 Bridle Ct, Antioch, CA 94531 646990 3 3 1732 373.55 2802 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 630500 3138 5333 Cardinal St, Antioch, CA 94509 759174 4 2 2098 361.86 7405.2 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 734300 4535 Bitter St, Antioch, CA 94531 849000 4 3 2557 332.03 6543 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 827200 2975 2704 Hyacinth Ct, Antioch, CA 94531 729000 4 3 2288 318.62 7919.208 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 706100 3557 5231 Caneva Ct, Antioch, CA 94531 722500 3 2 1448 498.96 5250 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 705700 3117 208 Railroad Ave, Antioch, CA 94509 1199000 1 1
5227.2 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 2133
211 W 20th St, Antioch, CA 94509 1199000 3 1 5227.2 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 1139400 2246 4641 Ranch Point Way, Antioch, CA 94531 828990 5 3 2544 325.86 5298 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 802600 3637 2014 C St, Antioch, CA 94509 1199000 4 2 7405.2 sqft SINGLE_FAMILY 501100 2681

C59
........................................................................................................................

A PPENDIX B
A NTIOCH M ARKET S URVEY :

M ULTIFAMILY S ALES D ATA
C60

address price
be
d
bat
h sqft
pricePer
Sf
lotAre
a
lotAreaTyp
e homeType
zestimat
e
rentZestima
te
705 E St, Antioch, CA 94509 825000 7 5 4492 183.66
10018.
8 sqft
MULTI_FAMI
LY 2481
34 E 16th St, Antioch, CA 94509 524990 5 3 1312 400.14 6969.6 sqft MULTI_FAMI
LY 557300 2871
2205 L St, Antioch, CA 94509 600000 5 4 2080 288.46 5662.8 sqft MULTI_FAMI
LY 2980
1101 Klengel St, Antioch, CA
94509 724900 4 2 1680 431.49 6534 sqft
MULTI_FAMI
LY 2321
604 Texas St, Antioch, CA 94509 550000 3 2 1700 323.53 6534 sqft MULTI_FAMI
LY 561400 2014
1516 Sycamore Dr, Antioch, CA
94509 949900 8 4 3300 287.85 8712 sqft
MULTI_FAMI
LY 2386
423 E 13th St, Antioch, CA 94509
371939
5 2 1
1312
0 283.49 0.53 acres
MULTI_FAMI
LY 1842
809 W 2nd St, Antioch, CA 94509 800000 2773 288.5 6969.6 sqft MULTI_FAMI
LY 3162
201 Rossi Ave, Antioch, CA 94509 600000 1767 339.56 5662.8 sqft MULTI_FAMI
LY 2375
C61
........................................................................................................................

A PPENDIX C
A NTIOCH M ARKET S URVEY :

T OWNHOME S ALES D ATA
C62

address
zipCod
e city state price
be
d bath sqft
pricePer
Sf
lotAre
a
lotAreaTy
pe homeType
zestimat
e
rentZestima
te
3508 Stone Pl, Antioch, CA
94509 94509
Antioc
h CA
51950
0 3 3 1510 344.04
1306.
8 sqft

TOWNHOU
SE 540400 2848
6 Avila Pl, Antioch, CA 94509 94509
Antioc
h CA
39800
0 3 3 1354 293.94 871.2 sqft

TOWNHOU
SE 2875
57 Madrid Ln, Antioch, CA
94509 94509
Antioc
h CA
39900
0 3 3 1390 287.05 871.2 sqft

TOWNHOU
SE 406400 2877
2604 Nevada Ln, Antioch, CA
94509 94509
Antioc
h CA
32900
0 2 2 960 342.71 871.2 sqft

TOWNHOU
SE 336300 2277
3510 Stone Pl, Antioch, CA
94509 94509
Antioc
h CA
49900
0 3 3 1349 369.9
1306.
8 sqft

TOWNHOU
SE 2831
2601 Ithaca Ln, Antioch, CA
94509 94509
Antioc
h CA
31500
0 2 1 845 372.78 871.2 sqft

TOWNHOU
SE 2051
3507 Dameron Pl, Antioch, CA
94509 94509
Antioc
h CA
49900
0 3 3 1510 330.46
1306.
8 sqft

TOWNHOU
SE 517700 2850
4 Avila Pl, Antioch, CA 94509 94509
Antioc
h CA
37900
0 3 3 1390 272.66 1002 sqft

TOWNHOU
SE 2877
2506 Princeton Ln, Antioch,
CA 94509 94509
Antioc
h CA
34500
0 2 2 1152 299.48 960 sqft

TOWNHOU
SE 2338
2507 Georgetown Ln, Antioch,
CA 94509 94509
Antioc
h CA
35000
0 2 2 1152 303.82 871.2 sqft

TOWNHOU
SE 2316
2308 Peppertree Way APT 2,
Antioch, CA 94509 94509
Antioc
h CA
19800
0 2 1 903 219.27

13.06 8 sqft

TOWNHOU
SE 1783

C63
........................................................................................................................

A PPENDIX D
A NTIOCH M ARKET S URVEY :

M ULTIFAMILY R ENT D ATA
C64

address zipCode city state rent bed bath sqft rentPerSf homeType 3915 Delta Fair Blvd, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 1699 2 1 728 2.33 APARTMENT 600-712 O St, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 1895 2 1 APARTMENT 318 Lawton St, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 1600 1 1 1600 1 APARTMENT 2114 Peppertree Way APT 3, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 2000 2 1 903 2.21 APARTMENT 2116 Lemontree Way UNIT 3, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 2200 2 1 903 2.44 APARTMENT 1300 Sycamore Dr, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 1750 2 1 903 1.94 APARTMENT 516 W Tregallas Rd APT 4, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 1900 2 1

APARTMENT
500 Texas St APT 7, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 1795 2 1 702 2.56 APARTMENT 500-522 H St #512, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 1695 1 1 900 1.88 APARTMENT 912 Minaker Dr #2, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 2250 2 1.5 1116 2.02 APARTMENT 1104 W 9th St #A, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 1199 1 250 4.8 APARTMENT 610 W 2nd St, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 2495 2 1 1400 1.78 APARTMENT 320 W 20th St APT 10, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 1675 2 1

APARTMENT
723 W 4th St UNIT 1, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 2150 1 1 715 3.01 APARTMENT 4756 Matterhorn Way #A, Antioch, CA 94531 94531 Antioch CA 2000 1 1 450 4.44 APARTMENT 52 E 16th St APT 6, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 2250 2 1 750 3 APARTMENT 1512 Sycamore Dr APT 2, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 2000 2 1 850 2.35 APARTMENT 2208 Lemontree Way UNIT 3, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 1998 2 1 903 2.21 APARTMENT 618 W 7th St #5, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 1800 1 1 650 2.77 APARTMENT 113 I St #2, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 1300 1 450 2.89 APARTMENT 918 Marie Ave #B, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 1700 1 1 600 2.83 APARTMENT 31 Sunset Dr UNIT B, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 2200 2 1

APARTMENT
117 E Madill St, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 1650 1 APARTMENT 901 J St APT 9, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 1900 2 1 800 2.38 APARTMENT 2204 Lemontree Way UNIT 4, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 1895 2 1 925 2.05 APARTMENT 1116 W 5th St #I, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 2450 2 1 846 2.9 APARTMENT 1414 Sycamore Dr UNIT 4, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 1700 2 1 900 1.89 APARTMENT 2200 Lemontree Way UNIT 4, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 1900 2 1 925 2.05 APARTMENT 3609 Fairview Dr #4, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 1795 2 1 900 1.99 APARTMENT C65
515 W 9th St #B, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 1675 1 1 500 3.35 MULTI_FAMILY 137 Wilbur Ave APT 9, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 2100 2 1 910 2.31 APARTMENT 2500 Wildflower Station Pl #40, Antioch, CA
94531 94531 Antioch CA 2200 1 1 675 3.26 APARTMENT
1216 Sycamore Dr APT 2, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 1695 2 1 925 1.83 CONDO 923 W 9th St, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 2250 4 4 2708 0.83 APARTMENT 2110 Peppertree Way APT 1, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 1700 2 1 975 1.74 APARTMENT 1910 Cavallo Rd APT D, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 1750 2 1 700 2.5 APARTMENT 234 Crest St #3, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 1845 2 1 800 2.31 APARTMENT 2308 Spanos St APT 4, Antioch, CA 94509 94509 Antioch CA 1700 2 1 825 2.06 APARTMENT C66

MEMORANDUM
DATE April 20, 2025
TO Zoe Meredith, Kevin Scudero, David Storer
City of Antioch
FROM Greg Goodfellow
SUBJECT Inclusionary Housing Ordinance: Staffing Insights and Recommen dations Zoe, Kevin and David,
This Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) Staffing Insights and Recommendations Memo is consistent with Task 2.3, Staffing Plan, of the Antioch Inclusionary Housi ng Ordinance Project. This document includes the following sections:

1. Value of an IHO Staffing Plan

2. Local Insights into IHO Implementation

3. Antioch IHO Staffing Recommendations
The contents of this document are informed by feedback from Contra Costa jurisdictions performed as part of this project; published studies of IHO implementation; and insights from PlaceWorks’ previous IHO development projects.

11. VALUE OF AN IHO STAFFING PLAN
The City of Antioch has invested significant resources toward d eveloping an IHO for consideration by City leaders. City staff have completed the following efforts to create a potential ordinance that reflects local goals, responds to the local market, and integrates stakeholder input:
» Diverse in-person and online community outreach.
» Planning Commission and City Council study sessions.
» Coordination with local developers.
» Financial feasibility and fee analyses.

This work is an initial expenditure of resources only. If an IH O is adopted, implementing the program will require ongoing management by city staff or, potentially, by city staff with the support of a third- party consultant. As described by the Lincoln Land Institute, “ many [IH] programs…fail to adequately plan and budget [for implementation]. Understaffing can jeopard ize long-term affordability, either because units are not adequately monitored or because there is not sufficient staff to enforce ATTACHMENT "D"
D1
March 24, 2025 | Page 2
restrictions when problems arise.“ 1 Another study of IHO implementation in California identified multiple cases “where understaffed local governments have literally lost track of affordable units after requiring developers to produce them.”2
However, the structure of Housing Element Program 2.1.10, which i s l i m i t e d t o I H O s t u d y a n d consideration, is an opportunity for Antioch to assess required resources and achieve IHO objectives. It allows the city time to understand the work required to build a well-organized implementation plan and consider various approaches to IHO staffing.

The amount of staff time required to implement an IHO varies de pending on the components of the regulation and the intensity of local development. However, all IHOs require commitment to the following three basic categories of work:
i. P Program start-up. This includes training staff and creating a procedural, legal and informational infrastructure to streamline applications and decrease legal loopholes. ii. P Program compliance. This includes reviewing each applicable project for complianc e with all aspects of the IHO, whether via affordable unit construction, fee payment or consistency with alternative options.
iii. P Program tracking. This includes monitoring and enforcing IHO affordability rest rictions across all future unit sales/rents.

As summarized by a leading California land use and housing atto rney, “Getting the units planned and built, and then protecting the investment…is about two-thirds o f the battle…programs also require a commitment of time and resources to monitor and implement the p rogram over the life of the affordable unit.”3
Two decisions made by the city will affect the quantity and nature of staff resources:
i. I In-lieu fees. The option to pay in-lieu fees requires the creation of a loc al Housing Trust Fund (HTF). HTFs are typically adopted as part of a jurisdiction’s M unicipal Code, and specify 1) funding sources, 2) allowable use of funds and 3) administratio n of funds. Administering an HTF requires various financial skillsets and staff resources no t typically associated with plan review.
1 Grounded Solutions Network, Lincoln Land Institute of Land Poli cy, https://inclusionaryhousing.org/making-it-work/admin/.
2 Jacobus, Rick, 2007, Delivering on the Promise of Inclusionary Housing. PolicyLink, Lifting What Works.
3 Marchall, Polly V and Kautz, Barabara E., May 1, 2006, Ensurin g Continued Affordability in Homeownership Programs, Institute for Local Government.

D2
March 24, 2025 | Page 3
ii. OOutsourcing. Jurisdictions commonly outsource IHO program tracking and tra nsactions to a third party consultant, effectively reducing staff burden.

The City of Antioch is positioned to develop a successful IHO staffing and start-up plan. The information and recommendations in this memorandum are intended to inform decision makers about potential approaches to such a plan.

2. LOCAL INSIGHTS INTO IHO IMPLEMENTATION
As part of the Antioch IHO project, PlaceWorks developed an onl ine survey for staff of Contra Costa County jurisdictions who oversee administration of their jurisdiction’s IHO. The survey was designed to inform Antioch's approach to IHO staffing and management, including:
» Number of staff and hours dedicated to IHO administration. » Department(s) that contribute to IHO staffing.
» Primary challenges of IHO administration.
» Insights, recommendations, and/or direction for a jurisdiction considering IHO adoption.

All responders were asked to participate in a follow-up interview.

The following jurisdictions participated in the staffing outreach process:
» Contra Costa County
» City of Concord
» City of Pittsburg
» City of Richmond
» City of El Cerrito
Insights: Nature and Quantity of IHO Staffing
A s e r i e s o f s u r v e y q u e s t i o n s w a s d e s i g n e d t o a s s e s s s t a f f t i m e dedicated to IHO administration, participating departments, and the nature of work. The results of the following questions indicate that although IHO applications ebb and flow, approximately 2-3 staff from the planning and/or housing departments spend up to 10 hours a week on IHO implementation.

Question 1. O n a v e r a g e , h o w m a n y s t a f f m e m b e r s a r e w o r k i n g o n I H O a d m i n i s t ration in your jurisdiction, at any given time?
This was a multiple choice question. The answers indicate that in most local jurisdictions, up to three staff members participate in IHO administration at any given time:
Seventy-five percent of responders answered 1-3 staff members.

April 20, 2025 | Page 4
Twenty-five percent selected 4-6 staff members.

QQuestion 2: Which if the following best describes IHO-related work in your jurisdiction? This was a multiple choice question. Responses indicate that, o verall, workload associated with IHO administration is difficult to predict. As a result, it requires an adaptive approach to staffing:
Fifty percent of responders selected “It fluctuates significantly, preventing long-term staff planning.”
o One of these responders explained further that “The number of [IHO] applications fluctuates from year to year so the average weekly number of staff hours is difficult to estimate.”
Twenty-five percent answered, “It fluctuates, but with an ongoing baseline of work that can be shared among staff.”
Twenty-five percent answered, “It is consistent and stable, requiring dedicated staff.” The unpredictable nature of IHO work was reiterated in Question 8: What are the primary challenges to staffing and administering your jurisdiction's IHO? In response to this open-ended question, one responder wrote “the fluctuating nature of the program.” Question 3. What department(s) contribute to IHO administration in your jurisdiction? This was a multiple choice question. Responders were able to se lect multiple answers. The following city departments were selected most frequently, indicating that current planning and housing staff generally administer IHOs, with support from legal counsel:
1) Current Planning/Building Department (75%)
2) Housing/Housing Authority (75%)
3) Advanced Planning/Building Department (25%)
4) City Attorney’s office (25%)
Question 4. Please estimate the average total staff hours dedicated to IHO administration each week, in your jurisdiction.

This was an open-ended question to which responders submitted a range of estimates. At the lower end, one jurisdiction answered 3 hours total, and another answered 4 hours total. At the high end, three jurisdictions answered “5-10 hours” per week, while another stated that “It could be 10 percent or more of staff's time.”
Ongoing IHO workload is based on the size of a jurisdiction’s portfolio of affordable units. Antioch should plan for an initial investment of staff resources to set up the IHO (see Section 2), followed by a period of less activity before the first IHO applications are submitted. It will be difficult to assess the required staff time with accuracy until trends in IHO applications emerge.

April 20, 2025 | Page 5
According to one interviewee, “Certain aspects [of IHO implemen tation] are specialized, such as certification and underwriting, but in general it is more of a time intensive process. I would recommend at least one management level position to oversee a program wit h this type of complexity. Having a background in lending/finance or real estate would be beneficial.” Insights: IHO Implementation
This section includes insights into the three components of IHO staffing introduced in Section 1:

1. Program start-up

2. Program compliance

3. Program tracking

1. Program start-up
Developing a foundation for IHO implementation will reduce futu re staff time. Program start-up includes training staff, developing non-technical materials, po tentially adopting an HTF, and creating legally vetted financial and development agreement templates.

According to one local representative, “The [Antioch inclusiona ry] program would be most time intensive at start up…preparing standard template agreements, g uidelines, compliance documents, applications, and procedures are also heavy with legal costs.” Another city responder described “developing template agreements” as a key component of training staff members who will later administer the ordinance.

The following are the major components of preparing for IHO implementation:
GGuidelines and educational materials. City staff will need to prepare comprehensive but non- technical IHO Guidelines and/or FAQ documents. These should explain ordinance components, eligibility, and application. According to one interviewee, “there needs to be a good reference document besides the ordinance itself…that highlights when it applies, when it doesn’t, breaks down the ordinance…stuff the developer needs to look for, and what staff needs to look for when reviewing the plans.” Another responder highlighted “…educating developers about the new regulations” as one of the primary challenges to staffing and administering an IHO (survey Question 8).
Conditions of approval. Many jurisdictions use the issuance of building permits and/or occupancy permits to enforce inclusionary obligations. As such, Antioch may need to prepare specific conditions of approval for use during the planning application process, to ensure that projects comply with the inclusionary ordinances.
Development agreement template/contents. This contract between the local agency and developer should detail how the inclusionary obligations will be met, which units will meet the requirements, and how construction and marketing of those units will be phased.

Development agreements may be standalone documents or affordable housing plans D5

April 20, 2025 | Page 6
attached to the master development agreement. In nearly all jurisdictions, inclusionary- related development agreements are recorded against the project property title. DDocuments to enforce affordability. Documents that guarantee the ongoing affordability of IHO units must be recorded in ways that are recognizable by lenders and title companies.

These include deed restrictions, resale restrictions, option to purchase agreements, and buyer disclosures.
Staff training. Antioch should assume that 1-2 staff members will participate in the program start-up process, both to prepare the necessary materials and engage in de facto training. The same staff should lead the initial implementation process. According to one survey responder, “Staff learning the program, guidelines, and policies” was one of the primary challenges to implementing that jurisdiction’s IHO.
HTF adoption. If the Antioch IHO includes the option to pay in-lieu fees, that City will need to adopt a Housing Trust Fund consistent with CA Health & Safety Code § 53545.9. This requires a separate public process, as HTFs are typically included in the Municipal Code. HTF ordinances include a purpose statement, allowable sources of funds allocated to the HTF, allowable programs and projects to which HTF funds may be allocated, and language for HTF administration. HTF ordinances are also typically paired with an HTF Guidelines or Management document.

2. Program Compliance
Program compliance refers to the process of reviewing development applications for consistency with IHO requirements and standards. As noted, the IHO regulations w ill shape the application review process. The following are the primary components of IHO compli ance Antioch should consider in its staffing plan:
Plan review. This includes reviewing and approving relevant housing plans to ensure consistency IHO affordability requirements and affordable unit standards. Staff will review plan elements such as unit types, location, amenities, external and internal construction standards, income targeting and similar details. As described by one interviewee, “Once it [IHO] is adopted, you are checking every single plan that comes through the city to make sure the BMR units are on the plans and appropriately designed so they don’t look and feel different.”
Construction oversight. This includes overseeing construction of new affordable housing units to ensure they comply with IHO standards. IHO studies reveal that the absence of legally defensible documentation and lack of construction oversight can result in projects without the required number of affordable units or without units sold at the required affordability level(s).
Developer communication. IHOs are complex and will require coordination with potential developers and those who have submitted applications. Developers who understand their options for meeting affordable housing obligations are more likely to comply with IHO D6

April 20, 2025 | Page 7
regulation. Staff should also assume developers with projects that do not fit neatly into IHO parameters or categories will require additional assistance and communication. DDocumentation. As has been stressed, development agreements, deed restrictions and other documents guaranteeing affordability must be recorded properly and in ways that are recognizable by lenders and title companies. According to one Contra Costa jurisdiction, while templates will streamline the process, staff should expect that “Preparation of the deed restriction agreement along with other legal document templates could vary from project to project.”
Alternative IHO options. Typically, planning staff will be less familiar with reviewing projects for compliance with fee payments, off-site construction, land dedication or other alternative options. Staff who develop Antioch’s IHO guidelines should include specifics related to alternative compliance in these documents. According to one survey respondent, one of the primary challenges to administering the local IHO is developing an “Understanding of how to calculate the in-lieu fees and when to apply the alternative means of compliance.” Overall, reviewing projects for compliance with IHO standards requires time and attention, but is likely to be the most familiar part of the IHO implementation process. This is consistent with responses to the following question in the staff survey:

Question 5. Please rank the following components of IHO administration by t h e q u a n t i t y o f s t a f f resources they demand, with "1" being the most demanding and "5" being the least.

Seventy-five percent of responders described “Initial project r eview/determination of compliance” as either “4” or “5”, indicating that this process requires the least amount of staff resources.

However, 50% of responders described “Administration of alternative compliance” as “1”, and the other 50% described it as “3.” This indicates that alternative compli ance options will require additional staff time.

3. Program Tracking
Effective IHO implementation includes tracking compliance with affordability restrictions across the life of each unit developed under the IHO. This includes monitoring initial sales/rents to eligible households and tracking future transactions. There is consensus among loca l jurisdictions that this requires consistent in-house or third-party staffing. As explained by on e interviewee, “Staff is needed to track, coordinate, and confirm the execution of the marketing, household selection, sales, or rental of units in a timely manner... Calculation of the maximum sales prices can be challenging without experienced staff.”
As stated by another local staff member, “Ongoing monitoring and property tracking takes a lot of time and staffing over the period of affordability because deed restrictions can be 55 years and that is a long- term staff commitment.” It should be noted that at the April 16 , 2 0 2 5 , P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n s t u d y session, staff recommended to the Planning Commission that unit s should remain affordable in perpetuity.

D7
April 20, 2025 | Page 8
The following are primary components of the tracking process:
IInitial sales. This could include marketing inclusionary housing opportunities to eligible residents, educating potential buyers about ownership and program requirements, screening and selecting buyers who meet eligibility standards, ensuring that buyers have access to appropriate financing. Some jurisdictions manage the initial sales of affordable units through a lottery, a process that one responding jurisdiction contracts out. That responder listed “buyer eligibility verification” as an area of expertise that should be understood by local staff if they decide to manage IHO tracking in-house.
Future sales transactions: This includes monitoring all IHO units to ensure ongoing affordability, the eligibility of owners, and proper payment of taxes and insurance. A staff member of a local city that contracts out resales and rents of affordable units explained: “the ongoing monitoring of the units is also time consuming and requires knowledge in this field, as well as the resale of homeownership units.”
Future rentals. This includes monitoring the setting of future rents, marketing of units, designing the application process, selecting tenants, monitoring for compliance.

3. ANTIOCH IHO STAFFING RECOMMENDATIONS
Developing an accurate IHO staffing plan will require an adopted ordinance and a period of application activity. Regardless, Antioch can draw insights from local staff.

The staff survey closed with the following open-ended question:

Question 9. What other insights would you offer to a medium-sized jurisdict ion that is preparing staff for IHO implementation?
Answers included:
» “Training, developing template agreements, resale restriction process, buyer eligibility verification, and overall monitoring are areas that should be understood.” » “The city should ask itself how they would like to manage this program. Would they rather collect in lieu fees to fund affordable housing projects, or would they want to require the construction of affordable housing over multiple development projects? The result of the second [scenario] is that there would be more projects with fewer units that require monitoring by the city. [In] the first scenario…there would potentially be more units in the single project…and the city will need to pull together experienced staff to execute these financial transactions.” » “I would suggest contracting out the administration of this program.” » “[Identify] Dedicated staff to implement the IHO.”
Based on these and the other local insights, PlaceWorks recommends the following actions toward IHO staffing and implementation in Antioch:

April 20, 2025 | Page 9

1. TTimed implementation. Antioch should build a 3-to-5 month planning period into IHO adoption.

This period between adoption and effective date will allow staff to plan for the specifics of the IHO and guide program start-up, including:
x Developing IHO Guidelines and educational materials.
x Creating legal/financial document templates with legal review. x Potentially adopting an HTF.
x Outlining a staffing structure.
x Training IHO staff.
x Developing conditions of approval.

2. IHO point person. Antioch should appoint a single staff member to lead IHO star t-up, identify and allocate workload, and coordinate between participating dep artments. The city should assume the point-person will dedicate up to 5 hours/week to IHO programming during the planning period. Additional staff time dedicated to the IHO planning period will include:
x Managerial: 2 hours/weekly
x Legal: 2 hours/weekly
x Additional planning staff: 3 hours/weekly

3. In-house working group. Antioch should consider appointing a temporary IHO working grou p to guide start-up and staff planning. . The group should include staff from all participating departments, including the City Attorney. As described by a local interviewee: “It would be good [for Antioch] to have all the people that will be involved in one room, to decide who will have signing authorization, how each person relate to each in t he process, go over priorities, where authority lies, go over FAQ, etc.”

4. HTF research and development. Existing recommendations for the Antioch IHO indicate that the ordinance will include an in-lieu fee option. Typically, th ese fees are “banked” in a local HTF. As noted, HTFs receive ongoing revenue from the IHO and ot her sources, and the funds are designated to support a variety of housing efforts. Affordable housing developers and land trusts may apply for funding for housing projects through the H TF. Following IHO adoption, staff should begin identifying the Antioch’s priorities for a l ocal HTF, researching existing examples and establishing HTF guidelines.

5. Assessment of staff resources. Antioch should review existing staff responsibilities, expert ise, workload, and availability. The city should then identify all p otential staff members who will contribute to IHO implementation and require IHO training. The city should assume that following start-up, no more than 10 total hours of staff time will be required to implement the o r d i n a n c e , f o l l o w e d b y a m o r e a c c u r a t e a s s e s s m e n t o f w o r k l o a d based on IHO application trends.

D9
April 20, 2025 | Page 10

6. EExplore third-party assistance. Depending on the results of the staffing resources and expertise assessment, the City should perform a cost/benefit analysis of contracting out any or all of the following components of IHO management:
x Coordination with developers and their agents.
x Onboarding of developers.
x Program marketing and responding to inquiries.
x Initial eligibility screening.
x Application processing.
x Documentation preparation.
x Preparing payoff demands and calculating sales prices. x Ongoing monitoring and enforcement of existing portfolio.

As stressed throughout this document, IHO staffing is difficult to predict with accuracy and will fluctuate with development activity. The information and recommendations in this memorandum are intended only to prepare Antioch staff for the implementation process an d develop a successful infrastructure prior to the IHO effective date.

D10
5-1
Agenda Item #

CITY OF ANTIOCH

PLANNING COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING
Regular Meeting April 16, 2025
6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers

1. CALL TO ORDER
An interpreter announced that translation services were available this evening.

Chairperson Riley called the meeting to order at 6:32
P.M. on Wednesday, April 16, 2025, in
Council Chambers.

2. ROLL CALL

Present: Commissioners Jones, Martin, Perez and Chairperson Ril ey

Absent: Commissioner Webber
Staff: Assistant City Attorney, Brittany Brace
Planning Manager, Zoe Merideth
Senior Planner, Kevin Scudero
Assistant Planner, Monet Boyd
Minutes Clerk, Kitty Eiden

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Riley led the Pledge of Allegiance.

4. PUBLIC COMMENT – None

5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5-1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 19, 2025
On motion by Commission Martin, seconde d by Commissioner Jones the Planning Commission members present unanimously approved the Minutes of March 19, 2025. The motion carried the following vote:

AYES: Jones, Martin, Perez, Riley
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Webber

6. STUDY SESSION
6-1.

Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Study Session | Citywide – Study Session to review and discuss the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

ATTACHMENT "E"
E1

PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
April 16, 2025 Page 2 of 7

Planning Manager Merideth introduced Greg Goodfellow, PlaceWork s, who presented the PowerPoint Presentation and staff report dated April 2, 2025, r ecommending that the Planning Commission provide direction as necessary.

Chairperson Riley opened the public comment period.

Greg Colley, Multi-Faith Action Coalition, expressed support fo r the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) and recommended the Planning Commission to move forward with it. He suggested setting higher affordability targets, limiting the use of in lieu fees, and tying incentives to performance. He emphasized the importance of engaging stakeh olders and residents in refining the ordinance and highlighted the need for the City to focus on racial and economic equity, as well as addressing integration and displacement risks.

Deborah Carney, Hope Solutions, Antioch resident, spoke in supp ort of the IHO and recommended that the City mandate a minimum of 20% affordable units that meet diverse local needs. She advocated for onsite construction of fully integrated affordable units, sufficient in lieu fees to cover the total cost of building these units, and for those fees to be invested in affordable housing in high-opportunity areas. Additionally, she called for no sunset clauses to maintain long-term affordability and stated that incentives for developers should be matched by significant benefits for the public.

Ramon Amaral, Nor Cal Carpenters Union, questioned if the ordin ance would include labor standards.

Joey Flegel-Mishlove, East Bay Housing Organizations, expressed support for the IHO, recommending that affordable housing remain affordable in perpe tuity. He suggested establishing a baseline inclusionary rate of 15% while also con sidering the possibility of higher rates.

Chairperson Riley closed the public comment period.

Planning Commission Discussion Questions

¾ What are your concerns about an IHO in Antioch?

Commissioner Martin raised concer ns about the feasibility of co nstructing affordable units and the practice of clustering them together.

Senior Planner Scudero clarified that clustering was a unique f eature of a specific project in Antioch, not a common development practice.

Commissioner Jones expressed concern that affordability metrics were based on Contra Costa County's median family income rather than Antioch's.

PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
April 16, 2025 Page 3 of 7

Mr. Goodfellow responded that using countywide figures is standard practice as dictated by the Department of Housing and Community Development, ensuring consi stency with state guidelines.

Commissioner Jones expressed concern that in-lieu fees might be come the primary option for developers, suggesting that they should be set sufficiently hig h to encourage actual housing construction instead. She also voiced apprehension about offsit e development, fearing it might lead to a concentration of affordable units in specific areas. She questioned how the units would remain affordable in perpetuity.

Chairperson Riley raised concerns about the limited availabilit y of land for building affordable units funded by in-lieu fees.

Mr. Goodfellow clarified that these units would be developed wi th deed restrictions and emphasized the need for clear legal and financial frameworks for managing them. He noted that the buying and selling of these u nits would requi re monitoring by staff or a consultant and mentioned that he would provide the City with a staffing plan.

Commissioner Jones raised concerns about the suitability of affordable for-sale and rental units in large lot subdivisions, which are the typical developments proposed.

Mr. Goodfellow explained that the housing element's primary goa l is to identify relatively small sites and increase density for housing in those areas.

Senior Planner Scudero added that there has been a trend toward smaller lot subdivisions.

In response to Commissioner Jones, Mr. Goodfellow indicated tha t the relationship between density bonuses and inclusionary housing would enable developer s to construct more market- rate units.

Senior Planner Scudero mentioned that waivers and concessions t o development standards, such as increasing height restrictions, would be available through this process.

Chairperson Riley agreed with the idea of not including a sunset clause for the affordable units.

¾ How can Antioch’s IHO produce a ffordable housing without constr aining overall development?

Commissioner Martin suggested donating vacant city or state lan d or hotel/apartment building conversions to produce affordable housing. Additionally, he sug gested establishing a housing trust fund; however, the amount needed to be enough to build a house.

In response to Commissioner Martin, Mr. Goodfellow summarized t he Builders Industry Letter.

He noted building inclusionary units as part of market rate hou sing projects, meant that affordable units would be paired with the natural progression of housing development in Antioch.

PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
April 16, 2025 Page 4 of 7

Commissioner Martin expressed concerns regarding the affordabil i t y o f u n i t s i n r e l a t i o n t o median household incomes.

In response, Mr. Goodfellow indicated that there are various wa ys to make the IHO more acceptable, and he highlighted the flexibility and potential alternatives available.

Commissioner Jones emphasized the need for clear guidelines on how in-lieu fees would be utilized if implemented.

Mr. Goodfellow clarified that the allocation of these fees woul d be at the City’s discretion and noted that a housing trust fund, along with a management plan r eflecting the City’s housing priorities, would need to be established. He also explained tha t the City could determine where to apply the IHO and the corresponding in-lieu fee amounts.

¾ What types of housing does Antioch need?

The Commission reached a consensus to prioritize low and very low-income rental housing.

Commissioner Perez emphasized the importance of maintaining a b alance between jobs and housing.

Mr. Goodfellow noted that the IHO aimed to address a portion of the existing demand in Antioch and that the jobs/housing issue would be considered during the General Plan update.

Acting Director of Community Development Scudero agreed that th e job/housing balance had long been a concern in Antioch.

Commissioner Jones reported a low development rate of high-dens ity apartments due to financial infeasibility, highlighting a disconnect between comm unity needs and developer willingness. She expressed the desire for a healthy balance between ongoing development and affordability.

¾ What compliance alternatives should Antioch offer developers?

Commissioner Jones endorsed the compliance alternatives propose d by staff and expressed support for exploring partnerships with non-profit organizations.

Chairperson Riley indicated his opposition to using Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as a form of alternative compliance.

¾ What incentives should Antioch offer developers to ease IHO requirements?

Commissioner Martin proposed changing height and setback requir ements to facilitate development and suggested streamlining the permitting process.

PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
April 16, 2025 Page 5 of 7

Commissioner Jones recommended reducing the size of inclusionar y housing units to make them more feasible. She stressed the critical importance of IHO s, noting that without a policy mandating affordable housing, such units would not be construct ed. She emphasized the need for a healthy balance that makes development financially viable for builders and proposed an annual re-evaluation of the IHO to assess its effectiveness.

Commissioner Martin suggested that the IHO should not apply to developers constructing fewer than eight units and recommended that oversight of the IHO be o utsourced to ensure effective management.

Acting Planning Manager Merideth announced that the item would be presented to the City Council for a Study Session, after which the consultant would start drafting an ordinance based on the recommendations. She encouraged anyone with additional q uestions to contact her or submit inquiries through the project website: https://antioch-iho.com/.

Mr. Goodfellow mentioned that he would also be submitting a sta ffing report along with a fee study.

The Commission thanked everyone who participated in the discussion this evening.

7. REGULAR ITEM

7-1 Creekside Vineyards at Sand Creek Design Review | DR2024-0 010 | Sand Creek Road - The applicant requests the approval of Design Review and proposed street names for the Creekside Vineyards at Sand Creek project approving res idential architecture, parks, and landscaping and street names for the Creekside Viney ards at Sand Creek project site at APN: 057-050-024.

Assistant Planner Boyd presented the staff report dated April 1 6, 2025, recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving the Design Rev iew and proposed street names for the Creekside Vineyards at Sand Creek project approvi ng residential architecture, parks, landscaping and street names for the Creekside Vineyards at Sand Creek project site at APN: (057-050-024).

Mike Bowes, Tri Pointe Homes, expressed his gratitude to the staff for their assistance with their application. He provided a brief background about the company and outlined the project timeline.

He also introduced the design team, who were present and available to address any questions.

Chairperson Riley opened the public comment period.

Alexander Broom spoke in opposition to the project’s location and density, citing concerns about the high fire risk in the area. He also encouraged the inclusio n of a landscape plan featuring California native plants.

Chairperson Riley closed the public comment period.

PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
April 16, 2025 Page 6 of 7
In response to Commissioner Martin, Planning Manager Merideth clarified that the project would not involve the widening of Sand Creek Road, as the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) did not include that as part of the mitigation measures related to traffic.

Andrea Bellanca, the Civil Project Engineer, informed the Commi ssion that the project would include the construction of the extension of Hillcrest Avenue, which would connect back to Sand Creek Road. He pointed out that on the east side of the project , at the extension of Heidorn Ranch Road, there is an existing PG&E bridge. The project plans to construct a new bridge for Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA), which would create two points o f access for emergencies.

Additionally, he noted that the EVA would provide a connection to the Sand Creek trail.

In response to Commissioner Martin, Mr. Bowes confirmed that al l units in the development would be two-story and market rate. He added that the community would be named Brooks and Trails, which aligned with the street names proposed by their marketing department.

Commissioner Martin expressed support for the project design, noting the variety of placements and architectural diversity.

In response to Commissioner Jones, Mr. Bellanca reported that t he fire department had reviewed their tentative map and would continue to review the f inal plans for the project. He indicated that fire hydrants would be strategically placed along the perimeter of Hillcrest Avenue, as well as internally within the development.

Responding to Chairperson Riley, Planning Manager Merideth expl ained that the street names were subject to review as part of the application process by bo th staff and the Antioch Police Department (APD). Additionally, Acting Director of Community De velopment Scudero clarified that Hillcrest Avenue currently terminates at the city limits b ut would extend if further development occurred in that area.

On motion by Commissioner Martin, seconde d by Commissioner Perez the Planning Commission members present unanimously a dopted the resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of An tioch approving the design r eview application for the residential architecture, parks, landscaping and street names at the Creekside Vineyards at Sand Creek (DR2024-0010) (APN: 057-050-024).The motion carried the following vote:

AYES: Jones, Martin, Perez, Riley
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Webber

8. ORAL/WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Acting Planning Manager Merideth announced that the nomination o f a n e w C h a i r f o r t h e Planning Commission would be included on the agenda for the May 7, 2025, meeting. She also reported that the appointment of a new Planning Commission memb er was scheduled for the E6

PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
April 16, 2025 Page 7 of 7
April 22, 2025, City Council meeting, and noted that applicatio ns were currently open for the remaining vacancy on the Planning Commission.

In response to Commissioner Jones, Planning Manager Merideth ex plained that Mayor Bernal was in communication with TRANSPLAN to determine the process fo r appointing an alternate to that committee.

Commissioner Martin took a moment to congratulate the staff for their excellent work on the comprehensive staff reports.

9. COMMITTEE REPORTS
Commissioner Jones announced that the TRANSPLAN meeting was canceled.

10. NEXT MEETING: May 7, 2025
Chairperson Riley announced the next Planning Commission meeting would be held on May 7, 2025.

11. ADJOURNMENT
On motion by Commissioner Martin, seconded by Commissioner Jones, the Planning Commission members present unanimously adjourned the meeting at 8:54 P.M. The
motion carried the following vote:

AYES: Jones, Martin, Perez, Riley
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Webber
Respectfully submitted:

Kitty Eiden
KITTY EIDEN, Minutes Clerk
E7
DATE: March 31, 2025
TO: Mayor Ron Bernal, Mayor Pro Tem Louie Rocha and Councilmembers Don Freitas, Monica Wilson and Tamisha Torres-Walker
TO: Planning Commission Chair Kevin Riley, Vice Chair Seth Webber and Commissioners Jennifer Perez, Robert Martin, Christian Hills and Cortney Jones
CC: Antioch City Manager Bessie Marie Scott, Community Development Director Kwame Reed and Planning Manager Zoe Merideth
FROM: East Bay Governmental Affairs Ex ecutive Director Lisa Vorderbrueggen RE: Proposed Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance
Dear Mayor Bernal, Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners:

BIA|Bay Area is an association that represents more than 400 member companies engaged in the entitlement, development, design and construction of new homes throughout the region including Antioch. We thank you for including us among the stakeholders participating in your outreach efforts as the city explores the formation of a potential inclusionary zoning ordinance.

During the stakeholder outreach virtual meeting on Feb. 4, 2025, Antioch staff indicated that the city plans to hold study sessions with the planning commission and the city council on a proposed inclusionary zoning ordinance. In advance of the first study session set for April 2, 2025, BIA|Bay Area would like to provide the following comments, background information and questions:

Origins of Inclusionary Proposal – The city’s certified 2023-2024 Housing Element states that the city will “evaluate an inclusionary housing ordinance to help provide more affordable units.” During the outreach meeting on Feb. 4, 2025, howe ver, a city consultant incorrectly stated that Antioch had already decided to adopt an inclusionary ordinance and that the meeting was being held to gather information about what such a program would entail. The consultant corrected his statement but the material presented during the outreach meeting largely assumed that an inclusionary policy would be adopted.

It is important to note that the California Housing & Community Development staff informs us that no jurisdiction is required to study the feasibility of an inclusionary ordinance or adopt such a program as part of the housing element review process. This is consistent with HCD’s position on inclusionary ordinances dating back to 2004. In the attached letter, then-HCD Director Lucetta Dunn wrote that “neither state law nor department policy requires the adoption of any local inclusionary ordinance (or the amendment of an existing ordinance to make it more stringent) in order to secure approval of a jurisdiction’s housing element.”
ATTACHMENT "F"
F1
Page | 2
On the contrary, HCD requir es local jurisdictions with existing mandatory inclusionary policies to analyze these programs as potential governme ntal constraints on housing production. ( Emphasis added.)
Are Inclusionary Programs Really a ‘Strong Tool for Affordable Housing?’ – Despite this oft-repeated phrase, empirical studies of the effectiv eness of inclusionary programs reveal a far less rosy outcome.

A policy brief published by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University (attached) in 2019 and updat ed in 2021 fo und that none of the six major studies o f inclusionary pro grams show that they increase the housing supply or lower prices. Instea d, much of the research comes to the opposite conclusion: Except for a very small number of people lucky enough to secure one of the affordable units, inclusionary programs cause overall housing prices and rents to rise, further reducing affordability for everyone else.
“Relying on new housing construction to provide subs idized units is not a strategy that can lead to more housing that’s affordable for more people,” wrote research fellow Emily Hamilton. “In cases where inclusionary zoning raises house prices generally, the costs of the policy fall hardest on the lowest-income residents who aren’t lucky enough to qualify for one of the units that’s been designated as affordable.”
Rather than layering inclusionary costs on top of zoning that already limits the construction of relatively more affordable multi-family housing, the study recommends that jurisdictions incentivize the production of the type of housing that will benefit greater numbers of people who need less expensive places to live.

A joint study by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley and the Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies released earlier this year (attached) also found that inclusionary policies trigger significant tradeoffs between affordable ho using and market rate housing production levels:

The higher the inclusionary requirement, the fewer market-rate homes are constructed. “ O n e o f I Z ’ s ( i n c l u s i o n a r y ) f u n d a m e n t a l s h o r t c o m i n g s i s t h a t i t d o e s n o t a d d r e s s – a n d l i k e l y exacerbates – the housing scarcity that drives high er rents and home prices,” the authors concluded. “It improves housing affordability for a few at the risk of worsening affordability for many, and it taxes precisely the activity needed to ameliorate the housing shortage and bring down rents: development.” Much like the Mercatus analysis, the Terner-Lewis report advises policymakers to rely on land use reforms for “increasing overall housing production to improve affordability and choice in the wider housing market. (Policymakers) should use other to ols, including increased public subsidies, to produce BMR homes and assist lower-income households.”
Imposing additional costs on housing production through an inclusionary requirement will almost certainly lead to fewer homes being constructed, hi gher rents and more costly sales prices, further exacerbating Antioch’s unaffordability crisis. Ho w will Antioch balance these trade-offs and avoid worsening the housing crisis?
Is Inclusionary Housing Rea lly Free of Public Subsidy? – Advocates often tout that inclusionary housing doesn’t require public subsidy. This is inaccurate.

Local jurisdictions with inclusio nary programs administer and mo nitor for compliance the below- market-rate (BMR) units for the duration of the affordability term. This requires funding for staff and related resources.

F2
Page | 3
In addition, the large subsidies necessary for the provision of low- and very-low affordable housing nearly always requires multiple sources of funding ranging from public agency grants to federal and state tax credits.

Staff’s recommendation for a 15 percent inclusionary across-the-board program fails to recognize contrary financ ial feasibility findings. – According to the consultant’s findings outlined in the planning commission staff report fo r the study session on April 2, 2025, a 10 percent and a 15 percent inclusionary requirement is infeasible for all single-family large lot developments and only partially feasible for single-family small lot and townhome developments. On the rental side, only high-density multifamily projects are fully feasible for very low, low and moderate income households.

The market for very dense rental housing in Antioch is limited, at best. Overall, adopting a 10 or 15 percent inclusionary requirement will result in fewer homes being built in Antioch.

Last month, Vacaville staff and its consultant team similarly suggested to the city that adoption of an inclusionary requirement was a fait accompli but after hearing from the homebuilding community, the city council directed staff to work with the de velopment industry on alternative incentive-based approaches. We encourage Antioch to follow Vacaville’s example.

Again, we thank Antioch’s elected officials and staff for the opportunity to provide input into the city’s inclusionary housing discussion. We urge the city council and planning commission to pursue policies that address Policy 1.1 (Page 7-2) in the city’s housing element: Ensure safe, decent and sound housing for ALL residents.

Please feel free to reach out to me with any additional questions or comments.

Sincerely yours,
Lisa A. Vorderbrueggen
BIA|Bay Area East Bay Executive Director for Government Affairs 1000 Burnett Ave., Ste. 340, Concord, CA 94520
925-348-1956 (cell)
[email protected]
Attachments:

1. Policy Brief, “Inclusionary Zoning Hurts More Than It Helps,” Mercatus Center at George Mason University, September 2019/Revised February 2021

2. White Paper, “Modeling Inclusionary Zoning’s Impact on Housing Protection in Los Angeles: Tradeoffs and Policy Implications,” Terner Center for Housing Innovation, UC Berkeley and Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies at UCLA, April 2024 F3
Copyright 2024 Terner Center for Housing Innovation
For more information on the Terner Center, see our website at www.ternercenter.berkeley.edu
% T)62)6 C)2T)6 6)436T ˑ %46I0 2024
Modeling Inclusionary Zoning’s
Impact on Housing Production
in 0os %ngeles

Tradeoffs and Policy Implications
%9TH36

7H%2) PHI00IP7,
9C0% 0);I7 C)2T)6 F36 6)+I32%0 P30IC= 7T9(I)7
F4
% T)62)6 C)2T)6 6)P36T ˑ %P6I0 2024
2 • %05 XQLWV SURGXFHG E\ IRUSUR¿W
developers represent a large private
VXEVLG\ RI D̆RUGDEOH KRXVLQJ
)RU H[DPSOH ZLWK D SHUFHQW ,=
UHTXLUHPHQW WKH 6LPXODWRU PRGHO
\LHOGV DQ HVWLPDWHG H[WUHPHO\
ORZLQFRPH XQLWV RYHU \HDUV
7KHVH XQLWV KDYH DQ DQQXDO YDOXH RI
DSSUR[LPDWHO\ELOOLRQLQ\HDU
• +RZHYHU , DOVR ¿QG WKDW HYHQ VPDOO
LQFUHDVHV LQ UHQW JURZWK LQ WKH
unrestricted rental market would be
HQRXJK WR QHJDWH WKH YDOXH RI SULYDWH
,= VXEVLGLHV )RU H[DPSOH FRPSDUHG
WR D QR,= VFHQDULR DGGLWLRQDO UHQW
JURZWK RI MXVW SHUFHQW SHU \HDU LQ
WKH SHUFHQW VFHQDULR ZRXOG QHJDWH
WKHYDOXHRISULYDWHVXEVLGLHVIURP,=
7KHIDFWWKDWSRRUO\FDOLEUDWHG,=SROLFLHV
FRXOGOHDGWRUHGXFHGKRXVLQJSURGXFWLRQ
DQG KLJKHU UHQWV DQG KRXVLQJ SULFHV²
RU ERWK²VKRXOG SURPSW FDXWLRQ DERXW
LQFUHDVLQJ ,= UHTXLUHPHQWV WR PHHW %05
SURGXFWLRQ WDUJHWV 7KH YROXQWDU\ DQG
LQFHQWLYHEDVHG QDWXUH RI WKH 72& SURJUDP
PLQLPL]HVVRPHGRZQVLGHULVNVRI,=<HW
HYHQZHOOGHVLJQHG,=SROLFLHVKDYHOLPLWV
DQGSURGXFLQJ%05XQLWVWKURXJK,=PD\
KDYH PRUH FRVWV WKDQ EHQH¿WV ,QVWHDG
SROLF\PDNHUV VKRXOG JHQHUDOO\ UHVHUYH
WKHXVHRIODQGXVHUHIRUPVIRULQFUHDVLQJ
RYHUDOO KRXVLQJ SURGXFWLRQ WR LPSURYH
D̆RUGDELOLW\ DQG FKRLFH LQ WKH ZLGHU
KRXVLQJ PDUNHW 7KH\ VKRXOG XVH RWKHU
tools, including increased public subsidies,
WRSURGXFH%05KRPHVDQGDVVLVWORZHU
LQFRPH KRXVHKROGV 3XEOLF VXEVLGLHV ZLOO
EHPRUHFRVWH̆HFWLYHLQWKLVFRQWH[W
([HFXWLYH6XPPDU\
5HFHQW &DOLIRUQLD UHIRUPV KDYH LQFUHDVHG
pressure on cities to produce more
EHORZ PDUNHWUDWH
%05
KRPHV DQG
LQFOXVLRQDU\ ]RQLQJ
,=
LV YLHZHG DV RQH
SRWHQWLDO VWUDWHJ\ WR DFKLHYH WKLV JRDO ,=
UHTXLUHVRULQFHQWLYL]HVPXOWLIDPLO\KRPH
builders to rent some units to lower-
LQFRPH KRXVHKROGV DW EHORZPDUNHW
SULFHV %XW ZKLOH ,= KDV EHHQ VKRZQ WR
SURGXFH%05KRXVLQJLWLVDOVRVRPHWLPHV
DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK UHGXFHG RYHUDOO KRXVLQJ
production and increased rents and/or
KRXVH SULFHV (YDOXDWLQJ ,= WKURXJK WKH
OHQV RI SURGXFWLRQ WUDGHR̆V LV LPSRUWDQW
WR HQVXUH WKDW SROLF\ PDNHUV¶ GHFLVLRQV
LPSURYHKRXVLQJD̆RUGDELOLW\²RUDWOHDVW
JHQHUDWHPRUHEHQH¿WVWKDQFRVWV
,QWKLVUHSRUW,XVHWKH&LW\RI/RV$QJHOHV¶
7UDQVLW 2ULHQWHG &RPPXQLWLHV
72&

SURJUDP SDUDPHWHUV ZLWK WKH 7HUQHU
+RXVLQJ 3ROLF\ 6LPXODWRU²GHYHORSHG IRU
WKH FLW\²WR HVWLPDWH SRWHQWLDO LPSDFWV
RI GL̆HUHQW ,= UHTXLUHPHQWV RQ KRXVLQJ
SURGXFWLRQ DQG WKH VXSSO\ RI EHORZ
PDUNHW XQLWV 72& LV DQ LQFHQWLYHEDVHG
voluntary program regarded as a model for
VXFFHVVIXO,=:KLOHWKHPRGHOHGVFHQDULRV
do not represent actual production
QXPEHUVWKH\LOOXVWUDWHKRZDGMXVWLQJ,=
UHTXLUHPHQWVFDQOHDGWRVKDUSO\GL̆HUHQW
RXWFRPHVIRUD̆RUGDELOLW\
7KHDQDO\VLVVKRZV

• &KDQJLQJWKH,=OHYHOHQWDLOVVLJQL¿FDQW
WUDGHR̆V EHWZHHQ %05 DQG PDUNHW
UDWHSURGXFWLRQ$VWKH,=UHTXLUHPHQW
ULVHV WKHUH DUH GLPLQLVKLQJ UHWXUQV
to BMR production and accelerating
ORVVHV WR RYHUDOO KRXVLQJ SURGXFWLRQ
%H\RQG D FHUWDLQ OHYHO KLJKHU ,=
requirements produce less BMR and
OHVVPDUNHWUDWHKRXVLQJ
F5
% T)62)6 C)2T)6 6)P36T ˑ %P6I0 2024
3 ,QWURGXFWLRQ
,QFOXVLRQDU\ ]RQLQJ
,=
UHTXLUHV RU
LQFHQWLYL]HV KRPHEXLOGHUV WR UHQW VRPH
XQLWVLQWKHLUQHZPXOWLIDPLO\FRQVWUXFWLRQ
SURMHFWV WR ORZHULQFRPH KRXVHKROGV
DW EHORZPDUNHW SULFHV 0DQ\ YLHZ ,=
as an appealing strategy for producing
D̆RUGDEOH
EHORZ PDUNHWSULFH
KRXVLQJ
ZLWKRXW WKH XVH RI VFDUFH SXEOLF VXEVLG\
GROODUV DQG KXQGUHGV RI 86 FLWLHV KDYH
DGRSWHG,=SROLFLHV

7KH VWUDWHJ\¶V DSSHDO PD\ EH SDUWLFXODUO\
VWURQJ LQ &DOLIRUQLD ZKHUH FLWLHV DUH
increasingly looking for tools to increase
D̆RUGDEOH KRXVLQJ SURGXFWLRQ IROORZLQJ
WKH SDVVDJH RI 6HQDWH %LOO LQ
%\ UHIRUPLQJ WKH 5HJLRQDO +RXVLQJ
1HHGV $OORFDWLRQ
5+1$
SURFHVV WKLV
ODZ GUDPDWLFDOO\ LQFUHDVHG WKH DPRXQW
RI KRXVLQJ FLWLHV PXVW SODQ IRU LQ WKHLU
JXLGLQJODQGXVHGRFXPHQWV
,= R̆HUV FLWLHV D ZD\ WR ERRVW WKHLU
D̆RUGDEOH KRXVLQJ SURGXFWLRQ WKURXJK
SULYDWH UDWKHU WKDQ SXEOLF VXEVLG\ 7KH
&LW\ RI /RV $QJHOHV LV WDUJHWLQJ
QHZ KRPHV IURP WKURXJK

LQFOXGLQJXQLWVIRUORZDQGYHU\
ORZLQFRPH KRXVHKROGV 7KLV LV XS IURP
WRWDO KRPHV GXULQJ WKH SUHYLRXV
HLJKW\HDU F\FOH $W FXUUHQW FRVWV RI
RU PRUH SHU VXEVLGL]HG XQLW
PHHWLQJWKLVJRDOZLWKRQO\SXEOLFIXQGLQJ
LVXQOLNHO\
+RZHYHUKRZ,=SURJUDPVDUHGHVLJQHG
DQG WKH VKDUH RI XQLWV WKDW QHHG WR EH
SULFHGDWEHORZPDUNHWUDWHV
%05
KDYH
VLJQL¿FDQW LPSOLFDWLRQV QRW RQO\ IRU WKH
production of BMR units, but potentially
IRU RYHUDOO UHQWDO PDUNHW D̆RUGDELOLW\
DV ZHOO 5HVHDUFKHUV ¿QG WKDW ,= FDQ EH
DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK KLJKHU SULFHV IRU WKH
QHZ PDUNHWUDWH XQLWV LQ ,= SURMHFWV
DQG LQ VRPH FDVHV IRU WKH ZLGHU KRXVLQJ
PDUNHW
,33ROLF\PDNHUV²HVSHFLDOO\WKRVH
LQ &DOLIRUQLD ZKR PD\ IHHO SUHVVXUHG
WR LQFUHDVH ,= UHTXLUHPHQWV WR PHHW
ORZLQFRPH 5+1$ JRDOV²PXVW ZHLJK
WKHEHQH¿WVRIJHQHUDWLQJDGGLWLRQDO%05
XQLWVZLWK,=DJDLQVWWKHSRWHQWLDOFRVWRI
ORZHUWRWDOKRXVLQJSURGXFWLRQDQGKLJKHU
prices for new and existing market-rate
XQLWV
,Q WKLV SDSHU , XVH WKH 7HUQHU +RXVLQJ
3ROLF\ 6LPXODWRU GHYHORSHG IRU WKH &LW\
RI /RV $QJHOHV WR HVWLPDWH WKH SRWHQ -
WLDO LPSDFWV RI GL̆HUHQW ,= UHTXLUHPHQWV
RQ KRXVLQJ SURGXFWLRQ LQ /$ 7KH 6LPX-
ODWRU ZKLFK XVHV SDUFHO GDWD HFRQR -
PHWULFPRGHOLQJKRXVLQJSURIRUPDVDQG
0DS&UDIW /DEV¶ DQDO\WLFV DQG PDSSLQJ
VRIWZDUH DOORZV UHVHDUFKHUV DQG SROL -
F\PDNHUV WR PRGHO FKDQJHV WR WKH FRVW
IHDVLELOLW\ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG OLNHOLKRRG
of development across every parcel in
WKHFLW\XQGHUGL̆HUHQW]RQLQJDQGSROLF\
FRQGLWLRQVLQFOXGLQJFKDQJHVWR,=SROLF\
,H[DPLQHWKUHHSRWHQWLDOH̆HFWVRI,=

• +RZGRHVWKHSURGXFWLRQRI%05DQG
PDUNHWUDWH XQLWV FKDQJH DW GL̆HUHQW
OHYHOVRI,=UHTXLUHPHQWV"
• :KDW LV WKH DSSUR[LPDWH YDOXH RI
SULYDWH VXEVLGLHV WKDW JR LQWR ,=%05
XQLWVXQGHUGL̆HUHQWVFHQDULRV"
• +RZ PXFK IDVWHU ZRXOG UHQWV LQ WKH
wider market need to increase to
QHJDWHWKHYDOXHRISULYDWHO\VXEVLGL]HG
%05XQLWV"
, H[DPLQH WKHVH TXHVWLRQV WKURXJK WKH
OHQV RI /RV $QJHOHV¶V 7UDQVLW 2ULHQWHG
&RPPXQLWLHV
72&
SURJUDP 72& LV DQ
DPELWLRXV ,= SROLF\ DGRSWHG LQ ,W
LV GHVLJQHG WR H[SDQG WKH SURGXFWLRQ RI
PL[HGLQFRPH DQG D̆RUGDEOH KRXVLQJ
QHDU WUDQVLW WKURXJK ,= DQG GHYHORSPHQW
ERQXVHV ,Q DUHDV ORFDWHG QHDU WUDQVLW
VWRSV 72& SURYLGHV GHQVLW\ ERQXVHV
F6
% T)62)6 C)2T)6 6)P36T ˑ %P6I0 2024
4 DQG RWKHU LQFHQWLYHV²LQFOXGLQJ UHGXFHG
SDUNLQJ UHTXLUHPHQWV²LQ H[FKDQJH IRU D
FHUWDLQ VKDUH RI D̆RUGDEOH KRXVLQJ XQLWV

6HH7DEOH
6LQFHLWVLQFHSWLRQLQ
GHYHORSHUV KDYH SURSRVHG QHDUO\
GZHOOLQJ XQLWV DV SDUW RI WKH SURJUDP
RQHWKLUG RI DOO SURSRVHG QHZ XQLWV LQ
WKH FLW\ %XLOGLQJ SHUPLW GDWD UHYHDO WKDW
72& SURMHFWV VXSSO\ SULPDULO\ H[WUHPHO\
ORZLQFRPH
(/,
KRXVLQJ XQLWV WR PHHW
WKH,=UHTXLUHPHQWZLWKUHVHDUFKVKRZLQJ
WKDW WKH UHTXLUHG PL[ RI (/, XQLWV XQGHU
WKH 72& SURJUDP LV PRUH ¿QDQFLDOO\
DWWUDFWLYHWRGHYHORSHUV
4 8VLQJ WKH 72& SURJUDP DQG WKH
SURGXFWLRQ RI (/, XQLWV DV DQ LOOXVWUDWLYH
H[DPSOH,¿QGWKDWFKDQJLQJWKHOHYHORI
,= HQWDLOV VLJQL¿FDQW WUDGHR̆V EHWZHHQ
%05 DQG PDUNHWUDWH SURGXFWLRQ 7KH
VLPXODWLRQVKRZVWKDWXSWRDSRLQWKLJKHU
D̆RUGDELOLW\ UHTXLUHPHQWV GR SURGXFH
PRUH %05 KRXVLQJ %XW LQFUHDVLQJ WKH
,=UHTXLUHPHQWDOVRVXEVWDQWLDOO\UHGXFHV
RYHUDOOKRXVLQJSURGXFWLRQRYHUD\HDU
SHULRG ZLWK UHODWLYHO\ OLPLWHG JDLQV WR
EHORZPDUNHWKRXVLQJ
)RU H[DPSOH LQFUHDVLQJ WKH ,= UHTXLUH -
PHQW QHHGHG IRU 72& GHYHORSPHQW
ERQXVHV IURP WKH FXUUHQW SHUFHQW
H[WUHPHO\ ORZLQFRPH
(/,
OHYHO WR
SHUFHQW ZRXOG LQFUHDVH (/, KRXVLQJ
SURGXFWLRQ E\ DQ HVWLPDWHG XQLWV
,W ZRXOG DOVR KRZHYHU UHGXFH PDUNHW
UDWH SURGXFWLRQ E\ XQLWV $IWHU
HVWLPDWLQJ WKH YDOXH RI SULYDWH VXEVLGLHV
LQYHVWHGLQ,=%05XQLWVXQGHUGL̆HUHQW
VFHQDULRV , DOVR ¿QG WKDW WKHVH VXEVL -
dies would be entirely negated if reduced
PDUNHWUDWH KRXVLQJ SURGXFWLRQ OHDGV WR
UHQW LQFUHDVHV RI WR
SHUFHQW SHU
\HDU DERYH EDVHOLQH 7KHVH ¿QGLQJV KDYH
VLJQL¿FDQWLPSOLFDWLRQVIRUKRZ,=SROLFLHV
are designed, and raise broader questions
DERXW KRZ FLWLHV OLNH /RV $QJHOHV VKRXOG
SODQIRUKRXVLQJDWGL̆HUHQWLQFRPHOHYHOV
7KLV UHSRUW EHJLQV ZLWK D GLVFXVVLRQ RI
KRZ,XVHGWKH6LPXODWRUWRSURGXFHWKHVH
¿QGLQJV IROORZHG E\ VHFWLRQV RQ KRZ
FKDQJLQJ,=UHTXLUHPHQWVD̆HFWVKRXVLQJ
SURGXFWLRQ ZKDW KDSSHQV WR SULYDWH
VXEVLG\ ZLWK GL̆HUHQW ,= VFHQDULRV DQG
ZKLFK UHQW LQFUHDVH OHYHOV QHJDWH %05
KRXVLQJ¶V YDOXH ,W FRQFOXGHV ZLWK SROLF\
UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV WKDW VXJJHVW VWUDWHJLHV
WRPLQLPL]H,=¶VGRZQVLGHULVNUHFRJQL]H
WKHOLPLWVRIXVLQJGHYHORSPHQWERQXVHVWR
SURGXFHEHORZPDUNHWKRXVLQJDQGDUJXH
for caution against using land use policy as
D VXEVWLWXWH IRU EURDGO\ VKDUHG WD[HV DQG
SXEOLFVXEVLGLHV
0HWKRGRORJ\
(YDOXDWLQJ WKH LPSDFWV RI ,= RQ KRXVLQJ
PDUNHW RXWFRPHV LV GL̇FXOW LQ SDUW
EHFDXVH ,= SROLFLHV DW WKH ORFDO OHYHO FDQ
YDU\ LQ VR PDQ\ ZD\V 7KH\ GL̆HU LQ WKH
VKDUH RI EHORZPDUNHW XQLWV DQG GHSWK
RI D̆RUGDELOLW\ UHTXLUHG ZKHWKHU WKH
SROLF\LVPDQGDWRU\RUYROXQWDU\ZKHWKHU
development bonuses are provided and
WKH VFRSH DQG VFDOH RI WKH ERQXVHV WKH
VL]H XQGHU ZKLFK SURMHFWV DUH H[HPSW
IURP ,= UHTXLUHPHQWV WKH DYDLODELOLW\ RI
DOWHUQDWLYH FRPSOLDQFH PHDVXUHV VXFK DV
LQOLHXIHHVDQGPRUH&LWLHVWKDWDGRSW,=
PD\ DOVR GL̆HU IURP RWKHU FLWLHV LQ ZD\V
WKDW DUH GL̇FXOW WR PHDVXUH SRWHQWLDOO\
FRQIRXQGLQJVWXG\UHVXOWV
1HYHUWKHOHVV LW LV LPSRUWDQW WR XQGHU -
VWDQG,=¶VFRVWVDQGEHQH¿WVDQGH[LVWLQJ
UHVHDUFK VXJJHVWV WKDW ,= FDQ KDYH XQLQ-
WHQGHG FRQVHTXHQFHV %HFDXVH LQ H̆HFW
LW RSHUDWHV DV D WD[ RQ GHYHORSPHQW ,=
VKRXOG UHGXFH KRXVLQJ SURGXFWLRQ DQG
LQFUHDVHWKHRYHUDOOSULFHRIKRXVLQJLQWKH
PDUNHWDOOHOVHEHLQJHTXDO
7KHHYLGHQFH
RQ WKLV LV PL[HG
UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH IRXQG
F7
% T)62)6 C)2T)6 6)P36T ˑ %P6I0 2024
5 WKDW ,= OHDGV WR UHGXFHG KRXVLQJ SURGXF-
WLRQ LQ VRPH MXULVGLFWLRQV but not in
RWKHUV$OWKRXJKPDUNHWFRQGLWLRQVOLNHO\
LQÀXHQFH WKH VL]H RI WKHVH H̆HFWV WKHLU
LPSDFWV FDQ EH PHDQLQJIXO +DPLOWRQ
¿QGV WKDW IRU HYHU\ \HDU D PDQGDWRU\ ,=
LV LQ SODFH WKHUH LV DQ DVVRFLDWHG WR
SHUFHQW LQFUHDVH LQ WKH KRXVLQJ SULFH
SHUVTXDUHIRRW
6LPLODUO\6FKXHW]HWDO
¿QG WKDW LQ VWURQJ KRXVLQJ PDUNHWV D
SHUFHQWLQFUHDVHLQWKHDJHRIDQ,=SROLF\
LVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKDSHUFHQWLQFUHDVH
LQSULFHV

,HPSOR\WKHGDWDDQGDQDO\WLFVXQGHUO\LQJ
WKH 7HUQHU +RXVLQJ 3ROLF\ 6LPXODWRU WR
H[DPLQH GL̆HUHQW ,= VFHQDULRV DQG WKHLU
LPSDFWV XVLQJ WKH &LW\ RI /RV $QJHOHV¶
72& SURJUDP 7KH 6LPXODWRU RYHUOD\V D
UHDO HVWDWH SUR IRUPD²WKH FDOFXODWLRQV
WKDW GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU D QHZ EXLOGLQJ
LV ¿QDQFLDOO\ IHDVLEOH WR EXLOG²RQ WRS
of parcel-level land use and regulatory
GDWD8VHUVFDQWKHQWRJJOHDEURDGUDQJH
of market and policy factors to observe
KRZ WKRVH FKDQJHV PLJKW LPSDFW KRZ
PXFK KRXVLQJ JHWV EXLOW 7KRVH SDUFHO
OHYHO HVWLPDWHV DUH DJJUHJDWHG DFURVV WKH
FLW\ DQG E\ DGMXVWLQJ GR]HQV RI LQSXWV
FDQ LQGLFDWH WKH FLW\ZLGH LPSDFW WKDW D
VXLWHRIPDUNHWRUSROLF\FKDQJHVKDYHRQ
GHYHORSPHQWSRWHQWLDO
5HDGHUVLQWHUHVWHGLQDGHVFULSWLRQRIWKH
6LPXODWRU¶V DVVXPSWLRQV DUH HQFRXUDJHG
WR UHDG WKH 7HUQHU &HQWHU UHSRUW ZKLFK
LQFOXGHV D GHWDLOHG PHWKRGRORJ\
Here,
, MXVW SURYLGH WKH NH\ DVVXPSWLRQV DQG
PHWKRGV QHHGHG WR XQGHUVWDQG WKH
DQDO\VLVLQWKLVSDSHU
,Q WKH 6LPXODWRU HDFK SDUFHO LQ WKH FLW\
is assigned an optimal development
W\SH²HJ VPDOO PXOWLIDPLO\ RU KLJK
ULVH DSDUWPHQW EXLOGLQJ²DQG XQLW FRXQW
FRUUHVSRQGLQJ WR WKH SURMHFW ZLWK WKH
EHVW VHW RI HVWLPDWHG ¿QDQFLDO RXWFRPHV
2SWLPDO GHYHORSPHQW W\SHV DQG XQLW
FRXQWV DUH EDVHG RQ PRGHO LQSXWV VXFK
DV PD[LPXP EXLOGLQJ KHLJKWV DQG ÀRRU
area, minimum parking requirements,
construction and operating costs, annual
rent appreciation, entitlement fees, and
SHUPLWWLQJDQGFRQVWUXFWLRQWLPHOLQHV
7KH 6LPXODWRU WKHQ HVWLPDWHV WKH
SUREDELOLW\WKDWDEXLOGLQJDQGDVVRFLDWHG
XQLWVDUHEXLOWRQDSDUFHOZLWKLQWKHQH[W
\HDUV ZKLFK LV HVWLPDWHG VHSDUDWHO\
DV D IXQFWLRQ RI WKH SURMHFW¶V ¿QDQFLDO
RXWFRPHV 7KLV LQFOXGHV DQ HVWLPDWH RI
ERWK WKH SURMHFW¶V QHW SUHVHQW YDOXH DQG
UHVLGXDO ODQG YDOXH WR XQGHUVWDQG KRZ
PXFK D GHYHORSHU PLJKW EH ZLOOLQJ
WR VSHQG WR DFTXLUH WKH SURSHUW\ IRU
GHYHORSPHQW%RWKWKHUHVLGXDOODQGYDOXH
DQG WKH QHW SUHVHQW YDOXH FDOFXODWLRQ
LQFRUSRUDWH WKH FRVW RI WKH ,= SROLF\
EHLQJ PRGHOHG 7KH ³H[SHFWHG´ LPSDFW RI
D SROLF\ LV WKHQ HVWLPDWHG DV WKH RSWLPDO
XQLWFRXQWPXOWLSOLHGE\WKHSUREDELOLW\RI
GHYHORSPHQW )RU H[DPSOH D SDUFHO ZLWK
DQRSWLPDOGZHOOLQJXQLWFRXQWRIDQG
D GHYHORSPHQW SUREDELOLW\ RI SHUFHQW
KDV DQ H[SHFWHG GZHOOLQJ XQLW FRXQW RI
7RWDO KRXVLQJ SURGXFWLRQ XQGHU HDFK
PRGHO VFHQDULR LV WKH VXP RI H[SHFWHG
GZHOOLQJXQLWV
$FRUHDVVXPSWLRQLQWKH6LPXODWRULVHVWL-
PDWLQJWKHUHQWVRIQHZXQLWV,FDOFXODWH
WKH SULYDWH VXEVLG\ WKDW GHYHORSHUV DUH
FRQWULEXWLQJ WR HDFK %05 XQLW E\ WDNLQJ WKH
GL̆HUHQFH EHWZHHQ PDUNHW UHQWV IRU QHZ
PXOWLIDPLO\KRXVLQJDQGEHORZPDUNHW,=
UHQWV7RVLPSOLI\SULYDWHVXEVLG\FDOFXOD -
WLRQV,HVWLPDWHWKHFLW\ZLGHPHGLDQUHQW
IRUDQDYHUDJHPLGWLHUDSDUWPHQWLQ
XVLQJ )DLU 0DUNHW 5HQWV OLQNHG WR HDFK
FHQVXV WUDFW LQ WKH 6LPXODWRU ZHLJKWLQJ
UHQWVE\WKHWRWDOH[SHFWHGGZHOOLQJXQLWV
IRU HDFK WUDFW XQGHU WKH SHUFHQW ,=
VLPXODWLRQ
H[LVWLQJFLW\SROLF\
,HVWLPDWH
F8
% T)62)6 C)2T)6 6)P36T ˑ %P6I0 2024
6 D PHGLDQ )DLU 0DUNHW 5HQW RI LQ
QHLJKERUKRRGVZKHUHKRXVLQJSURGXFWLRQ
LVDQWLFLSDWHGDQGZLWKWKLV¿JXUH,FDOFX-
late a median rent for new multifamily
DSDUWPHQWV RI SHU PRQWK

DGMXVWHG E\ D SHUFHQW UHQW SUHPLXP
DQG
SHUFHQWPXOWLIDPLO\UHQWGLVFRXQW

)RUWKHVLPXODWLRQVLQWKLVSDSHU,IRFXVRQ
/RV $QJHOHV¶V 72& SURJUDP 8QGHU 72&
SURMHFWV UHFHLYH GHYHORSPHQW ERQXVHV
including additional dwelling units and
ÀRRUDUHDDQGUHGXFHGSDUNLQJZKHQWKH\
restrict some apartments to lower-income
KRXVHKROGV
VHH 7DEOH IRU D IXOO OLVW RI
E\ULJKW ³EDVH´ LQFHQWLYHV
7KHUH DUH
IRXU 72& ³WLHUV´ ZLWK 7LHU SURYLGLQJ
WKH ODUJHVW GHYHORSPHQW LQFHQWLYHV DQG
KLJKHVW D̆RUGDELOLW\ UHTXLUHPHQWV 72&
encourages developers to rent units at
SULFHV D̆RUGDEOH WR H[WUHPHO\ ORZLQ -
FRPH
(/,
KRXVHKROGV WKRVH HDUQLQJ
QR PRUH WKDQ SHUFHQW RI DUHD PHGLDQ
LQFRPH
$0,
7REHHOLJLEOHIRUWKHGHYHO-
RSPHQWERQXVHVSURMHFWVPXVWDOORFDWH
WRSHUFHQWRIXQLWVIRU(/,KRXVHKROGV
:KLOH GHYHORSHUV FDQ FKRRVH WR EXLOG D
KLJKHU SURSRUWLRQ RI ORZ RU YHU\ ORZLQ-
come units instead, most mixed-income
72& GHYHORSHUV KDYH EHHQ EXLOGLQJ (/,
units, indicating a comparative advantage
UHVXOWLQJ LQ WKH KLJKHVW EDVHOLQH SURGXF-
WLRQ

,WLVZRUWKQRWLQJWKDWWKLVOHYHORID̆RUG -
DELOLW\ LQ ,= SURJUDPV LV UDUH
SROLFLHV LQ
RWKHUFLWLHVJHQHUDOO\WDUJHWKRXVHKROGVXS
WRSHUFHQWSHUFHQWRUSHUFHQW
RI$0,
YHU\ORZLQFRPHORZLQFRPHDQG
moderate income, respectively), in part due
WR WKH FKDOOHQJHV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK PDNLQJ
SURMHFWV ¿QDQFLDOO\ IHDVLEOH DW GHHSHU
D̆RUGDELOLW\ OHYHOV +RZHYHU JLYHQ WKH
SUHYDOHQFHRIGHYHORSHUVFKRRVLQJWREXLOG
(/, XQLWV DV SDUW RI WKH 72& SURJUDP LQ
/RV$QJHOHV,DGRSWWKH(/,XQLWUHTXLUH -
PHQWVDVDEHQFKPDUNIRUWKHVLPXODWLRQV
LQWKLVSDSHU7KHPRQWKO\UHQWIRUDQHZ
(/,XQLWLV
+LJKHU WLHUV DUH WKH PRVW JHRJUDSKLFDOO\
OLPLWHG 0DQ\ PRUH SDUFHOV DUH HOLJLEOH
IRU7LHUDQGEHQH¿WVWKDQ7LHUVDQG
, VHOHFW 6LPXODWRU VHWWLQJV WKDW HQVXUH
SURMHFWVDUHDOZD\VHOLJLEOHIRUWKHKLJKHVW
WLHU DYDLODEOH EDVHG RQ WKHLU ORFDWLRQ ,Q
RWKHUZRUGVDOOSURMHFWVLQDQSHUFHQW,=
VFHQDULRPXVWVHWDVLGHSHUFHQWRIXQLWV
IRU(/,KRXVHKROGV
WKLVDQDO\VLVGRHVQRW
FDSWXUH WKH VOLJKWO\ UHGXFHG UHTXLUHPHQW
IRUORZHUWLHUV
8VLQJ WKH 6LPXODWRU , PRGHO H[SHFWHG
KRXVLQJ SURGXFWLRQ IRU VHSDUDWH
VFHQDULRV IURP D SHUFHQW (/, LQFOX -
VLRQDU\ UHTXLUHPHQW WR WKH SHUFHQW
72&FXUUHQWO\UHTXLUHVDOOWKHZD\XSWR
SHUFHQW
HJ«
)RUHYHU\
SDUFHOWKH6LPXODWRUFDOFXODWHVWKHSURE -
DEOH QXPEHU RI XQLWV WKDW ZLOO EH GHYHO-
RSHG RYHU \HDUV WDNLQJ LQWR DFFRXQW
WKHSURMHFW¶V¿QDQFLDOIHDVLELOLW\EDVHGRQ
WRWDO GHYHORSPHQW FRVWV WKH DQWLFLSDWHG
UHQW UHWXUQV IURP WKH %05 DQG PDUNHW
rate units, and parcel zoning constraints

LQFOXGLQJ WKH ERQXVHV IURP WKH 72&

LQFHQWLYH
7KHVH VLPXODWLRQV DOORZ PH
WR DVVHVV KRZ PDQ\ (/, DQG PDUNHWUDWH
XQLWVFRXOGEHEXLOWLQ/RV$QJHOHVRYHUWKH
QH[W\HDUVIRUHYHU\OHYHORI,=UHTXLUH -
PHQW
,QWKHVHFRQGSKDVH,HVWLPDWHWKHSULYDWH
VXEVLG\ IURP (/, XQLWV SURGXFHG E\
IRUSUR¿W GHYHORSHUV , VXEWUDFW WKH UHQW
IRU(/,XQLWVIURPWKHUHQWIRUQHZPDUNHW
UDWH XQLWV ZKLFK FDQ EH LQWHUSUHWHG DV
WKH IRUJRQH UHQW WR WKH GHYHORSHU IURP
LQFOXGLQJ,=XQLWVLQWKHLUSURSHUW\,WKHQ
FRQYHUW WKLV GL̆HUHQFH WR DQ DQQXDO VXEVLG\
F9
% T)62)6 C)2T)6 6)P36T ˑ %P6I0 2024
7 ¿JXUH DQG PXOWLSO\ E\ WKH FXPXODWLYH
QXPEHURI(/,XQLWVSURGXFHGDW\HDU
,DVVXPHWKHVDPHSHUFHQWUHQWLQFUHDVH
DVZLWKWKHPDUNHWUDWHXQLWV

+DYLQJ HVWLPDWHG WKH YDOXH RI SULYDWH
VXEVLGLHV LQYHVWHG LQ (/, XQLWV
WKH
SULPDU\ EHQH¿W RI ,=
, WKHQ GHWHUPLQH
WKH LQFUHPHQWDO UHQW JURZWK LQ H[LVWLQJ
PDUNHWUDWHXQLWVWKDWZRXOGEHQHFHVVDU\
WR IXOO\ R̆VHW WKLV EHQH¿W $Q HVWLPDWHG
UHQWHUKRXVHKROGVLQ/RV$QJHOHV
SDLG FDVK UHQW LQ
DQG , DVVXPH
² SHUFHQW RU VOLJKWO\ IHZHU
WKDQWKHSHUFHQWZKRSD\PDUNHWUHQW
LQ WKH /$ PHWUR DUHD DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH
$PHULFDQ +RXVLQJ 6XUYH\²DUH WKHUHIRUH
LPSDFWHGE\KLJKHUUHQWV
, VWDUW ZLWK WKH PHGLDQ UHQW WKDW KRXVH-
KROGV SDLG LQ
, DSSO\ WKH 6LPX -
ODWRUPRGHO¶VDVVXPHG EDVHOLQHSHUFHQW
DQQXDOUHQWLQFUHDVHXQWLO\HDU\LHOGLQJ
D PHGLDQ DQQXDO UHQW RI 7KLV LV
WKH PHGLDQ SULYDWH PDUNHW UHQW XQGHU
EDVHOLQH FRQGLWLRQV 7R FDOFXODWH WKH
PHGLDQ UHQW QHHGHG WR QHJDWH WKH YDOXH
RI ,=SURGXFHG (/, KRXVLQJ , DSSO\ WKH
Table 1: “Base” Development Incentives by Location Tier, Transit Oriented Communities Program
2ote
%dditional incentives including increased height and setback reductions are also available but require discretionary approval.

For the full table of conditions, including e \ceptions, see City of 0os %ngeles, Transit 3riented Communities %ffordable Housing Incentive Program
https
planning.lacity.govodocument
7b-
0f2c2-
422-4767-a 04-b7cd323ee26f Transit-3rientedCCommunities C-C%ffordableCHousingC IncentiveCProgramC
F%5
.pdf
Tier 1
(Low)
Tier 2
(Med)
Tier 3
(High)
Tier 4
(Regional)
Affordable Housing
Requirement

)0I
)0I 0 )0I )0I
:0 2 :0 4 :0 5 :0
20 0ow 2 0ow 23 0ow 25 0ow
Density 50 Increase 60 Increase 70 Increase
0 Increase
6estricted (ensity
Zones Exception 35 Increase 35 Increase 40 Increase 45 Increase FAR
Residential 40 Increase 45 Increase 50 Increase 55 Increase Commercial Zones At least

2.75
At least

3.25
At least

3.75
At least

4.25
Residential Parking

allows for unbundled

0.5 per
bedroom

0.5 per
bedroom 0.5 per unit None
Ground Floor
Commercial
0
Reduction
20 Reduction
30 Reduction
40 Reduction
F10
A TERNER CENTER REP 3RT ˑ APRI0 2024

4 percent rent increase and an additional
incremental increase annually until year

7KLV VHFRQG ¿JXUH WKH LQFUHPHQWDO
UHQW KLNH LV WKH UDWH WKDW UDLVHV DJJUH -
gate costs for private market renters by an
DPRXQWHTXDOWRWKHWRWDOSULYDWHVXEVLG\
RI(/,XQLWVXQGHUHDFK,=VFHQDULR
ERWK
LQ\HDU

%HIRUH WXUQLQJ WR WKH ¿QGLQJV D IHZ FDYHDWV
DUHLPSRUWDQWWREHDULQPLQG7KHKRXVLQJ
SURGXFWLRQ ¿JXUHV SUHVHQWHG EHORZ DUH
WKHUHVXOWRIDPRGHOLQJH[HUFLVHXVLQJWKH
7HUQHU +RXVLQJ 3ROLF\ 6LPXODWRU DQG GR
QRWUHSUHVHQWDFWXDOSURGXFWLRQQXPEHUV
)XWXUH SURGXFWLRQ LQ /RV $QJHOHV ZLOO
depend on myriad policy, economic,
SROLWLFDO DQG GHPRJUDSKLF WUHQGV DQG
FKDQJHV7KHPRGHOHGVFHQDULRVDUHXVHIXO
PDLQO\ LQ UHODWLRQVKLS WR RQH DQRWKHU
LOOXVWUDWLQJKRZDGMXVWLQJ,=UHTXLUHPHQWV
FDQOHDGWRVKDUSO\GL̆HUHQWRXWFRPHV
7KH DQDO\VLV DOVR KDV VRPH OLPLWDWLRQV
)LUVW WKH PRGHOHG VFHQDULRV DVVXPH WKH
VSHFL¿HG ,= UHTXLUHPHQWV DSSO\ WR DOO
new multifamily buildings, but in practice
VRPH VPDOOHU SURMHFWV ZRXOG EH H[HPSW

HJ WKH 72& SURJUDP FXUUHQWO\ DSSOLHV
RQO\ WR SURMHFWV ZLWK ¿YH RU PRUH XQLWV

7KH SRWHQWLDO H̆HFWV RI WKHVH H[HPSWLRQV
DUH XQFHUWDLQ 2Q WKH RQH KDQG H[HPSW
SURMHFWV ZRXOG QRW FRQWULEXWH WR (/,
KRXVLQJ SURGXFWLRQ UHGXFLQJ WKH SULYDWH
VXEVLG\ JHQHUDWHG E\ WKH ,= SROLF\ 2Q
WKH RWKHU VRPH VPDOO SURMHFWV UHQGHUHG
LQIHDVLEOH LQ WKHVH VFHQDULRV ZRXOG JR
IRUZDUG FXUELQJ WKH QHJDWLYH LPSDFW RI
UHGXFHGKRXVLQJSURGXFWLRQ,WLVGL̇FXOW
WRNQRZZKLFKH̆HFWLVODUJHUEXWQHLWKHU
is likely to be strong because relatively few
QHZ XQLWV LQ /RV $QJHOHV DUH LQ VPDOOHU
EXLOGLQJV
HJXQGHUXQLWV

6HFRQG VRPH RI WKH DVVXPSWLRQV
SRZHULQJWKH6LPXODWRUPD\QRWEHDURXW
)RU H[DPSOH ZKLOH WR GLG VHH
VWURQJUHQWDOJURZWKUHQWVKDYHÀDWWHQHG
LQPDQ\PDUNHWVLQUHFHQW\HDUV$VVXPLQJ
SHUFHQW \HDURYHU\HDU UHQW JURZWK IRU
WKHQH[W\HDUVPD\EHWRRKLJK,IWKLV
DVVXPSWLRQ LV WRJJOHG GRZQ WKH QXPEHU
RI SURMHFWHG PDUNHWUDWH DQG (/, XQLWV
ZRXOGEHORZHUWKDQLQGLFDWHG
)LQDOO\ WKH 6LPXODWRU GRHV QRW DFFRXQW
IRU JHQHUDO HTXLOLEULXP H̆HFWV OLNH WKH
VKRUWDJH RI FRQVWUXFWLRQ DQG SODQQLQJ
EDQGZLGWK WKDW PLJKW DULVH IURP JUHDWO\
LQFUHDVHGKRXVLQJSURGXFWLRQ
)RU DOO WKHVH UHDVRQV UHDGHUV VKRXOG QRW
LQWHUSUHW WKLV DQDO\VLV DV LGHQWLI\LQJ DQ
³RSWLPDO´ ,= UHTXLUHPHQW RU SUHGLFWLQJ
WKH IXWXUH H̆HFWV RI 72& ,QVWHDG LW
LV LQWHQGHG WR KLJKOLJKW WKH WUDGHR̆V
LQKHUHQWWR,=SROLF\DQGUDLVHWKHVHLVVXHV
IRUSROLF\PDNHUVDQGSUDFWLWLRQHUV
,PSDFWRI&KDQJLQJ
,=5HTXLUHPHQWVRQ
Market-Rate and
Below-Market Housing
3URGXFWLRQ
7KH ¿UVW VLPXODWLRQ DVNV ³KRZ GRHV
FKDQJLQJ,=UHTXLUHPHQWVLQ/RV$QJHOHV
LPSDFW WKH SURGXFWLRQ RI ERWK PDUNHW
UDWHDQG(/,XQLWV"´)LJXUHVKRZVWRWDO
PDUNHWUDWH DQG (/, SURGXFWLRQ IRU
HDFK VFHQDULR IURP WR SHUFHQW (/,
UHTXLUHPHQWV72&GHYHORSPHQWERQXVHV
DUHDYDLODEOHWRDOOSURMHFWVZLWKLQWKHDUHDV
ZKHUH72&LVDYDLODEOH(OLPLQDWLQJWKH,=
UHTXLUHPHQW HQWLUHO\ ZKLOH PDLQWDLQLQJ
72& GHYHORSPHQW ERQXVHV \LHOGV D WRWDO
RI
KRXVLQJ XQLWV RYHU \HDUV
D SHUFHQW LQFUHDVH FRPSDUHG WR WKH
H[LVWLQJ SROLF\ RI SHUFHQW ,= 1RWDEO\
WKLV LV VWLOO IHZHU WKDQ WKH XQLWV
F11
A TERNER CENTER REP 3RT ˑ APRI0 2024
9 FRQWHPSODWHGLQWKHFLW\¶VUHYLVHG+RXVLQJ
(OHPHQW KLJKOLJKWLQJ WKH QHHG IRU PXOWLSOH
RYHUODSSLQJUHIRUPVWRPHHWWKLVJRDO
,QFUHDVLQJ WKH D̆RUGDELOLW\ UHTXLUHPHQW
IURPWRSHUFHQWKDVDGUDPDWLFLPSDFW
RQPDUNHWUDWHKRXVLQJSURGXFWLRQZKLFK
IDOOVE\DSSUR[LPDWHO\XQLWV
7KH
number of market-rate units continues
GHFOLQLQJ DIWHU SHUFHQW ,= EXW OHVV
VWHHSO\ %HWZHHQ DQG SHUFHQW HDFK
percentage point increase in requirements
LVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKDUHGXFWLRQRIEHWZHHQ
DQG
PDUNHWUDWH XQLWV

%\ SHUFHQW PDUNHWUDWH SURGXFWLRQ
LV FXW E\ QHDUO\ KDOI

SHUFHQW
DQG DW
SHUFHQW,=WRWDOSURGXFWLRQLVORZHUHG
E\KDOI$WWKHVHKLJKHU,=OHYHOVWKHFRVW
RI SURGXFLQJ WKH (/, XQLWV
DQG IRUJRQH
UHQWV
PDNH PDQ\ KRXVLQJ GHYHORSPHQWV
¿QDQFLDOO\LQIHDVLEOHHYHQZLWKWKHGHQVLW\
DQGRWKHUGHYHORSPHQWLQFHQWLYHVWKH72&
SURJUDPSURYLGHV
$VLQWHQGHG(/,XQLWSURGXFWLRQLQFUHDVHV
DORQJVLGH ULVLQJ ,= UHTXLUHPHQWV $W
SHUFHQW ,= GHYHORSHUV ZRXOG FRQWULEXWH
QHZ (/, XQLWV RYHU D \HDU
SHULRG DQG DW SHUFHQW WKDW LQFUHDVHV
WR QHDUO\ XQLWV +RZHYHU , DOVR
¿QGWKDWWKHUDWHRI(/,XQLWJURZWKVORZV
PDUNHGO\ DURXQG WR SHUFHQW ,= DQG
FRQWLQXHVWRÀDWWHQXQWLOSHUFHQWZKHQ
WKHQXPEHURI(/,XQLWVSURGXFHGUHDFKHV
LWVSHDN
$IWHUWKLVSRLQW(/,DQGPDUNHWUDWHXQLW
production begin to decline as a greater
VKDUHRIGHYHORSPHQWVEHFRPH¿QDQFLDOO\
LQIHDVLEOH $W SHUFHQW ,= WKH PDUNHW
ZRXOG SURGXFH DQ HVWLPDWHG
(/,
XQLWV LQFUHDVLQJ E\ RQO\ XQLWV
IURP WKH SHUFHQW OHYHO VXJJHVWLQJ
GLPLQLVKLQJ UHWXUQV IURP KLJKHU
LQFOXVLRQDU\UHTXLUHPHQWV%\SHUFHQW
,=WRWDOSURGXFWLRQIDOOVWR
XQLWV
LQFOXGLQJ H[WUHPHO\ ORZLQFRPH
XQLWV
Figure 1. Simulator Model Outputs of 10-year Housing Production for IZ Scenarios Ranging from 0 to 40% IZ
IZ Requirement
Percent
Housing 9nits &uilt 3ver 0 =ears
0 50,000
00,000
50,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
E0I 9nitsMarket-Rate UnitsTotal Units

20 22 24 26 2
30 32 34 36 3
406420
642
F12
A TERNER CENTER REP 3RT ˑ APRI0 2024
0
)LJXUHVKRZVWKDW,=UHTXLUHPHQWVHQWDLO
DVWURQJWUDGHR̆EHWZHHQ(/,DQGPDUNHW
UDWH KRXVLQJ SURGXFWLRQ (YHQ WKRXJK
(/, SURGXFWLRQ LV KLJKHVW DW SHUFHQW
,=²DW
XQLWV²LW FRPHV DW JUHDW
FRVW
FRPSDUHGWRSHUFHQW,=QHDUO\

market-rate units are lost for every addi-
WLRQDO%05XQLW
7DEOH LOOXVWUDWHV WKLV ³H[FKDQJH UDWH´
EHWZHHQ PDUNHWUDWH XQLWV DQG (/,
XQLWV LQ JUHDWHU GHWDLO VKRZLQJ WKH
PRGHO RXWSXWV IRU WRWDO DQG (/, KRXVLQJ
SURGXFWLRQ IRU VHOHFWHG ,= VFHQDULRV 7KH
WDEOHDOVRVKRZVUHGXFWLRQVLQPDUNHWUDWH
XQLWVFRPSDUHGWRWKHQR,=VFHQDULR
LH
WKH ORVV RI WRWDO XQLWV SOXV WKH XQLWV QRZ
UHVWULFWHGWR(/,KRXVHKROGV
7KHODVWURZ
VKRZV WKH H[FKDQJH UDWH )RU H[DPSOH
FRPSDUHG WR WKH QR,= VFHQDULR DQ
SHUFHQW ,= UHTXLUHPHQW UHGXFHV PDUNHW
UDWHSURGXFWLRQE\XQLWVIRUHYHU\XQLW
RI(/,KRXVLQJDGGHGDQGDWSHUFHQW,=
WKLVUDWLRLQFUHDVHVWR
)LJXUHVKRZV
WKHUDWLRIRUHDFKVLPXODWLRQIURPWR
SHUFHQW,=
$PRQJ WKH VHOHFWHG VFHQDULRV ZLWK
LQFOXVLRQDU\ UHTXLUHPHQWV SHUFHQW
,= \LHOGV WKH ORZHVW H[FKDQJH UDWH
EHWZHHQPDUNHWUDWHXQLWVDQG(/,XQLWV
1RQHWKHOHVV PRUH WKDQ IRXU PDUNHWUDWH
XQLWVDUHORVWIRUHYHU\(/,XQLWJDLQHG
7KH DQDO\VLV DERYH VKRZV KRZ KRXVLQJ
SURGXFWLRQ PLJKW LQFUHDVH RU GHFUHDVH
LQ UHVSRQVH WR FKDQJLQJ ,= UHTXLUHPHQWV
ZKLOH PDLQWDLQLQJ 72& SURJUDP GHYHO -
RSPHQW ERQXVHV 7KHVH GHYHORSPHQW
ERQXVHVDUHFULWLFDOWR,=RXWFRPHV7DEOH
VKRZV KRZ KRXVLQJ SURGXFWLRQ ZRXOG
UHVSRQG WR GL̆HUHQW ,= UHTXLUHPHQWV
ZLWKRXWGHYHORSPHQWERQXVHVWRFRPSHQ-
VDWHIRU,=FRVWV
8QVXUSULVLQJO\ UHPRYLQJ GHYHORSPHQW
ERQXVHVUHVXOWVLQOHVVKRXVLQJSURGXFWLRQ
DW DOO ,= OHYHOV 7KH PRVW VWULNLQJ UHVXOW
IURP WKHVH VLPXODWLRQV LV WKDW D SROLF\
ODQGVFDSH ZLWKRXW WKH 72& SURJUDP DQG
ZLWKRXW,=SURGXFHVIHZHUWRWDOXQLWVWKDQ
VLPXODWLRQV WKDW PDLQWDLQ 72& DQG KDYH
DQ,=UHTXLUHPHQWRISHUFHQWRUORZHU²
FRPSDUHG WR DW OHDVW
XQLWVUHVSHFWLYHO\7KH72&SURJUDPZLWK
D SHUFHQW ,= UHTXLUHPHQW SURGXFHV
PRUH(/,EXWIHZHUPDUNHWUDWHXQLWVWKDQ
WKHQR72&QR,=VFHQDULR72&ZLWKDQ
SHUFHQW ,= UHTXLUHPHQW \LHOGV PRUH RI
ERWK
7ZR OHVVRQV IURP WKLV VHFWLRQ¶V ¿QGLQJV
IZ Requirement 0% 11% 16% 25% 40%
Privately-Subsidized ELI
Units 03 ,
00 4 ,700 49,500 3
,500
Market-Rate Units 39
,
00 257,200 2
,700 4
,500 57,700
Total Housing Units* 39
,
00 2
9,000 260,300 9
,000 96,200
Change in Market-Rate
Units Relative to 0% IZ* -
4,600

0,200

250,300

34,00
Market-Rate-to-ELI Unit
Exchange Rate** - 4.5 4.3 5.
.9
Table 2. Simulator Model Outputs for Housing Production Over 10 Years Under Selected IZ Scenarios with TOC Bonuses
Notes
May not sum to total due to rounding.
Exchange rate is the ratio of market-rate units lost to E0I units gained relative to a 0 IZ baseline.

F13
A TERNER CENTER REP 3RT ˑ APRI0 2024

Figure 2. Ratio of Market-Rate Units Lost to ELI Units Gained, Relative to a 0% IZ Baseline, for Each Simulation from 1 to 40% IZ Table 3. Simulator Model Outputs for Housing Production Over 10 Years Under Selected IZ Scenarios Without TOC Bonuses
IZ Requirement 0% 11% 16% 25% 40%
Privately-Subsidized ELI
Units - 20,700 2
,000 33, 00 26,400
Market-Rate Units 245,300 67,
00 47,200 99,300 39,500
Total Housing Units* 245,300

,600 75,300 32,500 65,900
Notes
May not sum to total due to rounding.

IZ Requirement
Percent
Ratio of Market-Rate Units 0ost to E0I Units +ained
0 5.00
0.00
5.00

20.00 25.00
246
0 2 4 6

20 22 24 26 2
30 32 34 36 3
40 F14
A TERNER CENTER REP 3RT ˑ APRI0 2024
2
DUH ZRUWK KLJKOLJKWLQJ )LUVW DGRSWLQJ
WKH 72& SURJUDP OLNHO\ LQFUHDVHG /RV
$QJHOHV¶ VXSSO\ RI EHORZPDUNHW KRPHV
DQG UHGXFHG KRXVLQJ VFDUFLW\ RYHUDOO
6HFRQG UDLVLQJ WKH 72& SURJUDP¶V ,=
UHTXLUHPHQWV WR D KLJKHU OHYHO ZRXOG
likely produce additional BMR units, but
LWZRXOGDOVRH[DFHUEDWHWKHFLW\¶VKRXVLQJ
VKRUWDJHFRPSDUHGWRWKHVWDWXVTXR
(VWLPDWHG3ULYDWH
6XEVLG\RI(/,+RXVLQJ
8QGHU'L̆HUHQW,=
6FHQDULRV
,Q WKLV VHFWLRQ , HVWLPDWH WKH YDOXH RI
SULYDWH VXEVLGLHV GHYHORSHUV LQYHVW LQWR (/,
XQLWV XQGHU GL̆HUHQW ,= VFHQDULRV 7KHVH
subsidies represent a cost for developers
DQG D EHQH¿W IRU WKH SXEOLF²SDUWLFXODUO\
IRUWKHH[WUHPHO\ORZLQFRPHKRXVHKROGV
ZKR OLYH LQ WKH XQLWV (VWLPDWLQJ
WKHVH VXEVLGLHV¶ YDOXH LV LPSRUWDQW IRU
XQGHUVWDQGLQJ KRZ WKH EHQH¿WV RI ,=
SROLFLHV FRPSDUH WR WKH FRVWV RI UHGXFHG
KRXVLQJSURGXFWLRQDQGSRWHQWLDOO\KLJKHU
UHQWVRYHUDOO
%HFDXVH WKH 6LPXODWRU PRGHO RXWSXW LV
\HDU KRXVLQJ SURGXFWLRQ , UHSRUW WKH
DQQXDOVXEVLG\IRUDOO(/,XQLWVLQ\HDU
,FDOFXODWHSHUXQLWVXEVLGLHVE\HVFDODWLQJ
QHZPDUNHWUDWHDQG(/,PRQWKO\UHQWVE\
SHUFHQWDQQXDOO\IRU
\HDUVFRQYHUWLQJ
WRDQQXDOUHQWWKHQGHGXFWLQJDQQXDO(/,
rent from annual market rate rent in year
3HUXQLWVXEVLGLHVDUHWKHQPXOWLSOLHG
E\FXPXODWLYH(/,XQLWSURGXFWLRQDW\HDU

7DEOHVKRZVWKHHVWLPDWHGWRWDODQQXDO
SULYDWH VXEVLG\ E\ IRUSUR¿W GHYHORSHUV
XQGHU IRXU ,= VFHQDULRV 7KH SHUFHQW
scenario models a rolled-back requirement
FRPSDUHG WR WKH FXUUHQW SHUFHQW ,=
SROLF\SHUFHQW,=KDVWKHORZHVWPDUNHW
UDWHWR%05 H[FKDQJH UDWH

DQG
SHUFHQWSURGXFHVWKHPRVW(/,XQLWVDQG
WKHUHIRUHWKHODUJHVWSULYDWHVXEVLG\
(VWLPDWHGSULYDWHVXEVLG\RI(/,KRXVLQJ
LQ\HDUUDQJHVIURPPLOOLRQXQGHU
WKHSHUFHQW,=SROLF\WRELOOLRQDW
SHUFHQW$OWKRXJKSHUFHQW,=UHTXLUHV
WLPHVDVPXFK(/,KRXVLQJSHUSURMHFWDV
SHUFHQWLWJHQHUDWHVRQO\WLPHVDVPXFK
VXEVLG\UHÀHFWLQJGLPLQLVKLQJUHWXUQVWR
SURGXFWLRQDVWKH,=WKUHVKROGLQFUHDVHV
7KHUH DUH DOVR FRVWV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK
SURGXFLQJ (/, XQLWV ZLWK ,= /RZHU
RYHUDOOSURGXFWLRQUHGXFHVWKHDPRXQWRI
FRQVWUXFWLRQDFWLYLW\LQWKHFLW\QHJDWLYHO\
impacting labor income and various tax
UHYHQXHV 3URSHUW\ WD[HV DUH HVSHFLDOO\
D̆HFWHGZLWKIHZHUQHZXQLWV
ZKLFKDUH
taxed at full value, in contrast to older
XQLWVZKLFKDUHWD[HGDWOHVVWKDQPDUNHW
YDOXHWRYDU\LQJH[WHQWV
)HZHUUHVLGHQWV
Table 4. Estimated Value of Private Subsidy of Extremely Low-Income Units Produced Under Different IZ Scenarios
IZ Requirement 5% 11% 16% 25%
Total Housing Units 326,00 2
9,000 260,300 9
,000
Privately-Subsidized ELI Units 6,300 3 ,
00 4 ,700 49,500
Annual Rent Discount on ELI
Units (Year 10) 33,7
4 Total Value of Private Subsidy of
ELI Units (Year 10)
$551
million
$1.08
billion
$1.41
billion
$1.67
billion
F15
A TERNER CENTER REP 3RT ˑ APRI0 2024
3
FDQOLYHVSHQGPRQH\DQGSD\WD[HVLQWKH
FLW\ 2Q DYHUDJH QHZ PDUNHWUDWH XQLWV
SURGXFH RQHWLPH DQG UHFXUULQJ ¿VFDO
VXUSOXVHVIRUWKHFLW\
and fewer are built
LQKLJKHU,=UHTXLUHPHQWVFHQDULRV
$QRWKHU SRWHQWLDO FRVW LV KLJKHU UHQWV
IRU WKH URXJKO\ SHUFHQW RI WHQDQWV LQ
KRXVLQJWKDWLVQHLWKHUSXEOLFO\RZQHGQRU
UHFHLYHVJRYHUQPHQWVXEVLGLHVRWKHUWKDQ
SRUWDEOH KRXVLQJ YRXFKHUV , GLVFXVV WKLV
FRVW DQG LWV UHODWLRQVKLS WR WKH YDOXH RI
SULYDWHVXEVLG\RI%05XQLWVLQ,=SURMHFWV
LQWKHQH[WVHFWLRQ
Estimated Rent
,QFUHDVHV1HHGHGWR
1HJDWHWKH9DOXHRI
,=3URGXFHG%05
Housing
2QHRI,=¶VEHQH¿WVLVWKDWLWFUHDWHVORZHU
LQFRPHKRXVLQJZLWKRXWSXEOLFVXEVLGLHV
$GUDZEDFNLVWKDWWKHFRVWRIUHQWLQJVRPH
units at a loss is likely passed on, at least
LQSDUWWRWKHPDUNHWUDWHXQLWWHQDQWVLQ
,= SURMHFWV +RZHYHU GHYHORSHUV FDQQRW
arbitrarily raise rents simply because
,= LQFUHDVHV WKHLU FRVWV 7KH\ PD\ EH
DEOH WR UHGXFH VRPH H[SHQVHV WKURXJK
³YDOXH HQJLQHHULQJ´ RI EXLOGLQJ GHVLJQ RU
LQFUHDVH UHYHQXHV E\ WDUJHWLQJ D KLJKHU
LQFRPH FOLHQWHOH EXW WKHUH DUH OLPLWV WR
WKHVH DSSURDFKHV $QG ERWK ZLOO WHQG WR
QDUURZ GHPDQG IRU QHZ KRXVLQJ
LI QHZ
KRPHVDUHQRWDVKLJKTXDOLW\UHQWHUVPD\
EH PRUH OLNHO\ WR VHHN RXW ROGHU XQLWV
LI
WKH\ DUH WRR OX[XULRXV WKHQ IHZHU UHQWHUV
FDQD̆RUGWKHP
$SRWHQWLDOO\ODUJHUDQGEURDGHUGUDZEDFN
RI ,= LV LWV H̆HFW RQ D̆RUGDELOLW\ LQ WKH
ZLGHU KRXVLQJ PDUNHW ,I ,= UHGXFHV
KRXVLQJ SURGXFWLRQ GDPSHQHG VXSSO\ LV
OLNHO\ WR LQFUHDVH KRXVLQJ FRVWV RYHUDOO
including for renters in older market-rate
XQLWV (VWLPDWLQJ WKH LPSDFW RI UHGXFHG
SURGXFWLRQ RQ UHQWV LQ /RV $QJHOHV LV
EH\RQGWKHVFRSHRIWKLVDQDO\VLVEXWLWLV
SRVVLEOHWRHVWLPDWHWKHPDUJLQDOLQFUHDVH
LQ UHQWV WKDW ZRXOG QHJDWH WKH SULYDWH
VXEVLG\RI(/,KRXVLQJ
,Q WKH SUHYLRXV VHFWLRQ , HVWLPDWHG WKH
YDOXH RI ,=SURGXFHG EHORZ PDUNHWUDWH
KRXVLQJ XQGHU GL̆HUHQW SROLF\ VFHQDULRV
DQG KHUH , LGHQWLI\ WKH LQFUHPHQWDO UHQW
JURZWK UDWH WKDW ZRXOG UDLVH KRXVLQJ
costs for private-market renters by an
HTXDO DPRXQW 7DEOH VKRZV WKH UHVXOWV
RIWKLVDQDO\VLVKLJKOLJKWLQJWKHUHODWLYHO\
VPDOO UHQW LQFUHDVHV WKDW LI WKH\ FDPH WR
pass, would result in zero or negative net
ZHOIDUH²FRVWVRI,=PHHWLQJRUH[FHHGLQJ
LWVEHQH¿WV

Table 5. Incremental Rent Increase Needed to Raise Rents for Private Market Renters by an Amount Equal to the Value of Private Subsidy of ELI Units Under Different IZ Scenarios
IZ Requirement 5% 11% 16% 25%
Reduction in Market-Rate Units
(Compared to 0% IZ Baseline)

9,000

4,600

0,200

250,300
Incremental Annual Rent Increase
Needed to Negate Private Subsidy of
ELI Units 0.3 0.6 0.

0.9 Notes
Incremental rent increase is multiplicative, above 4 baseline annual increase.

F16
A TERNER CENTER REP 3RT ˑ APRI0 2024
4
7KH PDLQ WDNHDZD\ IURP WKLV H[HUFLVH LV
WKDW PLQRU FKDQJHV LQ UHQW FDQ SURGXFH
ODUJH DGGLWLRQDO FRVWV IRU UHQWHUV LQ WKH
DJJUHJDWH ,Q WKH SHUFHQW ,= VFHQDULR RQO\
SHUFHQWIDVWHUDQQXDOUHQWJURZWK²
SHUFHQW RYHU
\HDUV²LQFUHDVHV SULYDWH
PDUNHW UHQWHUV¶ DJJUHJDWH FRVWV E\ DQ
HVWLPDWHGPLOOLRQLQ\HDU7KLVLV
DYHU\VPDOOLQFUHPHQWDOUHQWKLNHDQGD
SODXVLEOHFRQVHTXHQFHRIEXLOGLQJ

IHZHU PDUNHWUDWH XQLWV RYHU D GHFDGH
7KH SHUFHQW ,= VFHQDULR \LHOGV
SHUFHQWUHGXFWLRQLQPDUNHWUDWHKRXVLQJ
SURGXFWLRQ\HWWKHHVWLPDWHGYDOXHRI,=
SURGXFHG (/, XQLWV ZRXOG EH IXOO\ R̆VHW
E\ RQO\
SHUFHQW IDVWHU DQQXDO UHQW
JURZWK
'LVFXVVLRQ
8VLQJWKH7HUQHU+RXVLQJ3ROLF\6LPXODWRU
WRPRGHOWKHKRXVLQJSURGXFWLRQLPSDFWV
RI GL̆HUHQW ,= SROLFLHV LQ /RV $QJHOHV ,
¿QG WKDW LQFUHDVLQJ WKH ,= UHTXLUHPHQW
ZRXOG UHGXFH RYHUDOO KRXVLQJ SURGXFWLRQ
VXEVWDQWLDOO\ RYHU D \HDU SHULRG ZLWK
relatively modest gains to below-market
KRXVLQJ
)RU H[DPSOH LQFUHDVLQJ WKH ,= UHTXLUH -
PHQW QHHGHG WR XVH 72& GHYHORSPHQW
ERQXVHV IURP WKH FXUUHQW SHUFHQW (/,
WRSHUFHQWZRXOGLQFUHDVH(/,KRXVLQJ
SURGXFWLRQ E\ DQ HVWLPDWHG XQLWV
but reduce market-rate production by
XQLWV $Q ,= UHTXLUHPHQW RI
SHUFHQW SURGXFHV WKH ODUJHVW DPRXQW RI (/,
KRXVLQJUHODWLYHWRORVWPDUNHWUDWHXQLWV
EXWLVQRQHWKHOHVVTXLWHFRVWO\H[FKDQJLQJ
PDUNHWUDWH XQLWV IRU HYHU\ (/, XQLW
%H\RQG SHUFHQW KLJKHU D̆RUGDELOLW\
WKUHVKROGVSURGXFHOHVVEHORZPDUNHWDQG
PDUNHWUDWHKRXVLQJ
7KHVH¿QGLQJVKDYHLPSOLFDWLRQVIRUSROLF\
PDNHUVFRQVLGHULQJXVLQJ,=WRH[SDQGWKH
VXSSO\RI%05XQLWV
,WLVLPSRUWDQWWRHYDOXDWHWUDGHR̆V
between using IZ to produce BMR
units and its impacts on market-rate
production.
:KLOHQRWDFULWLTXHRIWKH72&SURJUDP
WKH DQDO\VLV SUHVHQWHG LQ WKLV SDSHU
VKRXOGEHLQWHUSUHWHGDVDZDUQLQJDJDLQVW
LQFUHDVLQJ ,= UHTXLUHPHQWV 7KH IDFW WKDW
SRRUO\ FDOLEUDWHG ,= SROLFLHV FRXOG OHDG
WR UHGXFHG KRXVLQJ SURGXFWLRQ KLJKHU
UHQWVDQGKRXVLQJSULFHVRUERWKVKRXOG
SURPSW FDXWLRQ 8S WR D SRLQW KLJKHU ,=
levels may increase BMR production, but
OLNHO\ DW WKH FRVW RI VXEVWDQWLDOO\ ORZHU
PDUNHWUDWHKRXVLQJSURGXFWLRQ%H\RQGD
FHUWDLQWKUHVKROGKLJKHU,=UHTXLUHPHQWV
are likely to reduce market-rate and BMR
KRXVLQJSURGXFWLRQ
&DXWLRQ LV SDUWLFXODUO\ ZDUUDQWHG JLYHQ
WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI KRXVLQJ VXSSO\ IRU
reducing overall rents
and creating new
KRXVLQJ RSSRUWXQLWLHV IRU UHQWHUV DW DOO
LQFRPH OHYHOV

7KH PDMRULW\ RI UHQWHUV
LQ /RV $QJHOHV OLYH LQ WKH XQUHVWULFWHG
UHQWDO PDUNHW ,Q WKH /RV $QJHOHV/RQJ
%HDFK PHWUR DUHD RQO\

percent) of renter-occupied units are
publicly owned or receive a government
VXEVLG\ RU RWKHU UHQW UHGXFWLRQV WKDW
UHTXLUH LQFRPH YHUL¿FDWLRQ $̆RUGDELOLW\
LQ WKH XQUHVWULFWHG PDUNHW LV FULWLFDO IRU
WKH PDMRULW\ RI UHQWHUV PDQ\ RI ZKRP
DUH ORZLQFRPH ,I ,= UHGXFHV WKH VXSSO\
RIWKRVHXQLWVDQGLQFUHDVHVSULFHVWKHVH
XQLQWHQGHGFRQVHTXHQFHVPLJKWRXWZHLJK
WKHEHQH¿WVRIWKHLQFUHDVHLQ%05XQLWVLW
SURYLGHV

,W LV LPSRUWDQW WR DFNQRZOHGJH WKDW WKLV
DQDO\VLV R̆HUV D FUXGH FRPSDULVRQ RI
FRVWV DQG EHQH¿WV DQG GRHV QRW DFFRXQW
IRUWKHPDUJLQDOXWLOLW\RISXEOLFRUSULYDWH
LQYHVWPHQWV6SHFL¿FDOO\,GRQRWDWWHPSW
WRGHWHUPLQHWKHH[WHQWWRZKLFKDGROODU
F17
A TERNER CENTER REP 3RT ˑ APRI0 2024
5
RISULYDWHVXEVLG\LQYHVWHGLQDQ(/,XQLW
PD\ EH PRUH LPSDFWIXO WKDQ D GROODU D
UHQWHU VDYHV RQ WKH SULYDWH PDUNHW QRU
FDQ , GLVWLQJXLVK EHWZHHQ SULYDWH PDUNHW
UHQWHUV E\ LQFRPH ZHDOWK UDFH RU RWKHU
FKDUDFWHULVWLFV ,Q SUDFWLFH WKHUH LV JRRG
reason to assign more value to assisting
H[WUHPHO\ORZLQFRPHKRXVHKROGVGXHLQ
SDUWWRWKHLUJUHDWHUQHHGDQGKLJKHUULVN
RI KRPHOHVVQHVV $W WKH VDPH WLPH UDWHV
RI KRPHOHVVQHVV DUH VWURQJO\ FRUUHODWHG
ZLWK PHGLDQ UHQWV VR D̆RUGDELOLW\ LQ WKH
wider market is still relevant to very poor
KRXVHKROGV

3ROLF\ PDNHUV PXVW FRQVLGHU ZKHWKHU
D SROLF\ WKDW PD\ GULYH XS UHQWV IRU DOO
WHQDQWV
DQGDOVRFRVWVIRUKRPHEX\HUV
LV
WKH EHVW DSSURDFK IRU VXEVLGL]LQJ D VPDOO
VKDUH RI KRXVLQJ 7KH KLJK FRVW RI ODQG
DQG FRQVWUXFWLRQ PHDQV WKDW SURYLGLQJ
assistance to extremely low-income
KRXVHKROGV YLD SULYDWHO\ VXEVLGL]HG
development is expensive compared to
DOWHUQDWLYH VWUDWHJLHV )RU H[DPSOH LQ
WKLVDQDO\VLVSHUXQLWVXEVLGLHVDUHQHDUO\
LQ \HDU ZKLOH WKH +RXVLQJ
$XWKRULW\RIWKH&LW\RI/RV$QJHOHVVSHQW
SHU KRXVHKROG RQ WKH +RXVLQJ
&KRLFHYRXFKHUSURJUDPLQ

Two aspects of inclusionary zoning
are critical: providing development
incentives when market-rate
developers include BMR units,
and making program participation
voluntary.
%HFDXVH 72& SURYLGHV GHYHORSPHQW
LQFHQWLYHV D GHYHORSHU ZKR PLJKW KDYH
EXLOW PDUNHWUDWH XQLWV SULRU WR
WKH SURJUDP FDQ QRZ EXLOG D SURMHFW²
GHSHQGLQJRQLWVORFDWLRQ²ZLWKDVPDQ\DV
WRWDOXQLWVLQFOXGLQJIRUH[WUHPHO\
ORZLQFRPH KRXVHKROGV
RU IRU
ORZLQFRPHKRXVHKROGV
$VDFRPSDULVRQ
EHWZHHQ 7DEOHV DQG VKRZV WKH 72&
SURJUDP KDV OLNHO\ HQFRXUDJHG PRUH
PDUNHWUDWH DQG EHORZPDUNHW KRXVLQJ²
DQG DW GHHSHU OHYHOV RI D̆RUGDELOLW\ IRU
%05 XQLWV²EHFDXVH RI LWV GHYHORSPHQW
LQFHQWLYHV
9ROXQWDU\SDUWLFLSDWLRQLVDOVRLPSRUWDQW
0DQGDWRU\ ,= SROLFLHV ZLWKRXW
development bonuses are a worst-case
DSSURDFK EXW HYHQ PDQGDWRU\ ,= ZLWK
ERQXVHV LQFUHDVHV WKH ULVN WKDW WKH
policy will negatively impact market-rate
SURGXFWLRQ ,I WKH ,= UHTXLUHPHQWV RU
development bonuses are miscalibrated
VXFK WKDW WKH FRVW RI EHORZPDUNHW XQLWV
H[FHHGV WKH UHYHQXHV IURP DGGLWLRQDO
PDUNHWUDWH XQLWV WKHQ SURMHFWV EHFRPH
¿QDQFLDOO\ LQIHDVLEOH $QG HYHQ ZKHQ ,=
SROLFLHVDUHFDUHIXOO\GHVLJQHGWKH\UDUHO\
WDNH LQWR DFFRXQW LPSDFWV RQ GL̆HUHQW
QHLJKERUKRRGV RU GHYHORSPHQW W\SHV

HJORZULVHYVKLJKULVHPXOWLIDPLO\
RU
DGDSWWRFKDQJLQJPDUNHWFRQGLWLRQV
$Q DGYDQWDJH RI YROXQWDU\ ,= LV WKDW LI
WKHEDODQFHRIPDQGDWHVDQGLQFHQWLYHVLV
PLVFDOLEUDWHG RU LI WKH PDUNHW FKDQJHV
WKHQGHYHORSHUVFDQHOHFWWREXLOGZLWKRXW
development incentives and market-rate
SURGXFWLRQLVQRWXQLQWHQWLRQDOO\VW\PLHG
7R EH FOHDU WKH SXUSRVH RI D YROXQWDU\
,= SROLF\ LV QRW WR H[HPSW GHYHORSHUV
IURP EXLOGLQJ EHORZPDUNHW KRXVLQJ
D
ZHOOGHVLJQHG ,= SURJUDP VKRXOG KDYH
QHDUO\ SHUFHQW XWLOL]DWLRQ DV LV WKH
FDVH LQ /RV $QJHOHV $VVHPEO\ %LOO

UHTXLUHV FLWLHV WR GR D IRUPDO
HFRQRPLF DQDO\VLV RI DQ\ ,= SROLF\ WKH\
HQDFW,WDOVRVXEMHFWVWKDWDQDO\VLVWRVWDWH
UHYLHZLILWV,=OHYHOJRHVDERYHDFHUWDLQ
DPRXQW ZKLFK FRXOG RYHU WKH ORQJWHUP
encourage cities to assess and recalibrate
W K H L U , = S R O L F L H V + R Z H Y H U W K L V U H P D L Q V PRUHDUWWKDQVFLHQFH
YROXQWDU\FRPSOL -
DQFH DW D PLQLPXP HQVXUHV WKDW ,= SROL-
F18
A TERNER CENTER REP 3RT ˑ APRI0 2024
6
cies intended to increase below-market
production do not only decrease market-
UDWHSURGXFWLRQLQVWHDG
Density bonuses and other incentive-
based housing production policies
have limits, suggesting that
increasing development incentives
won’t necessarily make higher IZ
requirements feasible.
7KH DQDO\VLV VKRZV WKDW HYHQ ZLWK ZHOO
GHVLJQHG ,= SROLFLHV WKH PDUNHW¶V DELOLW\
WR SURGXFH %05 XQLWV KDV LWV OLPLWV DQG
PD\ KDYH XQLQWHQGHG FRQVHTXHQFHV
3ROLF\PDNHUV LQ /RV $QJHOHV DQG
HOVHZKHUH PD\ ORRN DW 72&¶V VXFFHVV
DQG EH WHPSWHG WR GRXEOH GRZQ ZLWK
additional development bonuses and
KLJKHU D̆RUGDELOLW\ PDQGDWHV DVVXPLQJ
WKLVZLOOIXUWKHULQFUHDVHPDUNHWUDWHDQG
%05SURGXFWLRQ
'HYHORSPHQWFRVWVGRQRWLQFUHDVHOLQHDUO\
ZLWKSURMHFWVL]HKRZHYHUVXJJHVWLQJWKDW
DGGLWLRQDO GHQVLW\ ÀRRU DUHD RU KHLJKW
PD\ QRW PDNH PRUH ,= XQLWV IHDVLEOH
+LJKHUFRVW FRQVWUXFWLRQ PDWHULDOV DQG
PHWKRGV DUH UHTXLUHG DV EXLOGLQJ KHLJKW
LQFUHDVHV SDUWLFXODUO\ DV WKH\ H[FHHG
WR VWRULHV $W WKLV WKUHVKROG EXLOGLQJ
structures transition from primarily wood

7\SH,,,WR9
WRFRQFUHWHRUVWHHO
7\SH,

7KH /RV $QJHOHV 'HSDUWPHQW RI %XLOGLQJ
DQG 6DIHW\ HVWLPDWHV WKDW DOO HOVH EHLQJ
HTXDO 7\SH , FRQVWUXFWLRQ LV DSSUR[L -
PDWHO\ SHUFHQW PRUH H[SHQVLYH SHU
VTXDUHIRRWWKDQ7\SH,,,FRQVWUXFWLRQDQG
SHUFHQW FRVWOLHU WKDQ 7\SH 9
Many
72& SURMHFWV DUH DOUHDG\ VHYHQ WR HLJKW
VWRULHV ,QFUHDVLQJ GHQVLW\ E\ DQ DGGL -
WLRQDO SHUFHQW PLJKW DOORZ D VWRU\
EXLOGLQJZKHUHRQO\VWRULHVLVSHUPLWWHG
WRGD\ EXW WKLV GRHV QRW JXDUDQWHH ¿QDQ-
FLDO IHDVLELOLW\ RU WKH DELOLW\ WR DFFRPPR-
GDWHDKLJKHU,=UHTXLUHPHQW
For example, imagine an apartment
GHYHORSPHQW LQ D 7LHU 72& DUHD XVLQJ
D SHUFHQW GHQVLW\ ERQXV 7KH 72&
LQFHQWLYHV DOORZ DQ VWRU\
VTXDUH IRRW EXLOGLQJ ,I FRQVWUXFWLRQ DQG
PDWHULDOV IRU WKLV EXLOGLQJ DUH SHU
VTXDUH IRRW
SVI
WKH WRWDO FRQVWUXFWLRQ
DQG PDWHULDOV FRVW LV PLOOLRQ ,I
DOORZDEOHGHQVLW\DQGÀRRUDUHDLQFUHDVHV
E\DQDGGLWLRQDOSHUFHQWWKHGHYHORSHU
FRXOGEXLOGDVWRU\VTXDUHIRRW
EXLOGLQJ +RZHYHU WKH LQFUHDVHG KHLJKW
ERRVWVFRQVWUXFWLRQFRVWVWRDWOHDVW
SVIPHDQLQJWKHWRWDOFRVWRIFRQVWUXFWLRQ
ULVHVWRPLOOLRQ'HQVLW\LQFUHDVHGE\
SHUFHQWEXWFRVWVJUHZE\SHUFHQW
,QWKLVVFHQDULRWKHVWRU\SURMHFWLVOHVV
IHDVLEOH WKDQ WKH VWRU\ HYHQ ZLWKRXW
KLJKHUD̆RUGDELOLW\UHTXLUHPHQWV
+LJKHU ,= UHTXLUHPHQWV KDYH WKHLU OLPLWV
even if construction costs did scale linearly
ZLWK SURMHFW VL]H ,Q WKLV FDVH LPDJLQH D
SDUFHO ]RQHG WR DOORZ D XQLW PDUNHW
UDWH EXLOGLQJ ,I HDFK DGGLWLRQDO PDUNHW
UDWH XQLW HDUQV D SUR¿W RI DQG
HDFK (/, XQLW ORVHV WKHQ D
ERQXV WKDW DOORZV SHUFHQW PRUH
GHQVLW\ DQG UHTXLUHV SHUFHQW RI XQLWV
IRU (/, KRXVHKROGV PD\ EH IHDVLEOH
WKH
SURMHFWDGGVXQLWVDWDWRPDUNHW
UDWHWR%05 UDWLR :KDW LI WKH ERQXV
LV LQFUHDVHG WR SHUFHQW²FDQ WKH ,=
UHTXLUHPHQW DOVR EH WULSOHG" ,W FDQQRW
$ SHUFHQW ERQXV DGGV XQLWV RI
ZKLFKDWOHDVWPXVWEHPDUNHWUDWHIRU
WKHSURMHFWWREHIHDVLEOH,QWKLVFDVHWKH
,=UHTXLUHPHQWFDQQRWH[FHHGSHUFHQW
$ SHUFHQW ERQXV SHUPLWV RQO\ D
SHUFHQW,=UHTXLUHPHQW7KHYDOXHFDSWXUH
SRWHQWLDO RI GHYHORSPHQW ERQXVHV KDV
GLPLQLVKLQJUHWXUQV
F19
A TERNER CENTER REP 3RT ˑ APRI0 2024
7
Broad-based land use reforms
combined with increased public
funding are likely to have greater
EHQH¿WVDQGIHZHUXQLQWHQGHG
consequences than IZ policies.
2QH RI ,=¶V IXQGDPHQWDO VKRUWFRPLQJV LV
WKDWLWGRHV QRWDGGUHVV²DQGOLNHO\H[DF -
HUEDWHV²WKH KRXVLQJ VFDUFLW\ WKDW GULYHV
KLJKHUUHQWVDQGKRPHSULFHV,WLPSURYHV
KRXVLQJD̆RUGDELOLW\IRUDIHZDWWKHULVN
RI ZRUVHQLQJ D̆RUGDELOLW\ IRU PDQ\ DQG
LW WD[HV SUHFLVHO\ WKH DFWLYLW\ QHHGHG WR
DPHOLRUDWHWKHKRXVLQJVKRUWDJHDQGEULQJ
GRZQ UHQWV
GHYHORSPHQW
7KLV DQDO\VLV
VKRZV WKDW LQFUHDVLQJ ,= UHTXLUHPHQWV
may not produce substantially more below
market-rate units, and is very likely to
UHGXFH IXWXUH KRXVLQJ SURGXFWLRQ 3ROLF\
PDNHUV PXVW LGHQWLI\ VWUDWHJLHV WKDW
encourage building more market-rate and
EHORZPDUNHWKRXVLQJ
$V QRWHG DERYH /RV $QJHOHV LV XQOLNHO\
WR UHVROYH LWV KRXVLQJ VKRUWDJH RQO\ E\
HQODUJLQJ GHQVLW\ ERQXVHV DQG IXUWKHU
concentrating development in already-
GHQVH QHLJKERUKRRGV ,W PXVW DOVR
H[SDQGWKHDUHDVZKHUHORZDQGPLGULVH
PXOWLIDPLO\ GHYHORSPHQW LV DOORZHG
&XUUHQWO\ RQO\ SHUFHQW RI ODQG ]RQHG
IRU UHVLGHQWLDO XVHV LQ WKH &LW\ RI /RV
$QJHOHV DQG SHUFHQW LQ WKH UHJLRQ
DOORZV PXOWLIDPLO\ KRXVLQJ
2SHQLQJ
XS PRUH QHLJKERUKRRGV WR PXOWLIDPLO\
KRXVLQJ ZRXOG ORZHU SHUXQLW ODQG
DQG FRQVWUXFWLRQ FRVWV DQG H[SDQG WKH
QXPEHU RI SDUFHOV ZKHUH UHGHYHORSPHQW
LVIHDVLEOHLQFUHDVLQJKRXVLQJSURGXFWLRQ
DQGGLYHUVLW\DQGOLPLWLQJUHQWJURZWK

,Q LVRODWLRQ EURDG ODQG XVH UHIRUPV DUH
unlikely to directly produce large amounts
RI KRXVLQJ D̆RUGDEOH WR ORZ YHU\ ORZ
DQG H[WUHPHO\ ORZLQFRPH KRXVHKROGV
However, expanding low-cost multifamily
development opportunities can reduce
FRVWV IRU VXEVLGL]HG D̆RUGDEOH KRXVLQJ
GHYHORSHUV DQG UHQW DVVLVWDQFH YRXFKHU
SURYLGHUV WKHUHE\ LQFUHDVLQJ EHORZ
PDUNHWKRXVLQJSURGXFWLRQLQGLUHFWO\
,=
VHHNVWRDGGUHVVWKHQHHGIRUEHORZPDUNHW
units more directly, but it may indirectly
XQGHUPLQH %05 SURGXFWLRQ IURP RWKHU
VRXUFHV²VXFKDVWKH/RZ,QFRPH+RXVLQJ
7D[ &UHGLW DQG +RXVLQJ &KRLFH 9RXFKHU
SURJUDP²E\DFFHOHUDWLQJUHQWJURZWK
'L̆HUHQW WRROV KDYH GL̆HUHQW VWUHQJWKV
and land use policy may be best suited
WR LPSURYLQJ D̆RUGDELOLW\ LQ WKH ZLGHU
KRXVLQJPDUNHWZKLOHSXEOLFVXEVLGLHVDUH
EHVW IRU SURGXFLQJ EHORZPDUNHW KRPHV
,= VHHNV WR SURGXFH D̆RUGDEOH KRPHV E\
substituting land use policy in place of
EURDGO\VKDUHGWD[HVDQGSXEOLFVXEVLGLHV
7KLVDQDO\VLVVXJJHVWVWKDWWKHSXEOLFPD\
EH SD\LQJ HLWKHU ZD\ DQG WKDW WKH FRVWV
RI,=DUHERWKKLJKHUDQGPRUHUHJUHVVLYH
WKDQWKHDOWHUQDWLYH
F20
EN(N3TE7
:DQJ 5 %DODFKDQGUDQ 6

³,QFOXVLRQDU\ KRXVLQJLQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV

G\QDPLFV RI ORFDO SROLF\ DQG RXWFRPHV LQ GLYHUVH PDUNHWV´ +RXVLQJ 6WXGLHV

±KWWSV
GRLRUJ

%HQWR$HWDO

³+RXVLQJPDUNHWH̆HFWVRILQFOXV LRQDU\]RQLQJ´&LW\VFDSH ± KWWSV
ZZZMVWRURUJVWDEOH +DPLOWRQ (

³,QFOXVLRQDU\
]RQLQJDQGKRXVLQJPDUNHWRXWFRPHV´&LW\VFDSH

±
KWWSV
ZZZMVWRURUJ
VWDEOH

6FKXHW]-HWDO

³6LOYHUEXOOHWRU 7URMDQKRUVH"7KHH̆HFWVRI
LQFOXVLRQDU\]RQLQJRQORFDOKRXVLQJPDUNHWVLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV´8UEDQ6WXGLHV

±
KWWSV
ZZZMVWRURUJVWDEOH
)RU H[DPSOH +DPLOWRQ

¿QGV WKDW IRU HDFK \HDU D PDQG DWRU\ ,= SROLF\ LV LQ SODFH WKHUH LV D WR SHUFHQW LQFUHDVH LQ WKH SULFHSHU VTXDUH IRRW RI KRXVLQJ 6FKXHW]HWDO

VLPLODUO\¿QGWKDWLQVWURQJKRXVLQJPDUNHWVDSHUFHQWLQFUHDVHLQ DQ,=SROLF\¶VDJHLVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKDSHUFHQWLQFUHDVH LQSULFHV5HVHDUFKHUVKDYH IRXQGWKDW,=OHDGVWRUHGXFHGKRXVLQJSURGXFWLRQLQVRPHMXULVGLFWLRQV VHH
0HDQV7
6WULQJKDP(

6FKXHW]-HWDO

EXWQRWLQRWKHUV
%HQWR$HWDO

+DPLOWRQ
0XNKLMD9HWDO

³&DQ,QFOXVLRQDU\=R QLQJ%HDQ(̆HFWLYHDQG
(̇FLHQW+RXVLQJ3ROLF\"(YLGHQFHIURP/RV$QJHOHVDQG2UDQJH&R XQWLHV´-RXUQDORI 8UEDQ$̆DLUV

±KWWSV
GRLRUJM

[
=KX/HWDO

³/RV$QJHOHV¶+RXVLQJ&ULVLVDQG/RF DO3ODQQLQJ5HVSRQVHV $Q
(YDOXDWLRQRI,QFOXVLRQDU\=RQLQJDQGWKH7UDQVLW2ULHQWHG&RPP XQLWLHV3ODQDV3ROLF\ 6ROXWLRQV LQ /RV $QJHOHV´ &LW\VFDSH

5HWULHYH G IURP
KWWSV
ZZZ
KXGXVHUJRYSRUWDOSHULRGLFDOVFLW\VFSHYROQXPFKSGI (OOLFNVRQ5&

³7KHLURQ\RILQFOXVLRQDU\]RQLQJ ´6RXWKHUQ&DOLIRUQLD/DZ 5HYLHZ
0HDQV7 6WULQJKDP(3

³8QLQWHQGHGRU,QWHQG HG&RQVHTXHQFHV"7KH
(̆HFWRI%HORZ±PDUNHW+RXVLQJ0DQGDWHVRQ+RXVLQJ0DUNHWVLQ&D OLIRUQLD´-RXUQDO RI 3XEOLF )LQDQFH DQG 3XEOLF &KRLFH
±

± 6FKXHW] - HW DO

³6LOYHU
EXOOHWRU7URMDQKRUVH"7KHH̆HFWVRILQFOXVLRQDU\]RQLQJRQORFDOKRXVLQJPDUNHWVLQWKH 8QLWHG6WDWHV´8UEDQ6WXGLHV

±

%HQWR $ HW DO

³+RXVLQJ PDUNHW H̆HFWV RI LQFOXVL RQDU\ ]RQLQJ´ &LW\VFDSH

± +DPLOWRQ (

³,QFOXVLRQDU\ ]RQLQJ DQG KRXVLQJ PDUNHW
RXWFRPHV´&LW\VFDSH

±
0XNKLMD9HWDO

³&DQLQFOXVLRQDU\]RQLQJ
EH DQ H̆HFWLYH DQG ḢFLHQW KRXVLQJ SROLF\" (YLGHQFH IURP /RV $QJHOHV DQG 2UDQJH &RXQWLHV´-RXUQDORI8UEDQ$̆DLUV

±
+DPLOWRQ(

³,QFOXVLRQDU\]RQLQJDQGKRXVLQJPDUNHWRXWFRPHV´&LW\VFDSH

±

6FKXHW]-HWDO

³6LOYHUEXOOHWRU7URMDQKRUVH" 7KHH̆HFWVRILQFOXVLRQDU\ ]RQLQJRQORFDOKRXVLQJPDUNHWVLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV´8UEDQ6WXGLHV

±

$GGLWLRQDOEDFNJURXQGRQWKH7HUQHU&HQWHU+RXVLQJ3ROLF\ 6LPXODWRULQFOXGLQJ PHWKRGRORJ\
KWWSV
WHUQHUFHQWHUEHUNHOH\HGXEORJSROLF\GDVKERDUGORVDQJHOHV F21
=KX/HWDO

³/RV$QJHOHV¶+RXVLQJ&ULVLVDQG/RFD O3ODQQLQJ5HVSRQVHV

$Q (YDOXDWLRQ RI ,QFOXVLRQDU\ =RQLQJ DQG WKH 7UDQVLW 2ULHQWHG &RPPXQLWLHV 3ODQ DV 3ROLF\ 6ROXWLRQV LQ /RV $QJHOHV´ &LW\VFDSH

5HWULHYHG IURP
KWWSV

ZZZKXGXVHUJRYSRUWDOSHULRGLFDOVFLW\VFSHYROQXPFKSGI 7KLV PD\ VHHP FRXQWHULQWXLWLYH EHFDXVH (/, KRXVLQJ UHTXLUHV ODUJHU VXEVLGLHV WKDQ ORZ DQG YHU\ ORZLQFRPH KRXVLQJ +RZHYHU GHYHORSHUV ZKR SURYLGH ORZ RU YHU\ ORZLQFRPH XQLWV PXVW DOVR VHW DVLGH D ODUJHU VKDUH RI XQLWV IRU EHORZPDUNHW KRXVHKROGV PRUH WKDQ R̆VHWWLQJ WKH ORZHU SHUXQLW VXEVLG\ UHTXLUHG RI WKHVH XQLWV )RU H[DPSOH D XQLW SURMHFW
DIWHUERQXVHV
PXVWSURYLGHH[WUHPHO\ORZLQFRPHXQ LWVYHU\ORZLQFRPH XQLWVRUORZLQFRPHXQLWVWRUHFHLYHWKHPRVWJHQHURXV7LHUERQXVHV,IDQHZPDUNHW UDWHWZREHGURRPDSDUWPHQWUHQWVIRUDSSUR[LPDWHO\SHUPRQWKDQGVLPLODU(/, XQLWV UHQW IRU SURYLGLQJ (/, XQLWV UHTXLUHV D PRQWKO\VXEVLG\ RI D
GLVFRXQWPXOWLSOLHGE\XQLWV
9HU\ORZLQFRPHXQLWV UHQWIRUURXJKO\
DQG PXOWLSO\LQJ WKLV GLVFRXQW E\ XQLWV UHVXOWV LQ D WRWDO PRQWKO\ VXEVLG\ RI 7KHLPSOLFLWVXEVLG\IRUORZLQFRPHXQLWVLVHYHQODUJHU ,QSUDFWLFH(/,UHQWVDUHSHJJHGWRLQFUHDVHVLQDUHDPHGLD QLQFRPH,Q/RV$QJHOHV &RXQW\PHGLDQLQFRPHVJUHZE\
SHUFHQWSHU\HDUIURP WRSHUFHQW
DQQXDOO\ IURP WR DQG SHUFHQW DQQXDOO\ IURP WR +RZHYHU WR VLPSOLI\ WKH DQDO\VLV , XVH WKH VDPH UHQWDO DGMXVWPHQW DV IRU PDUNHW UHQWDOV LQ WKH 6LPXODWRU
)RUH[DPSOHLQWKHEDVHOLQHSHUFHQW,=VFHQDULRLIPHGLD QUHQWLVLQ\HDU LW ZRXOG ULVH E\ SHUFHQW WR LQ \HDU LH

,Q WKH SHUFHQW
VFHQDULRLIWKHDQQXDOLQFUHPHQWDOUHQWLQFUHDVHLVSHUFHQ WPHGLDQUHQWZRXOGULVH E\SHUFHQWWRLQ\HDUWZR
LH

7KLV LQLWLDO VWDUN GHFOLQH LV OLNHO\ H[SODLQHG E\ ,= SROLFLH V URXQGLQJ XS ZKHQ FDOFXODWLQJWKHUHTXLUHGQXPEHURI%05XQLWV)RUH[DPSOHXQGH UDSHUFHQW,=SROLF\ DXQLWEXLOGLQJZRXOGEHUHTXLUHGWRSURYLGH%05XQLWRU SHUFHQW²LWURXQGVXS WRXQLWUDWKHUWKDQGRZQWR]HUR$XQLWGHYHORSPHQWZRXOG VHWDVLGHSHUFHQWRI GZHOOLQJV
LHXQLW
DWDEHORZPDUNHWSULFH,QFOXVLRQDU\]RQLQJSROLFLHVWKHUHIRUHWHQG WRLPSDFWVPDOOHUSURMHFWVPRUHKHDYLO\WKDQODUJHUSURMHFWV 7KH RQH H[FHSWLRQ LV WKH VKLIW IURP WR SHUFHQW ,= ZKHUH ERWK PDUNHWUDWH DQG(/,XQLWSURGXFWLRQLQFUHDVHVOLJKWO\7KLVLVOLNHO\DQDU WLIDFWRIWKHPRGHODQGLW GHPRQVWUDWHVZK\PRGHORXWSXWVVKRXOGQRWEHLQWHUSUHWHGDVSUHFLVHHVWLPDWHV /RV$QJHOHV%XVLQHVV&RXQFLO,QVWLWXWH

³+RXVLQJ3D\ V5HSRUW
&DSWXULQJ
WKHHFRQRPLFDQG¿VFDOEHQH¿WVRILQFUHDVHGKRXVLQJSURGXFWLRQLQ/$´5HWULHYHGIURP KWWSV
GULYHJRRJOHFRP¿OHGD78ZGN'N41/94BSF$
IJ1<=V1]WWYLHZ
+RPHYDOXHVZLOODOVRLQFUHDVHPRUHUDSLGO\XQGHUUHGXFHGSU RGXFWLRQVFHQDULRV WKRXJK JDLQV WR FXUUHQW KRPHRZQHUV IURP ULVLQJ KRPH YDOXHV DUHR̆VHW E\ ORVVHV WR IXWXUH KRPHEX\HUV DQG HVWLPDWLQJ WKH EDODQFH RI RWKHU FRVWV DQG EHQH¿WV LV GL̇FXOW 2QWKHRQHKDQGUDSLGO\LQFUHDVLQJKRPHYDOXHVLQFUHDVHJRYHUQ PHQWWD[UHYHQXHV2Q WKHRWKHUULVLQJSULFHVXQGHUPLQHUDFLDODQGHFRQRPLFHTXLW\D QGOLNHO\LQFUHDVHSXEOLF VHUYLFHGHPDQGVWRDGGUHVVKRPHOHVVQHVVDQGRWKHUFRQVHTXHQFHVRIKLJKKRXVLQJSULFHV F22
&RVWVDQGEHQH¿WVRIULVLQJKRPHYDOXHVDUHQRWHVWLPDWHGLQWK LVEULHIEXWWKHFRVWVDUH disproportionately borne by renters, younger people, people of color, and lower-income DQGQRQZHDOWK\KRXVHKROGV
$VTXLWK % - HW DO

³/RFDO H̆HFWV RI ODUJH QHZ DS DUWPHQW EXLOGLQJV LQ ORZLQFRPHDUHDV´7KH5HYLHZRI(FRQRPLFVDQG6WDWLVWLFV

±%HHQ9HW
DO

³6XSSO\VNHSWLFLVP
+RXVLQJVXSSO\DQGD̆RUGDELOLW\´+RXVLQJ3ROLF\'HEDWH

±6DNV5(

³-REFUHDWLRQDQGKRXVLQJFRQVWUXFWLRQ
&RQVWUDLQWVRQ
PHWURSROLWDQDUHDHPSOR\PHQWJURZWK´-RXUQDORI8UEDQ(FRQRPLFV
±

%UDWX & HW DO

³-8( ,QVLJKW
&LW\ZLGH H̆HFWV RI QHZ KRXVLQJ VXSSO\

(YLGHQFH IURP PRYLQJ FKDLQV´ -RXUQDO RI 8UEDQ (FRQRPLFV 0DVW (

³-8( ,QVLJKW
7KH H̆HFW RI QHZ PDUNHWUDWH KRXVLQJ FRQVWUXFWLRQ RQ WKH ORZLQFRPH KRXVLQJPDUNHW´-RXUQDORI8UEDQ(FRQRPLFV &RULQWK . ,UYLQH $

³-8( ,QVLJKW
7KH (̆HFW RI 5HOD[LQJ /RFDO
+RXVLQJ0DUNHW5HJXODWLRQVRQ)HGHUDO5HQWDO$VVLVWDQFH3URJUDP V´-RXUQDORI8UEDQ (FRQRPLFV
&ROEXUQ * $OGHUQ & 3

+RPHOHVVQHVV LV D KRXVL QJ SUREOHP
+RZ
VWUXFWXUDOIDFWRUVH[SODLQ86SDWWHUQV8QLYHUVLW\RI&DOLIRUQLD3UHVV )URP +$&/$¶V³$ERXW 6HFWLRQ 'HSDUWPHQW´ ZHESDJH KWWSV
Z ZZKDFODRUJ
HQDERXWVHFWLRQ
&LW\ RI /RV $QJHOHV 'HSDUWPHQW RI %XLOGLQJ DQG 6DIHW\ UHSRUW

³5HSRUW
5HODWLYH7R([SDQGLQJ)LUH'LVWULFW&DOLIRUQLD'HSDUWPHQW2I)RUHVWU\9HU\+LJK)LUH +D]DUG6HYHULW\ =RQH&LW\ +LJK :LQG9HORFLW\ =RQH´&) KWWSV
FONUHS
ODFLW\RUJRQOLQHGRFV

BUSWBGEVBSGI
0DQYLOOH0

³9DOXH&DSWXUH5HFRQVLGHUHG
:KDWLI/$ZDV$FWXDOO\%XLOGLQJ
7RR /LWWOH"´ 8&/$ /HZLV &HQWHU IRU 5HJLRQDO 3ROLF\ 6WXGLHV 5HWULHYHG IURP KWWSV

ZZZOHZLVXFODHGXUHVHDUFKYDOXHFDSWXUHUHFRQVLGHUHG &LW\RI/RV$QJHOHV'HSDUWPHQWRI&LW\3ODQQLQJ

³+R ZZLOOWKH&LW\ZLGH
+RXVLQJ ,QFHQWLYH 3URJUDP LPSDFW 6LQJOH)DPLO\ =RQHV"´ 5HWULHYH G IURP KWWSV

SODQQLQJODFLW\JRYSODQVSROLFLHVFRPPXQLW\SODQXSGDWHKRXVLQ JHOHPHQWUH]RQLQJ SURJUDPQHZVKRZZLOOFLW\ZLGH 0HQHQGLDQ 6 HW DO
³6LQJOH)DPLO\ =RQLQJ
LQ*UHDWHU/RV$QJHOHV´2WKHULQJ %HORQJLQJ,QVWLWXWH8&%HU NHOH\5HWULHYHGIURP

KWWSV
EHORQJLQJEHUNHOH\HGXVLQJOHIDPLO\]RQLQJJUHDWHUORVDQJHOHV 3KLOOLSV6

³/$¶V&29,'
5HVSRQVH6KRXOG3ULRULWL ]H/RQJ7HUP5HQW
6WDELOL]HG 7HQDQWV IRU +RXVLQJ $VVLVWDQFH´ 8&/$ /HZLV &HQWHU I RU 5HJLRQDO 3ROLF\ 6WXGLHV5HWULHYHGIURP
KWWSV
ZZZOHZLVXFODHGXUHVHDUFKFR YLGUHVSRQVHKRXVLQJ
DVVLVWDQFH
&RULQWK. ,UYLQH$

³-8(,QVLJKW
7KH(̆HFWRI 5HOD[LQJ/RFDO+RXVLQJ
0DUNHW 5HJXODWLRQV RQ )HGHUDO 5HQWDO $VVLVWDQFH 3URJUDPV´ -RXUQDO RI 8UEDQ (FRQRPLFV YROKWWSV
GRLRUJMMXH
F23
AC/N3;0E(+MENT7
7KH DXWKRU WKDQNV &DUROLQD 5HLG %HQ 0HWFDOI 'DYLG *DUFLD DQG 6DUDK .DUOLQVN\ IRU WKHLUIHHGEDFNRQWKHDQDO\VLVDQGUHSRUWDQG$OH[&DVH\IRUK LVJXLGDQFHRQWKHXVHRI WKH7HUQHU+RXVLQJ3ROLF\6LPXODWRU0DQ\WKDQNVWR,DQ&DUOWRQ )OHWFKHU)RWLDQGWKH HQWLUH0DS&UDIW/DEVWHDPIRUSRZHULQJWKH7HUQHU+RXVLQJ3ROLF\6LPXODWRU :HDUHJUDWHIXOWRWKH&RQUDG1+LOWRQ)RXQGDWLRQIRUVXSSRUWLQJWKLVDQGRWKHUUHVHDUFK EULHIVIRFXVHGRQKRXVLQJVXSSO\
7KLVUHVHDUFKVROHO\UHÀHFWVWKHYLHZVRIWKHDXWKRUDQGGRHVQ RWUHSUHVHQWWKHLQVWLWX - WLRQDO YLHZV RI WKH 7HUQHU &HQWHU /HZLV &HQWHU 8& %HUNHOH\ 8&/$ RU RI WKH 7HUQHU &HQWHURU/HZLV&HQWHU¶VIXQGHUV)XQGHUVGRQRWGHWHUPLQHUHVH DUFK¿QGLQJVRUUHFRP- PHQGDWLRQVLQ7HUQHU&HQWHU¶VUHVHDUFKDQGSROLF\UHSRUWV

ABOUT THE TERNER CENTER
7KH7HUQHU&HQWHUIRUPXODWHVEROGVWUDWHJLHVWRKRXVHIDPLOLHV IURPDOOZDONVRIOLIHLQ YLEUDQWVXVWDLQDEOHDQGD̆RUGDEOHKRPHVDQGFRPPXQLWLHV2XU IRFXVLVRQJHQHUDWLQJ constructive, practical strategies for public policy makers and innovative tools for private VHFWRUSDUWQHUVWRDFKLHYHEHWWHUUHVXOWVIRUIDPLOLHVDQGFRPPXQLWLHV )RUPRUHLQIRUPDWLRQYLVLW

ZZZWHUQHUFHQWHUEHUNHOH\HGX
F24
F25
F26
F27
F28
F29
F30
F31
F32
Ɖƌŝůϭϱ͕ϮϬϮϱ
<ĞǀŝŶZŝůĞǇ͕ŚĂŝƌ
^ĞƚŚtĞďďĞƌ͕sŝĐĞͲŚĂŝƌ
:ĞŶŶŝĨĞƌWĞƌĞǌ͕ŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĞƌ
ZŽďĞƌƚDĂƌƚŝŶ͕ŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĞƌ
ŚƌŝƐƚŝĂŶ,ŝůůƐ͕ŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĞƌ
ŽƌƚŶĞǇ>͘:ŽŶĞƐ͕ŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĞƌ
ZĞ͗
,KŽŵŵĞŶƚƐŽŶ/ƚĞŵϲͲϭ͕/ŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶĂƌǇ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ ĞĂƌŶƚŝŽĐŚWůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĞƌƐ͕
KŶďĞŚĂůĨŽĨ
ĂƐƚĂǇ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐKƌŐĂŶŝǌĂƚŝŽŶƐ;
,KͿ͕ǁĞǁƌŝƚĞƚŽĞǆƉƌĞƐƐŽƵƌƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĨŽƌƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽĨĂ ƐƚƌŽŶŐ/ŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶĂƌǇ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞŝŶŶƚŝŽĐŚ͘

,KŝƐĂŶŽŶƉƌŽĨŝƚ͕ŵĞŵďĞƌƐŚŝƉͲďĂƐĞĚŽƌŐĂŶŝǌĂƚŝŽŶǁŽƌŬŝŶŐƚŽƉƌŽĚƵĐĞ͕ƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞ͕ĂŶĚƉƌŽƚĞĐƚĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚŝĞƐĨŽƌůŽǁͲŝŶĐŽŵĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚŝĞƐĂĐƌŽƐƐŽŶƚƌĂŽƐƚĂĂŶĚůĂŵĞĚĂŽƵŶƚŝĞƐ͘KƵƌϰϬϬн ŵĞŵďĞƌƐĐŽŵƉƌŝƐĞŶŽŶƉƌŽĨŝƚĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐ͕ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƌƐŽĨĨĞƌŝŶŐƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƚŽƚŚĞ ƵŶŚŽƵƐĞĚ͕ůĞŐĂůƐĞƌǀŝĐĞŽƌŐĂŶŝǌĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕ĂĚǀŽĐĂĐǇŽƌŐĂŶŝǌĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕ĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞĨŝƌŵƐ͕ĂŶĚŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂůŵĞŵďĞƌƐ͕ŵŽƐƚ ŽĨǁŚŽŵĂƌĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐŽĨĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͘tŚŝůĞŵĂŶǇŽĨŽƵƌŵĞŵďĞƌƐůŝǀĞ͕ǁŽƌŬ͕ŽƌƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞ ŚŽŵĞƐƌŝŐŚƚŚĞƌĞŝŶŶƚŝŽĐŚ͕ǁĞ͛ǀĞǁŽƌŬĞĚǁŝƚŚũƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶƐĂĐƌŽƐƐƚŚĞ ĂƐƚĂǇŚĞůƉŝŶŐƚŽŚĞůƉŐƵŝĚĞƚŚĞ
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ/ŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶĂƌǇ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞƐ͘ tĞĂƌĞŐƌĂƚĞĨƵůƚŽƚŚĞŝƚǇŽĨŶƚŝŽĐŚĨŽƌƚŚĞŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚǇƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĨĞĞĚďĂĐŬĂƐƚŚĞŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚ͕ŽŶ ǇŽƵƌƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŽĨĚĞǀĞůŽƉŝŶŐƚŚŝƐŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞƐŽĨĂƌ͕ĂŶĚŚŽƉĞƚŽďĞĂďůĞƚŽǁŽƌŬƚŽŐĞƚŚĞƌĂƐƉĂƌƚŶĞƌƐĂŶĚ ĐŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŽƌƐŝŶƉĂƐƐŝŶŐĂŶĚŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚŝŶŐĂŶĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞĂŶĚĞƋƵŝƚǇͲďĂƐĞĚŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ͘tĞĂƌĞĂůƐŽĂƉƉƌĞĐŝĂƚŝǀĞŽĨ ƚŚĞŝƚǇ͛ƐWůĂŶŶŝŶŐ^ƚĂĨĨĂŶĚƚŚĞƚĞĂŵĂƚWůĂĐĞtŽƌŬƐĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƌǁŽƌŬƐŽĨĂƌŽŶƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘/ƚŝƐĞǀŝĚĞŶƚƚŚĂƚĂ ƚƌĞŵĞŶĚŽƵƐĂŵŽƵŶƚŽĨƚŝŵĞĂŶĚĞĨĨŽƌƚŚĂǀĞĂůƌĞĂĚǇďĞĞŶƐƉĞŶƚƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƚŚĞŝƚǇǁŝƚŚĨŽƵŶĚĂƚŝŽŶĂůƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ ĂŶĚĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞĨƌŽŵǁŚŝĐŚƚŽŵĂŬĞĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶƐĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞďĞƐƚĨŽƌŵŽĨĂŶ/,KƚŽŝŶƚƌŽĚƵĐĞŝŶŽƵƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ͘tĞ ďĞůŝĞǀĞĂŶ/,KŝƐĂĐƌŝƚŝĐĂůƚŽŽůƚŽƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŶƚŝŽĐŚŝŶŵĞĞƚŝŶŐŝƚƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŶĞĞĚƐ͘ƐƚŚĞƌĞŐŝŽŶ͛ƐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ ĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďŝůŝƚǇĐƌŝƐŝƐĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƐ͕ĂƐƚŚĞŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇŵĞŵďĞƌƐĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐŝŶŐŚŽŵĞůĞƐƐŶĞƐƐƌĞŵĂŝŶ ƐƚĂŐŐĞƌŝŶŐ͕ĂŶĚĂƐŝŶĐƌĞĂƐŝŶŐŶƵŵďĞƌƐŽĨůŽǁͲŝŶĐŽŵĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐĨƌŽŵĂĐƌŽƐƐƚŚĞĂǇƌĞĂĨŝŶĚƚŚĞŵƐĞůǀĞƐ ŵŽǀŝŶŐƚŽ
ĂƐƚĞƌŶŽŶƚƌĂŽƐƚĂŽƵŶƚǇĐŝƚŝĞƐƐƵĐŚĂƐŶƚŝŽĐŚ͕ǁĞŶŽƚĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŵĂƌŬĞƚŽŶŝƚƐŽǁŶŚĂƐŶĞǀĞƌ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚƐƵĨĨŝĐŝĞŶƚĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĨŽƌůŽǁͲŝŶĐŽŵĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇŵĞŵďĞƌƐ͘/ŶƐƚĞĂĚ͕ƉŽůŝĐǇƚŽŽůƐĂŶĚŝŶĐĞŶƚŝǀĞƐ ƐƵĐŚĂƐ/,KƐŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇƚŽŽůƐĨŽƌĞŶƐƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĂƚŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝƐďƵŝůƚƚŽŵĞĞƚƚŚĞŶĞĞĚƐŽĨĂůůĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ ŵĞŵďĞƌƐ͕ŶŽƚũƵƐƚƚŚŽƐĞǁŚŽĐĂŶĂĨĨŽƌĚƚŽƉĂǇŵĂƌŬĞƚƌĞŶƚƐ͘ ĂƐĞĚŽŶŽƵƌĐŽůůĞĐƚŝǀĞĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞĂŶĚĞǆƉĞƌƚŝƐĞĂƐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐ͕ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƌƐ͕ĂŶĚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐŽĨ ĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐǁŚŽŚĂǀĞǁŽƌŬĞĚǁŝƚŚ/,KƐĂĐƌŽƐƐƚŚĞ ĂƐƚĂǇ͕ǁĞƌĞƐƉĞĐƚĨƵůůǇŽĨĨĞƌŝŶŐƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ
ĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐŽŶƐŽŵĞŽĨƚŚĞŬĞǇƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐďĞĨŽƌĞǇŽƵĂƚƚŚŝƐƚŝŵĞ͘ F33
/ŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶĂƌǇZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚĂŶĚĨĨŽƌĚĂďŝůŝƚǇ>ĞǀĞůƐ
tĞƐƚƌŽŶŐůǇƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƐƚĂĨĨ͛ƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƚŽƐĞƚĂŵŝŶŝŵƵŵŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶĂƌǇƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚŽĨϭϱйŝĨŶŽƚ ƐŽŵĞǁŚĂƚŚŝŐŚĞƌ͘tĞƵƌŐĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶĂƌǇƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐůĞǀĞůƐŽĨĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďŝůŝƚǇĂŶĚ ƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝǌĞƚŚĞĚĞĞƉĞƐƚůĞǀĞůƐŽĨĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďŝůŝƚǇ;ŝ͘Ğ͘ƵŶŝƚƐĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞƚŽ ǆƚƌĞŵĞůǇͲ>ŽǁĂŶĚsĞƌǇͲ>Žǁ/ŶĐŽŵĞ
ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇŵĞŵďĞƌƐͿ͘
ϭϱйŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶĂƌǇƌĂƚĞŝƐĂƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚďĂƐĞůŝŶĞƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐĂƚĂůůƐŝǌĞƐǇŝĞůĚƐŽŵĞĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͘ :ƵƌŝƐĚŝĐƚŝŽŶƐƚŚĂƚƐĞƚƚŚĞŝƌŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶĂƌǇƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚůŽǁĞƌƚŚĂŶƚŚŝƐŽĨƚĞŶƐĞĞǀĞƌǇůŝƚƚůĞĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚĂƐĂƌĞƐƵůƚŽĨƚŚĞ/,KďĞĐĂƵƐĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŚĂǀĞƚŽŝŶĐůƵĚĞŵƵĐŚŐƌĞĂƚĞƌŶƵŵďĞƌƐŽĨƚŽƚĂůƵŶŝƚƐďĞĨŽƌĞ ďĞŝŶŐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽďƵŝůĚĞǀĞŶĂƐŝŶŐůĞĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽŵĞ͘^ŝŶĐĞƚŚĞŵĂũŽƌŝƚǇŽĨŵƵůƚŝĨĂŵŝůǇŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐ ŝŶŶƚŝŽĐŚŚĂǀĞĨĞǁĞƌƚŚĂŶϮϬƵŶŝƚƐ͕ϭĂϭϱйŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶĂƌǇƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚǁŽƵůĚƐĞĞŵŽƐƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞŽŶĞƚŽƚŚƌĞĞĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞƵŶŝƚƐ͘dŚŝƐƌĂƚĞŝƐŵŽĚĞƐƚ͕ĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞ͕ĂŶĚŝŵƉĂĐƚĨƵůͶďƵƚĂŶǇƌĂƚĞůŽǁĞƌƚŚĂŶ ƚŚŝƐǁŽƵůĚŵĞĂŶƚŚĂƚŽŶůǇĂǀĞƌǇƐŵĂůůƐĞŐŵĞŶƚŽĨŶƚŝŽĐŚ͛ƐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƐƚŽĐŬǁŽƵůĚďĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽďƵŝůĚĂŶǇ ĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĂƚĂůů͘
&ƵƌƚŚĞƌ͕ĂŵŝŶŝŵƵŵƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚŽĨϭϱйŝƐŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇƚŽŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞDĞƚƌŽƉŽůŝƚĂŶ dƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ͛Ɛ;DdͿdƌĂŶƐŝƚͲKƌŝĞŶƚĞĚŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇWŽůŝĐǇ͘ŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞdKƉŽůŝĐǇ ĞŶƐƵƌĞƐƚŚĂƚŶƚŝŽĐŚĐĂŶďĞƚƚĞƌĂĐĐĞƐƐĐƌŝƚŝĐĂůƐŽƵƌĐĞƐŽĨĨƵŶĚŝŶŐĨŽƌĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĚŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͕ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐDdĚŝƐĐƌĞƚŝŽŶĂƌǇĨƵŶĚƐ͘ĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůůǇ͕ĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞŚĞůƉƐƚŚĞŝƚǇďĞŽƉĞŶĨŽƌĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌĨƵƚƵƌĞ KŶĞĂǇƌĞĂ'ƌĂŶƚ;K'ͿĨƵŶĚŝŶŐŝŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚƐ͕ŐŝǀĞŶƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŝƚǇŚĂƐƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚŶĞĂƌůǇΨϱŵŝůůŝŽŶŝŶƚŚĞƉĂƐƚ ĂŶĚƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚΨϴϱϬ͕ϬϬϬĨŽƌK'ZŽƵŶĚϰƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ͘tŝƚŚƚŚĞĞĨĨŽƌƚĂŶĚƚŝŵĞƐƉĞŶƚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŝŶŐĂŶ/,K͕ŝƚŝƐ ŵŽƐƚƐĞŶƐŝďůĞĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƚǇƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĞ/,KĂůƐŽŚĞůƉƐƵƐƌĞĂĐŚĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚDd͛ƐdKWŽůŝĐǇ͘/ƚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚ ŵĂŬĞƐĞŶƐĞĨŽƌŶƚŝŽĐŚƚŽŐŽƚŽƚŚĞĞĨĨŽƌƚŽĨĚĞǀĞůŽƉŝŶŐĂŶĚŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚŝŶŐĂŶ/,KǁŝƚŚŽƵƚƌĞĂƉŝŶŐƚŚĞĨŝŶĂŶĐŝĂů ĂŶĚƉŽůŝĐǇďĞŶĞĨŝƚƐŽĨĂĐŚŝĞǀŝŶŐĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚDd͛ƐdKƉŽůŝĐǇ͘ ŶŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶĂƌǇƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚŽĨĂƚůĞĂƐƚϭϱйŝƐĂŶŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚƉůĂĐĞƚŽƐƚĂƌƚ͕ǇĞƚĞƋƵĂůůǇŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚŝƐĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶŝŶŐ ǁŚĂƚůĞǀĞůŽĨĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďŝůŝƚǇĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞƵŶŝƚƐǁŝůůďĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽŵĞĞƚ͘ ,KĞŵƉŚĂƐŝǌĞƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŵŽƐƚŝŵƉĂĐƚĨƵů
/,KŐŽĞƐďĞǇŽŶĚƚŚĞŵŝŶŝŵƵŵƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƚŚĂƚĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞƵŶŝƚƐďĞĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞƚŽƚŚŽƐĞŵĂŬŝŶŐůĞƐƐƚŚĂŶϭϮϬй ŽĨƌĞĂDĞĚŝĂŶ/ŶĐŽŵĞ;ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚŵŽĚĞƌĂƚĞͲŝŶĐŽŵĞͿ͘ŶƚŝŽĐŚ͛Ɛ/,KƐŚŽƵůĚƐƚĂƚĞĞǆƉůŝĐŝƚůǇƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŵĂũŽƌŝƚǇ ŽĨƚŚĞŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶĂƌǇƵŶŝƚƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞƚŽ>ŽǁͲ/ŶĐŽŵĞ;ůĞƐƐƚŚĂŶϴϬйŽĨD/ͿĂŶĚsĞƌǇͲ>Žǁ/ŶĐŽŵĞ ;ůĞƐƐƚŚĂŶϱϬйŽĨD/ͿĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇŵĞŵďĞƌƐ͘ĂƐĞĚŽŶĂŚŝŐŚƌĞĂDĞĚŝĂŶ/ŶĐŽŵĞŝŶŽŶƚƌĂŽƐƚĂŽƵŶƚǇ͕ ƌĞŶƚƐĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞƚŽ͞DŽĚĞƌĂƚĞ/ŶĐŽŵĞ͟ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐĂƌĞƐƚŝůůŽĨƚĞŶŚŝŐŚĞƌƚŚĂŶĐƵƌƌĞŶƚŵĂƌŬĞƚƌĂƚĞƌĞŶƚƐ͘ dŚĞƌĞĨŽƌĞ͕ƵŶĚĞƌĐƵƌƌĞŶƚĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐ͕ŽŶůǇĂŶ/,KƚŚĂƚƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂůůǇƌĞƋƵŝƌĞƐƚŚĞƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƵŶŝƚƐĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞƚŽ >ŽǁĂŶĚsĞƌǇ>ŽǁͲ/ŶĐŽŵĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐǁŝůůǇŝĞůĚďĞůŽǁŵĂƌŬĞƚƌĂƚĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐ͘DŽƌĞŽǀĞƌ͕ƚŚĞƐƚĂĨĨƌĞƉŽƌƚĂŶĚ ĨĞĂƐŝďŝůŝƚǇƐƚƵĚǇĂůƐŽĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞ/,KŽĨƚĞŶǇŝĞůĚƐƚŚĞďĞƐƚƌĞƚƵƌŶƐĨŽƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐǁŚĞŶs>/ƵŶŝƚƐĂƌĞ ƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝǌĞĚďĞĐĂƵƐĞƚŚĞǇǇŝĞůĚƚŚĞŚŝŐŚĞƐƚĚĞŶƐŝƚǇďŽŶƵƐĞƐ͘&ŝŶĂůůǇ͕ǁĞŶŽƚĞƚŚĂƚ͕ŝŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶƚŽĂŵŝŶŝŵƵŵ ŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶĂƌǇƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚŽĨϭϱй͕ƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝǌŝŶŐĚĞĞƉĞƌůĞǀĞůƐŽĨĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďŝůŝƚǇŝƐĂŶŽƚŚĞƌƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞDd dKƉŽůŝĐǇĂŶĚŝƐĂĐƌŝƚŝĐĂůĐŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚŽĨĂŶĞƋƵŝƚǇͲĐĞŶƚĞƌĞĚ/,K͘ ůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞ͗WƌŝŽƌŝƚŝǌŝŶŐ/ŶͲ>ŝĞƵ&ĞĞƐ
tĞƐƚƌŽŶŐůǇĞŵƉŚĂƐŝǌĞƚŚĞǀĂůƵĞĂŶĚŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶĐĞŽĨ/ŶͲ>ŝĞƵ&ĞĞƐĂƐĂŶĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞŽƉƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƚŚĞ /,K͘ƐƚŚĞƐƚĂĨĨƌĞƉŽƌƚĂĐŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞƐ͕ďŽƚŚDĂƌŬĞƚZĂƚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐĂŶĚĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐ ͳŽŶƚƌĂŽƐƚĂŽƵŶƚǇŽŶƐŽƌƚŝƵŵ͘ϮϬϮϬͲϮϬϮϱŽŶƐŽůŝĚĂƚĞĚWůĂŶ͕ϰϱϵ͘ ŚƚƚƉƐ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ĐŽŶƚƌĂĐŽƐƚĂ͘ĐĂ͘ŐŽǀͬŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĞŶƚĞƌͬsŝĞǁͬϲϳϭϯϮͬϮϬϮϬͲͲ ͲϮϬϮϱͲŽŶƐŽůŝĚĂƚĞĚͲWůĂŶͲͺͲ&ŝŶĂů F34
ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚƚŚĂƚĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůůĂǇĞƌƐŽĨĞǆƉĞƌƚŝƐĞĂƌĞŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇƚŽĚĞǀĞůŽƉ͕ŵĂŶĂŐĞ͕ĂŶĚŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐ͘tŚŝůĞ/,KƐĂƌĞŚŝŐŚůǇŝŵƉĂĐƚĨƵůƚŽŽůƐĨŽƌĞŶƐƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĂƚŵŽƌĞĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝƐďƵŝůƚĂŶĚƚŚĂƚŝƚ ŝƐƐƉƌĞĂĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ͛ƐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƐƚŽĐŬ͕ǁĞŚĂǀĞŽĨƚĞŶƐĞĞŶŝŶƐƚĂŶĐĞƐŝŶǁŚŝĐŚƚŚĞĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞƵŶŝƚƐ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚďǇŵĂƌŬĞƚƌĂƚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐƚŽŵĞĞƚŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶĂƌǇƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞŶŽƚŽĨĨĞƌĞĚĂƚĚĞĞƉůĞǀĞůƐŽĨ ĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďŝůŝƚǇĂŶĚͬŽƌĂƌĞŶŽƚĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞůǇĐŽŶŶĞĐƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞŽƚŚĞƌƐŽĐŝĂůƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƐǇƐƚĞŵƐĂŶĚƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ ŽĨĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŽĨƚĞŶƌĞƋƵŝƌĞ͘
tŚĞŶĂŵĂƌŬĞƚƌĂƚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƌĞĐŽŐŶŝǌĞƐƚŚĂƚŝƚŵĂǇŶŽƚďĞĨĞĂƐŝďůĞƚŽďƵŝůĚĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞƵŶŝƚƐŽŶͲƐŝƚĞĂŶĚŽƉƚƐƚŽ ƉĂǇƚŚĞŝŶͲůŝĞƵĨĞĞ͕ƌĞǀĞŶƵĞŝƐĚĞƉŽƐŝƚĞĚŝŶƚŽĂŝƚǇ͛Ɛ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐdƌƵƐƚ&ƵŶĚ;,d&Ϳ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƐĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐƚŽďƵŝůĚƵŶŝƚƐĂƚĚĞĞƉĞƌůĞǀĞůƐŽĨĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďŝůŝƚǇ͘dŚĞƐĞĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐĂƌĞĂůƐŽ ŝŶďĞƚƚĞƌƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶƐƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝǀĞƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕ƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ͕ĂŶĚƐƉĞĐŝĂůŝǌĞĚŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ͘Ŷ,d&ǁŽƵůĚďĞĂ ŵĂũŽƌďĞŶĞĨŝƚƚŽƚŚĞŝƚǇŽĨŶƚŝŽĐŚĂŶĚǁŽƵůĚĚƌĂǁŵŽƌĞĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐƚŽƚŚĞĂƌĞĂƐŝŶĐĞůŽĐĂů ĨƵŶĚƐĂƌĞŽĨƚĞŶƉƌĞƌĞƋƵŝƐŝƚĞƐĨŽƌŵĂŶǇƐƚĂƚĞĂŶĚĨĞĚĞƌĂůĨƵŶĚŝŶŐƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ͕ĂŶĚĞǀĞƌǇĚŽůůĂƌŽĨůŽĐĂůƐƵďƐŝĚǇĐĂŶ ŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞŵŽƌĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůŝŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚĨƌŽŵƐƚĂƚĞ͕ĨĞĚĞƌĂůĂŶĚƉƌŝǀĂƚĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐƚŚĂƚĐĂŶďƌŝĚŐĞĨŝŶĂŶĐŝŶŐŐĂƉƐ͘ ŝƚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚŽƵƚ/ŶͲ>ŝĞƵ&ĞĞƐ͕ĂŶ,d&͕ŽƌŽƚŚĞƌůŽĐĂůƐŽƵƌĐĞƐŽĨĨƵŶĚŝŶŐĨŽƌĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƐƚĂŶĚƚŽůŽƐĞŽƵƚŽŶ ŵŝůůŝŽŶƐŽĨĚŽůůĂƌƐŽĨŝŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚĨƌŽŵŽƵƚƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞĐŝƚǇ͘&ŽƌĂůůƚŚĞƐĞƌĞĂƐŽŶƐ͕ǁĞĚŽŶŽƚĨĞĞůƚŚĂƚƚŚĞ/,K ƐŚŽƵůĚŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌŝůǇƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝǌĞŽŶͲƐŝƚĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ͕ďƵƚƐŚŽƵůĚŽĨĨĞƌ/ŶͲ>ŝĞƵ&ĞĞƐĂƐĂŶĞƋƵĂůůǇŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚĂŶĚ ĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞŽĨĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞ͘
/ŶĐĞŶƚŝǀĞƐĨŽƌĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐ

,KƌĞĐŽŐŶŝǌĞƐƚŚĞďĂůĂŶĐŝŶŐĂĐƚŽĨƌĞƋƵŝƌŝŶŐŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚůĞǀĞůƐŽĨĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďŝůŝƚǇǁŝƚŚŽƵƚĚŝƐĐŽƵƌĂŐŝŶŐŽƌĚŝƐͲ ŝŶĐĞŶƚŝǀŝǌŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚŝŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚŝŶŽƵƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ͘tĞŶŽƚĞƚŚĂƚĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐƐƚĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚǇďŽŶƵƐůĂǁ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐŚƵŐĞŝŶĐĞŶƚŝǀĞĨŽƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐƚŽŝŶǀĞƐƚŝŶĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚŝĞƐǁŝƚŚĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ/,KƐ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĨĞĂƐŝďŝůŝƚǇƐƚƵĚǇ ŝůůƵƐƚƌĂƚĞƐĐůĞĂƌůǇĞǆĂĐƚůǇŚŽǁŵƵĐŚƐŽŵĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐƐƚĂŶĚƚŽŐĂŝŶĨƌŽŵĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ/,K͘ tĞĞŶĐŽƵƌĂŐĞŶƚŝŽĐŚƚŽĐĂƌĞĨƵůůǇĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƚŚĂƚĂŶǇŝŶĐĞŶƚŝǀĞŽƌďĞŶĞĨŝƚŐƌĂŶƚĞĚƚŽĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞ ĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂďůǇŵĂƚĐŚĞĚƚŽĂďĞŶĞĨŝƚƌĞƚƵƌŶĞĚƚŽƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇŝŶƚŚĞĨŽƌŵŽĨĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ͘/ŶŽƚŚĞƌ ǁŽƌĚƐ͕ǁĞƐŚŽƵůĚĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌŶŽƚŽŶůǇĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůďĞŶĞĨŝƚƐĂŶĚŝŶĐĞŶƚŝǀĞƐ͕ďƵƚŚŽǁƚŚŽƐĞŵŝŐŚƚďĞƚŝĞĚƚŽ ŐƌĂĚƵĂƚĞĚŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶĂƌǇƌĂƚĞƐŽƌĚĞĞƉĞƌĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďŝůŝƚǇƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͘ ^ŽŵĞƉŽƐƐŝďůĞďĞŶĞĨŝƚƐƚŚĞŝƚǇĐĂŶĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌŽĨĨĞƌŝŶŐƚŽĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞ/,KŝŶĐůƵĚĞƌĞĚƵĐĞĚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĨŽƌĐĞƌƚĂŝŶĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐ͕ƐƚƌĞĂŵůŝŶĞĚŽƌŵŝŶŝƐƚĞƌŝĂůĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůĨŽƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŵĞĞƚŝŶŐĐĞƌƚĂŝŶ ĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďŝůŝƚǇƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͕ŽƌĞǀĞŶƚŚĞǁĂŝǀŝŶŐŽĨƐŽŵĞĨĞĞƐŝŶĞǆĐŚĂŶŐĞĨŽƌŚĞŝŐŚƚĞŶĞĚůĞǀĞůƐŽĨĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďŝůŝƚǇ͘ ĨĨŽƌĚĂďŝůŝƚǇŝŶWĞƌƉĞƚƵŝƚǇ

,KƐƚƌŽŶŐůǇƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƐƐƚĂĨĨ͛ƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƚŝŽŶƚŚĂƚƚŚĞ/,KƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞƵŶŝƚƐƚŽƌĞŵĂŝŶĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŝŶ ƉĞƌƉĞƚƵŝƚǇ͘tĞƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƚŚĞŵĞĐŚĂŶŝƐŵƐƚŽŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶŝŶŐĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďŝůŝƚǇŝŶƚŚĞůŽŶŐƚĞƌŵ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐůĞŐĂůůǇƌĞĐŽƌĚĞĚ ĚĞĞĚƌĞƐƚƌŝĐƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌƌĞŶƚĂůĂŶĚĨŽƌͲƐĂůĞƵŶŝƚƐ͕ĂŶĚƌĞƐĂůĞƉƌŝĐĞĐŽŶƚƌŽůƐ͘dŚĞƐĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐĂǀĞƌƚǁĂǀĞƐŽĨ ƵŶĐĞƌƚĂŝŶƚǇĂŶĚŝŶƐƚĂďŝůŝƚǇĨŽƌƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐĂŶĚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚŝĞƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌŝƐĞĞǀĞƌǇǇĞĂƌŝŶƐĞƚƚŝŶŐƐǁŚĞƌĞĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďŝůŝƚǇ ŚĂƐŽŶůǇďĞĞŶŐƵĂƌĂŶƚĞĞĚĨŽƌĂůŝŵŝƚĞĚƚŝŵĞĂŶĚƚŚĞŶĞǆƉŝƌĞƐ͘ ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐEĞĞĚ
ƐǁĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƚŚŝƐ/,K͕ǁĞŵƵƐƚĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƚŚĞƐŚŝĨƚŝŶŐŶĞĞĚƐŽĨŽƵƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ͘dŚĞĂǇƌĞĂ͛ƐƌĞŐŝŽŶĂů ĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĐƌŝƐŝƐŚĂƐĚŝƐƉůĂĐĞĚŚƵŐĞŶƵŵďĞƌƐŽĨůŽǁĞƌͲŝŶĐŽŵĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƌĞŐŝŽŶ͛ƐŝŶŶĞƌͲĐŽƌĞƚŽ F35
ŶƚŝŽĐŚ͘ϮDĞĂŶǁŚŝůĞ͕ǁĞĂƌĞƐƚŝůůƌĞĐŽǀĞƌŝŶŐĨƌŽŵďĞĐŽŵŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞŐŝŽŶ͛Ɛ͞ƵŶŽĨĨŝĐŝĂůĨŽƌĞĐůŽƐƵƌĞĐĂƉŝƚĂů͟ĚƵƌŝŶŐ ƚŚĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŵĂƌŬĞƚĐƌĂƐŚŽĨƚŚĞůĂƚĞϮϬϬϬƐ͘ϯtŝƚŚŐƌŽǁŝŶŐŶƵŵďĞƌƐŽĨƌĞŶƚĞƌƐĂŶĚƉůĞŶƚŝĨƵůŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚŝĞƐĨŽƌ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͕ŶƚŝŽĐŚǁŝůůĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƚŽďĞĐŽŵĞĂŶŝŶĐƌĞĂƐŝŶŐůǇĂƚƚƌĂĐƚŝǀĞŝƚǇĨŽƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐ͘ƵƚǁĞ ĐĂŶŶŽƚƚƌƵƐƚƚŚĂƚƚŚŝƐŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚŝŶŽƵƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇǁŝůůŶŽƚďĞĐŽŵĞŽǀĞƌǁŚĞůŵŝŶŐůǇƉƌĞĚĂƚŽƌǇ͘/ŶĚĞĞĚ͕ŚŝƐƚŽƌǇŚĂƐ ƐŚŽǁŶƵƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŵĂƌŬĞƚ͕ŽŶŝƚƐŽǁŶ͕ĚŽĞƐŶŽƚĚĞǀĞůŽƉƚŚĞƚǇƉĞŽĨĚĞĞƉůǇĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐǁĞĂůůŶĞĞĚ͗ ĚƵƌŝŶŐŶƚŝŽĐŚ͛ƐůĂƐƚ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ůĞŵĞŶƚǇĐůĞ͕ƚŚƌĞĞďŽǀĞDŽĚĞƌĂƚĞͲ/ŶĐŽŵĞŚŽŵĞƐǁĞƌĞďƵŝůƚĨŽƌĞǀĞƌǇŽŶĞ ŚŽŵĞƐĞƌǀŝŶŐ>ŽǁŽƌsĞƌǇͲ>Žǁ/ŶĐŽŵĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇŵĞŵďĞƌƐ͘ EŽǁ͕ŶƚŝŽĐŚƐŝƚƐĂƚĂƉĞƌĨĞĐƚŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚǇƚŽŐĞƚŽƵƚĂŚĞĂĚŽĨƚŚĞĐƵƌǀĞĂŶĚĞŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĐŽŵŝŶŐƚŽ ŽƵƌĐŝƚǇŝƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽŵĞĞƚƚŚĞŶĞĞĚƐŽĨĂůůĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇŵĞŵďĞƌƐ͘/ŶƚŚŝƐǁĂǇ͕ǁĞƌĞĨƵƐĞƚŽůĞƚŽƵƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ ŵĂƌŬĞƚďĞĚŝĐƚĂƚĞĚďǇƚŚĞǁŚŝŵŽĨŝŶǀĞƐƚŵĞŶƚĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐ͕ŝŶƐƚĞĂĚ͕ǁŝƚŚĂƐƚƌŽŶŐĂŶĚĞƋƵŝƚǇͲĐĞŶƚĞƌĞĚ ŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞ͕ĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐ͕ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͕ĂĚǀŽĐĂƚĞƐ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞŝƚǇŵŽǀĞĨŽƌǁĂƌĚĂƐƉĂƌƚŶĞƌƐ͘tĞŚŽƉĞĂůƐŽƚŽƐĞƌǀĞĂƐ ƉĂƌƚŶĞƌƐŝŶƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŽĨƚŚŝƐŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞĂŶĚŽĨĨĞƌƚŚĞĞǆƉĞƌƚŝƐĞĂŶĚůŝǀĞĚĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞĂƐƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐƚŽƚŚĞ ŝƚǇĂƚĂŶǇƚŝŵĞŝŶƚŚŝƐƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ͘
^ŝŶĐĞƌĞůǇ͕
:ŽĞǇ&ůĞŐĞůͲDŝƐŚůŽǀĞ DĞŐĂŶEŐƵǇĞŶ
WŽůŝĐǇƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞ WŽůŝĐǇDĂŶĂŐĞƌ
ʹ
ĂƐƚŽƵŶƚǇZĞŐŝŽŶĂů'ƌŽƵƉĞƚĂů͘ŶƚŝŽĐŚŚĂŶŐĞ͗ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚŽĨEĞĞĚƐ͕'ĂƉƐ͕ĂŶĚ ƋƵŝƚǇŝŶ
ŶƚŝŽĐŚ͕ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ͕ϲ͘ŚƚƚƉƐ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ĨŝƌƐƚϱĐŽĐŽ͘ŽƌŐͬǁƉͲĐŽŶƚĞŶƚͬƵƉůŽĂĚƐͬϮϬϮϮͬϬϲͬŶƚŝŽĐŚͲ ,E' ͲZĞƉŽƌƚͲ/'/d>Ͳ&/E>Ͳ

ŶŐͲϲ͘ϭϳ͘ϮϮ͘ƉĚĨ
͵/ďŝĚ͘
F36

NATIONAL POLICE WEEK
MAY 11-17, 2025

WHEREAS, in 1962, President Kennedy proclaimed May 15th as National Peace Officers Memorial Day and the calendar week in which May 15th falls as National Police Week, to honor law enforcement officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty while protecting others;

WHEREAS, law enforcement is an inherently dangerous and demanding profession in which dedicated professionals knowingly place their lives in harm’s way to ensure the safety and well-being of their communities;

WHEREAS, the dedicated men and women of the Antioch Police Department play an essential role in safeguarding the rights and freedoms of the citizens of Antioch;

WHEREAS, since the first recorded line-of-duty death in 1791, more than 23,000 law enforcement officers in the United States have made the ultimate sacrifice;

WHEREAS, it is essential that all citizens know and understand the challenges, duties, and responsibilities of their police department, and that members of our department recognize their duty to serve the people by safeguarding life and property, upholding justice with integrity; and

WHEREAS, the Antioch City Council stands in solidarity with police families and wishes to honor all peace officers who, through their courageous deeds, have lost their lives or have become disabled in the performance of their duties.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, RON BERNAL, Mayor of the City of Antioch, hereby proclaim May 11-17, 2025 as “National Police Week” in the City of Antioch.

MAY 27, 2025

\
RON BERNAL, Mayor

1.01 PRIDE MONTH
JUNE 2025

WHEREAS, cities across the United States recognize and celebrate June as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer (or Questioning), Intersex, Asexual (or Allies)+ (LGBTQIA+) Pride Month to commemorate the Stonewall Riots of June 1969;

WHEREAS, the City of Antioch has a diverse LGBTQIA+ community and is committed to supporting visibility, dignity, and equity for all people in the community;

WHEREAS, during Pride Month, we are reminded that our City’s remarkable diversity is a gift that makes all of us stronger, and we rededicate ourselves to the ongoing cause of equality, acceptance, and freedom for all;

WHEREAS, while society at large increasingly supports LGBTQIA+ equality, it is essential to acknowledge that the need for education and awareness remains vital to end discrimination and prejudice;

WHEREAS, as we celebrate the resilience of the LGBTQIA+ community and their hard-won victories to advance acceptance and equality, we stand together, untied, to defend and build on the progress of the LGBTQIA+ community toward a better, more inclusive, and safer future for all;

WHEREAS, the rainbow flag is widely recognized as a symbol of pride, inclusion, and support for social movements that advocate for LGBTQIA+ people in society; and

WHEREAS, celebrating Pride Month influences awareness and provides support and advocacy for Antioch’s LGBTQIA+ community, and is an opportunity to take action and engage in dialogue to strengthen alliances, build acceptance and advance equal rights.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, RON BERNAL, Mayor of the City of Antioch, do hereby declare the month of June 2025 as “PRIDE MONTH” in the City of Antioch and invite everyone to reflect on ways we can live and work together with a commitment to mutual respect and understanding.

MAY 27, 2025

__________________________________________
RON BERNAL, Mayor

1.02
Discussion item –
Land Use Planning &
Permitting in CA
City Council meeting
May 27, 2025

Agenda:

1. Land Use regulations/permits ( Discretionary and
Ministerial…i.e., Conditional Use Permits,
Variances, Rezonings, CEQA, General Plans and the
Subdivision Map Act, etc).

2. Housing (State laws and their implementation…
HAA, SB 330, SB9, etc.)

2. Questions & Answers
Land Use regulations/permits (Discretionary
and Ministerial…i.e., Conditional Use Permits,
Variances, Rezonings, CEQA, General Plans
and the Subdivision Map Act, etc).

There are two kinds of approvals:
“Ministerial” and “Discretionary” .

Ministerial requires little or no personal judgment.

Discretionary requires an exercise in judgment.

Ministerial:

Ministerial approval involves little or no personal judgment by City staff. Approval is given if all the standards are met.

Examples:

Building Permits
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s)
Encroachment Permits
Home Occupation permits (except for food
businesses)
Ministerial
projects
Simple projects are sometimes referred to as “Over the
Counter” because decisions may be made the same day as the permit review.

Examples of “Over the Counter” ministerial approval:
•R e - r o o f
• Kitchen and bathroom remodels
• Skylights
• Plumbing, electrical, and mechanical
• Furnace or water heater replacements
• Home occupation permits
• Encroachment permit
Discretionary Projects
Discretionary approvals require an exercise in judgment or deliberation. Project applicants and members of the public can express support or contest the project and may appeal decisions. They often require one or more public hearings and a decision from one of these decision-making bodies.
•Z o n i n g A d m i n i s t r a t o r
• Design Review Board
• Planning Commission
• City Council
Discretionary Permits
Discretionary applications are generally processed on a first-come, first-served basis. Small projects may take just a few weeks to process. Complex projects requiring an environmental impact report can take many months. The planner assigned to the project can provide a tentative time estimate after their initial review of the project.

Examples include:
• Conditional UsePermits
• Subdivisions
• Design review
• Rezoning
• General Plan Amendments & Specific Plans
Decisions:

There are five
kinds of
decision
makers for
ministerial and
discretionary
approvals:

1. City staff

2. Zoning Administrator

3. Design Review Board

4. Planning Commission

5. City Council

1. City staff
Some decisions can be made by City staff. This can include a planner, technician, Planning Manager, Chief Building Official or the Director of the Community Development Department.

2. Zoning Administrator
The Zoning Administrator (ZA) is a City staff person who is appointed by the Director or may the Director. They hold public hearings and make decisions on variances, minor use permits, and large family day care home permits. They also make
decisions for appeals of home occupation permits. If a project is controversial or complex, they may decide that the Planning Commission should review and make the final decision.

3. Design Review Board
The Design Review Board creates and
enforces standards, policies, and practices
to promote and enhance the design of the
built environment. They do this by
reviewing development plans before
construction.

4. Planning Commission
The Planning Commission reviews and
decides land use permit applications. They
evaluate projects against current
standards and guidelines. They also make
recommendations to the City Council
about changes to the General Plan,
zoning, and subdivisions.

5. City Council
The City Council makes final decisions for General
Plan Amendments, Rezoning, and Subdivisions.

They also make decisions for appeals of the
Planning Commission.

Appeals
Decisions by City staff, the Zoning Administrator,
Design Review Board and Planning Commission
can be appealed.

If there is no appeal, the project is officially
approved. This means the project has been granted
its discretionary
“entitlements” and the applicant
can now get building and site development permits.

Those permits can be approved through ministerial
actions by City staff.

Appeal hearings are “de novo,” which means the
entire project is open for discussion and not just the
reason for the appeal.

For many years, the time limits for processing development projects in California were set forth in a multitude of statutory directives that were confusing. Beginning in the 1990s, the Legislature began enacting a series of measures to coordinate the time limits imposed by the Permit
Streamlining Act (Government Code § 65920 et seq.), the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public
Resources Code § 21000 et seq.), and the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code § 66410 et seq.).

The Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) is a state law that the legislature enacted in 1977 to expedite processing of
certain development projects (Government Code 5 65920 et seq.).

The law establishes time limits within which public agencies must either approve or disapprove a development project, such as a Conditional Use Permit or Design Review
application. Failure to act within applicable time limits could result in the project being “deemed approved,” which is effectively an automatic approval of the project.

The Permit Streamlining Act does not apply to the
following:
- Legislative land use decisions such as amendments to a Zoning Ordinance (i.e., “Rezones” or General Plan Amendments). - Tentative Parcel Maps, Tentative Subdivision Maps, Parcel Maps or Final Maps and their approval or disapproval.
- Ministerial projects, such as building permits, grading permit s, and Development Agreements.
- Administrative appeals.

CEQA
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a state law that requires government agencies in California to consider the environmental impacts of their discretionary projects before approving them. It aims to inform decision-makers and the public about potential environmental effects and prevent significant, avoidable environmental damage.

Initial Study (“IS”) – Negative Declaration (“Neg Dec”) – Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) – Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) – Draft EIR, Final EIR State Subdivision Map Act (“SMA”)
Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) - 4 or less lots; record a Parcel Map Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM) - 5 or more lots; record a Final Map Most planning and zoning
decisions made by public
agencies fall into one of
two categories:
1) legislative decisions;
and
2) quasi-judicial decisions.

Legislative decisions and quasi-judicial decisions.

The basic difference between the two categories is that legislative decisions/acts establish policies for future application, while quasi-judicial, or administrative decisions/acts are the application of those policies. • Legislative decisions/acts have widespread impact that are made during the development of a General Plan or the creation of a zoning ordinance. They affect all citizens. Examples of legislative decisions/acts — those that establish policies — include: the adoption of General Plans, adoption of Zoning ordinances (or amendments to ordinances), approving Rezones for a specific property and passing budgets. All legislative decisions/acts are made by the local government’s elected body — a City Council or a County’s Board of Supervisors.
• Quasi-judicial decisions/acts are, localized in their application, affecting a particular group of citizens more acutely than the public at large. Examples of quasi-judicial decisions include decisions on Conditional Use Permits (CUP’s), Variances, Subdivision Maps, site plan reviews (Planned Development Permits) and many other decisions/acts of a Planning Commission.

Housing (State laws and their
implementation…HAA, SB 330, SB9, etc.)
The State of California has enacted dozens of new housing laws in recent years in response to growing housing
availability and affordability issues. These laws, which impact all cities and counties, are designed to spur housing
production at all income levels and limit local government’s ability to deny housing development, particularly the
development of more than two new residential units and the development of affordable units.

Below is a brief summary, broken down by category, of
the laws that are most relevant or impactful to Antioch since 2018.

The Legislature first enacted the HAA in 1982 and recently amended the HAA to expand and strengthen its provisions as part of the overall recognition of the critically low volumes of housing in California.

The Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Government Code
section 65589.5, establishes limitations to a local
government’s ability to deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects, emergency shelters, or farmworker housing that are consistent with objective local development standards and contribute to meeting housing need
SB 330, Housing Crisis Act of 2019
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Chapter 654,
Statutes of 2019 (SB 330)) strengthens
protections for housing development
projects under the Housing Accountability
Act (HAA), Planning and Zoning Law and the
Permit Streamlining Act. The provisions set
forth under SB 330 sunset in 2030.

The process:

A housing developer has the option of submitting a “preliminary application” for any housing development project. Submittal of a preliminary application allows a developer to provide a specific subset of information on the proposed housing development before providing the complete information required by the local government. Upon submittal of an application and a payment of the permit processing fee, a housing development project is subject only to the ordinances, policies, standard or any other measure (standards) adopted and in effect when a preliminary application was submitted. The project applicant then has 180 day to submit a full application.

The Housing Crisis Act provides the following:
• Generally (with specified exceptions) cannot change the general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning of a parcel, or parcels, of property to a less intensive use or reducing the intensity of l and use, unless it offsets that decrease through a concurrent increase on another parcel. • Cannot impose or enforce design standards adopted after 2020 that are not objective. • Cannot enforce any moratoriums or similar restrictions without gaining permission from HCD.
• No growth caps or controls that limit or cap the number of land use approvals or permits for housing approvals or construction except under cert ain provisions. • No population caps except under certain provisions.
• Replacement requirements for housing being demolished.

Several bills were signed to strengthen the enforcement of state housing laws, ensuring compliance with the State’s housing goals. For example:

The Builder’s Remedy is a provision within California’s Housing Accountability Act that goes into effect when cities or counties fail to adopt a compliant housing element as required by state law. Under the Builder’s Remedy, developers can bypass local zoning laws to build residential projects with unlimited density in noncompliant jurisdictions, as long as the project reserves 20 percent of housing units for low-income households. In these cases, local governments lose their ability to deny or impose significant restrictions on development, except in cases where it affects public health or safety.

Questions and Answers?

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

SPECIAL MEETING/CLOSED SESSION

Special Meeting/Closed Session May 12, 2025
4:00
P.M. Antioch Community Center
4703 Lone Tree Way, Antioch, CA 94531

4:00 P.M. – SPECIAL MEETING

Mayor Bernal called the Special Meeting to order at 4:03 P.M., and Acting City Clerk Garcia called the roll.

Present: Council Members District 1 Torres-Walker, District 3 F reitas, District 4 Wilson, Mayor Pro Tem (District 2) Rocha, and Mayor Bernal

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Mayor Bernal led the Pledge of Allegiance.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Moises, Antioch resident, shared his personal struggles and ach ievements, and expressed his support for immigrants in the country.

CLOSED SESSION:

1. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: CITY MANAGER. This closed session is authorized pursuant to California Government Code section 54957(b)(1).

2. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY.

This closed session is authorized pursuant to California Govern ment Code section 54957(b)(1).

ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION

Mayor Bernal adjourned to Closed Session at 4:09
P.M.

RETURN TO OPEN SESSION FROM CLOSED SESSION TO REPORT OUT

ROLL CALL

The City Council reconvened to Open Session at 5:13
P.M., and City Manager Scott called the
roll.

Present: Council Members District 1 Torres-Walker, District 3 F reitas, District 4 Wilson, Mayor Pro Tem (District 2) Rocha, and Mayor Bernal

A
05-27-25

ANTIOCH CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting/Closed Session
May 12, 2025 Page 2 of 2

CITY ATTORNEY TO REPORT OUT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS

Interim City Attorney Cole reported the City Council had been i n Closed Session and gave the following report: #1 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: CITY MANAGER.

No reportable action. #2 PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY. No reportable action.

ADJOURNMENT

A motion made and seconded to adjourn the Special Meeting at 5:14 P.M., unanimously passed.

Respectfully submitted:

Christina Garcia

CHRISTINA GARCIA, CMC
Assistant City Clerk

%
0--25

STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE:

TO:
5HJXODU0HHWLQJRI0D\
+RQRUDEOH0D\RUDQG0HPEHUVRIWKH&LW\&RXQFLO
SUBMITTED BY: 0HOLVVD5KRGHV&LW\&OHUN
&KULVWLQD*DUFLD&0&$VVLVWDQW&LW\&OHUN
SUBJECT: &LW\&RXQFLO0HHWLQJ0LQXWHVRI0D\

RECOMMENDED ACTION
,W LV UHFRPPHQGHG WKDW WKH &LW\ &RXQFLO FRQWLQXH WKH 0HHWLQJ0LQXWHV RI0D\WRWKH-XQH&RXQFLO0HHWLQJ

FISCAL IMPACT
1RQH

DISCUSSION
1$

ATTACHMENT
1RQH
&&J
&
0--25

STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE:

TO:
5HJXODU0HHWLQJRI0D\
+RQRUDEOH0D\RUDQG0HPEHUVRIWKH&LW\&RXQFLO
SUBMITTED BY: 0HOLVVD5KRGHV&LW\&OHUN
&KULVWLQD*DUFLD&0&$VVLVWDQW&LW\&OHUN
SUBJECT: &LW\&RXQFLO6SHFLDO0HHWLQJ%XGJHW6WXG\6HVVLRQ 0LQXWHVRI0D\

RECOMMENDED ACTION
,W LV UHFRPPHQGHG WKDW WKH &LW\ &RXQFLO FRQWLQXH WKH 6SHFLDO 0H HWLQJ%XGJHW 6WXG\6HVVLRQ0LQXWHVRI0D\WRWKH-XQH&RXQFLO0HHWLQJ

FISCAL IMPACT
1RQH

DISCUSSION
1$

ATTACHMENT
1RQH
&&J
*HQHUDO)XQG
1RQGHSDUWPHQWDO

$)/$& 3$<52//

&2/21,$//,)( 0217+/<35(0,80

)5(('20)25(9(5//& 5()81'

)5(('20)25(9(5//& 5()81'

3(50,76$'0,1 5()81'

67$17(&&2168/7,1*6(59,&(6,1& &2168/7,1*6(59,&(6
681581,167$//$7,216(5 9,&(6,1& 5()81'
),5(5,6.0$1$*(0(176(59,&(6 ,1685$1&(35(0,80

)5(('20)25(9(5//& 5()81'

,3(50,7 5()81'

/,)(,1685$1&(&203$1<2)1$ 3$<52//

081,&,3$/322/,1*$87+25,7< 3$<52//

3$56 3$<52//

67$7(2)&$/,)251,$ 3$<52//

1$7,21:,'(5(7,5(0(1762/87,216 3$<52//

1$7,21:,'(5(7,5(0(1762/87,21 3$<52// &LW\&RXQFLO

&267&2 9$5,286%86,1(66(;3(16(6

),5(5,6.0$1$*(0(176(59,&(6 ,1685$1&(35(0,80
9(5,=21:,5(/(66 '$7$86$*(
&LW\$WWRUQH\

%(575$1')2;(//,27260$1 :(1=(/ /(*$/6(59,&(6

+$1621%5,'*(77//3 /(*$/6(59,&(6
&LW\0DQDJHU

9(5,=21:,5(/(66 '$7$86$*(

:%$&2168/7,1*$ 1',19(67,*$7,216 &2168/7,1*6(59,&(6
$0$=21&$3,7$/6(59,&(6,1& 2)),&(6833/,(6

&267&2 9$5,286%86,1(66(;3(16(6

),5(5,6.0$1$*(0(176(59,&(6 ,1685$1&(35(0,80

6+,(/'3527(&7,21 38%/,&6$)(7< 6(&85,7<6(59,&(6

75$&<0,//(5&2168/7,1*,1& &2168/7,1*6(59,&(6
9(5,=21:,5(/(66 '$7$86$*(

'(//&20387(5&253 &20387(5(48,30(17

'(//&20387(5&253 &20387(5(48,30(17

&LW\&OHU
N

$/+$0%5$ :$7(5

2)),&('(327,1& 2)),&(6833/,(6

$&&2817(036 7(036(59,&(6

526$/(69$1(66$526( (;3(16(5(,0%856(0(17

%$<$5($1(:6*5283($67%$< /(*$/$' &LW\7UHDVXUHU

),5(5,6.0$1$*(0(176(59,&(6 ,1685$1&(35(0,80

/220,6$5025('//& $5025('&$53,&.83
9(5,=21:,5(/(66 '$7$86$*(
+XPDQ5HVRXUFHV

1$7,21$/7(67,1*1(7:25.,1& $118$/0(0%(56+,3 $35,/0$<

&/$,06%<)81'5(3257
)257+(3(5,2'2)
)81'&+(&.
)LQDQFH$FFRXQWLQJ
3UHSDUHGE\
1$FHYHGR
0D\3DJH
_______4D
$35,/0$<

&/$,06%<)81'5(3257
)257+(3(5,2'2)
)81'&+(&.

67(5,&<&/(,1& 6+5(',76(59,&(

:25;7,0(//& :25;7,0(

,('$,1& 0(0%(56+,3'8(6

8%(2% 86,1(666(59,&(6 &23,(5

(FRQRPLF'HYHORSPHQW

6:((7%5(7$/(;$1'(5 3(5',(0
)LQDQFH$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ

$0$=21&$3,7$/6(59,&(6,1& 2)),&(6833/,(6 )LQDQFH$FFRXQWLQJ

$0$=21&$3,7$/6(59,&(6,1& 2)),&(6833/,(6
2)),&('(327,1& 2)),&(6833/,(6

5,&+$5'6216+(//(<5(1(( (;3(16(5(,0%856(0(17
683(5,21//& $636(59,&(

)LQDQFH2SHUDWLRQV

2)),&('(327,1& 2)),&(6833/,(6

$0$=21&$3,7$/6(59,&(6,1& 2)),&(6833/,(6
),5(5,6.0$1$*(0(176(59,&(6 ,1685$1&(35(0,80
8%(2%86,1(666(59,&(6 &23,(5
1RQ'HSDUWPHQWDO

&2175$&267$&2817</,%5$5< 5'475/,%5$5<

:$*(:25.6 $'0,1)((

$17,2&+32/,&($&7,9,7,(6/($*8(,1& &,9,&(1+*5$17
081,&,3$/322/,1*$87+25,7< 3$<52//
3XEOLF:RUNV$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ

9(5,=21:,5(/(66 '$7$86$*(
3XEOLF:RUNV6WUHHW0DLQWHQDQF
H

$15$.&25325$7,21 $63+$/7*5,1',1*

$17,2&+%8,/',1*0$7(5,$/6 3$9,1*52&.
&$1'-)$9$/25$758&.,1*,1& 758&.,1*
.(512,/),/7(55(&<&/,1*//& 86('2,/',6326$/

/2:(6&203$1,(6,1& 6833/,(6

6$0&/$52)),&()851,785( 2)),&()851,785(6

6&$2)&$//& 6:((3,1*6(59,&(6

&2817<$63+$/7 $63+$/7

3XEOLF:RUNV6LJQDO6WUHHW/LJKWV

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 (/(&75,&

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 (/(&75,&

67$1'$5'3/80%,1*6833/<&2,1& 6833/,(6 3XEOLF:RUNV)DFLOLWLHV0DLQWHQDQF
H

+20('(3277+( 6833/,(6

.$5/$
6-$1,725,$/ 6833/,(56//& -$1,725,$/6(59,&(6

/2:(6&203$1,(6,1& 6833/,(6

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 *$6

67$1'$5'3/80%,1*6833/<&2,1& 6833/,(6
9(5,=21:,5(/(66 '$7$86$*(

2)),&('(327,1& 2)),&(6833/,(6

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 *$6

*5$,1*(5,1& 6833/,(6

)LQDQFH$FFRXQWLQJ
3UHSDUHGE\
1$FHYHGR
0D\3DJH
$35,/0$<

&/$,06%<)81'5(3257
)257+(3(5,2'2)
)81'&+(&.
3XEOLF:RUNV3DUNV0DLQW

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 (/(&75,&

52%,16/2&.$1'.(< /2&.60,7+6(59,&(6
$/7$)(1&(&2 )(1&(5(3$,5

$17,2&+$&(+$5':$5( 6833/,(6

%2(7+,1*75((/$1')$506 3/$176

'&(/(&75,&*5283,1& (/(&75,&$/6(59,&(6

6,7(21(/$1'6&$3(6833/<+2/',1* ,55,*$7,216833/,(6 3XEOLF:RUNV0HGLDQ*HQHUDO/DQG

/2:(6&203$1,(6,1& 6833/,(6

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 (/(&75,&

6$0&/$52)),&()851,785( 2)),&()851,785(6
$17,2&+$&(+$5':$5( 6833/,(6

&21&5(7()(1&(,167$//(56 ,1& 5(3$,56(59,&(6

2)),&('(327,1& 2)),&(6833/,(6

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 (/(&75,&

6,7(21(/$1'6&$3(6833/<+2/',1* ,55,*$7,216833/,(6 3ROLFH$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ

$0(5,&$17523+,(6$:$5'6 3520 /2&.(552207$*6

&$121),1$1&,$/6(59,&(6 &23,(5/($6(

&2175$&267$&2817< 75$,1,1*)((

&5803,19(67,*$7,216 %$&.*5281'

)('(; 3267$*(

*$//6//& 81,)2506

,17/$662&2)&+,()62)32/,&( 0(0%(56+,3'8(6
/$03,/$85,66$&+5,67,1( (;3(16(5(,0%856(0(17
/23(=,19(67,*$7,9(6(59 ,&(6 %$&.*5281'6

/2:(6&203$1,(6,1& 3$'/2&.6

0$57,1(=$6+/(<1 (;3(16(5(,0%856(0(17
0$57,1(=$6+/(<1 (;3(16(5(,0%856(0(17

$7$1'70&, 02'(0

%367$&7,&$/,1& 9(676

&25(36<&+2/2*,&$/&25325$7,21 1(:+,5(36<&+6
),5(5,6.0$1$*(0(176(59,&(6 ,1685$1&(35(0,80

*$0(32'&20%$7=21( 75$,1,1*

0$/62067$&(<. (;3(16(5(,0%856(0(17

1(/621$0$1'$686$11( (;3(16(5(,0%856(0(17
2)),&('(327,1& 2)),&(6833/,(6

3$&,),&&2$6732/<*5$3+ ,19 32/<*5$3+6
3$&,),&7(/(0$1$*(0(176(59,&(6 3$<3+21(
5($&+352-(&7,1& 352)(66,21$/6(59,&(6
.,7&+
1%<$17+21<5 (03/2<(($335(&,$7,21

6$&6+(5,))62)),&(751*75867)81' 0(0%(56+,3'8(6
352)25&(0$5.(7,1*,1& 7$6(5%$77(5,(6

3ROLFH&RPPXQLW\3ROLFLQJ

)$675$ .9,2/$7,21352&(66,1* 21'87<72//
)$675$.9,2/$7,21352&(66,1* 21'87<72//

-(21*-,6(2. (;3(16(5(,0%856(0(17
)LQDQFH$FFRXQWLQJ
3UHSDUHGE\
1$FHYHGR
0D\3DJH
$35,/0$<

&/$,06%<)81'5(3257
)257+(3(5,2'2)
)81'&+(&.

52<0,&+$(// (;3(16(5(,0%856(0(17

(03/2<(( $'9$1&('',6$%,/,7<3(16,21

9&$$1,0$/+263,7$/6,1& (0(5*(1&<6(59,&(6
9&$($67%$<9(7(5,1$5<(0(5*(1&< (0(5*(1&<6(59,&(6

)$675$.9,2/$7,21352&(66,1* 21'87<72//
),5(5,6.0$1$*(0(176(59,&(6 ,1685$1&(35(0,80
+817$1'6216//& )8(/
3ROLFH,QYHVWLJDWLRQV

&2175$&267$&2817< &5,0(/$%

&6,)25(16,&6833/<//& 6833/,(6

/26$1*(/ (6&2$8',725&21752//(5 352)(66,21$/6(59,&(6

3(1/,1. &(//3+21(62)7:$5(

67$7(2)&$/,)251,$ ),1*(535,176

702%,/(86$,1& &(//(9,'(1&(

7+20621:(67 &5,0($1$/<6,6

$0$=21&$3,7$/6(59,&(6,1& 2)),&(6833/,(6
),5(5,6.0$1$*(0(176(59,&(6 ,1685$1&(35(0,80 3'6SHFLDO,QYHVWLJDWLRQV8QLW

(:$57$6+/(<0$5,( (;3(16(5(,0%856(0(17
$552:+($'6&,(17,),&,1& 6833/,(6

($16(59,&(6//& 5(17$/9(+,&/(

7:29(7663257,1**22'6,1& 75,32'6

3ROLFH&RPPXQLFDWLRQV

&20&$67

ibb(
Iibώ(«I
(

&2175$&267$&2817< 5$',26

3$&,),&7(/(0$1$*(0(176(59,&(6 3$<3+21(
$0$=21&$3,7$/6(59,&(6,1& 2)),&(6833/,(6
$0(5,&$172:(5&25325$7,21 72:(5)((6

$7$1'70&, 02'(0

2)),&('(327,1& 2)),&(6833/,(6

683(5,21//& '<1$0,&6&+('8/(5

2IILFH2I(PHUJHQF\0DQDJHPHQW

$//67((/,1& )851,785(
3ROLFH)DFLOLWLHV0DLQWHQDQF
H

$0(5,&$13/80%,1*,1& 3 /80%,1*6(59,&(6

.$5/$
6-$1,725,$/ 6833/,(56//& -$1,725,$/6(59,&(6

/2:(6&203$1,(6,1& 6833/,(6

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 *$6

'(//&20387(5&253 &20387(5(48,30(17 <RXWK1HWZRUN6HUYLFHV

)2/*(5*5$3+,&6,1& *8,'(35,17,1*

9(5,=21:,5(/(66 '$7$86$*(
+RXVLQJDQG+RPHOHVVQHVV

(&2120<,11 027(/928&+(5352*5$0

6+$5(&20081,7< /$81'5<6(59,&(6

),5(5,6.0$1$*(0(176(59,&(6 ,1685$1&(35(0,80

9(5,=21:,5(/(66 '$7$86$*(
)LQDQFH$FFRXQWLQJ
3UHSDUHGE\
1$FHYHGR
0D\3DJH
$35,/0$<

&/$,06%<)81'5(3257
)257+(3(5,2'2)
)81'&+(&.
36&5$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ

&$121),1$1&,$/6(59,&(6 &23,(5/($6(

.$5/$
6-$1,725,$/ 6833/,(56//& -$1,725,$/6(59,&(6
9(5,=21:,5(/(66 '$7$86$*(
&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ

&+$9(=,9$1 3(5',(0

2)),&('(327,1& 2)),&(6833/,(6

%52:1+,/$5<7 3(5',(0
&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW/DQG3ODQQLQJ6HUYLFHV

(,'(1.,77<- 0,187(6&/(5.

)5(('20)25(9(5//& 5()81'

)5(('20)25(9(5//& 5()81'

3/$&(:25.6,1& &2168/7,1*6(59,&(6

%$<$5($1(:6*5283($67%$< /(*$/$' &'&RGH(QIRUFHPHQW

&5<67$/&/($5/2*26,1& 67$))$33$5(/
:25.:25/' 6$)(7<6+2(6%8552/$$
:25.:25/' 6$)(7<6+2(652665

&2175$&267$&2817< 5(&25',1*&23<)((6
'$7$7,&.(7,1& &2168/7,1*6(59,&(6

),5(5,6.0$1$*(0(176(59,&(6 ,1685$1&(35(0,80

3:(QJLQHHU/DQG'HYHORSPHQW

9(5,=21:,5(/(66 '$7$86$*(

,17(5:(67 &2168/7,1**5283,1& 352 )(66,21$/6(59,&(6
&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW%XLOGLQJ,QVSHFWLRQ

)5(('20)25(9(5//& 5()81'

)5(('20)25(9(5//& 5()81'

3(50,76$'0,1 5()81'

681581,167$//$7, 216(59,&(6,1& 5()81'
)5(('20)25(9(5//& 5()81'

,3(50,7 5()81'
&DSLWDO,PS$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ
,6,1*6&8//,*$1:$7(5&21',7,21,1* :$7(5
2)),&('(327,1& 2)),&(6833/,(6
$PHULFDQ5HVFXH3ODQ)XQG
1RQ'HSDUWPHQWDO

%$<$5($&20081,7<6(59,&(6,1& %5,'*(+286,1*69&6

)(/721,167,787( 6(59,&(6

)(/721,167,787( 6(59,&(6

36&5$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ

7.(/(9$725&25325$7,21 (/(9$7256(59,&(6 3/+$*UDQW)XQG
3/+$

:,17(51,*+76)$0,/<6+(/7(5,1& 4)<:16335(,0%

67$1')25)$0,/,(6)5((2)9,2/(1&( 4)<67$1'5(,0 %

505$)XQG
6WUHHWV

%.)(1*,1((56,1& 352)(66,21$/6(59,&(6 )LQDQFH$FFRXQWLQJ
3UHSDUHGE\
1$FHYHGR
0D\3DJH
$35,/0$<

&/$,06%<)81'5(3257
)257+(3(5,2'2)
)81'&+(&.
'HOWD)DLU3URSHUW\)XQG
1RQGHSDUWPHQWDO
3DUNV 2SHQ6SDF
H

67$5&21 6758&7,21,1& 352*5(663$<0(17 &'%*)XQG
&'%*

&20081,7<9,2/(1&(62/87,216 4)<&965(,0%
&2175$&267$)$0-867,&($//,$1&( 4)<)-$5(,0%

&2857$332,17('63(&,$/$'92&$7(6 4)<&$6$5(,0%
0($/621:+((/6 6(1,252875($&+ 4)<02:5(,0%

23325781,7<-81&7,21 4)<2-7(&+5(,0%
5(1$,66$1&((175(35(1(856+,3&175 4)<5(15(,0%

&2175$&267$6(1,25/(*$/6(59,&(6 4)<&&6/65(,0%
/,216&(17(5)257+(9,68$//<,03$,5(' 4)</,215( ,0%

0($/621:+((/6 6(1,252875($&+ 4)<02:&05(,0%
02180(17,03$&7 4)<0,5(,0%

&,7<'$7$6(59,&(6//& 4)<&'6&'%*5(,0% &'%*&
9

&,7<'$7$6(59,&(6//& 4)<&'6&95(,0%

*DV7D[)XQG
6WUHHWV

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 (/(&75,&

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 (/(&75,& $QLPDO6HUYLFHV)XQG
$QLPDO6HUYLFHV

+,//63(71875,7,21 3(7)22'

.2()5$16(59,&(6,1& &5(0$7,216(59,&(6
0:,9(7(5,1$5<6833/<&2 9(76833/,(6

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 *$6

9&$($67%$<9(7(5,1$5<(0(5*(1&< (0(5*(1&<6(59,&(6
=2(7,6//& 9(76833/,(6

),5(5,6.0$1$*(0(176(59,&(6 ,1685$1&(35(0,80

-$%$8/&+$1'$662&,$7(6 9(76(59,&(6

5HFUHDWLRQ)XQG
1RQGHSDUWPHQWDO

&2175$&267$&2817< 0($/352*5$0

/$5,1526$ 5()81'

6816(7&21*5(*$7,21 5()81'

0$67(56.</( &+(&.5(3/$&(0(17

7851(50,&+(//(),1/(< 5()81'
1LFN5RGULJXH]&RPPXQLW\&HQW

&$121),1$1&,$/6(59,&(6 &23,(5/($6(
&267&2 9$5,286%86,1(66(;3(16(6

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 *$6

$/7$)(1&(&2 )(1&(5(3$,5

$0$=21&$3,7$/6(59,&(6,1& 2)),&(6833/,(6
2*&+$57(5 $1'72856//& 352)(66,21$/6(59,&(6 )LQDQFH$FFRXQWLQJ
3UHSDUHGE\
1$FHYHGR
0D\3DJH
$35,/0$<

&/$,06%<)81'5(3257
)257+(3(5,2'2)
)81'&+(&.
5HFUHDWLRQ6SRUWV3URJUDPV

%61632576 6833/,(6

/2:(6&203$1,(6,1& 6833/,(6

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 (/(&75,&

&21&25'62)7%$//803,5(6 803,5(6(59,&(6
),5(5,6.0$1$*(0(176(59,&(6 ,1685$1&(35(0,80
*21=$/(=$/6721=21,$9 &2175$&7253$<0(17 5HFUHDWLRQ&RPP&HQWHU

&$/,35,176//& 67$))$33$5(/

&267&2 9$5,286%86,1(66(;3(16(6

'8*$1'.$5,1$ &2175$&7253$<0(17

)2/*(5*5$3+,&6,1& *8,'(35,17,1*

.29$/,&./8$11( &2175$&7253$<0(17

/2:(6&203$1,(6,1& 6833/,(6

0$;0$57,$/$576//& &2175$&7253$<0(17
08,552;$11( &2175$&7253$<0(17

7+2036215$1'$// &2175$&7253$<0(17
$7$1'70&, 3+21(6

-(11,)(5/<11+,1(6 '(6,*16(59,&(6

/220,6$5025('//& $5025('&$53,&.83
3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 *$6

/6$$662&,$7(6,1& %8552:,1*2:/021,725,1* 5HFUHDWLRQ:DWHU3DU
N

/2:(6&203$1,(6,1& 3$576

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 *$6

58**6:,1)25' 5()81'

$'9$17$62)7,1& 62)7:$5(

%5(17:22'35(66$1'38%/,6+,1*,1& $'9(57,6(0(17

&,17$6&25325$7,2112 6$)(7<0$7(5,$/6
,&((&203$1<7+( &21&(66,2166833/,(6

0$6621(0(&+$1,&$/,1& 352)(66,21$/6(59,&(6
.12556<67(06,1& &+(0,&$/6

$1,;7(5,1& 6833/,(6

.12556<67(06,1& &+(0,&$/6

%5$'<,1'8675,(6 -$1,725,$/6833/,(6 0HDVXUH&-)XQG
6WUHHWV

:$7(56$9(56,55,*$7,21,1& /21(75(((1+$1&(0(17

6,7(21(/$1'6&$3(6833/<+2/',1*//& ,55,*$7,216833/,(6 6ROLG:DVWH5HGXFWLRQ)XQG
6ROLG:DVW
H

$'$37&2168/7,1*,1& 2)),&(6833/,(6

3ROOXWLRQ(OLPLQDWLRQ)XQG
&KDQQHO0DLQWHQDQFH2SHUDWLRQ

/2:(6&203$1,(6,1& 6833/,(6

3( 33(5,19(670(176,1& 0217+/<0$,17(1$1&(
6,/9$/$1'6&$3( /$1'6&$3(6(59,&(6

$/7$)(1&(&2 )(1&(5(3$,5
)LQDQFH$FFRXQWLQJ
3UHSDUHGE\
1$FHYHGR
0D\3DJH
$35,/0$<

&/$,06%<)81'5(3257
)257+(3(5,2'2)
)81'&+(&.

$17,2&+$&(+$5':$5( 6833/,(6

6,/9$/$1'6&$3( /$1'6&$3(6(59,&(6
3(*)UDQFKLVH)HH)XQG
1RQ'HSDUWPHQWDO

&25(0,&52,1& 352)(66,21$/6(59,&(6
/RQH7UHH6//0')XQG
/RQHWUHH0DLQWHQDQFH=RQH

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 (/(&75,&

/RQHWUHH0DLQWHQDQFH=RQH

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 (/(&75,&

/RQHWUHH0DLQWHQDQFH=RQH

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 (/(&75,&

'RZQWRZQ6//0')XQG
'RZQWRZQ0DLQWHQDQF
H

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 (/(&75,&
:$7(56$9(56,55,*$7,21,1& (1+$1&(0(17

6,7(21(/$1'6&$3(6833/<+2/',1*//& ,55,*$7,216833/,(6
$OPRQGULGJH6//0')XQG
$OPRQGULGJH0DLQWHQDQFH

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 (/(&75,& +LOOFUHVW6//0')XQG
+LOOFUHVW0DLQWHQDQFH=RQH

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 (/(&75,& +LOOFUHVW0DLQWHQDQFH=RQH

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 (/(&75,&

+LOOFUHVW0DLQWHQDQFH=RQH

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 (/(&75,&

3DUN$0DLQWHQDQFH'LVWULFW)XQG
3DUN$0DLQWHQDQFH'LVWULFW

&20&$67 &211(&7,216(59,&(6

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 (/(&75,& &LW\ZLGH$0DLQWHQDQFH'LVWULFW)XQG
&LW\ZLGH$0DLQWHQDQFH=RQH

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 (/(&75,& &LW\ZLGH$0DLQWHQDQFH=RQH

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 (/(&75,& &LW\ZLGH$0DLQWHQDQFH=RQH

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 (/(&75,& &LW\ZLGH$0DLQWHQDQFH=RQH

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 (/(&75,& &LW\ZLGH$0DLQWHQDQFH=RQH

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 (/(&75,&

&LW\ZLGH$0DLQWHQDQFH=RQH

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 (/(&75,&

6//0'$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ)XQG
6//0'$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ

/,0$872027,9(6833/<,1& 3$576

%$<$5($1(:6*5283($67%$< /(*$/$' )LQDQFH$FFRXQWLQJ
3UHSDUHGE\
1$FHYHGR
0D\3DJH
$35,/0$<

&/$,06%<)81'5(3257
)257+(3(5,2'2)
)81'&+(&.

(DVW/RQH7UHH6//0')XQG
=RQH'LVWULFW

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 (/(&75,& &)'3XEOLF6HUYLFHV)XQG
&)'0DLQWHQDQF
H

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 (/(&75,& 5HI%RQG
/HDVH5HY
)XQG
1RQ'HSDUWPHQWDO

%/;*5283//& 352)(66,21$/6(59,&(6

9HKLFOH5HSODFHPHQW)XQG
(TXLSPHQW0DLQWHQDQFH

+(550$11(48,30(17,1& 3$9,1*0$&+,1(

1$7,21$/$872)/((7*5283 )/((79(+,&/(

(TXLSPHQW0DLQWHQDQFH)XQG
1RQGHSDUWPHQWDO

+817$1'6216//& )8(/

+817$1'6216//& )8(/

(TXLSPHQW0DLQWHQDQF
H

%(/.253$*//& 3$576

&+8&.6%5$.($1':+((/6(59,&(,1& 3$576
%,*6.<(17(535,6(6 86('7,5(',6326$/
/,0$872027,9(6833/<,1& 3$576

/2:(6&203$1,(6,1& 3$576

25(,//<$8723$576 3$576

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 (/(&75,&

6$0&/$52)),&()851,785( 2)),&()851,785(6
7(&+(/3)/( (775$,1,1* 26+$,163(&7,2175$,1,1*)((
:$/187& 5((.)25' 3$576

$))25'$%/(7,5(&(17(5 5(3$,56(59,&(6
%,//%5$1'7)25' 5(3$,56(59,&(6

),5(5,6.0$1$*(0(176(59,&(6 ,1685$1&(35(0,80

081,&,3$/0$,17(48,30(17,1& 3$576

3(7(562175$&725&2 3$576

,QIRUPDWLRQ6HUYLFHV)XQG
,QIRUPDWLRQ6HUYLFHV

9(5,=21:,5(/(66 '$7$86$*(
1HWZRUN6XSSRUW 3&V

$0$=21&$3,7$/6(59,&(6,1& 2)),&(6833/,(6

%5$'<,1'8675,(6 02'(0

&$57(55211 &$0(5$23(5$725

&,9,&3/86//& &,9,&3/86

',*,7$/6(59,&(6 :(%6,7(0$,17(1$1&( 7HOHSKRQH6\VWHP

$7$1'70&, 3+21(6
*,66XSSRUW6HUYLFHV

52.7(&+12/2*,(6//& &/28'+267,1*

9(5,=21:,5(/(66 '$7$86$*(

9(5,=21:,5(/(66 '$7$86$*(
)LQDQFH$FFRXQWLQJ
3UHSDUHGE\
1$FHYHGR
0D\3DJH

$35,/0$<

&/$,06%<)81'5(3257
)257+(3(5,2'2)
)81'&+(&.

.26026*(263$7,$///& &2168/7,1*6(59,&(6

2IILFH(TXLSPHQW5HSODFHPHQW

'(//&20387(5&253 &20387(5(48,30(17 /RVV&RQWURO)XQG
+XPDQ5HVRXUFHV

081,&,3$/322/,1*$87+25,7< 3$<52// :DWHU)XQG
1RQGHSDUWPHQWDO

+20('(3277+( 6833/,(6

/2:(6&203$1,(6,1& 6833/,(6

52%(576$1'%581(&2 60$//722/6

67$1'$5'3/80%,1*6833/<&2,1& 6833/,(6
%,6+23&2 6833/,(6

)$67(1$/&203$1< 6833/,(6

+$:7+2519(1785(6//& $33$5(/

,'1:,/&2 0$67(5/2&.6

$1,;7(5,1& 6833/,(6

*5$,1*(5,1& 6833/,(6

+$002166833/<&203$1< -$1,725,$/6833/,(6
$1,;7(5,1& 6833/,(6

*5$,1*(5,1& 6833/,(6

+$002166833/<&203$1< -$1,725,$/6833/,(6

%5$'<,1'8675,(6 -$1,725,$/6833/,(6 :DWHU6XSHUYLVLRQ

9(5,=21:,5(/(66 '$7$86$*(
:DWHU3URGXFWLRQ

$1,0$/'$0$* (0$1$*(0(17 3(67&21752/
$17,2&+$&(+$5':$5( 60$//722/6

+$55,1*721,1'8675,$/3/$67,&6//& 6833/,(6

+20('(3277+( 6833/,(6

.$5/$
6-$1,725,$/ 6833/,(56//& -$1,725,$/6(59,&(6

/2:(6&203$1,(6,1& 722/6

0&0$67(5&$556833/<&2 3$576

2)),&('(327,1& 2)),&(6833/,(6

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 *$6

3(55<-2+ 1621/$%$&&5(',7$7,21,1& /$%25$725<$66(660 (17

67$1'$5'3/80%,1*6833/<&2,1& 3/80%,1*6833/,(6
81,9$562/87,21686$,1& &+(0,&$/6

9(5,=21:,5(/(66 '$7$86$*(

$17,2&+$&(+$5':$5( 6833/,(6

$7$1'70&, 3+21(6

&$121),1$1&,$/6(59,&(6 &23,(5/($6(
),5(5,6.0$1$*(0(176(59,&(6 ,1685$1&(35(0,80
),6+(56&,(17,),&&203$1< /$%6833/,(6

)58,7*52:(56/$%25$725<,1& 7(67,1*

+21(<:(//,17(51$7,21$/,1& )851$&(5(3$,5/$%25

.$5/1(('+$0(17(535,6(6,1& &(175,)8*(6(59,&(6

/$:2)),&(2)0$77+(:(05,&. /(*$/6(59,&(6 )LQDQFH$FFRXQWLQJ
3UHSDUHGE\
1$FHYHGR
0D\3DJH
$35,/0$<

&/$,06%<)81'5(3257
)257+(3(5,2'2)
)81'&+(&.

/,0$872027,9(6833/<,1& 3$576

2)),&('(327,1& 2)),&(6833/,(6

52%(576$1'%581(&2 60$//722/6

67$1'$5'3/80%,1*6833/<&2,1& 3/80%,1*6833/,(6
7$33/$67,&6,1& 6833/,(6

7+(*8$/&2*5283,1& 352)(66,21$/6(59,&(6
81,9$562/87,21686$,1& &+(0,&$/6

:$/7(5%,6+23&2168/7,1* 352)(66,21$/6(59,&(6

&+(075$'(&+(0,&$/686//& &+(0,&$/6

6:$17(.6+$1121 /$%$&&5(',7$7,21
9,1&(17(/(&75,&02725&2 02725

&+(075$'(&+(0,&$/686//& &+(0,&$/6
&2162/,'$7('(/(&75,&$/',67,1& (/(&75,&$/6833/,(6

(852),16($721$1$/<7,&$/,1& 7(67,1*

*5$,1*(5,1& 722/6

+$&+&2 /$%6833/,(6

.2))/(5(/(&75,&$/0(&+$1,&$/ 3803:$55$17<(9$/8$7,21
3(1&&2,1& &+(0,&$/6
:DWHU'LVWULEXWLRQ

$17,2&+$&(+$5':$5( 6833/,(6

&$1'-)$9$/25$758&.,1*,1& )8/7215(&<&/(
&2817<$63+$/7 52&.)25)8/721

&:($6)%6 0(0%(56+,3'8(6

'(/7$',$%/2 5(&<&/(:$7(5)250$5&+

/,0$872027,9(6833/<,1& 722/6

/2:(6&203$1,(6,1& 6833/,(6

$/7(5('&$19$6 %$&.)/2:%$*6

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 *$6

52%(576$1'%581(&2 3,3(6833/,(6

6$0&/$52)),&()851,785( 2)),&()851,785(6

67$1'$5'3/80%,1*6833/<&2,1& 3/80%,1*6833/,(6
67$7(:$7(55(6&21752/%2$5' 0(0%(56+,3'8(6
9(5,=21:,5(/(66 '$7$86$*(

&$/,)251,$75$16/$7,21,17(51$7,21$/ 352)(66,21$/6(59,& (6
'(/7$',$%/2 5(&<&/(:$7(5

)$67(1$/&203$1< 6833/,(6

*$1'63$9,1* 6(59,&(&876

+$:7+2519(1785(6//& $33$5(/

2)),&('(327,1& 2)),&(6833/,(6

3($5&($1'5( : (;3(16(5(,0%856(0(17

67$1'$5'3/80%,1*6833/<&2,1& 3$576
,1)26(1',1& 35,17$1'0$,/6(59,&(6
8%(2% 86,1(666(59,&(6 35,17(56(59,&(

%$<$5($1(:6*5283($67%$< /(*$/$'

*5$,1*(5,1& 6833/,(6

,1)26(1',1& 35,17$1'0$,/6(59,&(6 3XEOLF%XLOGLQJV )DFLOLWLHV

&'060,7+,1& 352)(66,21$/6(59,&(6
)LQDQFH$FFRXQWLQJ
3UHSDUHGE\
1$FHYHGR
0D\3DJH
$35,/0$<

&/$,06%<)81'5(3257
)257+(3(5,2'2)
)81'&+(&.
6HZHU)XQG
6ZU:DVWHZDWHU$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ

$17,2&+$&(+$5':$5( 6833/,(6

&$1'-)$9$/25$ 758&.,1*,1& )8/7215(&<&/(
&$121),1$1&,$/6(59,&(6 &23,(5/($6(

2)),&('(327,1& 2)),&(6833/,(6

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 (/(&75,&
5$026-5*21=$/2 (;3(16(5(,0%856(0(17
52%(576$1'%581(&2 3,3(),77,1*6

520$127+(2'25(&215$' (;3(16(5(,0%856(0(17
520(52*$5&,$5,&$5'2$1'5(6 (;3(16(5(,0%856(0(17

9(5,=21:,5(/(66 '$7$86$*(

$17,2&+$&(+$5':$5( 6833/,(6

&$/,)251,$75$16/$7,21,17(51$7,21$/ 352)(66,21$/6(59,& (6
&$121),1$1&,$/6(59,&(6 &23,(5/($6(

&:($6)%6 0(0%(56+,3'8(6

*$1'63$9,1* 6(59,&(&876

2)),&('(327,1& 2)),&(6833/,(6

9(5,=21:,5(/(66 '$7$86$*(

'(//&20387(5&253 &2//(&7,216&+$5*(56
,1)26(1',1& 35,17$1'0$,/6(59,&(6
7200$//2<&25325$7,21 75(1&+6+25,1*5(17$/

%$<$5($1(:6*5283($67%$< /(*$/$'

*5$,1*(5,1& 6833/,(6

,1)26(1',1& 35,17$1'0$,/6(59,&(6
081,&,3$/0$,17(48,30(17,1& (48,30(17$1'6833/,(6

6&2772&+$5/(6:$1''211$) -81(5(17 0DULQD)XQG
0DULQD$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ

&20&$67 &211(&7,216(59,&(6

.$5/$
6-$1,725,$/ 6833/,(56//& -$1,725,$/6(59,&(6

/2:(6&203$1,(6,1& 6833/,(6

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&&2 *$6

6$0&/$52)),&()851,785( 2)),&()851,785(6

&86720,1.3$5(17//& 0$5,1$0(5&+
)LQDQFH$FFRXQWLQJ
3UHSDUHGE\
1$FHYHGR
0D\3DJH
+RXVLQJ)XQG
+RXVLQJ

&2175$&267$&5,6,6&(17(5 4)<&5,6,65(,0%

%$<$5($/(*$/$,' 4)<%$/$5(,0%

&,7<'$7$6(59,&(6//& 4)<&'6+65(,0%
6+(/7(5,1& 4)<6+/75(,0%

)257+(3(5,2'2)
)81'&+(&.
$6+286,1*68&&(6625$*(1&<727+($17,2&+'(9(/230(17
&/$,0%<)81'5(3257
$35,/0$<

)LQDQFH$FFRXQWLQJ
3UHSDUHGE\
1$FHYHGR
0D\3DJH
_______4E
)
Agenda Item #

STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE:

TO:

Regular Meeting of May 2, 2025
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
SUBMITTED BY: Derek Cole, Interim City Attorney DDC
SUBJECT: REJECTION OF CLAIM: KARL BROWNLEE JR.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council reject the claim submitted by KARL BROWNLEE JR.

Should the City Council desire to discuss this matter, it would be scheduled for a future closed session.

ATTACHMENTS
None.

Agenda Item #

STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: Regular Meeting of May 27, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
SUBMITTED BY: Dawn Merchant, Finance Director
APPROVED BY: Bessie Marie Scott, City Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution Establishing the Appropriations Limit for the 2025- 26 Fiscal Year

RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the resolution se lecting the California per capita personal income cost of living growth factor for Fiscal Year 2025-26, selecting the population percent change certified by the State Department of Finance for Fiscal Year 2025-26, and establishing the appropriations limit for the 2025 -26 Fiscal Year as $192,606,384.

FISCAL IMPACT
The attached resolution establishes a maximum limitation of app ropriations of $192,606,384 for the 2025-26 fiscal year, which the City cannot exceed. This does not mean the City has revenue sources to meet such a level of appro priation. The City’s 2025-26 General Fund projected budget appropriations are approximately $83.1M below this legal limit.

DISCUSSION
The passage of Proposition 4 in November 1979 amended the California Constitution and set appropriations limits for cities. The State-implemented le gislation requires cities to annually adopt a resolution establishing the appropriations lim it on spending by cities of funds from proceeds of taxes.

Analysis
Statistical information for calculating the City of Antioch's appropriation limit is as follows:
2024-25 Appropriations Limit - $180,022,791
Per Capita Personal Income Cost of Living Growth Factor - percent increase over previous year – 6.44%
Population Change - percent increase from previous year – 0.52% G
Antioch City Council Report
May 27, 2025 Agenda Item # 2
Based on the above statistics, the City of Antioch's appropriat ions limit for 2025-26 is $192,606,384.

Attachment B provides calculations for current and previous years.

ATTACHMENTS

A. Resolution Setting the Appropriations Limit for the 2025-26 Fiscal Year B. Calculations for Current and Previous Years
C. Letter from the State Department of Finance dated May 2025

ATTACHMENT A

RESOLUTION NO. 2025/**

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANTIOCH
SETTING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 AND

SELECTING THE CALIFORNIA PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME AND

THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE POPULATION GROWTH
FACTORS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26

WHEREAS, Article XIII B of the California Constitution (“Proposition 4” ) establishes expenditure limits for cities;

WHEREAS, State implementing legislation requires cities to annually ado pt a resolution establishing its appropriations limit for the following fiscal year;

WHEREAS, the Director of Finance has made the calculations specified in said law, and concludes that the 2025-26 appropriations limit is the sum of $192,606,384; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to said law, this agenda item has been made available to the public for two weeks prior to the date of adoption of this resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Antioch hereby selects the California per capita personal income cost o f living growth factor of

6.44 percent for Fiscal Year 2025-26, selects the population pe rcent change of 0.52 percent certified by the State Department of Finance for Fiscal Year 2025-26, and establishes the appropriations limit for the Fiscal Year 2025-26 as $192,606,384.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

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 27th day of May 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
_____________________________________

MELISSA RHODES

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANTIOCH

ATTACHMENT B
Base Year = 1986/87 - $20,840,418
New Calculated New Calculated
Year Rate Limit Year Rate Limit
97/98 1.0467 2012/13 1.0377

1.0214 x 45,938,248 = 49,112,581 1.0075 x 96,885,757 = 101,294,059

1.0691 1.0455
98/99 1.0415 2013/14 1.0512

1.0267 x 49,112,581 = 52,516,083 1.0112 x 101,294,059 = 107,675,585

1.0693 1.0630
99/00 1.0453 2014/15 0.9977

1.0218 x 52,516,083 = 56,092,428 1.0112 x 107,675,585 = 108,633,898

1.0681 1.0089
2000/01 1.0491 2015/16 1.0382

1.0269 x 56,092,428 = 60,428,373 1.0151 x 108,633,898 = 114,489,265

1.0773 1.0539
2001/02 1.0782 2016/17 1.0537

1.0280 x 60,428,373 = 66,978,809 1.0089 x 114,489,265 = 121,713,538

1.1084 1.0631
2002/03 0.9873 2017/18 1.0369

1.0384 x 66,978,809 = 68,666,675 1.0066 x 121,713,538 = 127,032,420

1.0252 1.0437

2003/04 1.0231 2018/19 1.0367

1.0276 x 68,666,675 = 72,189,275 1.0070 x 127,032,420 = 132,621,846

1.0513 1.0440
2004/05 1.0328 2019/20 1.0385

1.0154 x 72,189,275 = 75,704,893 1.0056 x 132,621,846 = 138,496,994

1.0487 1.0443
2005/06 1.0526 2020/21 1.0373

0.9995 x 75,704,893 = 79,649,118 1.0009 x 138,496,994 = 143,787,579

1.0521 1.0382
2006/07 1.0396 2021/22 1.0573

1.03 x 79,649,118 = 85,288,276 1.0055 x 143,787,579 = 152,860,575

1.07079 1.0631
2007/08 1.0442 2022/23 1.0755

0.9999 x 85,288,276 = 89,049,489 0.9994 x 152,860,575 = 164,309,832

1.0441 1.0749
2008/09 1.0429 2023/24 1.0444

1.0068 x 89,049,489 = 93,493,058 1.0094 x 164,309,832 = 173,215,425

1.0499 1.0542
2009/10 1.0062 2024/25 1.0362

1.0096 x 93,493,058 = 94,979,598 1.0030 x 173,215,425 = 180,022,791

1.0159 1.0393
2010/11 0.9746
2025/26 1.0644

1.0128 94,979,598 = 93,754,361 1.0052 x 180,022,791 = 192,606,384

0.9871 1.0699
2011/12 1.0251

1.0081 x 93,754,361 = 96,885,757

1.0334

APPROPRIATION LIMIT

APPLICATION OF REVISED RATES

May 2025

Dear Fiscal Officer:

Subject: Price Factor and Population Information

Appropriations Limit
California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 2227 requires the Department of Finance to transmit an estimate of the percentage change in population to local governments. Each local jurisdiction must use their percentage change in population factor for January 1, 2025, in conjunction with a change in the cost of living, or price factor, to calculate their appropriations limit for fiscal year 2025-26. Attachment A provides the change in California’s per capita personal income and an example for utilizing the price factor and population percentage change factor to calculate the 2025-26 appropriations limit. Attachment B provides the city and unincorporated county population percentage change along with the population percentage change for counties and their summed incorporated areas. The population percentage change data excludes federal and state institutionalized populations and military populations.

Population Percent Change for Special Districts
Some special districts must establish an annual appropriations limit. California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 2228 provides additional information regarding the appropriations limit.

Article XIII B, Section 9(C) of the California Constitution exempts certain special districts from the appropriations limit calculation mandate. The code section and the California Constitution can be accessed at the following website: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes.xhtml.

Special districts required by law to calculate their appropriations limit must present the calculation as part of their annual audit. Any questions special districts have on this requirement should be directed to their county, district legal counsel, or the law itself. No state agency reviews the local appropriations limits.

Population Certification
The population certification program applies only to cities and counties. California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 11005.6 mandates Finance to automatically certify any population estimate that exceeds the current certified population with the State Controller’s Office. Finance will certify the higher estimate to the State Controller by June 1, 2025.

Please Note: The prior year’s city population estimates may be revised. The per capita personal income change is based on historical data.

If you have any questions regarding this data, please contact the Demographic Research Unit at (916) 323-4086.

JOE STEPHENSHAW
Director
By:

ERIKA LI
Chief Deputy Director

Attachment
ATTACHMENT C, P. 1

May 2025
Attachment A

A. Price Factor: Article XIII B specifies that local jurisdictions select their cost of living factor to compute their appropriation limit by a vote of their governing body. The cost of living factor provided here is per capita personal income. If the percentage change in per capita personal income is selected, the percentage change to be used in setting the fiscal year 2025-26 appropriation limit is:

Per Capita Personal Income

Fiscal Year Percentage change
(FY) over prior year

2025-26 6.44

B. Following is an example using sample population change and the change in California per capita personal income as growth factors in computing a 2025-26 appropriation limit.

2025-26:

Per Capita Cost of Living Change = 6.44 percent
Population Change = 0.28 percent

Per Capita Cost of Living converted to a ratio: 6.44 + 100 = 1.0644 1 0 0

Population converted to a ratio: 0.28 + 100 = 1.0028 1 0 0

Calculation of factor for FY 2025-26: 1.0644 x 1.0028 = 1.0674

ATTACHMENT C, P. 2
FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2024 to January 1, 2025 and Total Population January 1, 2025 City County Percent Change 24-25
Population Minus
Exclusions 1-1-24
Population Minus
Exclusions 1-1-25 Total Population 1-1-25
Antioch City Contra Costa 0.52 116,177 116,781 116,781 Brentwood City Contra Costa 0.60 65,353 65,747 65,747 Clayton City Contra Costa -0.46 10,793 10,743 10,743 Concord City Contra Costa -0.34 123,074 122,650 122,650 Danville Town Contra Costa -0.16 43,030 42,960 42,960 El Cerrito City Contra Costa -0.31 25,943 25,862 25,862 Hercules City Contra Costa -0.50 26,357 26,225 26,225 Lafayette City Contra Costa -0.08 25,073 25,054 25,054 Martinez City Contra Costa -0.15 36,871 36,817 36,817 Moraga City Contra Costa -1.98 16,973 16,637 16,637 Oakley City Contra Costa 1.32 46,218 46,826 46,826 Orinda City Contra Costa -0.23 19,395 19,351 19,351 Pinole City Contra Costa -0.45 18,344 18,261 18,261 Pittsburg City Contra Costa 0.64 75,887 76,374 76,374 Pleasant Hill City Contra Costa -0.28 33,694 33,601 33,601 Richmond City Contra Costa -0.24 113,872 113,594 113,594 San Pablo City Contra Costa 0.18 31,450 31,507 31,507 San Ramon City Contra Costa 0.18 83,245 83,391 83,391 Walnut Creek City Contra Costa -0.44 70,238 69,927 69,927 Balance of County Contra Costa -0.20 176,178 175,833 175,917 Incorporated Contra Costa 0.03 981,987 982,308 982,308 County Total Contra Costa 0.00 1,158,165 1,158,141 1,158,225 ATTACHMENT C, P. 3

BD$--s@+><@DsD<sD/+s'1DIs'<F:'17s
)$D+
s AOTl_Kgs9OOjVcTsdPs9Kpsss
D<s 0dcdhKL_Os9KpdhsKcNs9OaLOhisdPs jUOs(Vjps(dlcMV_s

8dhWs9ONOVhdis%NbVcVijhKjVmOs%cK_pijs43s
CMdjjs&lOcjVcTs ?lL_VMsHdh^is*VhOMjdh(Xjps ,cTVcOO s

(dciVNOgKjVdcsdPs &VNisPehsjUOs?KmOaOcjs?_lTisKcNs8OmO_VcTs (dlhiOisKjsGKgVdlis8 dMKjVdcis?hd[OMj!s ?
H
s

s

2jsVishOMdaaOcNONsjUKjsjUOs(Vjps(dlcMV_sKNdfjsKshOid_ljVdc s r AO\OMjVcTsjUOsLVNsilLaVjjONsLps5Gs8lMKis?KmVcTs3cMsKiscdcgOifdciVmO" r %nKhNVcTs jUOs MdcijhlMjVdcs KThOOaOcjs Pdhs jUOs ?KmOaOcjs ?_lTis KcNs 8OmO_VcT (dlhiOis KjsGKhVdlis 8dMKjVdcis?hd[OMjsjds jUOs_dnOijsh OifdciVmOs KcNsgOifdciVL`O LVNNOhs(dcid_VNKjONs ,cTVcOOgVcTs3cM
#sKcN
r %ffhdmVcTs Kcs KTgOOaOcjs nVjUs (dcid_VNKjONs ,cTVcOOhVcTs 3cMs Vcs jUOs Kadlcjs dP

s KcNs KljUdhVqVcTs jUOs (Vjps 9KcKTOhs dhs NOiVTcOOs jds OoOMljOs jUO %ThOOaOcjsVcsKsPdhasKffhdmONsLpsjUOs(Vjps%jjdhcOp

EUOhOsVis
s AdKNs 9KVcjOcKcMOsKcNs AOUKLY_VjKjVdcs%MMdlcjsA9A%sPlcNVcTsVcs jUOs .Js s (KfVjK_s 4afgdmOaOcjs KcNs =fOhKjVcTs &lNTOjis nUVMUs nV__s fhdmXNOs Shs MdcijglMjVdcs OcTVcOOhVcTs KcNs aKcKTOaOcj s VcifOMjVdcs jOijVcTs KcNs MdcjhKMjs KNaXcVijhKjVdcsdPsjUOs?KmOaOcjs?_lTisKcNs8OmO_VcTs(dlhiOisKjsGKhVdlis8dMKjVdcis?hd]OMj s

=cs9KpsssPVmOssLVNisnOhOshOMOVmONsPehsjUOs?KmOaOcjs?_lTisKcNs8OmO_VcTs(dlhiOis KjsGKgVdlis 8dMKjZdcis?hd[OMjs ?hd[OMjs EUOsKffKhOcjs_dnsLVNsnK isilLaVjjONsLps6Gs8lMKis ?KmVcTs3cMsVcsjUOs KadlcjsdPs

s
EUOsfhd[OMjsMdciVijisdPsMd_Nsf_KcVcTsOoVijVcTsgdKNnKpsiOMjVdcisVcijK`_VcTsKifUK_jsMdcMhOjOs f_lTisKcNs_OmO_VcTsMdlhiOisKjsmKgVdlis_dMKjVdci
s%NNVjVdcK_sndh^sVcM_lNOisKN[lijVcTsljX_VjVOis
jds ThKNOsVcijK__VcTs jhKRMs ijhVfVcTsfKmOaOcjsaKh^VcTis KcNs aKh^OhisjhKQVMs Mdcjhd_sKcNs nKjOgsfd__ljVdcsMdcjhd_
s EUOsLXNsjKLl_KjVdcsVisiUdncsdcs%kjKMUaOcjs&s
EUOs(dcjhKMjs *dMlaOcjisKcNs?_KcisiOMjVdcsnVjUVcsjUOs ;djVMOs 4cmVjVcTs&VNisdPs jUOsfhd[OMjs CfOMVK_s?hdmViYdcs ijKjOis jUKjs K_`sLVNNOhis alijs flhMUKiOs KsMdaf_OjOs LVNs iOjs dPs(dcjgKMjs

3%:1'298>(631>
"46'88>
'463*6#4+,%8>,2>37&' 6>93>$'>%328,&'6'& >6'84328,;'> !>

:%#8>
#;,2*> 2%>&,&>239> 4:6%+#8'>#> %3140'9'>$,&>8'9>3(>329#%9> 3%:1'298>(631>
"46'88>
'463*6#4+,%8 >
:'>93>!>
:%#8>
#;,2*> 02%8>(#,0:6'>93>1''9>9+'>6'5:,6'1'29>3(>4:6%+#8'>#>%3140'9'> $,&> 8'9> 3(> 3296#%9> 3%:1'298> (631>
"46'88>
'463*6#4+,%8> 9#)>6'%311'2&8>
&''1-2*>!>
:%#8>
#;,2*>02% 8>$,&>#8>2326'84328,;'> #2&>6'.'%9,2*>!>
:%#8>
#;,2*>
02% 8>$,&>93>9+,8>463.'%9
>9#)>6'%311'2&8>#<#6&,2*>#>%3296#%9>93>9+'>03<'89>6'84328,;'> $,&&'6> 32830,&#9'&> 2*-2''6,2*> 2%> ,2>9+'> #13:29> 3(>

> 32830,&#9'&>
2*,2''6,2*>02%
8>$,&>+#8>$''2>%+'%/'&>#2&>(3:2&>93>$'><,9+3:9>#2=>'66368>36>31,88,328>
>
'830:9,32>
> -&> #$:0#9,32>
'' '..
$%!
('! . ! .

.
$%!
('! .!.'.
',.!(

.!.'.
',.!. '
!.
$
'
.'.
.%(''.,.
).
(%.") .
.*$
.'.
") '.#
(%. .
)

.!($%&.'.)$
!(%.
!'! &.
"$!
'.$ '.'!.! &!

'. $ .
. .
('!$
-
.'.
',. $.!$.%
.'!.+('.'.
$ '.
"
*
.
.
*$%. G3.Q &*K.?.@GQ&:J2FQ *@-Q !.K.;4@2Q AJDF.FQ *HQ)*D5AJFQ !A,*G5A@FQ &DA8.,HQ&DA8.,GQL*FQ CJ+<5F3.-Q*@-Q*[email protected] *FGQAJ@GNQ(5?.FQA@Q$*D,3QQ

Q*@-Q$*D,3QQ
Q*@-Q*Q%AG6,.QGAQA@GD*,GADFQL*[email protected],A@FGDJ,G5A@QID*-.Q 8AJD@*;FQ
*$%.A@Q$*NQQ
Q/5K.QQ+5-FQL.D.QD.,.5K.-Q1DQG3.Q&DA8.,GQ
*$%. G3.Q5GNQAJ@,4;Q3*FQ ,[email protected].,[email protected] +5-QFJ+?5GG.-Q+NQ )Q !J,*FQ&*K5@2Q
@,
Q*FQ@A@ D.FCA@F5K.Q*@-Q
*$%.G3.Q5HNQ AJ@,5<Q3*FQ,[email protected] *L*D-5@2Q G3.Q&DA9.,GQ ,A@FGDJ,G5A@Q *2D..?.@GQ2D..?.@HQHAQG3.Q:AL.FGQD.FCA@F5K.Q*@-QD.FCA@F6+:.Q+5--.DQA@FA:6-*G.-Q

@[email protected]@2Q
@,
Q

Q/ADQ*QHAG*;Q*?AJ@GQA/Q
Q
!*.'$!$..
'.$%!
).G3*HQH3.Q5GNQAJ@,5:QA/QH3.Q5HNQA/Q@G5A,3Q

3.D.+NQ
P '.8.,HFQG3.Q+5-QFJ+?5HH.-Q+NQ )Q !J,*FQ&*K5@2Q
@,
Q*FQ@A@
D.FCA@F5K.
P L*D-FQH3.Q,A@FHDJ,H5A@Q*2D..?.@HQ/BDQH3.Q&*K.?.@HQ&=J2FQ*@-Q".K.:5@2QAJDF.F *GQ)*D5AJFQ#A,*G5A@FQ &DA8.,GQGAQG3.Q :AL.FHQD.FCA@F5K.Q *@-QD.FCA@F5+:.Q+5--.D A@FA:5-*G.-Q
@[email protected]@2Q
@,
Q*@-
P CCDAK.FQ *@Q*2D..?.@GQ L5H3QA@FA>4-*G.-Q
@[email protected]@2Q @,
Q4@QH3 .Q *?AJ@GQA/
Q *@-Q *JG3AD5O5@2Q G3.Q 5GNQ $*@*2.DQ ADQ [email protected] HAQ .M.,JG.Q G3. 2D..?.@GQ5@Q*Q0AD?Q*CCDAK.-Q+NQG3.Q5GNQ[email protected]

Q Q Q Q

+, , ,

%&,&,

,"$
(%
,*$,
$$,,
',+,%,

%+,

(,
, %,
%+,
, %
,%,,!(", %,%#
, ,
,&,&,+,
,

+, , +,%,

*,)
%,

%(@!@ %!@

!@%%
@ ")>.4.5;@"2</:@)5-@
.>.215/@6<8:.:@);@&)816<:@
6+);165:@
"'@

@

$@!" @)?@@

@7 4
@
1;?@6=5,13@0)4*.8:@
5/15..9:@
)&$)'
!)
!) "!$"
%) !
!#
!)
!) )#'
$)
!)

"%%
)"!$%#&%
"!)")
:;14);.@ #%
!() "!"#) "!"#) !%)"$)
%!%
@@"#@

a &a
a a &a
a

a
'#./a+ a.0

+*/-
/+-.a
&
#!&
$
&
&

!
"&

&

& $!&
&
""&

!" #"

%&
a .WR>O>M;a
-N16_1`a0a
=S>VPa
NLP3`a

a (>JJ>M;a

=S>VQa
Na ,1^7L7MXa-75`5I>M<a.`VX7LVa
a -1>V7a"RNMa
,15>8C5a)NUW=_7VWa+>Ja %N=MVNMa
NMVYR]5Y>NMa
/U195a
NMZNIa

>X`a-BV7a/S1:5a
NMWSNHa
/15Ga+?Ka
,15>8C5a)NTX=_7VYa+>Ka
0W>H?[a6D\VXL7MWVa
$

a
.WT>O>M;a

=U>VPa
NLP1M`a

6E]VWa"RNMa

a!7M7S1IaM<>M77S>M<a
.WS>O>M;a

=UAVPa
NLQ4`a
/15Ga+>Ia
-776aa!T1=2La#M5
a

a!R>M6>M;a
MT2Ga
NUQNT1X>NMa

"%%
)#"$)
!)
!))

a

""&
!&
&
.XS>O>M;a

=R>VPa
NLP3`a
6F]VXa0W>J>X@7Va
%

a

*5:SC1NY&55R<I:YJ6Y&1WYYY
"JIJN12C5Y&1WJNY1I4Y&5H25NQYJ6YR;5Y=RWYJSI3=CY
%JN=Y&545=NJQY
4H=I<QRN1R=T5Y
I1CWQRY#$Y
+3JRRY
S5IR=I:Y)S2C<3Y/JNBQY =N53RJN=RWY!I:=I55Y
JIQ=45N1R=JIYJ6Y
=4QY6JNYR;5Y'=3BY*J4N=:S5XYJHHSI=RW+5I=JNY
5IR5NY*JJ6Y*5LC135H5IR
Y)
Y/
Y Y

$RY=QYN53JHH5I454YR;1RYR;5Y =RWYJSI3=CY14JLRY1YN5QJCSR=JIYRJYN5@53RY1CCY2=4QY9NYR;5Y'=3BY *J4N=:S5XYJHHSI=RW+5I=JNY5IR5NY *JJ6Y*5LC135H5IRY1I4Y4=N53RYQR17YRJYN5 2=4YR;5Y
LNJA53R
Y

.;5N5Y=QYIJY6=Q31CY=HL13RYN5@53R=I:Y2<4QY6JNYR;5Y'=3BY*J4N=:S5XYJHHSI=RW+5I<JNY5IR5NY *JJ6Y*5LC135H5IRYLNJ@53RY

(IY
LN=CYYYR;N55YY2=4QYU5N5YN535=T54Y6JNYR;5Y'=3BY*J4N=:S5XYJHHSI=RW+5I=JNY 5IR5NY*JJ6Y*5LC135H5IRY)NJ@53R
Y-;5Y)NJ@53RY3JIQ=QRQYJ6YN5IJT1R=I:YR;5Y5V=QR=I:Y'=3BY
*J4N=:S5XYJHHSI<RW+5I=JNY5IR5NY NJJ6
Y.;5YUJNBY=I3CS45QYN5HJT1CY1I4Y4=QLJQ1DYJ6Y
5V=QR=I:YNJJ6YN5HJT1CY1I4YN5LC135H5IRYJ6Y5V=QR=I:Y NJJ6YQRNS3RSN5YU;5N5Y1LLC=312C5Y1I4Y =IQR1CC1R=JIYJ6YI5UY=RWY+SLLC>54YHJ4=6=54Y2=RSH5IYOJJ6=I:YQWQR5H Y
.;5Y1LL1N5IRYCJUY2=4YU1QYQS2H=RR54Y2WYJSNRI5WY#I3
YEY=IYR;5Y1HJSIRYJ6YY
R;5Y1LL1N5IRYQ53JI4YCJUY2=4YU1QYQS2H=RR54Y2WY
5QRYJIRN13R=I:Y+5NT=35QY#I3
Y,+#Y
=IYR;5Y1HJSIRY J6YY 1I4YR;5Y 1LL1N5IRYR;=N4YCJUY2=4YU1QYQS2H?RR54Y2WY+RNJI:5NY

S=C4=I:Y+5P=35QY+
+Y=IY R;5Y1HJSIRYJ6YY -;5Y2=4YR12SF1R=JIY=QYQ;JUIYJIY

RR13;H5IRY
Y
-;5YJIRN13RY J3SH5IRQY1I4Y)C1IQYQ53R=JIYU=R;=IYR;5Y'JR=35Y$IT=R=I:Y =4QYJ6YR;5YLNJ@53RY
+L53=1GY)NJT=Q=JIYQR1R5QYR;1RY1CCY2=445NQYHSQRYLSN3;1Q5Y1Y3JHLC5R5Y2=4YQ5RYJ6Y JIRN13RY J3SH5IRQY6NJHY
)0LN5QQY*5LNJ:N1L;=3QY=IYJN45NYRJY25Y3JIQ=45N54YN5QLJIQ=T5Y

JR;YEY1I4Y
+$Y61=C54YRJYH55RYR;5YN5MS=N5H5IRYJ6YLSN3;1Q=I:Y 1Y3JHLC5R5Y2=4YQ5RYJ6Y JIR13RY J3SH5IRQY6NJHY
)0LN5QQY*5LNJ:N1L;=3QYN5I45N=I:YR;5=NY2=4QYIJI
N5QLJIQ=T5
Y
+
+YQS2H=RR54YR;5YCJU5QRYN5QLJIQ=T5YN5QLJIQ=2C5Y2=4Y6KNYR;5Y)NJ@53RY;JU5T5NY4S5YRJYR;5Y C1N:5YQLN514Y=IY R;5Y2=4Y1HJSIRQYQR18YN53JHH5I4QYR;1RY1CCY 2=4QY25YN5@53R54Y1I4YR;5Y

##
#"# #

##

#
# ##
##
#

#
#

##

###

#

!###
!
###

#
!

#

#
#
# #

#
**#$*44
()&!,+
&$4$&
4

4
()&!,*
&$4&4*
4
+/4&,$
!4&4*
4
*/4&4$*
&
4 *&4(*4"!4
)4$4
(*4)*4*&4(
4*4$
4(&(
,04
&##,$
*/
)$
&(4$*(4(&&4('!#$*4'(&*4
'
.
4 4
.()4 O94U ):2?U ,H3K:7P4TU $HFFPG:OS-4G:HKU $4 GO4KU ,HH5U ,4I@024F4GOU *KH=42OUR0NUIP1@:N943U0G3U03Q4M;N43U:GU O94U&0NOU$HPGOSU.:F4NUHGU(0K29U UU0G3U
(0L29U
UU0G3U0U )HO:24UOHU$HGOK02OHKNUR0NUN4GOUOHUO94U 2HGNOKP2O:HGUOK034U=HPKG0@N U
.()4HGU"IK:AU
U
U O9K44UU1:3NU R4K4UK424:Q43U5HKUO94U*KH=42OU
.()4 O94U0II0K4GOU @HRU 1:3UR0NU NP1F:OO43U 1SU $HPMG4S U 'G2U $@U <GU O94U
0FHPGOU H5U

U O94U0II0K4GOU N42HG3U @HRU1:3U R0NU NP1F:OO43U 1SU#4NOU $HGOK02O:G7U -4KQ:24N
U 'G2U #$-'U :GU O94U 0FHPGOU H5U

U 0G3U O94U 0II0K4GOUO9:K3U @HRU 1:3U R0NU
NP1F:OO43U1SU-OKHG74KU#P:@3:G7U -4KQ:24NU-#-U:GUO94U 0FHPGOUH5U
U
.()4 O94U$HGOL02OU %H2PF4GONU0G3U*@0GNU N42O:HGUR:O9:GUO94U )HO:24U'GQ:O:G7U #;3NUH5UO94UIKH=42OU-I42:0BU*KHQ:N:HGUNO0O4NUO90OU0D@U1:334KNUFPNOUIPK290N4U0U2HFI@4O4U1:3U N4OU H5U $HGOK02OU %H2PF4GONU 5KHFU #*/IK4NNU ,4IKH8K0I9<2NU :GU HK34KU OHU 14U 2HGN:34K43U K4NIHGN:Q4!U 0G3U
.()4 1HO9U $CU 0G3U #$-'U 50;@43U OHU F44OU O94U K4JP;K4F4GOU H5U IPK290N:G7U 0U 2HFI@4O4U 1:3U N4OU H5U$HGO02OU %H2PF4GONU 5KHFU #*/IK4NNU ,4IKH7K0I9;2NU K4G34K:G7U O94:KU 1:3NU GHGL4NIHGN:Q4U -#-U NP1 F:OO43U O 94U DHR4NOU K4N IHGN:Q4U K4NIHGN:1@4U 1;3U 5HKU O94U *KH=42O
U 9HR4Q4KU 3P4U OHU O94U @0K74U NIK403U :GU O94U 1:3U 0FHPGON U O94U $;OSU $HPG2;@U 90NU
2HGN:34K43U O90OU 0@EU 1:3NU 14U K4=42O43
U 0G3U O94U ILH=42OU 14U K41:3U R:O9U O94U K4JP;K4F4GOU H5U IPK290N:G7U 0U2HFI@4O4U1;3UN4OUH5U$HGO02OU %H2PF4GONU5KHFU#+/IK 4NNU ,4IKH7K0I9:2NU :GU HK34KUOHU14U2HGN:34K43UK4NIHGN:Q4UHGUO94U2HQ4KUH5UO94U -I42:0@U *KHQ:N:HGNU $&.4*(&(44
*4()&!-4O90OUO94U$:OSU$HPG2:@UH5UO94U$:OSUH5U"GO;H29U 94K41SU 03HIONU 0U K4NH@PO:HGU OHU K4>42OU 0@@U1:3NU 5HKU O94U%2134 ,H3K:7P4TU $HFFPG:OS-4G:HKU $4GO4KU,HH5U ,4I@024F4GOU0G3U3:K42OUNO056UOHUK41:3UO94U+KH=42OU U
U

'(((

((

(

#
#(#(!
(!"$#
(&
"(
""(

(
#('(#(
#'( $
((#( #'((
#(
#(
(!$
!(
#
(#!((
(#(#(
'((

'(('(#(

&
(%#(

>L]b»TF»9R]LT?H»

NT;»]M]OD7» Rg»Xm¢´oº»>´³
[p¢»>op£»Yz»Xq cgop®»
Va»(41#(»
;MA[»TWDREA7» 9¡¢»%&»%
%,»%8

» »
>²¹»>´k»?cfp¤«»
D
pp£«» @µ¥¯r¸»Ih» <s¬¯»@°¥dh¯»\rªlt¬ »Ii» \°¥r¦»<¶n»\u¦·lr¬» D«±c±p» P·r¦¦r» Gd§ntd» \d»Pvdn§»
^T]:O»;LC»WXM?D» $

» /5"
*5)
» 360
+2-
» "
$'-

2.!»

Bw» Z{»Bx» Sy»
=Q»_xe©»U|}»Jj» =Q»`we¨»U~»Kj»

'05K=+FQ%00J7C5QD1Q%+OQQ Q
DCDF+,=0Q%+ODFQ+C/Q%0B,0FIQD1QJ60Q8JOQDKC.7=Q
C/F0MQ$7JJ=0Q &FD;0.JQ %+C+50FQ>CJ0H0IJQ

(.DJJQK0CJ8C5Q &K,=7.Q*DF<IQ
7F0.JDF7JOQ
C57C00FQ
(0.DC/QB0C/B0CJQJDQJ60Q(JF00JIQDDE0F+J7L0Q5F00B0CJQ0JM00CQ J60Q 7JOQ D1QCJ7D.6Q+C/Q J60Q7JOQ D2QF0CJMDD/Q +C/QKJ6DF7P7C5Q J60Q 7JOQ%+C+50FQDFQ
0I75C00QJDQ
N0.KJ0QJ60Q5F00B0CJQ

JQ 7IQ F0.DBB0C/0/Q J6+JQ J60Q 7JOQ DKC.8?Q +/DEJQ +Q F0ID=KJ7DCQ +EEFDL7C5Q J60Q (0.DC/Q B0C/B0CJQJDQJ60Q (JF00JIQDDE0F+J8L0Q5F00B0CJQ,0JM00CQJ60Q 7JOQD1Q CJ7D.6Q+C/QJ60Q 7JOQ D2QF0CJMDD/Q7C.=K/7C5Q 0+I0B0CJQ /00/IQ +C/Q+/B8C7IJF+J9L0Q/D.KB0CJIQ+IQ B+OQ -0Q C0.0II+FOQJDQ .+FGO
DKJQJ60Q+5F00B0CJQ +C/Q+KJ6DF7P7C5QJ60Q 7JOQ%+C+50FQDFQ /0I85C00Q JDQ 0N0.KJ0Q+Q (0.DC/QB0C/B0CJQJDQ J60Q+5G00B0CJQ +C/Q 1KJKF0Q+B0C/B0CJIQC0.0II+GOQ+IQ 8BEFDL0B0CJIQ+F0Q.DCIJFK.J0/Q7CQ+Q 1DFBQ+EEFDL0/Q-OQ J60Q8JOQJJDFC0OQ

!CQ +..DF/+C.0Q M7J6Q (0.J7DCQ Q D2Q J60Q (JF00JIQ DDE0F+J7L0Q 5F00B0CJQ 5F00B0CJQ +IQ +B0C/0/Q,OQJ60Q 17FIJQ+B0C/B0CJ Q F0CJMDD/QI6+=@QE+OQCJ7D.6Q+CCK+==OQ1DFQDC0 6+=1QD1Q
J60Q .DIJQ D1QB+7CJ+7C7C5QJ60Q=+C/I.+E0/QB0/7+CIQJ6+JQ +F0Q.DCJ75KDKIQJDQ J60Q7J70IQDCQJ60Q IK,;0.JQ IJF00JIQ F0CJMDD/Q I6+==Q +=IDQ E+OQ CJ7D.6Q 1DFQ J60Q .DIJQ D1Q FD+/M+OQ B+7CJ0C+C.0Q Q ,+I0/QKEDCQJ60QE FDEDFJ7DC+=Q+BDKCJQD1QE+L 0B0CJQD1Q J60Q IK,;0.JQ IJF00JIQ M7J67CQF0CJMDD/Q.7 JOQ=8B7JIQ Q Q
"CQ +..DF/+C.0Q M7J6Q(0.J7DCQ Q D1Q J60Q 5F00B0CJQ +IQ+B0C/0/Q ,OQJ60Q 17FIJQ +B0C/B0CJ Q
)F+137.Q I75C+=Q DE0F+J7DCQ +C/Q B+8CJ0C+C.0Q.DIJIQ I6+==Q ,0QI6+F0/Q ,OQ 7J70IQ DCQ +Q JF+47.Q ,0C017JQ,+I8I
Q+IQ/0J0FB7C0/Q ,OQJ60QCJ7D.6Q7JOQ
C57C00FQ +C/QF0CJMDD/Q7JOQ
C58C00FQ
7J70IQ I6+==Q F07B,KFI0Q0+.6QDJ60FQ +CCK+@=OQ1DFQ J60Q .DIJIQ J6+JQB+OQ,0Q 7C.KFF0/Q,OQ 07J60FQ
(JF00JQB+7CJ0C+C.0QM7=@Q,0Q E+8/QL7+Q
+IQ)+NQ +C/QJ60Q
0C0F+=Q 1KC/Q %0/7+CQ=+C/I.+E7C5Q
M7A=Q,0QE+7/QL7+Q1KC/IQ.D==0.J0/Q 1FDBQJ60Q#+C/I.+E0Q+C/Q$756J:C5Q 7IJF7.JQ

:G
(A;'*>GG GA/*G0AFG;B:(04G&==>;C*)GA/*G.>**9*:AGAA&(/9*:AGG'*AD**:G A/*G0AFG;+G :A0;(/G&:)GA/*G0AFG;+G>*:AD;;)
G "/*G0AFG;+G :A0;(/GA/*:G&((*=A*)GA/*G
)**)*)G9&0:A*:&:(*G*&@*9*:AG+>;9GA/*G0AFG;+G>*:AD;;)G+;>G=;>A0;:@G;+G;:*G">**G%&FG &:)G*0);>:G &:(/G ;&)
G

:G
&>(/GG GA/*G0AFG;B:(04G&==>;C*)GA/*G1>@AG9*:)9*:AGAA&(/9*:AGGA;G A/*G.>**9*:AGD/0(/G&))*)G&))0A1;:&4G&>*&@G;+G9=0>*GC*:B*G=>;=;>A0;:&5G(;@AG@/&>*G ;+G>;&)D&FG9&0:A*:&:(*G&:)GA>&+,0(G@0.:&6G(;@AG@/&>*G;:G&GA>&-0(G'*:*+0AG'&@1@ G
$&>0;B@G@A>**A@G&'BAGA/*G(0AFG4090A@G;+G:A0;(/G&:)G>*:AD;;) GB>@B&:AGA;GA/*GA*>9@G;+GA/*G
*E0@A1:.G.>**9*:AGA/*G 0AFG;+G:A0;(/G9&0:A&0:@GA/*@*G@/&>*)G>;&)D&F@G&:)G9*)0&:G 7&:)@(&=0:.G&:)G=*>0;)0(&44FG'044@GA/*G0AFG;+G>*:AD;;)G+<?G@/&>*)G9&0:A*:&:(*G(;@A@ G
!2:(*G*E*(BA0;:G;+G A/*G .>**9*:AG&:)GA/*G 0>@AG9*:)9*:AG&))0A0;:&4G@A>**A@G&:)G 09=>;C*9*:A@GA/&AG&'BAG';A/G(0A0*@G4090A@G/&C*G'**:G(;:@A>B(A*) G
!A&+,G >*(;99*:)@G A/&AGA/*G 0AFG ;B:(04G &==>;C*GA/*G !*(;:)G 9*:)9*:AG A;G A/*G .>**9*:AGAA&(/9*:AGGA/&AG0:(4B)*@G&))0A0;:&4G&>*&@G;+G*0);>:G &:(/G ;&)G+>;9G &@AG&FG
B:0(0=&4G #A040AFG1@A>0(AG >0./A;+D&FGA;G
4)G!&:)G> **3G ;&)G&@G @/;D:G0:G
AA&(/9*:AG
G84G;A/*>G*E0@A0:.GA*>9@G0:G A/*G.>**9*:AG0:(4B)0:.GA/*G1>@AG9*:)9*:AG &>*GA;G>*9&0:G&@ 0@
G

*@;4BA0;:

$0(0:0AFG
&=

!A>**A@G;;=*>&A0C*G.>**9*:A

0>@AG9*:)9*:AGA;GA/*G!A>**A@G;;=*>&A0C*G.>**9*:A

!*(;:)G9*:)9*:AGA;GA/*G!A>**A@G;;=*>&A0C*G.>**9*:A

*.&4G*@(>0=A1;:G&:)G4&AG+;>G*0);>:G &:(/G ;&)G
&0:A*:&:(*G>*&

%
%

%%
%
#%%%
%
#%%

%

%
%
%

%
%
%

%

%
!%
%
#%%

%
%

%
#%%

!%
%

$%
%
#%

%
%

%
%"
%
%

%
!

%=$7.4<:D:;7((;:D$%<;D%4;-D;-(D&.;AD0.1.;:D4)D3;.4&-D$3'D7(3;>44'D !

%43D&;4%(8DD

D%AD (:40<;.43D
4D

D;-(D.;AD4<3&.0D
$6684=('D;-(D!;7((;:D446(7$;.=(D,7((1(3;D,7((1(3;D%(;>((3D;-(D/;AD4)D3;.4&-D $3'D;-(D.;AD4)D8(3;>44'D$3'D ;-(D.;AD4)D3;.4&-D$&&(6;('D;-(D'(('('D1$.3;(3$3&(D ($:(1(3;D)841D;-(D.;AD4)D8(3;>44'D)57D649.43:D4)D43(D"7((D#$AD$3'D(/'473D $3&-D 4$'D
!

%43D$7&-D

D%AD (:40<;.43D
4D

D.;AD4<3&.0D$6684=('D
.7:;D1(3'2(3;D;4D ;-(D,7((1(3;D>-.&-D$''('D$''.;.43$0D$7($:D4)D16.7(D =(3<(D 674647;.43$0D&4:;D:-$7(D4)D74$'>$AD2$.3;(3$3&(D$3'D;7$+.&D:.,3$0D&4:;D:-$7(D43D$D;7$)*.&D %(3().;D%$:/:D$3'D
!

% :.3&(D (?(&<;.43D 4)D;-(D ,7((2(3;D $3'D ;-(D.8:;D 1(3'1(3;D $''.;.43$0D:;7((;:D$3'D.2674=(1(3;:D;-$;D$%<;D%4;-D&/;.(:D0.1.;:D-$=(D%((3D&43:;7<&;('D !%

%%
%

%;-$;D;-(D.;AD4<3&.0D4)D;-(D.;AD4)D3;.4&-D
'4(:D-(7(%AD

6674=(D;-(D!(&43'D1(3'2(3;D;4D;-(D!;7((;:D446(7$;/=(D,8((1(3;D%(;>((3 ;-(D/;AD4)D3;.4&-D$3'D.;AD4)D7(3;>44'

<;-47.B(D.;AD $3$,(7D47D'(:.,3((D;4D (@(&<;(D;-(D!(&43'D1(3'1(3;D$3' )<;<7(D$1(3'1(3;:D3(&(::$7AD$:D.1674=(1(3;:D$7(D&43:;7<&;('D;4D;-(D!;7((;:
446(7$;.=(D,7((1(3;D%(;>((3D;-(D .;AD4)D3;.4&-D$3'D .;AD4)D7(3;>44'D.3D$ )471D$6674=('D%AD;-(D.;AD;;473(AD$3'

<;-47.C(D ;-(D .;AD
$3$,(7D 47D '(:.,3((D ;4D (?(&<;(D ($:(1(3;D'((':D $3'
$'1.3.:;7$;.=(D'4&<1(3;:D.3D$D )471D$6674=('D%AD;-(D.;AD;;473(AD$:D 1$AD%( 3(&(::$7AD;4D(+(&;<$;(D;-(D,8((1(3;
D D

#$$$

$
$

$$
$

$"

$
$
$
#$$
#$ $$$#$ $$
$
$

$$
$$$$$
#$$

#$$
#$$"$!$

0:=SC6MY+::R?G=YI;Y+6WY
YY
&IGIM67C:Y+6WINY6G9Y+:F7:MQYI;YR>:Y!?RWY!ISG8?CY
)6QIGY IH?CD6Y.K:M6R?IHQY1SK:,@QIN Y$68@D@R?:QY
18IRRY S:GR@G=Y/S7D@8Y4IMBQY"@M:8RIN!?RWY#G=@G::NY +SDR?
5:6MY !IIK:M6R?T:Y =M::F:GRY U?R>Y &IG:WU:CDY S?D9@G=Y 1IESR@IGQY;JMY&3!Y+6@GR:H6G8:Y6G9Y0:K6@MQY6RY!@RWY$68@E@R@:QY@GYR>:Y FISGRYI;Y

Y

(RY@QYM:8IFF:H9:9YR>6RY R>:Y!@RWY !ISG8@DY69IKRY6YM:QICSR@IGY6KKMIT?G=Y6Y1ISN8:U:DCY !IIK:N6R@T:Y /SN8>6Q@G=Y =N::F:HRY U@R>Y &IG:WU:CDY S?D9?G=Y 1ICSR@IGQY <INY &3!Y +6?GR:G6G8:Y6G9Y0:K6?NQY6RY!@RWY $68?C?R@:QY<INY6YR:NFYI;YR>M::YYW:6NQY:G9?G=Y)SH:Y Y

Y@GYR>:Y6FISGRYI;Y

Y U@R>Y6GYIKR?IGYRIY:VR:G9Y 6GY699?R@IG6DYRUIYYW:6NQY :H9?G=Y)SG:Y
YY?GYR>:Y6FISHRYI<Y

Y<INY6YRIR6DY<@T:YYW:6NY6=N::F:GRY
6FISGRYI;Y

Y2>?QYRIR6DY6FISGRY?G8DS9:QYY<INY:68>Y8IHRN68RYW:6MY<INY K6PQY6G9Y Q:-@8:YI<Y6=?G=Y&3!Y8IFKIG:GRQY6G9Y6SR>IM@X@G=Y R>:Y!?RWY+6G6=:MYIMY 9:Q@=G::YRIY:V:8SR:YR>:Y!IIK:M6R?T:Y/SN8>6Q@G=Y=M::F:HRY?GY6Y;JNFY6KKMIT:9Y7WYR>:Y !?RWYRRING:WY

$SG9?G=Y<INYR>@QY:VK:G9?RSN:Y;IMY'3!YF6@GR:G6G8:Y6G9YN:K6?NQYU?CDY7:YM:LS:QR:9Y6QYK6MRY I<YR>:Y!@RWQY7@:HG@6DY7S9=:RYKNI8:QQ
Y2>:Y;SG9?G=YQISM8:QYU?CDY7:YR>:Y%:G:N6DY$SG9Y6G9Y
46R:NY#GR:NKM?Q:Y$SG9Y2>:YRIR6DY6FISGRYI;YR>:Y;?T:YYW:6NY6=M::F:GRYU>@8>Y@G8DS9:QY6Y
Y 8IGR?G=:G8WY <IMY SG;IM:Q::GY 699AR@IG6DY N:K6?NQY ISRQ?9:Y I;Y R>:Y N:=SC6NY F6@GR:G6G8:Y8IGRN68RY@QY

Y

&IG:WU:CDY8SOM:GRCWY KMIT?9:QYF6?HR:H6G8:Y6H9Y N:K6?MYQ:,@8:QYRIY R>:Y!?RWQY>:6R?G=Y T:GR?C6R?G=Y6G9Y6@MY8IG9@R?IG?G=Y&3!YQWQR:FQY6RY8@RWYIUG:9Y;68?C@R@:QY@G8CS9?G=Y!@RWY&6DCY /ID@8:Y1R6R@IH
Y1:G?IMY!IFFSG@RWY!:GR:MY+6?GR:G6G8:Y1:-?8:QY!:HR:NY/N:U:RRY46R:MY /6MB
YGR@I8>Y!IFFSG?RWY!:GR:MY6G9Y*WHGY'ISQ:Y 'IG:WU:CDQY8SMM:GRY6=M::F:GRYU@R>Y R>:Y!?RWY:VK?N:QY)SG:Y
YY (<Y6KKMIT:9
YR>@QY G:UYF6?GR:G6G8:Y8IHRN68RYU@CDY6CQIY
?G8DS9:YF6@GR:G6G8:YQ:-@8:QY6RYR>:Y46R:MY2M:6RY/E6GRY6G9YR>:Y!@RWQYG:UY7S?E9@G=Y6RY Y
4:QRY1:8IH9Y1RN::RY?GY699@R@IGYRIYR>:Y;68@C@R?:QYD?QR:9Y67IT:Y

Antioch City Council Report
May 27, 2025, Agenda Item K 2

Honeywell has consistently provided the City outstanding 24-hou r service and worked with our staffing and financial limitations to keep our aging m echanical systems in good working condition. Honeywell has always treated the City fairly when making determinations on whether equipment is covered under warranty and consistently assists the City in trouble-shooting problems and proposing cost effective solutions.

Honeywell’s computerized maintenance management (EBI) system pr ovides software that allows computerized maintenance of all City HVAC systems from both fixed locations within the City and more importantly remotely with our facility ’s environmental controls system which maximizes service r esponse and productivity. If a nother vendor was selected, the City would have to support the EBI system indepen dently resulting in increased operation and maintenance costs.

Other criteria considered in making this recommendation are as follows:

x Honeywell is a reputable contractor offering over 125 years of HVAC and controls related expertise.

x Honeywell maintains an inventory of spare parts for City systems on their service trucks and at sites to help ensur e better response to necessary repairs and emergencies.

x All emergencies, repairs, preventative maintenance and related labor and parts are guaranteed in this agreement. This includes Honeywell’s fu ll replacement of costly items such as the cooling towers.

x Honeywell is very knowledgeable with the City’s processes, con cerns, budget, and current staffing limitations.

x The service technician assigned to our account has a long hist ory of working with our equipment and provides consistent, quality and timely service.

x Honeywell has a 24-hour global service response center for dis patching and ensures direct contact with Honeywell management or employees when needed.

x Honeywell’s technicians have work ed cooperatively with staff to resolve and repair problems not covered under the contract.

x Technicians monitor our buildings remotely and can work with C ity personnel to minimize costs and downtime.

Honeywell has also proven to be a positive contributor to our c ommunity by sponsoring and assisting at City events such as the annual Keep Antioch Beautiful clean up event.

On April 7, 2025, staff received proposal #0002278068 (see Exhi bit 1) for HVAC maintenance and repairs at various City facilities from Honeywe ll Building Solutions, a Sourcewell cooperative purchasing vendor. The City can utilize Sourcewell Cooperative Antioch City Council Report
May 27, 2025, Agenda Item K 3

Purchasing Agreements for the purchase of goods and services pe r Antioch Municipal Code section 3-4.12 (C) (3), which allows the dispensing of bid ding procedures for purchasing goods or services or proposal procedures for profess ional services. Many public agencies, including neighboring cities and special distr icts, use certain national cooperative purchasing programs such as Sourcewell to enable them to obtain significant savings while maintaining the principles of fair and open compe tition in public procurement.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution
Exhibit 1. Honeywell Building Solutions Proposal
B. Sourcewell Contract #080824-HNY

ATTACHMENT “A”
RESOLUTION NO. 2025/xxx

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANTIOCH

APPROVING A MULTI-YEAR COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH HONEYWELL

BUILDING SOLUTIONS FOR HVAC MAINTENACE AND REPAIRS AT CITY FACILITIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,526,797.91 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT

WHEREAS, Honeywell currently provides maintenance and repair services to the City’s heating, ventilating and ai r conditioning (HVAC) systems at City owned facilities including City Hall, Police Station, Senior Community Center, M aintenance Services Center, Prewett Water Park, Antioch Community Center and Lynn H ouse. Honeywell’s current agreement with the City expires June 30, 2025;

WHEREAS, if approved, this new maintenance contract will also include maintenance services at the Water Treat Plant and the City’s ne w building at 800 West Second Street in addition to the facilities listed above;

WHEREAS, Honeywell has consistently provided the City outstanding 24-hou r service and worked with our staffing and financial limitations to keep our aging mechanical systems in good working condition;

WHEREAS, Honeywell has always treated the City fairly when making determinations on whether equipment is covered under warranty and consistently assists the City in trouble-shooting problems and proposing cost effective solutions;

WHEREAS, Honeywell’s computerized maintenance management (EBI) system provides software that allows computerized maintenance of all C ity HVAC systems from both fixed locations within the City and more importantly remot ely with our facility’s environmental controls system which maximizes service response and productivity;

WHEREAS, if another vendor were selected, the City would have to support the EBI system independently resulting in increased operation and maintenance costs;

WHEREAS, Honeywell has also proven to be a positive contributor to our community by sponsoring and assisting at City events such as th e annual Keep Antioch Beautiful clean up event; and

WHEREAS, the Antioch City Council has considered approving Sourcewell Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with Honeywell Building Soluti ons for HVAC Maintenance and Repairs at City Facilities for a term of three (3) years ending June 30, 2028 in the amount of $885,811.87 with an option to extend an a dditional two (2) years ending June 30, 2030, in the amount of $640,986.04 for a total five (5) year agreement amount of $1,526,797.91. This total amount includes $100,000 for each contract year for parts and service of aging HVAC components and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute the Cooperative Purchasing Agreement in a f orm approved by the City Attorney.

RESOLUTION NO. 2025/***
May 27, 2025

Page 2 ends

Antioch City CouncilMay 27, 2025

Antioch City Council
May 27, 2025