GP/Housing Element Advocacy

Housing Elements Tracking

Internal Housing Resources

Email Template

Explore

Contra Costa

Clayton

January 4, 2022: City Council HE Study Session - Karen

⁠

1/4 EB4E letter we signed onto⁠

⁠

1/4 Public Comment⁠

→ Nirmal (Karen’s bf) did public comment as a resident of Clayton

⁠

1/4 Meeting Agenda⁠

⁠

There were no other public comments on this issue

Lots of clarifying questions from city council members and not much mention of sustainability

Their draft goals did not mention sustainability or climate change!!

⁠

Clayton comment letter⁠

⁠

Instructions on how to send⁠

⁠

Clayton Draft HE Link⁠

⁠

Sites

⁠

This link can't be embedded.⁠

⁠

Proposing housing on all their churches (

pg 93 of HE⁠

)

⁠

Clayton Valley Presbyterian Church⁠

⁠

Phone: 925.672.4848

E-mail:

cvpresoffice@gmail.com⁠

⁠

Office Hours: 9:00 am. to 3:00 pm PT Monday through Thursday

9:00 am. to noon Friday

St Johns Church Clayton⁠

⁠

3.Clayton Community Church⁠

⁠

Clayton HE Inventory - Residential and Underutilized Sites

Clayton HE Inventory - Residential and  Underutilized Sites

Site Name

Address

APN

General Plan Designation

Zoning

Allowable Density (du/ac)

Density (du/ac) Assumed Density (du/ac)

Acres

Potential Lot Consolidation

Current Use

Common Ownership

Realistic Capacity

Infrastructure Capacity

On-site Constraints

Subject to AB 1397

EL VL

Notes

Table 5-10: Residential Vacant and Underutilized Sites

Vacant

B – Silver Oaks

118020029

2.3

13.91

Vacant

Yes

—

T – 6530/6500 Marsh Creek

119021019

MHD

0.58

Yes (see Underutilized Residential Sites)

Vacant

Yes

—

Underutilized

E – Old Firehouse

120015011

MHD

1.08

Residential

Yes

—

H – 6470 Marsh Creek Road

119021054

MHD

1.16

Single Family

Yes

—

K – Douglas Road Triangle

119560012

1.47

Single Family

Yes

—

M – Marsh Creek Property

78020006

5.86

Single Family

Yes

—

M – Marsh Creek Property — Cont.

78020007

2.21

Yes

Single Family

Yes

—

T – 6530/6500 Marsh Creek

119021019

MHD

0.87

Yes (see Vacant Residential Sites)

Single Family

Yes

—

Table 5-11: Town Center Vacant and Underutilized Sites

Vacant

G-Downtown Site

118560010

0.22

Vacant

Yes

—

N – Center + Diablo Street

119017003

0.29

Yes (See Underutilized Town Center Sites)

Vacant

Yes

—

Underutilized

F – Creekside Terrace

119050009

0.22

Yes (see Table 5-12, Non-Residential Underutilized Sites)

Parks/ Recreation

Yes

—

F – Creekside Terrace - Cont.

119050034

0.29

Yes (see Table 5-12, Non-Residential Underutilized Sites)

Parks/ Recreation

Yes

—

N – Center + Diablo

119017004

0.63

Yes (see Vacant Town Center Sites)

Single Family

Yes

—

P – City Parking Lot

119016009

0.46

Civic Facility

Yes

—

S – Clayton Community Church

119011003

L-C

0.58

Office

Yes

—

Table 5-12: Non-Residential Underutilized Sites

There are no rows in this table

⁠

HE Notes

Intro

About one quarter of current Clayton households overpay for housing despite earning high incomes, further reflecting the high cost of living in the Bay Area.

For the few new developments recently approved in Clayton, affordable housing is produced only in response to local inclusionary housing requirements or pursuant to State density bonus law.

Clayton needs a diversity of housing types at different levels of affordability for both rental and owner units.

STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS

Clayton is largely built out.

The city lacks diverse housing options for young adults, renters, teachers, and seniors.

Add new housing throughout City, not just in downtown.

Developments downtown should attract Clayton residents and people living in nearby cities.

Go back to the key findings to help write the HE letter in a way that addresses some of the growth concerns.

2.Housing Plan - INTRODUCTION

“Historically, Clayton’s land use and zoning regulations have capped residential densities at 20 units per acre, a density which does not provide much incentive to multi-family housing developers. The City’s limited financial resources do not allow it to incentivize or partner with affordable housing developers to bring such needed homes into the community. Thus, to accommodate willing housing providers and the RHNA allocation of at least 570 units, the City’s chief strategy is to zone properties at sufficient densities that will attract developers. In conjunction with adoption of this 2023-2031 Housing Element, the City has adopted new General Plan land use and zoning regulations that support this commitment. “

Good thing to highlight in the HE letter: “The natural environment that surrounds Clayton is a valued community asset that this Housing Element looks to protect by focusing new housing production in already developed areas of the City and limiting it in sensitive habitats, high fire hazard areas, and unstable hillsides. Planning for housing within the Town Center and along corridors with ready access to community amenities represents good planning practice that will benefit current and future Clayton residents.”

2-8 Programs:

“properties owned by religious institutions that have surplus parking areas capable of supporting residential development”

Program D below identifies the amendments the City will undertake to ensure that land use policies and regulations can support the RHNA.

Program D-1: General Plan Amendments

Amend the General Plan to include policy language that allows for 100 percent affordable housing developments at 40 units per acre.

Adopt a new policy in the Land Use Element requiring that development be built in accordance with minimum densities of the land use designation in which they are located.

Constraints Analysis Response

Establish a zoning overlay or other mechanism to allow affordable housing developments at a maximum density of 40 units per acre on properties occupied by a religious institution. They Could expand this to all areas within the overlay, or make it by right.

Identify ways to streamline the site plan review process, authorize the Planning Commission as the decision-making body for planned development permit approval, and make other procedural streamlining amendments to the Zoning Code as appropriate.

Revisit parking requirements for single-family residential uses to base requirements on the number of bedrooms in a unit instead of having the minimum standard of four per unit, and revise codified parking standards for multifamily residential uses to eliminate requirements for covered and guest parking.

Establish objective design standards for multifamily residential and qualifying mixed-use developments under State law.

Program F1 – Town Center Specific Plan Amendment. Not bad. How many units per acre are they trying to get out of the one 100% residential project?

PROGRAM G: INCLUSIONARY HOUSING

Also, the City may consider revisiting the Affordable Housing Plan to lower the threshold for providing affordable units to fewer than 10 units. Is this going to produce more AH units or less, what types of projects will pencil with a minimum 10% inc. zoning?

Program H3 – Expedited Processing - Good.

Program J3 – Proactive Actions -

Town Center Specific Plan - Looks like there site coverage is limited to 50 - 65%. They also have really low densities such as 15.1 - 20 units per gross acre in the Multi-family High Density Residential zone.

⁠
`HCD Comment Letter`⁠
⁠

Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints

describe the City’s compliance with existing fair housing laws and regulations

the element must analyze the City compared to the broader region and with nearby communities such as Unincorporated Contra Costa County (Bay Point), Antioch, and Pittsburg, and evaluate the disparities and differences in income, race, disparities in access to opportunity and other relevant components from the assessment of fair housing.

The element includes some general analysis about whether parts of the City are considered an RCAA. However, HCD’s fair housing data viewer indicates that the entire City is considered an RCAA.

In the analysis, the element concludes that the distribution of sites improves fair housing conditions because of identification of sites in high-resource areas. However, the element should discuss the location and magnitude of impact to evaluate AFFH. A full analysis should address the income categories of identified sites with respect to location, the number of sites and units by all income groups and how that effects the existing patterns for all components of the assessment of fair housing (e.g., segregation and integration, disparities in access to opportunity).

Goals, Priorities, Metrics, and Milestones: Goals and actions must significantly seek to overcome contributing factors to fair housing issues. Currently, the element identifies program(s) to encourage and promote affordable housing; however, most of these programs do not appear to facilitate any meaningful change nor address AFFH requirements. Furthermore, the element must include quantifiable metrics and milestones for evaluating progress on programs, actions, and fair housing results.

Availability of Zoning: HCD understands that zoning for multifamily parcels (M-R-M and M-R-H) is inconsistent or does not have a corresponding General Plan land use designation. The City acknowledges that these inconsistencies require projects to apply for a general plan text amendment and a rezone request to implement the appropriate zoning and densities. While the element includes a program to address this inconsistency, for your information, for sites expected to accommodate the City’s lowerincome RHNA, if zoning is not in place by the beginning of the planning period (January 31, 2023), the element must include a program committing to adopting zoning changes and comply with requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i)

Meeting with Dana Ayers

KC is zoned to allow SROS. TC is mixed use zone. The area south of that is zoned for higher density. The allidia creak. 20 D/AC

With the housing element and zoning amendments there will be more areas zoned MFH. Golf course range owners have expressed interest in developing housing and they plan to zone higher densities. Seeno hil is mid to low density 1-20 DU/AC.

St. Johns is already zoned a higher density - institutional - already planning to develop part of their land that is vacant.

Council to accept planning commission recommendations.

Higher zoning capacity will be included in the landuse element which is why it’s not in the HE. This should be in the staff report this afternoon.

State Regional water board requires certain landscape for permeable surfaces in order to treat water on site.

Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.

Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (

CtrlP

) instead.

Clayton

Sites

HE Notes

⁠HCD Comment Letter⁠⁠

Meeting with Dana Ayers

⁠
`HCD Comment Letter`⁠
⁠