AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
* * *
CLAYTON CITY COUNCIL
* * *
THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 2022
6:00 P.M.
*** NEW LOCATION***
This meeting is being held in accordance with AB 361, given the proclaimed state of emergency and the Contra Costa County Health Officer’s recommendation for social distancing for public meetings, the City Council will be participating in meetings via phone/video conferencing. The public is invited to watch and participate via the methods listed below:
Mayor: Peter Cloven
Vice Mayor: Holly Tillman
Council Members
Jim Diaz
Jeff Wan
Carl Wolfe
• A complete packet of information containing staff reports and exhibits related to each public item is available for public review on the City’s website at www.claytonca.gov • Agendas are posted at: 1) City Hall, 6000 Heritage Trail; 2) Library, 6125 Clayton Road; 3) Ohm’s Bulletin Board, 1028 Diablo Street, Clayton; and 4) City Website at www.claytonca.gov • Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council after distribution of the Agenda Packet and regarding any public item on this Agenda is available for review on the City’s website at www.claytonca.gov
• If you have a physical impairment that requires special accommodations to participate, please call the City Clerk’s office at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting at (925) 673-7300. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Agenda June 23, 2022 Page 2
Instructions for Virtual City Council Special Meeting – June 23 To protect our residents, officials, and staff, and aligned with the Governor’s Emergency Declaration regarding COVID-19 and the Contra Costa County Health Officer’s recommendation for virtual meetings, this meeting is being conducted utilizing teleconferencing means consistent with State order that that allows the public to address the local legislative body electronically.
To follow or participate in the meeting:
1. Videoconference: to follow the meeting on-line, click here to register:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_BiH-yiLeSnmZNFU4o2Rqag After clicking on the URL, please take a few seconds to submit your first and last name, and e-mail address then click “Register”, which will approve your registration and a new URL to join the meeting will appear.
Phone-in: Once registered, you will receive an e-mail with instructions to join the meeting telephonically, and then dial Telephone: 877 853 5257 (Toll Free)
2. using the Webinar ID and Password found in the e-mail.
E-mail Public Comments: If preferred, please e-mail public comments to the City Clerk, Ms.
Calderon at [email protected] by 5 PM on the day of the City Council meeting. All E-mail Public Comments will be forwarded to the entire City Council.
For those who choose to attend the meeting via videoconferencing or telephone shall have 3 minutes for public comments.
Location:
Videoconferencing Meeting (this meeting via teleconferencing is open to the public) To join this virtual meeting on-line click here:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_BiH-yiLeSnmZNFU4o2Rqag To join on telephone, you must register in the URL above, which sends an e-mail to your inbox, and then dial (877) 853-5257 using the Webinar ID and Password found in the e-mail.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Agenda June 23, 2022 Page 3
* CITY COUNCIL *
June 23, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL – Mayor Cloven.
2. MEETING PROTOCOL VIDEO– City Clerk
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – led by Councilmember Diaz.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are typically routine in nature and are considered for approval by one single motion of the City Council. Members of the Council, Audience, or Staff wishing an item removed from the Consent Calendar for purpose of public comment, question, discussion or alternative action may request so through the Mayor.
None
5. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS
Members of the public may address the City Council on items within the Council’s jurisdiction, (which are not on the agenda) at this time. To assure an orderly meeting and an equal opportunity for everyone, each speaker is limited to 3 minutes, enforced at the Mayor’s discretion. In accordance with State Law, no action may take place on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. The Council may respond to statements made or questions asked, or may at its discretion request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter.
Public comment and input on Public Hearing, Action Items and other Agenda Items will be allowed when each item is considered by the City Council.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
7. ACTION ITEMS
(a) Confirm Transmittal of the City of Clayton Draft Housing Element for the 6 th Cycle
(2023-2031) to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (Community Development Director) (View here)
8. ADJOURNMENT
# # # # #
Agenda Item: 7(a)
1 AGENDA REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Dana Ayers, Community Development Director
DATE: June 23, 2022
SUBJECT: Confirm Transmittal of the City of Clayton Draft Housing Element for the 6th Cycle (2023-2031) to the State Department of Housing and Community Development
___________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council confirm submittal of the City of Clayton 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). At this time, the Council is not requested to approve any part of the Draft Housing Element or housing opportunity site inventory. Following the public review period and review of the draft Housing Element by HCD, the draft Housing Element will be brought back to the Planning Commission and City Council for each body to consider recommendation and adoption, respectively, of the document. Staff anticipates that public hearings for recommendation and decision on the draft Housing Element will occur this upcoming fall and winter.
BACKGROUND
In accordance with Government Code Section 65583, every California city and county must have a general plan, and every general plan must address eight mandatory elements, one of which is housing. The housing element of a general plan must:
…consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The housing element shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, and emergency shelters, and shall make adequate provisions for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. (Government Code Section 65583)
2 The updated City of Clayton (City) Housing Element for the 6th housing cycle will establish programs, policies and actions to further the goal of meeting existing and projected housing needs of all income levels and will identify how the City plans to accommodate its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of at least 570 units through the year 2031. Staff and the City’s consultant, MIG, Inc., prepared a Public Review Draft Housing Element that incorporated feedback received as of April 2022, as well as the statutorily required components for housing elements (see Attachment 1 of May 31, 2022, City Council agenda packet). Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Section 65585, the City must give the public an opportunity to comment on the draft Housing Element before the City submits the document to HCD for review. The public’s review period must be for at least 30 days.
The Public Review Draft Housing Element was posted to the Housing Element webpage (https://claytonca.gov/community-development/housing/housing-element/) on May 20, 2022, and written comments were accepted through June 20, 2022. Time was also provided at the regular Planning Commission meetings of May 24 and June 14, 2022, and at the special City Council meeting of May 31, 2022, for community members and interested parties to provide spoken comments on the Public Review Draft Housing Element. At those meetings, Commissioners, Council members and speakers made several comments, including suggestions that the draft document:
1) increase allowable densities to 40 units per acre on proposed inventory sites A (St.
John’s Parish), Q (Oakhurst Overflow Parking Lot) and R (Clayton Valley Presbyterian Church);
2) reduce densities from 30 units per acre on properties in the Town Center; 3) add to the list of development regulations that could be relaxed (such as building height maximums and parking minimums) to better facilitate construction of affordable housing (Program D-2), with some caution to increasing height limitations in all instances;
4) strengthen commitments to implementing programs in support of residential energy efficiency, and revise language related to transit to be more inclusive of other nonmotorized transportation modes; and 5) increase the portion of the housing inventory that is comprised of accessory dwelling units.
Changes have been made to the HCD Review Draft Housing Element to reflect the comments listed above, including changes in the draft inventory to increase densities to 40 units per acre on the three sites suggested above and to decrease densities to a maximum of 20 units per acre on sites in the Town Center (excluding two properties at 6530 and 6500 Marsh Creek Road, which have been added to the inventory at 30 units per acre at the request of the property owner). As a result of direct communications with two owners of the Pine Lane/Marsh Creek Road sites (Site M), densities in the draft inventory will be reduced from 30 units per acre to 5 units per acre prior to submittal to HCD; this comment was received late in the process of preparing the HCD Review Draft and is not reflected in 3 Attachment 1, though staff will make the revision according to the property owner’s request prior to submitting this draft to HCD.
Comments provided at Planning Commission and City Council meetings also included suggestions for potential additional housing opportunity sites, namely, the Oakhurst Golf Course, the second story of the Flora Square building, an approximately 3-acre area at the intersection of Eagle Peak Drive at Oakhurst Boulevard, and the Clayton Shopping Center.
Through subsequent communications with owners and agents of those sites, staff learned that there was potential interest among the owners of the Eagle Peak Drive and Oakhurst Golf Course sites. Staff will continue discussions with representatives of those property owners, as well as owners of other properties identified in the draft inventory, throughout the HCD review period to further shape what the development potential of those sites might look like, and will modify the draft inventory accordingly for the hearing draft document.
DISCUSSION
The attached HCD Review Draft Housing Element incorporates changes, as briefly summarized above, that are compliant with California housing element law and that do not conflict with the overall goals of the Housing Element as discussed by the City Council at the Council’s January 4, 2022, meeting.
As noted above, staff will continue to meet with owners of properties identified in the draft housing inventory to discuss their intentions for their properties. Staff anticipates that these discussions will result in changes to the draft inventory concurrently with HCD’s review (though staff will not submit intermittent iterations to HCD so as not to complicate their review). After first review of the draft document by HCD, staff anticipates making additional changes to the current draft to address HCD’s comments, before returning to the Planning Commission with a hearing draft to request the Commission’s recommendation and the City Council’s adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. HCD will have an opportunity to review the adopted Housing Element again before deciding whether to certify the document.
The Council is requested to confirm submittal of the HCD Review Draft Housing Element to HCD to commence that agency’s 90-day review period but is otherwise not asked to take any action with respect to adoption of the Housing Element at this time.
FISCAL IMPACTS
There are no fiscal impacts associated with submittal of the current Draft Housing Element to HCD for HCD’s statutorily required review.
ATTACHMENTS
1. HCD Review Draft Housing Element, June 2022
2. Housing Element Update Public Comments Received to Date
3. Link to City Council Agenda Packet, May 31, 2022:
https://claytonca.gov/fc/agendas/council/05312022smweb.pdf Housing Element Update
6th Cycle 2023-2031
537 S Raymond Avenue | Pasadena, CA 91105
(626) 744-9872 | www.migcom.com
June 2022
HCD REVIEW DRAFT
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
JUNE, 2022
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | TOC-1
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction
About Clayton...................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Regulatory Framework:....................................................................................................................... 1-1 Scope and Content .............................................................................................................................. 1-2 Relationship to Other General Plan Elements..................................................................................... 1-3 Acronyms............................................................................................................................................. 1-3 Public Participation Overview ............................................................................................................. 1-4 Chapter 2: Housing Plan
Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 2-1 Framing the Challenging and Finding Solutions.................................................................................. 2-1 Sites Inventory Summary .................................................................................................................... 2-2 Goals and Policies................................................................................................................................ 2-3 Programs ............................................................................................................................................. 2-6 Summary of Quantified Objectives ................................................................................................... 2-16 Chapter 3: Housing Needs Assessment
Population and Employment Trends ……………………………………………………………………………………………..3-1 Baseline Population and Population Growth ...................................................................................... 3-1 Household Characteristics................................................................................................................... 3-6 Housing Stock Characteristics ............................................................................................................. 3-8 Special Housing Needs ...................................................................................................................... 3-10 Energy Conservation Opportunities.................................................................................................. 3-12 At-Risk Housing Analysis.................................................................................................................... 3-13 Table of Contents
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | TOC-2
Projected Housing Need (RHNA)....................................................................................................... 3-15
Chapter 4: Constraints Analysis
Introduction ……………………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………...4-1 Government Constraints..................................................................................................................... 4-1 Construction and Housing Codes...................................................................................................... 4-17 Non-Governmental Constraints ........................................................................................................ 4-23
Chapter 5: Housing Resources
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)…………………………………………………………………………………...5-1 Availability of Sites for Housing – Approved Projects......................................................................... 5-2 Inventory of Additional Sites............................................................................................................... 5-4 Site Suitability, Realistic Capacity, and Re-use of Sites (Assembly Bill 1397)...................................... 5-9 No Net Loss Provision........................................................................................................................ 5-10 Comparison of Sites Inventory and RHNA......................................................................................... 5-10 Consistency with Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing................................................................... 5-11 Infrastructure Capacity...................................................................................................................... 5-12 Administrative and Financial Resources............................................................................................ 5-12
Chapter 6: Housing Element Program Accomplishments
Introduction ……………………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………...6-1 Quantified Objective …………………….…………………………………………....……………………………………………...6-14 Chapter 7: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Introduction and Overview of AB 686 ……………………………………....………………….………...……...…………...7-1 Analysis Requirements …………………….…………………………………....…………………………………....……………...7-1 Sources of Information …………………….……………………………………....………………….………...……...…………...7-1 Assessment of Fair Housing Issues.………………………………………....…………………………………………............7-2 Table of Contents
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | TOC-3
Integration and Segregation……….…………………………………………....…………………………………………...........7-9 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP).………………………………………………...7-29 Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAS) …………………...………………………………………………...7-32 Access to Opportunities ………….……………………………………………………………………………...……………...….7-35 TCAC Opportunity Maps …………………………………..…………………....…..………….………...……...…………......7-35 Disproportionate Needs ………….………….………………………………....………………….………...……...…………...7-55 Chapter 8: Community Engagement and Outreach
Public Participation.………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………...6-1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Summary of Quantified Objectives .................................................................................. 2-16 Table 3-1: Population Growth Trends................................................................................................. 3-1 Table 3-2: Age...................................................................................................................................... 3-2 Table 3-3: Race and Ethnicity .............................................................................................................. 3-3 Table 3-4: Employment by Industry .................................................................................................... 3-4 Table 3-5: Principal Employers, 2021 .................................................................................................. 3-5 Table 3-6: Household Characteristics by Tenure................................................................................. 3-6 Table 3-7: Housing Stock by Type - 2021............................................................................................. 3-8 Table 3-8: Housing Stock Characteristics by Tenure ........................................................................... 3-8 Table 3-9: Fair Market Rents in Contra Costa County ......................................................................... 3-9 Table 3-10: Special Needs Groups..................................................................................................... 3-10 Table 3-11: Regional Homelessness Services.................................................................................... 3-12 Table 3-12: Affordable Units at Risk of Conversion to Market Rate in Clayton ................................ 3-13 Table 3-13: Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2023-2031 ............................................................. 3-15 Table 4-1: General Plan Residential Land Use Categories ................................................................... 4-2 Table 4-2: Town Center Specific Plan Regulations.............................................................................. 4-2 Table of Contents
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | TOC-4
Table 4-3: Residential Use Permit Requirements................................................................................ 4-4 Table 4-4: Second Unit Development Standards ................................................................................ 4-5 Table 4-5: Residential Development Standards................................................................................ 4-11 Table 4-6: Residential Parking Requirements ................................................................................... 4-11 Table 4-7: Typical Permit Processing Times ...................................................................................... 4-15 Table 4-8: Construction and Housing Codes ..................................................................................... 4-18 Table 4-9: Community Development Department Feed................................................................... 4-19 Table 4-10: Clayton Development Fees............................................................................................. 4-21 Table 4-11: Development Fees in Contra Costa County Cities.......................................................... 4-22 Table 4-12: Vacant Land Costs .......................................................................................................... 4-24 Table 4-13: Construction Cost by Building Type – National Data...................................................... 4-25 Table 5-1: Clayton 2023-2031 RHNA................................................................................................... 5-2 Table 5-2: Approved Projects.............................................................................................................. 5-3 Table 5-3: ADU Projections to Meet the RHNA................................................................................... 5-5 Table 5-4: Vacant Residential Land Inventory..................................................................................... 5-7 Table 5-5: Underutilized Residential Land Inventory .......................................................................... 5-7 Table 5-6: Vacant Town Center Land Inventory.................................................................................. 5-8 Table 5-7: Underutilized Town Center Land Inventory ....................................................................... 5-8 Table 5-8: Underutilized Non-Residential Land Inventory .................................................................. 5-9 Table 5-9: Comparison of Credit, Sites, and RHNA............................................................................ 5-11 Table 5-10: Residential Vacant and Underutilized Sites.................................................................... 5-15 Table 5-11: Town Center Vacant and Underutilized Sites................................................................. 5-15 Table 5-12: Non-Residential Underutilized Sites............................................................................... 5-16 Table 6-1: 2015-2023 Housing Element Program Accomplishments.................................................. 6-1 Table 6-2: 2015-2023 Housing Element Quantified Objectives........................................................ 6-14 Table 7-1: Number of DFEH Housing Complaints in Contra Costa County (2020).............................. 7-3 Table 7-2: Number FHEO Filed Cases by Protected Class in Costa County (2015-2020)..................... 7-3 Table 7-3: Action(s) Taken/Services Provided..................................................................................... 7-4 Table of Contents
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | TOC-5
Table 7-4: Outcomes ........................................................................................................................... 7-5 Table 7-5: Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends (1990-2020)................................................................ 7-10 Table 7-6: Racial Composition Contra Costa County and Clayton (2019) ......................................... 7-12 Table 7-7: Populations of Persons with Disabilities – Contra Costa County and Clayton ................. 7-13 Table 7-8: Households with Children in Contra Costa County and Incorporated Cities ................... 7-17 Table 7-9: Contra Costa County and Clayton Households by Income Category and Tenure............ 7-22 Table 7-10: White Population and Median Household Income of RCAAs in Contra Costa County.......................................................................................................................... 7-33 Table 7-11: Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps................................................... 7-35 Table 7-12: Opportunity Indices by Race/Ethnicity – Contra Costa County...................................... 7-39 Table 7-13: Demographics of Households with Housing Problems in Contra Costa County.......................................................................................................................... 7-56 Table 7-14: Household Type and Size in Contra Costa County ......................................................... 7-56 Table 7-15: Households that Experience Cost Burden by Tenure in Contra Costa County and Clayton ..................................................................................................... 7-58 Table 7-16: Overcrowded Households – Contra Costa County and Clayton..................................... 7-60 Table 7-17: Substandard Housing Conditions – Contra Costa County and Clayton.......................... 7-62 Table 7-18: Fair Housing Summary.................................................................................................... 7-64
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 5-1: Housing Sites Inventory..................................................................................................... 5-1 Figure 5-2: TCAC Opportunity Areas – Composite Score – Clayton (2021)....................................... 5-12 Figure 7-1: Regional Racial Demographics........................................................................................ 7-11 Figure 7-2: Racial Demographics of Clayton ..................................................................................... 7-12 Figure 7-3: Regional Populations of Persons with Disabilities by Tract (2019)................................. 7-15 Figure 7-4: Percent of Population with a Disability – Clayton (2021) ............................................... 7-16 Figure 7-5: Regional Percentage of Children in Married-Couple Households by Tracts (2019)........ 7-18 Figure 7-6: Percent of Children in Married-Couple Households – Clayton (2021)............................ 7-19 Table of Contents
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | TOC-6
Figure 7-7: Regional Percent of Children in Female Headed Households by Tract (2019) ............... 7-20 Figure 7-8: Percent of Children in Female Headed Households – Clayton (2021)............................ 7-21 Figure 7-9: Regional Concentrations of LMI Households by Tract (2015)......................................... 7-23 Figure 7-10: Population with Low to Moderate Income Levels – Clayton (2021)............................. 7-24 Figure 7-11: Regional Housing HCV Concentration by Tract in Contra Costa County (2021) ........... 7-26 Figure 7-12: Regional Median Gross Rent/Affordability Index by Tract (2021)................................ 7-27 Figure 7-13: Housing Choice Vouchers – Clayton (2021) .................................................................. 7-28 Figure 7-14: Location Affordability Index – Clayton (2021) .............................................................. 7-29 Figure 7-15: Regional Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty “R/ECAPs” (2021) .............................................................................................................................. 7-30 Figure 7-16: Expanded R/ECAPs in Contra Costa County .................................................................. 7-31 Figure 7-17: Regional Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty “R/ECAPs” – Clayton (2021) .............................................................................................................. 7-32 Figure 7-18: Regional Median Income by Block Group (2021).......................................................... 7-33 Figure 7-19: Median Income – Clayton (2021).................................................................................. 7-34 Figure 7-20: Regional TCAC Composite Scores by Tract (2021) ........................................................ 7-37 Figure 7-21: TCAC Opportunity Areas – Composite Score – Clayton (2021)..................................... 7-38 Figure 7-22: Regional TCAC Education Scores (2021) ....................................................................... 7-41 Figure 7-23: TCAC Opportunity Areas - Education Score – Clayton (2021)....................................... 7-42 Figure 7-24: California Public School Rankings (2021) ...................................................................... 7-43 Figure 7-25: Regional Public Transit Access (2021)........................................................................... 7-45 Figure 7-26: Regional Jobs Proximity Index (2021) ........................................................................... 7-47 Figure 7-27: Regional TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic Score (2021)........................................ 7-48 Figure 7-28: Jobs Proximity Index – Clayton (2021).......................................................................... 7-49 Figure 7-29: TCAC Opportunity Area – Economic Score – Clayton (2021)........................................ 7-50 Figure 7-30: Regional TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environmental Score (2021)................................ 7-51 Figure 7-31: Regional CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (2021) ............................................................................ 7-52 Figure 7-32: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 – Clayton (2021)........................................................................... 7-53 Figure 7-33: Regional Healthy Places Index (2021)........................................................................... 7-54 Table of Contents
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | TOC-7
Figure 7-34: Healthy Places Index -Clayton (2021)............................................................................ 7-55 Figure 7-35: Regional Overpayment by Renters (2021).................................................................... 7-57 Figure 7-36: Overpayment by Renters (2021)................................................................................... 7-59 Figure 7-38: Concentration of Overcrowded Households – Clayton ................................................ 7-61 Figure 7-39: Regional Sensitive Communities at Risk of Displacement by Tract (2021)................... 7-63 Figure 7-40: Sensitive Communities (UCB, Urban Displacement Project) – Clayton (2021)............. 7-64 Table of Contents
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | TOC-8
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 1-1
1. Introduction
ABOUT CLAYTON
The City of Clayton, nestled against Mount Diablo in central Contra Costa County, remains a quiet, comfortable place to live amid the hubbub of the Bay Area―but with ready access to the urban centers in Concord, Richmond, Berkeley, and Oakland. Its quaint downtown provides small-town charm, and the surrounding hillsides offer expansive open spaces. Clayton is largely a bedroom community, with the City’s earliest subdivision patterns reflecting building approaches of the 1960s, just prior to Clayton’s incorporation in 1964 with approximately 600 residents. The more rapid period of development from 1980-2000, when Clayton added about 6,500 residents, continued the trend of providing homes in singlefamily subdivisions at prices affordable to middle-income households. Then and today, these neighborhoods included parks lively with community events, where neighbors gather to socialize, play, and enjoy art and food festivals.
As the smallest city in Contra Costa County, Clayton is home to about 11,500 residents (2020), representing just one percent of the total County population. Between 2000 and 2020, Clayton experienced a moderate growth of 5.3 percent, greatly contrasted to the boom of the previous two decades and growth in the region, at 14.8 percent. Today, Clayton is largely built out, with predominantly residential development and commercial uses concentrated in a shopping center near its northern boundary and in its downtown Town Center. Much of the eastern side of the City (east of Oakhurst Drive/Clayton Road) is constrained by challenging geology and terrain.
Throughout the greater Bay Area, the decades of the 2000s have been a period of significant growth and change, with home prices rising to among the highest in the nation and housing supply falling far below demand. Clayton has experienced this change in the form of rapidly escalating home prices; its neighborhoods, once affordable to middle-class households, have become unaffordable to lower- and middle-income households. 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. Housing diversity can add value to a community like Clayton and contribute to its sustainability. Through this Housing Element, the community looks to put forward housing policies and programs that will meet a variety of housing needs for new residents while preserving those qualities and community character that Clayton residents value.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The Housing Element is one of the required components of a General Plan and must be consistent with all other elements of the General Plan. This element identifies ways in which the housing needs of existing and future residents can be met. State law describes in great detail the necessary contents of the Housing Element: 1) identifying housing needs; 2) analyzing constraints to housing production; 3) examining past Introduction
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 1-2
accomplishments from prior housing element planning efforts; 4) understanding how past planning practices may have excluded groups of people from housing opportunities; 5) documenting how the public has been engaged in the planning process; and 6) assessing and describing how land and financial resources will be marshalled to meet all housing needs. This Housing Element responds to those requirements and specifically to conditions and policy directives unique to Clayton.
The California Legislature has identified the attainment of a decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian as the State’s main housing goal. Recognizing the important part that local planning programs play in pursuit of this goal, the Legislature has mandated that all cities and counties prepare a Housing Element as part of their comprehensive General Plans.
Section 65581 of the California Government Code reflects the legislative intent for mandating that each city and county prepare a Housing Element:
1. To ensure that counties and cities recognize their responsibilities in contributing to the attainment of the State housing goal.
2. To ensure that counties and cities will prepare and implement Housing Elements which, along with federal and state programs, will move toward attainment of the state housing goals.
3. To recognize that each locality is best capable of determining what efforts are required by it to contribute to the attainment of the state housing goal, provided such a determination is compatible with the state housing goal and regional housing needs.
4. To ensure that each local government cooperates with other local governments to address regional housing needs.
SCOPE AND CONTENT
This Housing Element applies to the planning period of June 2022 through December 2031 and identifies strategies and programs to:
• Maintain and enhance existing housing and neighborhoods • Ensure adequate sites are available to accommodate moderate housing and population growth • Update City policies and regulations to allow for a greater number and diversity of housing units • Diversify the housing stock to increase opportunities at all income ranges and for both renters and homeowners
• Minimize governmental constraints to housing production • Ensure fair housing practices
• Preserve and improve existing affordable housing stock Toward these ends, this Housing Element consists of:
• This introduction to the scope and purpose of the Housing Element • A Housing Plan to address the identified housing needs, including housing goals, policies, and programs
• A community needs assessment which reviews population characteristics, housing stock, and the special housing needs of the elderly, lower-income households, disabled persons, foster care youth aging out of the system, and people experiencing homelessness Introduction
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 1-3
• A review of potential market, governmental, and environmental constraints to meeting the City’s identified housing needs
• An inventory of available sites in Clayton to meet the City’s allocated regional housing need, referred to as the RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation), established by the Association of Bay Area Governments/Metropolitan Transportation Commission (ABAG/MTC) • An evaluation of land, administrative, and financial resources available to address the housing goals
• A review of past accomplishments under the previous Housing Element • A fair housing assessment
• A summary of public engagement events
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS
As noted above, State law requires that the Housing Element be consistent with all other General Plan elements. The Clayton General Plan contains nine elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Community Design, Open Space/Conservation, Safety, Noise, Community Facilities, and Growth Management. Most specifically, the Land Use Element must have land use policy that supports the distribution and densities of housing assumed in the Housing Element to achieve the RHNA. The City will continue to review the General Plan for internal consistency as amendments are proposed and adopted. The City is aware of the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 162 (2007), which requires every city and county to amend its General Plan Safety and Conservation elements to include analysis and policies regarding flood hazards and management.
ACRONYMS
This element includes use of many acronyms to identify agencies, housing programs, funding sources, and planning terms. Commonly used acronyms are:
ABAG/MTC – Association of Bay Area Governments/Metropolitan Transportation Commission ADU – Accessory Dwelling Unit
AFFH - Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
AI - Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
ACS - American Community Survey
AMI – Area Median Income
CDBG – Community Development Block Grant
CEQA – California Environmental Quality Act
CHAS – Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
CHDO – Community Housing Development Organization
DOF – State of California Department of Finance
Introduction
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 1-4
HCD – State of California Department of Housing and Community Development HUD – Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development LIHTC – Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
MFI – Median Family Income
MRB – Mortgage Revenue Bonds
RHNA – Regional Housing Needs Allocation
SRO – Single Room Occupancy
TOD – Transit-Oriented Development
TCSP – Town Center Specific Plan
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION OVERVIEW
The Housing Element must reflect the values and preferences of the community. Therefore, public participation in the planning process is critical to ensuring this Housing Element represents community voices. Government Code Section 65583(c)(7) states: “The local government shall make diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the program shall describe this effort.” At its core, a Housing Element is an opportunity to have a community conversation about how to address local housing challenges, develop policies, and find solutions. As such, the public engagement process for Clayton involved participation from a variety of stakeholders to solicit input, and that input has informed key element programs and decisions, such as identifying appropriate housing sites and densities. The engagement process, described in detail in Appendix A, included interviews with the City Council and Planning Commissioners, an online community workshop, study sessions with the City Council and Planning Commission in which members of the public participated, a map-based online survey, Council and Commission frequent updates, and a Balancing Act survey that allowed participants to create their own housing plans. Key comments expressed at some of these activities are described below.
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.
WORKSHOP #1
• Vision for an increase in affordable housing for new residents, community events held downtown, a diversified city facilitated by a range of affordable housing, affordable housing for younger adults, and a maintenance of the character of Clayton
Introduction
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 1-5
• Concerns about having the infrastructure to support apartment complexes, traffic congestion that may come with additional housing, affordable housing options for seniors who want to downsize, and ensuring children who grow up in Clayton can one day afford to purchase homes
MAPTIONNAIRE SURVEY
Maptionnaire is a digital map-based tool for questionnaires, surveys, and data collection. The survey included several questions focused on housing issues and challenges, possible strategies and solutions for the City, locations for new housing, community preference for a vacant site (Downtown Site) in Clayton’s historic Town Center, the community’s vision and goals, and optional questions to gather demographic information. The survey was open to all members of the public. The map-based nature of the survey allowed participants to mark a digital map with places where they thought new housing would be appropriate and share what housing types they were interested in seeing. Participants were also able to upload photos or other materials to support their vision for the Downtown Site, and to answer questions about preferred uses for that site.
Key findings included:
• Over half (56 percent) of respondents said they were in favor of the potential growth increase in housing units in Clayton. Most of those in support of more housing also indicated concerns about possible impacts of growth.
• When asked to rank the importance of housing issues and challenges in the City, respondents listed traffic and congestion, preserving community character, limited infrastructure, and overcrowding as the top issues.
• A lack of diverse housing options and housing supply were the least important housing issues. • When asked to rank the strategies or solutions that are appropriate for Clayton, participants indicated that supporting homeowners who want to build ADUs on single-family lots and encouraging the rehabilitation of existing housing in older neighborhoods were the top options. • Providing shelters and transitional housing for homeless families and individuals, along with services that help move people into permanent housing and targeting efforts to address longterm inequities in the housing market were the least important strategies. • One-quarter of respondents indicated that new housing should blend in with the character of surrounding neighborhoods, and nearly one-quarter said that new housing should be located where it will have the least impact on traffic in Clayton.
BALANCING ACT
The City offered an opportunity for residents and other interested parties to participate in the Housing Balancing Act, a virtual simulation within which participants were given 15 vacant or underutilized sites within the City and asked what density of housing they preferred to see on each site. Starting with a “default” density of either two or three units per acre on each site, participants could change density in increments of 1 unit per acre to as low as 0 units per acre if they did not want to see housing on a site, up to as many as 30 units per acre.
Generally, respondents specified higher densities on the sites in north Clayton, and particularly the Clayton Valley Presbyterian and St. John’s Parish sites, where the most common densities selected were Introduction
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 1-6
30 units per acre. Some respondents also added comments suggesting increasing density above 30 units per acre on these sites, a comment that was also reflected in the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting at which Balancing Act was demonstrated.
In central Clayton, the Oakhurst Country Club overflow parking lot site also had some of the highest densities among sites in the simulation, with the most common density at 30 units per acre and an average of 13 units per acre.
In south Clayton, where the only site was a large property Pine Lane and Marsh Creek Road, respondents generally selected medium densities for the site (10 to 13 units per acre). Other sites, including sites in the Town Center, tended to have lower densities selected, and in some cases, no development. It is noted, however, that for some Town Center sites, some respondents commented that they preferred to see commercial development on those properties but would consider residential development on upper floors above commercial or adjacent to Clayton Road.
[PLACEHOLDER FOR DESCRIPTION OF FUTURE ACTIVITIES]
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 2-1
2. Housing Plan
INTRODUCTION
This Housing Plan’s goals, policies, and programs have been established to address housing issues in Clayton and to meet state law housing requirements. The City’s enduring objective is to facilitate and encourage safe, decent housing that fulfills the diverse needs of current and future residents. To achieve this vision, the Housing Plan identifies long‐term housing goals and shorter‐term policies and programs to addressidentified housing needs, constraints to development, and resources available to address housing needs. These objectives are informed by the housing needs assessment, housing constraints analysis, housing resources analysis, and review of the previous Housing Element.
To make adequate provision for the housing needs for people of all income levels, State law (Government Code 65583[c]) requires that the City, at a minimum, identify programs that do all of the following:
• Identify adequate sites, with appropriate zoning and development standards and services to accommodate the locality’s share of the regional housing needs for each income level. • Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low‐, very low‐, low‐, and moderate‐income households.
• Address and, where possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for people at all income levels, as well as housing for people with disabilities.
• Conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock and preserve assisted housing developments at risk of conversion to market‐rate housing. • Promote equal housing opportunities for all people, regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability.
FRAMING THE CHALLENGE AND FINDING SOLUTIONS
Clayton is located within one of the most expensive housing regions in the country. The cost of existing homes remains high because of insufficient inventory and the desirability of Clayton’s semi-rural character. Throughout the Bay Area, high materials and labor costs constrain housing production. Clayton has experienced very little new development since 2010, with almost no housing constructed for lowerand moderate-income households. Low wage earners and middle-income households who work in Bay Area counties and wish to buy a home―or just find something affordable for a family of four―often commute two hours or more to Central Valley communities such as Tracy or Stockton.
Other factors constraining housing production in Clayton include adverse geologic conditions on the City’s east side that require significant investments to remedy unstable slope conditions, continuing concerns over drought conditions, high fire hazards associated with climate change, and limited job opportunities in Clayton, thus requiring commutes out of the community every day. This very limited jobs and Housing Plan
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 2-2
commercial base means that Clayton operates on a small municipal budget and must carefully consider the costs of providing adequate public services to new residences and residents.
The City recognizes that it shares similar challenges with many Bay Area communities, all of which have been tasked with creating new housing opportunities for people of all income levels. 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.
Meeting regional and local housing needs extends beyond simply planning for new home construction.
Often one of the best ways to provide reasonably priced housing is to preserve older housing stock that is already somewhat affordable. While this housing stock is very limited in Clayton―as homeowners have continued to invest in homes constructed in the 1960s to preserve their value―owners of such properties might consider building an accessory dwelling unit on their lot or subdividing the lot for a new home or two. This element identifies the City’s stepped-up efforts to support homeowners’s efforts to create new units within existing neighborhoods.
For this sixth cycle Housing Element update, the State has required much closer examination of how minority and lower-income households may have been discouraged or excluded from moving into Clayton through practices such as redlining or landlords not adhering to fair housing laws, or how such communities today face other challenges when looking to live in Clayton. The new commitment to encouraging affordable housing production looks to affirmatively further fair housing practices.
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.
SITES INVENTORY SUMMARY
Housing development projects that have been approved (as of June 2022) account for 113 units, or about 20 percent of the RHNA. Vacant properties zoned for residential use total only 13.9 acres (Silver Oaks property), and the owner has indicated an intent to plan for about 32 units on that site. To accommodate the balance of the RHNA, this Housing Element identifies the following types of sites, described in detail in Chapter 5:
• Vacant properties zoned for residential, public, or agricultural use • An overflow parking lot owned by the Oakhurst Country Club • Within the Town Center, vacant properties (including a significant City-owned site), public parking lots, and private properties that could be redeveloped with mixed-use projects Housing Plan
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 2-3
• Properties that currently developed with a single-family home but are large enough to support a multifamily housing project
• Sites owned by religious institutions that have expressed interest in developing housing on portions of their properties
Not all of these properties are designated and zoned for residential use and for those that are, the density yields are not considered high enough to encourage private redevelopment efforts. Thus, for this sixth cycle Housing Element, to accommodate its RHNA of 570 units the City will need to amend General Plan land use policy to increase residential densities to support multifamily housing, amend the Zoning Code to provide for consistency with General Plan policy, and rezone properties to reflect parallel General Plan land use designations. With the proposed amendments, the City is able to plan for the RHNA and create a planning buffer that responds to State laws regarding no net loss of affordable housing capacity should a site planned for below-market-rate housing be developed otherwise.
GOALS AND POLICIES
Policy 1.1 Neighborhood Preservation. Preserve the architectural and design quality of established residential neighborhoods.
Policy 1.2 Impacts of New Housing. Consider and mitigate the impacts of new housing on the City’s infrastructure, open space, natural resources, and public services.
Policy 1.3 Targeted Growth. Target new housing development to areas in Clayton near major travel corridors and commercial centers.
Policy 1.4 Code Enforcement. Continue to utilize the City’s code enforcement program to improve overall housing conditions, and promote increased awareness among property owners and residents of the importance of property maintenance.
Policy 1.5 Facilitate Reinvestment. Make it easy for homeowners to reinvest in their properties by having staff-level review processes for the home renovations and additions that meet minimum development standards.
GOAL 1. Maintain and enhance long-established housing and neighborhoods while accommodating moderate growth.
Housing Plan
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 2-4
Policy 2.1 Adequate Housing Sites. Maintain and implement land use policies and zoning regulations that accommodate a range of residential housing types that can fulfill local housing needs and accommodate the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation of at least 570 units.
Policy 2.2 Variety of Densities and Housing Types. Implement land use policies and standards that allow for a range of residential densities and housing types that will enable households of all types and income levels opportunities to find suitable ownership and rental housing in the City.
Policy 2.3 Accessory Dwelling Units. Promote construction of accessory dwelling units as a way to increase the housing stock, particularly for lower-income households, seniors, young adults and persons with disabilities, recognizing that ADUs also promote investment in existing properties and reduce ongoing housing costs for property owners.
Policy 2.4 Urban Lot Splits. Recognize urban lot splits, as defined and allowed by State law, as a viable means to create new housing.
Policy 2.5 Mixed-use Development. Promote mixed-use development in Downtown Clayton that includes residential uses above ground-floor commercial and office uses, with ground-floor residential allowed under limited circumstances, such as along side streets or behind streetfacing commercial uses on Center and Main Streets.
Policy 2.6 Housing on Religious Institution Lands. Create land use regulations that encourage the development of housing, particularly below market-rate housing, on properties owned by religious institutions.
Policy 3.1 Persons with Living with Disabilities. Ensure zoning regulations accommodate development approaches that support special consideration for persons living with disabilities of all types.
Policy 3.2 Assistance and Incentives. Facilitate the development of lower- and moderate-income housing by offering developers incentives such as density bonuses, streamlined entitlement and permitting processes, City participation in on- and off-site public improvements, and flexible development standards.
GOAL 2. Encourage a variety of housing types, densities, and affordability levels to meet the diverse needs of the community, including a mix of ownership and rental GOAL 3. Provide opportunities for housing that respond to the needs of special needs households.
Housing Plan
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 2-5
Policy 3.3 Seniors, Large Families, Single-parent Households, Foster Youth. Encourage development of housing that meets the specific needs of seniors, large families, single-parent households, and youth transitioning out of the foster care system.
Policy 3.4 Supportive and Transitional Housing. Ensure that zoning regulations respond to evolving laws regarding supportive and transitional housing.
Policy 3.5 Unhoused Persons and Families. Support regional programs focused on finding safe housing for persons and families who are temporarily or chronically without a place to live.
Policy 4.1 General Plan Land Use Policy. Ensure that General Plan land use policies permit higher density housing development within a range that can support and encourage affordable housing.
Policy 4.2 Residential Development Standards. Review and adjust residential development standards, regulations, ordinances, departmental processing procedures, and residential fees related to rehabilitation and construction that are determined to constrain housing development.
Policy 4.3 Policy Assessments. Identify, assess, and, when appropriate, amend ordinances and policies that adversely affect housing cost.
Policy 5.1 Anti-Discrimination. Promote equity and prohibit discrimination in the sale, rental, or financing of housing based on race, color, ancestry, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, disability/medical condition, familial status, marital status, source of income, or any other arbitrary factor.
Policy 5.2 Fair Housing. Assist in the enforcement of fair housing laws by providing references for residents to organizations that can receive and investigate fair housing allegations, monitor compliance with fair housing laws, and refer possible violations to enforcing agencies.
Policy 5.3 Housing Distribution. Distribute affordable housing throughout all Clayton neighborhoods.
Policy 5.4 Quality Living Environments. Avoid concentrating low-income housing in areas with high pollution loads and low levels of public services.
GOAL 4. Remove governmental constraints and obstacles to the production of housing for all income groups.
GOAL 5. Ensure equal housing opportunities for all persons in Clayton regardless of age, race, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, color, disability, or other barriers that prevent choice in housing.
Housing Plan
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 2-6
Policy 5.5 Inclusion. Facilitate increased participation in civic conversations and decision-making by residents who have traditionally been underrepresented or hesitant to engage.
Policy 5.6 Education. Support continuing education for landlords regarding their fair housing legal responsibilities and tenants regarding their fair housing rights.
Policy 6.1 New Subdivisions. Require developers to incorporate sustainable practices into the design of subdivisions.
Policy 6.2 Appliances. Promote the use of clean, energy-efficient appliances in new homes.
Policy 6.3 Energy Efficient Retrofits. Promote home retrofits that reduce consumption of water and energy resources.
Policy 6.4 High Standards. Establish high sustainability standards for new multi-family housing and mixed-use develoments.
PROGRAMS
The City will pursue the following programs to implement Housing Element goals and policies. As part of its annual budgeting process, the City Council will evaluate its ability to fund ongoing programs and new initiatives, and will use the budgeting process to prioritize efforts for the coming year.
PROGRAM A: MAINTAINING THE EXISTING HOUSING STOCK
Program A1 – Code Enforcement
Code enforcement is an important tool for maintaining the quality of residential neighborhoods. Clayton staff provide inspection services on a complaint basis. Residences citywide generally are maintained in good to excellent condition, with evident pride of ownership. Examples of code violations―which are few―include poor landscape maintenance, fencing in need of repair, and minor property improvements.
Actions the City will take to preserve the existing housing stock in good condition include:
• Provide ongoing inspection services to review code violations on a complaint basis. • Work with neighborhood organizations and other groups to create programs that recognize homeowners for exemplary property maintenance.
• Create an ADU amnesty program that allows owners of illegally converted garages, detached accessory structures, and attached accessory living quarters to convert those units to units that comply with the building code and ADU ordinance.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
GOAL 6. Incorporate sustainability practices intohousing production and operations.
Housing Plan
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 2-7
Time Frame: Amnesty program by 2026
Other efforts ongoing
Funding: General Fund, grants
PROGRAM B: CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEW HOUSING
Program B1 – Accessory Dwelling Units
Increase the number and affordability of assessory dwelling units by pursuing the following initiatives, with the goal of facilitating development of at least 10 ADUs annually. • Publicize information in the general application packet and posting information on the City’s website.
• Create a set of standard plans for several types of ADUs that property owners can use to reduce planning costs.
• Provide incentives for developers of new housing to use ADUs to meet the City’s inclusionary housing requirements.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Standard Plans – By end of 2023
Other efforts, 2023–2031
Funding: General Fund, grants
Program B2 – Town Center Mixed Use
Amend the Town Center Specific Plan to allow for and encourage compact, creative types of housing, including live/work units, senior housing, efficiency apartments, and co-housing.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Amend the Specific Plan by 2025
Funding: General Fund, grants
Program B3 – Affordable Housing Development
Both for-profit and non-profit developers can provide affordable housing in Clayton. While the City has extraordinarily limited resources to help fund development and/or provide land, the City can assist by expediting applications, reducing fees, and allowing additional building height and/or density bonuses beyond those allowed by State statutes—or as a matter of right rather than as a concession/waiver pursuant to density bonus law. To encourage such development, the City will:
• Create a database of sites to help developers identify suitable sites for affordable residential and mixed-use developments.
• Develop a process that prioritizes the processing of affordable housing applications. • Encourage use of the density bonus provisions through technical assistance and information dissemination.
Housing Plan
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 2-8
• Alert housing developers with known interest in developing within the City when opportunities are available (e.g. sites, partnerships, City-owned land, availability of funding). • Adopt a policy to provide priority water and sewer service to new housing developments for lower-income households.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Database by end of 2024
Expedited process and priority policy by end of 2024
Ongoing for alerting developers
Funding: General Fund, grants
PROGRAM C: ADEQUATE SITES
The City of Clayton has
been allocated a Regional
Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA) target of 570 new
housing units, distributed
among four income
categories: very low, low,
moderate, and above
moderate. The inventory of
sites to accommodate this
RHNA consists of vacant
properties zoned for
residential use, developed
properties that have
potential to be redeveloped
at higher residential
densities, mixed-use properties in the Town Center, properties owned by religious institutions that have surplus parking areas capable of supporting residential development, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
As of 2022, General Plan land use policy and zoning do not have capacity sufficient to support this level of development; therefore, General Plan and zoning amendments are required to accommodate the RHNA. Program D below identifies the amendments the City will undertake to ensure that land use policies and regulations can support the RHNA.
Actions:
• Continue to provide appropriate land use designations and maintain an inventory of suitable sites for residential development.
• Establish a means to track all housing sites in the inventory to guard against no net loss of sites identified as suitable for lower-income housing development consistent with Government Code Section 65863. Maintain a priority list of sites for rezoning, if needed to guard against no net loss. 2023-2031 RHNA
Above Moderate Income
Very Low Income
Low Income
Moderate Income
Housing Plan
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 2-9
• Provide technical assistance and information on available City-owned parcels for lower-income developments to private or non-profit housing providers. • Maintain a database of available housing sites and conduct targeted outreach to multifamily housing developers to promote private development and redevelopment efforts.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Implementation and annual reporting throughout the planning period Establish no-net-loss tracking within one year of Housing Element adoption and continuously track upon adoption
Technical assistance and database: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
PROGRAM D: GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS TO REMOVE CONSTRAINTS Program D-1: General Plan Amendments
The City will amend the General Plan Land Use Element to clarify the density ranges for multi-family housing and thereby encourage development of housing for people of all income levels and desired housing choices. The amendments will be as follows:
• Amend Objective 1 and related policies to reflect higher allowed densities along major corridors. • Amend the Multifamily Medium Density land use designation to describe a broader range of desired housing types and establish a density range of 10.1 to 20 units per acre. • Amend the Multifamily High Density land use designation to describe a broader range of desired housing types and establish a density range of 20.1 to 30.0 units per acre. • Amend the Institutional land use designation to allow for residential development within a density range of 10.1 to 30 units per acre, and at a minimum density of 20 units per acre on sites where religious assembly uses already exist.
• Amend the allowed uses in the Town Center designation to accommodate ground-floor residential under prescribed circumstances, such as along side streets or behind street-facing commercial uses on Center and Main Streets and to allow for densities of up to 30 units per acre.
Revisit the lot coverage standards to provide conditions that can accommodate higher densities. • Amend the General Plan land use map to identify housing sites inventory properties for affordable housing as Multifamily High Density.
• Amend the General Plan to include policy language that allows for 100 percent affordable housing developments at 40 units per acre.
• Amend the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) provisions to comply with current state law. • 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.
Responsibility: City Council, Planning Commission, Community Development Department Time Frame: By January 31, 2023
Funding: General Fund
Housing Plan
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 2-10
Program D-2: Zoning Code Amendments
This Housing Element identifies a shortfall of properties zoned at appropriate densities to accommodate housing for the extremely low-, very low-, and low-income RHNA. State law (Government Code Section 65583.2(h) and (i)) requires that land rezoned or redesignated to meet a shortfall meet the following criteria:
• Require a minimum density of at least 20 units per acre • Accommodate at least 16 units per site
• Allow multi-family housing by-right (without a use permit) • At least 50 percent of rezoned sites must be designated for residential uses only In 2012, the City established the Multi-Family High Density General Plan land use designation and the MR-H zoning (High Density Multiple Family Residential) zoning district to accommodate the City’s lowerincome RHNA shortfall from the 2007–2014 Housing Element planning period. However, properties identified to meet the lower-income RHNA were not rezoned, and not all of the additional Zoning Code amendments were made. For this cycle, the City will:
• Amend the Zoning Code to include provisions for sites in the M-R-M (Medium Density Multiple Family Residential) and M-R-H zoning districts to allow at least 16 units regardless of density restrictions.
• Establish a Religious Institutional Overlay zone or similar mechanism to allow residential development on properties with an established religious use at a minimum density of 20 units per acre.
The Constraints analysis for this sixth cycle Housing Element identifies several Zoning Code amendment needed to address new state laws and remove potential constraints to development. In response, the City will:
• Revise the development standards for the M-R zone to increase the maximum allowable building height to 35 feet within 50 feet of an abutting single-family residential district. • Revise the lot area regulation in Section 17.20.050 for the M-R-M zone to require a minimum of 10 units per acre and accommodate a maximum of 20 units per acre, and revise the lot area regulation for the M-R-H zone to require a minimum of 20 units per acre and accommodate a maximum of 30 units per acre.
• 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. • Pursuant to the requirements of AB 101 (2017), amend the Zoning Code to allow Low Barrier Navigation Centers as a by-right use on properties zoned for mixed use and non-residential zones that permit multifamily housing.
• 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 Housing Plan
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 2-11
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.
Responsibility: City Council, Planning Commission, Community Development Department Time Frame: By January 31, 2024
Funding: General Fund and/or grants
PROGRAM E: INCREASED HOMEBUYING OPPORTUNITIES
Program E1: Mortgage Programs
Continue to refer interested persons to information regarding Contra Costa County’s Mortgage Credit Certificate Program, Mortgage Revenue Bond Program, Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation Program, and other programs the County may offer over time.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing, 2023–2031
Funding: General Funds (used to post information)
Program E2: Mortgage Assistance
Seek funding to develop and implement a sustainable downpayment assistance program for first-time homebuyers by working with the County or by developing the City’s own program that can be used with the Mortgage Credit Certificate program, new inclusionary units, or alone.
Responsibility: City Council, Planning Commission, Community Development Department Time Frame: Examine funding sources and program opportunities by 2025 Funding: CalHome, HOME, or other available sources
PROGRAM F: REGULATORY INCENTIVES
Program F1 – Town Center Specific Plan Amendment
To encourage development of mixed-use projects in the Town Center, the City has adopted the Clayton Town Center Specific Plan which provides detailed policy direction, standards, and guidelines that encourage mixed-use and second-story residential development. The City will amend the Specific Plan to identify housing opportunity sites at a density of up to 30 units per acre and that allow ground-floor residential uses under defined circumstances. The City will promote development opportunities in the Town Center, circulate a development handbook that describes the permitting process for mixed-use and residential projects, and offer incentives such as streamlined processing and additional density bonuses to incentivize such projects. The City will aim to facilitate the development of at least one mixed-use or 100 percent residential project within the planning period.
Responsibility: City Council, Planning Commission, Community Development Department Housing Plan
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 2-12
Time Frame: Amend the Specific Plan by 2024
Funding: General Fund and/or grants
PROGRAM G: INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
Program G1 – Monitoring
On August 16, 2016, the City Council passed and adopted an inclusionary housing ordinance, which provided the details of the Affordable Housing Plan identified in the fifth cycle Housing Element. The ordinance requires that 10 percent of the units for ownership residential projects containing 10 or more units to be created as affordable housing units.
Inclusionary housing requirements provide a solid means of producing affordable units. State law allows inclusionary requirements to be applied to rental units as well. During the planning period, the City will consider modifying the Affordable Housing Plan ordinance to expand application to all residential developments, whether ownership or rental. Also, the City may consider revisiting the Affordable Housing Plan to lower the threshold for providing affordable units to fewer than 10 units.
Recognizing the in-lieu fees often fall far short of the funds required to construct new unit, the City will also consider adjusting the in-lieu fees, as well as considering offering other options for construction of off-site housing, such as purchase of affordability covenants, rehabilitation of substandard existing units, and funding ADU production on other properties.
Responsibility: City Council, Planning Commission, Community Development Department Time Frame: Investigate expanding requirements to rental housing and lowering the threshold(s) by 2026; implement by 2028 if deemed to be appropriate
Funding: General Fund
PROGRAM H: SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSEHOLDS
Program H1 – Funding Assistance
The City will seek funding under the federal Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, California Child Care Facility Financing Program, and other state and federal programs designated specifically for special needs groups such as seniors, persons with disabilities, and persons at risk for homelessness. The City will aim to work with housing providers on at least one project serving a special needs group during the planning period.
Responsibility: Community Development Department, City Manager Time Frame: Ongoing, 2023-2031
Funding: General Fund
PROGRAM H2 – REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
The City shall continue to distribute public information brochures on reasonable accommodations for disabled persons and enforcement programs of the California Fair Employment and Housing Council.
Housing Plan
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 2-13
The City will establish a procedure for disabled persons or their representatives to request a reasonable accommodation from Zoning Code requirements, building codes, and land use regulations, policies, and procedures to provide disabled persons with an opportunity to use and enjoy housing equal to that of non-disabled persons.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Public information ongoing, 2023-2031
Reasonable accommodation procedure by end of 2024
Funding: General Fund
Program H2 – Universal Design
The City will continue to implement its universal design ordinance and continue to distribute its brochure on universal design standards, resources for design, and compliance with City requirements.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Implement universal design standards as development is proposed Funding: General Fund
Program H3 – Expedited Processing
Give priority to development projects that include a component for special needs groups (including the elderly, disabled, large families, the homeless, students, and transitional foster youth) in addition to other lower-income households. Priority will consist of advancing applications for review ahead of development applications not addressing special needs households. Implement priority based on community needs to ensure adequate housing for all residents within special needs groups.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Time Frame: As development is proposed
Funding: Application fees
PROGRAM I: AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRESERVATION
Program I1 – Monitor and Provide Options
The Stranahan subdivision includes five units that have affordability covenants expiring in 2025 and 2026.
Seven other units also have affordability convenants, but these extend beyond 2033. As discussed in the Needs Assessment, the City has no financial resources available to preserve these units’ affordability. Each unit, if purchased at current market values, would cost about $1.2 million, and potential affordable housing organizations would have to compete to buy the units to maintain their affordability covenants.
Such a nonprofit owner would need to subsidize housing costs if a unit were sold or rented to moderateor lower-income households. To keep these units as affordable units, the City will:
Housing Plan
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 2-14
• Notify affordable housing providers regarding the potential availability of the units for sale at least one year prior to the covenants expiring to allow time for such providers to contact and negotiate with homeowners.
• Consider amending Chapter 17.92 (Inclusionary Housing Requirements) to allow purchase of these units and extending the affordability covenants as a means of satisfying inclusionary housing goals.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Contact potential nonprofit purchasers in 2024 Consider amendments to Chapter 17.92 by 2024 and if considered appropriate, amend by 2025
Funding: General Fund
PROGRAM J: FAIR HOUSING
Program J1 – Local Practices
Review the Zoning Ordinance, policies, and practices to ensure compliance with fair housing laws.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Review by end of 2023; remedies as needed to be completed by 2025 Funding: General Fund
Program J2 – Transparency in Decision-making
The City will provide information on proposed affordable housing projects to the public through the City’s public hearing process in the form of study sessions, public meetings, and when required, public hearings.
Early notice and awareness will be provided via print and social media.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Time Frame: At the time applications are received
Funding: General Fund
Program J3 – Proactive Actions
The City relies upon Contra Costa County agencies and their contractors to provide fair housing services.
The County’s 2020 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice did not report any findings for Clayton regarding fair housing testing, meaning that no instances of housing discrimination, unlawful evictions, discriminatory lending practices, or similar actions are known. Local fair housing issues largely relate to historic patterns of segregation that prevented people of color from buying or renting a home in Clayton and today, housing prices and rents that are prohibitive to lower-income households.
As the AFFH analysis in this element indicates, all of Clayton qualifies as a high resource area; thus, any new housing built in the City will provide residents a quality living environment. The challenge is attracting affordable housing developers and removing barriers to affordable housing construction.
Housing Plan
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 2-15
To address thes factors and work toward improving housing access for all, the City will take the following actions.
• Continue to refer cases and questions to County agencies and their contractors for enforcement of prohibitions on discrimination in lending practices, in the sale or rental of housing, and violation of other fair housing laws.
• Continue to provide information to help increase awareness of fair housing protections by referral of people to fair housing workshops sponsored by the County. • Inform landlords of their legal responsibilities regarding fair housing. • Advertise the availability of fair housing services through flyers at public counters, on the City’s website, and at other community locations.
• At least once annually, make a presentation to the City Council about fair housing issues and progress.
• Continue to participate in and implement the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice for Contra Costa County.
• Promote public awareness of Federal, State, and local regulations regarding equal access to housing. Provide information to the public on various State and federal housing programs and fair housing law. Maintain referral information on the City’s website and at a variety of other locations such as the community center, local social service offices, and at other public locations, including City Hall and the library.
• Implement an accessibility policy that establishes standards and procedures for providing equal access to City services and programs to all residents, including persons with limited proficiency in English, and persons with disabilities.
• Ensure that all development applications are considered, reviewed, and approved without prejudice to the proposed residents, contingent on the development application’s compliance • with all entitlement requirements.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Implementation throughout the planning period Website and public counter posting of fair housing resources to occur within one year of Housing Element adoption
Funding: General Fund
PROGRAM K: RESOURCE CONSERVATION
Program K1 – Energy Conservation
Continue to provide energy conservation brochures at City Hall, at the Clayton Community Library, and on the City’s website.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing, 2015–2023
Funding: General Fund
Housing Plan
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 2-16
Program K2 – Stretch Program
Review and consider possible amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Code, and related policy and regulatory documents to improve energy conservation beyond CalGreen standards. Consider establishing an incentivized residential green building program to encourage energy-efficient retrofitting, and the use of renewable energy in residential applications. Some of the incentives the City will consider when drafting this program will be:
• Providing eligible projects with building and plan check fee rebates (when financially feasible) • Achieving third-party green building certification
• Renewable energy systems
• Green roofs
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Consider establishing a residential green building program by 2025 Funding: General Fund
Program K3 – Regional Programs
Continue to participate in home energy and water efficiency improvement financing opportunities available through PACE programs, such as HERO, Figtree, and CaliforniaFirst.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund, grants
SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
Table 2-1 summarizes Clayton’s quantified objectives for the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period.
Table 2-1: 2023-2031 Quantified Objectives
Income Level
Extremely
Low
Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Total
Construction
Objective
170 97 84 219 570
Rehabilitation
Objective
0 1 2 5 0 8
At-Risk
Housing Units
to Preserve
0 0 0 1 0 1
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-1
3. Housing Needs Assessment
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
Housing needs are influenced by population and employment trends. This section provides a summary of changes to the population size, age, and racial/ethnic composition in the City of Clayton. Moreover, to gain a deeper understanding of the local housing needs, an evaluation of the intersection of these demographic characteristics with housing statistics―housing type and tenure, condition, cost, and vacancy―provide the basis for a proper housing needs assessment.
BASELINE POPULATION AND POPULATION GROWTH
The Bay Area is the fifth-largest metropolitan area in the nation and has seen a steady increase in population since 1990, except for a dip during the Great Recession that began in 2008. Many cities in the region have experienced significant growth in jobs and population. While these trends have led to a corresponding increase in demand for housing across the region, the regional production of housing has not kept pace with job and population growth. Since 2000, Clayton’s population has increased by 5.3 percent; this rate is below that of the region as a whole, at 14.8 percent.
Table 3-1: Population Growth Trends
Geography 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Clayton 7,317 8,745 10,762 10,906 10,897 11,326 11,337
Contra
Costa
County
803,732 863,335 948,816 1,016,372 1,049,025 1,113,341 1,153,561 Bay Area 6,020,147 6,381,961 6,784,348 7,073,912 7,150,739 7,595,694 7,790,537 Universe: Total population
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
For more years of data, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-01.
In 2020, Clayton’s population was estimated to be 11,337 (see Table 3-1). From 1990 to 2000, the population increased by 47.1 percent, with a much smaller increase of 1.3 percent during the first decade of the 2000s. This large increase between 1990 to 2000 can be explained by expansion and urbanization of the undeveloped lands to the north and west of the city center. These areas were developed into Needs Assessment
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-2
residential subdivisions and incorporated into the city. Between 2010 and 2020, the population increased by 4.0 percent. The population of Clayton makes up 1.0 percent of Contra Costa County.1 AGE
The distribution of age groups in a city influences what types of housing the community may need in the future. An increase in the older population may indicate a developing need for more senior housing options, while higher numbers of children and young families can point to increased demand for family housing options and related services. The desire of residents to age in place or downsize to stay within their communities may mean more multi-family and accessible units are needed.
Clayton’s overall population is aging, although the number of high school and college age residents is increasing as well. The median age in 2000 was 39.5; by 2019, this figure had increased to 46 years of age.
Notably, the 15 to 24 age group and 55 to 64 age group both saw a four percent increase from 2010 to 2019. These increases, coupled with the decline in residents aged 35 to 44 suggests that families are aging in place and the population is remaining fairly static without many young adults or new parents moving to the City. The large percentage of older adults suggests that the demand for smaller homes is likely to increase as older adults downsize and move out of larger family units.
Table 3-2: Age
Demographic Profile 2010 Percentage 2019 Percentage
Age
0-4 468 4% 586 5%
5-14 1,665 15% 1,556 14%
15-24 1,131 10% 1,634 14%
25-34 706 6% 807 7%
35-44 1,479 14% 1,264 11%
45-54 2,132 20% 1,845 16%
55-64 1,714 16% 2,283 20%
65-74 949 9% 1,138 10%
75-84 489 4% 731 6%
85+ 164 2% 239 2%
Median Age 43.4 45.7
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010, 2019 5-year
1 To compare the rate of growth across various geographic scales, Figure 3-1 shows population for the jurisdiction, county, and region indexed to the population in the year 1990. This means that the data points represent the population growth (i.e., percent change) in each of these geographies relative to their populations in 1990.
Needs Assessment
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-3
RACE AND ETHNICITY
The racial makeup of a city and region influence the design and implementation of effective housing policies and programs. These patterns may be attributed in part by prior and current market factors and government actions, including such practices as exclusionary zoning, discriminatory lending, and displacement that continue to impact communities of color2 . Table 3-3 shows the change in race and
ethnicity in Clayton between 2010 and 2019. Since 2000, the percentage of residents in Clayton identifying as White has decreased as a percentage of total population, by 4.2 percentage points. Correspondingly, the percentage of residents of all other races and ethnicities has increased, with the largest increase in Other Race or Multiple Races, Non-Hispanic population (see Table 3-3).
Table 3-3: Race and Ethnicity
Demographic Profile 2010 Percentage 2019 Percentage
Race/Ethnicity
White (non-Hispanic) 8,640 79.2% 9,016 75.0%
Hispanic 982 9.0% 1,241 10.0%
Black 144 1.0% 279 2.0%
Asian/Pacific Islander 721 6.6% 922 7.6%
Other Race or
Multiple Races, NonHispanic
380 3.5% 610 5.0%
American Indian or
Alaska Native
30 0.2% 15 0.1%
Total 10,897 99.5% 12,098 99.7%
Source: US Census Bureau 2010, 2019 5-year
Note: The population estimates provided by the US Census Bureau and the State Department of Finance, as reported in Table 3- 1, differ due to the calculation methods used.
EMPLOYMENT
A city houses employed residents who either work in the community where they live or work elsewhere in the region. Conversely, a city may have job sites that employ residents from the same city, but more often employ workers commuting from outside of it. Smaller cities typically will have more employed residents than jobs and thus export workers, while larger cities tend to have a surplus of jobs, requiring the import of workers. To some extent, the regional transportation system is set up for this flow of workers to the region’s core job centers. At the same time, as the housing affordability crisis has illustrated, local imbalances may be severe, where local jobs and worker populations are out of sync at a sub-regional scale.
Clayton has 5,920 workers living within its borders who work across 13 major industrial sectors. Table 3- 4 provides detailed employment information. Many Clayton residents work in Educational services and health care and social assistance (23 percent), followed by those working in Professional, scientific, and 2 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The Color of Law : A Forgotten History of How our Government Segregated America. New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing.
Needs Assessment
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-4
management, and administrative and waste management services (15 percent). Between 2010 and 2019, the number of residents working in all these job categories increased. These trends are important to understand, as certain industries are generally associated with lower median earnings. In Clayton, the median income for Educational services, and health care and social assistance is $54,939, while the median income for Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services is significantly higher at $105,469.
Table 3-4: Employment by Industry
Demographic Profile 2010 Percentage 2019 Percentage
Employment by Industry
Educational services, and
health care and social
assistance
1,091 21% 1,358 23%
Retail trade 639 12% 427 7%
Manufacturing 295 6% 349 6%
Professional, scientific, and
management, and
administrative and waste
management services
646 12% 878 15%
Construction 222 4% 366 6%
Arts, entertainment, and
recreation, and
accommodation and food
services
343 6% 569 10%
Finance and insurance, and real
estate and rental and leasing 861 16% 565 10%
Other services, except public
administration 160 3% 265 4%
Transportation and
warehousing, and utilities 231 4% 385 7%
Public Administration 432 8% 373 6%
Wholesale Trade 179 3% 132 2%
Information 168 3% 237 4%
Agriculture, forestry, fishing
and hunting, and mining 47 0.9% 16 0.3%
Source: US Census Bureau 2010, 2019 5-year
Needs Assessment
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-5
Table 3-4: Employment by Industry
Demographic Profile 2010 Percentage 2019 Percentage
Employment by Industry
Educational services, and
health care and social
assistance
1,091 21% 1,358 23%
Retail trade 639 12% 427 7%
Manufacturing 295 6% 349 6%
Professional, scientific, and
management, and
administrative and waste
management services
646 12% 878 15%
Construction 222 4% 366 6%
Arts, entertainment, and
recreation, and
accommodation and food
services
343 6% 569 10%
Finance and insurance, and real
estate and rental and leasing 861 16% 565 10%
Other services, except public
administration 160 3% 265 4%
Transportation and
warehousing, and utilities 231 4% 385 7%
Public Administration 432 8% 373 6%
Wholesale Trade 179 3% 132 2%
Information 168 3% 237 4%
Agriculture, forestry, fishing
and hunting, and mining 47 0.9% 16 0.3%
Source: US Census Bureau 2010, 2019 5-year
The 10 principal employers in Clayton in 2021 are identified in Table 3-5.
Table 3-5: 10 Principal Employers, 2021
Employer Number of Employees
Safeway, Inc. #1195 126
Walgreens #2112 23
Cemex Construction Materials Pacific LLC 18
Keith R Bradburn, D.D.S. 11
Christina P. Mason, D.D.S. 10
Clayton Bicycles 7
Epic Care Family Practice/Clayton Valley Med Group 6
The Grove Family Dentistry 6
HVAC CAD Services, Inc. 5
R & M Pool, Patio & Garden 4
Needs Assessment
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-6
Table 3-5: 10 Principal Employers, 2021
Employer Number of Employees
Source: City of Clayton, Business License Data, 2021
HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
The characteristics of a community’s households impact the type and tenure of housing needed in that community. Household type, income levels, the presence of special needs populations, and other household traits are all factors that affect the housing needs of a community and the strategies that the community must deploy to meet those needs.
Characteristics for Clayton households are summarized in Table 3-6. Homes in Clayton are predominantly owner-occupied. The number of households in Clayton increased from 3,852 in 2010 to 4,232 in 2019 (380 new households). Renter-occupied households decreased by 86 households, from 385 in 2010. Owneroccupied households increased by 312 households from 3,621 households in 2010.
Table 3-6: Household Characteristics by Tenure
Household
Characteristic Owner Households Renter Households All Households Number of Households1 3933 (92.9%) 299 (7%) 4,232
Median Household
Income1 $161,453 $92,109 $157,768
Household Income Categories2
Extremely Low Income
(0-30% AMI) 195 (4.9%) 15 (5.3%) 210 (5%)
Very Low Income (30-
50% AMI) 175 (4.4%) 55 (19.6%) 230 (5.4%)
Low Income (50-80%
AMI) 175 (4.4%) 25 (8.9%) 200 (4.7%)
Moderate Income (80-
100% AMI) 170 (4.3%) 35 (12.5%) 205 (4.8%)
Above Moderate
Income (100% + AMI) 3,205 (81.7%) 150 (53.5%) 3,355 (79.8%) Total 3,920 280 4,200
Total number of
projected Extremely
Low-Income
Households (RHNA)2
N/A N/A 48
Overpayment
All Households
Overpaying for Housing 1,095 (27.9%) 95 (33.9%) 1,185 (28.2%) Lower Income
Households Overpaying
for Housing (*0-80%)2
405 (74.3%) 60 (63%) 455 (71%)
Needs Assessment
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-7
Table 3-6: Household Characteristics by Tenure
Household
Characteristic Owner Households Renter Households All Households Source1: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2014-2019 5-year estimates Source2: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Tables 2013-2017
INCOME
According to 2018 American Community Survey data, the median household income in Clayton was $157,768, which is significantly higher than the Contra Costa County median household income of $99,716. Median household income differs by tenure; owner households in Clayton have a significantly higher median income than renter households (a difference of $69,344).
American Community Survey (ACS) census data from 2019 estimates that 1.4 percent of the Clayton population lives in poverty, as defined by federal guidelines. This percentage is much lower than that of Contra Costa County, where 8.7 percent of residents live in poverty. Poverty thresholds vary by household type. Both renter and owner levels are very low, with less than one percent of renter households living in poverty and 0.6 percent of owner households living in poverty. In Clayton, the percentage of persons living in poverty is higher for residents with a high school degree as their highest level of education (4.6 percent), residents who report two or more races (2.8 percent), and Black residents (1.4 percent).
Because poverty thresholds do not differ based on geographic differences, a better measure to understand income disparities can be to identify various percentages compared to the median income for a particular area. For housing planning and funding purposes, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) uses five income categories to evaluate housing need based on the Area Median Income (AMI) for the county:
• Extremely Low-Income Households earn 0-30 percent of AMI • Very Low-Income Households earn 30-50 percent of AMI
• Low-Income Households earn 50-80 percent of AMI
• Moderate-Income Households earn 80-100 percent of AMI (HCD uses 120 percent) • Above Moderate-Income Households earn over 100 percent of AMI (HCD uses 120 percent or greater)
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data provides special Census tabulations (developed for HUD) and calculates household income adjusted for family size and tenure. As shown in Table 3-4, in Clayton, above moderate-income households represent the largest share of all households (79.8 percent), and very low-income households are the second largest category (5.4 percent). Income also differs by tenure. As indicated in Table 3-4, more renter households than owner households are in the lower-income categories (0-80 percent AMI); for example, 19.6 percent of renter households are in the very low-income category compared to 4.4 percent of owner households.
HOUSING OVERPAYMENT
State and federal standards specify that households spending more than 30 percent of gross annual income on housing experience a housing cost burden. Housing cost burdens occur when housing costs Needs Assessment
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-8
increase faster than household income. When a household spends more than 30 percent of its income on housing costs, it has less disposable income for other necessities such as health care, child-care, and food.
In the event of unexpected circumstances such as loss of employment or health problems, lower-income households with a housing cost burden are more likely to become homeless or double up with other households. In Clayton, 28.2 percent of households are overpaying for housing, with 27.9 percent of owner households and 33.9 percent of renter households overpaying for their residences. (Owner households may elect to pay more to enter the ownership market.) Lower-income households have a significantly higher rate of overpayment, with 71 percent of lower-income owner and renter households overpaying for housing.
HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS
HOUSING STOCK
In 2019, the Department of Finance reported an estimated 4,365 occupied housing units in the City.
Compared to 2010, the housing stock has increased by 420 units. Most of the housing stock consists of single family detached homes (81.8 percent) followed by single family attached (13 percent) and multifamily units (five percent). ACS data from 2019 indicate that 0.4 percent of owner households and zero percent of renter households are vacant. Compared to other jurisdictions, vacancy rates in Clayton are very low.
Between 2010 and 2019, the number of single family homes grew by 26 units while no multi-family homes were constructed. As multi-family housing is often a more affordable means for people to enter the housing market, the lack of growth in multi-family homes in Clayton suggests there are fewer housing opportunities for young families and newly independent or single adults in the area. Multi-family housing can also provide an opportunity for empty nesters to downsize while continuing to reside in their community.
Table 3-7: Housing Stock by Type- 2021
Housing Type Number of Units
Total Housing units 4,165
Single Family Detached 3,410 (82%)
Single Family Attached 546 (13%)
Multi-Family Units 209 (5%)
Mobile home, other units 0 (0%)
Source: California Department of Finance E-5 Population and Housing Estimates, 2021
Table 3-8: Housing Stock Characteristics by Tenure
Housing Characteristic Owner Households Renter Households All Households Total Housing Units 3,933 (90%) 299 (6.8%) 4,365
Persons per Household Data not available 2.83
Vacancy Rate Data not available 2.0%
Overcrowded Units 0% 0% 0%
Needs Assessment
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-9
Table 3-8: Housing Stock Characteristics by Tenure
Housing Characteristic Owner Households Renter Households All Households Units Needing
Replacement/Rehabilitation 0 0 None
Housing Cost – Average $1,030,000
(for sale)
$2,690
(monthly rent) N/A
Sources: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-year estimates, Zillow.com, Rent.com, California Department of Finance E-5 Population and Housing Estimates, 2021 CoreLogic, 2022
OVERCROWDING
In response to a mismatch between household income and housing costs in a community, some households may not be able to buy or rent housing that provides a reasonable level of privacy and space.
According to both California and federal standards, a housing unit is considered overcrowded if it is occupied by more than one person per room (excluding kitchens, bathrooms, and halls). In Clayton, no housing units qualify as overcrowded, suggesting that household incomes are aligned with local housing costs.
HOUSING CONDITION
The condition of housing stock can be an indicator of potential rehabilitation needs. Based upon observations and experiences of the Community Development Director for Clayton, the City reports that in 2020, no housing units are in severe need of replacement or substantial rehabilitation due to housing conditions. This likely reflects the fact that household incomes in Clayton are high and property owners have the financial ability to maintain their properties.
HOUSING COST
The cost of housing in a community is directly correlated to the number of housing problems and affordability issues. High housing costs can price low-income families out of the market, cause extreme cost burdens, or force households into overcrowded or substandard conditions. As of February 2022, the Clayton median home price according to CoreLogic was $1,030,000. The median home price in Contra Costa County for this same period was $785,000, or $245,000 lower than in Clayton.
According to the 2019 Census, only 6.8 percent of Clayton’s housing stock is rental housing. Very few rental units exist in the city, so average rent was calculated using rents from Clayton, San Ramon, and Pleasant Hill. Using Zillow.com and Trulia.com data for these three communities (with only one property shown for rent in Clayton), the average local monthly rent was estimated to be $2,690 per month based on a very limited sample size. Table 3-9 shows the HUD-determined fair market rents for Contra Costa County. The assumed average local rent of $2,690 falls within the range for a two- to three-bedroom unit.
Rents in Clayton thus may be considered generally in line with those countywide.
Needs Assessment
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-10
Table 3-9: Fair Market Rents in Contra Costa County
Year Efficiency One-Bedroom Two-Bedroom Three-Bedroom Four-Bedroom FY 2020
FMR $1,488 $1,808 $2,239 $3,042 $3,720
Sources: FY2020 Fair Market Rents. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS
Housing Element law requires local governments to include an analysis of housing needs for residents in specific special needs groups and to address resources available to address these needs. Table 3-10 indicates special needs households in Clayton based on ACS data and annual County homeless counts.
Table 3-10: Special Needs Groups
Special Needs Category Count Percent
Persons with Disabilities1 (inclusive of persons with
developmental disabilities) 1,024 8.5% of population
Persons with Developmental Disabilities 1 348 3% of residents Elderly (65+ years) 1 14,514 11.3% of residents
618 households 14.6% of households
Large Households (5+ members) 1 487 households 11.5% of households Farmworkers1 16 0.3% of labor force
Migrant Worker Student Population 0 0% of labor force
Female Headed Households1 252 households 5.9% of households Male Headed Households 85 households 2% of households
Married Couple Households 2,963 households 70% of households Householder Living Alone 771 households 18% of households People Experiencing Homelessness2 7 N/A
Sources:
1. US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2015-2019 5-year estimates
2. Contra Costa County: Annual Point in Time Count Report
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES, INCLUDING PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES Disabled residents face housing access and safety challenges. Disabled people, in many cases, are of limited incomes and often receive Social Security income only. As such, most of their monthly income is often devoted to housing costs. In addition, disabled persons may face difficulty finding accessible housing (housing that is made accessible to people with disabilities through the positioning of appliances and fixtures, the heights of installations and cabinets, layout of unit to facilitate wheelchair movement, etc.) because of the limited number of such units.
In Clayton, 1,024 residents live with a disability, representing 8.5 percent of residents. Most residents with a disability are 75 and older (47.9 percent), followed by those 65 to 74 years old (12.6 percent). The most Needs Assessment
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-11
commonly occurring disability among seniors 65 and older was a hearing difficulty, experienced by 16.6 percent of Clayton’s seniors. For those with a developmental disability, the overwhelming majority reside in the home of a parent, guardian, or family member (80 percent).
ELDERLY (65+ YEARS)
Many senior-headed households have special needs due to their relatively low incomes, disabilities or limitations, and dependency needs. Specifically, many people aged 65 years and older live alone and may have difficulty maintaining their homes, are usually retired, live on a limited income, and are more likely to have high health care costs and rely on public transportation, especially those with disabilities. The limited income of many elderly persons often makes it difficult for them to find affordable housing. In Clayton, 618 households are headed by elderly residents, representing 14.6 percent of total households.
Elderly residents experience poverty at the same rate as those aged 18 to 34 (2.8 percent) and a higher rate than all Clayton residents (1.4 percent).
LARGE HOUSEHOLDS (5+ MEMBERS)
Large households, defined by HCD as households containing five or more persons, have special housing needs due to the limited availability of adequately-sized, affordable housing units. Larger units can be very expensive; as such, large households often must reside in smaller, less expensive units. Alternatively, to save on housing costs, large households may have to double-up with other families or live with extended families, which may result in unit overcrowding. Clayton has 487 large households, representing 11.5 percent of all households. A larger percentage of owner households (10 percent) are defined as large households as compared to renter households (1.4 percent).
In Clayton, 0.5 percent of families are living in poverty. As of 2019, no large households were reported as living in poverty.
FARMWORKERS
Due to the high cost of housing and low wages, a significant number of migrant farm workers have difficulty finding affordable, safe, and sanitary housing. Census data report 16 Clayton residents who may work as farmworkers, representing only 0.3 percent of the local labor force. Maps from the State of California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program show no farmland in Clayton. Due to the low number of agricultural workers in the city, the housing needs of migrant and/or farm worker housing need can be met through general affordable housing programs.
FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS
Single-parent households require special consideration and assistance because of the greater need for day care, health care, and other services. In particular, female-headed households with children tend to have lower incomes and a greater need for affordable housing and accessible daycare and other supportive services. The lower incomes often earned by female-headed households, combined with the increased need for supportive services, severely limit the housing options available to them. In Clayton, the 252 female headed households represent 5.9 percent of all households. A total of 2.8 percent of female-headed households live in poverty, a higher percentage than all households living in poverty at 0.5 percent.
Needs Assessment
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-12
PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
Population estimates for people experiencing homelessness is very difficult to quantify. Census information is often unreliable due to the difficulty of efficiently counting a population without permanent residences. Given this impediment, local estimates of the homeless and anecdotal information are often where population numbers of the homeless come from. In 2020, the Contra Costa County point-in-time counts identified seven people experiencing homelessness in Clayton. In Contra Costa County, the overall homeless count increased by one percent between 2019 and 2020.
Eight organizations listed in the table below provide local homeless services to Clayton and the region.
Table 3-11: Regional Homelessness Services
Provider Program/ Services
Contra Costa County Public Health Division
C.O.R.E Homeless Outreach
Contra Costa Youth Continuum of Services
Contra Costa Adult Continuum of Services
Permanent Supportive Housing
Community Homeless Court
Bay Area Rescue Mission Food pantry, transitional housing, emergency services, life transformation programs, community outreach
Greater Richmond Interfaith Program (GRIP) Meals, transitional housing Shepard's Gate Women's Shelter Homeless shelter for women and children SHELTER, Inc. Temporary and affordable housing
Winter Nights Homeless shelter (seasonal), homework help, and tutoring Sources: cc.health.org, bayarearescuemission.org, gripcommunity.org, shepardsgate.org, shelterinc.org, cccwinternights.org
ENERGY CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES
The Housing Element is required to analyze opportunities for energy conservation in residential development, as energy-related housing costs can directly impact housing affordability. While State building code standards contain mandatory energy efficiency requirements for new development, the City and utility providers are also important resources to encourage and facilitate energy conservation and to help residents minimize energy-related expenses. Policies addressing climate change and energy conservation are integrated into the Clayton General Plan.
Clayton residents are eligible to participate in multiple energy efficiency and conservation programs:
• Contra Costa Weatherization Program provides no-cost weatherization upgrades to incomequalifying residents. • Energy Upgrade California offers rebates for home retrofitting in Contra Costa County. • California FIRST provides multi-family buildings with five or more units property-assessed financing for energy efficiency.
• Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) offers rebates for solar water heaters, pool pumps, and appliances.
Needs Assessment
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-13
• Single-family Affordable Solar Homes (SASH) helps income-qualifying households with up-front costs to make the benefits of solar power accessible.
AT-RISK HOUSING ANALYSIS
State housing law requires an inventory and analysis of government-assisted dwelling units eligible for conversion from lower income housing to market rate housing during the next 10 years. Reasons for this conversion may include expiration of subsidies, mortgage pre-payments or pay-offs, and concurrent expiration of affordability restrictions. One development in Clayton, the Stranahan subdivision, has affordability covenants that are currently scheduled to expire in the next 10 years (2022-2032). More specifically, under current affordability agreements, deed restrictions for five of its 12 affordable units will expire in 2025 or 2026.
Table 3-12: Affordable Units at Risk of Conversion to Market Rate in Clayton Assisted Development
Total Deed-Restricted Affordable
Units Earliest Conversion Date
200 Stranahan Circle 1 2026
202 Stranahan Circle 1 2026
210 Stranahan Circle 1 2026
245 Stranahan Circle 1 2025
266 Stranahan Circle 1 2026
Source: City of Clayton Affordable Housing Inventory, 2022
PRESERVATION AND REPLACEMENT OPTIONS
Preservation of at-risk affordable housing can be achieved only with adequate funding availability. In Clayton, the five units with expiring covenants are single-family homes, and the property owners have little incentive to sell the units to another income-restricted household. Conversely, the owners may realize a substantial profit by selling their units. The option for preservation is likely limited to the willingness of an entity to purchase the unit at market cost and subsidize rent for a moderate- or lowerincome household or to subsidize resale to a qualifying household. The City has no financial resources to do so.
Rental Assistance
State, local, or other funding sources can be used to provide rental subsidies to maintain the affordability of at-risk projects. These subsidies can mirror the Housing Choice Voucher/Section 8 program, in which the subsidy covers the cost of the unit above what is determined to be affordable for the tenant’s household income, up to the fair market value of the unit. Unit sizes for the at-risk properties are all three bedrooms and are all in the moderate-income category. The total annual subsidies to maintain the five at-risk affordable units in Clayton is estimated at $70,800, 3 without accounting for the initial cost an
3 Total annual subsidies calculated by assuming 30% of rent for moderate income and subtracting this affordable rent from Contra Costa fair market rent for a 3-bedroom unit, multiplying by 12 (for one year) and multiplying by five (for the five units)
Needs Assessment
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-14
affordable housing organization to purchase the unit. Over a potential 30-year period of subsidy, the potential cost―not adjusted for inflation―would be $2.1 million.
Transfer of Ownership
If the current owners of the at-risk units do not desire to extend affordability restrictions to facilitate continued occupancy by another low- or moderate-income household, ownership of the unit can be transferred to a nonprofit housing organization. The estimated market value for the five affordable units that are potentially at risk of converting to market rate is about $1.2 million each.
Construction of Replacement Units
The construction of new low-income housing can be a means to replace at-risk units. The cost of developing new housing depends on a variety of factors, including density, size of units, construction quality and type, location, and land cost. In the Bay Area, the cost of constructing a new unit, absent land costs, ranges $250 to $300 per square foot4
―with costs approaching $500 per square foot in San
Francisco and Oakland. Assuming a development cost of $275 per square foot and a house size of 1,400 square feet, the construction cost of replacing all five units would be close to $2 million (with additional costs for land acquisition, financing, carrying costs, etc.).
Funding Sources
A critical component to implement any of these preservation options is the availability of adequate funding, which can be difficult to secure. In general, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit funding is not readily available for rehabilitation and preservation, as the grant application process is highly competitive and prioritizes new construction. Available funding sources that can support affordable housing preservation includes sources from the federal and state governments, as well as local and regional funding.
Federal Funding
• HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program
• Project-Based Vouchers (Section 8)
• Section 811 Project Rental Assistance
State funding
• Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program • Golden State Acquisition Fund (GSAF)
• Project Homekey
• Housing for a Healthy California
• Multifamily Housing Program (MHP)
• National Housing Trust Fund
• Predevelopment Loan Program (PDLP)
4 https://www.homebuilderdigest.com/cost-guide/california-cost-guides/how-much-does-it-cost-to-build-a-housein-the-san-francisco-bay-area/. Accessed 5-13-22.
Needs Assessment
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-15
Regional, Local, and Non-Profit Funding
• Multiple-Family Mortgage Revenue Bonds
• HOME – American Rescue Plan (ARP)
COASTAL ZONE
The City of Clayton is not in a coastal zone and therefore is not subject to the requirements of Government Code 65588 (c) and (d).
PROJECTED HOUSING NEED (RHNA)
Housing Element law requires a quantification of each jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need as established in the Regional Housing Need Allocation Plan prepared by the jurisdiction’s council of governments, which for Clayton is the Association of Bay Area Governments/Metropolitan Transportation Commission (ABAG). HCD, in conjunction with the ABAG, determines the projected housing need for cities and counties in the nine-county ABAG region, inclusive of the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Sonoma. This share, known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), is 441,776 new housing units for the 2023-2031 planning period throughout the ABAG region. ABAG has, in turn, allocated this share among its constituent cities and counties, distributing to each jurisdiction its own RHNA divided along income levels. The City of Clayton has a RHNA of 570 housing units to accommodate in the current Housing Element cycle of 2023-2031. The income distribution is as shown in Table 3-13.
Table 3-13: Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2023-2031 Income Group % of County AMI Number of Units Allocated Percent of Total Allocation Very Low1 0-50% 170 30%
Low >50-80% 97 17%
Moderate >80-120% 84 15%
Above Moderate 120%+ 219 38%
Total --- 570 100%
Note: Pursuant to AB 2634, local jurisdictions are also required to project the housing needs of extremely low-income households (0-30% AMI). In estimating the number of extremely low-income households, a jurisdiction can use 50% of the very low-income allocation or apportion the very low-income figure based on Census data. There are 210 extremely low- and 97 very low-income households. Therefore, the City’s very low-income RHNA of 97 units can be split into 48 extremely low-income and 49 very low-income units.
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments
Needs Assessment
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-16
This page is intentionally blank.
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 4-1
4. Constraints Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Many factors can encourage or constrain the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing stock. These factors fall into two categories―governmental and non-governmental constraints―and include physical constraints, land availability, development economics, and governmental regulations, all of which impact the cost and amount of housing produced. These constraints may result in housing that is not affordable to low- and moderate-income households or may render residential construction economically infeasible for developers. Constraints to housing production significantly impact households with lower incomes and/or special needs.
This chapter addresses both the governmental and non-governmental constraints that impact the City of Clayton’s housing market and production. State law requires that Housing Elements analyze potential and actual governmental and non-governmental constraints to the production, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons of all income levels and abilities. The constraints analysis must also demonstrate local efforts to remove or mitigate barriers to housing production, particularly forsupportive and transitional housing, emergency shelters, and housing for persons with disabilities. Where constraints to housing production related to the City’s regulations or land use controls are identified, appropriate programs to remove or mitigate these constraints are included in the Housing Plan.
GOVERNMENT CONSTRAINTS
While local governments have little influence on market factors such as interest rates, their policies and regulations can affect the type, amount, and affordability of residential development. Since governmental actions can constrain development and affordability of housing, State law requires that the Housing Element “address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing” (Government Code Section 65583(c)(3)).
City regulations that affect residential development and housing affordability include policies, standards, and procedures set forth in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, specific plans, and the Zoning Ordinance.
LAND USE CONTROLS
General Plan Land Use Element
The General Plan is the City’s principal land use policy document. The City adopted its first General Plan in July 1971. The General Plan was updated in 1985, with periodic amendments following, most recently in 2016. Table 4-1 shows the General Plan land use categories that allow for residential uses, along with density ranges and the types of residential uses allowed. The General Plan provides for single- and multi- Constraints Analysis
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 4-2
family housing at a range of densities from one to 20 units per gross acre. For the Multifamily High Density designation, the General Plan indicates not a density range but a set density of 20 units per acre. This indicates the possible need for a clarifying language in the General Plan.
Table 4-1: General Plan Residential Land Use Categories Land Use Category
Density Range
(units/ gross acre) Allowed Residential Uses
Rural Estate Up to 1.0 Single-family detached estates
Single-Family Low Density 1.1 to 3.0 Single-family detached houses Single-Family Medium Density 3.1 to 5.0 Planned unit developments (PUDs) and single-family subdivisions
Single-Family High Density 5.1 to 7.5 Patio homes, zero lot line homes, and cluster homes in a planned
unit development (PUD)
Multi-Family Low Density 7.6 to 10.0 Cluster units such as townhouses, garden units, and other types of
PUDs, including single-family
detached dwellings
Multi-Family Medium Density 10.1 to 15.0 Multi-family units Multi-Family High Density 20.0 Two-story (or higher) apartments or condominiums. Development
within this density is encouraged to
utilize the PUD concept and
standards
Institutional 7.6 to 20 units Various forms of housing for senior citizens
Source: City of Clayton General Plan Land Use Element
Town Center Specific Plan
The Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP) establishes goals and policies for development in the Town Center area. The purpose of the TCSP is to encourage appropriate commercial development while enhancing the area’s historic character. The TCSP identifies appropriate land uses in the Town Center and provides design guidelines for new buildings, walkways, parking lots, and landscaping. The regulations allow for housing, with densities of up to 20 units per acre in the Multi-family High Density Residential category. For the Institutional Residential category, the lot coverage is capped at 50 percent, which could constrain development.
Table 4-2: Town Center Specific Plan Regulations
Land Use Category Regulations
Multi-family Low Density Residential Dwelling units at a density of 7.6 to 10 units per gross acre.
Development intensity can reach 100 percent of individual parcel coverage as long as each unit has access to private outdoor space, use of recreational amenities, and provision of useable open space. Accessory dwelling units are allowed.
Multi-family Medium Density Residential Dwelling units at a density of 10.1 to 15 units per gross acre Constraints Analysis
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 4-3
Table 4-2: Town Center Specific Plan Regulations
Land Use Category Regulations
Multi-family High Density Residential Dwelling units at a density of 15.1 to 20 units per gross acre.
Structural coverage, not including recreational amenities, shall not exceed 65% of the site area.
Institutional Residential Senior housing at a density of 7.6 to 20 units per gross acre.
Development intensity can reach 100 percent structural
coverage for individual parcels. Structural coverage shall not exceed 50% of the site area.
Source: Clayton Community Development Department, 2016
Marsh Creek Road Specific Plan
The Marsh Creek Road Specific Plan (MCRSP) refers to an area of 475 acres south and east of Clayton in central Contra Costa County. This area is mostly undeveloped and is located at the edge of existing urban development. Several residential development proposals have been submitted within this area, but it is also viewed as an important natural resource by the local residents. The goal of the MCRSP is to maintain the unique rural character of the study area and designate appropriate sites for residential development.
The development will be guided and regulated in a manner to both protect the area’s natural amenities and afford recreational opportunities and access to the public. All developments consist of low to medium density residential.
Zoning
The provisions of the Clayton Zoning Ordinance implement the policies and standards set forth in the General Plan. The Zoning Ordinance permits residential development in the following districts:
• Single-family residential districts – The following designations are included in the single-family residential zoning categories: R-10, R-12, R-15, R-20, R40, and R-40-H. The number within each designation identifier references the minimum lot size, in thousands of square feet, for each designation.
• Multi-family residential districts – The following designations are included in the multi-family zoning categories: M-R (low density multifamily residential), M-R-M (multifamily residential, medium density), and M-R-H (multifamily residential, high density). Although there are no parcels currently zoned M-R, M-R-M, or M-R-H, some parcels within the TCSP area have land use designations that are consistent with the development densities of the M-R and M-R-H districts, and the City maintains all of the multi-family residential districts for future use. • Planned development district – The following designation is used to denote planned development district: PD.
• Commercial districts – The LC (limited commercial) designation is applied to parcels inside of the TCSP area. A few parcels near the northern edge of the City are also zoned LC district. Parcels that are designated or zoned LC district allow some multi-family residential uses under certain circumstances.
Constraints Analysis
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 4-4
The Zoning Ordinance establishes the types of allowed residential uses, as well as residential development standards for each zoning district.
Permitted Residential Uses
Table 4-3 identifies the residential use types permitted by right (P) or permitted subject to the approval of a use permit (UP), as well uses not allowed in residential zoning districts (--).
Table 4-3: Residential Use Permit Requirements
Residential Use
Type R-10 R-12 R-15 R-20 R-40 R-40-H M-R M-R-M M-R-H LC TCSP Single-family
dwelling
P P P P P P UP UP UP -- --
Second dwelling
unit
P P P P P P P P P -- --
Duplex
Residential
-- -- -- -- -- -- P P P -- --
Multi-family
residential
(triplex, condos,
apartments,
etc.)
-- -- -- -- -- -- P P P -- --
Residential
above
commercial
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- P
Residential care
home (≤6
persons)
P P P P P P -- -- -- -- --
Residential care
homes (>6
persons)
UP UP UP UP UP UP -- -- -- -- --
Manufactured
dwelling unit
P P P P P P -- -- -- -- --
Transitional and
supportive
housing
P P P P P P P P P -- --
Single-room
occupancy (SRO)
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- UP --
P = permitted (by right)
UP = Use Permit
-- = not permitted
Source: City of Clayton Zoning Ordinance 2014
Accessory Dwelling Units
An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is an additional self-contained living unit either attached to or detached from the primary residential unit on a single lot. It has cooking, eating, sleeping, and full sanitation facilities. To encourage establishment of ADUs on existing developed lots, state law requires cities and Constraints Analysis
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 4-5
counties to either adopt an ordinance based on standards set out in the state law or allow ADUs as a byright use subject to development standards that reflect state requirements.
Beginning in 2017, the state legislature adopted a series of ADU laws that establish well-defined standards for the by-right (ministerial) approval of ADU applications. The City last updated its ADU regulations in 2004. Thus, current regulations, set forth in Table 4-4 (and called second units in the Zoning Ordinance), are outdated. The City is in the process of drafting new regulations that reflect state law and anticipates adopting the new regulations before the end of 2022.
Table 4-4: Second Unit Development Standards
Requirement Description
Zoning Districts Per Zoning Code Chapter 17.47 second dwelling units are allowed in all districts that allow single-family dwellings
Setbacks Same as the principal structure unless located in a PD zone Height Attached units shall not exceed the principal structure height; detached units shall not exceed one story or 15 feet, whichever is less.
Parking 1 uncovered space per bedroom
Unit size Units between 250 and 750 square feet (one bedroom) require ministerial review
Units between 751 and 1,000 square feet maximum (up to two bedrooms) requires Planning Commission review
Architectural compatibility Must incorporate similar or complementary architectural features as the principal and surrounding structures
Source: City of Clayton Zoning Ordinance 2014
Currently, applicants must pay a Planning Permit processing fee of $331 for staff-level administrative review of ADU applications. For ADU applications that require Planning Commission review, Planning Permit fees are based on staff cost with a minimum deposit of $1,000. The requirement for Planning Commission review can be considered a constraint. The city plans to revise its ADU ordinance by the end of 2022 to remove this constraint and otherwise comply with state law.
The Contra Costa Water District (a special district public agency) charges a fee of approximately $24,125 for ADU’s 5/8-inch water hookup (fees vary based on unit size). This connection fee, as well as other factors that include limitations on labor and supplies and increasing costs of construction, may be a constraint to the development of ADUs. Fewer than 10 ADU permit applications have been processed since the 2004 amendment of the Municipal Code.
Residential Care Facilities
Residential care facilities or group homes for persons with disabilities are allowed in the city. Facilities for six or fewer persons are allowed by right in all residential districts pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 1566.3. Facilities for seven or more persons are considered a commercial use of property, are allowed with a use permit in accordance with Chapter 17.46 of the Zoning Ordinance, and must meet the following standards:
• The applicant must maintain an operating license from the applicable state and county agencies.
The residential care home shall be located within a detached single-family dwelling.
Constraints Analysis
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 4-6
• Sufficient off-street parking spaces shall be provided in addition to the required off-street parking to serve the dwelling.
• Signs are not allowed.
• Each residential care facility shall be located at least 1,000 feet from another such facility. • The dwelling must comply with the Uniform Building Code and State standards for accessibility by disabled persons.
Manufactured Homes
In 2009, the City amended the Zoning Ordinance to allow manufactured housing on any residential lot subject to the standards applicable to site-built housing in accordance with state law. The Zoning Ordinance now treats manufactured housing as a single-family use type, includes a definition for manufactured housing, and allows manufactured housing on a permanent foundation in all residential zones that allow for single-family homes, subject to site plan and design review.
Emergency Shelters
In compliance with California Senate Bill (SB) 2 (2007), the City amended its Zoning Ordinance in 2013 to define emergency shelters and allow them by right (without discretionary approval) in at least one zoning district. Emergency shelters are now an allowed use in the Public Facility (PF) district, subject to specific development and management standards, including but not limited to:
• Emergency shelters must be located a minimum of 300 feet from residential buildings and schools, and at least 300 feet from other shelters.
• The maximum number of beds in a single shelter is 10. • Individuals may stay no longer than 180 consecutive days in a consecutive 12-month period. • Off-street parking must be provided in the ratio of one space for every three beds plus one parking space per staff member per shift.
• The shelter must provide an operational plan to the Community Development Director.
Section 17.36.082 provides a comprehensive list of emergency shelter requirements. Six parcelsin Clayton are zoned Public Facilities. The site identified as most viable for an emergency shelter is the north portion of a city-owned 4.73-acre property located at 6125 Clayton Road, which houses the community library.
The site is directly served by public transit (a regional bus that connects to the Concord Bay Area Rapid Transit station), as well as services and public amenities. Approximately 1.5 acres of the site are available for development of an emergency shelter. The City has not had inquiries regarding the establishment of an emergency shelter on this property or other sites zoned PF.
In 2019, California Assembly Bill (AB) 101 established the requirement to allow Low Barrier Navigation Centers (LBNC) as a by-right use on properties zoned for mixed use and non-residential zones that permit multi-family uses. As of early 2022, the City had not yet amended the Zoning Code to reflect AB 101. A program has been included to do so.
Transitional and Supportive Housing
SB 2 (2007) requires that all jurisdictions define and allow transitional and supportive housing. Transitional facilities offer short-term housing (at least six-month stay) for persons of certain targeted populations Constraints Analysis
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 4-7
(persons with AIDS, persons with mental or development disabilities, persons with chemical dependency, etc.) Supportive housing looks to support similar populations with permanent housing that may have onor off-site services linked to the housing.
The City amended its Zoning Ordinance in 2012 to define supportive housing and transitional housing and allow both as permitted uses in all residential zoning districts, subject only to the permit processing requirements as other similar use types in the same zone (site plan review, design review, etc.).
Single-Room Occupancy Units
AB 2634 (2006) requires the quantification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs of extremely low-income households. Housing elements must also identify zoning to encourage and facilitate housing for extremely low-income persons, of which two common types are supportive housing and single-room occupancy units (SRO).
Extremely low-income households typically include persons with special housing needs, including but not limited to persons experiencing homelessness or near-homelessness, persons with substance abuse problems, and persons with mental illness or developmental disabilities.
In 2012, the City amended its Municipal Code to explicitly define SRO housing as a type of residential hotel offering one-room units for long-term occupancy by one or two people. SROs may have kitchen or bath facilities (but not both) in the room. The City allows development of SROs with a use permit in the LC zoning district with a use permit.
Accommodation of Persons with Disabilities
The city has taken significant steps to improve housing accessibility. In 2013, the City adopted a universal design ordinance to ensure that new housing is adaptable and accessible for persons with disabilities. In 2012, the City adopted a reasonable accommodations ordinance (Chapter 15.90 of the Municipal Code) to allow for variations in the application of zoning standards and policies to accommodate persons with disabilities; amended the Zoning Ordinance to define and allow supportive housing facilities as described above; and amended the definition of “family” to remove restrictions on the number of unrelated persons that may be considered a family.
In 2008, the City Council approved its Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan. The plan included an evaluation of barriers for persons with disabilities and included steps to remove such barriers.
The plan mandates that the City Community Development and Engineering departments periodically evaluate their procedures for land use permit processing and public participation to ensure that reasonable accommodations are made for individuals with disabilities and all are in compliance with Fair Housing laws. As a result of plan implementation, all City facilities, offices, and meeting rooms have been upgraded to be accessible and compliant with Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and the City has an ongoing program for installation of wheelchair-accessible ramps at street intersections.
The City has two special needs residential facilities that cater to persons with disabilities. In 1992, the City approved the Kirker Court development, which provides 20 units for persons with developmental disabilities. In 1999, the City approved the Diamond Terrace project, which created 86 units for seniors, many of whom have disabilities and require special accommodations in their housing units and other Constraints Analysis
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 4-8
project facilities. The City, through its now defunct Redevelopment Agency, financially participated to support the establishment of both developments.
The City also offers reduced parking requirements for residential developments that serve seniors and persons with disabilities. The residential parking requirement for seniors or persons with disabilities is one parking space per dwelling unit, while standard single-family residential units require four parking spaces per unit.
The City will work to provide housing opportunities for persons and households with disabilities through coordination with housing providers and assistance with funding applications. The City will also continue to offer reasonable accommodations to ensure that City standards and policies do not impede housing opportunities for residents with disabilities. Programs are included in the Housing Plan (Chapter 2) to address reasonable accommodations and universal design.
Density Bonus
The City amended its Zoning Ordinance in 2009 to add specific density bonus provisions to reflect thencurrent state law. Chapter 17.90 of the Municipal Code establishes a density bonus of up to 35 percent and a variety of incentives/concessions to promote affordable housing. Since 2009, the legislature has significantly amended density bonus law, which applies to Clayton irrespective of Zoning Ordinance provisions. A program has been included in the Housing Plan to ensure that City regulations continue to reflect current state density bonus law as it evolves.
Affordable Housing Plan
Chapter 17.92 (Inclusionary Housing Requirements) of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth requirements for provision of affordable housing within developments of more than 10 units. Per this Chapter, a minimum of 10 percent of the units must be built or created as affordable housing units for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households. In lieu of providing housing on site as part of a development project, a developer may: 1) provide housing off-site, with the percentage of units increasing to 16 percent; 2) pay an in-lieu fee established by City Council resolutions; or 3) dedicate land for construction of the affordable units.
The City has established the specific guidelines for the review and preparation of Affordable Housing Plans. These criteria do not present a constraint to the development of housing but help to ensure construction of housing affordable to households at a wide range of income levels. As described below, the City offers a variety of incentives to developers and will consider others not specifically listed.
The Affordable Housing Plan must be submitted and approved in conjunction with the earliest stage of project entitlement, and in no case later than City approval of the primary land use entitlement and/or a development agreement. The Affordable Housing Plan must include:
• The number of dwelling units that will be developed as affordable to very low-, low-, moderate, and above moderate-income households (the City desires that at least five percent of all project units be affordable to very low-income households and at least five percent of all project units be affordable to low-income households)
• The number of affordable ownership and rental units to be produced. Such split shall be approved by the City Council based on housing needs, market conditions, and other relevant factors.
Constraints Analysis
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 4-9
• Program options within Affordable Housing Plans may include, but are not limited to:
o Actual production (on-site or off-site) of affordable units (including ownership and rental opportunities in the form of accessory dwelling units, corner units, half-plexes, duplexes, cottages, creative alternative housing products, etc.)
o Land dedication (on-site and off-site)
o Payment of in-lieu fees
• The timing for completion of affordable housing obligations.
At the City Council’s discretion, land or other contributions provided by developers as specified within Affordable Housing Plans may be utilized to augment City efforts and the efforts of its nonprofit partners to provide affordable housing opportunities to all income levels throughout the community. The General Plan states that the City will pursue supplemental funding to allow affordability to households earning less than 50 percent of area median income. However, this policy directive has not been pursued.
To ensure the production and preservation of housing affordable to the City’s workforce, no productive, reasonable program or incentive option will be excluded from consideration within project-specific Affordable Housing Plans. Incentives may include, but are not limited to:
• Density bonuses
• Fee waivers or deferrals (as reasonably available)
• Expedited processing/priority processing
• Reduced parking standards
• Technical assistance with accessing funding
• Modifications to development standards (on a case-by-case basis) The size of property, the surrounding land uses, the purchase price of the real property, and current market conditions (i.e., competition) are all factors that may be considered in the preparation of proposed Affordable Housing Plans. Each development project is unique, as are the incentives and specific affordable housing requirements applied. The flexibility of this “menu approach” allows the City and developer to agree to terms that meet the intent of providing affordable housing while ensuring that the proposed development remains feasible.
Development Standards
Table 4-5 summarizes the development standards for residential zoning districts. While the Zoning Ordinance establishes the minimum lot areas for the three zones as shown in the table, Section 17.20.030 (Permitted Uses-Principal) states as allowable uses: “Duplex, triplex, townhouses, apartments and other multifamily structures meeting and not exceeding the density limits set by the applicable General Plan Land Use Designation.” However, the M-R-M zone allows up to 24.2 units per acre, creating a zoning/General Plan inconsistency. The M-R-H zone, which has no corresponding General Plan land use designation, allows up to 43.6 units per acre. No properties are zoned M-R-H—although one parcel in the Town Center has a comparable multifamily residential high density land use designation—and the lack of an equivalent General Plan designation means a property owner would need to apply for a General Plan text amendment in conjunction with a rezoning request to implement the M-R-H zone. This is a constraint to development.
Constraints Analysis
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 4-10
Chapter 17.78 of the Zoning Ordinance limits lot coverage size establishing the maximum building size and building footprint depending on lot size. This could also be a constraint to development depending on building and lot size.
The PD zone allows small lot and zero lot line development at densities that correspond to the underlying General Plan land use designation. However, the PD permit approval process requires review by both the Planning Commission and City Council, which imposes time and cost burdens on applicants. This process may be considered a constraint on development.
The setback requirements for all zones reflect the general low-intensity character of Clayton and are not considered constraints on development.
In the M-R zone, the lot coverage limit for a small lot single-family development is 25 percent, which is limiting. The lot coverage requirements in the higher density zones comport with those found in other cities and do not constrain development.
Height limits of 35 feet generally apply to all residential zones, but buildings are limited to 20 in the M-R zone adjacent to a single-family zone. This is inconsistent with the 35-foot limit allowed in an adjacent single-family zone and limits the ability to achieve maximum density in the M-R zone. This is a constraint to development.
Constraints Analysis
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 4-11
Table 4-5: Residential Development Standards
District
Min. Lot Area
per Dwelling
Setback:
Front Yard
(min.)5
Setback:
Rear Yard
(min.)
Setback:
Side Yard
(min./
aggregate)1
Height
(max.)
Lot
Coverage
(max.)
Open
Space
(min.)
R-10 10,000 sf 20 ft 15 ft 10/20 ft 35 ft None n/a
R-12 12,600 sf 20 ft 15 ft 10/25 ft 35 ft None n/a
R-15 15,000 sf 20 ft 15 ft 10/25 ft 35 ft None n/a
R-20 20,000 sf 25 ft 15 ft 15/35 ft 35 ft None n/a
R-40 40,000 sf 40 ft 15 ft 20/40 ft 35 ft None n/a
R-40-H 40,000 sf 40 ft 15 ft 20/40 ft 35 ft None n/a
M-R
4 6,000 sf
(3,000
sf/unit)
20 ft 15 ft 15 ft/20 ft 35 ft, 20
ft2
25% or 40% 25%
M-R-M 6,000 sf
(1,800
sf/unit)
20 ft 15 ft 15 ft/20 ft 35 ft 50% 20%
M-R-H 9,000 sf
(1,000
sf/unit)
20 ft 15 ft 15 ft/20 ft 40 ft, 35
ft2
65% 20%
PD Underlying
GP
designation
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 20%3
Source: City of Clayton Zoning Ordinance 2022
1Standards shown are for interior lots. Refer to the Zoning Ordinance for side yard standards for corner lots. 2Twenty feet when District abuts (within 50 feet) any single-family residential district. 3 Affordable housing projects may be allowed to provide less than 20 percent of the project site as open space subject to approval by the Planning Commission.
4 Lot coverage in M-R zone depends on density, with General Plan requirements set at 25% for Single Family High Density and 40% for Multifamily Low Density.
5 In high density zone, side setback on corner lot is 20 feet. sf = Square Feet
Parking
New residential development is required to provide parking as shown in Table 4-6.
Table 4-6: Residential Parking Requirements
Requirement Description
Single-family 4 per unit (2 must be fully enclosed and 2 may be tandem)
Small lot, single-family (<4,000 sf net lot area,
Multifamily General Plan Designation)
2 per unit (1 must be covered and 1 may be tandem),
0.5 guest spaces per unit
Duplex 2 per unit (1 must be covered and 1 may be tandem),
0.5 guest spaces per units
Multiple-family
Studio 1 per unit (covered)
Constraints Analysis
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 4-12
Table 4-6: Residential Parking Requirements
Requirement Description
1-bedroom
2+ bedroom
Guest Parking
1.5 per unit (1 must be covered)
2 per unit (1 must be covered)
0.5 per unit
Group residential 1 per sleeping room plus 1 per 100 ft of assembly or common sleeping areas
Source: City of Clayton Zoning Ordinance 2014
The parking requirements for single-family development exceed those typically used in other cities, which generally require two spaces and sometimes more for units with 5+ bedrooms. For multiple-family developments, the requirement for covered spaces adds construction costs and may be considered a constraint on development.
The parking requirements may be reduced for projects zoned PD (e.g., Oakhurst provides only 1.5 parking spaces for its zero lot line units) with a supporting parking analysis and may be reduced for Affordable Housing Opportunity sites with a supporting parking analysis. Affordable Housing Opportunity Sites are determined to be appropriate for affordable housing development due to their size and proximity to services and amenities. These sites are not required to be developed as affordable housing, but it is strongly preferred, and affordable housing units will be incentivized through increased density, design flexibility, priority processing, and funding application assistance.
Growth Management Program (Measures C & J) In 1988, Contra Costa County voters approved a half-cent sales tax to fund a transportation improvement and growth management program (Measure C). This program addresses congestion problems by funding transportation improvement projects and establishing a process involving all cities in Contra Costa County, including Clayton, to cooperatively manage the impacts of growth. In 2004, over two-thirds of Contra Costa County voters passed Measure J, which extended the previous Measure C for another 25 years to 2034. Similar to Measure C, Measure J aims to assure that future residential business and commercial growth pays for the facilities required to meet the demands resulting from that growth. Compliance with the Measure J Growth Management Program is linked to receipt of Local Street Maintenance and Improvement Funds and Transportation for Livable Community Funds from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), the congestion management agency for Contra Costa County.
The overall goals of the program are to relieve traffic congestion created by past development through road and transit improvements funded by the sales tax increase and to prevent future development decisions from resulting in the deterioration of services. To be eligible for sales tax funds, the Growth Management Program requires that each participating city and town and the County take several actions including:
• Adopting a Growth Management Element of the General Plan to address the impacts of growth • Committing to managing congestion by adopting and applying traffic service standards to ensure that new development will not significantly worsen traffic on streets, roads, and regional routes • Reducing dependency on the single-occupancy automobile through use of transportation systems management for each jurisdiction’s large employers or an alternative mitigation program for areas that are primarily residential in character Constraints Analysis
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 4-13
• Ensuring that new development pays its own way through mitigation and fee programs • Reducing the number and length of automobile commute trips by addressing housing options and job opportunities at the local, regional, and countywide level • Adopting a Housing Element certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development
CCTA is responsible for ensuring that these objectives and requirements are met. Periodically, it evaluates whether each city, town, and the County is participating fully, based on a compliance checklist. Each year that a jurisdiction is found to be in compliance with the Growth Management Program, the jurisdiction receives a share of the local sales tax increase that will be used for local street improvements and related activities.
In 1992, Clayton adopted the Growth Management Element of the General Plan pursuant to the requirements of Measure C. This element establishes goals, policies, and standards for traffic service and other public facilities and services. The City adopted an update to the Growth Management Element in 2011 (Resolution No. 13-2011) following approval of Measure J. Consistent with Policy 1d of the Growth Management Element and the Measure J Growth Management Plan, the City requires developers of development projects estimated to generate over 100 peak hour vehicle trips to provide the City with a traffic impact study consistent with the Technical Guidelines published by CCTA. Measure J also requires jurisdictions to demonstrate progress on providing housing opportunities by comparing the number of units approved within the previous five years with the number of units needed to meet the objectives established in the jurisdiction’s Housing Element. It further requires each city to periodically certify it has not violated its Urban Limit Line (ULL) boundary and accompanying regulations for orderly growth to be eligible for receipt of Measure J funds.
Measure J eliminates the previous Measure C requirements for local performance standards and Level of Service (LOS) standards for non-regional routes. However, the City of Clayton carried forward into its 2011 Growth Management Element update the LOS standards for non-regional routes, as well as performance standards for fire, police, parks, sanitary, water, and flood control, as each could continue to play a decisive role in assessing the impacts of proposed new development. Measure J also adds the requirement for adoption of a voter-approved ULL.
The adopted Growth Management Element does not restrict the number of new homes that can be built in Clayton. The element intends to use the increased tax revenue for transportation improvements to ensure that development and growth are orderly and not restricted. Measure J requires that the City monitor progress toward meeting Clayton’s housing objectives. The City has determined that its Growth Management Element does not constrain the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels.
DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING PROCEDURES, STANDARDS, AND FEES
Permit Processing Procedures
Housing development projects proposed in Clayton are subject to one or more of the following review processes or permits: environmental review, zoning, subdivision review, planned development permit, site plan review, use permits, and building permits.
Constraints Analysis
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 4-14
The city does not have an in-house building department; it contracts with the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Division to administer its building permit process. To proceed with a residential development, the developer first obtains the required project specific development entitlement approvals from the City. The developer then submits construction plans to the city for zoning compliance review and applies for sewer and water service.
The City of Concord provides contracted sewer service in Clayton. The Contra Costa Water District, an independent special district public entity, provides water service. Once the developer has obtained entitlement, zoning compliance, and utilities connection approvals, the developer submits plans to the County Building Inspection Division for plan check and a building permit. The County also provides building inspection services and grants certificates of occupancy for the project.
The City created and offers a development handbook that provides applicants with an overview of its development approval process. The handbook is available on the City’s website. The guide is intended to minimize uncertainty in the process and reduce the time applicants spend seeking development approval.
The Clayton Community Development Department also encourages no-cost pre-application meetings so that city staff can provide assistance and direction to applicants prior to application review. Staff has found that the pre-application meetings reduce the time spent approving development applications.
Permit Processing Time Frames
Table 4-7 shows typical permit processing times. Typical processing times include both discretionary and non-discretionary permit processing times and account for the time required to obtain permits from both Contra Costa County and the city. For example, a “typical” development project such as a new singlefamily residence or residential addition that does not require environmental review but requires a use permit and/or site plan review from the city and a building permit from Contra Costa County could take 12 weeks to process (eight weeks for the use permit and site plan review, which could be processed concurrently, and four weeks for a building permit).
The city’s permit processing procedures include an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. If a project requires environmental review, additional processing and time is required. State law under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) mandates these review procedures. Many environmental regulations have protected the public from significant environmental degradation, prevented development of certain projects on sites not well suited for the development proposed, and given the public opportunity to comment on project impacts. This process does, however, increase the time needed for approval of a project and adds to its cost.
A single-family residential subdivision requires approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map. A multifamily project requires the approval of a Development Plan Permit. Both proposals require actions by the Planning Commission and the City Council. If the level of environmental review is a negative declaration (ND) or a mitigated negative declaration (MND), then the typical processing time is six to nine months from the time an application is deemed complete. If the level of environmental review is an environmental impact report (EIR), then the typical processing time, from the time the application is deemed complete, is approximately 12 to 16 months.
Constraints Analysis
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 4-15
Table 4-7: Typical Permit Processing Times
Type of Application
Estimated Processing Time*
(following formal acceptance)
General Plan Amendment 20-26 weeks
Rezoning 20-26 weeks
Use Permit 6-10 weeks
Variance 6-10 weeks
Planned Development 20-26 weeks
Subdivision (Tentative Map) 20-26 weeks
Subdivision (Final Map) Varies
Site Plan Review 6-10 weeks
Zoning Review (city staff) 1-2 weeks
Building Permit (County Building Inspection Division) 2-4 weeks Sources: City of Clayton, Contra Costa County
*These times assume environmental review is not required and that the application is deemed complete.
Planned Development Districts
A Planned Development (PD) district requires a separate Planned Development Permit. The permit request must meet the requirements set forth in Chapter 17.28 of the Clayton Municipal Code and must be approved by the City Council. An approved PD district provides applicants with flexibility in land use controls, including residential land use controls.
To facilitate multi-family development on PD sites, in 2014 the city amended the PD zoning district standards to allow multi-family developments with a General Plan land use designation of Multi Family High Density (MHD) to be processed with only site plan review (rather than development plan review as was previously required) if applicants choose to adhere to M-R-H zoning district development standards.
This change was intended to create a more predictable path for development on sites designated MHD.
The PD district provides developers with the flexibility to accommodate projects on sites that are constrained by various physical factors such as flooding, slopes, restricted access, or cultural resources.
The development plan process allows creativity in the application of various standard development requirements including setbacks, height limitations, lot coverage, vehicular access, parking, and architectural design. Since development plans may involve the relaxation of various standards, Planning Commission and City Council review is required. The standards of review are listed in the Zoning Ordinance and focus upon ensuring that a better development would result than would occur with a non-flexible zone and ensuring protection of usable and natural open areas.
Site Plan Review
Site plan review is required for new single-family dwellings, multi-family dwellings, and certain types of residential additions. Typically, the process is initiated by staff meeting with the applicant to review the project. The applicant submits an application and the processing fee/deposit. Neighboring property owners are notified and a staff report is prepared. The Planning Commission reviews the project at a public hearing to examine compatibility with surrounding residences, solar rights, privacy, safety, and views. The site plan review process takes approximately six to eight weeks. Following site plan approval, the applicant Constraints Analysis
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 4-16
submits construction drawings for an initial zoning conformance review by the Community Development Department staff and then to the County Building Inspection Division.
While the site plan review process includes specific objective design criteria against which residential development proposals are reviewed, the public hearing process adds time and application processing costs that contribute to housing costs. This process may be considered a constraint on housing development to the degree that it adds costs and delays.
Design Review
Residential development projects in Clayton are subject to a design review process that is a component of the site plan review process. This process ensures that new residential development is compatible with surrounding residences and protects the solar rights, privacy, safety, and views of existing development.
The requirements for design review are described in the Town Center Specific Plan, the Marsh Creek Road Specific Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and the General Plan. These documents are described as follows:
• Marsh Creek Road Specific Plan: The Marsh Creek Road Specific Plan contains design and development standards that require designers and builders to retain and enhance the character of the planning area as it develops. The guidelines address site planning, creek corridors, ridgeline and hillside protection, streetscape and landscape architecture, residential architecture, energy and resource conservation, and commercial development. • Town Center Specific Plan: The Town Center Specific Plan contains design guidelines that provide guiding principles rather than strict requirements to ensure flexibility in meeting the intent of the guidelines. The guidelines address several topics such as site design, architectural character, landscape character, preservation of historic buildings, relationship of new to existing development, parking, and signage.
• General Plan: The General Plan contains a Community Design Element with objectives, policies, and implementation measures that address overall community design, scenic highways, and design standards for the Town Center.
• Zoning Ordinance: The Zoning Ordinance protects solar rights, privacy, safety, and views of existing development through height and setback restrictions.
Amendments to the State Housing Accountability Act, as well as other laws enacted to facilitate housing production, have affirmed the state legislature’s intent to ensure jurisdictions use an objective process to review whether a proposed housing development application complies with local standards. The City’s design review process has been formulated to ensure that new residential development preserves basic objective aesthetic principles and does not allow conditions to be placed on the project that would lower the density or make the project financially infeasible. The City has not yet thoroughly assessed whether the standards applied meet the requirements of current State law. A program has been included to move this review and any required code amendments forward.
ON- AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS
The city requires installation of on- and off-site improvements to ensure adequate provisions are made for safe traffic movement, utility services, and desired community amenities. Improvements typically include streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and utilities, and amenities such as landscaping, fencing, street lighting, open space, and park facilities. Additional improvements can include:
Constraints Analysis
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 4-17
• Road improvements, including construction of sections of roadway, medians, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and street lighting
• Drainage improvements, including improvement to sections of channels, culverts, swales, stormwater quality treatment basins and pond areas (Contra Costa County Flood Control District requirements)
• Wastewater collection and conveyance facilities (Contra Costa Sanitary District requirements); • Water system improvements, including pipelines and storage tanks (Contra Costa Water District requirements)
• Public facilities for fire, school, and recreation
The type of improvements required depends upon the improvements that exist prior to development. If, for example, a vacant lot is improved with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, then the developer is not required to reinstall those improvements. All typical improvements discussed above are required for residential development if they are absent prior to development.
Typically, on- and off-site improvement costs are passed on to the homebuyer or renter as part of the final cost of the home. Clayton does not require on- and off-site improvements beyond what is typically required in other jurisdictions and therefore does not consider these improvements to be a constraint to the development of housing for all income levels.
CONSTRUCTION AND HOUSING CODES
CODE ENFORCEMENT
The City has a small Code Enforcement team. Code Enforcement staff receives and follows up on complaints from residents and business owners about matters regarding poorly maintained properties, including foreclosed properties; ill-kept landscaping; and boats recreational vehicles illegally parked within public view on private properties. Enforcement practices include verbal contacts, written courtesy notices, and formal notices of violation. These efforts help maintain the quality and appearance of properties in Clayton. Code Enforcement staff coordinates as needed with other local agencies, including representatives from the Contra Costa County Building Department, the Clayton Police Department, the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County, the Contra Costa County Mosquito and Vector Control District, and the Environmental Health Department of Contra Costa County.
Building Code
The City contracts with the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Division to provide building plan check, inspection, and occasional code enforcement services related directly to construction projects or matters of health and safety. Table 4-8 shows the construction and housing codes adopted and administered by Contra Costa County for Clayton. These codes are life and safety provisions that apply to housing throughout California and affect cost of housing equally.
Constraints Analysis
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 4-18
Table 4-8: Construction and Housing Codes
Code Section Title Remarks
15.01 Construction Regulations Applied to all development and thus not an unusual cost
15.02 Uniform Building Code with Amendments,
2013
Applied to all development and
thus not an unusual cost
15.03 California Electric Code Amendments, 2013 Applied to all development and thus not an unusual cost
15.04 California Plumbing Code with Amendments,
2013
Applied to all development and
thus not an unusual cost
15.05 California Mechanical Code with
Amendments, 1997
Applied to all development and
thus not an unusual cost
15.06 Uniform Housing Code with Amendments,
1997
Applied to all development and
thus not an unusual cost
15.07 Building Security Construction Codes Applied to all development and thus not an unusual cost
15.081Sign Provisions Generally does not apply to
housing development
15.09 California Fire Code with Amendments, 2013 Applied to all development and thus not an unusual cost
15.56 Moving Buildings regulations Applied to all development and thus not an unusual cost
15.58 Flood Damage Prevention practices Applied to all development and thus not an unusual cost
15.60 Grading Rules Applied to all development and
thus not an unusual cost
15.701 Tree Protection regulations No major impacts on the cost of housing
15.80 Project Construction & Demolition Debris
Recycling regulations
No major impacts on the cost of
housing, although cost savings
from recycling material may
provide a cost savings for
construction which would be
passed along to tenants
15.90 Reasonable Accommodation Provide greater flexibility in providing housing for persons with
a disability
15.92 Universal Design No major impacts on the cost of
housing and will provide a housing
stock that is accessible to disabled
persons
Part 11, Title 24 CalGreen Green Building Code, 2013 Will reduce the demand for household energy and therefore
decrease the cost of maintaining a
household
Source: City of Clayton, County Building Inspection Division, and County Fire Protection District Notes: 1. Typically not required for residential developments Constraints Analysis
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 4-19
DEVELOPMENT FEES
The City collects development fees to help cover the costs of permit processing and environmental review.
As shown in Table 4-9, Community Development Department fees are billed at the cost per hour per employee. Fees collected by the City in the review and development process cannot and do not exceed the City’s costs for providing these services. Applicants must submit a deposit in the specified amount upon submittal of an application.
Table 4-9: Community Development Department Fee
Item Fee
Annexation Staff time billed on a time and materials basis, $5,000 minimum deposit
General Plan amendment Staff time billed on a time and materials basis, $5,000 minimum deposit
Pre Zoning Staff time billed on a time and materials basis, $5,000 minimum deposit
Rezoning Staff time billed on a time and materials basis, $5,000 minimum deposit
Zoning Ordinance amendment Staff time billed on a time and materials basis, $5,000 minimum deposit
Site Plan Review Permit (initial permit or amendment) Staff time billed on a time and materials basis, $1,000 minimum deposit
Development Plan Staff time billed on a time and materials basis, $5,000 minimum deposit
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
Negative Declaration (ND)
Staff time billed on a time and materials basis, $5,000 minimum deposit
Staff time billed on a time and materials basis, $2,500 minimum deposit
Staff time billed on a time and materials basis, $1,500 minimum deposit
Use Permit – Residential – Planning Commission
Review
Staff time billed on a time and materials basis, $1,000 minimum deposit
Second Dwelling Unit Permit – administrative review $331 Tree Removal Permit – admin. Review without notice
Tree Removal Permit – admin, review with notice
Tree Removal Permit – Planning Commission review
$12/ tree (minimum $40)
$60/ tree (minimum $132)
Staff time billed on a time and materials basis, $500
minimum deposit
Variance (residential) Staff time billed on a time and materials basis, 1,000 minimum deposit
Appeal – administrative decisions $65
Appeal – residential Planning Commission decisions $331 Tentative Subdivision Map application Staff time billed on a time and materials basis, $2,000 minimum deposit
Parcel Map application Staff time billed on a time and materials basis, $2,000 minimum deposit
Constraints Analysis
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 4-20
Table 4-9: Community Development Department Fee
Item Fee
Lot line adjustment Staff time billed on a time and materials basis, $1,000 minimum deposit
Lot merger Staff time billed on a time and materials basis, $2,000 minimum deposit
Habitat Conservation Plan Staff time billed on a time and materials basis, $1,000 minimum deposit
Source: City of Clayton FY 20-21 Master Fee Schedule, per City Council Resolution. No. 56-2020 Note: Fees may be adjusted (some are linked to increases based on the Consumer Price Index).
The City and applicable districts collect development impact fees for the provision of services such as water, sewers, storm drains, schools, and parks and recreation facilities. These fees are generally assessed based on the number of units in a residential development, with the exception of the school district fee collected by the Mount Diablo Unified School District (MDUSD), which determines permit fees based on building square footage. Fees charged for building permits are based on the construction values as prescribed by the Uniform Building Code. Table 4-10 shows a summary of development fees for three scenarios of residential development projects that might occur in the city.
Constraints Analysis
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 4-21
Table 4-10: Clayton Development Fees
Constraints Analysis
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 4-22
As presented in Table 4-10, a developer can expect to pay roughly $20,558 in impact fees for the construction of a 3,100-square-foot single-family home and $69,790 for a small multi-family development of ten 800-square-foot units. Note that totals do not include planning fees, which vary based on the level of review needed and actual time needed to process an application.
In 2022, the Contra County Consortium undertook a fee study as part of a regional effort to assist cities with preparation of their housing elements. Table 4-11 shows the typical fees charged by city for an approximate 3,100-square-foot single-family home, a 100-unit apartment complex, and a 10-unit apartment complex.
Table 4-11: Development Fees in Contra Costa County Cities Jurisdiction Single-Family
Residential
Multi-family
Residential - 100 Units
Multi-family
Residential - 10 Units
Antioch $22,146.24 $813,910.78 $103,950.44
Danville $62,489.24 $3,336,919.50 $347,075.68
Lafayette $68,946.25 $3,132,049.61 $370,969.49
Hercules $64,064.99 $2,967,385.44 $316,813.89
Clayton $39,160.00 $1,669,246.00 $249,136.00
Pinole $56,665.77 $2,277,370.79 $216,977.21
Brentwood $113,158.84 $4,766,295.73 $494,143.76
Concord $47,248.07 $1,765,845.76 $237,264.81
El Cerrito $57,356.24 $2,927,768.15 $440,729.35
Moraga $85,109.56 $4,101,720.20 $434,941.60
Martinez $58,701.86 $2,468,768.76 $271,214.92
Oakley $70,088.22 $3,572,169.38 $328,874.26
Orinda $64,627.76 $3,347,953.50 $376,137.59
Pittsburg $60,830.46 $3,198,202.86 $331,402.52
Pleasant Hill $30,927.67 $1,670,408.38 $177,477.61
Constraints Analysis
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 4-23
Table 4-11: Development Fees in Contra Costa County Cities Jurisdiction Single-Family
Residential
Multi-family
Residential - 100 Units
Multi-family
Residential - 10 Units
Richmond $45,694.42 $2,301,117.22 $238,344.58
San Pablo $29,498.69 $674,051.76 $82,452.38
San Ramon $100,495.59 $3,318,772.28 $340,120.27
Walnut Creek $31,004.88 $1,507,627.70 $168,649.32
Source: MIG, Inc.
As Table 4-11 shows, development fees in Clayton are generally lower than typical fees charged by other cities in the County, with only Antioch, San Pablo, and Walnut Creek, for example, having lower fees for single-family homes. A large portion of the total fees associated with residential development in the city is for water connections, which are provided by the Contra Costa Water District (special district) for jurisdictions located in Contra Costa County. The city also relies on the County’s Building Inspection Division for building permit, plan review, and inspection services. The pre-application meetings and application referral process can assist with expediting the permit review period at the County level.
NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
The availability and cost of housing are significantly influenced by market factors in the Bay Area over which local government has little or no control. State law requires that the Housing Element provide a general assessment of these constraints. This assessment can serve as the basis for actions which local governments might take to offset the effects of such constraints. The primary market constraints to the development of new housing are the costs of constructing and purchasing new housing. These costs can be broken down into three categories: land, construction, and financing. For the most part, housing cost components in Clayton are comparable to those in other parts of the Bay Area. During the COVID-19 pandemic, supply chain issues resulted in regional and statewide increases in materials costs.
LAND COSTS
Costs associated with the acquisition of land include the market price of raw land and the cost of holding land throughout the development process. These costs can account for as much as half of the final sales prices of new homes in very small developments or in areas where land is scarce. Among the variables affecting the cost of land are location, amenities, the availability of public services, and financing arrangements between the buyer and seller.
Land costs vary significantly in accordance with a variety of factors, including proximity of urban services.
Due to low inventories of vacant lands and land for sale in Clayton, it is difficult to estimate the local cost per acre of land. The inventory of vacant land parcels in the neighboring city of Concord includes Constraints Analysis
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 4-24
properties near Clayton. Undeveloped land zoned for residential development on these properties is listed from $600,000 per acre to as high as $4 million per acre. The high cost of land constrains developers’ ability to develop affordable housing. The city has no control to lower the cost of land in the private market. Below are current land vacancies and costs in Clayton and Concord.
Table 4-12: Vacant Land Costs
Address Cost Acres
8925 Marsh Creek Rd, Clayton, CA
94517
$1,300,00 47.23
1595 Lower Trail Rd, Clayton, CA
94517
$275,000 1.03
1975 Holly Dr, Concord CA 94521 $295,000 0.5
Source: Zillow.com, April 2022
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Factors that affect the cost of building a house include the type of construction, materials, site conditions, finishing details, amenities, and structural configuration. According to data from the California Construction Cost Index, hard construction costs in California grew by 44 percent between 2014 and 2018, or an additional $80 per square foot1. During the COVID-19, beginning in 2020, supply chain constraints contributed to a significant rise in materials costs and delays in delivery. Construction costs are estimated to account for upwards of 60 percent of the production cost of a new home, especially for multi‐unit residential buildings, which can require the use of more expensive materials, like steel, and in more urban environments, need additional amenities such as parking structures2. Variations in the quality of materials, type of amenities, labor costs, and the quality of building materials could result in higher or lower construction costs for a new home.
According to data provided by the 21 Elements consortium in San Mateo County, hard construction costs for a single-family home in the Bay Area range from $250 to $525 per square foot, depending upon, for example, the quality of interior finishes. For multi-family housing, per-square-foot costs can be as high as $520. Pre‐fabricated factory-built housing, with variation on the quality of materials and amenities, may also affect the final construction cost per square foot of a housing project. In contrast, the national square footage construction costs for 2021 from the International Code Council (ICC) for residential developments shown in Table 4-13 are substantially below Bay Area costs. 1 Hayley Raetz, Teddy Forscher, Elizabeth Kneebone and Carolina Reid, The Hard Costs of Construction: Recent Trends in Labor and Materials Costs for Apartment Buildings in
California, The Terner Center for Housing Innovation, University of California Berkeley, March 2020, p.8, http://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/uploads/Hard_Construction_Costs_March_2020.pdf 2 Ibid., Raetz et al, p.4.
Constraints Analysis
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 4-25
Table 4.13: Construction Cost by Building Type – National Data Building Type Square Foot Construction Cost Range
R-2 Residential, multiple family $136.73 – $203.34
R-3 Residential, one-and two-family $148.33 - $189.34
Source: International Code Council, Building Valuation Data, August 2021 According to the ICC data, the range of costs per square footage for one- and two-family homes is higher than that of multiple family homes, making multi-family housing more affordable to develop on a cost per square foot basis.
If labor or material costs increased substantially, the cost of construction in Clayton could rise to a level that impacts the price of new construction and rehabilitation. Therefore, increased construction costs have the potential to constrain new housing construction and rehabilitation of existing housing.
LABOR COST
The California Labor Code applies prevailing wage rates to public works projects exceeding $1,000 in value.
Public works projects include construction, alteration, installation, demolition, or repair work performed under contract and paid for in whole or in part out of public funds. Furthermore, if federal funds are involved, Davis-Bacon wages often apply. While the cost differential in prevailing and standard wages varies based on the skill level of the occupation, prevailing wages tend to add to the overall cost of development. In the case of affordable housing projects, prevailing wage requirements could effectively reduce the number of affordable units that can be achieved with public subsidies.
AVAILABILITY OF FINANCING
Financing new residential development can be a significant cost; however, residential financing for both single-family and multiple family housing is generally available. Developers of single-family projects often secure loans for land acquisition, installation of improvements, and construction. According to the US Bank, land acquisition and development loan rates are typically the prime rate plus 0.5 to 2.0 percent, which is between 3.99 to 5.4 percent as of May 2022. Mortgage rates were low for previous years but are now increasing. Apartment loan rates are generally a bit lower. Developers of affordable housing face significant challenges in securing financing. Due to the limited possible return from rents or sales prices of affordable units, many private lenders are unable to finance affordable projects due to the rate of return. Thus, affordable developers must rely on community lending divisions, nonprofit institutions, grants and special loans, and local assistance.
GOVERNMENT CODE 65583(A)(6) DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS
Government Code section 65583(a)(6) requires an analysis of requests from developers to build housing at densities below those anticipated in site inventory and the length of time between receiving approval for housing development and submittal of an application for building permit. The analysis must also look at local efforts to remove nongovernmental constraints that create a gap in the jurisdiction’s ability to meet RHNA by income category.
Constraints Analysis
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 4-26
Densities Below Zoning Maximums
Clayton largely is zoned for single-family development at densities of no greater than four units per acre.
For properties with higher allowed densities, many are zoned PD (Planned Development) to allow for flexibility in development standards given site constraints. On PD-zoned properties, the General Plan land use policy map dictates the maximum allowed density. Given the preponderance of single-family zoned properties and the required low densities, developers elect to build at the upper end. However, given geologic and slope conditions on specific properties, yields can fall below the maximum allowed. For example, the Oak Creek Canyon subdivision proposes six units on nine acres of land. The Diablo Meadows subdivision proposes 18 single-family lots (and three ADUs, which are not included in density calculations) on an 8.68-acre site, at a density of 2.1 units per acre overall, with units clustered into a smaller area to allow for 4.36 acres to be preserved as open space.
For multi-family-zoned properties, only one application has occurred in recent years, for the Olivia on March Creek project. The Olivia is a senior housing development that utilized state density bonus law provisions to yield 27 units per acre, higher than the allowed density of 20 units per acre.
Elapsed Time to Receive Building Permits
In Clayton, the time that passes between a developer receiving entitlements and building permits can be lengthy given the biologic and challenging geologic conditions in the city. Detailed studies and plans are required to address slope and soils stability concerns. Detailed mitigations studies may also be required to show how sensitive habitat areas will be protected. The time may be as long as two years, depending upon specific site conditions. These time periods are typical for a site that requires particular consideration of public safety and natural resource issues.
Regarding the Olivia project cited above, after receiving entitlements, the developer opted to “shop” the project to other parties rather than move diligently through the building permit process. This delay was not related to any city actions.
LOCAL EFFORTS TO REMOVE NONGOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Housing Element law requires analysis of local efforts to remove nongovernmental constraints that impact the City’s ability to meet its RHNA by income category. The primary nongovernmental constraint is the overall cost of affordable housing development (high land and development costs) in most parts of the State. In general, constructing affordable housing, especially for low- and very low-income households, is not profitable for housing developers. Therefore, deed-restricted affordable units require subsidy beyond available density or financial incentives. This places the construction burden on nonprofits and similar grant-funded housing developers and may result in affordable projects that are not always dispersed throughout the region but are concentrated in limited areas with lower development costs. While the City can offer developer incentives such as expedited permit processing or fee deferrals—or partner with a developer on City-owned properties—it cannot afford to fully mitigate the high cost of development for affordable housing developments.
Previously, Clayton had provided assistance through the Redevelopment Agency Set-Aside fund as a means to subsidize the construction of housing for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households.
However, pursuant to changes in State law, the Redevelopment Agency was dissolved in 2012, reducing Constraints Analysis
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 4-27
the City’s ability to provide direct financial support. The city does have measures to help incentivize affordable housing development, including:
• Density bonuses
• Fee waivers or deferrals (as reasonably available)
• Expedited processing/priority processing
• Technical assistance with accessing funding
• Modifications to development standards through the Planned Development Permit process
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
The City of Clayton has several environmental considerations that affect where development can occur.
The City is in both a landslide zone and liquefaction zone due to proximity to fault lines. The City’s General Plan Safety element discusses policies to inform development and help mitigate environmental risks to residents. The city has also adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to address environmental hazards.
Geologic Hazards
Undeveloped land in Clayton has certain geologic hazards that must be considered when looking to build.
These hazards include slopes with unstable soil, high erosion potential, evidence of springs, mudflow potential, and rockslide potential.
Due to the combination of geologic hazards affecting that portion of Clayton east of Clayton Road, the City has established the Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD), for which the City Council serves as the Board of Directors. The GHAD is funded by assessments on property owners within the district. GHAD monitors conditions in the area, noting such conditions as buckling of sidewalks and road sections due to earth movement. Wells in the areas have been installed to dewater and stabilize slopes. These conditions significantly constrain development.
Seismic Hazards
Seismic activity must be considered for all cities in the Bay area. However, Clayton is less at risk that other cities in the area. The most critical faults locally, according to Woodward and Lundgren, are the San Andreas, Calaveras and Hayward faults, due to their recent activity and energy potential. Nevertheless, the Antioch and Concord faults recently have produced damaging earthquakes, the latter with a 5.4 magnitude in 1955. Prominent faults of undetermined status include the Pinole, Bollinger, Las Trampas, Frankling, South Hampton, Clayton Marsh Creek, Midland, and Mt. Diablo Faults (see Exhibit VII-2 in the Safety Element). These faults have shown inconclusive signs of activity or are associated with geologic processes and features that could result in earthquakes.
Some areas of the Clayton Valley contain alluvial soils that could amplify ground shaking in the event the Concord fault shifts. The entire area is considered seismically active, and the development plans should reflect this risk factor. Soil types, topography and bedrock may serve to heighten risk or dampen it. The presence of contained water bodies within these seismically active areas raises seiches as potential hazards, which should also be addressed in development plans. The fault is not classified as active; however, there is preliminary evidence that the fault may have displaced recent landslide materials. For this reason, the fault should be treated as active unless evidence proves otherwise.
Constraints Analysis
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 4-28
Flooding Hazards
The principal stream running through Clayton is Mt. Diablo Creek. It originates on the steep north slopes of the 3,849-foot-tall Mt. Diablo. Mt. Diablo Creek drains a watershed of approximately 30 square miles.
It flows northerly and westerly through the cities of Clayton and Concord, the Concord Naval Weapons Station and eventually empties into Suisun Bay. In the City of Clayton, Mt. Diablo Creek is joined by Donner and Mitchell creeks, both of which originate on the slopes of Mt. Diablo and by Peacock Creek, which flows from the Keller Ridge. Flooding has occurred from Mt. Diablo Creek in the Town Center area of Clayton and in the flood plain between Clayton Road and Kirker Pass Road. The major floods affecting this area occurred in 1938, 1952, 1955 and 1963. The 1955 and 1963 floods both were estimated as 25-year floods. Despite these occurrences, Mt. Diablo Creek is not considered a creek with a high flood history.
Part of the reason for this is due to the long floodplain between Mt. Diablo slopes and the city limits that serves to slow down velocity and delay peak flows.
However, continued watershed development increases the risk of flood event, which is a serious consideration for future development. Mt. Diablo Creek, within its confined limits, is already incapable of providing adequate flood protection. Even if land development within the watershed came to a complete halt, the statistical probability of serious flooding would be considerable. The limitation of land development, the utilization of flood plains, and the construction of engineered improvements are the most useful methods for controlling floods. No serious problems have occurred to date, but unless some type of flood control project is undertaken, the limited capacity of Mt. Diablo Creek could cause serious flooding problems.
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-1
5. Housing Resources
As described in the Introduction chapter, Clayton’s character is defined by its low-intensity development patterns and connections to the surrounding natural environment. Of the available vacant land, unstable geologic conditions constrain development of new housing. Infill development approaches will be used to accommodate the RHNA of 570 units, and in particular, the higher-density housing most able to provide affordable rents and mortgages. This Housing Element identifies new initiatives for Clayton. Notably, the inventory of housing sites described below includes properties to be rezoned (in tandem with Housing Element adoption) to accommodate development densities of up to 40 units per acre on select sites.
Within the Town Center, creative mixed-use projects will bring additional residents into Clayton’s downtown, thereby providing new patrons for the local businesses and offering more affordable housing options in the form of townhomes, live/work units, and small apartments.
Encouraging and supporting development of affordable housing choices requires assistance in the form of subsidies and incentives from federal, State, County, and local City resources. This chapter introduces several resources that will be available to provide the incentives and support.
AVAILABILITY OF SITES FOR HOUSING
A critical component of the Housing Element is the identification of sites for future housing development and the evaluation of these sites’ ability to accommodate the RHNA. In Clayton, additional residential growth will occur on residential and mixed-use properties with redevelopment potential, primarily along major corridors and in the Town Center. The following discussion analyzes residential growth potential and describes how collectively these sites provide capacity for 570 new homes for households of all income levels.
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA)
California law requires each city and county to zone properties in a manner that ensures the city or county can accommodate its fair share of regional housing needs over the course of the housing element planning period. The law states that the housing element must identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, and emergency shelters, and must make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community (California Government Code Section 65583).
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is responsible for determining the regional housing needs assessment at a statewide level. From that statewide number, HCD assigns a portion to each region and its corresponding council of government (COG), a regional planning body.
Clayton is part of the Bay Area region, where the COG is the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
HCD determined that the projected housing need for the ABAG region is 441,176 new housing units for Housing Resources
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-2
the eight-year period of June 30, 2022, through December 15, 2030.1 ABAG then allocates a portion of
the regional housing need to each city and county in the Bay Area region. This assignment of projected housing need to each local jurisdiction in the region is known as the regional housing need allocation, or RHNA.
The RHNA is divided into four income categories: very low, low, moderate, and above moderate. Clayton’s RHNA for the projection period is 570 housing units, with the units distributed among the four income categories as shown in Table 5-1. As illustrated in this chapter, with existing resources and the rezoning of properties occurring in conjunction with Housing Element adoption, Clayton has sufficient capacity to meet its 2023-2031 RHNA obligation.
Table 5-1: Clayton 2023-2031 RHNA
Income Group
% of County
Median Income
RHNA
(Housing Units) Percentage of Units
Extremely Low/Very Low 0-50% 170 30%
Low 51-80% 97 17%
Moderate 81-120% 84 15%
Above Moderate 120% + 219 38%
Total 570 100%
Note: Pursuant to AB 2634, local jurisdictions are also required to project the housing needs of extremely low-income households (0-30% AMI). In estimating the number of extremely low-income households, a jurisdiction can use 50% of the very low-income allocation; as such, the City’s very low-income RHNA of 170 units can be split into 85 extremely low-income and 85 very low-income units.
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE RHNA
The “projection period” is the period for which the RHNA is calculated (Government Code Section 65588(f)(2)). Projects that have been approved or permitted or have received a certificate of occupancy since the beginning of the RHNA projected period may be credited toward meeting the RHNA allocation based on the affordability and unit count of the development.
Despite little to no vacant land and the predominantly single-family home character of Clayton, the City recently approved entitlements for the largest multi-family housing development in Clayton’s history, The Oliva on Marsh Creek. The Olivia project, with 81 units inclusive of seven for very low-income households, will provide housing for seniors in more affordable, one- and two-bedroom units. This development highlights the City’s ability to accommodate new multi-family housing that will move Clayton toward achieving its RHNA.
Approved and proposed residential development projects credited toward the RHNA include single-family subdivisions with accessory dwelling units (ADUs) for low-income renter households. The Diablo Meadows and Oak Creek Canyon projects together will provide 28 new homes, including four ADUs that 1 The RHNA projection period varies slightly from the Housing Element planning period, which refers to the date the Housing Element is due to be adopted and the duration of the eight-year term. The Housing Element planning period for the sixth cycle in the ABAG region is January 31, 2023 through January 31, 2031.
Housing Resources
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-3
the projects’ developers will build to comply with the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 17.92). Combined, these three approved projects account for 109 units (Table 5-2).
Table 5-2: Approved Projects
Project
Project
Status
Extremely/
Very LowIncome (0-
50% AMI)
Low-Income
(50-80%
AMI)
ModerateIncome (80-
120% AMI)
Above
ModerateIncome
(+120%) Total
Diablo Meadows Approved 3 1 17 21
Oak Creek Canyon Approved 1 6 7
The Olivia Approved 7 74 81
Approved Projects Total 7 4 98 109
Diablo Meadows
The Diablo Meadows project consists of
subdivision of an 8.68-acre site for 18 single-family
residential units and three ADUs. The lots are
clustered along the east side of the property to
protect open spaces and provide for stormwater
retention. Approximately 4.36 acres of the site will
be preserved as open space.
Oak Creek Canyon
Oak Creek Canyon consists of a six-lot
subdivision for six single-family homes and
one ADU on a vacant 9-acre site along Marsh
Creek Road, a key travel route in Clayton.
Housing Resources
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-4
The Olivia on Marsh Creek
The Olivia on Marsh Creek housing project
approved by the City Council will create
three, three-story buildings containing 81
rental units for seniors. The site is located
within the Town Center, at 6170 High
Street and 6450 and 6490 Marsh Creek
Road.
SITES INVENTORY
The sites inventory includes a projection for ADUs based on past trends, anticipated development on vacant sites either zoned for residential development or planned to be rezoned, sites owned by religious institutions that have indicated a desire to build multi-family housing on portions of their properties, and sites currently occupied by low-density residential uses or parking lots that will be zoned to encourage their redevelopment during the Housing Element cycle.
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Projections
Since 2017, the State Legislature has passed a series of new laws that significantly increase the potential for development of new ADUs and Junior ADUs (JADUs) by removing development barriers, allowing ADUs to be approved through ministerial permits, and requiring jurisdictions to include programs in their housing elements that incent ADU development. Between 2018 (the effective date of the first significant ADU laws) and 2021, property owner interest in constructing ADUs was limited in Clayton. However, beginning in late 2021, interest began to rise. To meet the requirements of the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, subdivision developers have proposed including ADUs as part of their projects (see discussion above). Between 2018 and 2021, Clayton permitted a total of seven ADUs, averaging about two ADUs per year.
Given the preponderance of single-family homes in the community, the capacity for additional ADUs is substantial―provided homeowners have interest, the process to acquire necessary permits has few barriers, and the costs for planning and building an ADU can be controlled. Several factors point toward a potential increase in ADU production: 1) new legislation that creates new incentives and streamlined processes to build ADUs; 2) the pent-up demand for affordable housing in Clayton and the Bay Area region at large; and 3) the City’s planned program to provide six off-the-shelf, pre-approved ADU construction plans, including smallstudio, one- and two-bedroom units targeted as affordable housing, that will reduce costs to homeowners and streamline approval processes.
While it is impossible to predict with any certainty the number of ADUs that will be developed within the planning period, the City has estimated a level of ADU development based on previous permits and approved projects. To provide a conservative approach, the City assumes:
An average of four ADUs per year will be constructed throughout the planning period. This reflects a slightly higher average number of building permits issued for ADUs between 2018 and 2021.
This estimate accounts for the factors pointing toward a potential increase in ADU production:
increased interest from property owners, developers providing ADUs in conjunction with Housing Resources
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-5
subdivision applications, and standard ADU construction plans that the City will make available beginning late 2022.
A total of 32 ADUs are predicted to be constructed during the planning period.
Table 5-3: ADU Projections to Meet the RHNA
Project
Extremely/
Very LowIncome (0-
50% AMI)
Low-Income
(50-80% AMI)
ModerateIncome (80-
120% AMI)
Above
ModerateIncome
(+120%) Total
Projected ADU Construction 10 10 10 2 32
As of 2022, 3,696 parcels in Clayton were developed with a single-family home, indicating untapped potential for additional units in the form of ADUs. During this Housing Element cycle, the City will monitor ADU production and may revise the estimates based on proven trends.
The affordability assumptions for the ADUs are based on the ABAG Housing Technical Assistance Team ADU affordability analysis for the sixth-cycle RHNA, which has been approved by HCD2 . These analyses
and recommendations result in a conservative interpretation that assumes more moderate and above moderate ADUs than the research found and represent a minimum for Clayton.
Senate Bill (SB) 9
In September 2021, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 9 into law, with an effective date of January 1, 2022. SB 9 mandates ministerial approval of duplexes on lots zoned for a single-family residence and requires ministerial approval of subdivisions of a single-family lot into two lots, referred to as urban lot splits. The provisions of SB 9 create the possibility that four units could be developed on each singlefamily parcel in the Clayton. While SB 9 may facilitate new development in Clayton, the City has elected not to assume such contributions toward the RHNA. However, the City will monitor requests for and completion of so-called SB 9 units over the planning period to determine whether such projects help fulfill RHNA requirements, particularly for new affordable units.
Vacant and Underutilized Residential Properties
The 109 approved units, together with the projection of 32 ADUs, result in a credit of 141 units toward the RHNA of 570 units. Thus, the City must show that the land inventory (sites with appropriate General Plan designations and/or zoning) is adequate to accommodate the remaining RHNA of 429 units.
Figure 5-1 shows the sites available to accommodate the remaining RHNA. These include, as indicated above, vacant properties and developed properties with redevelopment potential. 2 ABAG estimates an affordability breakdown of ADUs in the Bay Area as follows: 30% extremely low- and very lowincome, 30% low-income, 30% moderate-income, and 10% above moderate-income. ABAG Housing Technical Assistance Team: Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units: A report and recommendations for RHNA 6, September 8, 2021.
Housing Resources
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-6
Vacant, uncommitted land on sites with a General Plan designation and zoning that allow residential uses total 14.49 acres, which include site B and one parcel of site T. A previous application for development of site B, which would have produced 32 single-family units, was suspended by the developer. A newer iteration of the development application has been recently submitted to the City and includes the previously proposed 32 single-family units plus three ADUs. Although land use policy allows for higherintensity development, the potential yield for this site has been assumed as indicated in Table 5-4 and is reflective of the currently pending application. All units have been assigned to the Above Moderate RHNA income category. Additionally, the property owner for The Olivia at Marsh Creek project has expressed interest in developing the adjacent vacant property (site T), which he owns together with an abutting developed parcel. The vacant parcel has a density assumption of 30 units per acre and an 80 percent realistic development capacity.
Housing Resources
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-7
Table 5-4: Vacant Residential Land Inventory
Site
General Plan
Designation Zoning
Maximum
Density
Assumed
Density
Vacant
Acres
Potential
Dwelling
Units Affordability
B Single Family
Medium Density
(MD)
PD 5 du/ac 2.3 du/ac 13.91 35 Above
Moderate
T Multifamily
High Density
(MHD)
PD 30 du/ac 24 du/ac .58 13 Low Income
Total 14.49 18
Five underutilized (nonvacant) residential lots totaling 12.65 acres were identified (sites E, H, K, M, and T). Collectively, these sites have the capacity for 268 units (see Table 5-5). Given the scarcity of developable land in Clayton and the continuing demand for housing in the Bay Area, larger multifamily developments such as The Olivia at Marsh Creek have demonstrated that redevelopment of underutilized residential properties is economically viable. The Olivia at Marsh Creek used two underutilized residential lots, in addition to a vacant residential lot. For these underutilized properties, as well as those within the Town Center Specific Plan, the capacity analysis assumes that each site will yield 80 percent of its maximum capacity. This assumption accounts for any necessary on-site improvements and the unique physical characteristics of sites which may not allow the maximum density to be achieved.
Table 5-5: Underutilized Residential Land Inventory
Site
General Plan
Designation Zoning
Maximum
Density
Assumed
Density
Underutilized
Acres
Potential
Dwelling
Units Affordability
E Multifamily
High Density
(MHD)
PD 30 du/ac 24 du/ac 1.08 25 Low Income
H Multifamily
High Density
(MHD)
PD 30 du/ac 24 du/ac 1.16 27 Very Low
Income
K Single Family
Density (LD)
PD 3 du/ac 3 du/ac 1.47 4 Above
Moderate
Income
M Single Family
Density (LD)
PD 30 du/ac 24 du/ac 8.07 192 Very low
Income,
Moderate
Income,
Above
Moderate
Income
T Multifamily
High Density
(MHD)
PD 30 du/ac 24 du/ac .87 20 Low Income
Total 12.65 268
Housing Resources
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-8
Vacant and Underutilized Town Center Properties
The Town Center Specific Plan provides policies and regulations that include the distribution of land uses; location and size of streets, walks, and other infrastructure; standards for development; and methods of financing public improvements. While the primary intent of the plan was to promote commercial development in the Town Center, subsequent economic analysis of the Specific Plan area indicated that a lack Town Center residences and resident customer base is one of the factors that makes attracting that commercial development challenging. With its central location and proximity to retail and transit stops along Clayton Road, the Town Center is one of the more viable sites for higher-density residential development.
Vacant, uncommitted land in the Town Center was identified, totaling 2.09 acres on two parcels, sites G and N (see Table 5-6). These sites have been assigned to the Very Low Income RHNA category based on the proposed maximum density of 20 units per acre.3
Table 5-6: Vacant Town Center Land Inventory
Site
General Plan
Designation Zoning
Maximum
Density
Assumed
Density
Vacant
Acres
Potential
Dwelling
Units Affordability
G Town Center
(TC)
PD 20 du/ac 16 du/ac 1.66 26 Very Low
Income
N Town Center
(TC)
PD 20 du/ac 16 du/ac 0.43 6 Very Low
Income
Total 2.09 32
In addition to these vacant site, five underutilized (nonvacant) residential lots within the Town Center area totaling 2.18 acres were identified. These sites (sites F, N, P, and S) have capacity for 31 units (see Table 5-7). Along with underutilized residential lands, these underutilized Town Center sites will also be key in advancing Clayton’s RHNA due to the built-out nature of the Clayton.
Table 5-7: Underutilized Town Center Land Inventory
Site
General Plan
Designation Zoning
Maximum
Density
Assumed
Density
Underutilized
Acres
Potential
Dwelling
Units Affordability
F Town Center
(TC)
PD 20 du/ac 16 du/ac 0.51 7 Above
Moderate
Income
N Town Center
(TC)
PD 20 du/ac 16 du/ac 0.63 9 Very Low
Income
P Town Center
(TC)
PD 20 du/ac 16 du/ac 0.46 7 Moderate
Income
S Town Center
(TC)
L-C 20 du/ac 16 du/ac 0.58 8 Low Income
Total 2.18 31
3 The default density allowed by State law for assuming production of affordable housing is 20 units per acre for a city the size of Clayton.
Housing Resources
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-9
Underutilized Non-Residential Properties
In the inventory, underutilized properties zoned for non-residential use total 24.98 acres on six parcels (sites A, D, F, I, Q, and R) and have capacity for 309 units. These properties will require rezoning. Three of these sites are occupied by churches (General Plan land use designations of ID-Institutional Density, KCKirker Corridor, and TC-Town Center). Two congregations have expressed interest in developing a portion of their properties for affordable housing. The third has ceased operations and intends to sell the property.
The approved Oak Creek Canyon project is being developed on a site that was in part designated with a private open space land use designation, highlighting the fact that a General Plan designation and/or zone is not a hinderance to residential development. Critically, in conjunction with adoption of this Housing Element, the City has put the land use regulations in place to allow residential development on these sites.
Table 5-8: Underutilized Non-Residential Land Inventory Site
General Plan
Designation Zoning
Maximum
Density
Assumed
Density
Underutilized
Acres
Potential
Dwelling
Units Affordability
A Institutional
Density (ID) PD 40 du/ac 32 du/ac 2.38 41
Very Low
Income
D Public
Park/Open
space/Open
Space and
Recreational
(PU)
PD 3 du/ac 3 du/ac 2.86 8 Above
Moderate
Income
F Public
Park/Open
space/Open
Space and
Recreational
(PU)
PF 20 du/ac 16 du/ac .28 4 Above
Moderate
Income
I Public
Park/Open
space/Open
Space and
Recreational
(PU)
A 10 du/ac 10 du/ac 13.23 132 Moderate
Income,
Above
Moderate
Income
Q Private Open
Space (PR)
PD 40 du/ac 32 du/ac 2.55 81 Low Income,
Moderate
Income
R
Kirker Corridor
(KD) PD 40 du/ac 32 du/ac 3.68 43
Very Low
Income, Low
Income
Total 24.98 304
Housing Resources
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-10
The Housing Element sites inventory surveyed recently approved projects and coordinated with property owners to develop and corroborate estimates related to potential development by General Plan designation and zoning. Most recent projects have achieved densities very near actual maximum densities, and property owners of underutilized or vacant sites have expressed willingness to allow their properties to be rezoned for higher density. This helped provide a more realistic and conservative understanding of the potential development capacity.
SITE SUITABILITY, REALISTIC CAPACITY AND RE-USE OF SITES (ASSEMBLY BILL [AB] 1397) Consistent with Housing Element law (Assembly Bill 1397, codified in California Government Code Sections 65580, 65583 and 65583.2) related to the suitability of small and large sites, the lower-income sites inventory presented in this chapter is limited to sites of 0.5 to 10 acres in size, as HCD has indicated these size parameters best accommodate lower-income housing. In this inventory, several sites include multiple parcels that are less than 0.5 acre in size; however, when consolidated with adjacent parcels, most achieve more than 0.5 acres. Small sites (less than 0.5 acre) are credited toward the above moderate-income categories to account for a potential variety of types, sizes, and amenity levels in future higher-density development projects.
AB 1397 also adds specific criteria for assessment of the realistic availability of non‐vacant sites during the planning period. If non-vacant sites accommodate half or more of the lower-income need, the Housing Element must present “substantial evidence” that the existing use does not constitute an impediment for additional residential use on the site. Due to the built-out nature of Clayton, most sites have existing uses.
Non-vacant sites included in the inventory have been chosen due to their location, existing uses, and potential for intensification. To ensure that appropriate sites have been chosen, properties that show recent investments or updates or that contain uses of local importance are not included, and clear criteria were used to evaluate all sites within Clayton, as described above.
Government Code Section 65583.2(c) also requires that specific parameters be placed on sites that were used in previous planning cycles but that were not developed and are now used in the current Housing Element to meet the lower income RHNA. if the City identifies any portion of its low-income housing allocation as being met on these sites, the sites must meet the required default densities (zoned to allow 20 units per ac) and must allow residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households. “By right” means that no review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), unless a subdivision is required, and the project can only be reviewed using objective design standards.
No Net Loss Provision
A jurisdiction must ensure that its Housing Element inventory can accommodate the RHNA by income level throughout the planning period (Government Code Section 65863). If a jurisdiction approves a housing project at a lower density or with fewer units by income category than identified in the Housing Element, it must determine whether there is sufficient capacity to meet remaining unmet need. If not, the city must “identify and make available” additional adequate sites to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of housing need by income level within 180 days of approving the reduced-density project. Clayton has identified a surplus of sites to address the no-net loss provision, and Program C is included in the Housing Element to set up a process for maintaining compliance.
Housing Resources
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-11
Comparison of Sites Inventory and RHNA
Combined, the vacant and underutilized opportunity sites identified have the potential to accommodate 829 residential units. As Table 5-9 indicates, these sites and the densities allowed/assumed will provide opportunities to achieve remaining RHNA goals for all income categories, as well as provide a potential surplus or buffer of 259 units, which helps support no-net-loss provisions consistent with State law. Tables 5-10, 5-11, and– 5-12 at the end of this chapter provides additional site-specific detail for each site identified in the inventory.
The opportunity areas identified involve sites that can realistically be redeveloped with residential units during the planning period. These areas are considered highly likely to experience redevelopment for two key reasons: 1) the high demand for more affordable housing throughout Contra Costa County; and 2) the availability of underutilized land in well-resourced areas, with the potential for high-density residential development. The sites chosen are significantly underutilized given their size and location and recent development trends. Interest is especially high in areas identified in this Housing Element, including within the Town Center.
Table 5-9: Comparison of Credits, Sites, and RHNA
General Plan
Designation
Extremely/ Very
Low-Income
(0-50% AMI)
Low-Income
(50-80% AMI)
ModerateIncome
(80-120% AMI)
Above
ModerateIncome (+120%) Total
RHNA 170 97 84 219 570
RHNA Credits
Approved
Projects
7 4 1 97 109
Sites Inventory
Projected ADU
Construction
10 10 10 2 32
Residential Sites 81 59 70 106 316
Town Center
Sites
41 8 7 7 63
Non-Residential
Sites
71 53 107 78 309
Subtotal Sites
Inventory
203 130 194 193 720
Total 212 131 196 290 829
Surplus RHNA
Sites
42 34 112 71 259
CONSISTENCY WITH AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING (AFFH) State law requires that housing elements due on or after January 1, 2021, include an assessment of fair housing that considers the elements and factors that cause, increase, contribute to, maintain, or perpetuate segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, significant disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs (Government Code Section 65583(c)(10)).
Affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that address significant disparities Housing Resources
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-12
in housing needs and access to opportunity. For purposes of the Housing Element sites inventory, this means that sites identified to accommodate the lower-income need are not concentrated in lowresourced areas (for example, with a lack of access to high performing schools, proximity to jobs, location disproportionately exposed to pollution or other health impacts) or areas of segregation and concentrations of poverty.
HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) coordinated efforts to produce opportunity maps that identify areas in every region of the State whose characteristics have been shown by research to support positive economic, educational, and health outcomes for low-income families.
Figure 5-2 shows that TCAC opportunity areas in Clayton are all categorized as high resource.
Figure 5-2: TCAC Opportunity Areas – Composite Score – Clayton (2021) The distribution of identified sites improves fair housing and equal opportunity conditions in Clayton because sites are mostly distributed in high resources areas. This is positive, considering that these represent locations where new higher-density housing can be provided and residents will have access to good schools, City facilities, and commercial areas. Additional opportunities for more affordable housing are presented through the City’s efforts to encourage accessory dwelling units in high resource areas. A thorough AFFH analysis is included in Chapter 7 of this Housing Element.
Housing Resources
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-13
INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY
All residential sites identified in the inventory are located within urbanized areas, where infrastructure and public services are readily available for connections. Most public services and facilities are available to adequately serve all potential housing sites. Any missing public improvements (e.g., curbs, gutters, sidewalks, etc.) along property frontages would also be constructed at that time. Water, sewer, and dry utility services are available for all the sites included in the inventory.
ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES
One of the major factors to consider in formulating programs to incent housing production is whether sufficient resources exist. Specifically, it is important to examine the availability and adequacy of the financial and institutional resources to support such programs, especially programs aimed at producing affordable housing. The following discussion provides an overview of financial and administrative resources available for preserving and creating new housing.
FINANCIAL RESOURCES
Most projects that are exclusively affordable housing (especially for extremely low- and very low-income households) cannot be developed without financing and other subsidies required to write down the cost of land or other development incentives necessary to reduce construction costs. Funding sources include U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds, tax credits, and other loans and grants.
Federal Resources
CDBG: Through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, HUD provides funds to local governments for a wide range of community development activities. These funds can be used for the acquisition of land for affordable housing units, rehabilitation through a nonprofit organization for housing, development of infrastructure and facilities, and public service activities. Due to its size, Clayton does not qualify as an entitlement jurisdiction and thus only receives CDBG funding through the Contra Costa County Conservation and Development Department.
HOME: Another source of HUD funds is available under the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME). These funds can be used to assist tenants or homeowners through acquisition, construction, reconstruction, or the rehabilitation of affordable housing. A federal priority for use of these funds is preservation of the at-risk housing stock. Due to its size, Clayton does not qualify as an entitlement jurisdiction and thus receives HOME funding through the Contra Costa County Conservation and Development Department.
Housing Choice Voucher Program: The Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa administers the HUD Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program for Clayton residents. The program provides rental subsidies to low-income families who spend more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing costs.
The program pays the difference between 30 percent of the recipients’ monthly income and the federally approved payment standard. The voucher allows a tenant to choose housing that may cost more than the payment standard, but the tenant must pay the extra cost.
Housing Resources
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-14
State Resources
Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC): Created by the 1986 Tax Reform Act, the LIHTC program has been used in combination with City and other resources to encourage the construction and rehabilitation of rental housing for lower-income households. The program allows investors an annual tax credit over a 10-year period, provided that the housing meets the following minimum low-income occupancy requirements: 20 percent of the units must be affordable to households at 50 percent of area median income (AMI) or 40 percent of the units must be affordable to those at 60 percent of AMI. The total credit over the 10-year period has a present value equal to 70 percent of the qualified construction and rehabilitation expenditure. The tax credit is typically sold to large investors at a syndication value.
Additional State housing resources include:
• Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) • CalHFA Single and Multi-Family Program
• CalHome Program
• Homekey
• Housing-Related Parks Grant
• Infill Infrastructure Grant (IIG)
• Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF)
• Multifamily Housing Program (MHP)
• No Place Like Home
• Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA)
Local Resources
Clayton has no City-funded housing programs due to its small size and limited financial resources.
ADMINISTRATIVE RESOURCES
With a population of just over 12,000 residents and a small tax base, Clayton operates on a lean budget and has limited staff to oversee City operations. The Community Development Department consists of a director to oversee all housing-related efforts, who works in close coordination with one part-time planner and the City Manager. The City values its small-town qualities, and staff is readily available to meet with property owners and developers to explain development processes and shepherd housing development applications through staff review and public hearings. For projects subject to the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, staff helps developers craft a strategy to comply.
As of 2022, the City is putting place a program to facilitate ADU production, with six pre-approved construction plans available to residents who wish to build an ADU on their property.
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-1
Table 5-10: Residential Vacant and Underutilized Sites
Site Name
Parcels
Number
(APN)
General Plan
Designation Zoning
Allowable
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
Affordability Level
EL
VL
L M AM
Vacant
B – Silver Oaks 118020029 MD PD 5 2.3 13.91 No Vacant A 35 Yes No -- 2 1 32 T – 6530/6500
Marsh Creek
119021019 MHD PD
30 24
.58
Yes (see
Underutilized
Residential
Sites)
Vacant A 13 Yes No -- 13
Underutilized
E – Old
Firehouse 120015011 MHD PD 30 24 1.08 No Residential A 25 Yes No -- 25 H – 6470 Marsh
Creek Road 119021054 MHD PD 30 24 1.16 No Single Family A 27 Yes No -- 27 K – Douglas
Road Triangle 119560012 LD PD 3 3 1.47 No Single Family A 4 Yes No -- 4 M – Marsh
Creek Property
78020006 LD PD 30 24 5.86
Yes Single Family A 170 Yes No -- 70 70
78020007 LD PD 30 24 2.21 Single Family B 52 Yes No -- 52 T – 6530/6500
Marsh Creek
119021019 MHD PD 30 24 .87
Yes (see
Vacant
Residential
Sites)
Single Family A 20 Yes No -- 20
Table 5-11: Town Center Vacant and Underutilized Sites
Site Name
Parcels
Number
(APN)
General Plan
Designation Zoning
Allowable
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
Affordability Level
EL
VL
L M AM
Vacant
G- Downtown
Site 118560010 TC PD 20 16 1.66 No Vacant A 26 Yes No -- 26 N – Center +
Diablo Street
119017003 TC PD 20 16 0.43
Yes (see
Underutilized
Town Center
Sites)
Vacant A 6 Yes No -- 6
Underutilized
F – Creekside
Terrace
119050009 TC PD 20 16 0.22
Yes (see Table
5-12, NonResidential
Underutilized
Sites)
Parks/Recreation
A
3 Yes No -- 3
119050034 TC PD 20 16 0.29 Parks/Recreation 4 Yes No -- 4 N – Center +
Diablo
119017004 TC PD 20 16 0.63
Yes (see
Vacant Town
Center Sites)
Single Family B 9 Yes No -- 9
Housing Resources
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3-2
P – City Parking
Lot 119016009 TC PD 20 16 0.46 No Civic Facility A 7 Yes No -- 7 S – Clayton
Community
Church
119011003 TC L-C 20 16 0.58 No Office A 8 Yes No -- 8
Table 5-12: Non-Residential Underutilized Sites
Site Name
Parcels
Number
(APN)
General Plan
Designation Zoning
Allowable
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
Affordability Level
EL
VL
L M AM
A – St. John’s
Parish 118101025 ID PD 40 32 2.38 No Civic Facility A 41 Yes No -- 41 D – City Flag Lot 118230002 PU PD 3 3 2.86 No Civic Facility A 8 Yes No -- 8 F – Creekside
Terrace
119050008 PU PF 20 16 0.28
Yes (see Table
5-11, Town
Center
Underutilized
Sites)
Parks/Recreation A 4 Yes No -- 4
I – Easley Ranch 119080009 PU A 10 10 13.23 No Single Family A 132 Yes No -- 66 66 Q – Golf Course
Overflow Lot 118370073 PR PD 40 32 2.55 No Private Parking Lot A 81 Yes No -- 40 41
R – Presbyterian
Church 118031054 KC PD 30 32 3.68 No Civic Facility A 43 Yes No -- 30 13 City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 6-1
6. Housing Element Program
Accomplishments
INTRODUCTION
This chapter analyzes program performance for the City of Clayton’s 2015 - 2023 Housing Element programs. State law
(California Government Code Section 65588[a]) requires each jurisdiction to review its Housing Element as frequently as appropriate and evaluate:
• The appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goals
• The effectiveness of the Housing Element in attainment of the community’s housing goals and objectives
• Progress in implementation of the Housing Element
This evaluation provides critical information on the extent to which programs have achieved stated objectives and whether these programs continue to be relevant to addressing current and future housing needs in Clayton. The evaluation provides the basis for recommended modifications to policies and programs and the establishment of new housing objectives.
The Department of Housing and Community Development determined that the Clayton 2015-2023 Housing Element was in full compliance with State law. Following adoption in 2014, the City was tasked with following through on the commitments made in the housing programs.
The City has made a number of accomplishments through housing programs, specifically in regard to affordable housing, housing for special needs populations, accessory dwelling units, and the potential for new developments.
Under the Affordable Housing Plan Guidelines, in 2016 The City voted to change the allowable density in Multi-Family High Density (MHD) from 15.1 to 20 units per acre to 20 units per acre. The City Council also passed a and adopted an ordinance requiring multifamily housing types to meet the minimum density limits as set forth in the General Plan the same year. City Council also passed and adopted an inclusionary housing ordinance, which provided the details of the Affordable Housing Plan identified in Implementation Measure I.2.1. This ordinance now requires that 10% of the owner units for residential projects containing 10 or more units to be created as affordable housing units.
To address the needs of special needs populations (low-income and elderly) City Council passed an ordinance in 2016 that allows supportive and transitional housing in the Limited Commercial (LC) zoning district and subjects it only to requirements of other residential uses in this district. In 2020 City Council Accomplishments
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 6-2
approved Planning entitlements for an 81-unit senior residential development with seven units to be reserved to rent to very-low income households.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) are continuing to be a popular way to add more housing in Clayton. In 2016 two ADUs were approved, in 2017 one ADU was issued a building permit, and in 2020 The City issued zoning clearance for three additional ADUs.
The City continues to find ways to optimize housing by reworking existing land for future uses. In 2016 The City passed an ordinance specifically allowing employee housing for six or fewer residents as a permitted use in residential zoning districts, in compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5.
On October 20, 2020, the City initiated a study to evaluate land use options for development of the Cityowned property on Oak Street and Clayton Road in the Specific Plan area.
Table 6-1 outlines the City’s progress toward meeting objectives identified in the 2015‐2023 Housing Element. Following Table 6-1, Table 6-2 summarizes quantified objective performance.
Table 6-1: 2015-2023 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Implementation Measure Progress and Continued Appropriateness Adequate Sites and New Construction
Implementation Measure I.1.1.
To ensure that adequate sites are available through the planning period to meet the City’s Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA), the City will continue to
maintain an inventory of sites available and appropriate for residential development for households at all income levels. In keeping with state “no net loss” provisions
(Government Code Section 65863), if development
projects are approved at densities lower than
anticipated in the sites inventory, the City will evaluate the availability of sites appropriate for lower-income
housing and, if necessary, shall rezone sufficient sites to accommodate the RHNA.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing, as development projects are
proposed.
Funding: General Fund
The City ensured adequate sites were maintained, available, and appropriate for residential development for households at all income levels.
Continued Appropriateness:
The maintenance of adequate sites is required by law and remains a key goal. This program will be continued and
modified to include objectives relating to tracking to ensure no net loss of sites during the planning period.
Implementation Measure I.1.2.
The City will amend the Multi-Family High Density (MHD) General Plan land use designation or otherwise amend
the General Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance as needed to
meet state requirements specific to sites rezoned to
accommodate the City’s lower-income RHNA from the
2007–2014 planning period, specifically to allow multifamily housing by-right on these sites at a minimum density of 20 units per acre. The City’s 2007–2014
Housing Element identified a shortfall of land that
The City established Affordable Housing Plan guidelines, which are contained in the City's Housing Element and continued to inform potential housing developers of this requirement. The City Council approved a General Plan amendment on July 19, 2016, changing the allowable density in Multi-Family High Density (MHD) from 15.1 to 20 units per acre to 20 units per acre. On August 16, 2016, the City Council passed and adopted an ordinance requiring multifamily housing types to meet the minimum density limits as set forth in the General Plan. The Accomplishments
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 6-3
Table 6-1: 2015-2023 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Implementation Measure Progress and Continued Appropriateness provided for residential development at a density
deemed appropriate for affordable housing to
accommodate 84 units to meet the extremely low-, very
low-, and low-income RHNA. State law (Government
Code Section 65583.2(h) and (i)) requires that land
rezoned or redesignated to meet a shortfall meet the
following criteria:
• Require a minimum density of at least 20 units
per acre.
• Accommodate at least 16 units per site.
• Allow multi-family housing by-right (without a
use permit).
• At least 50 percent of rezoned sites must be
designated for residential uses only.
In 2012, the City in good faith established the MultiFamily High Density General Plan Land Use and Zoning District designations and made specified General Plan
Map and Zoning Map changes in an attempt to
accommodate the City’s lower income RHNA shortfall
from the 2007–2014 planning period. The City was
advised by HCD that these efforts fell short of state law; therefore, the City’s land use regulations will be
appropriately revised to comply with the above stated
criteria.
Responsibility: City Council, Planning Commission,
Community Development Department
Time Frame: By January 31, 2016.
Funding: General Fund
above was the last action required by the City to meet State law (GC Section 65583.2(h) and (i)).
The zoning code allows multifamily housing structures by right in the M-R, M-R-M, and M-R-H zones.
To meet the RHNA for the sixth cycle, the City intends to complete General Plan and zoning map amendments to
increase densities on several parcels to achieve 20 units per acre. These amendments will be accomplished in parallel with the Housing Element update.
Continued Appropriateness:
Because required new rezoning will be accomplished as part of this sixth cycle Housing Element, the program requiring rezoning is no longer needed. In designating the sites to be rezoned, the City will ensure each site can accommodate at least 16 units and that at least 50 percent of the sites allow residential uses only (zoned M-R-H).
Implementation Measure I.2.1.
For residential projects of 10 or more units, developers will be required to develop an Affordable Housing Plan
that requires a minimum of 10% of the units to be built or created as affordable housing units. The City has
established the following guidelines to provide direction for the review of Affordable Housing Plans associated
with individual development projects and to provide
direction for the preparation of an Affordable Housing
Plan. The plan shall be approved in conjunction with the earliest stage of project entitlement, typically with the City Council approval of the development agreement or
On August 16, 2016, the City Council passed and adopted an inclusionary housing ordinance, which provided the details of the Affordable Housing Plan as identified in Implementation Measure I.2.1. This ordinance requires that 10% of the units for ownership residential projects containing 10 or more units to be created as affordable housing units.
Continued Appropriateness:
Inclusionary housing requirements provide a solid means of producing affordable units. State law allows inclusionary requirements to be applied to rental units as well, so this program may be modified to expand application to all
residential developments, whether ownership or rental.
Accomplishments
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 6-4
Table 6-1: 2015-2023 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Implementation Measure Progress and Continued Appropriateness other primary land use entitlement. The Affordable
Housing Plan shall specify and include the following:
• The number of dwelling units that will be
developed as affordable to very low-, low-,
moderate-, and above moderate-income
households shall be a minimum of 10% of the
total project. The number of affordable units
shall be rounded up to a whole number. It is the
City’s desire that at least 5 percent of all project
units be built as very low-income housing units
and at least 5 percent of all project units be
built as low-income housing units.
• The number of affordable ownership and rental
units to be produced. Such split shall be
approved by the City Council based on housing
needs, market conditions, and other relevant
factors. The split of ownership and rental units
shall be addressed within the plan for each
individual project.
• Program options within project-specific
Affordable Housing Plans may include, but are
not limited to, the following:
– Actual production (on-site or off-site) of
affordable units (including ownership and
rental opportunities in the form of corner
units, halfplexes, duplexes, cottages,
creative alternative housing products, etc.).
– Land dedication (on-site and off-site).
– Payment of in-lieu fees.
• The timing for completion of affordable housing
obligations. For projects proposing to construct
affordable housing units, the City generally
supports construction of affordable dwellings
concurrent with the construction of market
rate housing when feasible. For projects
providing alternative contributions (land
dedication, funds, etc.), timing of such
contributions shall be identified in the plan,
with the expectation that the City will pursue
construction of affordable units generally
concurrent with construction of project
market-rate housing.
Also, the City may consider revisiting the Affordable Housing Plan to lower the threshold for providing affordable units to fewer than 10 units.
Accomplishments
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 6-5
Table 6-1: 2015-2023 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Implementation Measure Progress and Continued Appropriateness • At the City Council’s discretion, land or other
contributions provided by developers as
specified within project Affordable Housing
Plans may be utilized to augment City efforts
and the efforts of its nonprofit partners to
provide affordable housing opportunities to all
income levels throughout the community. The
City will pursue supplemental funding to allow
affordability to households earning less than 50
percent of area median income.
• In order to ensure the production and
preservation of housing affordable to the City’s
workforce, no productive, reasonable program
or incentive option will be excluded from
consideration within project-specific
Affordable Housing Plans. Possible incentives
may include, but are not limited to:
– Density bonuses
– Fee waivers or deferrals (as reasonably
available)
– Expedited processing/priority processing
– Reduced parking standards
– Technical assistance with accessing
funding
– Modifications to development standards
(on a case-by-case basis)
Responsibility: City Council, Planning Commission,
Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing, as projects of 10 or more units are processed through the Community Development
Department. The City will monitor the implementation
of this program to ensure that it does not cause a
constraint to the development of housing in the City of Clayton and will make necessary revisions to the
program if needed to avoid such a constraint.
Funding: General Fund
Implementation Measure I.2.2.
The Redevelopment Agency shall use its Low and
Moderate Income Housing Fund to subsidize the
construction of housing for very low-, low-, and
moderate-income households on designated Affordable
Housing Opportunity (AHO) sites in the Redevelopment
project area (Table 42, Vacant Residential Land) to meet The Redevelopment Agency no longer exists.
Continued Appropriateness:
This Implementation measure will be updated to leverage programs run by the Contra Costa County Successor Agency, as the Redevelopment Agency no longer exists.
Accomplishments
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 6-6
Table 6-1: 2015-2023 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Implementation Measure Progress and Continued Appropriateness the City’s fair share allocation within the current
planning period of the Housing Element. In the event the accumulated cash balance of the Redevelopment
Agency housing set-aside fund is insufficient to
adequately subsidize such projects, the City and the
Redevelopment Agency shall, in consultation with
project proponents, do one of the following as a means
of providing adequate subsidy for the projects: (1) obtain conventional financing from area lenders; (2) participate in a bond issue with neighboring jurisdictions; or (3)
issue bonds. As part of this program the City will develop a marketing plan and research possible incentives aimed at promoting Redevelopment funds.
Implementation Measure I.3.1.
The City shall continue to promote the development of
second dwelling units by publicizing information in the general application packet and posting information on
the City’s website. The City will aim to approve two
second dwelling units per year during the planning
period.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing, 2015–2023
Funding: General Fund
The City continued to promote second dwelling units, also called Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and provide
informational handouts. Two second dwelling units were
approved during the 2016 reporting period. One second
dwelling unit was issued a building permit during the 2017 reporting period. The City issued zoning clearance for three accessory dwelling units in the 2020 calendar year.
With the passage of several new State laws 2017-2019
intended to encourage ADUs, the City’s ADU ordinance has become outdated. The ADU ordinance will need to be updated to reflect current law. Also, the City may consider other means to encourage ADU production. Given the preponderance of single-family lots in Clayton, ADUs provide a good opportunity to produce affordable housing.
Continued Appropriateness:
The program will be strengthened and objectives for new construction will be increased.
Implementation Measure I.4.1.
To encourage development of mixed-use projects in the
Town Center, the City has adopted the Clayton Town
Center Specific Plan which provides detailed policy
direction, standards, and guidelines that encourage
mixed-use and second-story residential development.
The City will continue to promote development
opportunities in the Town Center, circulate a
development handbook that describes the permitting
process for mixed-use projects, and offer incentives such as density bonuses to incentivize mixed-use projects.
The City continued to promote and encourage mixed-use
development in the Town Center through the Specific Plan and discussions with potential developers. The Town Center
Specific Plan is available at City offices as well as on the City's website. On October 20, 2020, the City initiated a study to evaluate land use options for development of the City-owned property on Oak Street and Clayton Road in the Specific Plan area.
Continued Appropriateness:
Mixed-Use projects will be a major source of new housing downtown while addressing community needs with regard to Accomplishments
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 6-7
Table 6-1: 2015-2023 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Implementation Measure Progress and Continued Appropriateness The City will aim to facilitate the development of at least one mixed-use project within the planning period.
Responsibility: City Council, Planning Commission,
Community Development Department
Time Frame: Annually and upon receiving development
inquiries for mixed-use development.
Funding: General Fund
commercial services, amenities and tax revenue. This program will be continued and modified to include new objectives, including a possible overhaul of the Specific Plan to facilitate housing and mixed use development.
Regulatory Relief and Incentives
Implementation Measure II.1.1.
Work with housing providers to address special housing
needs for seniors, large families, female-headed
households, single-parent households with children,
persons with disabilities and developmental disabilities, farmworkers, and homeless individuals and families. The City may seek funding under the federal Housing
Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, California Child
Care Facility Financing Program, and other state and
federal programs designated specifically for special
needs groups such as seniors, persons with disabilities, and persons at risk for homelessness. The City will aim to work with housing providers on at least one project
serving a special needs group during the planning period.
Responsibility: Planning Commission, Community
Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing, 2015–2023
Funding: General Fund
The City continued to discuss special needs populations with housing providers. On March 3, 2020, the City Council approved Planning entitlements for an 81-unit senior residential development with seven units to be reserved for rent to verylow income households.
Continued Appropriateness:
This program will be strengthened and updated to address recent State laws that require zoning amendments to
accommodate low barrier navigation centers and transitional and supportive housing.
Implementation Measure II.1.2.
The City shall amend the Zoning Ordinance to specifically allow employee housing for six or fewer residents as a
permitted use in residential zoning districts, in
compliance with Health and Safety Code Section
17021.5.
Responsibility: Planning Commission, City Council,
Community Development Department
Time Frame: 2015
Funding: General Fund
On August 16, 2016, the City Council adopted and passed an ordinance specifically allowing employee housing for six or fewer residents as a permitted use in residential zoning districts, in compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5.
Continued Appropriateness:
This program was completed and will be taken out.
Implementation Measure II.1.3.
The City shall amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow
transitional and supportive housing in the Limited
Commercial (LC) zoning district as a residential use
subject only to the requirements of other residential
On August 16, 2016, the City Council passed and adopted an ordinance allowing transitional and supportive housing in the Limited Commercial (LC) zoning district subject only to the requirements of other residential uses in this district.
Continued Appropriateness:
Accomplishments
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 6-8
Table 6-1: 2015-2023 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Implementation Measure Progress and Continued Appropriateness uses in this district in compliance with Senate Bill 2
(2007).
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Within one to two years of adoption of the
Housing Element
Funding: General Fund
This program will be strengthened and updated to address recent State laws that require zoning amendments to
accommodate low barrier navigation centers and transitional and supportive housing.
Implementation Measure II.2.1.
The City shall continue to authorize regulatory incentives and concessions for development projects that include
residential units affordable to extremely low-, very low- , and low-income households and special needs groups
including disabled and developmentally disabled
persons. Incentives and concessions may include:
• Flexibility in development standards (e.g.,
reduced parking requirements, landscaping,
setbacks)
• Reduction or deferral of certain development
fees
• Priority application processing to decrease
review and approval time
• Density bonus in accordance with State density
bonus law (Government Code Section 65915).
The City will aim to facilitate the development
of at least one affordable or special needs
project during the planning period.
Responsibility: City Council, Planning Commission,
Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing, as residential development
projects are proposed.
Funding: General Fund
The City's Zoning Ordinance allows for flexibility in standards as well as a density bonus for affordable housing developments.
The City continued to consider regulatory incentives and concessions such as a reduction or deferral in certain
development fees and priority application processing.
On March 3, 2020, the City Council approved Planning
entitlements, including a density bonus with concessions and waivers, for an 81-unit senior residential development with seven units to be reserved for rent to very-low-income
households.
Continued Appropriateness:
Funding and technical assistance facilitate the development of affordable housing. This program remains in the Housing Element with modified objectives to ensure feasibility for assisting developments that include affordable housing.
Implementation Measure II.2.2.
The City shall monitor the impact of development fees
and consider waiving or deferring fees for affordable
housing projects, if and when funding is available.
Responsibility: City Council, Planning Commission,
Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing, as residential development
projects are proposed.
Funding: General Fund
The City continued to monitor the impact of development fees.
Continued Appropriateness:
The opportunity to waive or defer fees did not arise between 2015 and 2021. The City will focus on strengthening programs such as the Affordable Housing Plan to ensure feasibility for assisting developments that include affordable housing.
Rental and Homeownership Assistance
Accomplishments
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 6-9
Table 6-1: 2015-2023 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Implementation Measure Progress and Continued Appropriateness Implementation Measure III.1.1.
The City shall continue to refer interested persons to
information regarding Contra Costa County’s Mortgage
Credit Certificate Program, the Mortgage Revenue Bond
Program, and the Owner-Occupied Housing
Rehabilitation Program. The City will continue to
disseminate information regarding Contra Costa
Housing Authority’s Lower-Income Rental Assistance
Program and Aftercare Certificates as information
becomes available.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing, 2015–2023
Funding: General Funds (used to post information)
The City continued to promote assistance for first-time homebuyers and lower-income renters by referring inquiries to County programs and by disseminating information as it
becomes available.
Continued Appropriateness:
This program will be modified to remove discontinued
programs, including the Lower-Income Rental Assistance
Program and Aftercare Certificates, and reflect existing Contra Costa County programs and will continue.
Implementation Measure III.1.2.
The City shall seek funding to develop and implement a
down payment assistance program for first-time
homebuyers by working with the County or by
developing its own program that can be used with the
Mortgage Credit Certificate program, new inclusionary
units, or alone.
Responsibility: City Council, Planning Commission,
Community Development Department
Time Frame: Examine funding sources and program
opportunities by 2015.
Funding: CalHome, HOME, or other available sources
The City explored funding sources such as CalHome and HOME and did not find any funding sources available for this use. The City continued to seek funding to implement a down payment assistance program for first time homebuyers.
Continued Appropriateness:
This program will be modified to implement a feasible down payment assistance program for first-time homebuyers.
Implementation Measure III.1.3.
The City shall review potential funding opportunities
through the County HOME program and apply for
funding for applicable projects when development
opportunities arise.
Responsibility: City Council, Planning Commission,
Community Development Department
Time Frame: Apply annually upon notice of funding
availabilities.
Funding: HOME funds
The City did not have any eligible projects.
Continued Appropriateness:
This program was not used between 2015 and 2021. However, with increased State funding available for housing programs and increased opportunities for housing in Downtown, this program will be modified and continued.
Implementation Measure III.2.1.
The City will continue to maintain and annually update
the inventory of affordable housing projects and identify those that may be at risk of converting to market rate in the future. Specifically the City will:
The City continued to maintain and annually update the
inventory of affordable housing, which includes the date the affordability expires. Annual reports from privately owned affordable housing units are required to be submitted to the City.
Accomplishments
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 6-10
Table 6-1: 2015-2023 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Implementation Measure Progress and Continued Appropriateness • Work to ensure that affordable projects and
units remain in or are transferred to an
organization capable of maintaining
affordability restrictions for the life of the
project, including proactively ensuring notices
to qualified entities, coordinating an action plan
with qualified entities upon notice, and
assisting with financial resources or supporting
funding applications.
• Provide assistance to any tenants that are
displaced or are in danger of being displaced
due to a conversion to market rate.
• Annually monitor local investment in projects
that have been acquired by nonprofit or forprofit entities to ensure that properties are well managed and maintained and are being
operated in accordance with the City’s property
rehabilitation standards.
• Work with owners, tenants, and nonprofit
organizations to assist in the nonprofit
acquisition of at-risk projects to ensure longterm affordability of the development. • Meet with stakeholders and housing interests
to participate and support, through letters and
meetings and technical assistance, with local
legislators in federal, state, or local initiatives
that address affordable housing preservation
(e.g., support state or national legislation that
addresses at-risk projects, support full funding
of programs that provide resources for
preservation activities).
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Annually
Funding: General Fund
Continued Appropriateness:
An updated version of this program remains in the Housing Element, as preservation of affordable housing is an important goal.
Equal Access
Implementation Measure IV.1.1.
The City shall review its Zoning Ordinance, policies, and practices to ensure compliance with fair housing laws.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Annually, 2015–2023
Funding: General Fund
At the time new laws are passed, the City reviews the Zoning Ordinance, policies, and practices to ensure compliance with fair housing laws. The City makes updates and changes when necessary to ensure compliance.
Continued Appropriateness:
Accomplishments
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 6-11
Table 6-1: 2015-2023 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Implementation Measure Progress and Continued Appropriateness Fair Housing is an important City goal. This program has been strengthened with modified objectives pursuant to State requirements.
Implementation Measure IV.2.1.
The City will provide information on proposed affordable housing projects to the public through the City’s public hearing process in the form of study sessions, public
hearings, and public meetings.
Responsibility: City Council, Community Development
Department
Time Frame: Ongoing, as projects are submitted and
processed.
Funding: General Fund
The City ensures the public is notified of any City hearings on development projects, including affordable housing projects, for which State statute or local procedure calls for a public hearing. For any such hearings, notice is placed on community boards within the City. Notice is also published in the local newspaper of general circulation (Contra Costa Times), and/or mailed by first class mail to owners of property within a 300- foot radius of the proposed project site.
Continued Appropriateness:
Outreach and engagement provide transparency and an
equitable decision-making process. This program has been strengthened and updated with modified objectives.
Implementation Measure IV.3.1.
The City shall continue to distribute public information brochures on reasonable accommodations for disabled
persons and enforcement programs of the California Fair Employment and Housing Council.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing, 2015–2023
Funding: General Fund
The City currently distributes and will continue to distribute public information brochures on reasonable accommodation for disabled persons and enforcement programs.
Continued Appropriateness:
This program will be strengthened for the updated Housing Element to establish a procedure for disabled persons or their representatives to request a reasonable accommodation from the City’s zoning laws, building codes, and land use regulations, policies, and procedures to provide disabled persons with an opportunity to use and enjoy housing equal to that of nondisabled persons.
Implementation Measure IV.3.2.
The City will continue to implement its universal design ordinance and continue to distribute its brochure on
universal design standards, resources for design, and
compliance with City requirements.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Implement universal design standards as
development is proposed.
Funding: General Fund
The City continued to implement its universal design ordinance codified in Clayton Municipal Chapter 15.92 as projects came forward and continued to distribute brochures on universal design.
Continued Appropriateness:
This program will continue.
Accomplishments
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 6-12
Table 6-1: 2015-2023 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Implementation Measure Progress and Continued Appropriateness Energy Conservation
Implementation Measure V.1.1.
The City shall continue to provide energy conservation
brochures at City Hall and the Clayton Community
Library.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing, 2015–2023
Funding: General Fund
The City provides and will continue to provide energy
conservation brochures at City Hall and at the Clayton
Community Library. The City has also dedicated a page on its website to Green Building, which includes energy conservation through building design.
Continued Appropriateness:
This program will continue.
Implementation Measure V.1.2.
The City will review and consider possible amendments
to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and related
policy and regulatory documents to improve energy
conservation beyond CalGreen Tier 1 standards. The City will consider establishing an incentivized residential
green building program to encourage energy-efficient
retrofitting, and the use of renewable energy in
residential applications. Some of the incentives the City will consider when drafting this program will be:
• Providing eligible projects with building and
plan check fee rebates (when financially
feasible).
• Achieving third-party green building
certification.
• Renewable energy systems.
• Green roofs.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Consider establishing a residential green
building program by 2017.
Funding: General Fund
The City supports and will continue to support energy
conservation by encouraging Green Building in both new
development and remodels. In 2018, the City dedicated a page on its website to Green Building
(https://claytonca.gov/communitydevelopment/building/green-building/), which includes energy conservation through building design.
Continued Appropriateness:
This program will be updated with modified objectives.
Implementation Measure V.1.3.
The City will explore home energy and water efficiency
improvement financing opportunities available through
PACE programs, such as HERO or Figtree PACE. To make
this financing option available to Clayton residents, the City would need to adopt a resolution opting in to a Joint Powers Authority. These programs are available at no
cost to the City.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Consider opting into a PACE program by
2015.
The City has opted into three different PACE programs: HERO, Figtree, and CaliforniaFirst.
Continued Appropriateness:
This program will be updated with modified objectives, as HERO and Figtree PACE no longer exists.
Accomplishments
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 6-13
Table 6-1: 2015-2023 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Implementation Measure Progress and Continued Appropriateness Funding: General Fund
Regional Planning
Implementation Measure VI.1.1.
The City shall continue to support responsible state
legislation which allows municipalities to enter into
equitable agreements with other entities to transfer and financially participate in the provision of fair-share
housing units closer to transportation centers and work centers outside the city limits, while retaining full credit for the transferred units.
Responsibility: City Council
Time Frame: Ongoing, 2015–2023
Funding: General Fund
Clayton is not a regional jobs center and is not well served by transit. Regional planning goals include focusing development near transit and jobs. The State legislature continues to pass laws, like SB 10 in 2021, that encourage such development approaches. However, over the past decade little legislative interest has been shown to allow jurisdictions to “trade” RHNA allocations among themselves.
Continued Appropriateness:
This program will not be included in the update element.
Implementation Measure VI.1.2.
The City shall continue to participate in programs in
Contra Costa County (e.g., “Shaping Our Future” project and Contra Costa Affordable Housing Trust Fund).
TRANSPAC (Transportation Partnership and
Cooperation) is the regional transportation planning
committee for central Contra Costa and other regional
planning efforts addressing housing, employment, and
transportation issues.
Responsibility: City Council
Time Frame: Ongoing, 2015–2023
Funding: General Fund
The City participates in regional efforts addressing housing, employment, and transportation issues by being involved in ABAG's Plan Bay Area process and TRANSPAC (regional
transportation planning committee for central Contra Costa County).
Continued Appropriateness:
This program will be updated to reflect existing programs and continued.
Implementation Measure VI.1.3.
The City shall continue cooperation with the
regional/countywide housing task force. The City shall
use this task force as a means of gaining new policy and technical perspectives.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing, 2015–2023
Funding: General Fund
The City cooperates with and will continue to cooperate with the regional/countywide housing task force.
Continued Appropriateness:
This program will continue.
Implementation Measure VI.1.4.
The City shall continue to work with the Association of Bay Area Governments on FOCUS program
implementation. FOCUS is a regional development and
conservation strategy that promotes a more compact
land use pattern for the Bay Area. Some of the strategies that FOCUS promotes are listed below:
Many of the FOCUS initiatives have limited application to Clayton given the lack of transit service and virtually no land available to create employment centers. However, the City recognizes that its Downtown has the potential to support more dense housing that could enhance the walkability of the district and make more efficient use of land resources.
Continued Appropriateness:
Accomplishments
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 6-14
Table 6-1: 2015-2023 Housing Element Program Accomplishments Implementation Measure Progress and Continued Appropriateness • Encourage infill and the efficient use of land
capacity within existing communities.
• Provide for compact, complete, resourceefficient communities near existing or planned transit and other infrastructure.
• Provide opportunities for people to live near
their jobs and work near their homes.
• Encourage a mix of land uses with jobs, housing,
retail, schools, parks, recreation, and services in
proximity.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Time Frame: Ongoing, 2015–2023
Funding: General Fund
This program will be modified to address direct applicability to Clayton, particularly to position the City for grants and other funding sources to achieve goals for Downtown.
QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE
Table 6-2 summarizes Clayton’s quantified objectives for the 2015‐2023 Housing Element planning period and the progress the City has made, including progress meeting the City’s fifth cycle RHNA.
Table 6-2: 2015-2023 Housing Element Quantified Objectives Objectives
Income Level
Extremely
Low Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate Total
Construction Objectives (RHNA)
Goal 25 26 25 31 34 141
Progress 0 0 1 0 0 1
Single-Family Rehabilitation Objective
Goal -- 8 8 -- -- 16
Progress 0 0 0 0 0 0
At-Risk Housing Units to Preserve
Goal 20 66 14 26 -- 126
Progress 0 0 0 0 0 0
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-1
7. Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF AB 686
In January 2017, Assembly Bill 686 (AB 686) introduced an obligation to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) into California law. AB 686 defined “affirmatively further fair housing” to mean “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity” for persons of color, persons with disabilities, and other protected classes.
ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS
AB 686 requires that all housing elements prepared on or after January 1, 2021, assess fair housing through the following components:
• An assessment of fair housing within the jurisdiction that includes the following components: 1) a summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the City’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity; 2) an analysis of segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities; 3) an assessment of contributing factors; and 4) identification and prioritization of fair housing goals and actions.
• A sites inventory that accommodates all income levels of the City’s share of the RHNA that also serves the purpose of furthering more integrated and balanced living patterns. • Responsive housing programs that affirmatively further fair housing, promote housing opportunities throughout the community for protected classes, and address contributing factors identified in the assessment of fair housing.
The analysis must address patterns at a regional and local level and trends in patterns over time. This analysis compares the locality at a county level for the purposes of promoting more inclusive communities.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) reports
• U.S. Census Bureau’s Decennial Census (referred to as “Census”) and American Community Survey (ACS)
• Contra Costa Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in January 2020 (2020 AI) • HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer
• Local knowledge
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-2
HCD has developed a statewide AFFH Data Viewer that consists of map data layers from various data sources and provides options for addressing each of the components within the full scope of the assessment of fair housing. The data source and time frame used in the AFFH mapping tools may differ from the ACS data in the 2020 AI. While some data comparisons may have different time frames (often different by one year), the differences do not affect the identification of possible trends.
ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING ISSUES
FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT AND OUTREACH
Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity refers to the ability of a locality and fair housing entities to disseminate information related to fair housing laws and rights, and to provide outreach and education to community members. Enforcement and outreach capacity also includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, obtaining remedies, and engaging in fair housing testing. The Fair Employment and Housing Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act are the primary California fair housing laws. California law extends anti-discrimination protections in housing to several classes not covered by the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) of 1968, including prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
In Contra Costa County, local housing, social services, and legal service organizations include the Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC), Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) Fair Housing, Bay Area Legal Aid, and Pacific Community Services.
FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT
California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has statutory mandates to protect the people of California from discrimination pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Ralph Civil Rights Act, and Unruh Civil Rights Act (with regards to housing).
The FEHA prohibits discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions), gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, military or veteran status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, and genetic information, or because another person perceives the tenant or applicant to have one or more of these characteristics.
The Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51) prohibits business establishments in California from discriminating in the provision of services, accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges to clients, patrons and customers because of their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status.
The Ralph Civil Rights Act (Civil Code, § 51.7) guarantees the right of all persons within California to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of political affiliation, or on account of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, immigration status, or position in a labor dispute, or because another person perceives them to have one or more of these characteristics.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-3
Regional Trends
Based on DFEH annual reports, Table 7-1 shows the number of housing complaints filed by Contra Costa County to DFEH between 2015–2020. A slight increase in the number of complaints precedes the downward trend from 2016–2020. Note that fair housing cases alleging a violation of FEHA can also involve an alleged Unruh violation, as the same unlawful activity can violate both laws. DFEH creates companion cases that are investigated separately from the housing investigation.
Table 7-1: Number of DFEH Housing Complaints in Contra Costa County (2020)
Year Housing Unruh Civil Rights Act
2015 30 5
2016 32 2
2017 26 26
2018 22 2
2019 22 2
2020 20 1
Source: https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/LegalRecords/?content=reports#reportsBody The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (HUD FHEO) enforces fair housing by investigating complaints of housing discrimination. Table 7-2 shows the number of FHEO filed cases by protected class in Contra Costa County between 2015 and 2020. A total of 148 cases were filed within this period, with disability being the top allegation of basis of discrimination, followed by familial status, race, national origin, and sex. These findings are consistent with national trends stated in FHEO’s FY 2020 State of Fair Housing Annual Report to Congress where disability was also the top allegation of basis of discrimination.
Table 7-2: Number of FHEO Filed Cases by Protected Class in Contra Costa County (2015–2020) Year
Number of Filed
Cases Disability Race National Origin Sex Familial Status 2015 28 17 4 2 2 4
2016 30 14 8 7 5 6
2017 20 12 3 5 1 5
2018 31 20 6 3 4 9
2019 32 27 4 4 4 1
2020 7 4 1 0 2 1
Total 148 94 26 21 18 26
Percentage of Total Filed
Cases
*Note that cases may be filed
on more than one basis.
63.5% 17.5% 14.2% 12.2% 17.6%
Source: Data.Gov - Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) Filed Cases, https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/fheo-filed-cases Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-4
Table 7-3 indicates that the highest number of fair housing complaints are due to discrimination against those with disabilities, followed by income source, race, and national origin. A summary of ECHO’s Fair Housing Complaint Log on fair housing issues, actions taken, services provided, and outcomes can be found in Tables 7-4 and 7-5.
Table 7-3: Action(s) Taken/Services Provided
Protected Class 1 3 5 6 7 Grand Total
Race 21 0 0 2 0 23
Marital Status 0 0 0 1 0 1
Sex 0 0 0 0 0 0
Religion 0 0 0 0 0 0
Familial Status 0 0 0 3 0 3
Sexual Orientation 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sexual Harassment 0 0 0 1 0 1
Income Source 15 0 1 7 1 24
Disability 7 1 14 33 5 60
National Origin 13 0 0 1 0 14
Other 0 0 1 11 5 17
Total 56 1 16 59 11 143
1. Testers sent for investigation; 3. Referred to attorney; 5. Conciliation with landlord; 6. Client provided with counseling; 7.
Client provided with brief service; Source: ECHO Fair Housing (2020 - 2021) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-5
Table 7-4: Outcomes
Protected Class
Counseling
provided to
landlord
Counseling
provided to tenant
Education to
Landlord
Insufficient
evidence
Preparing
Site Visit
Referred to
DFEH/HUD
Successful
mediation Grand Total
Race 0 0 2 20 0 1 0 23
National Origin 0 0 1 13 0 0 0 14
Marital Status 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Sex 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disability 2 25 2 12 0 4 15 60
Religion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sexual Orientation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Familial Status 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3
Income Source 3 3 0 16 1 0 1 24
Sexual Harassment 0 8 2 2 1 4 0 17
Other 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total 5 39 7 64 2 10 16 143
Source: ECHO Fair Housing (2020 - 2021)
.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-6
Services that were not provided include: case tested by phone, case referred to HUD, and case accepted for full representation. The most common actions taken/services provided are providing clients with counseling, followed by sending testers for investigation and conciliation with landlords. Regardless of actions taken or services provided, almost 45 percent of cases are found to have insufficient evidence.
Only about 12 percent of all cases resulted in successful mediation Local Trends
No fair housing enforcement data are available from ECHO Fair Housing about Clayton. The AFFH data viewer similarly did not have any significant information about fair housing complaints in Clayton.
FAIR HOUSING TESTING
Fair housing testing is a randomized audit of property owners’ compliance with local, State, and federal fair housing laws. Initiated by the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division in 1991, fair housing testing involves the use of an individual or individuals who pose as prospective renters for the purpose of determining whether a landlord is complying with local, State, and federal fair housing laws.
Regional Trends
ECHO conducts fair housing investigations in Contra Costa County (except Pittsburg) and unincorporated Contra Costa County. The 2020 Contra Costa County AI, however, did not report any findings on fair housing testing on the county level nor at the local level for the City of Clayton. However, it does bring to attention that private discrimination is a problem in Contra Costa County that continues to perpetuate segregation.
FAIR HOUSING EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
Fair housing outreach and education is imperative to ensure that those experiencing discrimination know when and how to seek help. Below are more detailed descriptions of fair housing services provided by local housing, social services, and legal service organizations.
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC)
FHANC is a non-profit agency with a mission to actively support and promote fair housing through education and advocacy. Fair housing services provided to residents outside of Marin, Sonoma, or Solano County include foreclosure prevention services and information, information on fair housing law for the housing industry, and other fair housing literature. The majority of the fair housing literature is provided in Spanish and English, with some provided in Vietnamese and Tagalog.
Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) Fair Housing ECHO Fair Housing is a HUD-approved housing counseling agency that aims to promote equal access in housing, provide support services to aid in the prevention of homelessness, and promote permanent housing conditions. The organization provides education and charitable assistance to the public in matters related to obtaining and maintaining housing, in addition to rental assistance, housing assistance, tenant/landlord counseling, home seeking, home sharing, and mortgage and home purchase counseling.
In Contra Costa County, ECHO Fair Housing provides fair housing services, first-time home buyer Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-7
counseling and education, and tenant/landlord services. (Rent review and eviction harassment programs are available only in Concord.)
• Fair housing services encompasses counseling, investigation, mediation, enforcement, and education.
• First-time home buyer counseling provides one-on-one counseling with a housing counselor on the homebuying process. The counselor will review all documentation, examine and identify barriers to homeownership, create an action plan, and prepare potential homebuyers for the responsibility of being homeowners. The counselor will also review credit reports, determine what steps need to be taken to clean up adverse credit, provide counseling on money-saving methods, and assist in developing a budget.
• First-time home buyer education provides classroom training regarding credit information, home ownership incentives, home buying opportunities, predatory lending, home ownership responsibilities, and government-assisted programs as well as conventional financing. The class also provides education on how to apply for HUD-insured mortgages, purchase procedures, and alternatives for financing the purchase. Education also includes information on fair housing and fair lending and how to recognize discrimination and predatory lending procedures and locate accessible housing if needed.
• ECHO’s Tenant/Landlord Services provides information to tenants and landlords on rental housing issues such as evictions, rent increases, repairs and habitability, harassment, illegal entry, and other rights and responsibilities regarding the tenant/landlord relationship. Trained mediators assist in resolving housing disputes through conciliation and mediation. • In cities that adopt ordinances to allow rent reviews (City of Concord only in Contra Costa County), tenants can request a rent review from ECHO Housing by phone or email. This allows tenants who experience rent increases exceeding 10 percent in a 12-month period to seek non-binding conciliation and mediation services.
Although the Contra Costa County Consortium Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing states that the organization provides information in Spanish, the ECHO website is predominantly in English, with options to translate the homepage into various languages. Navigating the entire site may be difficult for the limited-English proficient (LEP) population.
Bay Area Legal Aid (BayLegal)
BayLegal is the largest civil legal aid provider serving seven Bay Area counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara). With respect to affordable housing, BayLegal has a focus area in housing preservation (landlord-tenant matters, subsidized and public housing issues, unlawful evictions, foreclosures, habitability, and enforcement of fair housing laws), as well as a homelessness task force that provides legal services and advocacy for systems change to maintain housing, help people exit homelessness, and protect unhoused persons’ civil rights. The organization provides translations for their online resources to over 50 languages and uses volunteer interpreters/translators to help provide language access. Its legal advice line provides counsel and advice in different languages. Specific to Contra Costa County, tenant housing resources are provided in English and Spanish.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-8
The Housing Preservation practice is designed to protect families from illegal evictions, substandard housing conditions, and wrongful denials and terminations of housing subsidies. The practice also works to preserve and expand affordable housing and protect families from foreclosure rescue scams. BayLegal helps low-income tenants obtain or remain in safe, affordable housing by providing legal assistance in housing-law related areas such as public, subsidized (including Section 8 and other HUD-subsidized projects) and private housing, fair housing and housing discrimination, housing conditions, rent control, eviction defense, lock-outs and utility shut-offs, residential hotels, and training advocates and community organizations.
BayLegal also provides free civil legal services to low-income individuals and families to prevent homelessness and increase housing stability, as well as assist unhoused youth/adults address legal barriers that prevent them from exiting homelessness. This is accomplished through a mix of direct legal services, coalition building and partnerships, policy advocacy, and litigation to advocate for systems change that will help people maintain housing, exit homelessness, and protect unhoused persons’ civil rights. The Homelessness Task Force (HTF) was developed in response to complex barriers and inequities contributing to homelessness and strives to build capacity and develop best practices across the seven counties to enhance BayLegal’s coordinated, multi-systems response to homelessness.
Pacific Community Services, Inc. (PCSI)
PCSI is a private non-profit housing agency that serves East Contra Costa County (Bay Point, Antioch, and Pittsburg) and provides fair housing counseling in English and Spanish. Housing counseling services provided include:
• Foreclosure Prevention: Consists of a personal interview and the development of a case management plan for families to keep their homes and protect any equity that may have built up.
Relief measures sought include loan modification or reduced payments, reinstatement and assistance under “Keep Your Home” program, forbearance agreements, deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, refinancing or recasting the mortgage, or sale of the property. • Homeownership Counseling: Prepares first-time buyers for a successful home purchase by helping them with budgeting, understanding the home purchase process, and understanding the fees that lenders may charge to better prepare new buyers when acquiring their first home. • Rental Counseling and Tenant and Landlord Rights: PCSI provides information and assistance in dealing with eviction and unlawful detainer actions, deposit returns, habitability issues, getting repairs done, mediation of tenant/landlord disputes, assisting tenant organizations, legal referrals to Bay Area Legal Aid & Bar Association resources, pre-rental counseling, and budgeting. • Fair Housing Services: Include counseling regarding fair housing rights, referral services, and education and outreach. PCSI offers training for landlords and owners involving issues of compliance with federal and State fair housing regulations. • Fair Housing Education and Outreach: Offers informative workshops for social service organizations and persons of protected categories. These workshops are designed to inform individuals how to recognize and report housing discrimination.
PCSI lacks contact information, resources, and accessibility on their website.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-9
Overall, the capacity and funding of the above organizations are generally insufficient. Greater resources would enable stronger outreach efforts, including to populations that may be less aware of their fair housing rights, such as limited-English proficiency and LGBTQ residents. Although ECHO serves most of Contra Costa County, it suffers from a severe lack of resources and capacity, with only one fair housing counselor serving the County. A lack of funding also constrains BayLegal’s ability to provide fair housing services for people facing discrimination, which further burdens groups like ECHO that provide such services.
INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION
RACE/ETHNICITY
Segregation is defined as the separation or isolation of a race/ethnic group, national origin group, individuals with disabilities, or other social group by enforced or voluntary residence in a restricted area, by barriers to social connection or dealings between persons or groups, by separate educational facilities, or by other discriminatory means.
To measure segregation in a jurisdiction, HUD provides racial or ethnic dissimilarity trends. Dissimilarity indices are used to measure the evenness with which two groups (frequently defined on racial or ethnic characteristics) are distributed across the geographic units, such as block groups within a community. The index ranges from 0 to 100, with 0 meaning no segregation and 100 indicating complete segregation between the two groups. The index score can be understood as the percentage of one of the two groups that would need to move to produce an even distribution of racial/ethnic groups within the specified area.
For example, if an index score is above 60, 60 percent of people in the specified area would need to move to eliminate segregation. The following shows how HUD views various levels of the index:
• <40: Low Segregation
• 40-54: Moderate Segregation
• >55: High Segregation
Ethnic and racial composition of a region is useful in analyzing housing demand and any related fair housing concerns, as it tends to demonstrate a relationship with other characteristics such as household size, locational preferences, and mobility. Prior studies have identified socioeconomic status, generational care needs, and cultural preferences as factors associated with “doubling up”: households with extended family members and non-kin. These factors have also been associated with ethnicity and race. Other studies have also found minorities tend to congregate in metropolitan areas, although their mobility trend predictions are complicated by economic status (minorities moving to the suburbs when they achieve middle class) or immigration status (recent immigrants tend to stay in metro areas/ports of entry).
Regional Trends
Contra Costa County is a large, diverse jurisdiction in which people of color represent a majority of the population. As of the 2010 Census, 47.75 percent of residents were non-Hispanic Whites, 8.92 percent of residents were non-Hispanic Blacks, 24.36 percent were Hispanics, 14.61 percent were non-Hispanic Asians or Pacific Islanders, 0.28 percent were non-Hispanic Native Americans, 3.77 percent were nonHispanic multiracial individuals, and 0.30 percent identified as some other race. See Figure 7-1 for the distribution of non-white residents at the block group level.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-10
In Contra Costa County, all non-White residents combined are considered moderately segregated from White residents, with an index score of 41.86 at the Census tract level and 44.93 at the block group level (Table 7-5). Segregation between non-White and White residents has remained relatively steady since 1990. However, since 1990, segregation has increased from low to moderate levels for Hispanic residents, the largest increase among all racial/ethnic groups. This trend is commonly seen throughout California and is likely attributed to an increase of Hispanic residents during the migration boom of the mid- to late 1990s. An increase of 2 in the index score also occurred for Asian or Pacific Islander residents during the mid- to late 1990s. Block group level data reveals that segregation is more prominent amongst Asian or Pacific Islander residents than what is measured at the tract level (index score of 40.55 at the block group level versus 35.67 at the tract level). For Black residents, the segregation index score has gone down by 9 points between 1990 and 2010. The proportion of Black residents in the County has remained relatively steady during this same period, indicating segregation has been declining for the Black population.
Table 7-5: Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends (1990–2020) Dissimilarity Index
Contra Costa County
1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend
Current
(2010 Census Block
Group)
Non-White/White 41.19 41.95 41.86 44.93
Black/White 67.52 62.54 58.42 61.80
Hispanic/White 36.70 45.24 48.07 49.49
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 34.89 32.73 35.67 40.55 Source: HUD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Tool (AFFH-T), Table 3 – Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends, Data version:
AFFHT006, released July 10th, 2020.
Note: The table presents Decennial Census values for 1990, 2000, and 2010, all calculated by HUD using census tracts as the area of measurement. The “current” figure is calculated using block groups from the 2010 Decennial Census, because block groups can measure segregation at a finer grain than census tracts due to their smaller geographies. See https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/affh for more information.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-11
Figure 7-1: Regional Racial Demographics (2021)
Local Trends
Clayton’s population consists predominantly of White residents, as shown on Figure 7-2, with most census tracts having between 21 to 40 percent non-White populations and one tract with a non-White concentration that falls below 20 percent. (Two tracts shown on the map with greater than 81 percent non-White population are not residential areas but rather are school and park sites.) The City’s single census tract with a non-White population below 40 percent does not correlate to other trends in the City that might explain this lower percentage. Clayton is close to the cities of Concord, Pleasant Hill, and Walnut Creek. Concord, which is much larger and more economically diverse than Clayton, has several census tracts with non-White populations between 41 to 60 percent and 61 to 80 percent. Similar to Concord, Pleasant Hill has more tracts with 41 to 60 percent and 61 to 80 percent non-White populations, as well as a few tracts with a non-White population of 81 percent and above. Walnut Creek, a more affluent community, more resembles Clayton, with most tracts having a non-White population of 21 to 40 percent, a few tracts with 41 to 60 percent, and a small concentration with a non-White population of less than 20 percent.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-12
Figure 7-2: Racial Demographics of Clayton (2021)
See Table 7-6 for a comparison of racial composition in Contra Costa County and Clayton.
Table 7-6: Racial Composition Contra Costa County and Clayton (2019) Contra Costa County Clayton
White, non-Hispanic 47.75% 74.6%
Black or African-American, non-Hispanic 8.92% 2.3%
American Indian and Alaska Native, nonHispanic0.28% 0.1% Asian, non-Hispanic 14.61%* 7.6%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander,
non-Hispanic
N/A 0%
Some other race, non-Hispanic 0.30% .02%
Two or more races, non-Hispanic 3.77% 5%
Hispanic or Latino 24.36% 10.2%
*Asian and Pacific Islander combined
Sources: American Community Survey, 2015-2019; ABAG Housing Needs Data Package; Contra Costa County Consortium Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing 2020-2025
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-13
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
In 1988, Congress added protections against housing discrimination for persons with disabilities through the Fair Housing Act, or FHA, which protects against intentional discrimination and unjustified policies and practices with disproportionate effects. The FHA also includes the following unique provisions to persons with disabilities: (1) prohibits the denial of requests for reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities if necessary to afford an individual equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling; and (2) prohibits the denial of reasonable modification requests. With regards to fair housing, persons with disabilities have special housing needs because of the lack of accessible and affordable housing and the higher health costs associated with their disability. In addition, many may be on fixed incomes that further limit their housing options.
Regional Trends
According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates, 118,603 residents (10.9 percent of Contra Costa County’s population) reported having one of six disability types listed in the ACS (hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, and independent living). The percentage of residents detailed by disability are listed in Table 7-9. In both Contra Costa County and the City of Clayton, the percentage of individuals with disabilities also increases with age, with the highest percentage of individuals being those 75 years and older.
In Clayton, 8.5 percent of the population experiences a disability (Table 7-7). This rate is lower than Contra Costa County (11.2 percent). The disability rate is highest among residents who identify as Some Other Race (9.6 percent) and Hispanic or Latino Residents (8.4 percent). In the County, the highest percentage of disabled residents by race is among American Indian and Alaskan Native residents (21.2 percent). The overwhelming majority of residents in Clayton with a disability are 75 years and older (47.9 percent); this is also reflected in the County (47.2 percent). In Clayton, the most common disability is an ambulatory difficulty (4.5 percent), followed by an independent living difficulty (4.3 percent). The highest percentage of disability experienced by residents in Contra Costa County is similarly those with ambulatory difficulties (5.7 percent) followed by those with an independent living difficulty (5.4 percent).
Table 7-7. Populations of Persons with Disabilities – Contra Costa County and Clayton Contra Costa County Percent with
a Disability
Clayton Percent with a
Disability
Civilian non-institutionalized
population
11.2% 8.5%
Race/ Ethnicity
Black or African-American alone 16% 4.7%
American Indian and Alaska Native
alone
21.2% 0%
Asian alone 8% 7.9%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander alone
9.6% 0%
Some other race alone 7.4% 9.6%
Two or more races 9.9% 3.1%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 12.2% 9%
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-14
Table 7-7. Populations of Persons with Disabilities – Contra Costa County and Clayton Contra Costa County Percent with
a Disability
Clayton Percent with a
Disability
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 9.4% 8.4%
Age
Under 5 years 0.5% 0%
5 to 17 years 4.9% 2.3%
18 to 34 years 6.6% 6.6%
35 to 64 years 10.1% 4.6%
65 to 74 years 21% 12.6%
75 years and over 47.2% 47.9%
Type
Hearing difficulty 3.1% 3.4%
Vision difficulty 1.9% 0.4%
Cognitive difficulty 4.7% 3%
Ambulatory difficulty 5.7% 4.5%
Self-care difficulty 2.4% 2.3%
Independent living difficulty 5.4% 4.3%
Source: 2019 ACS 5-year Estimates, Table S1810
In terms of geographic dispersal, there is a relatively homogenous dispersal of persons with disability, especially in central Contra Costa County, where most census tracts have less than 10 percent of individuals with disabilities. Towards eastern Contra Costa County, the western boundary, and parts of southern Contra Costa County, however, the percentage of population with disabilities increases to 10 to 20 percent. Pockets where over 40 percent of the population has disabilities can be observed around Martinez, Concord, and the outskirts of Lafayette. Comparing Figure 7-3 and Figure 7-11, note that areas with a high percentage of populations with disabilities correspond with areas with high housing choice voucher concentration (24 percent of people who utilize housing choice vouchers, or HCVs, in Contra Costa County have a disability). Although use of HCVs does not represent a proxy for actual accessible units, participating landlords remain subject to the FHA to provide reasonable accommodations and allow tenants to make reasonable modifications at their own expense. Areas with a high percentage of populations with disabilities also correspond to areas with high percentages of low-moderate income communities. The above demographic information indicates socioeconomic trends of populations of persons with disabilities.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-15
Figure 7-3: Regional Populations of Persons with Disabilities by Tract (2019) Local Trends
In Clayton, fewer than 10 percent of residents live with a disability. In Concord, most tracts have a 10 to 20 percentage of residents with a disability; one concentration of census tracts displays a percentage between 30 to 40 percent. In Pleasant Hill, few residents have disabilities, with most tracks below 10 percent and only a few concentrations of 10 to 20 percent. Similarly, census tracts in Walnut Creek largely report disability percentages 10 to 20 percent or below 10 percent.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-16
Figure 7-4: Percent of Population with a Disability – Clayton (2021)
FAMILIAL STATUS
Under the Fair Housing Act, housing providers may not discriminate because of familial status. Familial status covers the presence of children under the age of 18, pregnant persons, and any person in the process of securing legal custody of a minor child (including adoptive or foster parents). Examples of familial status discrimination include refusing to rent to families with children; evicting families once a child joins the family through birth, adoption, or custody; or requiring families with children to live on specific floors or in specific buildings or areas. Single-parent households are also protected by fair housing law.
Families with children often have special housing needs due to lower per capita income, the need for affordable childcare, the need for affordable housing, or the need for larger units with three or more bedrooms. Single-parent households are also protected by fair housing law. Of particular consideration are female-headed households, who may experience greater housing affordability challenges due to typically lower household incomes compared to two-parent households. Often, sex and familial status intersect to compound the discrimination faced by single mothers.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-17
Regional Trends
In Contra Costa County, 24.3 percent of households have children under the age of 18 (Table 7-8). Within Contra Costa County, Clayton and Danville have the highest percentage of households with children (30.8 percent and 29.9 percent, respectively). Across all cities in Contra Costa County, there are higher percentages of single-parent female households than single-parent male households. Within the County, Danville and Walnut Creek have the highest percentages of single-parent female households (3.8 percent and 3.0 percent, respectively). While a lower overall percentage, Lafayette and Danville have the highest percentages of single-parent male households (1.9 percent and 1.1 percent, respectively).
Table 7-8. Households with Children in Contra Costa County and Incorporated Cities Bay Area
Contra Costa
County Danville
Walnut
Creek Lafayette Clayton
Married Couple
with Children
23.8% 24.3% 29.9% 17.2% 29.2% 30.8%
Single-Parent,
Male
2.3% 1.2% 1.1% 0.9% 1.9% 0.8%
Single-Parent,
Female
5.7% 5% 3.8% 3% 2.2% 1.2%
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019 (5-Year Estimates), Table DP02 Figure 7-5 indicates that most children living in Contra Costa County live in married-couple households, especially in central parts of the county where the percentage of children in such households exceed 80 percent. Census tracts adjacent to these areas also have relatively high percentages of children living in married-couple households (60 to 80 percent). Census tracts with the lowest percentage of children in married-couple households (less than 20 percent) are located between Pittsburg and Antioch.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-18
Figure 7-5: Regional Percentage of Children in Married-Couple Households by Tracts (2019) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-19
Local Trends
All of Clayton has a rate of children in a married couple households above 80 percent (Figure 7-6). More than half of Concord census tracts are above 80 percent, while the rest are between 40 to 60 percent. The same breakdown is reflected in Pleasant Hill. The majority of Walnut Creek census tracts have children in a married couple household between 40 to 60 percent, while this goes up to 80 percent in a few tracts.
Figure 7-6: Percent of Children in Married-Couple Households – Clayton (2021) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-20
Regional Trends
Figure 7-7 depicts the concentration of households headed by single mothers in the County by census tract. Areas of concentration include Richmond, San Pablo, Rodeo, Bay Point, Pittsburg, Antioch, and to the west of Concord. Those communities are also areas of high minority populations. By contrast, central County, in general, and the portions of central County to the south of Concord have relatively low concentrations of children living in female-headed households (less than 20 percent). These tend to be more heavily White or White and Asian and Pacific Islander communities.
Figure 7-7: Regional Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households by Tract (2019) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-21
Local Trends
In Clayton, the percent of children living in a female-headed household with no spouse/partner is below 20 percent for the entire City (Figure 7-8). Surrounding cities of Concord, Pleasant Hill, and Walnut Creek all have a few tracts where between 20 to 40 percent of households are female headed with no spouse.
Figure 7-8: Percent of Children in Female Headed Households – Clayton (2021)
INCOME LEVEL
Each year, HUD receives custom tabulations of American Community Survey (ACS) data from the U.S.
Census Bureau. Known as the "CHAS" data (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy), it demonstrates the number of households in need of housing assistance by estimating the number of households that have certain housing problems and have income low enough to qualify for HUD’s programs (primarily 30, 50, and 80 percent of median income). HUD defines a Low to Moderate Income (LMI) area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI (based on HUD income definition of up to 80 percent of the Area Median Income).
Regional Trends
Table 7-9 lists Contra Costa County households by income category and tenure. Based on the above definition, 38.7 percent of Contra Costa County households are considered LMI, as they earn less than 80 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-22
percent of the HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI). Almost 60 percent of all renters are considered LMI compared to 27.5 percent of owner households. In Clayton, 15.2 percent of owner and renter households are low or moderate income. A much larger percentage of renter households in Contra Costa County are low or moderate income (52.2 percent) compared to low- or moderate-income owner households (24.9 percent). This breakdown is reflected in Clayton as well, with 37.5 percent of renter households earning low or moderate incomes and only 13.9 percent of owner households earning low or moderate incomes. Overall, Clayton has a much larger percentage of owner and renter households earning above the area median income (79.8 percent) compared to the County (56.4 percent).
Table 7-9. Contra Costa County and Clayton Households by Income Category and Tenure Contra Costa County
Income Category Owner Renter Total
0%-30% of AMI 6.5% 23.4% 12.3%
31%-50% of AMI 8.2% 15% 10.5%
51%-80% of AMI 10.2% 13.8% 11.4%
81%-100% AMI 8.3% 10.7% 9.1%
Greater than 100% of
AMI
66.7% 36.8% 56.4%
Total 257,530 134,750 392,275
Clayton
Income Category Owner Renter Total
0%-30% of AMI 4.9% 5.3% 5%
31%-50% of AMI 4.4% 19.6% 5.4%
51%-80% of AMI 4.4% 8.9% 4.7%
81%-100% AMI 4.3% 12.5% 4.8%
Greater than 100% of
AMI
81.7% 53.5% 79.8%
Total 3,920 280 4,200
Source: HUD CHAS (based on 2014-2018 ACS), 2020.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-23
Figure 7-9 shows the LMI areas in Contra Costa County by block group. Most of central Contra Costa County has less than 25 percent of LMI populations. Block groups with high concentrations of LMI (between 75 and 100 percent of the population) can be found clustered around Antioch, Pittsburg, Richmond, and San Pablo. There are also small pockets with high percentages of LMI population around Concord. Other areas of the county have a moderate percentage of LMI population (25 to 75 percent).
Figure 7-9: Regional Concentrations of LMI Households by Tract (2015) Local Trends
In Clayton, almost all census tracts have a less than 25 percent LMI population. In the western part of Clayton, there are tracts where the LMI population rises to 25 to 50 percent. Part of this area also overlaps with higher rates of housing choice voucher use (5 to 15 percent) (Figure 7-13), slightly lower median incomes (less than $125,000) (Figure 7-19), and higher rates of overpayment by renters (20 to 40 percent) (Figure 7-36).
The surrounding cities of Concord, Pleasant Hill, and Walnut creek have more LMI populations than Clayton. The majority of Concord census tracts have between 25 to 50 percent LMI populations, and a sizeable concentration of tracts where this percentage rises to 50 to 75 percent and 75 to 100 percent Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-24
LMI populations. Pleasant Hill has a similar breakdown of census tracts to Concord, while Walnut Creek mainly has census tracts with less than 25 percent and 25 to 50 percent LMI populations, with a small section of 50 to 75 percent LMI populations.
Figure 7-10: Population with Low to Moderate Income Levels - Clayton (2021)
HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS
Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) are a form of HUD rental subsidy issued to a low-income household that promises to pay a certain amount of the household’s rent. Prices, or payment standards, are set based on the rent in the metropolitan area, and voucher households must pay any difference between the rent and the voucher amount. Participants of the HCV program are free to choose any rental housing that meets program requirements
An analysis of the trends in HCV concentration can be useful in examining the success of the program in improving the living conditions and quality of life of its holders. Key objectives of the HCV program are to encourage participants to avoid high poverty neighborhoods and encourage the recruitment of landlords with rental properties in low poverty neighborhoods. HCV programs are managed by Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), and the programs assessment structure (SEMAPS) includes an “expanding housing Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-25
opportunities” indicator that shows whether the PHA has adopted and implemented a written policy to encourage participation by owners of units located outside areas of poverty or minority concentration.
A study prepared by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research found a positive association between the HCV share of occupied housing and neighborhood poverty concentration and a negative association between rent and neighborhood poverty1. This means that HCV use was concentrated in areas of high poverty where rents tend to be lower. In areas where these patterns occur, the program has not succeeded in moving holders out of areas of poverty.
Regional Trends
In Contra Costa County, the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County (HACCC) administers approximately 7,000 units of affordable housing under the HCV program (and Shelter Care Plus program). Northwest Contra Costa County is served by the Richmond Housing Authority (RHA) that administers approximately 1,851 HCVs. East Contra Costa County is served by the Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburg (HACP), which manages 1,118 tenant-based HCVs. HCV recipients who live outside of Pittsburg must live within the jurisdiction for the first year after which portability outside of Pittsburg is available.
The HCV program serves as a mechanism for bringing otherwise unaffordable housing within reach of lowincome populations. With reference to Figure 7-11, the program appears to be most prominent in western Contra Costa County, in heavily Black and Hispanic areas, and in the northeast of the County, in predominantly Black, Hispanic, and Asian areas. Central Contra Costa County largely has no data on the percentage of renter units with HCVs. The correlation between low rents and a high concentration of HCV holders holds true for the areas around San Pablo, Richmond, Martinez, Pittsburg, and Antioch. 1 Devine, D.J., Gray, R.W., Rubin, L., & Taghavi, L.B. (2003). Housing choice voucher location patterns: Implications for participant and neighborhood welfare. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Division of Program Monitoring and Research.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-26
Figure 7-11: Regional Housing HCV Concentration by Tract in Contra Costa County (2021) Figure 7-12 shows the Location Affordability Index in Contra Costa County. The index was developed by HUD in collaboration with the Department of Transportation under the federal Partnership for Sustainable Communities. One objective of the partnership is to increase public access to data on housing, transportation, and land use. Before this index was established, there was no standardized national data source on household transportation expenses, which limited the ability of homebuyers and renters to fully account for the cost of living in a particular city or neighborhood.
The prevailing standard of affordability in the United States is paying 30 percent or less of a household’s income on housing. However, this prevailing standard fails to account for transportation costs, and transportation costs have grown significantly as a proportion of household income since the standard was established. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the 1930s, American households spent just 8 percent of their income on transportation. Since then, as a substantial proportion of the U.S. population has migrated from center cities to surrounding suburbs and exurbs and come to rely more heavily (or exclusively) on cars, that percentage has steadily increased, peaking at 19.1 percent in 2003. As of 2020, households spent on average about 17.4 percent of their annual income on transportation, second only Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-27
to housing costs in terms of budget impact.2 And for many working-class and rural households, transportation costs actually exceed housing costs.
In Contra Costa County, most of the county has a median gross rent of $2,000 to $2,500. Central Contra County (areas between Danville and Walnut Creek) have the highest rents, or around $3,000 or more. The most affordable tracts in the county are along the perimeter of the County in cities like Richmond, San Pablo, Martinez, Pittsburg, Antioch and Oakley. There are also some areas in the central part of the county with more affordable rents like Concord and sections of Walnut Creek.
Figure 7-12: Regional Median Gross Rent/Affordability Index by Tract (2021) Local Trends
In Clayton, data report virtually no HCV use (Figure 7-13) except for a concentration of higher HCV use (five to 15 percent) one portion of the very western edge of the City. This higher rate may reflect spillover from the surrounding City of Concord since, within Clayton, these census tracts correspond to lower rates of overpayment by renters (20 to 40 percent). Most of Concord has between five to 15 percent HCV use, 2 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/ida7-k95k, accessed 4/26/22.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-28
with a few areas of 0 to 5 percent. Like Clayton, Pleasant Hill has a few areas of HCV use except between five to 15 percent along its western edge. Walnut Creek has a concentration of HCV use between five to 15 percent along Interstate 680.
The entire City of Clayton reports median gross rents of between $2,000 to $2,500. Concord has rents between $1,500 to $2,000, while Pleasant Hill has rents between $1,500 and $2,500 and Walnut Creek between $2,000 to $2,500. Concord appears to be slightly more affordable for renters than Clayton and nearby cities.
Figure 7-13: Housing Choice Vouchers - Clayton (2021)
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-29
Figure 7-14: Location Affordability Index - Clayton (2021)
RACIALLY AND ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF POVERTY
(R/ECAP)
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) are geographic areas with significant concentrations of poverty and minority populations. HUD developed a census-tract based definition of R/ECAP that relies on a racial and ethnic concentration threshold and a poverty test. The threshold states that an area with a non-White population of 50 percent or more would be identified as a R/ECAP; the poverty test defines areas of extreme poverty as areas where 40 percent or more of the population live below the federal poverty line or where the poverty rate is three times the average poverty rate for the metropolitan area (whichever is lower). Thus, an area that meets either the racial or ethnic concentration, and the poverty test would be classified as a R/ECAP. Identifying R/ECAPs facilitates an understanding of entrenched patterns of segregation and poverty due to the legacy effects of historically racist and discriminatory housing laws.
In Contra Costa County, the only area that meets the official definition of a R/ECAP is Monument Corridor in Concord (highlighted with red stripes in Figure 7-15).
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-30
Figure 7-15: Regional Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty “R/ECAPs” (2021)
EXPANDED R/ECAPS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
The HUD definition that utilizes the federal poverty rate is not suitable for analysis in the San Francisco Bay Area due to the high cost of living, according to the 2020 Contra Costa County AI. The HUD definition would severely underestimate whether an individual is living in poverty. The Contra Costa County AI proposes an alternate definition of a R/ECAP that includes majority-minority census tracts that have poverty rates of 25 percent or more. Under this definition, 12 additional census tracts (relative to using the HUD standard alone) would qualify as R/ECAPs in the areas of Antioch, Bay Point, Concord, Pittsburg, North Richmond, Richmond, and San Pablo (refer to Figure 7-16).
According to the 2012-2016 ACS, 69,326 people lived in these expanded R/ECAPs, representing 6.3 percent of the County’s population. Hispanic and Black populations make up a disproportionately large percentage of residents who reside in R/ECAPs compared to the population of the County or region as a whole. In Contra Costa County, approximately 53 percent of individuals living in R/ECAPs are Hispanic, nearly 18 percent are Black, 19.57 percent are Mexican American, 4.65 percent are Salvadoran American, and 1.49 percent are Guatemalan American. Families with children under 18 still in the household make up almost 60 percent of the population in Contra Costa County’s R/ECAPs, significantly higher than neighboring metropolitan areas of San Francisco, Oakland, and Hayward. To those already living in Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-31
poverty, the higher rate of dependent children in their households would translate to a greater strain on their resources.
Figure 7-16: Expanded R/ECAPs in Contra Costa County
Source: Contra Costa County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice January 2020-2025 (2020 AI).
Note: The 2020 AI does not provide a legend for the map shown above nor does it name the specific 12 additional R/ECAPs identified. The map shows the general location of the expanded R/ECAPs identified in the County.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-32
Local Trends
There are no R/ECAP areas in Clayton (Figure 7-17).
Figure 7-17: Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty “R/ECAPs” - Clayton (2021)
RACIALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF AFFLUENCE (RCAAS)
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) are defined by HUD as communities with a large proportion of affluent and non-Hispanic White residents. According to a policy paper published by HUD, non-Hispanic Whites are the most racially segregated group in the United States. In the same way that neighborhood disadvantage is associated with concentrated poverty and high concentrations of people of color, distinct advantages are associated with residence in affluent, White communities. RCAAs are currently not available for mapping on the AFFH Data Viewer. As such, an alternate definition of RCAA from the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs is used in this analysis. RCAAs are defined as census tracts where: 1) 80 percent or more of the population is White; and 2) the median household income is $125,000 or greater (slightly more than double the national median household income in 2016).
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-33
Regional Trends
A comparison of Figure 7-1 and Figure 7-19 identifies a string of RCAAs running from Danville to Lafayette then tapering toward Walnut Creek. This aligns with the cities’ racial demographic and median income (summarized in Table 7-10). Although not all census tracts/block groups meet the criteria to qualify as RCAAs, there is a tendency for census block groups with higher White populations to have higher median incomes throughout the county.
Table 7-10: White Population and Median Household Income of RCAAs in Contra Costa County City White Population Median Household Income (2019)
Danville 80.53% $160,808
Lafayette 81.23% $178,889
Walnut Creek 74.05% $105,948
Source: DataUSA.io (2019)
Figure 7-18: Regional Median Income by Block Group (2021) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-34
Local Trends
The northern and southern areas of Clayton have census tracts with a median income greater than $125,000. The western part of the City has a concentration of census tracts where the median income is below $125,000. This western part of the City overlaps with census tracts that have a higher percentage of LMI populations (25 to 50 percent). The eastern side of Clayton has a concentration of tracts with no data about median income. The nearby City of Concord has lower median incomes than Clayton. Most of Concord has census tracts with income below $125,000. There is a concentration of tracts near State Route 242 where the median income is below $87,100 (the State median income) and below $55,000.
Pleasant Hill has median incomes mostly greater than or just below $125,000, with a few areas of income below $87,100 near I-680 and a small concentration below $30,000. Walnut Creek mostly has areas with a median income above $125,000 or just below $125,000, with three concentrations of areas where the median income is $87,100 in the southern part of Clayton. These areas have higher numbers of multifamily and rental units along Creekside Drive and Walker Avenue and Rossmore retirement living community.
Figure 7-19: Median Income – Clayton (2021)
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-35
ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITIES
Access to opportunity is a concept to approximate the link between place-based characteristics (e.g., education, employment, safety, and the environment) and critical life outcomes (e.g., health, wealth, and life expectancy). Ensuring access to opportunity means both improving the quality of life for residents of low-income communities, as well as supporting residents’ mobility and access to so-called high resource neighborhoods.
TCAC OPPORTUNITY MAPS
TCAC maps are opportunity maps created by the California Fair Housing Task Force (a convening of the Department of Housing and Community Development and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee or TCAC) to provide research and evidence-based policy recommendations to further HCD’s fair housing goals of: 1) avoiding further segregation and concentration of poverty; and 2) encouraging access to opportunity through land use policy and affordable housing, program design, and implementation. These opportunity maps identify census tracts with highest to lowest resources, segregation, and poverty, which in turn inform the TCAC as to how to equitably distribute funding for affordable housing in areas with the highest opportunity through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program.
TCAC Opportunity Maps display areas by highest to lowest resources by assigning scores between 0 to 1 for each domain by census tracts where higher scores indicate higher “access” to the domain or higher “outcomes.” Refer to Table 7-11 for a list of domains and indicators for opportunity maps. Composite scores are a combination score of the three domains that do not have a numerical value but rather rank census tracts by the level of resources (low, moderate, high, highest, and high poverty and segregation).
The opportunity maps also include a measure or “filter” to identify areas with poverty and racial segregation. The criteria for these filters were:
• Poverty: Tracts with at least 30 percent of population under the federal poverty line • Racial Segregation: Tracts with location quotient higher than 1.25 for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or all people of color in comparison to the County
Table 7-11: Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic Poverty
Adult Education
Employment
Job Proximity
Median home value
Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution Indicators and values Education Math proficiency
Reading proficiency
High School graduation rates
Student poverty rates
Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2021 TCAC/ HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2020 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-36
High resource areas have high index scores for a variety of opportunity indicators such as high employment rates, low poverty rates, proximity to jobs, high educational proficiency, and limited exposure to environmental health hazards. High resource tracts are areas that offer low-income residents the best chance of a high quality of life, whether through economic advancement, high educational attainment, or clean environmental health. Moderate resource areas have access to many of the same resources as the high resource areas but may have fewer job opportunities, lower performing schools, lower median home values, or other factors that lower their indexes across the various economic, educational, and environmental indicators. Low resource areas are characterized as having fewer opportunities for employment and education, or a lower index for other economic, environmental, and educational indicators. These areas have greater quality of life needs and should be prioritized for future investment to improve opportunities for current and future residents.
Information from opportunity mapping can help highlight the need for housing element policies and programs that would help to remediate conditions in low resource areas or areas of high segregation and poverty, and to encourage better access to housing in high resource areas for low- and moderate-income households and negatively impacted households of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC).
Regional Trends
Figure 7-20 provides a visual representation of TCAC Opportunity Areas in Contra Costa County based on a composite score, where each tract is categorized based on percentile rankings of the level of resources within the region. The only census tract in Contra Costa County considered an area of high segregation and poverty is located in Martinez. Concentrations of low resource areas are located in the northwestern and eastern parts of the county (Richmond to Hercules and Concord to Oakley); census tracts with the highest resources are located in central and southern parts of the county (San Ramon, Danville, Moraga, and Lafayette).
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-37
Figure 7-20: Regional TCAC Composite Scores by Tract (2021) Local Trends
Clayton has a high resource composite score for the entire City (Figure 7-21). Walnut Creek is most similar to Clayton with high and highest resource scores. Pleasant Hill has moderate and high resource scores.
The City of Concord has mostly low resource scores, with a few concentrations of moderate resource scores and a small area of high resource scores.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-38
Figure 7-21: TCAC Opportunity Areas – Composite Score - Clayton (2021)
OPPORTUNITY INDICES
This section presents the HUD-developed index scores based on nationally available data sources to assess residents’ access to key opportunity assets in comparison to the County. Table 7-12 provides index scores or values (the values range from 0 to 100) for the following opportunity indicator indices:
• School Proficiency Index: The school proficiency
index uses school-level data on the performance of
4th grade students on State exams to describe which
neighborhoods have high-performing elementary
schools nearby and which are near lower performing
elementary schools.
• Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market
engagement index provides a summary description
of the relative intensity of labor market engagement
and human capital in a neighborhood. This is based
The higher the index value, the higher
the school system quality is in a
neighborhood.
The higher the index value, the higher
the labor force participation and
human capital in a neighborhood.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-39
upon the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract.
• Transit Trips Index: This index is based on
estimates of transit trips taken by a family that fits
the description of a three-person single-parent
family with income at 50 percent of the median
income for renters for the region (i.e., the CoreBased Statistical Area, or CBSA). • Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is
based on estimates of transportation costs for a
family that fits the description of a three-person
single-parent family with income at 50 percent of
the median income for renters for the
region/CBSA.
• Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index
quantifies the accessibility of a given residential
neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job
locations within a region/CBSA, with larger
employment centers weighted more heavily.
• Environmental Health Index: The environmental
health index summarizes potential exposure to
harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. The higher
the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful
to human health.
Table 7-12: Opportunity Indices by Race/Ethnicity – Contra Costa County School
Proficiency
Index
Labor
Market
Index
Transit
Trip
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Contra Costa County
Total Population
White, NonHispanic68.58 68.81 25.37 85.80 44.03 45.07
Black, NonHispanic33.93 41.36 47.38 87.29 24.51 27.23
Hispanic 37.52 41.48 38.92 87.46 28.52 33.18
Asian or
Pacific
Islander,
Non-Hispanic
60.52 66.82 34.60 85.77 36.63 37.04
The higher the transit trips index
value, the more likely residents in that
neighborhood utilize public transit.
The higher the index value, the lower
the cost of transportation in that
neighborhood.
The higher the index value, the better
the access to employment
opportunities for residents in a
neighborhood.
The higher the index value, the better
the environmental quality of a
neighborhood, where a neighborhood
is a census block-group.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-40
Table 7-12: Opportunity Indices by Race/Ethnicity – Contra Costa County School
Proficiency
Index
Labor
Market
Index
Transit
Trip
Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Environmental
Health Index
Native
American,
Non-Hispanic
47.92 50.96 32.08 86.46 31.05 39.26
Population Below Federal Poverty Line
White, NonHispanic53.57 55.48 29.27 86.99 38.40 40.47
Black, NonHispanic23.53 30.31 51.51 88.92 23.77 25.63
Hispanic 27.11 31.43 43.96 88.74 26.45 29.31
Asian or
Pacific
Islander,
Non-Hispanic
47.64 51.79 42.36 88.62 38.86 28.47
Native
American,
Non-Hispanic
27.08 34.40 46.03 88.11 27.10 25.31
Note: American Community Survey Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. See page 31 for index score meanings.
Source: AFFHT Data Table 12; Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; NATA
EDUCATION
Housing and school policies are mutually reinforcing, which is why it is important to analyze access to educational opportunities when assessing fair housing. At the most general level, school districts with the greatest amount of affordable housing tend to attract larger numbers of LMI families (largely composed of minorities). As test scores reflect student demographics, where Black/Hispanic/Latino students routinely score lower than their White peers, less diverse schools with higher test scores tend to attract higher income families to the school district. This is a fair housing issue because as higher income families move to the area, the overall cost of housing rises and an exclusionary feedback loop is created, leading to increased racial and economic segregation across districts as well as decreased access to highperforming schools for non-White students.
Regional Trends
The 2021 TCAC Opportunity Areas Education Composite Score for a census tract is based on math and reading proficiency, high school graduation rate, and student poverty rate indicators. The score is broken up by quartiles, with the highest quartile indicating more positive education outcomes and the lowest quartile signifying less positive outcomes.
There are 19 public school districts in Contra Costa County, in addition to 124 private schools and 19 charter schools. Map 22 shows that the northwestern and eastern parts of the county have the lowest education domain scores (less than 0.25) per census tracts, especially around Richmond, San Pablo, Pittsburg, Antioch, east of Clayton, and Concord and its northern unincorporated areas. Census tracts with Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-41
the highest education domain scores (greater than 0.75) are located in central and southern parts of the county (bounded by San Ramon on the south; Orinda and Moraga on the west; and Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Clayton, and Brentwood on the north). Overlaying Figures 7-10 and 7-22 reveals that areas with lower education scores correspond with areas with lower-income households (largely composed of minorities) and vice versa. Table 7-12 indicates that index values for school proficiency are higher for White residents, indicating a greater access to high quality schools regardless of poverty status.
Figure 7-22: Regional TCAC Education Scores (2021)
Local Trends
According to www.publicschoolreview.com, two public schools are located within Clayton. The entire City has a TCAC education score above 0.75, which is the most positive education outcome (Figure 7-23). The two public schools in Clayton are within the top 30 and 20 percent of California school rankings based on student test scores (Figure 7-24). The cities of Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill have TCAC scores of 0.50 to
0.75, while the City of Concord has scores mostly below 0.25, with some areas having scores between
0.25 and 0.50 and 0.50 and 0.75.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-42
Figure 7-23: TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Score - Clayton (2021) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-43
Figure 7-24: California Public School Rankings (2021)
TRANSPORTATION
Access to public transit is of paramount importance to households affected by low incomes and rising housing prices, especially because lower-income households are often transit dependent. Access to employment via public transportation can reduce reliance on government subsidies and increase housing mobility, which enables residents to locate housing outside of traditionally low-income neighborhoods.
Transportation opportunities are depicted by two indices: 1) the transit trips index; and 2) the low transportation cost index. The transit trips index measures how often low-income families in a neighborhood use public transportation. The index ranges from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating a higher likelihood that residents in a neighborhood utilize public transit. The low transportation cost index measures cost of transportation and proximity to public transportation by neighborhood. It, too, varies from 0 to 100, and higher scores point to lower transportation costs in that neighborhood.
Regional Trends
In Contra Costa County, neither index, regardless of poverty level, varies noticeably across racial/ethnic categories. All races and ethnicities score highly on both indices, with values close in magnitude. If these Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-44
indices are accurate depictions of transportation accessibility, it might be concluded that all racial and ethnic classes have high and relatively equal access to transportation at both the jurisdictional and regional levels. If anything, both indices appear to take slightly higher values for non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics, suggesting better access to transit and lower costs for these protected groups.
Contra Costa County is served by light and heavy rail, bus, and ferry transit, but the quality of service varies across the county. Much of Contra Costa County is connected to other parts of the East Bay―as well as to San Francisco and San Mateo counties―by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail service. The RichmondWarm Springs/South Fremont and Richmond-Daly City/Millbrae BART Lines serve El Cerrito and Richmond during peak hours, while the Antioch-SFO Line extends eastward from the San Francisco Peninsula and Oakland to serve Orinda, Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Contra Costa Center/Pleasant Hill, Concord, and the Pittsburg/Bay Point station. An eastward extension, commonly known as eBART, began service on May 26, 2018. The extension provides service beyond the Pittsburg/Bay Point station to the Pittsburg Center and Antioch stations. BART is an important form of transportation that helps provide Contra Costa County residents access to jobs and services in other parts of the Bay Area. The Amtrak Capitol Corridor route provides (heavy) rail service between San Jose and Sacramento and serves commuters at stations located in Martinez and Richmond.
In contrast to rail transportation, bus service is much more fragmented in the County and regionally.
Several different bus systems―including Tri-Delta Transit, AC Transit, County Connection, and WestCat― provide local service in different sections of the County. In the Bay Area, 18 different agencies provide bus service. The lack of an integrated network can make it harder for transit riders to understand how to make a trip that spans multiple operators and add costs during a daily commute. For example, an East Bay Regional Local 31-day bus pass is valid on County Connection, Tri-Delta Transit, and WestCAT but cannot be used on AC Transit. Additionally, these bus systems often do not have frequent service. In central Contra Costa, County Connection buses may run as infrequently as every 45 to 60 minutes on some routes.
Within Contra Costa County, transit is generally not as robust as compared to more urban cities in the Bay Area, in despite growing demand for public transportation among the County’s residents. The lack of adequate public transportation makes it more difficult for lower-income people to access jobs. Average transit commutes in Pittsburg and Antioch exceed 70 minutes. In Brentwood, average transit commute times exceed 100 minutes.
Transit agencies that service Contra Costa County include County Connection, Tri Delta Transit, WestCAT, AC Transit, and BART. The County Connection bus system, operated by the Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCCTA), is the largest bus transit system in the county that provides fixed-route and paratransit bus service for communities in Central Contra Costa. Other non-Contra Costa agencies that provide express service to the county include:
• San Francisco Bay Ferry (Richmond to SF Ferry Building) • Golden Gate Transit (Line 40)
• WHEELS Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (Route 70x) • SolTrans (Route 80/82 and the Yellow Line)
• Amtrak Capitol Corridor (Richmond/Martinez to cities between Auburn and San Jose) • Fairfield & Suisun Transit (Intercity express routes) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-45
• Altamont Corridor Express (commute-hour trains from Pleasanton) • Napa Vine Transit (Route 29)
Figure 7-25: Regional Public Transit Access (2021)
Local Trends
The website www.alltransit.org measures the number of transit trips per week a household takes and the number of jobs accessible by transit for a geographic area and assigns a score. Based on these factors, Clayton has an alltransit.org score of 3.1 out of 9+. Clayton has both a low number of trips per week and a low number of jobs accessible by transit. The website estimates that only 14 percent of Clayton residents commute by transit. County Connection provides fixed-route bus service for Clayton to connect to nearby cities and the Concord BART Station. The surrounding cities of Concord, Pleasant Hill, and Walnut Creek have higher alltransit.org scores of 5.5, 5.2, and 4.7 respectively.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-46
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Employment opportunities are indicated by two indices: 1) the labor market engagement index; and 2) the jobs proximity index. The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood, considering the unemployment rate, labor-force participation rate, and percent with a bachelor’s degree or higher. The index ranges from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating higher labor force participation and human capital. The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a neighborhood to jobs in the region by measuring the physical distances between jobs and places of residence. It too varies from 0 to 100, and higher scores point to better accessibility to employment opportunities.
Regional Trends
In Contra Costa County, non-Hispanic Whites and non-Hispanic Asians/Pacific Islanders are at the top of the labor market engagement index with scores of 66.76 and 66.87, respectively. Non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics score the lowest in the county, with scores around 32. (Refer to Table 7-12 for a full list of indices.) Map 26 shows the spatial variability of jobs proximity in Contra Costa County. Tracts extending north from Lafayette to Martinez and surrounding unincorporated areas have the highest index values, followed by directly adjacent areas. Cities like Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, and Hercules have the lowest index scores (less than 20).
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-47
Figure 7-26: Regional Jobs Proximity Index (2021)
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-48
Figure 7-27: Regional TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic Score (2021) Local Trends
Most of Clayton has a jobs proximity index of below 20, which is the furthest proximity (Map 28). The eastern and southern parts of Clayton have a jobs proximity index score between 20 to 40, which corresponds to higher economic scores (Map 29). The southern part of Clayton is closer to the CEMEX quarry, the third largest employer in Clayton as of 2022 according to City records. The nearby City of Concord similarly has some tracts adjacent to Clayton where the job proximity index is below 20. The closer the census tract is to State Route 242 and I-680 and their adjacent commercial corridors, the higher the jobs proximity index score, with some tracts having the closest proximity score of 80 or above. The City of Pleasant Hill has scores of 60 to 80, while tracts further away from the highway have scores of 40 to 60. Walnut Creek has census tracts adjacent to I-680 with a job proximity index of above 80; similar to other cities, this score goes down (between 40 to 60 at the lowest) the farther away the census tract is from the freeways and commercial corridors.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-49
Figure 7-28: Jobs Proximity Index – Clayton (2021)
In Clayton, the City has economic scores of 0.25 to 0.50 0.50 to 0.75. Scores above 0.75 represent the most positive economic outcome while scores below 0.25 are the least positive economic outcome. The economic score accounts for levels of poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home value for the area. Nearby Walnut Creek is similar to Clayton, with most census tracts having scores between 0.25 to 0.50 and 0.50 to 0.75. Pleasant Hill and Concord both have lower economic scores between 0.25 to 0.50 and below 0.25, which is the least positive economic outcome.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-50
Figure 7-29: TCAC Opportunity Area – Economic Score - Clayton (2021)
ENVIRONMENT
The Environmental Health Index summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. Index values range from 0 to 100 and the higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the value on the Environmental Health Index, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block-group. There are modest differences across racial and ethnic groups in neighborhood access to environmental quality. All racial/ethnic groups in Contra Costa County are shown to have moderate scores, ranging from low 40s to mid–50s. Non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics have the lowest scores among all residents in Contra Costa County, with scores of 43, whereas non-Hispanic Whites and Asians/Pacific Islanders have the highest scores (over 50) (refer to Table 7-12).
CalEnviroScreen was developed by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to evaluate pollution sources in a community while accounting for a community’s vulnerability to the adverse effects of pollution. Measures of pollution burden and population characteristics are combined into a single composite score that is mapped and analyzed. Higher values on the index indicate higher cumulative environmental impacts on individuals arising from these burdens and population factors.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-51
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) compiles these scores to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants), CalEnviroScreen also considers socioeconomic factors such as educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment. For the CalEnviroScreen metric, the lower the value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood.
Regional Trends
Figure 7-30 displays the Environmental Score for Contra Costa County based on CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Pollution Indicators and Values that identify communities in California disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution and that face vulnerability due to socioeconomic factors. The highest scoring 25 percent of census tracts were designated as disadvantaged communities. In Contra Costa County, disadvantaged communities include census tracts in North Richmond, Richmond, Pittsburg, San Pablo, Antioch, Rodeo, and Oakley.
Figure 7-30: Regional TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environmental Score (2021) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-52
Figure 7-31 shows updated scores for CalEnviroscreen 4.0 released by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Adverse environmental impacts are concentrated around the northern border of the County (Bay Point to Pittsburg) and the western County border (Richmond to Pinole). Areas around Concord to Antioch have moderate scores, and the rest of the County has relatively low scores. From central Contra Costa County, the data display an almost radial gradient effect of green to red (least to most pollution).
Figure 7-31: Regional CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (2021)
Local Trends
The entire City of Clayton has a CalEnviroScreen 4.0 score of 24 percent or lower, which indicates fewer adverse environmental impacts. Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill have scores between 25 to 49 percent, while Concord has score of 50 to 75 percent and 75 percent or higher, indicating more adverse environmental impacts.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-53
Figure 7-32: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 - Clayton (2021)
HEALTH AND RECREATION
Residents should have the opportunity to live a healthy life and live in healthy communities. The Healthy Places Index (HPI) is a tool that allows local officials to diagnose and change community conditions that affect health outcomes and the wellbeing of residents. The HPI tool was developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California to assist in comparing community conditions across the State and combined 25 community characteristics such as housing, education, economic, and social factors into a single indexed HPI Percentile Score, where lower percentiles indicate lower conditions.
Regional Trends
Figure 7-33 shows the HPI percentile score distributions for Contra Costa County. The majority of the County falls in the two highest categories, indicating healthy conditions. Cities with the highest percentile ranking, which indicates less healthy conditions, are Pittsburg, San Pablo, and Richmond, as well as portions of Concord.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-54
Figure 7-33: Regional Healthy Places Index (2021)
Local Trends
The entire City of Clayton has a HPI score of 75 to 100 which indicates healthier conditions (Figure 7-34).
Walnut Creek and Pleasant Hill have the same healthy places index score while Concord has census tracts with scores of 25 to 50 and a small area with a score of 0 to 25, which indicates less healthy conditions.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-55
Figure 7-34: Healthy Places Index - Clayton (2021)
DISPROPORTIONATE NEEDS
Disproportionate housing needs generally refers to a condition in which significant disparities exist in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) developed by the U.S. Census for HUD provides detailed information on housing needs by income level for different types of households in Contra Costa County. Housing problems considered by CHAS include:
• Housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income • Severe housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income • Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room) • Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-56
According to the Contra Costa County AI, a total of 164,994 households (43.9 percent) in the County experience any one of the above housing problems; 85,009 households (22.62 percent) experience severe housing problems. Based on relative percentage, Hispanic households experience the highest rate of housing problems regardless of severity, followed by Black households and Other races. Table 7-13 lists the demographics of households with housing problems in the County.
Table 7-13: Demographics of Households with Housing Problems in Contra Costa County Total Number of
Households
Households with Housing
Problems
Households with Severe Housing
Problems
White 213,302 80,864 37.91% 38,039 17.83%
Black 34,275 19,316 56.36% 10,465 30.53%
Asian/Pacific
Islander
51,353 21,640 42.14% 10,447 20.34%
Native American 1,211 482 39.80% 203 16.76%
Other 10,355 5,090 49.15% 2,782 26.87%
Hispanic 65,201 37,541 57.58% 23,002 35.28%
Total 375,853 164,994 43.90% 85,009 22.62%
Source: Contra Costa County AI (2020)
Significant disparities are apparent between the rates of housing problems that larger families (households of five or more people) experience and the rates of housing problems that families of five or fewer people experience. Larger families tend to experience housing problems more than smaller families.
Non-family households in Contra Costa experience housing problems at a higher rate than smaller family households, but at a lower rate than larger family households. Table 7-14 lists the number of households with housing problems according to household type.
Table 7-14: Household Type and Size in Contra Costa County Household Type No. of Households with Housing Problems
Family Households (< 5 people) 85,176
Family Households (> 5 people) 26,035
Non-family Households 53,733
Source: Contra Costa County AI (2020)
COST BURDEN (OVERPAYMENT)
Housing cost burden, or overpayment, is defined as households paying 30 percent or more of their gross income on housing expenses, including rent or mortgage payments and utilities. Renters are more likely to overpay for housing costs than homeowners. Housing cost burden is considered a housing need because households that overpay for housing costs may have difficulty affording other necessary expenses, such as childcare, transportation, and medical costs.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-57
Regional Trends
Figure 7-35 identifies concentrations of cost-burdened renter households in and around San Pablo, Pittsburg, Antioch, west Brentwood and Oakley, East San Ramon, and northern parts of Concord. In these tracts, over 80 percent of renters experience cost burdens. The majority of east Contra Costa has 60 to 80 percent of renter households that experience cost burdens; west Contra Costa has 20 to 40 percent of renter households that experience cost burdens. Census tracts with a low percentage of cost-burdened households are located between San Ramon and Martinez on a north-south axis. In these tracts, less than 20 percent of renter households experience cost burdens.
Figure 7-35: Regional Overpayment by Renters (2021)
Local Trends
As presented in Table 7-15, 42 percent of all households in Clayton experience cost burdens. This rate is higher for renter households, with 55 percent experiencing cost burdens, than owner households, with 41 percent experiencing cost burdens. In comparison, Contra Costa County residents overall have a higher rate of cost burden (52 percent). Renters in Contra Costa County experience cost burdens at higher rates than owners (72.8 percent compared to 40.6 percent).
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-58
Table 7-15: Households that Experience Cost Burden by Tenure in Contra Costa County and Clayton Contra Costa County
Total Number of
Households
Cost burden > 30% Cost burden > 50% Percentage of Households that Experience Cost Burden
Owners Only 257,530 74,545 30,010 40.6%
Renters Only 134,750 65,055 33,040 72.8%
All
Households
392,280 139,595 63,050 51.6%
Clayton
Total Number of
Households
Cost burden > 30% Cost burden > 50% Percentage of Households that Experience Cost Burden
Owners Only 3,920 1,095 530 41%
Renters Only 280 95 60 55%
All
Households
4,200 1,185 590 42%
Source: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp.html Most of Clayton census tracts have 40 to 60 percent of overpayment by renters(Map 36). A concentration of tracts occurs in western Clayton, where overpayment by renters falls below 40 percent. This area may be spillover from surrounding areas, as this trend is not explained by other trends in Clayton. The City of Concord has areas of higher rates of overpayment―between 60 to 80 percent―but mostly tracts with overpayment by 40 to 60 percent. Pleasant Hill has tracts with renters overpaying between 20 to 40 percent, 40 to 60 percent, and 60 to 80 percent. In Walnut Creek, depending upon location, households experience overpayment by 20 to 40 percent and 40 to 60 percent, and unlike the other cities, concentrations exist where overpayment by renters is below 20 percent.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-59
Figure 7-36: Overpayment by Renters – Clayton (2021)
OVERCROWDED HOUSEHOLDS
Overcrowding is defined as housing units with more than one person per room (including dining and living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen).
Regional Trends
Figure 7-37 indicates that Contra Costa County in general has low levels of overcrowded households.
Tracts in San Pablo, Richmond, and Pittsburg with higher percentages of non-White population show higher concentrations of overcrowded households compared to the rest of the county. Monument Corridor, the only official R/ECAP in Contra Costa County, a predominantly Hispanic community in Concord, also exhibits more overcrowding than other parts of the County.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-60
Figure 7-37: Regional Overcrowded Households by Tract (2015) Local Trends
According to the 2019 five-year ACS estimates and as displayed in Table 7-16, 2.6 percent of County households are overcrowded. Clayton has lower overcrowding rates, with only 1 percent for overcrowded and 0 percent severely overcrowded households. Only owner-occupied households have rates of overcrowding (at 1 percent), while there was no overcrowding or severe overcrowding reported for renters. In the County, overcrowding and severe overcrowding rates are higher for renters, at 6.9 and 2.5 percent, respectively.
Table 7-16: Overcrowded Households – Contra Costa County and Clayton Contra Costa County Clayton
Overcrowded (>1.0
persons per room)
Severely
Overcrowded
(>1.5 persons per
room)
Overcrowded (>1.0
persons per room)
Severely
Overcrowded
(>1.5 persons per
room)
Owner-Occupied 1.1% 0.2% 1% 0%
Renter-Occupied 6.9% 2.5% 0% 0%
All HH 2.6% 0.8% 1% 0%
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019. Table B25014 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-61
Figure 7-38 shows that the entire City has less than 8.2 percent of tracts with overcrowded households.
The surrounding cities of Concord and Walnut Creek generally have a similar percentage below 8.2 percent, though Concord has some areas along the Monument Boulevard corridor reporting higher rates of overcrowding above 70 percent.
Figure 7-38: Concentration of Overcrowded Households - Clayton (2021) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-62
SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS
Incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities can be used to measure substandard housing conditions.
Regional Trends
According to 2015–2019 ACS estimates, shown in Table 7-17, 0.86 percent of households in Contra Costa County lack complete kitchen facilities and 0.39 percent of households lack complete plumbing facilities. Renter households are more likely to lack complete facilities compared to owner households.
Local Trends
Clayton households do not have any record of owner or renter units lacking complete kitchen or plumbing facilities (Table7-17).
Table 7-17: Substandard Housing Conditions – Contra Costa County and Clayton Contra Costa County Clayton
Owner Renter All HHs Owner Renter All HHs
Lacking complete
kitchen facilities
0.19% 0.67% 0.86% 0% 0% 0%
Lacking complete
plumbing
facilities
0.19% 0.20% 0.39% 0% 0% 0%
Source: Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019, table B25053, B25049
DISPLACEMENT RISK
Displacement occurs when housing costs or neighboring conditions force current residents out and rents become so high that lower-income people are excluded from moving in. The University of California at Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project states that a census tract is a sensitive community if the proportion of very low-income residents was above 20 percent in 2017 and the census tracts meet two of the following criteria: 1) share of renters above 40 percent in 2017; 2) share of Non-White population above 50 percent in 2017; 3) share of very low-income households (50 percent AMI or below) that are also severely rent burdened households above the county median in 2017; or 4) nearby areas have been experiencing displacement pressures.
Regional Trends
Using this methodology, sensitive communities were identified in areas between El Cerrito and Pinole; Pittsburg, Antioch and Clayton; East Brentwood; and unincorporated land in Bay Point. Small pockets of Sensitive Communities are also found in central Contra Costa County from Lafayette toward Concord (refer to Figure 7-39).
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-63
Figure 7-39: Regional Sensitive Communities at Risk of Displacement by Tract (2021) Local Trends
There were no sensitive communities identified in Clayton as of 2021 (Figure 7-40). The nearby cities of Concord and Walnut Creek both have areas identified as sensitive communities subject to potential displacement.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-64
Figure 7-40: Sensitive Communities (UCB, Urban Displacement Project) – Clayton (2021)
CONCLUSIONS
The table below summarizes the issues identified in this Assessment of Fair Housing.
Table 7-18: Fair Housing Summary
Fair Housing Issue Summary
Integration and Segregation
Low to Moderate Income Populations Western Clayton has census tracts where the LMI population rises to 25 to 50 percent.
Housing Choice Voucher Use The western edge of Clayton with experiences HCV use between 5 and 15 percent.
Median Income The eastern part of Clayton has households with income levels below $30,000 and the western part of
Clayton has households with income levels below
$125,000 which is lower than the rest of the City.
Access to Opportunities
Transportation The City receives a 3 out of 9+ score for transportation according to AllTransit
Economic Most of Clayton has a jobs proximity index of below 20 (the furthest proximity), with only the southern part of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7-65
Fair Housing Issue Summary
Integration and Segregation
the City receiving scores between 20 to 40. TCAC
economic score are between .50 to .75 and .25 to .50,
with .75 indicating a more positive economic
outcome.
Disproportionate Housing Needs
Cost Burden 42 percent of all Clayton households experience a cost burden, this percentage is higher for renters (55
percent) than owners (41 percent).
Overpayment by Renters Almost all of clayton renter households experience overpayment between 40 to 60 percent.
Contributing Factors
A number of factors may contribute to the fair housing issues identified in Clayton:
• High cost of living – Median rent in Clayton is above $2,500 and median property value is $771,4003
• Small workforce – As of 2019 the employed population of Clayton was 5,920, only 48 percent of the total population4
• Homogenous population – 74.6 percent of Clayton residents are non-Hispanic White • Limited expansion – Clayton is mostly built out and constrained by geographics features to the east and south
Meaningful Actions
• Prioritize alternate and affordable housing types like accessory dwelling units, transitional housing, and supportive housing for individuals unable to afford the high cost of rent and home prices by streamlining zoning and fees and offering incentives. This will also contribute to more diverse individuals being able to move into the City and may encourage younger families to establish roots.
• Prioritize capital improvement projects to bring greater alternative mobility connectivity into, out of, and within Clayton (transit, bicycle infrastructure, sidewalks). This can help to provide more economic opportunities in Clayton by attracting more businesses and allow lower income families without personal vehicles to live in the City.
• Create inclusionary requirements for new housing to allow a more diverse population access to housing in Clayton.
3 Datausa.io
4 Datausa.io
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 8-1
8. Community Engagement and
Outreach
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Housing Element must reflect the values and preferences of the community. Therefore, public participation plays an important role in the development of this Element. Section 65583(c)(7) of the Government Code states: “The local government shall make diligent efforts to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort.” This process not only includes residents of the community but also coordinates participation among local agencies and housing groups, community organizations, and housing sponsors.
Engaging the public in the early stages of the decision-making process can help ensure that programming and policies have public support and reflect community values. Including and involving residents in the process helps policy makers and officials gain a stronger understanding of these values and the ideas and recommendations that members of the community believe can advance housing goals. Along with a better understanding of community values, meaningful community engagement keeps residents informed and cultivates trust in public processes.
Community engagement for the City of Clayton’s Housing Element included a project webpage, stakeholder interviews, community workshops, and online surveys. Joint and separate work sessions were also conducted with the City Council and Planning Commission to introduce the goals, objectives, scope, and timeline of the Housing Element. Outreach for the sixth cycle Housing Element was challenging because much of the update process occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Restrictions on public gatherings prevented the City from holding traditional public workshops. Instead, the City utilized newspaper articles and virtual engagement tools such as online surveys, e-mails, social media posts and web-based meeting platforms to connect with the public. An extensive and direct effort at outreach, facilitated by the City’s Mayor and Vice-Mayor with support from community volunteers, consisted of printing and City-wide delivery of doorhangers to residences with information about the Housing Element, directions to where additional information about the Housing Element could be found online, and an invitation to participate in an online housing planning simulation.
Prior to initiating the Housing Element update, the City had engaged a consultant to lead a community engagement effort to identify preferred uses of a City-owned vacant property in Downtown Clayton. As that work got underway, the City recognized the efficiencies of combining that effort with the Housing Element sites identification task, since the City-owned property represents a potential site for new housing. Thus, this approach was adopted.
Community Engagement and Outreach
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 8-2
PROJECT WEBPAGE
The City launched a project webpage (https://claytonca.gov/community-development/housing /housingelement/) to provide content and periodic updates on the Housing Element program, as well as for documents to be uploaded for public review and to announce community engagement opportunities.
Residents were also able to find answers to Frequently Asked Questions, review a glossary of terms, and follow the project schedule on the webpage. A “Housing Element” button that directed site visitors directly to the project webpage was added in a prominent location on the main City homepage.
STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
The Housing Element consultant team met with City Council members and Planning Commissioners at the beginning of the Housing Element process to identify key issues, challenges, opportunities, and potential strategies to address housing needs. Due to COVID-19 constraints, the interviews were conducted via phone or online video conferencing. The guiding questions and key findings from the conversations can be found on the Housing Element webpage.
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION (SEPTEMBER 28, 2021) On September 28, 2021, the City conducted a joint City Council and Planning Commission study session to introduce the consultant team, present the requirements and process of updating the Housing Element, and communicate the roles of the Council and Commission in the process. During the work session, the City reviewed the community engagement strategy and plan, provided preliminary direction to the project team, presented a timeline of next steps, and provided an opportunity to hear initial public comments.
No further comments were recorded. Refer to the Appendix for the PowerPoint presentation for the session.
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 (OCTOBER 20, 2021)
On October 20, 2021, the City conducted an online community workshop using video conferencing to gather input from residents regarding their vision for Clayton’s future, housing needs, and potential locations for new housing. Twentytwo members of the public attended the workshop. The workshop began
with an introduction of the team and
a live polling session to better
understand the demographic of
attendees. The presentation then
provided an overview of the Housing
Element’s intent, content, local
housing needs, and potential housing
strategies. The presentation was
followed by a facilitated discussion
regarding housing issues with a realtime digital whiteboard.
Community Engagement and Outreach
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 8-3
Housing Element law requires that targeted outreach occur to often underrepresented households, such as minority, low- and moderate-income, and special needs residents. Clayton’s population is relatively homogenous, with 75 percent reporting as White, 10 percent as Hispanic, 2 percent as Black, and around 8 percent as Asian/Pacific Islander (and the rest as “other”). Regarding household income, 79.8 percent are above moderate, 4.8 percent moderate, and the balance of 15.1 percent lower income. In addition to advertising the workshop on the Housing Element webpage and main City homepage, the City posted paper copies of the workshop announcement on three posting boards located at City Hall, the Clayton Library and in Town Center; placed paper copies of the announcement at the Clayton Library; posted virtual copies of the announcement on the City’s homepage and social media site (Next Door); and emailed the announcement to representatives of the Clayton Business and Community Association, local church representatives, for-profit and non-profit developers of housing in Clayton, and individuals who had expressed an interest in housing in the City. At the October 19, 2021, meeting of the City Council, the City Manager also made an announcement about the date and time of the workshop and extended an invitation for the public to attend. A summary of the workshop is provided in the Appendix.
Key themes that emerged from the discussion included:
• Housing affordability
• Diversity and inclusivity
• Importance of community events for drawing the community together • Providing housing for young adults and seniors
• Maintaining Clayton’s character through consistency in design between new and existing development
• Need for housing variety: smaller units, multi-family housing (semi-detached homes, duplexes, ADUs)
• Concerns about lack of infrastructure to support large development projects • Use of vacant properties for new housing
At the end of the session, the City and consultant team encouraged participantsto stay involved by visiting the Housing Element website and taking the upcoming online survey, and highlighted that there would be additional workshops and opportunities for residents to continue to participate. Refer to the Appendix for the workshop presentation, findings, and digital whiteboard.
PLACE-BASED HOUSING ELEMENT SURVEY (NOVEMBER 5 – DECEMBER 10, 2021) The City’s consultant developed a map-based on-line community survey to learn from residents where they believe the most appropriates sites for new housing are in Clayton. The online questionnaire was available starting on November 5, 2021 and was closed on December 13, 2021. It included several questions focused on housing issues and challenges, possible strategies and solutions for the City, locations for new housing, the community vision and goals, and optional questions to gather demographic information. The survey also incorporated questions regarding the City-owned property in Downtown.
Members of the community were invited to provide input on the site’s development direction and to submit photos or drawings to support their vision for the site. Concept images were also embedded in the survey to assist those who did not have their own images to share.
Community Engagement and Outreach
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 8-4
The questionnaire was available in English. The City promoted the questionnaire through its website and social media channels, at public meetings and facilities, and through the local monthly newspaper, the Concord Clayton Pioneer. City Council members, Planning Commissioners, and community groups were encouraged to share the link on their social media channels and email lists, as well as colleagues, friends, and neighbors. The survey was accessed over 450 times on-line, demonstrating wide reach and successful publication, although fewer than 450 people finished the survey or answered every question. All questions were optional.
While survey results should not be interpreted as statistically representative, the results help identify common and shared themes, concerns, and priorities. The survey provided insights into community priorities and needs. The following are notable results and themes from the questionnaire results. • Over half (56 percent) of respondents said they were in favor of the potential growth increase in housing in Clayton. Most in support of more housing also indicated concerns about possible impacts of growth.
• When asked to rank the importance of housing issues and challenges in the City, respondents listed traffic and congestion (69 percent), preserving community character (67 percent), limited infrastructure (65 percent), and overcrowding (64 percent) as the top issues, with a 10 out of 10 ranking.
• A lack of diverse housing options (34 percent) and housing supply (30 percent) were the least important housing issues, with several participants ranking these issues 1 out of 10. • When asked to rank the strategies or solutions that are appropriate for Clayton, participants indicated that supporting homeowners who want to build ADUs or in-law units on single-family lots (38 percent) and encouraging the rehabilitation of existing housing in older neighborhoods (21 percent) were the top options, with a 10 out of 10 ranking. • Providing shelters and transitional housing for homeless families and individuals, along with services that help move people into permanent housing (48 percent) and targeting efforts to address long-term inequities in the housing market (42 percent) were the least important strategies, with several respondents ranking these issues 1 out of 10. • A quarter of respondents indicated that new housing should blend in with the character of surrounding neighborhoods (25 percent), and nearly a quarter of respondents said that new housing should be located where it will have the least impact on traffic (22 percent).
With respect to the Downtown site:
• Respondents were most supportive of entertainment and commercial uses (30 percent) for the site, followed by arts and cultural uses (20 percent) and commercial uses (18 percent). • Of all the concept images for example housing types for the Downtown site shown in the survey, participants indicated the highest level of support for mixed-use housing combined with dining, retail, and grocery stores.
• Of all the concept images for example housing types for the Downtown site shown in the survey, participants indicated the lowest level of support for new apartments/condominiums, commercial offices, townhomes, and entertainment/arts center.
See Appendix for the survey administered and a complete survey summary.
Community Engagement and Outreach
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 8-5
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ON HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS (JANUARY 4, 2022) On January 4, 2022, City staff provided a progress report to the City Council on the Housing Element update to allow for discussion and to have the Council direct staff regarding draft housing element goals.
The progress report introduced preliminary housing opportunity sites and briefed the Council on planned community engagement opportunities, potential need to rezone properties to support the RHNA, and the schedule for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Key issues brought forward by members of the public included:
• The importance of the Housing Element in light of increasing rent prices, unattainable homes with average prices over $1,000,000, and the lack of affordable housing near jobs and transit that could push out long-standing members of the community
• Providing measurable goals with respect to the climate crisis and the need to manage climate risk and increase climate resilience through energy in the built environment and nature-based solutions
• Suggestion to remove Site J from the preliminary opportunity sites due to its proximity to an existing quarry and its role in carbon sequestration and wildfire mitigation as an open space • Request for more community engagement efforts moving forward City staff shared with the City Council two letters that they received from Greenbelt Alliance and East Bay for Everyone, with other partnering community organizations undersigned. The letters included housing policy recommendations for climate resilience and comments on specific sites identified in the preliminary site analysis.
See the Appendix for the meeting agenda and complete letters.
PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION ON THE HOUSING ELEMENT, CEQA, AND BALANCING ACT DEMONSTRATION (FEBRUARY 22, 2022)
City staff provided a work program status report to the Planning Commission on February 22, 2022. This included a demonstration of the public engagement opportunity consisting of a housing planning simulation (Balancing Act) to be posted to the City website at the end of February 2022.
Only one public comment was recorded for the session, with the person asking whether all housing was proposed to occur on one site. The commenter was informed that the Housing Element would include potential housing units on multiple sites and that the Housing Element included the entire city, not one discrete location.
BALANCING ACT HOUSING SIMULATION (FEBRUARY 25 - APRIL 3, 2022) Between February 25 and April 3, 2022, the City offered an opportunity for residents and other interested parties to participate in the Clayton Housing Balancing Act simulation. The Balancing Act Community Survey is a virtual simulation. For Clayton, participants reviewed 15 vacant and underutilized sites in the city and were asked what density of housing they preferred to see on each site. Participants started with a default density of either 2 or 3 units per acre on each site and were allowed to change density in Community Engagement and Outreach
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 8-6
increments of 1 unit per acre; changes could be made to reflect density as low as 0 units per acre if they did not want to see housing on a site and up to as many as 30 units per acre.
To announce the opportunity to participate, City staff used the following approaches:
1. Demonstration of Balancing Act at the regular Planning Commission meeting of February 22, 2022
2. Flyers on three community posting boards located near City Hall, the Clayton Library, and in the Town Center; copies of the flyers were also available for visitors to take from the lobby of the library.
3. E-mails to persons and organizations who expressed interest in the Housing Element Update process and virtual
announcements on Next Door and on the City’s homepage
at www.claytonca.gov
4. Volunteer effort facilitated by the City’s Mayor and Vice Mayor to place door hangers on each residence in the City All printed and virtual announcements included a QR code linked directly to the Housing Element page, as well as directions for how to access the City's Housing Element webpage without using the QR code. A link to the simulation and a brief introductory video message from the Mayor were embedded at the top of the Housing Element webpage.
In the 38 days the simulation was accessible to the public, it was accessed 382 times, with each participant spending an average of 16 minutes and 17 seconds within the program. At the time of closing of the simulation on April 4, 2022, a total of 44 housing plans had been submitted.
See the Appendix for a complete summary of respondent demographics (age and neighborhood of residence), submitted housing plans, and written comments.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Through the project environmental review process, residents also had the opportunity to weigh in on the housing plan and related environmental impacts. The Notice of Preparation period extended from March 2 through April 4, 2022. The City conducted an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) scoping session on March 8, 2022 as part of a Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting, a meeting attendee commented that there are regional and global environmental benefits of density with respect to increasing housing affordability and reducing vehicle miles and vehicle air emissions, and he encouraged building more units than the City’s RHNA. A second speaker requested that the EIR include an analysis of potential housing impacts on schools and referenced a school district report that projected that Clayton’s elementary school would reach capacity. In addition to spoken comments voiced at the scoping session, the City received two written comment letters in response to the NOP, from the California Department of Transportation and the Native American Heritage Commission.
Community Engagement and Outreach
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 8-7
As required by law, the EIR circulated for a 45-day public review period, and responses to public comments were prepared to produce the Final EIR for public hearings.
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2
(TO BE COMPLETED FOLLOWING THE WORKSHOP)
Attachment 2
From: William P. Jordan
To: Dana Ayers; Janet Calderon
Subject: Housing Element Item on Agenda
Date: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 4:59:21 PM
Please consider adding 6530 and 6500 Marsh Creek Rd. to have 30 units as you have done to 6470 Marsh Creek Rd.
Also, the commission should know construction documents for all three building permits are finished and Dana has received architectural and landscape last week for her review.
Once approved, we’ll submit to county.
Btw, its dicey down at the county building department for permits and we are hopeful to get them by deadline.
Time is of the essence for our submittals.
Sent from my iPhone
From: T Cianfrano
To: Housing Element
Subject: New Housing Element requirements
Date: Friday, May 20, 2022 9:00:00 AM
Much as been said about the impact of adding 560 units in this round of the housing element. For the most part, the impacts have focused on traffic, air quality, fire escape routes, etc . No one has addressed the impact on the water supply to support this and other proposed growth. The only factor considered is the need for “affordable” housing. These homes can be built much faster than infrastructure components.
All indications is that the drought will continue and in fact, worsen due to climate change. What is being done to address “ALL” impacts?
Sent from Mail for Windows
May 9, 2022
Dana Ayers (via email - [email protected])
Community Development Director
City of Clayton
6000 Heritage Trail
Clayton, CA 94517
To Whom It May Concern,
East Bay for Everyone and the undersigned organizations write to provide comments on the City of Clayton’s progress towards a draft 6th Cycle Housing Element and following up on our January 4th letter(linked below).
The previous letter described site-specific feedback and concerns. We have not yet received a response to that letter and the city has proceeded with the EIR with the same site list. We write to inform the city that we do not think the city is on track to have a compliant housing element and offer the additional guidance:
Gather input from developers:
Local housing developers should act as a resource to offer guidance on the barriers to development in Clayton especially given a history of long delayed developments like The Olivia on Marsh Creek, a site which was included in the 4th and 5th Housing Element cycle, was rezoned in 2011 and is still not developed over 10 years later.
Buffer on sites:
From HCD’s Housing Element Sites Inventory Guidebook “it is recommended the jurisdiction create a buffer in the housing element inventory of at least 15 to 30 percent more capacity than required”(emphasis added).
Given that Clayton has built zero Low Income sites in the last 7 years, a buffer of 20% is illogical and will likely lead to the same poor results as before. Clayton should be planning for 2 to 3 times the RHNA allocation in order to have any chance of meeting this requirement.
Lot Coverage, Height, Parking etc
From HCD’s Housing Element Sites Inventory Guidebook:
“When establishing realistic unit capacity calculations, the jurisdiction must consider the cumulative impact of standards such as maximum lot coverage, height, open space, parking, on-site improvements such as sidewalks or easements, and floor area ratios” Given Clayton’s low rate of development, the city must reduce these barriers, removing height limits, lot coverage requirements, parking minimums and other obvious restrictions on development.
Infill housing for Environmental Benefits
By building more homes in already established urban areas, Clayton can avoid paving over trees and habitats that serve as heat sinks and carbon banks, all of which provide high-value climate benefits. It is critical to support growth in safe infill locations and streamline the permitting process when appropriate, while still allowing for a public process, requiring environmental review, and rewarding jurisdictions that meet housing goals. To support this, please refer to Greenbelt Alliance’s Resilience Playbook.
Evidence of Site Suitability:
HCD’s Housing Element Sites Inventory Guidebook states “[t]o demonstrate the feasibility of development … the analysis must include … Evidence that the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing. Evidence could include developer interest, potential for lot consolidation, densities that allow sufficient capacity for a typical affordable housing project, and other information that can demonstrate to HCD the feasibility of the site for development.” Clayton has not provided sufficient evidence that the sites on this inventory are suitable. See previous letter for site-specific feedback explaining why sites are not feasible.
Sincerely,
Maxwell Davis
East Bay for Everyone
Zoe Siegal
Greenbelt Alliance
Zac Bowling
East Bay YIMBY
Rafa Sonnefeld
YIMBY Law
cc: [email protected]
Link to Jan 4, 2022 letter:
https://eastbayforeveryone.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/2022-01-04-clayton-site-inventory-l etter.pdf
From: Contra Costa County Climate Leaders (4CL)
To: Letecia “Holly” Tillman; Letecia “Holly” Tillman; Carl "CW" Wolfe; Carl "CW" Wolfe; Jim Diaz; Jeff Wan; Jeff Wan; Peter Cloven; Peter Cloven; Reina Schwartz; Janet Calderon; Housing Element Cc: [email protected]; "Karen Rosenberg"; "Tyler Snortum-Phelps"; [email protected] Subject: General Plan and Housing City of Clayton
Date: Thursday, January 6, 2022 9:21:05 AM
Letecia "Holly" Tillman Council Member [email protected] ; [email protected] Carl Wolfe Mayor [email protected]; [email protected] Jim Diaz Council Member [email protected]
Jeff Wan Council Member [email protected] ; [email protected] Peter Cloven Vice Mayor [email protected] ; [email protected] Reina Schwartz Interim City Mgr. [email protected] Janet Calderon City Clerk [email protected]
[email protected]
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,
Thank you for the public hearing this week on the update of the City of Clayton’s General Plan, Housing Element.
Per my public comments Contra Cosa Count Climate Leaders (4CL) requests:
PUBLIC INPUT: Despite the council mentioning the need for public input and for folks to take the survey. It seems that the survey has been shut down for public input. We agree that the survey should be republished and continue--- and that a more robust effort to get input should be made. We apreciated the councilmember’s comment that it should be made clear that this is a plan in place for the next decade, and that it is important to express to your residents-- the urgency of their input needed for this important planning process.
SUSTAINABLE AND ADDRESS THE CLIMATE CRISIS. We agree with councilmembers comments that it was wise to more directly encourage Energy Efficiency in one of the stated goals; however, the other goals are quite broad and don’t really provide much direction to the Planning Commission. We ask that as elected officials, you direc the planning commission to incorporate mitigation for the climate crisis in their planning.
As noted, other than transportation (which contributes the greatest portion of Greenhouse gas emissions), it is the build environment where your city can have the most impact, Please ensure your housing element provides options to build more infill housing in existing urban areas and include climate and energy mitigations to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
TRACK AND MONITOR. Further, as requested, please ensure that you consider real Measirable goals in your housing element. And ensure they are reviewed at east annually to monitor and reduce the carbon footprint of any new proposed housing.
As noted, low energy and low cost housing will pass on those cost saving to the residents of these affordable homes; providing Clayton with a win win solution that addresses housing and the climate crisis.
Please keep us on the email outreach list for General Plan updates. [email protected]
Please consider these Best practices that other local governments are providing in their General Plan Updates.
https://www.cccclimateleaders.org/workshops/general-plan-updating/ And we look forward to working with you!
Lynda Deschambault
Environmental Scientist and Educator
Former USEPA
Former Mayor Moraga, CA
Executive Director, www.cccclimateleaders.org
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Zoom <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Jan 4, 2022, 11:02 PM
Subject: Virtual Clayton City Council Meeting Confirmation To: <[email protected]>
January 3, 2022
RE: Housing Policy Recommendations for Climate Resilience Dear Mayor Peter Cloven, Vice Mayor Holly Tillman and City Council, The undersigned organizations and individuals are excited to participate in Clayton’s Housing Element process. We write to offer guidance to Clayton in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goals during the upcoming Housing Element cycle that we believe will make room for more families to enjoy everything Clayton has to offer while ensuring that it is deemed compliant. This is a once in a decade moment for Clayton to make pivotal progress on climate change by modernizing local policies to build more housing in the right places and protect open spaces. The challenge of building enough housing to bridge the gap also brings opportunity for Clayton to incorporate climate policies into their Housing Element by building the right kind of housing in the right places while protecting our valuable open spaces and irreplaceable farmland.
The Housing Element is an excellent opportunity for Clayton to mitigate climate change and negative environmental impacts in Clayton. In California, about 40% of climate pollution comes from transportation, the bulk of that from gasoline- and diesel-burning vehicles on our roads.
Building more of the right housing in the right places can mitigate climate impacts and reduce housing costs and inequities. But in order to do this we need to change the way we build: as we encourage and engage in equitable, fire-safe infill development, it is imperative that we think about how we can really maximize the benefits that we’re getting from our land. We need to build more infill housing in existing urban areas and that infill housing — and all housing — needs to include a healthy amount of green infrastructure like bioswales, carbon sequestering trees that provide canopy cover and can mitigate the urban heat island effect, native plants that can provide habitat, and other nature-based solutions to climate risks.
We believe that by adjusting zoning and development standards strategically, Clayton can exercise maximum control over its future while also reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and addressing our climate, housing, and equity crises. By considering the feasibility of proposed housing sites, Clayton can ensure the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) deems the new housing element legally compliant and accepts Clayton’s housing element. 1 As Clayton begins their update process, we would like to offer three priorities to base Clayton’s policies and actions around.
1. Increase density within existing communities in non-high fire severity zones and away from flood zones. We must build more housing in existing communities to create healthy, resilient, and affordable housing and protect our open spaces to provide climate benefits. Concentrating growth in places with low or even moderate wildfire hazard risk and outside of anticipated flood zones is necessary to address the need for building more homes while avoiding unnecessary pressure for sprawl and unsustainable shoreline development. a. Clayton has many commercial sites that could be strengthened through the addition of mixed-income or affordable housing. Large parking lots and setbacks of legacy office development represent opportunities to create mixed-uses that lower greenhouse gas emissions, create vitality and increase walkability. b. Increase heights and remove restrictions on density in non-fire or flood severity areas where existing or new high-capacity transit is planned to encourage housing and the creation of mixed-use corridors.
2. Ensure fair and inclusive zoning policies that make housing accessible to everyone.
The compounding crises of climate change and housing affordability disproportionately impact low-income and communities of color. In order to address our housing, climate, and equity crises, we need to change the stigma around multifamily home structures.
Furthermore, current housing policies have resulted in people being unable to afford to live where they work, creating long unsustainable commutes—both for the environment and for our social fabric. Cities need to actively plan for diverse housing options that are accessible to people of all backgrounds and income levels using the principles of Fair Housing. a. Affordable Housing - Sites to meet Clayton’s low and very low-income RHNA should focus on feasibility. This means identifying good locations near transit, schools and jobs. Such sites will ensure that affordable housing developers seeking will be competitive in applying for funding. Pleasanton also should try to align such the densities of these opportunity sites with affordable housing finance mechanisms.
Typical Low-Income Housing Tax Credit affordable housing developments contain between 40 and 75 units. The density yields of sites should reflect this rather than simply reverting to the statutory minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre for low-income and very low-income housing under RHNA (the so-called Mullin Densities) regardless of the size of the site.
b. Missing Middle – Clayton should also focus on creating opportunities for “missing middle” housing like townhouses and duplexes. In Clayton, 90.4% of housing is owner occupied, the majority of which is single-family homes. Multifamily housing provides housing opportunities for families who cannot afford to buy or rent single-family homes in Clayton.
3. Require nature-based solutions for climate resilience in future developments. To ensure that Clayton’s current and future homes are resilient to climate risks like wildfire and flooding, Clayton must be better equipped to help communities struck by natural disasters rebuild and respond rapidly and inclusively. Clayton should require developers to integrate green infrastructure into development and the public right-of-way adjacent to developments at a level that exceeds water quality mandates and ensures that the community has an opportunity to provide input. New infill development has the opportunity to rejuvenate parts 2 of Clayton that currently contribute negatively to GHG emissions, urban heat islands and pose fire and flood risks.
a. Implement nature-based adaptation - or consider relocating - critical public assets threatened by sea-level rise or rising groundwater.
b. Require and incentivize green infrastructure in future developments and when possible, use green infrastructure as a preferred alternative. c. Consider permit streamlining for new housing that exceeds current green infrastructure requirements.
d. Reduce mandatory parking minimums to encourage environmentally friendly transit modes like walking, cycling, taking public transit, and purchasing fewer cars.
To support our vision for Clayton, Greenbelt Alliance and other partnering organizations have crafted a go-to guide for accelerating equitable adaptation to the climate crisis; The Resilience Playbook. The Playbook brings together curated strategies, recommendations, and tools to support local decision makers and community leaders wherever they are in their journey.
We look forward to continuing to engage with Clayton and the community on how this vital work can move forward in the new year.
Sincerely,
Zoe Siegel
Director of Climate Resilience,
Greenbelt Alliance
Karen Rosenberg
Resilience Fellow, Greenbelt
Alliance
Derek Sagehorn
Housing Element Coordinator,
East Bay for Everyone
Laura deTar
Executive Director, Fresh
Approach
Tina Neuhasel
President and CEO,
Sustainable Contra Costa
Lynda Deschambault
Executive Director,
Contra Costa Climate Leaders
Alexi Lindeman
Chair, Sustainable Leaders In
Action
Peri Lindeman
Youth Environmentalist,
Antioch
Abigail Stofer
Youth Environmentalist,
Walnut Creek
Stella Lin
Youth Environmentalist, San
Ramon
Olivia Johnson
Youth Environmentalist,
Brentwood
Ian Cohen
Youth Environmentalist,
Brentwood
Selam Asfaw
Youth Environmentalist,
Brentwood
Diana Salazar
Youth Environmentalist,
Brentwood
Gabriel Vitan
Youth Environmentalist,
Brentwood
Xaylee Minchey
Youth Environmentalist,
Brentwood
Rachel Kimball,
Youth Environmentalist,
Antioch
Kyle Suen
Youth Environmentalist,
Walnut Creek
3 January 4, 2022
Dana Ayers (via email - [email protected])
Community Development Director
City of Clayton
6000 Heritage Trail
Clayton, CA 94517
To Whom It May Concern,
East Bay for Everyone and the undersigned organizations write to provide comments on the City of Clayton’s 6th Cycle Housing Element efforts for the January 4, 2022 City Council meeting.
As a preliminary matter we note that AB1397 requires recycled and nonvacant sites in a previous housing element to be rezoned for by-right development of 20% low-income projects. If the proposed site is vacant and recycled from the previous two cycles, it must also be rezoned for by-right approval.
Of the sites identified in the Preliminary 6th Cycle Sites (Attachment 3 of the staff report) compiled by the City of Clayton and MIG, approximately 70% are recycled from the 4th and/or 5th cycle housing elements.
The following preliminary sites are vacant and have been part of the City of Clayton’s Housing Element for the 4th and 5th cycle housing elements:
● Site E - proposed 20 dwelling units/acre (DUA) and is vacant. ● Site G - proposed 20 DUA and is vacant.
● Site N - proposed 20 DUA and is vacant.
1 Clayton Preliminary Sites for 6th Cycle HE
January 4, 2022
These sites should be re-zoned for by-right approval as required by AB1397.
In addition the following sites are non-vacant and have been previously part of 4th or 5th cycle housing elements:
● Site F - proposed 20 DUA, previously part of the 5th cycle and contains three existing residential uses.
● Site H - proposed 20 DUA, previously part of 4th and 5th cycles and contains existing residential uses.
● Site I - proposed 10 DUA on 13 acres, previously part of the 4th cycle and contains two existing residential uses.
○ The density of this site should be increased to 20 DUA or more in order to maximize the likelihood of development given the existing high value residential uses.
● Site J - proposed 5 DUA and previously part of the 4th cycle and 5th cycles. Two of the parcels are vacant greenfield locations. The northern third parcel contains three large existing residential uses.
○ It is unlikely that these residential uses will be redeveloped at a density of 5 DUA. ○ Furthermore the southern two parcels are 1000 feet from an active quarry. ○ This site should be removed from consideration.
● Site M - proposed 20 DUA and previously part of the 4th cycle and 5th cycles. This site contains existing residential and agricultural uses.
● Site O - proposed 20 DUA, previously part of 4th and 5th cycles and contains existing residential uses.
The above-mentioned sites should be rezoned to allow for by-right development for projects that include 20% low-income units as required by AB1397, excluding Site J which should be removed entirely from sites.
In addition we offer the following comments:
● Site K - proposed 3 DUA, previously part of the 5th cycle. This site is on a steep hillside between existing residential uses. There are significant difficulties in developing this site and it should be removed from consideration.
● Sites P, Q, and R are welcome additions to the site inventory. Please provide a copy of a letter from the property owners stating they are open to developing the site at the prescribed density. We encourage the City of Clayton to partner with East Bay Housing Organizations to highlight these opportunities for development. ● Sites A and S - proposed 20 DUA, These sites are existing churches(Saint John's Episcopal Parish and Clayton Community Church). Please provide a copy of a letter from the property owners stating they are open to developing the site at the prescribed density. The church-owned properties will likely require collaboration with non-profit 2 Clayton Preliminary Sites for 6th Cycle HE
January 4, 2022
housing organizations. We encourage the City of Clayton to partner with East Bay Housing Organizations to highlight these opportunities for development. ● We encourage the City of Clayton to remember that Mullin Densities of 20 DUA are merely a floor rather than a ceiling. Therefore, any reduction in units below the RHNA shortfall due to removal of potential sites should be re-allocated to redeveloped or new sites above the 20 DUA threshold of Mullin Densities.
● In looking for replacement sites, we encourage Clayton to consider adding additional density on sites within walking distance of downtown, with little or no parking minimum.
These locations would be perfect for seniors looking to downsize or car-light families.
We look forward to continuing to engage with the City of Clayton as it develops its plan to accommodate growth and inclusive development. If you are conducting meetings with community organizations to discuss the Housing Element this spring, we would love to take part.
Sincerely,
Maxwell Davis
East Bay for Everyone
Zoe Siegal
Greenbelt Alliance
Zac Bowling
East Bay YIMBY
Rafa Sonnefeld
YIMBY Law
cc: [email protected]
3 Attachment 3
Link to City Council Agenda
Packet,
May 31, 2022:
https://claytonca.gov/fc/agen
das/council/05312022smweb.
pdf