Clayton City Council
January 10, 2023

Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.

Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City meets housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.

For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.

We are committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Jamillah Williams, of our staff, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
Enclosure
City of Clayton’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 1 October 12, 2022

APPENDIX

CITY OF CLAYTON
The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.

Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/hcd-memos. Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/building-blocks and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.

A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints

1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) Enforcement: While the element includes analysis of fair housing complaints, it must describe the City’s compliance with existing fair housing laws and regulations. For additional information, please see pages 28-30 on HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/index.shtml.

Regional Analysis: While the element analyzed components of the fair housing assessment and compared the City to neighboring and similar communities (i.e., Walnut Creek, Concord, Pleasant Hill), the element must analyze the City compared to the broader region and with nearby communities such as Unincorporated Contra Costa County (Bay Point), Antioch, and Pittsburg, and evaluate the disparities and differences in income, race, disparities in access to opportunity and other relevant components from the assessment of fair housing. Additionally, the element should supplement this analysis with local data and knowledge and other relevant factors (noted in the finding below). Based on a complete analysis, the element must formulate meaningful actions and programs in response to the analysis.

Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA): The element includes some general analysis about whether parts of the City are considered an RCAA. However, HCD’s fair housing data viewer indicates that the entire City is considered an RCAA. The analysis should include updated data regarding the City’s RCAA designations and as noted above this should be analyzed relative to the broader region, county, and neighboring communities including the City’s eastern neighbors. For more information, please visit:
https://affh-data-resources-cahcd.hub.arcgis.com.

Disparities in Access to Opportunity: While the element identifies and describes local and regional patterns and trends in disparities in access to opportunity for education, transit, economic, and environmental quality, it also must analyze disparities in access to opportunities for persons with disabilities. A complete analysis should include the ndin
ctio
1 Summary of Comments on
conClaytonDraftOut101222_MIGannotated_v2.pdf
Page: 3
Number: 1 Author: sbrekkeread Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/17/2022 1:58:21 PM Added action re webpage on p. 2-16
City of Clayton’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 2 October 12, 2022
locally and regional disparities of the educational, environmental, and economic scores through local, federal, and/or state data and conclude with a summary of issues.

Identified Sites and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH): The element must include an analysis demonstrating whether sites identified to accommodate the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) are distributed throughout the community in a manner that AFFH. In the analysis, the element concludes that the distribution of sites improves fair housing conditions because of identification of sites in high-resource areas.

However, the element should discuss the location and magnitude of impact to evaluate AFFH. A full analysis should address the income categories of identified sites with respect to location, the number of sites and units by all income groups and how that effects the existing patterns for all components of the assessment of fair housing (e.g., segregation and integration, disparities in access to opportunity). The element should also discuss any isolation of the RHNA by income group and whether the distribution of sites improves or exacerbates conditions. If sites exacerbate conditions, the element should identify further program actions that will be taken to mitigate this (e.g., antidisplacement strategies).

Local Data and Knowledge and Other Relevant Factors: As noted in the prior finding, the element must supplement the analysis and complement state and federal data with local data and knowledge to capture emerging trends and issues, including utilizing knowledge from local and regional advocates, public comments, and service providers.

Additionally, the element should analyze historical land use, zoning, governmental and nongovernmental spending including transportation investments, demographic trends, historical patterns of segregation, or other information that may have impeded housing choices and mobility.

Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues: The element includes contributing factors to fair housing issues but should re-evaluate and prioritize these factors based on a complete analysis to better respond to the fair housing issues.

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

Programs must generally address enhancing housing mobility, increasing housing opportunities in high resourced areas, place-based strategies for community revitalization, and addressing displacement risks. Programs also need to be based on identified contributing factors, be significant and meaningful. The element must add, and revise programs based on a complete analysis and listing and prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues.

For your information, while the element still needs to include a complete analysis, based on the current information, relative to the City’s eastern neighbors and the broader County and region, the City is considered a higher resourced, higher-income, and racially homogenous (majority white population) community. As such, the element City of Clayton’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 3 October 12, 2022
should focus on strong programs and actions that enhance housing mobility and encourage development of more housing choices and affordable housing in an inclusive manner.

2. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
Progress in Meeting the RHNA: The element identified 109 units that have been approved, entitled or under construction for lower and moderate-income households.

Specifically, the element includes “The Olivia Project” to accommodate seven lowerincome RHNA units. However, the element must demonstrate the affordability of this project through actual or anticipated rents or sales prices or other mechanism ensuring affordability such as inclusionary requirements or deed restrictions.

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

Realistic Capacity: While the element provides assumptions of buildout for sites included in the inventory, it must also provide support for these assumptions. For example, the element should demonstrate what specific trends, factors, and other evidence led to the assumptions. The estimate of the number of units for each site must be adjusted as necessary, based on the land use controls and site improvements, typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction. For example, the City surveyed recently approved projects as a part of its methodology, but the element should identify and describe each of those projects to support residential capacity assumptions. For additional information, see the Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/analysis-of-sites-and-zoning.

Additionally, the inventory lists a number of sites in nonresidential zones. For sites with zoning that allows 100 percent nonresidential uses (e.g., commercial and mixed-use zones), the calculation of residential capacity must account for the likelihood of 100 percent nonresidential uses. The analysis should be based on factors such as development trends including nonresidential, performance standards requiring residential uses or other relevant factors such as enhanced policies and programs. For example, the element could analyze all development activity in these nonresidential zones, how often residential development occurs and adjust residential capacity calculations, policies, and programs accordingly.
een
arce
1 2
3 Page: 5
Number: 1 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/20/2022 12:14:02 PM -07'00' We stated they are deed restricted.

Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/28/2022 4:02:51 PM -07'00' Done.

Number: 2 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/20/2022 12:14:49 PM -07'00' This is an FYI comment of which we are aware.

Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/28/2022 4:12:49 PM -07'00' Added language to Program D-1. Program D-2 already addresses GC 65583.2, h, i.

Number: 3 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/29/2022 1:32:06 PM -07'00' Table 5-4 has been added to show other CCC communities.

City of Clayton’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 4 October 12, 2022
Nonvacant Sites: The element must demonstrate the potential for redevelopment on nonvacant sites. To address this requirement, the element notes some general criteria utilized for some but not all the identified nonvacant sites. For example, for some sites, the element notes where there is owner/developer interest. Additionally, the element includes a statement that sites have been chosen due to their location, existing uses, and potential for intensification. This statement should be supported by analysis. First, the element must clearly state the methodology used for identifying nonvacant sites, including describing all criteria. Second, to facilitate an analysis of redevelopment potential, the element should reflect the criteria in the actual sites inventory. For example, the element can list the various criteria utilized on a site-by-site basis. Third, the element must support the validity of the criteria, utilize other criteria, or remove sites if appropriate. For example, the element can discuss previous sites that shared similar characteristics to the methodology and were redeveloped in multifamily housing.

Further, the element must analyze the extent that existing uses may impede additional residential development. The element also indicates that some sites are partially vacant including Sites T, N, and F. For your information, if a site has an existing use, it is considered nonvacant. This information must be reconciled in the element and sites inventory. To analyze the extent the existing use may impede additional residential development, the element can summarize past experiences converting existing uses to higher density residential development, include current market demand for the existing use, provide analysis of existing leases or contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent additional residential development and include current information on development trends and market conditions in the City and relate those trends to the sites identified.

In addition, based on the sites inventory, the housing element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower-income households.

For your information, the housing element must demonstrate existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development and will likely discontinue in the planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).) Absent findings (e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede additional residential development and will not be utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA.

Finally, if the element utilizes sites with existing residential uses. Absent a replacement housing policy, these sites are not adequate sites to accommodate lower-income households. The replacement housing policy must meet the requirements set forth in Government Code section 65915, subdivision (c) (3).

Small Sites: Sites smaller than a half-acre in size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income housing unless it is demonstrated that sites of equivalent size and affordability were successfully developed during the prior planning period or unless the element describes other evidence demonstrating the suitability of these sites. The element is assuming lot consolidation for several smaller sites to accommodate a range of income levels including lower-income households. While the element mentions lot consolidation to facilitate development on these sites, it must eme
of t
st
1 2
3 Page: 6
Number: 1 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/29/2022 2:35:57 PM -07'00' We have added clear correlations in the tables.

Number: 2 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/29/2022 2:36:40 PM -07'00' Number: 3 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/29/2022 1:48:34 PM -07'00' New Program K added for Replacement Housing Policy
City of Clayton’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 5 October 12, 2022
include an analysis to support this assumption. For example, the element must describe circumstances or criteria used to identify suites suitable for lot consolidation such as common ownership; the City’s role or track record in facilitating small-lot consolidation; policies or incentives offered or proposed to encourage and facilitate lot consolidation; specific examples of projects that were built for lower-income households on similarly sized sites, densities and affordability and relate those examples back to the sites inventory. Based on a complete analysis, the City should consider adding or revising programs to include incentives for facilitating development on small sites.

Previously Identified Nonvacant and Vacant Sites: Nonvacant sites identified in the prior planning period or vacant sites identified in two or more consecutive planning periods are inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income households unless the element includes a program that requires rezoning within one or three years (whichever is applicable) of the beginning of the planning period to allow residential use at appropriate densities by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c).) While the element cites the government code related to sites identified in the previous planning period, it must clearly indicate which sites were identified in previous planning periods and include a program as appropriate.

Zoning for Lower-Income Households: Pursuant to Section 65583.2(c)(3)(A) and (B), the element must identify sites with zoning and densities appropriate to accommodate the development of housing for lower-income households based on factors such as market demand, financial feasibility and development experience within zones. For communities with densities that meet specific standards (at least 20 units per acre for Clayton), this analysis is not required (Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)). The element identifies Site B (Silver Oaks) in the inventory to accommodate a portion of the City’s lowerincome RNHA; however the allowable density is five units per acre. A density of five units per acre will not be found appropriate to accommodate housing for lower-income households. The element must either remove the site from accommodating the lowerincome RHNA or add a program to rezone the site at appropriate densities.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): The element is projecting 32 ADUs for an average of 4 ADUs per year over the eight-year planning period to accommodate a portion of its RHNA. The projections are based off ADU building permit trends. Specifically, the element states that the City permitted 7 ADUs over the last four years averaging roughly 2 ADUs per year. However, HCD’s records indicate that the City did not report ADU data for 2018 and 2019 and reported 3 ADUs in 2020 and 2 in 2021, averaging no more than 2 ADUs per year. First, to utilize past ADU permit data, the City must submit Annual Progress Reports for 2018 and 2019. Second, the City’s past performance on permitting ADUs do not support a two-fold increase. The element must reconcile these figures and adjust assumptions based on a realistic estimate of the potential for ADUs and include strong policies that commit to incentivizing ADUs. Depending on the analysis, the element must commit to monitor ADU production and affordability throughout the course of the planning period and implement additional actions if not meeting target numbers anticipated in the housing element. If necessary, additional actions, should be taken in a timely manner (e.g., within six months). The degree of additional actions should be in stride with the degree of the gap in production and not
1 2
3 Page: 7
Number: 1 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/17/2022 1:59:12 PM The sites map shows sites under these criteria.

Number: 2 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/17/2022 2:00:33 PM We explained this in the call with HCD. THe text has been augmented to make it abundantly clear that some are inclusionary units.

Number: 3 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/17/2022 4:03:29 PM Described how they are being used to meet inclusionary requirements. Used 2022 ADU data to bolster the argument. Try to stay at 32 total over 8 years.

City of Clayton’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 6 October 12, 2022
affordability. For example, if actual production and affordability of ADUs is far from anticipated trends, then rezoning or something similar would be an appropriate action. If actual production and affordability is near anticipated trends, then measures like outreach and marketing might be more appropriate.

Environmental Constraints: While the element generally describes environmental conditions that exist in the City (e.g., stormwater, earthquakes, flood), it must relate those conditions to the identified sites including any other known conditions or other environmental constraints that could impact housing development on identified sites during the planning period.

Availability of Infrastructure: While the element describes water and sewer infrastructure, it must also demonstrate sufficient existing or planned total water and sewer capacity to accommodate the RHNA.

Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types:
x Multifamily Zoning: While the element analyzed most zones discussing allowable uses and development standards, it is relying entirely on sites zoned “PD” yet provides no discussion or analysis of the zoning. The element must discuss and analyze the PD zoning including listing allowable uses (p. 4-4) and applicable development standards and processes.
x Emergency Shelters: The element must describe compliance with Government Code section 65583, subdivision a)(4)(A) or include a program to comply with this requirement. For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583, subdivision a)(4)(A), parking requirements should be limited to allowing sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone. x Permanent Supportive Housing: Supportive housing shall be a use by-right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65651.

The element must demonstrate compliance with these requirements and include programs as appropriate.
x Employee Housing: In addition, the element must demonstrate zoning is consistent with the Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code, § 17000 et seq.), specifically, sections 17021.5 and 17021.6. Section 17021.5 requires employee housing for six or fewer employees to be treated as a single-family structure and permitted in the same manner as other dwellings of the same type in the same zone. Section 17021.6 requires employee housing consisting of no more than 12 units or 36 beds to be permitted in the same manner as other agricultural uses in the same zone. The element must either demonstrate consistency with these requirements or include programs to amend zoning as appropriate. For additional information and sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/farmworkers.
x Manufactured Housing: The element describes site plan review and design review requirements for mobile homes. According to state law, manufactured homes on a permanent foundation are to be allowed the in the same as single-

g
to G
with
scrib
Acco
owab
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 Page: 8
Number: 1 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/3/2022 7:36:01 AM -07'00' Author: sbrekkeread Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/3/2022 7:43:29 AM -07'00' added language from EIR to constraints analysis (pp. 4-28-4-31) +
added program to amend CMC Section 17.22.060 to exclude housing opportunity sites in most recent HE when calculating density on sensitive lands (p. 2-11) Number: 2 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/20/2022 12:20:43 PM -07'00' Author: sbrekkeread Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/3/2022 5:15:25 PM -07'00' Language added to constraints (p. 4-18/19)
Number: 3 Author: sbrekkeread Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/3/2022 7:50:38 AM -07'00' added analysis to constraints (pp. 4-10/11) + added to ZTA program (2-10/11) Number: 4 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/20/2022 12:21:07 PM -07'00' Author: sbrekkeread Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/3/2022 8:01:50 AM -07'00' added discussion in constraints (pp. 4-10/11) + added to ZTA program (pp. 2-10/11) Number: 5 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/25/2022 10:51:56 AM -07'00' Address through ZC amendments
LC zone - Can't have use permit
Author: sbrekkeread Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/3/2022 7:52:13 AM -07'00' added to ZTA program to make by right (p. 2-11) + added conclusion to constraints (p. 4-7) Number: 6 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/20/2022 12:22:18 PM -07'00' Expand ZCA program
Author: sbrekkeread Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/3/2022 7:53:41 AM -07'00' added new section to constraints (p. 4-6) + added to ZTA program (p. 2-11) Number: 7 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/25/2022 10:54:22 AM -07'00'

17.36.078
Author: sbrekkeread Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/3/2022 7:54:26 AM -07'00' clarified in constraints (p. 4-6)
City of Clayton’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 7 October 12, 2022
family homes. The element must demonstrate compliance with this requirement or add or modify programs.

3. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
Land Use Controls: The element must identify and analyze all relevant land use controls impacts as potential constraints on a variety of housing types. The analysis should evaluate land use controls independently and cumulatively with other land use controls, the analysis should specifically address minimum unit sizes (e.g., 1,000-1800 square feet), lot coverage requirements and height limits. The analysis should address any impacts on cost, supply, housing choice, affordability, timing, approval certainty and ability to achieve maximum densities and include programs to address identified constraints. Based on a complete analysis, the element should include programs to address or remove the identified constraints.

Local Permit and Processing Procedures: While the element included some discussion of permitting procedures and requirements, it must specifically analyze the use permit and site plan permit requirements. First, the element states that multifamily is allowed by-right; however the element also indicates that multifamily is subject to a development plan permit and site plan review which requires notification requirements to neighbors, public hearings, City Council and Planning Commission review and examining compatibility with surrounding uses – essentially a conditional use or exception process.

For your information, subjecting multifamily housing to an exception process is considered a constraint. The analysis must evaluate the processing and permit procedures’ impacts as potential constraints on housing supply (number of units), costs, timing, feasibility and approval certainty. For example, the analysis should consider level of review and actual approval findings. Secondly, the element listed several other permits but should evaluate those processes including the development plan permit, site plan review, and use permit. Lastly, the City requires a use permit for housing for persons with disabilities (e.g., residential care facilities of seven or more). As referenced below, these procedures must be analyzed as potential constraints.

The element also indicates that an affordable housing plan is required to implement the City’s inclusionary requirement. It further states that the affordable housing plan including unit mixes and other requirements are subject to City Council discretion. The element must analyze this requirement for any potential constraints on housing supply, cost, feasibility and affordability.

Design Review: The element references a number of specific plans that contain design review standards respective to each Specific Plan Area (SPA). The element must describe and analyze the design review guidelines and process, including approval procedures and decision-making criteria for each SPA, for their impact as potential g
ren
1 2
3 Page: 9
Number: 1 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/17/2022 4:05:17 PM This comment is generic. Developers are able to achieve densities allowed.

Are FARs and heights constraints? No.

Author: sbrekkeread Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/7/2022 1:38:36 PM added language to page 4-11
+ added to constraints re manufactured housing (constraint) on pp. 4-6/7 + added to ZTA program on p. 2-11 Number: 2 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/20/2022 12:23:43 PM -07'00' Author: sbrekkeread Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/3/2022 7:58:32 AM -07'00' Added discussion/analysis to constraints (p. 4-6) + added to ZTA program (p. 2-11) Number: 3 Author: sbrekkeread Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/7/2022 1:47:49 PM added language to pp. 4-18/19
City of Clayton’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 8 October 12, 2022
constraints on housing supply and affordability. For example, the analysis could describe required findings and discuss whether objective standards and guidelines improve development certainty and mitigate cost impacts. The element must demonstrate this process is not a constraint or it must include a program to address this permitting requirement, as appropriate. In addition, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330, 2019) was signed by Governor Newsom on October 9, 2019 and became effective on January 1, 2020. The Housing Crisis Act (Gov. Code, § 66300), under specified conditions, suspends the use of subjective design standards.

The element should evaluate its design review process for consistency with these requirements and include actions as appropriate. For additional information and sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/processing-permittingprocedures.

Fees and Exactions: The element indicates that the City imposes either the same fee costs for both multifamily and single-family housing or for certain fees, multifamily fees are more expensive than fees for single family developments. The element should closely evaluate these fees, including disproportionate impacts on housing types such as multifamily and include programs that specifically address and mitigate this constraint. For additional information and a sample analysis and tables, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/buildingblocks/constraints/fees-and-exactions.shtml.

Zoning and Fees Transparency: While the element states that the City offers a development handbook to applicants that provides an overview of its development approval process, it must clarify compliance with new transparency requirements for posting all zoning, development standards and fees on the City’s website and add a program to address these requirements, if necessary.

SB 35 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process: The element must clarify whether there are written procedures for the SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process and add a program to establish written procedures, if necessary.

Local Ordinances: The element must specifically identify and analyze locally adopted ordinances such as inclusionary ordinances or short-term rental ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development.

On/Off-Site Improvements: While the element listed the types of improvements required for development, it must identify actual subdivision level improvement requirements, such as minimum street widths (e.g., 40-foot minimum street width), and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability. For additional information and a sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/codes-and-enforcement-of-onsite-offsite-improvementstandards. ntify
term
201
list
visio
1 2
3 Page: 10
Number: 1 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/27/2022 8:37:57 AM -07'00' Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/27/2022 8:38:21 AM -07'00' Author: sbrekkeread Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/3/2022 5:40:15 PM -07'00' added to constraints (p. 4-15) + added language to existing program (p. 2-11) Number: 2 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/25/2022 11:13:43 AM -07'00' City has no STR.

Author: sbrekkeread Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/3/2022 5:33:47 PM -07'00' Added language to constraints (p. 4-11)
Number: 3 Author: sbrekkeread Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/7/2022 8:50:48 AM added discussion to p. 4-4 - no constraints; similar to other jurisdictions City of Clayton’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 9 October 12, 2022
Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities –
x Residential Care Facilities of Seven or More: The element indicates that this use is permitted as a commercial use, allowed only with a use permit, requires that these uses are 1,000 feet apart from each other, and must provide parking spaces beyond the required spaces of a typical single-family home. For your information, zoning should simply implement a barrier-free definition of family instead of subjecting, potentially persons with disabilities, to special regulations such as the number of persons, parking requirements, population types and licenses. These housing types should not be excluded from residential zones, most notably low-density zones, which can constrain the availability of housing choices for persons with disabilities. Requiring these housing types to obtain a special use or conditional use permit (CUP) could potentially subject housing for persons with disabilities to higher discretionary standards where an applicant must demonstrate compatibility with the neighborhood, unlike other residential uses. The element must analyze these standards as potential constraints for housing persons with disabilities and include a program to mitigate or remove constraints. In addition, the element must address how the City permits and allows unlicensed group homes of seven or more.
x Definition of Family: The element stated that the City revised its definition of family; however, the element must specifically describe and evaluate the actual definition for impacts on housing for persons with disabilities. x Reasonable Accommodation: While the element stated that the City does utilize a reasonable accommodation process, it must include a discussion and analysis of the timing, process, fees, and approval findings for a reasonable accommodation for any potential constraints on persons with disabilities. Based on a complete analysis, the element may need to include a program to mitigate or remove constraints.

4. Analyze existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change to nonlowincome housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of use restrictions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(9) through 65583(a)(9)(D).)
The element must identify public and private nonprofit corporations (qualified entities) known to have the legal and managerial capacity to acquire and manage at-risk units.

For a list of qualified entities, please visit: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-andresearch/preserving-existing-affordable-housing.

5. Analyze any special housing needs such as elderly; persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(7).)
Special Needs Households: While the element includes data and a general discussion of housing challenges faced by special needs households, it still must provide an analysis of the existing needs and resources for each special needs group including s
ding
orat
e an
1 2
3 Page: 11
Number: 1 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/20/2022 12:24:57 PM -07'00' Every city is getting this comment.

Author: sbrekkeread Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/7/2022 2:04:30 PM added language (p. 4-6, 9) to constraints + added to ZTA program (p. 2-11) Number: 2 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/27/2022 8:39:04 AM -07'00' Author: sbrekkeread Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/9/2022 5:24:34 PM added verbiage to p. 4-8/9 re time, fees, findings
Number: 3 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/27/2022 8:40:06 AM -07'00' City can send information to homeowners about organizations they can sell to, if they wish, to maintain affordability status.

Author: sbrekkeread Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/9/2022 5:25:24 PM added program + timing to p. 2-14/15
City of Clayton’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 10 October 12, 2022
seniors, farmworkers, persons with disabilities, and female-headed households. For example, the element should discuss the existing resources to meet housing needs (availability of shelter beds, number of large units, number of deed restricted units, etc.), an assessment of any gaps in resources, and proposed policies, programs, and funding to help address those gaps.

B. Housing Programs

1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).)
To have beneficial impacts and meet the goals and objectives of the housing element, programs must have specific commitment and discrete timelines (e.g., at least annually or by a specified date). Programs must be revised to address these requirements.

Examples include Programs A-1 Code Enforcement, B-1 Accessory Dwelling Units, B-2 Town Center Mixed-Use, B-3 Affordable Housing Development, E-1 Mortgage Programs, H-1 Funding Assistance, and H-2 Reasonable Accommodation, and J-3 Proactive Actions. For additional information, see the Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/program-overview-and-quantified-objectives.

2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)
As noted in Finding A2, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:

Shortfall of Sites: If the element does not identify adequate sites, including available zoning and development standards, to accommodate the RHNA for lower-income households, it must include a program(s) to specifically commit to rezoning sites pursuant to Government Code section, 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). While the s
the
ded
mee
ete
hd
1 2
3 4
Page: 12
Number: 1 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/27/2022 8:40:59 AM -07'00' Number: 2 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/20/2022 12:26:37 PM -07'00' Several of these are legitimately "ongoing", but HCD wants dates certain.

Author: sbrekkeread Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/9/2022 6:02:39 PM added specific timeframes
Number: 3 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/17/2022 4:06:50 PM Strengthened language regarding planned rezoning and City's commitment to do it immediately following HE adoption (and within the one year dictated by statute).

Author: sbrekkeread Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/7/2022 2:22:43 PM Laura updated - p. 2-10
Number: 4 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/27/2022 8:43:24 AM -07'00' Beef up program language.

Author: sbrekkeread Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/9/2022 5:27:37 PM added to p. 2-10 immediately following the adoption of the housing element, the City will move forward on the GPAs and ZTAs City of Clayton’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 11 October 12, 2022
element includes a rezoning program, it does not appear to meet these requirements.

For example, the program should:
ƒ Identifying acreage, allowable densities, and anticipated units. ƒ permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses by-right for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower-income households.

By-right means local government review must not require a CUP, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary review or approval. ƒ accommodate a minimum of 16 units per site;
ƒ require a minimum density of 20 units per acre; and
ƒ at least 50 percent of the lower-income need must be accommodated on sites designated for residential use only or on sites zoned for mixed uses that accommodate all of the very low and low-income housing need, if those sites:
o allow 100 percent residential use, and
o require residential use occupy 50 percent of the total floor area of a mixeduse project.

For additional information, see the Building Blocks’ at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/identifyadequate-sites.

City-Owned Sites: The element identified City-Owned sites to accommodate a portion of the RHNA. The element should include a program with numerical objectives that ensures compliance with the Surplus Land Act, provides incentives and actions along with a schedule of actions to facilitate development. Actions should include outreach with developers, issuing requests for proposals, incentives, fee waivers, priority processing, financial assistance, completing entitlements and issuing building permits.

3. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) As noted in Finding A3, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints.

4. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
Program to AFFH: While the element includes Programs J-1, J-2, and J-3 to address fair housing issues in Clayton, these programs do not address priorities discussed in the AFFH section and do not appear intended toward a significant beneficial impact during the planning period. For your information pursuant to Government Code section m w
prov
prog
nded
1 2
3 Page: 13
Number: 1 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/27/2022 8:46:33 AM -07'00' Author: sbrekkeread Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/9/2022 6:41:05 PM added text to 2-8/9
Author: sbrekkeread Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/9/2022 5:29:38 PM added on p. 2-8 at such time that the City declares land surplus, City will proactively seek an affordable housing developer Number: 2 Author: sbrekkeread Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/7/2022 2:56:39 PM done
Number: 3 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/27/2022 8:46:53 AM -07'00' Author: sbrekkeread Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/9/2022 5:48:09 PM added program to seek out developers who cater to disabled population - p. 2-13 added exploring universal design for ADU preapproved plans - p. 2-14 Author: sbrekkeread Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/10/2022 12:26:57 PM Dana - we may beef up language after Sasha completes added AFFH language; in the meantime, added sentence to Fair Housing section, p 2-16 (all housing in Clayton affirmatively furthers fair housing)
City of Clayton’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 12 October 12, 2022
8899.50 “Affirmatively furthering fair housing” means 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 based on protected characteristics. Specifically, AFFH means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The duty to AFFH extends to all public agency’s activities and programs relating to housing and community development.

5. The housing program shall preserve for low-income household the assisted housing developments identified pursuant to paragraph (9) of subdivision (a)... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(6).)
As noted in Finding A4, the element identifies five units at-risk of converting to marketrate uses in the planning period. While Program I-1 (Monitor and Provide Options) will monitor units, the program must also go beyond “considering” amending Chapter 17.92 and extending affordability covenants” and specifically commit to these actions. The element must include a program that addresses preserving at-risk units and specifying actions to monitor at-risk units, including contacting property owners within at least one year of the affordability expiration dates on projects. The program for preserving at-risk units should include noticing requirements within 3 years and 12 and 6 months of the affordability expiration dates, in addition to coordinating with qualified entities such as nonprofit organizations and establish specific time parameters around such actions.

6. Develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of accessory dwelling units that can be offered at affordable rent... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).) The element indicated that planning commission review for larger ADUs can be a constraint for the overall development of these units. As such the element stated that it will remove this constraint; however it did not include a program committing to remove this requirement. The element should be revised with an action to remove planning commission review of large ADU types.

Additionally, while Program D-1 (General Plan Amendments) commits to amending the ADU ordinance to comply with state law, the element is required to include a program that actively incentivizes or promotes ADU development for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. This can take the form of flexible zoning requirements, development standards, or processing and fee incentives that facilitate the creation of ADUs, such as reduced parking requirements, fee waivers and more. Other strategies could include developing information packets to market ADU construction, targeted advertising of ADU development opportunities or establishing an ADU specialist within the planning department.

ecifi
es p
1 2
Page: 14
Number: 1 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/27/2022 8:47:16 AM -07'00' Okay.

Author: sbrekkeread Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/7/2022 6:26:14 PM added to pp.2-14/15
Number: 2 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/17/2022 4:08:06 PM Included program that ADU ordinance revision will remove requirement for PC review. New ord will include pre-approved plans and brochure.

Author: sbrekkeread Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/7/2022 5:18:12 PM added language on p. 4-6 + added timing to amendments by March 2023 on p. 2-9 City of Clayton’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element Page 13 October 12, 2022
C. Quantified Objectives
Establish the number of housing units, by income level, that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time frame. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (b)(1 & 2).)
While the element includes quantified objectives for new construction, rehabilitation, and conservation by income group, it could consider quantified objectives for conservation (beyond at-risk preservation). For your information, the quantified objectives do not represent a ceiling, but rather set a target goal for the City to achieve, based on needs, resources, and constraints.

D. Public Participation
Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9).) While the element includes a general summary of the public participation process, it should also demonstrate diligent efforts were made to involve all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element. The element could describe the efforts to circulate the housing element among low- and moderate-income households and organizations that represent them and to involve such groups and persons in the element throughout the process. The element should be revised to discuss outreach to lower-income and special needs groups during the public participation efforts, solicitation efforts for survey responses, participation in community workshops, and if translation services were provided. In addition, the element should also summarize the public comments and describe how they were considered and incorporated into the element.
ant
1 2
Page: 15
Number: 1 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 10/25/2022 11:32:33 AM -07'00' Red-tagged units: only about 2 every three years. So, conserve up to 2 annually.

Author: sbrekkeread Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/7/2022 6:30:02 PM done; added to p.2-18
Number: 2 Author: lstetson Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/7/2022 5:23:50 PM City has engaged with local churches, who do have outreach connections to under-represented communities. Also outreach to affordable housing developers.

Author: sbrekkeread Subject: Sticky Note Date: 11/7/2022 6:34:27 PM summary + cross-referenced Public Participation chapter + added to the introduction October 18, 2022
Dana Ayers (via email - [email protected])
Community Development Director
City of Clayton
6000 Heritage Trail
RE: Draft Housing Element Determination
Ms. Ayers,
East Bay for Everyone and the undersigned organizations write to provide comments on the City of Clayton’s progress towards a compliant 6th Cycle Housing Element.

In light of HCD’s recent request for revisions to the draft submitted July 14, 2022 we encourage you to reread the letters we sent on January 4th, 2022 and May 9th, 2022 (linked below) which highlighted many of the same issues that HCD cited in their review, specifically:
● Many sites on Clayton’s draft inventory were also present in the 4th and 5th Cycle Housing Element Inventories, and therefore must be re-zoned for by-right approval as required by AB1397. From HCD, the city “must clearly indicate which sites were identified in previous planning periods and include a program as appropriate“ ● Many sites are non-vacant and seem unlikely to be developed within the planning period. From HCD “the housing element must demonstrate existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development and will likely discontinue in the planning period”
Clayton, like all cities in the Association of Bay Area Governments, is legally required to adopt a compliant Housing Element by January 31, 2023. We are concerned that Clayton is not on track to achieve this goal. There are many consequences of failing to adopt a compliant Housing Element on time. We would like to bring to your attention one such consequence, the Builder’s Remedy. Pursuant to Gov't Code § 65589.5(d), if a jurisdiction does not have an adopted, compliant Housing Element, any developer can propose housing projects at any height or density on any parcel in the city so long as they contain 20% low income units, and the jurisdiction cannot reject it unless there is a specific health or safety issue. If Clayton does not have an adopted, compliant Housing Element by Jan. 31, 2023, then on Feb. 1, 2023, developers can begin proposing Builder's Remedy projects.

In southern California, we are already seeing Builder’s Remedy projects. In Redondo Beach, a developer has proposed a 2300-home project. Santa Monica has received fourteen Builder’s Remedy project applications, including a 15-story 2000-unit building. HCD has recently written a memo saying that cities must approve these projects.

As we are seeing with Santa Monica, a jurisdiction cannot protect itself from already-filed applications by later coming into compliance. Santa Monica is now in compliance. Nonetheless, its 15-story building application cannot be rejected on the grounds of Santa Monica’s eight story height limit; the developer applied for the project in the window where Santa Monica was out of compliance, and the application is now vested with the zoning standards applicable at the time of application.

We would like Clayton to retain control, by adopting and submitting a compliant Housing Element by the January 31, 2023 deadline.

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 fall, we would love to take part.

Sincerely,
Maxwell Davis
East Bay for Everyone
Victor Flores
Greenbelt Alliance
Zac Bowling
East Bay YIMBY
Rafa Sonnefeld
YIMBY Law
cc: [email protected]
Link to January 4, 2022 letter:
https://eastbayforeveryone.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/2022-01-04-clayton-site-inventory-l etter.pdf
Link to May 9, 2022 letter:
https://eastbayforeveryone.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/2022-05-09-clayton-eir.pdf From: David Dolter
To: Dana Ayers
Cc: Grant Alvernaz
Subject: PEACOCK/OAKHURST - HUE & INCLUSION OF OAKHURST DRIVING RANGE PARCELS THEREIN Date: Thursday, September 15, 2022 9:43:09 AM
Importance: High
Greetings… we’d like to reiterate or request that the city include the 4 parcels that comprise the driving range into the Housing Element Update as well as the other parcels we previously identified.

Happy to discuss further when we meet again.

Thanks and best regards…
David Dolter, Principal

REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONS
925/766-6160
Clayton City Hall
6000 Heritage Trail
Clayton, CA 94517
Dear Mayor Peter Cloven, Vice Mayor Holly Tillman and City Council, Thank you so much for the opportunity to review the Clayton Housing Element. There are many opportunities in this document to address the housing needs of Clayton and make a dent in the regional housing crisis while simultaneously combating climate change. Greenbelt Alliance and partner organizations have been working with cities around the region to provide input on Housing Element drafts in advance of the HCD reviewers. We have a few comments and specific goals and policy recommendations we would like to share with you as we also believe these are issues that HCD will also flag, so the earlier you can address them, the more seamless your process will be.

Comments
● Nimby opposition should be listed as a constraint. We reviewed the public survey comments, have attended city council meetings and understand that there is some pushback from community members who do not want more housing. HCD will likely require that NIMBY opposition is listed as a constraint. Clayton should implement a robust program regarding education of the benefits of new housing and the need for housing. ● Constraints need mitigation efforts. All constraints should list ways to mitigate said constraints.

Site Selection Comments
● Housing on church land - While we support the concept of housing on church land, we were concerned to see three church sites zoned for housing with no indication that these churches were planning on closing or relocating in the near future. G-downtown site adjacent the South Clayton community church seems like a great site but we are concerned about the likelihood of the South Clayton community church, Saint Johns Parish and Clayton Valley presbetarian church sites.
● Building on park land - It appears that a large portion of the housing units will be in the Easley Estates park. We think it is both unlikely that this would be built due to neighborhood concerns and think it is important to preserve valuable park land. We would like to encourage you to increase the density on additional lots in order to preserve or offset this site.

Thank you so much for considering these recommendations. We look forward to continuing to work with you to make the housing element as sustainable and resilient as possible. For additional policies please review the Housing section of the Resilience Playbook.

Regards,
Zoe Siegel, Director of Climate Resilience, Greenbelt Alliance Victor Flores, Resilience Manager, Greenbelt Alliance
August 04, 2022
Dear Clayton City Council:

We are writing on behalf of South Bay YIMBY regarding Clayton’s 6th Cycle Housing Ele‐ ment Update. As a regional pro-housing advocacy group, South Bay YIMBY works to en‐ sure cities adopt housing elements that are fair, realistic, and lawful.

Per §8899.50(a)(1) of state code, Clayton's housing element must affirmatively further fair housing, which entails 'taking meaningful actions... that overcome patterns of segreg‐ ation.'
The City of Clayton is uniquely positioned to affirmatively further fair housing, as Clayton is a wealthy, exclusionary city that researchers with the Othering and Belonging Institute at UC Berkeley identify as highly segregated from the rest of the Bay Area. This socioeco‐ nomic segregation is caused by the exclusionary cost of housing in your community, where an average home, as of April 30th, costs $1,470,000, which is only affordable to someone earning a salary of $258,000, meaning only the richest 4% of households can afford to settle down in your community. It is thus no coincidence that your city is 75% whiter than the rest of the Bay, as well as 68% less black than the rest of the Bay Area.

In a 2021 report entitled 'Exclusionary Zoning: Its Effect on Racial Discrimination in the Housing Market,' economic advisors for the White House outline how exclusionary zoning, like yours, causes segregation. Your exclusionary zoning pushes low income children to live in less resourced areas, which begets worse life outcomes from health to income. The research is clear: exclusionary zoning violates your duty to further fair housing.

To take meaningful actions that overcome patterns of segregation, we recommend you:

1. End apartment bans in high opportunity areas. This will give middle and working class families the opportunity to share in the resources your rich neighborhoods enjoy. As of 2020, your city banned apartments in over 95.4% of high opportunity residen‐ tial areas.

2. Accommodate 1540 low income homes in your site inventory. While substantially larger than the floor of 267 low income homes required by RHNA, 1540 is the number of homes required to bring the proportion of low income families in your city in line with the rest of the Bay Area. While this number is large enough to be politically challenging, it will always be politically challenging to overcome segregation, as AFFH requires.

Thank you,
Salim Damerdji, South Bay YIMBY
Keith Diggs, YIMBY Law
Jeremy Levine, Legislative and Political Director for Contra Costa Young Democrats

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 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 From: Karen Rosenberg
To: Housing Element; Peter Cloven; Letecia “Holly” Tillman; Jim Diaz; Jeff Wan; Carl "CW" Wolfe Subject: Housing Element Policy Recommendations for Climate Resilience Date: Monday, January 3, 2022 3:17:38 PM
Attachments: Clayton Housing Element Policy Recommendation Letter (1).pdf Hello,
Prior to tomorrow's City Council Study Session we would like to share the following letter which outlines our vision for a climate resilient and equitable Clayton.

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.

To achieve the growth our region needs while protecting open spaces, biodiversity, and current and future residents, Greenbelt Alliance and our partners have developed three main strategies for Clayton to base their policies and actions around: increasing density within existing communities in non-high fire severity zones and away from flood zones, ensuring fair and inclusive zoning policies that make housing accessible to everyone, and requiring nature-based solutions for climate resilience in future developments.

To further 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 participating in the Housing Element process.

Regards,
Karen Rosenberg
--
Karen Rosenberg
Resilience Fellow
Greenbelt Alliance
312 Sutter Street, Suite 402 | San Francisco, CA 94108
We're adapting to a changing climate. Get our new Strategic Plan to find out how. greenbelt.org | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter
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 1
Community Development Department
Interoffice Memorandum
Date:

To:

From:

RE:

May 10, 2022
Reina Schwartz, City Manager
Dana Ayers, AICP, Community Development Director
Results of the Clayton Housing Balancing Act Community Engagement Background
Between February 25 and April 3, 2022, as part of its public outreach related to the Housing Element Update, the City of Clayton offered an opportunity for its 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 in Clayton and asked what density of housing they preferred to see on each site. Starting with a “default” density of either 2 or 3 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. A “housing plan” could be successfully submitted once a participant was able to identify at least 570 housing units in their simulation. This memorandum summarizes the results of the Balancing Act engagement tool for the City of Clayton.

Outreach and Participation
Clayton’s Balancing Act simulation was activated on
February 25, 2022. To announce the availability of the
simulation that day, City staff posted flyers on three
community posting boards located at City Hall, the Clayton Library, and in the Town Center; paper copies of the flyers were also placed in the lobby of the library for visitors to take. Virtual announcements included emails to persons
and organizations who had expressed interest in the
Housing Element Update process, and postings on Next
Door and on the City’s homepage at www.claytonca.gov.

Subsequently, on February 27, the City’s Mayor and ViceMayor facilitated a volunteer effort to place doorhangers 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 use of the QR code. A link to the
2 simulation and a brief video introductory message
from the Mayor were embedded at the top of the
Housing Element webpage.

Prior to formal activation of the simulation, City staff also provided a demonstration of Balancing Act at the
regular Planning Commission meeting of February 22,
2022. The minutes of that meeting, including
comments provided by Planning Commissioners, are
attached as Appendix B to this memorandum.

The simulation remained open for public participation for a total of 38 days. During that time, the simulation was accessed 382 times, and each participant spent an average of 16 minutes and 17 seconds engaged in the program. By closing of the simulation on the morning of April 4, 2022, a total of 44 housing plans had been submitted by participants.

Simulation: Characteristics of Respondents
The simulation began with a brief introduction to what the Housing Element is, what the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is, and why the Housing Element is being updated in compliance with State law. A second introductory window provided text and image instructions for how to engage with the simulation. Before users could start to create a housing plan, they were asked three questions about their age, whether they were a Clayton resident, and if a resident, the general location of where they lived.

Age of Respondents
Of the 44 participants who successfully created a housing plan, the majority (over 50 percent) were between the ages of 46 and 65. At just under one quarter of respondents, the next highest age group of participants were those between the ages of 26 and 45. 7%
23%
52%
18%
Age of Respondents
15-25 26-45 46-65 Over 65
Age Number of
Respondents
15-25 3
26-45 10
46-65 23
Over 65 8
TOTAL 44
3 Residence of Respondents
The majority of respondents, 41 of the 44 who submitted housing plans, were residents of Clayton. The neighborhoods most represented by respondents were in the southern neighborhoods in Clayton, and more specifically in the Dana Hills/Dana Ridge and Regency Woods/Regency Meadows developments. Neighborhoods in the north Clayton area were the second most represented group with approximately 37 percent of respondents.

Neighborhood of Residence Number of
Respondents
North Clayton 16
Jeffry Ranch 2
North Clayton 3*
North Valley/North Valley Park 3
Oakhurst 6
Windmill Canyon 2
Central Clayton 6
Central Clayton 1
Mitchell Canyon 1
Stranahan 1
Upper Easley Estates 2
Town Center 1
Town Center 1
South Clayton 19
Dana Hills/Dana Ridge 11
Regency (Meadows, Woods) 8
Other 1
Diablo Valley 1
TOTAL 42*
*One respondent indicated that they did not live in Clayton but input a residence location of “north clayton.” Simulation: Summary of Housing Plans
After answering the questions about their age and residence, participants were asked to specify whether they wanted to establish a buffer to the RHNA for their housing plan. Narrative in the simulation explained that the RHNA allocation of 570 new housing units in Clayton was the minimum number of units that the participant would need to include in their housing plan to successfully submit their plan. The narrative further explained that a buffer to the RHNA would help to ensure that the RHNA could still be achieved should a site be built out with fewer units than was envisioned in the housing plan; however, establishing a buffer was optional and was not necessary for successful submission of any housing plan in the simulation.

Default options of 5 percent, 10 percent, 25 percent and 50 percent over the RHNA were provided in the simulations. Participants could choose one of these options, or “No buffer” if they did not want to specify locations for more than 570 units of new housing.

As summarized in the table and chart, below, the majority of respondents (75 percent) opted for no buffer to the RHNA. Four respondents selected the 5 percent buffer for their housing plans, North
Clayton
37%
Central
Clayton
14% Town Center
3%
South
Clayton
44%
Other
2%
Neighborhood of Residence
North Clayton Central Clayton Town Center
South Clayton Other
4 and three residents each opted for the 10 percent and 25 percent buffers. One respondent selected the 50 percent buffer. One respondent who opted for a 25 percent buffer provided a comment suggesting an alternative buffer of 33 percent.

Once the participant made a selection with respect to the RHNA buffer, they could interact with the options for decreasing or increasing densities for each of the potential housing sites. The sites were provided on an expandable list and on a map within the simulation. Participants could click on each site name, and the simulation would zoom in to that site on the map, or they could click directly on the site on the map to open the interaction opportunity for that site. To orient the participant, links within each site’s interaction point provided a brief description of existing development, or lack thereof, on each site, as well as a link to a picture of each site.

The simulation identified 18 vacant or underutilized sites in the City, as listed below. The sites in the simulation were based on the “City of Clayton Preliminary 6th Cycle Sites” map presented during the January 4, 2022, City Council study session on the Housing Element Update (see Appendix C). Each site in the simulation was identified by a name and a number preceded by a letter. The letter designation in each site identifier indicated whether the site has already been approved for housing development (A), or it indicated the location of the site in the Town Center (TC) or the northern (N), central (C) or southern (S) general area of Clayton. Because the three sites with an A designation have already been approved for development, participants were not given the option to change density on those sites. However, because they are entitled, all 109 of the approved units among the three sites were included by default in each housing plan. o A1 | Diablo Meadows (8.6 acres) – 21 units approved, permits pending o A2 | The Olivia at Marsh Creek (3.01 acres) – 81 units approved o A3 | Oak Creek Canyon (8.87 acres) – 7 units approved o N1 | Clayton Valley Presbyterian Church (3.67 acres)
o N2 | St John's Parish (2.36 acres)
o N3 | Silver Oak Estates (12.9 acres)
o N4 | Lydia Lane (2.8 acres)
o C1 | Clayton and Mitchell Canyon Roads (1.0 acre)
o C2 | Douglas Road (1.47 acres)
RHNA Buffer Number of
Respondents
No buffer (570 units) 33
5% buffer (+30 units) 4
10% buffer (+60 units) 3
25% buffer (+140 units) 3
50% buffer (+290 units) 1
TOTAL 44
75%
9%
7%
7%2%
RNHA Buffer
No buffer (570 units) 5% (+30 units)
10% (+60 units) 25% (+140 units)
50% (+290 units)
5 o C3 | Easley Ranch (13.52 acres)
o C4 | Oakhurst Country Club Overflow Parking Lot (2.55 acres) o TC1 | City-owned Downtown Site (1.66 acres)
o TC2 | 6055 Main Street (0.55 acre)
o TC3 | Oak and Center Streets (0.47 acre)
o TC4 | Center Street Parking Lot (0.46 acre)
o TC5 | 6070 Center Street (1.0 acre)
o TC6 | 6470 Marsh Creek Road (1.16 acres)
o S1 | Pine Lane and Marsh Creek Road (8.54 acres)
To assist each participant in understanding those development types with which a particular density range corresponds, the simulation included text and a graphic with typical residential development types for 3, 8, 14, 21 and 29 units per acre. All images provided in the graphic were of developments in central Contra Costa County, and the 3, 8 and 14 unit per acre images provided were of developments located within Clayton.

As noted above, each site was assigned a default density of 2 or 3 units per acre, and participants could increase or decrease density by increments of 1 to as low as 0 units per acre or as high as 30 units per acre. The maximum density of 30 units per acre in the simulation was selected by staff because it was above the current General Plan maximum density of 20 units per acre but would facilitate housing of a similar development pattern (low-rise apartments, condominiums) to that already determined in existing land use policies to be compatible with Clayton’s community character.

The following table compiles the data in the 44 housing plans submitted through the simulation.

For each of the sites, the simulation auto-calculated the total number of units based on the area within the selected site, multiplied by the user’s selected density. The highest number of units, the lowest number of units, and median, mean and mode for unit count for each site is summarized below. Density is also provided in the table inside of brackets in boldface type.

For a summary of comments provided for each site, see Appendix A. 6 Housing Plan Data Summary Site N1 Clayton Valley Presbyterian Site N2 St. Johns Parish Site N3
Silver Oak Estates
Site N4
Lydia Lane
Site C1
Clayton and Mitchell Cyn Rds
Site C2
Douglas Road
Site C3
Easley Ranch
Site C4
Oakhurst Overflow Lot
Site TC1
City-owned Downtown
Site TC2
6055 Main Street
Site TC3
Oak and Center Sts
Site TC4
Center St Parking Lot
Site TC5
6070 Main Steet
Site TC6
6470 Marsh Creek Road
Site S1
Pine Lane @ Marsh Ck
Lowest 11
[3]
2 [1]
39 [3]
3 [1]
0 [0]
0 [0]
14 [1]
3 [1]
2 [1]
0 [0]
0 [0]
0 [0]
0 [0]
0 [0]
9 [1]
Highest 110
[30]
70 [30]
390
[30]
80 [29]
30 [30]
45 [30]
410
[30]
80 [30]
50 [30]
15 [30]
15 [30]
15 [30]
30 [30]
30 [30]
260
[30]
Median 77
[21]
29 [12]
104
[8]
11 [4]
9 [9]
7 [5]
109
[8]
35 [10]
7 [4]
2 [4]
2 [4]
1 [2]
6 [6]
4 [3]
95 [11]
Mean 72
[20]
36 [15]
125
[10]
20 [7]
11 [11]
11 [7]
144
[11]
34 [13]
13 [8]
4 [8]
3 [6]
3 [6]
9 [9]
8 [7]
111
[13]
Mode 110
[30]
70 [30]
39 [3]
8 [3]
3 [3]
3 [2]
41 [3]
80 [30]
5 [3]
1 [3]
1 [2]
1 [3]
3 [3]
4 [3]
87 [10]
Note: Total units are provided in regular font. Densities that correspond with those unit counts are shown in [boldface] type. 7 Conclusions
Generally, respondents specified preferences for higher densities on the sites in Northern Clayton, and particularly on Site N1 (Clayton Valley Presbyterian) and Site N2 (St. John’s Parish), where the most common densities selected were 30 units per acre. Respondents commented that these sites were already close to services, transit and shopping, and suggested that the sites’ proximity to each other could further result in shared community resources for the sites’ residents. 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, Site C4 (Oakhurst Overflow Parking Lot) 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 Southern Clayton, where the only unlocked site was Site S1 (Pine Lane and Marsh Creek Road), respondents generally selected medium densities for the site, with average, median and most frequently selected densities in the range of 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 spaces or adjacent to Clayton Road.

Based on the feedback received from the Balancing Act, decision-makers could consider increasing density from 20 units per acre to 35 or 40 units per acre on Site N1 (Clayton Valley Presbyterian) and Site N2 (St. John’s Parish). The increase in density would allow more housing units (up to as many as 240 units) to be met between those two sites. The potentially higher number of residents would benefit from their proximity to shopping and existing transit, as noted by simulation respondents. These densities would also accommodate the City’s lowincome RHNA, simply by nature of the fact that they would be at least 20 units per acre. For purposes of estimating development potential in the Housing Element, staff would project about 30 units per acre (approximately 180 units), based on the observation that residential developments in the City are not always built out at the maximum densities allowed by the General Plan and zoning regulations. Decision-makers could also consider shifting the density ranges for other residential districts (single-family and multi-family) upward so as to establish somewhat higher minimum and maximum densities across all residential land use categories.

For the remainder of the RHNA, medium to medium-high density development in the range of 10 to 20 units per acre on Site C4 (Oakhurst Overflow Parking Lot) and Site S1 (Pine Lane and Marsh Creek Road) would be consistent with feedback received in the simulation. Other sites identified in the simulation could be considered for medium density residential, particularly in the Town Center, provided that units are developed above or behind commercial uses. Outside of the Town Center, densities could be kept on the lower end (around 5 to 10 units per acre), recognizing that, as commentors noted: 1) additional units on existing single-family lots could be built as accessory dwellings or urban lot splits; and 2) residential developments could have a mixture of densities and development types (such as single-family with townhouses). However, given the historically slow rate of construction of accessory units (average of one per year for the past five years) and an unknown number of urban lot splits due to the novelty of that 8 legislation, staff would caution against overestimating how much of the RHNA could be met by those residential unit types.

Data from the simulation also showed that the majority of participants opted not to include a buffer to the RHNA for their housing plans. This is an option that the City could choose to take for the Housing Element. However, as noted above, if a housing opportunity site identified in the Housing Element is subsequently rezoned to a lower density during the eight-year housing cycle, or if it is otherwise developed with fewer units than was envisioned in the certified Housing Element, the City would have to undergo a process to show the State that the City could still achieve its RHNA with other sites previously- or newly-identified in the Housing Element1
. Without a buffer, this process could include time and General Fund expenditures related to Housing Element, General Plan Land Use Element and/or Zoning Ordinance amendments and corresponding environmental impact analysis. Even should preliminary projections of unit count under the Housing Element suggest that a specific buffer may not be necessary (i.e., recommended densities would accommodate more than 570 units across the multiple opportunity sites), staff would still further recommend that the Housing Element and the accompanying General Plan Land Use and Zoning Ordinance amendments specify minimum densities for residential development, and that they include policy language requiring compliance with minimum densities and maximum lot sizes. Requiring developments to comply with both minimum and maximum densities would help to ensure that actual development is consistent with the RHNA projections in the Housing Element and reduce or avoid the need for time and expense of future amendments to the City’s land use policy documents.

Attachments
Appendix A: Summary of Comments from Clayton Housing Balancing Act Appendix B: Minutes of February 22, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting (Balancing Act Demonstration)
Appendix C: “City of Clayton Preliminary 6th Cycle Sites,” December 2021 1 State housing element law (Government Code Section 65580 et seq.) subjects all cities’ and counties’ housing elements to review and certification by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Local jurisdictions must obtain and maintain certification of their housing elements by HCD in order to be eligible for certain State and local funding sources, such as State grants administered through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission/Association of Bay Area Governments, and Contra Costa County Measure J Return to Source funds.

A-1
Appendix A: Summary of Comments from Clayton Housing Balancing Act (Note: Other than commentors' names, personal identification information has been removed from the comments listed and attached here.)
RHNA Buffer
recommend 33% buffer
thank you for asking for input. Clayton has shown it supports various housing types with our single family, duplex, triplex, fourplex and condos which already exist. Additional housing in central Clayton will help our businesses which support all our beloved cultural activities. this topic may generate a ton of controversy, stay strong! Clayton can do it. Carmel Site N1 | Clayton Valley Presbyterian (3.67 acres)
Could go to higher density, but stay at 17 to provide space for room for community rooms (i.e., this could be an area for HDR w/community services).

Condos similar to what is already next to the church
This is where AB 1851 comes into play-parking lot can be used for additional housing, additional height limits can be zoned for apartments near transit and jobs: 60 units per acre Site N2 | St. John’s Parish (2.36 acres)
Again, AB 1851 will allow more housing in parking area.

Black Diamond type duets on .125 acre lots
Go full HDR and take advantage of nearby community services at N1.

Site N3 | Silver Oak Estates (12.9 acres)
104 SF detached with 25% having JADUs (so for RHNA purpose only, 130 DUs).

Site N4 | Lydia Lane (2.8 acres)
May be constrained by creek. 11 SF detached with 25% having JADUs (for RHNA purpose only, 14 DUs total).

Site C1 | Clayton and Mitchell Canyon Roads (1.0 acre)
Zero in downtown
Traffic would be unbearable with the Mt. Diablo Elementary right next door-increasing density would increase safety hazards for parents/children
2 Chaparral Springs type townhomes, with garage parking.

Ever since this former fire station was allowed to be a residence, it has been a messy, overgrown and blighted entry to our city, and that should change as quickly as possible. I seem to recall the site needed remediation, but it is a correct location for some higher density housing. 1/3 acre lots are huge! You could do single family at .2, but row townhomes or duets would be fine here.

Site C2 | Douglas Road (1.47 acres)
Zero in downtown
See above. We shouldn't be building detached single family units on 1/3 acre lots or larger.

Dependent on topography
Smaller homes, Ranchettes, Duplexes.

Site C3 | Easley Ranch (13.52 acres)
Zero in downtown
Keep at suggested units due to possible restrictions placed on developing acreage by the creek.

Use this OR S1 for new lighted sports facility for soccer and baseball. What we have now is outdated and borderline unusable. It is unbelievable that with all this money in our area that our facilities meant for children to get outside and play are as run down as they are. Partner with MDSA soccer and CVLL baseball and require them to maintain fields year round. This would also allow MDSA and CVLL to have their own fields and not have to play roulette with other surrounding sports clubs.

Mixed Ranchettes, and Town homes. Keep the path to keep a green space within the complex.

Bus stops at entrance to complex. Create 2 entrances on Marsh Creek. May require widening of Marsh Creek to create turn-in lanes so traffic can flow for other residents and parents of middle school children.

Average of 15 DU/acre but site is large enough to have 2 or 3 density ranges to accommodate SF detached (25% having JADUs) and higher density DUs (duets, condos, etc.) 41 units would be nearly 1/3 acre each! Too low density. Duplexes and four plexes or attached row houses. Approximately .12 acres each.

Site C4 | Oakhurst Country Club Overflow Parking Lot (2.55 acres) Townhouses or condominiums similar to those in Oakhurst This site should be a transit mobility hub/park and ride with retail & services and housing over. 3 21 SF detached (25% with JADUs for a total of 26 DUs for RHNA purpose only).

Great location for rental units. Right on bus line. Numbers I've proposed include procuring some of the adjacent land on Clayton Road that is currently open space. Also close to Middle School.

Site TC1 | City-owned Downtown Site (1.66 acres)
Zero in downtown
Better use as commercial property. Should be zero unless apartments above commercial.

This property was supposed to be included in Charrette sessions with the citizens of Clayton-this should be a recreational area as an extension of Grove Park-not housing Commercial 1st floor, 2nd (& 3rd ?) floor residential
I would prefer that this land be zoned exclusively as commercial. That said, it could be high density on Clayton Road and charming mixed use development with housing over retail shops Main Street.

Mixed use! Commercial below, housing on top.

Site TC2 | 6055 Main Street (0.55 acre)
Zero in downtown
Better use as commercial property
Commercial 1st floor, 2nd (& 3rd ?) floor residential
Would prefer that tis land be zoned exclusively as commercial. Create mixed use housing over retail.

TC1 and TC2 must be considered together. I have no sentiment for the historic site, and feel this is downtown Clayton's best place to do some sort of combined retail and residential, like around Pleasant Hill BART's transportation village. Specifically, I think this area should have some highdensity residential above restaurants with recreation, like Chicken "N Pickle (NOT KIDDING!). See chickennpickle.com! Pickleball courts within a restaurant setting. I think we can agree that food does pretty well in town.

Mixed use! Commercial below, housing on top.

Site TC3 | Oak and Center Streets (0.47 acre)
Zero in downtown
Commercial 1st floor, 2nd (& 3rd ?) floor residential
4 Make TC3, 4, 5, 6 and the adjacent area that goes to High Street as a 4 unit per building town home development. Lafayette has done this on Mt. Diablo Blvd.

Site TC4 | Center Street Parking Lot (0.46 acre)
Zero in downtown
Commercial 1st floor, 2nd (& 3rd ?) floor residential
Make TC3, 4, 5, 6 and the adjacent area that goes to High Street as a 4 unit per building town home development. Lafayette has done this on Mt. Diablo Blvd.

Mixed use! Commercial below, housing on top.

Site TC5 | 6070 Center Street (1.0 acre)
Zero in downtown
Row houses like Mitchell Creek place.

Commercial 1st floor, 2nd (& 3rd ?) floor residential
Make TC3, 4, 5, 6 and the adjacent area that goes to High Street as a 4 unit per building town home development. Lafayette has done this on Mt. Diablo Blvd.

Mixed use! Commercial below, housing on top.

Site TC6 | 6470 Marsh Creek Road (1.16 acres)
Zero in downtown
Single family homes
Make TC3, 4, 5, 6 and the adjacent area that goes to High Street as a 4 unit per building town home development. Lafayette has done this on Mt. Diablo Blvd.

Site S1 | Pine Lane and Marsh Creek Road (8.54 acres)
Use this OR C3 for new lighted sports facility for soccer and baseball. What we have now is outdated and borderline unusable. It is unbelievable that with all this money in our area that our facilities meant for children to get outside and play are as run down as they are. Partner with MDSA soccer and CVLL baseball and require them to maintain fields year round. This would also allow MDSA and CVLL to have their own fields and not have to play roulette with other surrounding sports clubs.
8 SF detached (with 25% having JADUs for a total of 10 DUs for RHNA purpose only). 5 Making these ranchettes or duplexes won't change the character of the neighborhood.

Please note that I did not have the time or patience to carefully review all the sites and make useful suggestions for each one. I believe the number of units is too large. I did certainly want to make my points about the old fire station location and the pickleball concept right downtown.

Bocce and pickleball are going to be longterm attractions.

From: Doug Chen
To: Dana Ayers
Cc: Doug Chen
Subject: RE: Clayton Housing Simulation Now Available Online! Date: Saturday, February 26, 2022 10:46:31 AM
Dana: This is a great tool. Thank you for the invite. I just submitted my input. You will see that I have higher densities in North Clayton near arterials, and also at Town Center.

Where I have lower densities (to retain SF detached), I have 25% of SF units with JADUs (attached ADUs that are 500sf or less). The simulation does not add JADUs, but I have many JADUs that count as DUs for RHNA, but not as DUs for utility services including fees (because the JADUs are contained entirely within the primary dwelling units).

I checked 25% buffer, but I think 33% is better.

I have 743 DUs, but because the simulation does not add JADUs, the true number (for RHNA purpose) is higher. I did not keep a count of the JADUs as I was going through each site, and I don’t think there is a way for my to go back after I have submitted.

RHNA has 570 DUs for Clayton. What is the breakdown for the inclusionary categories? I see a City-owned parcel. Is there a plan for that parcel? I am really glad that there is stability at the Community Director level and look forward to process more housing applications in Clayton.

Thanks,
Doug
Doug Chen, RCE, LS
Discovery Builders
4021 Port Chicago Hwy
Concord CA 94520
925.250.2658, [email protected]
From: Dana Ayers <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 5:20 PM
To: Dana Ayers <[email protected]>
Subject: Clayton Housing Simulation Now Available Online! The City of Clayton is pleased to announce a new opportunity for community engagement in the Housing Element Update for the 2023 through 2031 housing cycle!
Where would you put new housing in Clayton? Can you create a housing plan? Every eight years, California cities update their housing plans and identify locations where their share of housing growth could be built.

Clayton must identify and zone enough land to accommodate at least 570 new residences, our share of the projected statewide housing need.

The City of Clayton invites you to participate in an online simulation that challenges participants to create a plan for where the City’s allocation of new housing units could be built.

We’ve identified potential sites, you select the densities that you think would create the best housing plan.

The simulation can be accessed through a desktop computer or mobile device and will remain open for submissions through April 3, 2022.

Check out the simulation online on the Housing Element webpage, or using the camera on your mobile device, scan the QR code in the attached announcement.

And please share this announcement with your friends, colleagues and neighbors in the community!
Dana Ayers, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Clayton
6000 Heritage Trail
On 03/02/2022 1:08 PM DENISE PURSCHE <[email protected]> wrote:

Mayor, City Council, and Planning Commissioners,

PLEASE PROVIDE THIS COMMENT AS PART OF THE PUBLIC
RECORD AS RECORDED IN YOUR MEETING MINUTES under the
words..."traitors one and all".

What one hand giveth, the other hand taketh away? I ask, is this your little cat game and your little mouse trap? One hand gives "hush money" that the city doesn't have but the other hand ask the citizens to give more taxation...oh pretty please, you say!
You must actually think we are the biggest stupid idiot citizens ever, right?
I don't even know why I bother to inquire about anything given the buckyball/malarkey in this attached document which reads like another cat and mouse trap. Let me ask, are you a servant of the people? The servants who defend our rights? Because you sure don't act like it nor do you seem to understand your role. Let me explain first by saying I am not your "customer". You provide to me no service and I ask for none of your "services" or your "servitude" you perceive as your role as lord and master over the masses. However, there is one exception that the masses expect from the public servant and that is the duty of an elected/appointed official "to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic". This is your only duty and it is your oath you signed on the dotted line.

In fact, it is only this duty that is required from the people that "elected" you. That means we don't need your "best intentions" or "voting your conscience" or the "gift of hush money" or "even your cat and mouse game of stack and pack, balancing act". God forbid save us from that! I'll say it again.....your duty is "TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AGAINST ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC." Taxation and cat games of where to place more stack and pack is not defending the constitution or the people of this good city, or defending their rights.

It's such a simple job but imagine a game where you are asking for feedback yet again on the same issue over and over and over again to no avail. Is it inane to keep asking the same question of where to build 570 or 840 or what ever the number may be housing units as if you've already compromised and leveraged yourself in the "game" of who will play cat and mouse...gotcha?
Or to take with one hand and give with the other? Ask for the tax increases that you require like a king because after all you are in the red?And then the real kicker give out $10,000 money like you're floating in cash,. Robin Hood? I know the city is in the red soon and I am not frankly surprised by it. But you seem to be surprised. You know when you shut down businesses and then slap the citizens with your taxation isn't that bad OPTICS? They say perception is everything and I'd say you have a PR problem and no consultant "crafting just the right message" is going help you with that perception problem. You think you give with one hand and take with another and no one will be the wiser to the trap you lay for your citizens?
Hush money? One world agenda? Economic reset? If only your constituents knew of your plans you have for them. We are talking about relocation of every citizen in this city to a major city center via the usual Marxist agenda ways...which you all seem to be down with...as in shut down your water supply, cut off your electricity, and create a food supply issue along with shut down business, enforce the mask mandates, as well as enforcement of the vaxxed mandates with your chipped vax pass on your hand and your 5G surveillance. I'm sure you will support all of this and more. Leveraged? Compromised? Yes, I'd say that is it.

You do know that this is all the "motivation any citizen need" to adhere to the agenda and you as the enforcer class. That and your leveraged self with all the pictures and the audio to support your transgressions. I'm sure they've been taken even without your knowledge. All you need is a citizenry that doesn't understand the rules of engagement and the game you are playing with their livelihoods. And of course there is the end goal of 5G surveillance and removal of our bill of rights almost complete at this point from one created emergency to the next emergency and the role you play in the enforcement mechanism. You play the unconstitutional role and none are any wiser than you to the depths you have sunk. Traitors one and all.

Let me give you a quote and I really want to know who this is quoting.

Which one of you who sit on this city council/planning commission came up with this little ditty: "In late, February, the city will introduce the online simulation game "Balancing Act" (aka...cat and mouse) to engage the community housing discussion (like Pepé Le Pew?) in preliminary mapped areas of Clayton. The game allows the player to change densities on parcels (e.g., 3 to 30 units per acre) and identify other potential areas for consideration."
I for one will never play your sad little game of how to trap the mice. No cat and mouse game for me. No stack and pack buildings. No to any more units in this tiny city. No the earth is not the new God. No to the agenda.

PS No to your bond measure too. If you want to know what is necessary to get out of the "RED INK" then look no further than your own illegitimate actions as a city council/planning commissioner to shut down the American people of this city with your madness from on high and your cowardice to make local control decisions in our city best interest that "defend the constitution and the bill of rights".

Instead of defending the people and following your oath you choose to follow the sustainable development leader of high kings and kingdoms by authorizing arrest and closing the doors of businesses by threat of the police force and fines. You are bought and paid and leveraged against us.

The people of this city will not forget your lack of courage and your lack of common sense. Traitors one and all!
Regards,
Denise Pursche
(925) 693-0899
Are the Sustainable Development Goals legally binding?
No! The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are not legally binding.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030 %20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf
From: Pamela Wiesendanger
To: Housing Element; Dana Ayers
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Clayton Housing Element Response
Date: Saturday, April 2, 2022 11:21:28 AM
Good Morning,
As Clayton residents for the last 21 years, we would like to give our feedback for the Clayton Housing Element issue. We started the Clayton Housing Element simulation, but did not find a way to comment in general or suggest an area outside of the identified areas for the 570 units. Please factor in to the decision making our comments here instead:
· Do not change the Town Center zoning to include high density/multi-unit housing. · Build only if Clayton is truly required by law.
· If required by law to build the additional housing, build only on the outskirts of town. And:

Continue to include public input.

Factor in the effects on infrastructure such as water, power, roads.

Insure the city budget and services, like police and maintenance, can support the increased population and keep crime and traffic issues down.

Thank you,
Pamela & Brian Wiesendanger
From: Leonard Miglio
To: Dana Ayers
Subject: Re: Clayton Housing Simulation Now Available Online! Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 6:32:21 AM
Good Morning Dana, I do not believe that Clayton can add over 550 homes to our community.

The infrastructure does not exist and there are no benefits to Clayton residence and only benefits developers. I understand the State Leaders want to increase density and remove the single-family home with private backyards. I understand small communities are being blackmailed into cooperation. An environmental review will show that it takes us 20 minutes to get to highway 4 and I can get to Fairfield in 20 minutes when I am on 4. My nephew has moved to Green Valley because he can get to downtown walnut creek faster than getting on YVR. I would recommend everyone drive at 7:30 am down either YVR or Clayton Rd and see the school traffic and commute traffic. I had to leave at 7:15 to take my mom to an 8:00 appointment at Shadelands. Quality Of Life is the issue.

Thanks
From: Dana Ayers <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 5:07 PM
To: Dana Ayers <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Clayton Housing Simulation Now Available Online! Reminder-- the Balancing Act housing simulation will remain open and housing plans can be submitted through April 3!
From: Dana Ayers <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 5:20 PM
To: Dana Ayers <[email protected]>
Subject: Clayton Housing Simulation Now Available Online! The City of Clayton is pleased to announce a new opportunity for community engagement in the Housing Element Update for the 2023 through 2031 housing cycle!
Where would you put new housing in Clayton? Can you create a housing plan? Every eight years, California cities update their housing plans and identify locations where their share of housing growth could be built.

Clayton must identify and zone enough land to accommodate at least 570 new residences, our share of the projected statewide housing need.

The City of Clayton invites you to participate in an online simulation that challenges participants to create a plan for where the City’s allocation of new housing units could be built.

We’ve identified potential sites, you select the densities that you think would create the best housing plan.

The simulation can be accessed through a desktop computer or mobile device and will remain open for submissions through April 3, 2022.

Check out the simulation online on the Housing Element webpage, or using the camera on your mobile device, scan the QR code in the attached announcement.

And please share this announcement with your friends, colleagues and neighbors in the community!
Dana Ayers, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Clayton
6000 Heritage Trail
Clayton, CA 94517
Tel: 925-673-7343
Fax: 925-672-4917
Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 22, 2022
Minutes Page 1
Minutes
City of Clayton Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, February 22, 2022

1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Denslow called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Vice Chair Miller led the Pledge of Allegiance.

3. ROLL CALL

Present: Chair Terri Denslow
Vice Chair Ed Miller
Commissioner Justin Cesarin
Commissioner Frank Gavidia
Commissioner Amy Hines-Shaikh

4. PRESENTATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no presentations or announcements.

5. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA
There were no changes to the Agenda as submitted.

6. PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no public comments.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of December 14, 2021.

Commissioner Cesarin moved to approve the minutes as submitted.

Commissioner Hines-Shaikh seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.

Appendix B: Minutes of February 22, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 22, 2022
Minutes Page 2

8. STUDY SESSION
A. Status Report on the General Plan Housing Element Update for the 6th Cycle.

This is an informational session at which staff will provide an overview on the process to date with respect to the Update of the General Plan Housing Element for the 6th Cycle (2023-2031). In addition to reviewing the background and components of the Housing Element, staff will provide an explanation of next steps in the Housing Element Update, including the process for conducting required review of the Housing Element Update in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and a demonstration of the next public engagement opportunity consisting of a housing planning simulation that will be posted to the City website at the end of February 2022.

Community Development Director Dana Ayers presented an overview of the State statutes pertaining to the Housing Element and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Commissioner Hines-Shaikh requested clarification on ministerial approvals and for examples of projects that could be considered ministerial. Director Ayers explained that projects that must meet prescribed standards without any discretion were considered ministerial. She gave building permits, small grading permits, and residential lot splits under Senate Bill (SB) 9 as examples of ministerial actions. She further explained that, with regard to the Housing Element and how CEQA applies to it, the entirety of the Housing Element and its selected sites and densities would need to be considered in the environmental analysis. While certain sites might qualify for ministerial approval, it was important not to isolate those sites as outside the scope of the Housing Element project and its Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analysis. However, she noted that future applications for residential development on sites identified in an adopted Housing Element could be considered not subject to CEQA if they qualified for a specific exemption or, if subject to CEQA, could build on the broader environmental analysis provided in the Housing Element EIR.

Commissioner Hines-Shaikh also asked about the State Housing and Community Development Department’s (HCD) inclusion of Extremely LowIncome as an income category for housing allocation, and whether the City’s allocation for affordable housing had been modified to include an assignment for Extremely Low-Income households. Director Ayers advised that in the current cycle, Extremely Low-Income units were included within the Very Low-Income category allocation. She was unaware of any new category being created with a new housing allocation specific to the Extremely Low-Income category but would further research the question.

Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 22, 2022
Minutes Page 3
Vice-Chair Miller inquired about the relationship between density and income level for the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Director Ayers explained that density could be an indicator for affordability level and, more specifically, that units designated for sites zoned with a density of 20 or more units per acre in Clayton could be counted toward the City’s LowIncome allocation.

Chair Denslow inquired about the mechanisms available to ensure that a certain number of units are built as Low-Income units. Director Ayers suggested that a site could have an overlay zoning district with affordability requirements or, if the site was controlled by the City, the City could specify terms of affordability in the disposition of the site to a private developer.

Chair Denslow then requested clarification on when exemptions from CEQA could be applied, and how the Initial Study Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G relates to CEQA-exempt projects. Director Ayers advised that review of a project for a CEQA exemption may not require completion of the Initial Study Checklist but still required at minimum a cursory review of the project against the resource areas in the Checklist. She explained that exemption classes included a caveat that the project had no other impacts.

She gave a hypothetical example of a project that was under 5 acres in size and located on an infill site—a project, which at first review might fit within a CEQA exemption class. In that hypothetical example, however, if that project was going to demolish an identified historic resource, it would have a potentially significant impact on historic resources and would not qualify as exempt from CEQA.

Chair Denslow then asked how the EIR process could commence while the Housing Element and its housing site inventory were still being prepared.

She confirmed with staff that the commencement of the EIR should not be an indication to the public that the scope of the Housing Element was set and that no further public comment would be invited. Director Ayers further clarified that “the project” that would be described in the Notice of EIR Preparation and analyzed in the EIR assumed high densities of development across most of the specified sites in the preliminary inventory but that, as the analysis in the EIR was prepared and through the public input process of the Housing Element, alternatives would be developed and their environmental impacts would be compared against the project. At the end of the EIR process, the City Council would decide whether to approve “the project” or one of the alternatives as the updated Housing Element.

Chair Denslow confirmed with staff that the progress on the Housing Element Update was aligned with the schedule in the consultant’s proposal approved by the City Council at their May 18, 2021 meeting.

Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 22, 2022
Minutes Page 4
Chair Denslow invited any member of the public in attendance to ask questions of staff. Alice Bristol asked if all of the housing in the project was proposed to occur on one site. Director Ayers advised that the Housing Element would include potential housing units on multiple sites, and Chair Denslow further clarified that the “project area” for the Housing Element was the entire City rather than one discreet location within it.

Director Ayers then shared with the Planning Commission a demonstration of Balancing Act, a public engagement and housing planning simulation tool that staff planned to make available to the public within the week.

Commissioner Gavidia asked why the simulation set a maximum density of 30 units per acre instead of 50 or 100 units per acre. Director Ayers responded that 30 units per acre was closer to the adopted General Plan, which had a maximum density of 20 units per acre, rather than 50 or 100 units, and that in setting the density in the simulation, staff chose a density that staff believed was more in line with community preferences.

Commissioner Gavidia confirmed with staff that any density above 20 units per acre would require a General Plan amendment, which was what the Housing Element Update was but that, with that amendment, the Council could set a higher maximum density. He did not think that the problem could be solved with a limitation on density. Director Ayers stated that the 30 unit per acre maximum in the simulation was not intended as a recommendation on a maximum, but the simulation would give decision-makers and staff an idea of where in the City people were comfortable with higher densities versus lower densities of housing. The Planning Commission and City Council could choose to set a maximum density in excess of 30 units per acre when they took action on the Housing Element Update.

Commissioner Hines-Shaikh confirmed with staff that it was not possible to add a site to the simulation that was not already there, but that participants could submit comments inside the simulation making suggestions about other sites that could be included in the inventory.

Commissioner Cesarin asked how the simulation would be weighted in the preparation of the Housing Element Update. He also said he understood Commissioner Gavidia’s comment about maximum density in the simulation, but that it made sense to him why staff chose a maximum density that was based on adopted policy in the General Plan, and he understood the intent of the simulation to indicate preferences for higher or lower densities. He confirmed with staff that the results of the multiple plan submissions would be summarized in a spreadsheet of data about each site.

Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 22, 2022
Minutes Page 5
Vice Chair Miller confirmed with staff that the data from the simulation could be represented graphically in addition to a spreadsheet. He also confirmed with staff that the General Plan land use designations and zoning classifications could establish minimum densities for sites. He thought that minimum density was a good idea and could temper the City’s RHNA buffer somewhat if it is known that a certain minimum number of units would be built on a site. Vice Chair Miller also confirmed with staff the State statute with respect to sites that have been in two housing cycles but remain unbuilt, that they must be zoned in such a way that at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to Low-Income households, which could be achieved by zoning the site for a minimum 20 units per acre. He suggested that smaller developments like accessory dwelling units and urban lot splits could help to contribute to the RHNA. He felt it worth repeating a comment made by staff at the January 4, 2022 City Council meeting that, for those types of projects, historical data is valuable in predicting justifiable future trends for that type of development during the next housing cycle. If the City over-predicted development of that type toward meeting its RHNA, the City could risk losing land use authority later because of a lack of progress toward meeting its projected housing targets. He thought there would be future opportunities to think outside of the box on how to approach the RHNA with smaller residential developments.

Commissioner Gavidia asked if people could identify sites other than the ones included in the simulation. Director Ayers responded that the simulation was limited to a prescribed list of sites that were designed into the program, but that discussion of the Housing Element was ongoing, and people could submit letters or emails to staff identifying other potential housing opportunity sites. He asked what tools or incentives the City could offer developers to build housing, suggesting that a variance or tax incentive was not going to be enough to motivate a housing developer. He reiterated that the problem has been going on for a long time.

Chair Denslow asked Commissioner Gavidia to clarify what he meant about “solving the problem,” and whether he was referencing an insufficiency in housing or not meeting RHNA numbers. Commissioner Gavidia responded that he was referencing solving the problem for the City of Clayton. Housing Elements must be updated every 8 years but that, in the 20 years he has lived in Clayton, not much housing has been built. He expressed concern that the situation would continue to be a problem for the City and questioned how the City would incentivize a developer to build housing since rezoning land has not been enough.

Chair Denslow confirmed with staff housing projections are updated with each 8-year housing cycle and that, even if units are built, a new allocation for housing will be assigned to the City for the next cycle. She said she was still unclear on the problem to which Commissioner Gavidia was referring.

Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 22, 2022
Minutes Page 6
Commissioner Gavidia suggested rezoning land for a large buffer over the RHNA of 570, up to 1,000 or 2,000 units possibly, so that the problem goes away for a little while and does not come back to haunt the City. He suggested creative solutions, and he anticipated further upzoning of sites would be necessary. He suggested that if people knew the maximum density allowable, then they could then share where they would want the housing, and then the City could try to find a way to get the units built. He would like people to have the opportunity to identify other sites beyond the ones identified in the simulation, and he preferred a very larger buffer to the RHNA so that, at least for the next 15 to 20 years, there would not be a problem.

Chair Denslow confirmed with staff that drastic changes in upzoning of sites could be perceived by HCD staff as unrealistic and put at risk HCD’s certification of the Housing Element. Director Ayers referred to State statute specifying that an agency must commit to implementing its Housing Element and that, if land values in Clayton have not supported 100 units per acre in the recent past, HCD could find such a dramatic upzoning to be questionable. Chair Denslow asked how many times a draft Housing Element could be resubmitted for review to HCD before the January 2023 deadline to approve the Housing Element. Director Ayers stated that her memory was not clear on the statute, but that she believed agencies had to complete their processes within 1 to 3 years of the deadline.

Vice Chair Miller questioned whether higher density directly corresponded to an increase in developer profit. Commissioner Gavidia said that it did, and that larger companies could borrow money at cheaper rates than smaller developers. He reiterated that he would like the land use scenarios in the Housing Element to include very high densities and greater building heights. If the City was going to solve the problem, it had to be realistic.

Chair Denslow confirmed with staff that the solution to the housing problem would not be a one-time and indefinite fix, but rather that new housing unit allocations would be assigned to each jurisdiction at the start of every 8- year housing cycle, regardless of how many units of the preceding cycle’s allocation were built. She also clarified with staff that the simulation would not produce a single or best housing plan from among the submissions, but that the multiple results of the submissions would give decision-makers an idea of where in the City participants felt more comfortable with higher density developments. Decision-makers would then review the results of the simulation, along with written comments outside of the simulation, to evaluate more refinements of the housing plans to include meeting income level allocations that were not as easily accommodated in the simulation.

However, because State law recognized densities of 20 or more units per acre as being affordable to Low-Income households, where responses Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 22, 2022
Minutes Page 7
indicated a level of comfort with higher densities on a site, the Commission could consider possibly including the units planned on that site toward the City’s Low-Income unit allocation.

Commissioner Cesarin said he understood the simulation was not intended to direct the Housing Element but was intended to give staff an idea of what the City was feeling with respect to housing. He said that putting much higher numbers into the simulation than were in the adopted General Plan did not make sense to him, but he recognized staff could make a future recommendation to increase density in an area where staff received community input in support of that. He inquired about whether the City had done an analysis of what barriers, such as utility connection costs, were discouraging property owners from constructing accessory dwelling unit (ADUs).

Commissioner Hines-Shaikh stated that the State was setting aside a large budget allocation, sponsored by Assembly Member Phil Ting, to incentivize ADU construction. She emphasized the importance of letting people know about the availability of these funds. She suggested pursuing community input on whether residents in the community would be interested in building an ADU and whether cost was the barrier for them. Director Ayers added that the City had been awarded grant funds in 2020 to develop a preapproved ADU program that could result in reduced architectural design and plan check costs for people interested in building an ADU.

9. ACTION ITEMS
None.

10. COMMUNICATIONS
Vice Chair Miller encouraged people to submit written comments on the Housing Element.

Chair Denslow thanked staff for answering the various questions from the Commissioners, and she encouraged interested parties to review the Housing Element webpage on the City website and to reach out to staff with any questions throughout the Housing Element process.

Director Ayers advised that City Hall was re-opened to the public and that staff anticipated in-person Planning Commission meetings to resume in April. She reported that meetings would have a hybrid format where people could attend in person or could continue to participate remotely using the Zoom web conferencing platform. She advised that meeting guidelines for Hoyer Hall would be the same as they were for City Hall, wherein unvaccinated individuals would be required to wear a mask and unvaccinated individuals had the option to wear a mask.

Planning Commission Regular Meeting February 22, 2022
Minutes Page 8
Chair Denslow referenced the last City Council meeting at which the Mayor announced a request for volunteers to hand out flyers pertaining to the Housing Element and Clayton Cares program. Director Ayers advised that the Mayor intended to post details of the volunteer opportunity on his social media site and suggested interested individuals check there.

11. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m. to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on March 8, 2022.

Respectfully submitted:
________________________________
Dana Ayers, AICP, Secretary
Approved by the Clayton Planning Commission:
________________________________
Terri Denslow, Chair
Appendix
C

City of Clayton Housing Element Update Survey Summary | 1 Housing Element Map-Based Survey
Summary

INTRODUCTION
In 2021, the City of Clayton began updating its Housing Element, a mandatory element of the General Plan, to identify goals and policies that will guide long term decision making around housing throughout the City. As part of the planning process, the City conducted an online survey, inviting community members to provide input on preferred uses for a vacant site in Downtown, as well as citywide housing issues and challenges, and possible strategies for the Housing Element update. The input received will help plan for the future, set priorities and create policies for growth in the community over the next eight years. This document summarizes the questionnaire methodology and key findings.

METHODOLOGY AND OUTREACH
The online questionnaire was available from November 3 to 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 questionnaire was available in English and was accessible online. The City of Clayton promoted the questionnaire through its website and social media channels, at public meetings and facilities, and through the Concord Clayton Pioneer. City Council Members, Planning Commissioners and community groups were encouraged to share the link on their social media channels and with their email lists as well as colleagues, friends and neighbors.

While survey results should not be interpreted as statistically representative, the results help to identify common and shared themes, concerns and priorities. This document summarizes the survey results and key findings. Appendices provide documentation of the survey questions, responses, and additional comments received.

The survey was accessed over 450 times online, demonstrating a wide reach and successful publication.

Fewer people finished the survey or answered every question. All questions were optional. The number of respondents for each question is included below.

KEY FINDINGS
The City of Clayton Housing Element update survey provided insights into community priorities and needs.

The following are notable results and themes from the questionnaire results. • Over half (56%) 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.

Survey Summary
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 2
• When asked to rank the importance of housing issues and challenges in the City, respondents listed traffic and congestion (69%), preserving community character (67%), limited infrastructure (65%), and overcrowding (64%) as the top issues with a 10 out of 10 ranking. • A lack of diverse housing options (34%) and housing supply (30%) 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%) and encouraging the rehabilitation of existing housing in older neighborhoods (21%) 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%) and targeting efforts to address long-term inequities in the housing market (42%) 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%) and nearly a quarter of respondents said that new housing should be located where it will have the least impact on traffic in Clayton (22%).

Survey Summary
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 3

FULL SURVEY RESPONSES

INTRODUCTORY QUESTIONS
When asked about new housing growth over half (58%) of respondents said they were in favor of the potential growth increase in housing units in Clayton, while 42% indicated they did not want to see any new housing. Many of those supporting growth indicated concerns, including impacts to community character and increased strain on city infrastructure and budgets, while others supported growth in certain areas of the city.

The first map-based questions asked participants to indicate where they live. This question allows the project team to assess the geographic reach of the questionnaire. Figure 2 below is a “heat map” showing the distribution of respondents. The areas of more intense color (orange and red) indicate a higher concentration of respondents.

Figure 1: “What do you think about the potential growth increase in housing units in Clayton?” 14% 16% 14% 14%
42%
2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
I'm all for it! I'm for it, but I'm
also concerned the
character of
Clayton might
change.

I'm for it, but I'm
also concerned
that growth would
strain the City's
budget and
infrastructure
(roads, utilities and
public services).

I'm for it in certain
areas of the city.

I don't support any
new housing in
Clayton.

I'm not sure how I
feel about it.

Survey Summary
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 4

LOCATIONS FOR NEW HOUSING
The next two questions asked survey respondents to indicate what general areas and what sites they think would be appropriate for new housing. These are represented by polygons (Figure 3) that people drew, as well as a heat map (Figure 4) that shows specific locations or sites indicated by map pins.

Figure 2: “Where do you live?”
Figure 3: Areas for New Housing
Survey Summary
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 5
Figure 4: Sites for New Housing
Survey Summary
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 6

DOWNTOWN SITE
Survey participants were asked to indicate their preferred uses for the vacant City-owned Downtown site.

They were able to select from a list of potential land uses and/or submit a photo that illustrated their ideas. Those who answered this question were most supportive of entertainment and commercial uses, specifically mixed-use projects with retail, mixed-use projects with dining, retail uses, and a grocery store.

Follow-up questions asked about support for specific housing types, commercial uses, and mixed-use projects using photos to illustrate the type of use shown. Of the housing products shown, duplexes and townhomes received the most support (indicated by scores of 8 and above), but each type also received a similar number of “do not support” responses (scores of 3 or below). A score of 5 indicated a neutral position. Results are shown in Figures 6-14 below.

Figure 5: What would you like to see at the Downtown Site? 7%
18%
13%
30%
20%
12%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
New housing Commercial uses
(e.g., services,
retail, and/or
restaurants)
Mixed-use project
with housing and
commercial uses
Entertainment
(e.g., restaurants
and/or
recreational
activities)
Art and cultural
uses
Other
Survey Summary
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 7
Figure 7: Support for New Townhomes
30%
3%
6%
10%
1%
3%
5%
10%
12%
19%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 Figure 6: Support for New Duplexes
25%
6%
5%
6%
1%
7%
6%
9%
17% 17%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 Survey Summary
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 8
Figure 8 Support for New Apartments or Condominiums
61%
12%
4% 4%
0% 1% 0%
6%
2%
11%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 Figure 9: Support for Mixed-Use Housing with Retail
29%
4%
3%
10%
1%
4%
5%
12%
10%
22%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 Survey Summary
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 9
Figure 10: Support for Mixed-use Housing with Dining
21%
3%
7%
4%
0%
3%
11%
12%
15%
25%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 Figure 11: Support for New Retail
17%
3%
13%
10%
1% 1%
8%
17%
7%
24%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 Survey Summary
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 10
Figure 12: Support for new Commercial (Office) Spaces
37%
7%
11%
20%
1%
3%
7%
4%
1%
8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 Figure 13: Support for New Grocery Store
19%
8% 8%
10%
0% 0%
5%
14%
12%
23%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 Survey Summary
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 11
30%
8%
11%
8%
3%
4%
6% 6%
10%
14%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 Figure 14: Support for New Entertainment/Arts Center
Survey Summary
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 12

COMMUNITY VISION AND GOALS
Respondents were asked to indicate the importance of housing issues and challenges in Clayton using sliders ranging from 0 (not at all important) to 10 (very important). If the issue/challenge was neither important nor unimportant to a respondent, the slider would be left at 5. Figures 15 through Figure 24 below illustrate respondent’s rankings for each issue
Figure 15: Housing Supply
30%
12%
6%
11%
1% 1%
2%
7%
11%
19%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 Survey Summary
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 13
Figure 16: Housing Affordability
18%
6%
9%
11%
4%
0%
6%
13%
9%
25%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 Figure 17: Overcrowding
7%
0%
3% 3%
1% 0%
4%
6%
11%
64%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 Survey Summary
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 14
Figure 18: A Lack of Diverse Housing Options
34%
4%
9%
8%
5%
0%
5% 5%
7%
22%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 Figure 19: Fair Housing Issues (e.g., discrimination, inadequate accommodations for people with disabilities, etc.)
24%
5% 5% 5%
7%
1%
4%
12%
9%
28%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 Survey Summary
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 15
Figure 20: Limited Infrastructure (water, sewer)
4% 3% 3%
5%
0% 1%
5%
12%
3%
65%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 Figure 21: Wildfire Risk
3%
5%
3%
5%
1% 0%
3%
8%
10%
62%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 Survey Summary
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 16
1% 2% 4% 2% 1% 1%
7%
5%
7%
69%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 Figure 22: Traffic and Congestion
Figure 23: Protecting Environmentally Sensitive Areas
4%
1%
4% 5%
1% 1%
5%
10% 8%
62%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 Survey Summary
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 17
Figure 24: Preserving Community Character
5%
2%
4%
2%
0% 0%
2%
7%
10%
67%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 Survey Summary
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 18

STRATEGIES AND SOLUTIONS FOR CLAYTON
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of support for various strategies and solutions appropriate for Clayton. If a respondent was neither supportive nor opposed to a strategy/solution the slider would be left at 5. Figure 25 through Figure 36 below illustrate respondent’s support for each strategy or solution.

Figure 25: Develop a diverse range of housing options
38%
7%
6%
7%
0%
1%
9%
8%
6%
18%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 Survey Summary
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 19
Figure 26: Ensure that children who grow up in Clayton can afford to live in Clayton on their own 20%
8% 8% 8%
3% 3%
5%
12%
16%
18%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 Figure 27: Provide opportunities for people who work in Clayton to live in Clayton 16%
5% 5%
10%
4%
8%
10%
17%
10%
14%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 Survey Summary
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 20
Figure 28: Provide more options for older residents to downsize and stay in the community 12%
1%
6%
3% 3%
4%
9%
27%
16%
19%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 Figure 29: Support local businesses by concentrating new housing and residents around commercial d d
20%
4%
12%
6% 6%
1%
14%
12%
7%
17%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 Survey Summary
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 21
Figure 30: Streamline the process for new housing construction 29%
10%
3%
13%
4%
1%
4%
10%
8%
18%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 Figure 31: Support homeowners who want to build Accessory Dwelling Units or in-law units on singlefamily lots 16%
5% 5%
3% 3%
4%
9%
8%
11%
38%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 Survey Summary
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 22
Figure 32: Establish housing for seniors, large families, veterans, and/or persons with disabilities 19%
3%
12%
7%
5%
3%
12%
16%
11%
13%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 Figure 33: “Provide shelters and transitional housing for homeless families and individuals, along with services that help move people into permanent housing”
48%
13% 13%
8%
3%
0%
3% 4% 4%
6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 Survey Summary
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 23
Figure 34: Encourage the rehabilitation of existing housing in older neighborhoods 15%
0%
4%
3%
4%
1%
4%
18%
28%
21%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 Figure 35: Support programs to help homeowners at risk of mortgage default to keep their homes 26%
2%
9%
5%
8%
3%
11%
15%
6%
17%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 Survey Summary
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 24
Figure 36: Target efforts to address long-term inequities in the housing market, including discrimination in renting
42%
6%
7% 7%
1%
0%
6%
7%
6%
17%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10 Survey Summary
City of Clayton Housing Element Update | 25

TRADEOFFS
In selecting housing strategies, the Housing Element will need to identify priorities and make tradeoffs.

Respondents were given $100 to spend on seven housing strategies and were asked to identify preferred strategies by spending the $100 in $10 increments across the options. Respondents could choose to spend the $100 in any way they wanted. Figure 37 below illustrates the percentage of funds allocated to each strategy across all responses.

Table 1: Preferred Strategies
Strategy Amount Spent ($) Percentage
New housing should be concentrated near existing and planned public transit. $1410 15%
New housing should be spread evenly across all parts of the City. $870 9% New housing should be focused in the Town Center. $870 9% New housing should be built on the edges of the City. $1280 14% New housing should blend in with the character of surrounding neighborhoods. $2370 25%
New housing should be located where it will have the least impact on traffic in Clayton. $2060 22%
New housing should be located within easy access of shops and services. $620 7%
Figure 37: Preferred Strategies (n=94)
15%
9% 9%
14%
25%
22%
7%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
New housing
should be
concentrated
near existing
and planned
public transit.

New housing
should be
spread evenlly
across all parts
of the City.

New housing
should be
focused in the
Town Center.

New housing
should be built
on the edges of
the City.

New housing
should blend in
with the
character of
surrounding
neighborhoods.

New housing
should be
located where it
will have the
least impact on
traffic in
Clayton.

New housing
should be
located within
easy access of
shops and
services.