They are now being proposed as 80 apartment rentals. It grows once again. This thing started out as 2 stories with 45 units a year ago. Then it went to 60. Then it went to 81 units with 81 bedrooms. Now it’s 3 stories with 80 units and 116 bedrooms. The developer has indicated the units will initially be for rent and then anticipates submitting a request to the City for a condo map in the future. “Anticipate” is the word here, meaning it would be the developer’s call in the future to convert to condos AFTER the apartment rentals are built. And even if they did decide they wanted to convert, the City would still need to approve the request. Plus, there are additional costs associated with the conversion in increased taxes, fees and insurance. No guarantee at all that these apartment rentals would ever become condos. This project is being proposed as 80 apartment rentals, not luxury condos as one of the developer spokes-mouths stated earlier. And 400K to 500K is certainly not luxury prices. If anything, the developer is looking to build these things as cheaply as possible. That’s why the proposal is for 80 apartment rentals.
The developer has also requested a Density Bonus. This Density Bonus law requires cities to grant incentives and concessions, such as parking reductions and reductions in development standards. This means each unit would have less than one parking spot per unit, and available guest and commercial parking can be reduced. The reduction in development standards also means cheaper and less aesthetics, smaller off-set distances from the street and height variances. So let’s call this thing what it really is: a run-of-the-mill 3-story 80 apartment rental proposal.
What we also need to consider here is that this latest version of the project is showing many of the rental units with 2 bedrooms now instead of the original 1 bedroom per unit. This extra bedroom would prove to be very lucrative with this new parolee housing push going on now since regulations allow for 2 parolees per bedroom at $1,200 per parolee per month subsidized by the County’s parolee housing program. Do you see what’s going on here folks???
These are the latest plans for the proposed development:
What the heck is going on? Did someone decide that they were elected to destroy this community? People live here because they like it. Don’t destroy it.
This is unacceptable!! What can we do to stop this from happening?
As an interested and concerned resident – here is something to ponder regarding the high density project
While this project may not be up to standards for some, I think it beats the alternative by a long shot. Let me share what I know to best of my knowledge. But, by all means do what you feel is best. That is your right.
Personally, I would need to know what else could be on these 3 parcels should this plan not be built. We could have the current project or we could have something really, really bad and still be in compliance with the General Plan and Town Specific Plan
We know a local resident privately owns these lots and he has a right to build. To wish for nothing there is not realistic. The high-density criterion has been in the general plan since 2004. One reason for the unit change was because in 2014/15, the city discovered it was not in compliance with the California Housing/Community Development or (HCD). They (HCD) set the rules and all cities must comply. Staff had to initiate the change to be in compliance. Cities have to comply or risk paying fines, holding up building permits, no measure C funds for roads etc., not to mention lawsuits from housing advocates. The housing element is now in compliance for 2015 -2023. Hence, the 20 units per acre minimum criteria were born.
The other reason for the unit change is because of the AB 744 Density Bonus Law. To qualify for AB 744, the development would have to be within one-half mile from a bus stop or major transit stop, a senior-only development with access to the transit or a development that services special needs individuals. Under the law, developers can request a density bonus if they include very low, low to moderate–income units in their development. In return for the inclusion of affordable units, the developer receives an increase in density beyond the city’s maximum and can request incentives and concession for the development. In this development, 59 units is the base and with the bonus density law, 35% increase adds 22 more units, 7 of these units are reserved for low income. Total of 81 units over 3 parcels
Fewer cars, use of public transits and more affordable housing is trending
This builder did not seek out any general plan amendments or changes to the zoning or variances. This project complies with current GP/Specific town plan and because these parcels are infill lots, they are exempt from CEQA and no EIR is required. This project, over 3 parcels has 36, 2BDR/2BA and 45,1BDR /1BA. All have full kitchens and full laundry. They will be built to Condo code. They are to be sold or may start out as rent to sell depending on market at completion. They will have an HOA. The rest you can look up on the renderings and seek out parking and car information. But it would all be lower than any other alternative plan.
But, consider this if you choose to put up your dukes and fight like hell, 😊
(but I hope you choose not to fight but to work with all involved and get the very best possible outcome for all of us) because any other developer could put in 60, 2BDR “apartments” with no HOA, more cars on the road and cheap materials. This particular developer could save millions by omitting the decks, the garages, the high ceilings, the washer and dryers, the elevator, the wood trim, the thick walls between units, the finishes/stainless steel, etc. and instead build cheap 2 bedroom apartments which is an option that would still meet the GP/Town Specific Plan.
In a nutshell:
Things to ponder that are bad for us
Do we want 60, 2 bedrooms or 36 as per project
Do we want Apartments or Condos as per project?
Do we want 150 cars or 62 cars as per project?
Do we want an underground or podium style building to accommodate parking and open space requirements?
Do we want the developer to cut out millions of dollars from the project and take out the decks, the garages, the high ceilings, the washer and dryers, the elevator, the wood trim, the thick walls between units, the finishes/stainless steel, etc. and instead build cheap 2 bedroom apartments and still be in compliance to the GP/Town specific Plan?
Anybody could rent the apartments
Maybe more parolee occupancy
Things to ponder that are good for us
Current project also has more open and active space than required.
Need to qualify at 55 or older to live here.
Meets town aesthetics
Garage/carports/visitor parking – access to bus
Be sensitive to low income 55 plus residents in 7 units
Condo Construction, To be sold, or Rent to Sell
Keep nice finishes: decks, the garages, the high ceilings, the washer and dryers, the elevator, the wood trim, the thick walls between units, the finishes/stainless steel, etc.
Please know, I am not trying to push any development through for personal gain. I would be happy the parcels never got developed. But, I do recognize both sides on this issue. I could support this project as it is. I would hate Apartments but I could do nothing to stop it legally.
In my research, this Condo project is clean. No one could even referendum the project if they tried. So, please, let us all be careful moving forward.
This website should be updated with factual information about The Olivia on Marsh Creek. Currently it is not accurate.
Teddy “Ballgame”, an old friend of CW Wolfe and a member of the the Clayton Club/Pete Laurence crowd, was overheard saying that the fix was in for Jordan to get his 3-building 3-story 81 unit stack-and-and-pack Antioch-style high-density housing next to downtown if Wolfe and Shuey are elected.
Your a scumbag, Jordan.
High density is needed to bring people downtown. It should help businesses. Chaparral Springs is high density which is not a detriment to its neighbors.
Keller Ridge condos are also high density. Does this bring down the neighborhood? Not in my opinion. 🙂
This will be good for businesses.
Do Clayton residents have a say?
How do we get on the list? We are interested.
You can sign up on the upper right hand side above.
Alison Snow should be the spokesperson for save Clayton. :))
Price the back room deals going on. Or find another tactic to your approach.
Johanna, Matt Huber, Glenn Miller, frank g, Jon cross,Alison Snow, frank gavida, Jeff wan, and Brian Buddell have torn apart our great community with lies , innuendo, and half truths. They have axes to grind. They are angry people. Every week it’s another person to go after. This week it was Tamara Steiner!!!!!!!!!!!! Who’s it next week?
Residents don’t fall for this social media junk. It’s a phenomenon of bullying on line. We are going back in time. It’s disgusting rhetoric.
There is another developer looking at downtown lot again. I heard this from a reliable source.
It doesn’t matter if Shoe is elected since this project has a completed application. It’s too late to stop If the developer is selling them as condos why is apartment being talked about? What’s the difference ?
He’s adding 5 units more now.
I’d be for this apartment building if it was for all ages and not just for old people.
Are parolees going to rent there? Can they still?
That would be 4800 per unit. 81 units times this a month is a lot of cash. Opportunity vs opposition. ((( we have to fight this