1.0    INTRODUCTION

This section of the Sonoma County General Plan presents goals, objectives, policies, and supporting information related to the provision of housing for existing and future residents of the County. The purpose of the Housing Element is twofold: 1) to present specific polices and actions for housing development in the context of the Land Use Element of the County's General Plan; and 2) to meet regional standards and achieve State certification, pursuant to statutory requirements, which in turn will help the County qualify for State and federal housing aids and grants.

The Housing Element of the County General Plan is a detailed statement of housing goals, objectives, policies, and programs for the unincorporated areas of Sonoma County. The Element is based on a comprehensive technical assessment of existing housing policies and programs, current and projected housing needs, especially related to low income households and special needs populations, an inventory of sites available for housing construction, an analysis of market, environmental, governmental, and other factors which constrain housing production, and an assessment of new programs and policies that can enhance housing production in the County.

The purpose of the Housing Element is to guide decision-making by elected and appointed officials, in the context of broader General Plan policy and time frame, regarding housing. Specifically, the Housing Element sets forth how the County will address the need for housing, especially by low and moderate income families and special needs families and individuals. The Housing Element also provides housing-related data and information to the public on housing in the County.

The Housing Element is consistent with the Land Use, Public Facilities, Open Space, and Agricultural Resources Elements of the General Plan. Housing Element policies promote housing consistent with the various designations set forth in the Land Use Element. Possibilities for farm family and farmworker housing are also provided in accordance with the Agricultural Resources Element.

However, in some instances, programs calling for further study of specific housing issues may lead to future recommendations for policy change that cannot be assessed for consistency at this time. Consistency determinations on such recommendations will be made on a case-by-case basis in conjunction with the review of specific program proposals.

Government Code Section 65580 declares that local and state governments have a responsibility to use their vested powers to facilitate housing development and to make "adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community."

Furthermore, the Legislature acknowledges the need for jurisdictions to consider "economic, environmental, and fiscal factors and community goals set forth in the general plan."

Sonoma County has conducted an extensive public outreach program on Housing Element issues, constrained only by the limited time available for Element preparation. These efforts began with a series of settlement conferences with plaintiffs representing various housing advocacy groups and individuals in the lawsuit on the 1992 Element, which occurred periodically throughout 2000. After a settlement was reached on October 11, 2000, a consultant was retained, a work program was prepared and a mailing list of 275 individuals and groups was established. As work on the Element began, the following opportunities for citizen participation in Element preparation occurred:

     •     Between January 3 and January 16, 2001, the County conducted a series of special meetings with interested groups and individuals to elicit comments on Element content at the earliest possible stage. These meetings included:

January 3, 2000: Janie Walsh, Kathleen Kane, Tino Vera and staff of the Sonoma County Community Development Commission.

January 4, 2001: John Lowry, Cheney Delaire, Nick Stewart and staff of the Burbank Housing Development Corporation.

January 8, 2001: David Grabill, Mike Rawson, Margo Merck of the Sonoma County Housing Advocacy Group (plaintiffs) and Deborah Swanson of Vineyard Worker Services.

January 9, 2001: Judy James, Andrew Carmozzi and Ray Mulas of the Sonoma County Farm Bureau.

January 9, 2001: Charles Carson, Northern Division, Homebuilders Association of Northern California.

January 10, 2001: Keith Cullum and Len Swenson, Sierra Club, Sonoma County Chapter

January 10, 2001: John Norris and Gail Brownell of the Sonoma County Task Force on the Homeless

January 10, 2001: Nancy Richards and Susan Gorin of the League of Women Voters.

January 10, 2001: Maureen Middlebrook of the Sonoma County Manufacturers' Group.

January 10, 2001: Bob Anderson of the United Winegrowers for Sonoma County.

January 11, 2001: Robert Maus and Camilla Cleary of the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

January 16, 2001: Kathy Hayes of the North Bay Association of Realtors.

     •     On the evening of January 17, 2001, the County conducted an initial public workshop, advertised by notices mailed to the mailing list. Attendance at the workshop included PRMD staff, Community Development Commission staff, County Administrator's staff, the consultant team and approximately 40 members of the public and interested citizen groups, including numerous persons advocating support for affordable and special-needs housing. The workshop included a presentation of the work program and a discussion by participants of the desired contents of the Element.

     •     Between January 18 and March 7, 2001, a series of five Technical Memoranda (including 100 pages of text and GIS maps of potential housing sites) were prepared and circulated. Individuals and groups listed above were consulted during preparation of these memoranda. Topics addressed in the memoranda included Demographic and Housing Market Trends, the Current Affordable Housing Supply and Programs, Affordable Housing Need Projections, Special Housing Needs and the Inventory of Potential Housing sites.

     •     On the evening of March 7, 2001 the County conducted a second public workshop, advertised by notices mailed to the mailing list. Attendance included PRMD staff, Community Development Commission staff, County Administrator's staff, the consultant team and approximately 70 members of the public and interested groups. The workshop included a presentation by the consultant outlining the contents and findings of the Technical Memoranda and a discussion by participants of the Memoranda and their findings.

     •     Between March 8 and March 23, 2001, the County conducted a second series of special meetings with interested groups and individuals to elicit comments on Technical Memoranda 1-5 and on potential housing programs which would be addressed in Technical Memorandum #6. These meetings included:

March 8, 2001: Bob Anderson of the United Winegrowers of Sonoma County.

March 8, 2001: Kathy Hayes and Cynthia Wood of the North Bay Association of Realtors.

March 8, 2001: Maureen Middlebrook of the Sonoma County Manufacturers' Group.

March 9, 2001: Charles Carson of the Northern Division, Homebuilders Association of Northern California.

March 9, 2001: Keith Cullum and Len Swenson of the Sierra Club, Sonoma County Chapter.

March 13: John Norris and Gail Brownell of the Sonoma County Task Force on the Homeless.

March 15: Judy James and Andrew Carmozzi of the Sonoma County Farm Bureau.

March 20, 2001: John Lowry, Carr Kunze and staff of the Burbank Housing Development Corporation.

March 23: David Grabill and Margo Merck of the Sonoma County Housing Advocacy Group and Deborah Swanson of Vineyard Worker Services.

     •     On the evening of March 27, 2001, the County conducted a third public workshop, advertised by notices mailed to the mailing list. Attendance included all members of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, the Sonoma County Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Adjustments, PRMD staff, Community Development Commission staff, County Administrator's staff, the consultant team and approximately 60 members of the public and interested groups. The workshop included a presentation by the consultant outlining the contents and findings of Technical Memorandum #6, which outlined potential policies and programs to address identified housing needs, and a discussion by participants of the Memorandum and its proposals.

     •     The Draft Housing Element was released on April 23, 2001, for public review prior to Planning Commission public hearings scheduled for May 3 and May 17, 2001. Additional opportunities for public comment will occur at public hearings before the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, scheduled for late July and early August, 2001.

Throughout the process of preparing the Element, there were ongoing technical consultations among County staff, the consulting team, service providers, nonprofit groups, and advocacy groups regarding housing needs and data available to be used in the Element.

The Housing Element is organized into nine sections. Section 1 provides an introduction to the overall effort. Section 2 reviews the 1992 Housing Element and provides information on existing housing programs and affordable unit production since 1992. Section 3 discusses population, employment, and housing trends in Sonoma County. Section 4 reviews housing and households characteristics and includes an inventory of at-risk affordable units. Section 5 addresses the County's regional share of housing needs and quantifies special needs housing. Section 6 presents non-governmental and governmental constraints to affordable housing provision. Section 7 presents a detailed housing site inventory. Section 8 establishes housing goals, policies, and quantified objectives. Section 9 identifies housing action programs and provides a detailed discussion for each.

Throughout this Housing Element, a variety of technical terms are used in describing and quantifying conditions and objectives. The definitions of these terms follow:

"Affordable Housing" -- Housing which costs no more than 30 percent of a low- or very low-income household's gross monthly income. For rental housing, the residents can pay up to 30 percent of gross income on full-service rent (including utilities) or the combination of rent and separate utility costs. For homeownership, residents can pay up to 30 percent on the combination of mortgage payments, taxes, insurance, and utility costs.

"Very Low Income Households" -- Households earning not more than 50 percent of the Sonoma County AMI.

"Low Income Households" -- Households earning between 51 and 80 percent of the Sonoma County AMI.

"Moderate Income Households" -- Households earning 81 to 120 percent of the Sonoma County AMI.

"Above Moderate Income Households" -- Households earning not less than 120 percent of the Sonoma County AMI.

"Unincorporated Sonoma County (USC)" -- Incorporated cities in Sonoma County include Cloverdale, Cotati, Healdsburg, Petaluma, Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma, and Windsor. All properties outside the jurisdictional boundaries of these nine incorporated cities are in unincorporated Sonoma County, and constitute the geography to which this Housing Element pertains. Throughout this document, the acronym "USC" is used to represent unincorporated Sonoma County.

The 1992 Housing Element of the Sonoma County General Plan set forth a number of policies and programs for the furtherance of housing development. This section summarizes the content of the 1992 Housing Element, and describes the effectiveness of programs promoted therein.

2.1    SUMMARY OF THE 1992 SONOMA HOUSING ELEMENT

The over-arching goal of the 1992 Housing Element was to provide affordable housing options in the County at all socio-economic levels. Toward that end, the County designed a variety of more specific goals, objectives, policies, and programs that would contribute to the provision of affordable housing. A summary of primary policies and programs (as it appeared in the 1992 Element) is included below:

     •     Provide the housing at all socio-economic levels consistent with the population and employment projections of the General Plan.

     •     Provide the widest possible range of programs to encourage production of affordable housing, including Density Bonus, Housing Opportunity, Mixed Use, and Second Unit programs.

     •     Provide special rules, incentives, and deferment or reduction of fees, to promote production of low and very low income housing, accompanied by such restrictive policies and regulations as necessary to assure initial and long-term affordability.

     •      Revise planning and zoning standards to encourage the construction of rental ownership units below market rates with binding resale controls to assure continued affordability at future resale.

     •      Provide special policies to encourage construction of farmworker housing.

     •      Permit transitional housing in any urban residential zoning district without the requirement of a conditional use permit.

     •      Target funding for rehabilitation of the existing housing stock.

     •      Provide protection of existing mobile home parks.

     •      Designate selected areas as Housing Opportunity Areas where density increases, and development incentives could result in the production of low and very low income housing inside urban service areas.

     •      Provide for the maximum utilization of land designated for medium and high-density use.

     •      Provide for a re-evaluation of the County's population projections and related housing policies.

     •      Provide for an examination of the county's development standards which might influence the cost of housing.

The County projected that programs outlined in the Element would result in the production of 1,819 new units over five years. The prescribed affordability mix anticipated 548 units for very low income, 741 units for low income, 530 units for moderate income. Above moderate housing construction in 1988 and 1989 had already exceeded the Association of Bay Area Government's (ABAG) needs determination for the period through 1995 and therefore was not included in the total. This quantified objective was roughly 45 percent of the units called for to meet the County's regional fair share of housing. ABAG's housing needs determination (after adjusting for construction completed within the analysis period) called for a total of 3,973 units. Of that number, the determination indicated that 1,669 units for very low, 1,063 units for low, and 1,241 units for moderate income households should be provided.

Since the date of the last Housing Element (1992), 3,566 housing units were permitted in the unincorporated areas of the County. This number includes 74 units for very low, 217 units for low, and 141 units for moderate income households that carry affordability restrictions. An additional 289 farm bunkhouses and 62 agricultural employee dwellings were also constructed during this period.

New housing production did not meet the quantified objectives for very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing of the 1992 Element for a variety of reasons. These included the following:

     •     Incorporation of the Town of Windsor in 1992, which removed a population of 13,000, plus available sites for over 7,400 new housing units from county jurisdiction.

     •      The lack of sufficient available funding for affordable housing production.

     •      A national economic recession, which depressed job growth and new residential construction. Net production of housing (excluding Windsor) declined by 49.2 percent between 1990 and 1993. Production began to increase again in 1994, but hit a 10-year low in 1997 when net growth of on 222 units occurred. Production has never recovered to 1990 levels. These trends are illustrated in Table 3.4.

     •      Dramatic job and population growth throughout the Bay Area during the 1990's (as illustrated in Table 3.1) resulted in escalating housing demand from households that generally were both willing and able to pay higher prices. Accordingly, new construction was largely targeted to the higher end of the market, with the effect that most 'market rate' units were affordable only to above moderate income buyers. Table 4.1 illustrates this trend and demonstrates that the number of unsubsidized homes selling at affordable prices has dropped considerably.

For example, during 2000, more than 50 percent of single family homes commanded prices of $300,000 or more, while only about 10 percent sold for $163,000 or less. These regional trends cannot be controlled by Sonoma County.

An important objective in updating the Housing Element is to evaluate the effectiveness of existing housing programs in achieving County goals. The following section reviews housing programs sponsored by Sonoma County, the majority of which were identified for ongoing support and/or enhancement in the 1992 Housing Element.

Permanent affordable units in Sonoma County are constructed by a variety of for-profit and not-for-profit home builders and developers. County zoning regulations provide density bonuses and other incentives to build affordable units and funding is available from local, state, and federal sources for affordable housing developments.

The County's Community Development Commission (CDC) administers disbursement of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funds for affordable housing projects, the Federal Emergency Shelter Grants Program, and administers tenant-based assistance and renovation programs for the unincorporated County and the Cities of Healdsburg, Sebastopol, Cotati, Cloverdale, Rohnert Park, Sonoma, and Windsor. The City of Santa Rosa administers its own programs. There are no publicly-owned housing projects in Sonoma County.

The Sonoma County General Plan provides density bonuses and other incentives, including concurrent processing of any required development applications, to encourage the production of affordable housing. Bonus requirements and other incentives are listed below.

State-Mandated Density Bonus.  Residential projects qualify for a guaranteed minimum density bonus of 25 percent if:

     •      10 percent of the non-density bonus units will be constructed for very low income households;

     •      20 percent of the non-density bonus units will be constructed for low income households; or,

     •      50 percent of the non-density bonus units will be constructed for seniors.

Additional Density Bonus.  The state-mandated density bonus may be increased to no more than 50 percent of the mapped density if:

     •      An additional 10 percent or more of the non-density bonus units will be constructed for very low income households;

     •     An additional 20 percent or more of the non-density bonus units will be constructed for lower income households;

     •     An additional 30 percent or more of the non-density bonus units will be constructed for lower income senior households;

     •     An additional 10 percent or more of the non-density bonus units will be constructed for lower income disabled households; or,

     •     An additional 10 percent or more of the non-density bonus units will be constructed as large rental units with three bedrooms and reserved for lower income households.

Other County Density Bonus Options

Housing Opportunity Program-Type A.  Residential projects eligible for 5 or more units under existing zoning in areas with mapped residential densities of 6-20 units per acre qualify for a density bonus of up to twice the mapped density if a minimum of 40 percent of the units will be affordable for rent or sale to very low or low income households. However, densities are capped at 24 units per acre in areas mapped for 6-12 units/acre, and at 30 units per acre in areas mapped for 12-20 units/acre.

Housing Opportunity Program-Type C.  Residential projects eligible for 5 or more units under existing zoning in areas with mapped residential densities of 4-6 units per acre qualify may be built at up to 11 units per acre if a minimum of 20 percent of the units are affordable for rent or sale to very low or low income households and the remainder of the units are reserved for sale to low and moderate income households.

All projects that qualify for the State-mandated density bonus also receive two guaranteed incentives. Permit processing fees (such as subdivision filing and plan check fees) are reduced to half of those adopted by the county at the time of permit application. In addition, payment of processing fees are deferred until permit approval.

At least one of the following incentives is guaranteed for all projects eligible for a density bonus:

     •      Parking standard reduction of one space per dwelling unit for all units in the project.

     •     Reduction in parking standards one space per dwelling unit for all units in the project.

     •     20 percent reduction of the open space required by the zoning ordinance.

     •      20 percent reduction of minimum lot size for all units in the project.

     •      20 percent reduction of minimum lot width for all units in the project.

     •      Five foot reduction in side-yard setbacks and a 10 foot reduction in front yard setbacks for all units in the project (front yard setbacks shall not be less than 10 feet).

Other potential incentives include:

     •      Additional modification of zoning code requirements (e.g., minimum open space, minimum lot size, setbacks, parking standards).

     •     Allowance of other regulatory incentives or measures which can be shown to result in construction cost reductions, without compromising public policy (e.g., additional density bonuses, use of redevelopment funds or powers, if any, or other publicly assisted financing).

In addition, the county requires that any residential development on lands mapped at 7 units/acre or more be built at the mapped density, except for mobile home parks and cases where unmitigated health and safety impacts would result.

The County permits the construction of seasonal and year-round farmworker housing in agricultural zones, including both bunkhouses and single-family residences reserved for agricultural workers through deed restrictions. County land use policy also allows transitional housing as a permitted use in all urban residential zoning districts.

The County allows temporary residential occupancy of travel trailers if the trailer is occupied by an ill, convalescent, or disabled friend or relative needing care from occupants of the primary residence on the site, or if the trailer is occupied by the caregiver for the ill, convalescent, or disabled person. The need for care must be documented by a doctor's letter, and the trailer must be hooked up to the water and wastewater systems of the primary unit. Occupancy of the trailer must stop within 60 days of the time when the need for care stops.

The Sonoma County Community Development Commission administers CDBG and HOME funds for the production and rehabilitation of affordable housing throughout the County. Redevelopment area housing set aside funds are also made available for the construction and rehabilitation of housing and other housing assistance programs within the specified project areas. CDC also administers Federal Emergency Shelter Grants funds for the operation of emergency shelter and transitional housing. In addition, acting as the Sonoma

County Housing Authority, CDC administers the Section 8 and other rental assistance programs for the County of Sonoma. Low income seniors, persons with disabilities (including individuals with HIV / AIDS), families and individuals are eligible for these programs.

The following reviews programs and facilities (traditionally funded at least in part through county, state, and federal sources) that endeavor to maintain housing affordability or to provide specialized housing options throughout the County.

The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program was created by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. The program has funded a wide variety of housing and community development activities throughout the United States. These include land acquisition for new affordable housing projects, rehabilitation of existing housing, construction or renovation of community centers, infrastructure improvements, fair housing services, and other public services.

Sonoma County receives approximately $2.5 million annually in CDBG funds. The program is administered by the Community Development Commission, and the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors makes the final decision regarding how the funds are distributed locally. Since 1982, the Urban County CDBG program has set aside funding on an annual basis to participating cities (Cloverdale, Cotati, Healdsburg, Rohnert Park, Sebastopol, Sonoma, and the Town of Windsor), the lower income unincorporated areas of the county, and to numerous nonprofit organizations.

The funding cycle for CDBG is a part of, and follows the timeline outlined in the Consolidated Plan.

CDBG Projects

Community Development Block Grant funds are used for projects that improve the quality of living for lower-income residents whose incomes are less than 80 percent of the area median income as established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Such projects include the following:

     •      Housing rehabilitation;

     •      Community and senior centers;

     •      Acquisition of real property for affordable housing or other public purpose;

     •      Infrastructure improvements such as streets, sidewalks, sewers and storm drainage;

     •      Public services and accessibility modifications; and,

     •      New affordable housing developments.

The Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act created the Home Investment Partnership (HOME) Program in 1990. This federal program provides annual grants to cities, counties, and states throughout the United States to support affordable housing activities that benefit very low and low-income households.

Use of Funds

One-half of HOME funds are used for construction of rental units for very low- and low- income families and seniors in Sonoma County.

Funding Cycle
As a designated Urban County, Sonoma County receives approximately $1 million in HOME Program funds annually. The Sonoma County Community Development Commission administers the program for the County, and the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors makes the final decision regarding the local distribution of the funds.

The funding cycle for the HOME Program is a part of the Consolidated Plan and follows the timetable for that process.

The Redevelopment Agency (RDA) currently generates tax increment through its two Redevelopment Areas (a third redevelopment area, Russian River, is projected to begin generating revenue in 2002). [1] By law, 20 percent of this increment is required to be set aside for housing production programs. From Fiscal Year 1991 -1992 through February 2001, the County's redevelopment areas had generated a total of $2.4 million in housing set-aside. These funds have been used to support construction of new affordable housing units as well as to fund on-going scattered-site affordable housing rehabilitation programs. Uncommitted funds are still available for distribution to new programs. RDA activities are detailed in Table 2.1.

Short-term deferred payment loans are available through the Community Development Commission's Rental Development Incentive Program (RDIP) to developers of affordable rental and for-sale housing to pay for County development impact fees. It is a discretionary program available on a first-come, first-served basis to nonprofit and, under certain circumstances, for profit developers that agree to comply with the program's long-term affordability requirements. RDIP also provides short-term site acquisition and construction loans to nonprofit, and under certain circumstances, for profit developers of affordable rental housing.

The Federal Emergency Shelter Grants Program (FESG) was authorized under the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987. The program provides funding to state and local governments to improve the quality of existing emergency shelters for the homeless, to make available additional emergency shelters, to pay a portion of the costs to operate homeless shelters and to provide certain essential social services to homeless individuals. The program is also intended to restrict the increase of homelessness by funding preventive programs/activities.

As a designated Urban County, Sonoma County receives approximately $87,000 in FESG Program funds annually. The Sonoma County Community Development Commission administers the program for the County, and the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors makes the final decision regarding the distribution of the funds to local non-profit homeless shelter/service providers. The funding cycle for the FESG Program is a part of the Consolidated Plan and follows the timetable for that process.

The County operates a variety of programs to assist owners of property owned and/or occupied by low-income households to make needed repairs. The County is currently implementing comprehensive housing and mobile home rehabilitation in unincorporated areas of the county as well as several incorporated jurisdictions. These programs are funded with CDBG, as well as city and County redevelopment funds, and provide repair loans at low interest rates. Many of these are deferred payment loans, requiring no monthly payment to make them affordable to low-income owners. The County would like to expand these programs to cover additional areas if sufficient funding can be obtained.

In addition to providing loans for comprehensive rehabilitation, the County uses CDBG, redevelopment and other funds to provide grants to low-income owners to connect to public water systems and sewer lines and to install earthquake bracing systems on mobile homes. Also, to mitigate the hazards associated with repetitive flooding of the Russian River, the County uses Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds, in conjunction with CDBG, County, and private funds, to operate a flood elevation program to raise flood-prone structures above the base flood elevation level. Finally, the County provides grants to owners of property owned and/or occupied by low-income persons with disabilities to make needed accessibility modifications. Table 2.2 details CDC rehabilitation activity by program.

The County Community Development Commission provides first-time home buyer assistance through CDBG funds. These funds are loaned to affordable housing developers to help finance land acquisition and construction. When the houses are sold to first-time low-income buyers, the subsidy is rolled into a silent second mortgage on the home. Affordability restrictions generally remain in place for thirty years.

In the case of homes reserved for low-income buyers in Density Bonus and Type A and C developments, CDC makes silent loans to the eligible buyers of those homes. The buyer finances the home's affordable sales price with a down payment and first mortgage, and CDC's silent second loan finance's the gap between the affordable sales price and the home's appraised value. These non-cash loans offer a significant advantage to the buyer.

Lenders often view the loan as a buyer's down payment and therefore lowers the loan-to-value ratio of the first mortgage; by itself or in combination with a buyer's cash down payment, the loan can satisfy the 20 percent down payment that allows buyers to avoid private mortgage insurance payments.

In addition, the County offers first-time home buyer assistance to employees with total household incomes of $75,000 or less. The program provides low-interest loans of up to $15,000 to purchase a home (maximum home price set at $225,000). This program is only available for SEIU-represented job classifications.

Sonoma County administers Section 8 Rental Assistance Voucher Program countywide and provides additional assistance through Mobile Home Space Rent, Shelter Plus Care, SonomaWorks, and HOME Tenant-Based Assistance programs. Program details are outlined below. The Sonoma County Community Development Commission reports that these programs maintain a total of 2,620 units that otherwise would be unaffordable for low and very low income households. These programs help a combination of families, elderly, and the disabled (including individuals with HIV/AIDS) (see Table 2.3). For Fiscal Year 2001-2002 these programs have been funded a total of $19.3 million.

Section 8 Rental Assistance Program

This program provides rental assistance to low income families and individuals to enable them to rent decent, safe, and sanitary housing. The Section 8 Program is federally funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It is available throughout the United States and is administered by public housing authorities. In Sonoma County, excluding the City of Santa Rosa, this program is operated by the Sonoma County Housing Authority.

Aftercare Program

Section 8 Rental Assistance provides support for persons with disabilities who are receiving supportive services from the Mental Health Division of the Sonoma County Department of Health Services, Community Resources for Independence, Oaks of Hebron, or Becoming Independent.

Family Unification Program

This program provides Section 8 Rental Assistance for families participating in a Family Unification Program through the Sonoma County Human Services Department.

Home Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Program

This program provides rental assistance for families moving from homeless shelters who are participating in a self-sufficiency plan, and for persons with HIV/AIDS who are receiving supportive services.

Shelter Plus Care Program

Rental assistance is available for families who have HIV/AIDS, mental disabilities, or physical disabilities and are receiving supportive services.

Sonoma Works Housing Assistance Program

Rental assistance is available for homeless families while they move from welfare into employment.

Mobile Home Space Rental Assistance Program

This locally funded program provides space rental assistance for mobile home owners who are seniors, persons with disabilities, or families.

The number of emergency shelters throughout Sonoma County is limited at a time when demand is growing. The Sonoma County Continuum of Care Plan 2000-2006 reports a recent increase of approximately 40 percent in demand for emergency shelter. Currently there are 441 beds and cribs available at emergency shelters throughout the County; only 269, however, are available year-round. In addition, it is unclear how much longer the National Guard Armory in Santa Rosa will be made available for emergency winter shelter. Populations at risk for homelessness may include those with mental disabilities, physical disabilities, a history of substance abuse, chronic illness (such as HIV/AIDS), women and their children, youth transitioning from foster care, the unemployed, or individuals recently released from incarceration. Shelters that operate in the County are listed in Table 2.4. Sonoma County People for Economic Opportunity currently operates the Chanate Shelter on County owned land.

A number of organizations operate transitional housing programs for populations with special needs in Sonoma County. In general, residents of transitional housing facilities are expected to move into permanent housing within two years. People in need of transitional housing may include those with mental disabilities, physical disabilities, a history of substance abuse, chronic illness (such as HIV/AIDS), women and their children, youth transitioning from foster care, or those recently released from incarceration. Table 2.5 summarizes the programs that are operating in the County, which collectively can accommodate up to 832 people.

Several permanent supportive housing facilities operate in Sonoma County. These facilities are designed for individuals who are not able to live independently, often as a result of physical or mental disabilities. See Table 2.6 for a list of supportive housing programs operating in Sonoma County.

Under the Continuum of Care Plan 2000-2006, eight applications were submitted to HUD for a total of $1,350,422 in funding to maintain and increase services and facilities for populations at risk for homelessness. The applicants have been notified that a total of $740,164 was awarded for four of these applications. Funding will be used to assist six new beds of permanent supportive housing for persons with disabilities, maintain 24 beds of transitional housing, and provide services for homeless families leaving shelters to obtain and retain permanent housing. The activities proposed by the other four applicants were not funded.

2.3    AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION SUMMARY

Since 1992, the County's affordable housing programs have resulted in the construction or acquisition of 591 permanent affordable units and 192 farmworker bunks in the unincorporated areas of the County. Since 1995, 62 single family agricultural employee dwellings have been constructed. An additional 591 units were built in incorporated jurisdictions with assistance from the County. Unit counts and affordability distributions as well as sources and amounts of County assistance for each project in both incorporated and unincorporated jurisdictions are detailed in Table 2.7.

Almost all the projects that were completed in the unincorporated areas took advantage of the County's density program and/or other zoning incentives. Approximately 40 percent of projects also benefited from subsidies that were distributed through the County's Community Development Commission. Sources of funds include CDBG, HOME, RDA set aside, and the County's RDIP program (see section 2.2.2 for program details). Subsidies for these projects totaled more than $4.4 million with an average per unit amount of more than $15,450. The CDC is responsible for monitoring affordability compliance; in general restrictions remain in place for 30 years.

In the unincorporated areas, owner-occupied units represent the majority, 53 percent, of new affordable units constructed over the 1992 - 2000 period; rental units comprised the remaining 47 percent. All affordable units are targeted to families, rather than seniors, and several developments received funding through the Rural Housing Service's Section 502 program, which is designed to help low and very low income households purchase homes in rural areas. Although there is no stipulation requiring these units to be occupied by farmworkers, farmworker families are among the homeowners in these developments.

It should be noted that as of the end of the year 2000, there are 2,438 units with affordability restrictions throughout Sonoma County (see Table 2.8). These units are 78 percent rental housing and 22 percent owner occupied. Affordability restrictions are maintained for very low, low, and moderate-income households.

Table 2.1

Table 2.2

Table 2.3

Table 2.4

Table 2.5

Table 2.6

Table 2.7

Table 2.8

3.0     POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING PRODUCTION TRENDS

Government Code Section 65583 (a) (1) requires that the Housing Element present "an analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections" as they relate to housing demand. The Bay Area underwent significant economic expansion during the past decade. During this same time, housing development did not keep pace with the population and employment growth. Similar trends were evident in unincorporated Sonoma County (USC).

3.1    POPULATION TRENDS

According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), USC grew by 16,923 residents between 1990 and 2000 from 148,377 residents to 165,300, an increase of 11 percent (see Table 3.1). In the entire County, including all incorporated areas, the population grew by 67,078 residents (17 percent). By comparison, the entire nine-county Bay Area region grew by 15 percent. During the next ten years, population growth in Sonoma County (both incorporated and unincorporated) is projected to exceed the growth rate of the region overall.

As the population of Sonoma County grew, demographic shifts were also occurring. The ethnic distribution changed, with the Hispanic population growing far faster than other ethnic groups. Also, the population grew older, as the County's median age increased from 34.3 in 1990 to 37.1 in 2000.[2]

In 1990, 19.6 percent of Sonoma County households qualified as "very low income," while 17.9 percent were "low income." An additional 23.1 percent are estimated to qualify as "moderate income" households. Using these proportions as a baseline assumption, Table 3.2 presents an estimate of the current number of households in USC that fall into each income category. It is important to note that over half of all households in USC have incomes in the moderate, low, or very low income categories that comprise the targeted markets for affordable housing.

3.2    EMPLOYMENT TRENDS

After several years of economic recession in the early 1990s, Sonoma County and the Bay Area experienced a significant economic recovery, fueled largely by growth in technology industries. Between 1990 and 2000, the number of jobs located in USC grew from 29,790 to 33,800, an increase of 4,010 jobs or 13 percent growth (see Table 3.1). In the entire County, including all incorporated areas, employment grew by 32,980 jobs (19 percent). Employment in the entire Bay Area region grew by 15 percent during the ten-year period. As with population growth, employment growth in Sonoma County (both incorporated and unincorporated) is projected to exceed the growth rate of the region overall during the coming decade.

The wages associated with job growth are significant in determining the demand for housing at various income levels. ABAG projects that the largest proportion of employment growth in USC during the next five years will be in the manufacturing/wholesale sector (including many high technology industries), which features the highest average wages of the eight industry sectors (see Table 3.3). The services sector represents the second largest increase in jobs, but has a relatively low average wage.

3.3    HOUSING PRODUCTION TRENDS

The number of housing units constructed in the County has not kept pace with population and employment growth. As shown on Table 3.4, an estimated 4,157 units were added to the USC housing inventory between 1990 and 2000-an increase of 7 percent, below the 11 percent rate of population growth during this same time period. As of 2000, a total of 66,442 housing units exist in USC.

In the entire County, 19,353 housing units were added to the inventory between 1990 and 1999 (see Table 3.1). This represents an increase of 12 percent, compared to population growth of 17 percent and employment growth of 19 percent. In the nine-county Bay Area region, the housing stock increased by only eight percent during this same time period -- again, well below population and employment growth rates.

Of the 4,861 residential permits issued in USC between 1990 and 2000, 3,843 (79 percent) were for single family homes. An additional 338 units (7 percent) were for second units. Six percent were for manufactured homes, while a total of 8 percent were for multi-family units. The relatively high vacancy rate (12 percent) among USC housing units in 1990 allowed the existing housing stock to absorb some of the housing need generated by high population growth that was not met by new construction.[3]

In addition to these traditional new units, new farmworker units have been developed in Sonoma County. From 1990 to 2000, a total of 446 new farmworker beds have been established in bunkhouses. These beds serve migrant or seasonal farmworkers traveling without families, and as such, function as units for 446 farmworker households. Adding these units to the net gain of 4,157 traditional units, the total increase in USC's housing stock was 4,603 units during the last decade.

Table 3.1

Table 3.2

Table 3.3

Table 3.4

4.0    HOUSING AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS

This section of the Housing Element presents findings regarding housing market conditions in Sonoma County, as well as household and housing stock characteristics, including a discussion of the affordable units at risk of becoming market rate units in future years.

4.1    HOUSING MARKET CONDITIONS AND PRICES

The housing market in unincorporated Sonoma County (USC) has changed dramatically in recent years. With high regional population and employment growth and relatively low regional housing production, prices have escalated dramatically.

In 1999, 57 percent of all new homes sold in unincorporated Sonoma County had a price tag over $300,000. [4] In order to afford a home at this $300,000 price range, a household would need a minimum yearly income of approximately $85,500 [5] - roughly 33 percent higher than ABAG's estimated average household income of $64,100 for the year 2000.

While new home values are clearly very high, resale prices for single family homes are also beyond the reach of many. Based on data from the Sonoma County Assessor, [6] Table 4.1 shows the change in the distribution of home prices between 1995 and 2000. During this time, the proportion of home sales over $300,000 has increased from 20 to 55 percent. In the year 2000, only 32 percent of homes in USC were sold at prices affordable to moderate income families (up to $245,000), and only 11 percent were within reach of low income households (up to $163,000). [7] By contrast, 67 percent of homes sold for under $245,000 in 1995, and 34 percent were under $163,000. Clearly, the bulk of the single family residential stock in the County has been placed beyond the reach of lower and moderate income households. [8]

A review of current apartment rents in Sonoma County reveals that there are few affordable rental options available. Among the 40 apartment complexes surveyed, the average monthly rent for a two-bedroom, one-bath unit is $1,095.[9] This rental price exceeds the affordable limit for a three-person, low-income household who can afford a maximum monthly rent of only $1,046. [10] Very low income households with three members are limited to $654 per month for rent. Only one of the 40 surveyed apartment complexes offered two bedroom units in this price range affordable to very low income households.

According to the 1990 U.S. Census, the median gross rent price in Sonoma County was $645 per month. If the recent survey average of $1,095 per month is reflective of the entire rental stock in Sonoma County, then current prices represent a 70 percent increase over prices in 1990. Average household income figures have escalated only 16 percent during this same time. [11] Clearly, market rents have increased at a higher rate than incomes.

According to Sonoma County's Continuum of Care Plan, the rental market in Sonoma County is extremely tight, with lower than one percent vacancy rates overall. Such low vacancy rates allows for very little opportunity for new or existing County residents to find housing at affordable prices. This low vacancy rate is a direct product of limited supply and high demand, and contributes significantly to housing cost burdens (to be discussed below).

4.2    HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS

ABAG's Projections 2000 model estimates that there were 61,510 households within USC as of the year 2000. Based on the tenure patterns exhibited in the 1990 Census, 68 percent of USC households are estimated to own their homes, while 32 percent are renters. [12] These figures translate to current estimates of 41,939 households owning homes and 19,571 households renting homes in USC.

As noted in Section 3.3.1, there are currently an estimated 66,442 housing units within USC. This figure is based on the 1990 Census housing unit count, plus new permits issued since 1990, less units demolished since 1990.

The shortage of housing units and the resulting increase in prices discussed above has created an affordability problem in Sonoma County at large. As shown in Table 4.2, the median housing price in Sonoma County was $178,208 in 1995. By 2000, the median price had increased to $326,590, an increase of 83 percent. During this same time, income levels for Sonoma County residents rose only 13 percent, according to ABAG's estimates.

The result of this difference has been a decrease in the proportion of County residents who can afford to purchase an average home. Whereas a household with an income of only 89 percent of the County average (not median) could afford the median-priced home in 1995, an income of 145 percent of the County average income was required to purchase a home at the median sales price in 2000. [13] Rental housing has also undergone significant inflation. As noted in Section 4.1.2 above, rents have increased faster than incomes, and the proportion of rental units affordable to low and very low income households in Sonoma County has decreased since 1990.

The 1990 Census indicated that among Sonoma County households that owned their homes, 30.9 percent were paying more than 30 percent of their monthly income on housing costs in 1990 (including mortgage, utilities, insurance, etc.). The problem was even more significant for renters, as 45.5 percent of Sonoma County renters were paying more than 30 percent of their monthly income toward gross rent. Applying these proportions to the tenure status of all households, a total of 36.1 percent of Sonoma County households are estimated to have been paying over 30 percent of monthly income on housing costs in 1990. Because housing prices in Sonoma County have escalated faster than income levels, the proportion of households burdened by high housing costs is likely to have increased substantially since 1990.

Not surprisingly, the housing cost burden is particularly problematic for lower income households. According to the 1990 Census results for Sonoma County, 84 percent of households who earned under $10,000 paid more than 30 percent of their annual income toward housing costs. By comparison, only 14 percent of households earning over $50,000 had a housing cost burden. Table 4.3 shows details for housing burden by various income levels for both renters and homeowners in all of Sonoma County.

Table 4.4 shows the estimate of the current number of USC households in the income categories eligible for affordable housing that have a housing cost burden. In sum, 55.7 percent (15,951 households) of income-eligible households are estimated to be paying over 30 percent of their income for housing costs, including 65.2 percent (9,319 households) of income-eligible renter households and 46.2 percent (6,632 households) of income-eligible homeowners.

While these proportions are clearly indicative of high housing cost burdens in USC, it should be noted that housing cost burdens are very common throughout the region. As in Sonoma County, even above moderate income households in the Bay Area are frequently paying more than 30 percent of their gross income toward housing costs.

Details regarding the differences in various household types' ability to pay will be addressed further in the discussion of special housing needs in Section 5.2.

In 1990, the average household size in USC was 2.623 persons per household. This figure represented a very modest (less than 1 percent) increase over the 1980 average household size. Just under 3 percent of the USC population lived in group quarters-almost double the rate found in Sonoma County's incorporated cities.

In Sonoma County, 9.6 percent of households had 5 or more members in 1990. The fact that 13.9 percent of all housing units in the County had 4 or more bedrooms might suggest that the housing stock includes a sufficient number of units for large families.

However, the relative abundance of large units does not mean that all large families in the County can afford to live in them, nor does it suggest that large housing units are in fact occupied by large families. According to 1990 Census data, 8.8 percent of all households renting homes in Sonoma County experienced overcrowding, including 11.8 percent of low income renters and 11.5 percent of very low income renters. Among homeowners, overcrowding was less prevalent, as only 1.7 percent of all households owning homes lived in overcrowded conditions.

The estimates of current overcrowded housing conditions in USC are shown on Table 4.5. In sum, an estimated 2,607 current households in USC are living in overcrowded conditions, including 1,935 renter households and 672 homeowning households. This issue will be addressed in further detail in the discussion of large families' special housing needs (Section 5.2).

4.3    HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS

In 1990, 78 percent of all housing units in USC were single family detached units. An additional 8 percent of units were in structures with 2 to 4 units, while 3 percent of units were in structures containing 5 or more units. Mobile homes represented 9 percent of all units in USC. Table 4.6 compares these figures to the County's incorporated cities, and to the County as a whole. This table illustrates that USC has a relatively high proportion of single family units and mobile homes, while attached and multifamily units represent a relatively low proportion of units in USC. Comparing these figures to those for recent building permits on Table 3.4, it is evident that the current housing stock in USC remains consistent with these 1990 characteristics and proportions. Given the rural nature of the vast majority of unincorporated Sonoma County, the relatively low density of its housing stock is not unexpected or unusual.

Of all units in USC in 1990, 60 percent were owner occupied, and 28 percent were renter occupied (the remaining 12 percent were vacant). The largest difference between USC and the remainder of the County was the renter occupancy, as the County as a whole had 34 percent renters because rental units were more prevalent in urban incorporated areas.

Of the housing units in USC in 1990, 12 percent were vacant-far higher than the 7.5 percent vacancy in the County as a whole. Much of this vacancy is attributable to the prevalence of seasonal units in USC's vacation areas. Some of the vacant units (which totaled over 8,000) were absorbed by the increasing population and accounted for some of the lag between population growth and housing production.

In all of Sonoma County in 1990, 27 percent of all housing units had been constructed during the previous 10-year period. An additional 27 percent of units had been constructed between 1970 and 1979. Thus, more than half of all Sonoma County units were less than 20 years old in 1990.

Between 1990 and 2000, an additional 23,746 units were permitted in Sonoma County. [14] Combined with the 43,637 units built during the 1980s, the proportion of units that are less than 20 years old has decreased to 37.3 percent. This figure reflects the fact that building has been slower in the 1990s than during the two previous decades. Nevertheless, over 60 percent of the housing stock in the County is estimated to be less than 30 years old.

In 1990, fewer than one percent of housing units in the County did not have complete plumbing and/or kitchen facilities. Overall, the County's existing housing stock meets high standards for facilities and conditions, and is of relatively recent construction.

4.4    INVENTORY OF UNITS AT RISK OF LOSING AFFORDABLE STATUS

Several housing developments in Sonoma County currently are required to maintain rents and sales prices at levels affordable to lower income households (moderate, low, and very low). These requirements are the result of public funding assistance or other incentives that were received when the project was originally developed. However, the affordability requirements are only in place for a defined time, and then the properties may be rented or sold at market rates.

Over the next ten years, 380 units subject to affordability requirements will become eligible to convert to market rate as a result of expiring restrictions. The owners of 168 of these units have indicated that they intend to renew their affordability agreements and maintain their properties as affordable housing. Owners of the remaining 212 units have either stated that they will not maintain affordability at the end of the compliance period or they remain undecided at this time. These properties and their renewal status are described in Table 4.7.

The cost to produce new housing units has increased dramatically in recent years. As will be discussed in greater detail in Section 6.1 (non-governmental constraints on housing development), high demand has driven land prices upward, and construction costs have also increased significantly. The production costs of recent multifamily affordable housing developments in Sonoma County have ranged from $140,000 to $205,000 per unit. [15]

While much of this cost may be covered by sale or rent proceeds, a financial gap typically remains. On a case-by-case basis, the gap funding required to construct new replacement units may be more or less than the funding required to subsidize the continuation of affordability restrictions for currently affordable units. Current owners of existing, expiring units will expect to be paid market rate for their property.

As shown on Table 4.7, 212 currently affordable rental units are at risk of becoming market-rate units by the year 2010. Table 4.8 summarizes the results of the financial gap analysis (presented fully in Section 6.2.5), and estimates the total costs required to replace the units currently at risk. In sum, as much as $6.7 million may be required to retain the currently affordable units that may revert to market rate.

There are a number of nonprofit organizations operating in Sonoma County that are likely to take an active role in acquiring and managing at-risk units. Burbank Housing Development Corporation has been particularly active in producing and managing affordable housing in the past.

The County will consider all possible funding sources available to assist in the acquisition of these units. Existing funding sources could include HOME, CDBG, and RDA Housing Set-Aside funds that could be diverted from other housing programs in order to fund acquisition. This strategy however would not increase affordable housing stock in the County and therefore new funding sources will need to be explored so as not to weaken existing programs.

The Federal Government, through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) also offers tenant-based assistance to renters living in expiring units to enable them to remain in their apartments as the properties transition to market-rate. Sonoma County has been successful in obtaining these subsidies to date.

4.5    LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE

Government Code Section 65590 et seq. requires documentation of affordable housing in the Coastal Zone. This area is regulated by the County's Local Coastal Plan (LCP), in addition to its General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other land use and building regulations. Pursuant to policy contained in the County's LCP, there have been no conversions or demolition of existing housing units occupied by persons or families of low or moderate income during the past decade that have not been replaced in some fashion.

Table 4.9 documents building permits issued in the Coastal Zone during the 1990 to 2000 period. Overall, there has been a gain of 843 residential units in the Coastal Zone, primarily single family units in Sea Ranch and other coastal Urban Service Areas. In the South Coast area, 59 affordable units have been added or acquired since 1992 as part of the Sea Ranch I, Sea Ranch II, and Harbor View developments. These units are reserved for low and very low income rental tenants (see Table 2.6 for more detail).

4.6    ENERGY CONSERVATION

Energy conservation in residential construction in California is regulated by the California Energy Commission through Title 24 of the California Administrative Code (State Building Code). State conservation standards for new low-rise residential buildings and additions were revised in 1982 in response to rising energy costs to include new technologies in energy conservation and features that must be installed in new residential buildings.

The need for energy efficiency is increasingly evident with California residents facing soaring energy costs and the threat of rolling black outs. Rate increases have resulted from a combination of escalating demand, reduced oil production overseas, and skyrocketing wholesale costs in the West, which have been blamed in part on deregulation in California's power market. Recently announced price hikes are expected to cause monthly energy bills to increase by as much as 40 percent over the coming months.

High utility costs affect all households but are particularly acute for low and fixed income households who do not have enough income to absorb cost increases. Many may be forced to choose between paying utility bills, buying groceries, and/or paying for medication and other health care costs. Compounding the problem is the fact that most low-income households live in rental housing. Because tenants are usually responsible for paying for utilities, many landlords are not motivated to make large investments in retrofitting their buildings with energy saving measures and appliances. For example, according to PG&E, the cost of running a refrigerator can range from $4 to as much as $30 per month depending on the size and age of the unit. A new refrigerator could result in substantial energy savings for tenants but many landlords are reluctant to make this kind of investment.

In addition to building standards required by Title 24, the development application review process has the potential to contribute to energy conservation through site design and development plan review, when the following measures are included:

     •      Lot orientation with regard to the sun;

     •      Utilization of south facing glazing;

     •      Use of natural light and ventilation;

     •      Solar water heating;

     •      Provision of wind breaks;

     •      Shaded west walls;

     •      Use of deciduous shade trees and drought tolerant plants;

     •      Use of high-efficiency mechanical systems and appliances;

     •      Provision of street shade trees;

     •      Use of energy efficient building materials;

     •      Use of better insulation; and,

     •      Use of glazed windows.

In addition to educating developers on the advantages of energy conservation in project design, local government can extend priority processing to applicants incorporating significant energy conservation features in projects, such as photovoltaic technology.

Energy conservation can be encouraged in existing development through weatherization and rehabilitation programs. Successful programs could include County sponsored workshops, individual energy consultations provided free of charge, and weatherization and rehabilitation loan programs that provide low-interest financing for making improvements. The County Community Development Commission currently administers several such programs that provide loans, grants, and matching funds for rehabilitation and retrofitting.

Table 4.1

Table 4.2

Table 4.3

Table 4.4

Table 4.5

Table 4.6

Table 4.7

Table 4.8

Table 4.9

5.0     HOUSING NEEDS

Government Code Section 65583 (c) requires that the Housing element set forth a "five-year schedule of actions" for meeting its housing needs, including units for households in various income categories as well as units for "special needs populations." This section of the Housing Element aims to describe and quantify the need for units for each of these identified groups.

5.1    REGIONAL HOUSING SHARE

California Government Code Sections 65583 (a) (1) and 65584 require that a Housing Element include "documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected housing needs for all income levels . . . [including] the locality's share of the regional housing need." The overall housing unit demand for the Bay Area region is estimated by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). ABAG has constructed a Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) model to distribute HCD's projected demand for housing by jurisdiction within the region. Each jurisdiction is assigned a share of HCD's housing growth overall, as well as a number of units in various income categories so that lower income households will be appropriately distributed throughout the counties and region.

Table 5.1 shows the ABAG RHND estimates for housing demand in each jurisdiction within Sonoma County, including the USC, and also for the entire Bay Area region. ABAG projected a need for 6,799 total new housing units (907 units per year) in USC during the 7.5 year period between 1999 and 2006. ABAG's model then holds that 19.3 percent of new units in USC must be affordable to "very low income households" (households with income of less than 50 percent of the regional median income). Another 16.4 percent of new units must be affordable to "low income households" (earning 50 to 80 percent of the median), and 23.0 percent must be affordable to "moderate income households" (earning 80 to 120 percent of the median). The remaining 41.3 percent of units are projected to be demanded by "above moderate" households earning greater than 120 percent of the median income.

Sonoma County has considered several different RHND-based methodologies to estimate the need for housing units at various income levels during the next five years. [16] Ultimately, the most conservative methodology -- requiring the highest number of housing units -- was chosen. The chosen methodology identifies the total RHND need from 1999 through 2006 (at 907 units per year), and adjusts for the housing units actually produced or permitted between January 1,1999, and October 31, 2001. The RHND demand estimate was for 907 annual units, or 1,814 total for 1999 and 2000, but only 852 total permits were issued during these two years. [17] Under this methodology, affordable units in USC developments that are currently planned, under construction, or were completed during January 1, 1999, and October 31, 2001, have been attributed to their respective income categories. [18]

Table 5.2 shows the calculations for RHND-based need estimates during the five-year period from 2001 through 2006. As that table shows, a total of 5,415 units are needed, including 1,104 very-low income units, 1,035 low-income units, 1,474 moderate income units, and 1,802 units for above-moderate income households.

"Affordable housing" means housing with monthly costs of not more than 30 percent of a household's gross monthly income. For home-ownership housing, this 30 percent proportion must include mortgage payments, property taxes, insurance, and homeowner's association dues, if applicable. For rental units, the affordable price must include both rent and utility costs.

Table 5.3 shows the estimates of maximum for-sale and rental home prices affordable to households in each income category. The affordable price for home-ownership units is calculated using mortgage payments of 25 percent of annual gross income (the remaining five percent is assumed to be used for taxes, insurance, etc.), plus a down payment equal to 20 percent of the purchase price. For rental units, the price is an estimate of the monthly full-service rent, including utilities.

As noted in Section 4.1, the proportion of Sonoma County's housing stock priced at these "affordable" levels has decreased, for both rental and home-ownership housing. As a result, many Sonoma County residents are currently paying more than 30 percent of gross income for housing costs and have a housing cost burden. This cost burden is especially prevalent among lower income populations.

Recent housing production trends in USC have not approached the quantities ABAG has estimated to be required in future years. Whereas the need calculation methodology suggests that 5,415 units will be required during the next five years, only 4,861 residential permits were issued in USC in the last 10 years. This historical pace of development, should it continue unaccelerated, would fall 57 percent short of the required housing unit demand over the next five years. This imbalance between ABAG-based projections and actual market trends has been a long-standing issue in Sonoma County.

5.2    SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS

In addition to examining projected affordable housing needs, Government Code Section 65582 requires that jurisdictions conduct an analysis of any existing special housing needs such as those of the elderly, disabled (including individuals with HIV/AIDS), large families, single parent households, and farmworkers. As part of planning for and producing affordable housing, the County has a responsibility to incorporate and accommodate

the special housing needs of these and other potentially at-risk groups such as the mentally ill and youth transitioning from foster care. These needs can be accommodated through a wide range of housing options: independent living, supportive housing, group housing, transitional housing, SRO accommodations, and homeless shelters. Housing policy implementation strategies should ensure that an appropriate proportion of affordable units constructed in the County are suitable for and targeted to special needs populations.

While it is clearly true that special needs populations face a variety of housing challenges in Sonoma County, the dimensions of those challenges are very difficult to calculate. The current estimates, detailed below, have largely been based on dated sources from the early 1990s (such as US Census data). The 2000 Census will have updated information on some of these subgroups (elderly, disabled, large families, single parent households) but unfortunately will be not be released in time for this effort. Advocates and service workers for the homeless, developmentally disabled, mentally ill, elderly, foster youth, and agricultural workers have helped to explain and clarify the particular housing needs of these populations throughout the process of drafting this Housing Element.

Specific housing need estimates are presented below and summarized in Table 5.4. Detailed calculations are provided in Tables 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8 and 5.9.

The elderly population of Sonoma County is of disproportionately lower income than the population as a whole. Elderly households were twice as likely as the general population to have annual incomes under $10,000 in 1990, while only half as likely to have incomes over $50,000 per year. Generally speaking, lower income households in Sonoma County have significantly higher housing cost burdens than the general population.

The housing burden of the elderly population in Sonoma County varies significantly between owners and renters. Among those who own their homes, only 16.8 percent paid greater than 30 percent of their gross income toward housing costs in 1990. By comparison, elderly renters had a much higher housing cost burden, as 66.5 percent of renters were paying more than 30 percent of monthly income toward gross rent. Elderly households who own their homes are actually less likely to suffer a housing cost burden than County homeowners overall (16.8 percent versus 31 percent), while elderly renters are more likely to suffer a cost burden than the overall County renter population (66.5 percent versus 49 percent).

In 1990, there were 19,737 people age 65 or older living in USC. This number represents 12.3 percent of the population in USC and 37.9 percent of the elderly population in the entire county. According to ABAG projections, there are currently 59,100 elderly residents in Sonoma County, of which 22,399 are estimated to live in USC based on the jurisdiction's share of the elderly population in 1990. Assuming a household size of 1.51 people, [19] there are currently 14,857 elderly households in USC. Of this group, 28.3 percent are renters

and 71.7 percent are homeowners. In the 1990 US Census data, 66.5 percent of elderly renters and 16.8 percent of homeowners had a housing cost burden. Applying these proportions to the current estimates of the elderly population in USC demonstrates a demand for affordable housing by 4,586 elderly households. These calculations are shown in Table 5.5.

Since 1990, the elderly housing situation in Sonoma County has worsened. As a result of general economic expansion, numerous elderly housing facilities in Sonoma County have closed as their property became more valuable for other types of development or operations. This fact, in combination with the general aging of the population,[20] have created a serious concern for both the affordability and simple availability of housing for elderly residents of Sonoma County.

In 1990, two percent of the Countywide adult, non-elderly population had mobility and/or self-care limitations. [21] By definition, this category may include individuals with permanent physical disabilities or those suffering from chronic illnesses such as HIV/AIDS. Applying the 1990 Countywide percentage to 2000 USC household estimates, and assuming one disabled person per household, results in a calculation of 1,230 households in USC that include a non-senior individual with disabilities. Assuming that these households exhibit the same housing cost burden trend as the general population, approximately 444 households paid more than 30 percent of income in rent or other housing costs and are in need of assistance. These calculations are shown in Table 5.6.

In actuality, this number is likely to be higher due to the limitations on many disabled persons' earning potential. If disabled people are more likely to fall into lower income categories, their housing cost burden is likely to be more prevalent.

In 1990, 9.6 percent of households Countywide had five or more members. Applying this percentage to 2000 USC household estimates results in a calculation of approximately 5,904 large family households currently living in USC. Assuming that these households exhibit the same housing cost burden trend as the general population, approximately 2,132 households paid more than 30 percent of income in rent or other housing costs and are in need of assistance. Table 5.7 shows these calculations.

Other data also suggest that large families experience housing cost burdens. According to 1990 US Census data for Sonoma County, 8.8 percent of renting households experienced overcrowding. Overcrowding was more problematic for lower income households, as 11.8 percent of low-income renters, 12.9 percent of very low income renters, and 10.1 percent

of extremely low income (at or below 30 percent of median income) renters experienced overcrowding. It is reasonable to conclude that overcrowded conditions for such households result from their inability to afford housing units large enough for their family size.

In 1990, 7.4 percent of all households in Sonoma County were headed by single parents. Applying this percentage to 2000 USC household estimates results in a calculation of approximately 4,552 single parent households currently living in USC. Assuming that these households exhibit the same housing cost burden trend as the general population, approximately 1,643 households paid more than 30 percent of income in rent or other housing costs and are in need of assistance. Table 5.8 shows these calculations.

In actuality, this number is likely to be higher due to the possible limitations on the earning potential of some single parent households as compared with two parent households, who have two potential wage earners. If single parent households are more likely to fall into lower income categories, their housing cost burden is likely to be more prevalent.

The California Economic Development Department (EDD) reports that in Sonoma County during the year 2000, employment in farm production and services fluctuated between a monthly low of 5,600 in January to a high of 9,000 workers in October. The annualized average employment was 6,750. Because of the lack of recent, detailed data on farm laborers, the proportion of farmworkers living in incorporated versus unincorporated areas is unknown. Furthermore, we do not know how many of these farm employees are year-round County residents who work in other sectors during non-peak agricultural months as compared to those who move in and out of the County with seasonal labor demand fluctuations. The majority of farmworkers are likely to be men living apart from their families but there are also many who are accompanied by their wives and children. In any event, all farmworkers need decent and affordable housing that is accessible to services, transportation, and employment.

For the purpose of this analysis, we have assumed that 60 percent of farmworkers in the County live in the unincorporated areas. We have assumed that 70 percent of these laborers and their families currently do not have access to decent, safe, affordable housing. [22] Those without adequate housing may live in overcrowded or substandard units or may be homeless living in vehicles, campsites, or regularly sleeping out-of-doors with no shelter at all.

A proportion of farm workers in the unincorporated county are likely to live in bunkhouses located on agricultural lands. Although bunk houses are often an efficient way to accommodate workers, this type of "company housing" requires continued employment on the farm and is by nature located in remote locales that are socially isolating and do not offer access to services, public transportation, or other employment opportunities. It has been assumed that it may be appropriate to accommodate 30 percent of farmworkers in bunk housing, translating into a need for 851 bunk units. The remaining workers are assumed to form households (either with family, friends, and co-workers) and to need standard, affordable rental options.

It is difficult to determine how many farmworkers are likely to reside in the same household. "Nuclear" families may have only one farmworker, but small groups of laborers sharing a house or apartment could generate a rate of four or more per housing unit. Assuming four farm laborers per household, we estimate a total of 709 units to accommodate their housing needs. These calculations are shown on Table 5.9.

According to the Sonoma County Continuum of Care Plan 2000-2006, there is an increasing need for emergency shelter in the County, in part because of the scarcity of permanent affordable housing and the rising costs of market rate housing. Many individuals and families who historically have lived independently find they are no longer able to manage their rising housing costs. As they lose their homes and apartments, they may turn to the emergency shelter system. In the short term, there is a need for more than the 441 beds currently available in the County. However, in the long run, homeless individuals and families need increased access to transitional housing and affordable permanent housing in order to prevent repeated cycles of homelessness.

It is exceedingly difficult to enumerate the homeless. The Sonoma County Continuum of Care Plan estimates that there may be as many as 8,000 homeless in the County. All of the jurisdictions in the County have a responsibility to work together to accommodate the needs of the homeless, many of whom regularly move between jurisdictions. However, for the purpose of determining the unincorporated County's required "share" of the homeless, it has been assumed that the percentage of homeless equals the percentage of the County-wide population living in the unincorporated areas, or 38 percent. Therefore there is an estimated need to accommodate roughly 3,000 homeless individuals in the USC.

Table 5.1

Table 5.2

Table 5.3

Table 5.4

Table 5.5

Table 5.6

Table 5.7

Table 5.8

Table 5.9

6.0    POTENTIAL HOUSING CONSTRAINTS

Government Code Section 65583 (a) (4) requires that a Housing Element include "an analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels." There are also non-governmental constraints that more fundamentally affect the ability of the County to promote affordable housing.

6.1    NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS

Escalating home prices and rent levels in Sonoma County are the key "non-governmental constraint" to housing. These concerns are primarily the result of regional population and employment growth, as discussed in Section 3.0. Unanticipated numbers of individuals and families relocated to the Bay Area during the economic boom of the last decade, overwhelming the housing supply in Bay Area counties and beyond. Population growth has increased the demand for housing, and the inflated "willingness to pay" exhibited by high-salaried workers during the expansion has pushed home prices substantially further beyond the reach of those less affluent.

The strength and depth of the region's housing demand constrains the production of affordable housing by increasing the costs of acquiring land and/or existing units. A governmental or nonprofit entity seeking to promote the development of affordable housing often has some costs that can be controlled through intervention, while others are strictly subject to market forces. As affordability restrictions on certain units expire, an entity seeking to retain such units as affordable are forced to pay market rate to acquire them (see Section 4.4). Land prices are also established by the open market, and a land owner has little or no incentive to offer affordable housing developers a lower price than can be realized by selling to developers of market-rate housing.

Additionally, the costs of housing production have risen. The demand for housing has increased land prices to a level where the price of a finished residential lot alone often exceeds the amount that a lower income household can afford to pay for a finished house. The steady volume of residential and commercial building started during the past several years has also resulted in a shortage of construction labor, driving up labor costs. And finally the national building boom, combined with a series of natural disasters around the country (notably flooding in the southeast and tornado damage in the Midwest), has resulted in a shortage of building materials. The imbalance in supply and demand has substantially driven up materials costs.

As discussed in Section 5.1.2, the prices that households in various income categories can afford to pay for housing are limited. For example, a four-person very low income household earning 50 percent of the County's median income could afford to pay roughly $102,000 for a home-ownership housing unit, (assuming the availability of a down payment equal to 20 percent of the unit's sale value). The capitalized value of the rents affordable to such households is only $72,600 per unit. [23] By comparison, recent multifamily affordable housing development projects in Sonoma County have had production costs ranging from $140,000 to $205,000 per unit. [24] Clearly the costs of production exceed many lower income households' ability to pay, and act as a deterrent to the for-profit development industry's voluntary production of units for lower income households.

Financing for new housing construction can be a significant cost, and may be difficult to obtain. Even in strong markets and for market-rate housing, private lenders frequently require pre-leasing or pre-sales for housing development loans, as an assurance of revenue. In addition, housing developers are frequently required to provide significant equity contributions to reduce the lenders' risk, and some potential developers are unable to meet this requirement.

The developers of affordable housing face additional financing constraints. Opportunities for financing through traditional private sector sources are limited, as private lenders and investors typically seek financial returns that cannot be realized by affordable housing. Because the costs to produce the affordable housing typically exceed the returns that will be achieved through sale or rental of the units, gap financing must be secured. While a variety of local, State, and Federal programs are available to address gap financing needs (e.g., CDBG, HOME, RDA set-asides, tax credits, etc.), these programs are typically highly competitive. The competition exists not only between affordable housing projects, but often also between housing projects and other important community priorities. For example, in the year 2000, the State expressed an intention to allocate several hundred million dollars from the recent fiscal surplus toward affordable housing programs. This allocation may now be in jeopardy, due to the potential economic recession and the infrastructure and energy crises.

High up-front costs affect the ability of lower income households to secure housing. Most market rate homes in Sonoma County are becoming affordable only to households in the higher income brackets with more accumulated wealth. Lower income households are generally unable to save at any significant rate and often do not benefit from inherited wealth or other gifts from family members. Low accumulated wealth combined with high market rates and high upfront costs make it exceedingly difficult for lower income groups to procure housing, either as homeowners or renters.

Purchasing a home usually requires a significant down payment, and the price of a home affordable to a given household increases as the amount of the down payment increases. [25] As such, more housing units are within reach of households with more ability to make a

significant down payment. However, even without significant savings for a down payment, moderate and low-income households may have the means to enter the rental housing market.

Even for the rental market, however, very low-income households may face financial barriers to entry. State law allows landlords to collect first month's rent plus a security deposit equal to (but not to exceed) two months' rent from tenants before move-in. For a very low-income family of four, these upfront requirements may amount to an initial cost in excess of $2,000 for an affordable apartment renting for $725 per month. A family living at this income level may have significant difficulty accumulating several thousand dollars for this purpose. [26]

Topographic and other environmental factors create a natural constraint by limiting land availability and/or by adding costs to development on many parcels affected by slopes, soil conditions, septic capacity, etc. Especially in rural areas, these environmental conditions are significant barriers to the use of many parcels for housing development. Housing that is of higher density than is currently allowed on rural land (e.g., second units, farmworker housing, multifamily units) is often limited or precluded by these environmental constraints.

Another factor limiting growth in Sonoma County is water availability. The sources of potable water are finite and largely allocated at this point. In areas where infrastructure is inadequate to serve new development, infrastructure improvements will add to the cost of the development and will be borne not only by the builder but by the consumer as well, as the builder will provide a product that will achieve high enough market prices to cover the added development costs.

Neighborhood resistance to new housing development nearby, especially if it is "affordable," is legendary throughout California. This "not-in-my-backyard" mentality combined with general "anti-growth" sentiments (often linked to the perception that growth lowers quality of life) is a major impediment to the creation of affordable housing and housing in general throughout the State. These factors are evident in Sonoma County.

6.2    POTENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS

Sonoma County has had a long-standing policy of promoting development within urbanized areas, while preserving the agricultural and rural character of land outside the urban centers. This "city-centered" policy has been in effect since adoption of the first General Plan in 1978, and has directly contributed to the desirability of the County as a place to live, work, and recreate. Simply stated, it is the policy of the County to focus growth in cities and urban areas and to contain these urban areas within rural/open space "urban separators" rather than allow urban development to sprawl over the entire landscape. This comprehensive planning policy has helped to minimize a range of negative environmental impacts and consumption of limited natural resources such as water. In addition, Sonoma County's internationally prominent position as a wine-growing region has been secured by this policy.

The Open Space Element of the General Plan provides for "community separators." These areas are located between and on the periphery of the County's cities, and are located outside the urban boundaries of each city and outside the County's designated urban service areas. The Land Use Map designations of separators allow development at a density of 10 or more acres per dwelling. The intent of the separators is to preserve a minimal amount of open space separation between the County's cities, and the do not affect the expansion of unincorporated communities with urban services, where most of the County's affordable housing needs must be met.

In addition to the General Plan, the County has adopted specific growth management policies in two of its nine planning areas where resource and other development constraints are particularly acute; however, these restrictions exempt affordable housing from their growth restrictions. It should be noted that, to date, these growth management policies have not resulted in the denial of any building permits for either market-rate or affordable housing developments.

Zoning districts in Sonoma County are consistent with General Plan policy, as is required by State law. The zoning district provisions govern the type, density, mix, and other site-related restrictions that apply to development. The zoning ordinance contains a number of features intended to promote affordable housing including mixed use buildings, density bonuses, second units, density minimums, and other features.

The basic provisions of the County's residential zoning districts are described in Appendix A. Note that all urban residential districts permit single family housing, condominiums and attached housing, second dwelling units, community care facilities, day care facilities and transitional housing. Development standards, such as building height, lot coverage and setbacks, are typical of those applied in most California cities and counties. Urban residential districts also permit by right affordable housing projects utilizing the State Density Bonus law, as well as the County Housing Opportunity Type A and Type C programs, which are further described in Section 2.2.1.

Height limits in the urban R1 (low density) and R2 (medium density) districts are 35 feet, except that higher structures are permitted in the R1 district upon approval of a use permit. The height limit in the R3 (high density) district is also 35 feet, but may be increased to 45 feet upon approval of a use permit. These height limits do not appear to constrain production of affordable housing, as the tallest residential structures in the unincorporated area are three stories, and additional height would likely produce significant public controversy as well as impeding solar access on adjoining lots. Lot coverages in all three districts are range from 40 percent (R1) to 50 percent (R2 and R3), but an additional 10 percent coverage is permitted in the R3 district if the project design provides "sufficient open areas and recreation areas." The Zoning Ordinance does not contain floor area ratio restrictions. The basic parking requirement in all these zones is one covered space per unit, but guest spaces are required for multifamily projects, typically at a ratio of ½ space per dwelling unit.

However, for affordable projects in any urban residential district, considerable flexibility in development standards is allowed [see Zoning Ordinance Section 26-88-122 (d) and (e)]. These include reductions in minimum lot size to as little as 2,000 square feet, no minimum setbacks. Lot coverage may be increased to as much as 65 percent. This flexibility is allowed by right and is reviewed as part of the design review process.

As will be discussed in Section 7.0, the County has an adequate number of sites zoned for projected residential development. Moreover, as discussed above, there are numerous opportunities to add more affordable housing units within both residential and non-residential development areas. The development industry, however, does not typically capitalize on these opportunities, due to the superior financial returns that can be realized by developing high-end, low-density housing unencumbered by income restrictions or single-use commercial developments that are more predictable in financing and marketing. Sonoma County may be able to promote affordable housing production through a variety of additional zoning-related incentives or requirements, as discussed in the housing programs described below.

Building code and design standards imposed in Sonoma County related to engineering standards, energy conservation, parking, materials, seismic safety, and sanitation add to the cost of housing production in Sonoma County, although such costs must be considered in the context of the public health and safety objectives they promote. These codes do not appear to be a significant constraint, and are similar to codes throughout the State.

An application for a single family dwelling on an existing lot is generally an over-the-counter process. The processing time for structural review which includes obtaining sewer and water permits is approximately six weeks. Normally, detached single family dwellings do not entail design review. Single family subdivisions generally require a processing time of approximately four months. At the present time, zoning clearance for second units in urban areas is the same as for single family homes. However, rural second units require an eight-week process due to the public noticing requirements. Proposed Policy HE-3a and Program #11 would reduce processing time for rural second units by eliminating the existing requirement for public notice outside water-scarce areas.

Multifamily projects over 4 units are a permitted use (i.e., no use permit required) subject to design review; processing time is approximately four months. The design review process is normally started at the initial stages of the application process, therefore, does not generally add to the overall time it takes to commence construction. Structural clearance for single family subdivisions and multifamily projects of 4 or more units takes approximately eight weeks. In these cases, the structural review can occur concurrently with subdivision and design review processing, depending on the wishes of the applicant.

Single family subdivisions or multifamily projects which include affordable units are given priority processing, as required by the California Government Code and the County's existing Housing Element and Zoning Ordinance. For these projects, staff meets with applicants prior to application submittal in an effort to identify potential issues at the earliest possible stages. Applicants are advised of the referral process and provided with a list of the referral agency and a contact person. Additionally, a scheduling of hearing dates is discussed. In instances where the securing of block grant funds are critical to the project, staff coordinates the review process with funding deadlines. Priority processing generally results in a reduction of processing time from 4 months to 14 weeks. As with conventional projects, the County allows processing of construction permits prior to project approval.

The design review process is not discretionary in terms of reducing the maximum number of units allowed by the zoning of a site. The Design Review Committee recognizes the need to provide affordable housing through the density bonus process. The purpose of the design review process is not to limit opportunities for new affordable housing, but to ensure that such housing is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhoods in which it is proposed. Rather than requiring a reduction in the number of units, design review staff work with applicants to redesign their projects to better suit the site, such as by modifying exterior appearance or revising the site plan to achieve a better arrangement of structures on the site.

Several housing policies are designed to further expedite the review of affordable housing projects, and ensure the production of as many affordable units as possible. These include Policy HE-3h and Program #19 (flexible development standards), and Policy HE-3i and Program #20 (removal of use permit requirement for affordable projects within 1/4 mile of other affordable projects).

These processing times and design review requirements do not appear to be a significant constraint on development of affordable housing, and are similar to procedures in use throughout the State.

The County and other local agencies impose development impact fees on new development to fund infrastructure improvements including water and sewer utility improvements, schools, parks, and roads. Each of these fees is directly linked to the provision of services and facilities necessary to support residential development. The use of impact fees to fund local infrastructure is essential since other local sources of funding have

been restricted. At the same time the State and Federal government have eliminated nearly all funding for local infrastructure.

At the present time the County charges fees for plan checks, building permits, park fees, sewer / sanitation connections, driveway encroachment, water connections, traffic mitigation, and school mitigation. Certain fees vary by location in the unincorporated areas of the County. Typical fees in Sonoma County are shown in Table 6.1.

While it is true that these fees add costs to development projects, they do not necessarily increase the home prices for market-rate homes. Markets -- not costs -- set prices. However, fees may make it more difficult to produce affordable housing since prices are "set " to achieve affordability rather than being set by the market. In this instance additional development costs are material and cost control is essential. However, as is the case with building codes and other restrictions, these fees pay for the infrastructure necessary to secure public health, safety, and welfare.

The Code Enforcement Division of the Permit & Resource Management Department is empowered to enforce existing ordinances covering grading, public health (well and septic systems), building code and Zoning Ordinance violations, as well as the State Housing Code. The County does not require pre-sales code compliance inspections of any residential units. The Division responds to potential code violations and on a complaint basis, and does not seek out violations on its own initiative. When a complaint is received, the Division investigates it according to a priority system, in which health and safety violations have the first priority. The goal of the enforcement process is to return the property to lawful status whenever possible. The DHE contains two new policies and programs that address code enforcement issues. These include Policy HE-3m and Program #25 (amnesty for illegal units) and Policy HE-3f and Program #18 (long-term residency in campgrounds).

Achieving the number of affordable housing units suggested by the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) for Sonoma County would require a substantial financial subsidy from one or another source. Such subsidies would be required even if the governmental and non-governmental constraints discussed above were substantially reduced. For example, even if land supply were increased substantially (ignoring resource, environmental, and infrastructure constraints), home construction costs and prices would not change significantly.

Estimating the total "funding gap" between home construction costs and affordability by the moderate, low, and very low-income households provides a measure of this subsidy. The estimated minimum subsidy amount for achieving current RHND production goals is shown in Table 6.2. The calculations underlying these results are presented in Tables 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7 and 6.8.

The results of these calculations suggest that, using ABAG's RHND methodology, subsidies totaling up to $116.5 million or more may be required to develop the necessary housing during the next five years. The required subsidy greatly exceeds the County's current funding. The County has contributed $10.1 million toward affordable housing development since 1992 -- an average of $1.1 million annually. This continued practice would result in a total of $5.6 million in funding over the next five years -- over $110 million less than would be required to reach RHND goals.

However, it is important to note that not all of these subsidies would need to be provided by Sonoma County government agencies. In practice, a housing development project that mixes market-rate units with affordable units may need lower subsidies or none at all, as profits from the sale of market rate units may be sufficient to cover funding gaps for affordable units. In addition, local subsidies will leverage Federal, state, and private funds. For these reasons, the $116.5 million estimate represents the total difference between production costs and sale or rent values, but not necessarily a cost to Sonoma County. Nevertheless, the subsidies required to reach the RHND housing goals for affordable units present a very large constraint, and represent far more investment in affordable housing than has been achieved in USC through all funding and subsidy sources in recent years.

Local governments in California are required to provide a range of local services. Counties have the additional burden of providing a range of State-mandated health, welfare, and criminal justice services. Costs for providing these services have risen sharply as the State has grown. At the same time the revenue base for local governments has been continuously undermined by a combination of State ballot initiatives and State budget actions. Additionally, State and federal grant programs related to major infrastructure (highways, sewer, and water improvements) fall far below what they were 30 years ago.

This upward pressure on costs and a weak local government revenue base has placed many local jurisdictions in extreme fiscal stress just to provide basic services. Under these circumstances it is impossible to fund higher levels of these basic services, infrastructure improvements, or desirable amenities (local parks), let alone provide major subsidies for affordable housing.

While some of the infrastructure limitations are related to physical features (topography, water sources, etc.), these factors may also be considered governmental constraints. As discussed above, government policies regarding growth boundaries dictate the locations and capacities of infrastructure to be provided, and the fiscal conditions of local government offer little incentive for expensive public investments in infrastructure extensions and operations for residential development. Also, new infrastructure systems can take many years to design, receive appropriate funding, and build. In part, these conditions have been mitigated by local government requirements that developers of new housing provide infrastructure or pay in-lieu fees, but these added costs only serve to make affordable housing development less feasible.

Table 6.1

Table 6.2

Table 6.3

Table 6.4

Table 6.5

Table 6.6

Table 6.7

Table 6.8

7.0    HOUSING SITE INVENTORY

California Government Code Section 65583 (a) (3) requires that a Housing Element include "an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. "This section sets forth findings regarding site availability and service capacity in unincorporated Sonoma County. The inventory is based upon extensive mapping and analysis conducted by the Permit and Resource Management Department during the Spring of 2001.

The inventory of existing development potential is a starting point for determining whether there are adequate sites to meet housing requirements within the unincorporated areas of Sonoma County. This inventory includes both rural and urban areas and was accomplished by estimating the total remaining residential holding capacity for various types of housing within the unincorporated areas of Sonoma County. This effort included a detailed survey of the dwelling unit potential of vacant land and underutilized land (parcels with existing units, but with numerous additional potential units) within the County's designated Urban Service Areas. From there, the inventory was refined to include land that is feasible for development during the 2001-2006 housing planning period. The inventory was then compared to the County's Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND), as adjusted to reflect new construction over the 1999-2001 period (see Table 7.9).

7.1    OVERALL HOUSING CAPACITY

The Countywide inventory was conducted in order to determine whether or not there are adequate available sites to accommodate overall housing requirements irrespective of affordability limitations. The inventory utilized the County's 1990 holding capacity estimate as a base and subtracted the number of units constructed since then. Adjustments were made to reflect the large annexations to Petaluma and Santa Rosa, incorporation of Windsor, and other changes to the land use map since 1990.

This analysis resulted in an estimated remaining holding capacity of over 52,000 units for the unincorporated area of Sonoma County. This figure includes parcels in the Urban Service Areas where housing unit capacity, when currently available density bonuses are included, is over 11,000 units. The additional capacity is located in rural areas, including rural single family housing, farmworker housing, and potential second units. Additional capacity within the Urban Service Areas was derived from potential housing units within mixed use developments that could occur in commercial/industrial zoned areas. Table 7.1 provides a summary of the capacity of Sonoma County's housing sites by the different site categories considered. This table shows that the overall residential capacity in the unincorporated County is more than sufficient to meet the County's remaining Regional Housing Need of 5,415 units. Tables 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7 and 7.8 present detailed breakdowns of the components of the site inventory, which support the summary data shown in Table 7.9.

7.2    SITES AND CAPACITY BY HOUSING CATEGORY

This section presents an analysis of the capacity for specific types of housing units on specific types of development parcels throughout unincorporated Sonoma County. The inventory is summarized in Section 7.2.9. Table 7.9 presents a summary of the County's residential land inventory for all types of housing units, based on current zoning and housing programs and also presents an inventory of housing potential based on the incentives and enhancements provided by the programs contained in Chapter 9.

The total residential holding capacity of the General Plan Land Use Map for unincorporated areas outside urban service boundaries is estimated at 12,796 units. Because these parcels lie outside urban service area boundaries, they typically do not have the infrastructure in place to keep development costs appropriately low for affordable housing development, nor do they offer the amenities and conveniences often desired by residents in affordable units (e.g., proximity to services and places of employment). For these reasons, only above moderate income housing units are likely to be developed on these rural parcels.

Parcels located within the County's Urban Service Areas are estimated to have potential capacity for 11,310 new housing units, in addition to the units already located on these parcels. These 11,310 potential new units include density bonus units permitted by right under the County's two Housing Opportunity programs (HOA and HOC). The inventory of these sites focused upon potential sites in Urban Service Areas designated in the General Plan as "Urban Residential," and zoned accordingly. These are also locations where, by policy, public sewer and water are available or planned to be available. The majority of land designated for urban residential use is situated in valley floors or on relatively flat plains which reduce the likelihood that development will be impacted by constraints such as slope stability, poor access, or fire hazard.

Among these "Urban Residential" sites, 8,209 new units can be accommodated on parcels with potential for only one to four new units per parcel. Research undertaken by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. demonstrates that development of infill moderate income housing is feasible on such parcels, and a potential for construction of 600 units of moderate income housing on these sites shown in Table 7.9.

The remaining 3,101 units can be accommodated on parcels with potential for five or more new units. The refined inventory shown in Table 7.4 focused only on the 64 sites that have sufficient development potential to accommodate construction of affordable housing. The refined inventory reflects the following changes from the initial inventory: a) corrects a spreadsheet error resulting from the exclusion of Site #35 from the totals in Table 7.4 of the Draft Housing Element; b) consolidates adjoining sites; c) eliminates nine smaller sites ranging in size from 0.36 to 0.64 acres; and d) removes Draft Housing Element Site #70, which is being developed with 23 market-rate single family homes and is no longer available. The deleted smaller sites, which are not longer part of the site inventory, are shown in Appendix B. Sites in the refined inventory offer the strongest potential for affordable housing development, given density bonus programs and other economic considerations.

The detailed inventory shown in Table 7.4 establishes that there are available sites with appropriate zoning to accommodate 3,101 new units, consisting of 562 units potentially available for very low income households, 942 units for low income households, 416 units for moderate income households, and 1,181 units for above moderate households. As discussed in Section 7.3 below, there is adequate public water and sewer capacity to serve this level of additional development in the Urban Service Areas.

Some properties identified in the site inventory (Tables 7.4 and 7.5) have a capacity for large housing projects (30 or more units) if adjoining sites are consolidated. The following sites are contiguous to each other and listed by community and parcel identification number.

Geyserville:

     •      Sites 27, 81, 82, and 84 encompass 5.01 vacant and underutilized acres, have 3 existing units, a combined base unit potential of 28 under GP density UR 6, and 57 total units under Housing Opportunity Program C (HOC).

     •      Sites 79, 80, and 83 encompass 4.67 underutilized acres, have 6 existing units, a combined base unit potential of 27 under GP density UR 6, and 53 total units under HOC.

     •      Sites 49, 50, and 51 encompass 3.94 underutilized acres, have 5 existing units, a combined base unit potential of 18 under GP density UR 4, and 45 total units under HOC.

Larkfield-Wikiup:

     •      Sites 106 and 107 encompass 4.31 underutilized acres, have 4 existing units, a combined base unit potential of 46 under GP density UR 11, and 95 units under HOA.

     •      Sites 104, 105, and 108 encompass 1.43 underutilized acres, have 3 existing units, a combined base unit potential of 26 under GP density UR 11, and 55 units under HOA.

     •      Sites 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, and 118 encompass 7.86 underutilized acres and have 24 existing units, a combined base unit potential of 85 under GP density UR 11 and 176 units under HOA.

     •      Sites 32 and 33 encompass 4.57 acres, have a project in progress, a combined base unit potential of 49 under GP density UR 11 and 101 units under HOA.

Russian River:

     •      Sites 10 and 11 encompass 5.74 vacant acres, have 0 existing units, a combined base unit potential of 22 under GP density UR 4, and 64 units under HOC.

     •      Sites 44, 45 and 46 encompass 14.83 underutilized acres, have 5 existing units, a combined base unit potential of 27 under GP density UR 2, and 35 units under State Density Bonus law.

Santa Rosa:

     •      Sites 18, 25, 68, 69, 72, and 74 encompass 24.41 vacant and underutilized acres, nave 12 existing units, a combined base unit potential of 118 under GP density UR 5 and 270 units under HOC.

     •      Sites 37 and 134 encompass 5.84 vacant and underutilized acres, have 1 existing unit, a combined base unit potential of 87 under GP density UR 15, and 176 units under HOA.

     •      Sites 31, 102, and 103 encompass 13.58 vacant and underutilized acres, have 2 existing units, a combined base unit potential of 135 under GP density UR 10, and 273 units under HOA.

     •      Sites 100 and 101 encompass 2.54 underutilized acres, have 2 existing units, a combined base unit potential of 24 under GP density UR 10, and 52 units under HOA. The parcels abut site 70 which comprises 4.27 underutilized acres, has 2 existing units, a combined base unit potential of 21 under GP density UR 5, and 47 units under HOC. The three parcels combined have a combined base unit potential of 45 and 99 units under the two housing programs.

     •      Sites 126-130 encompass 2.49 underutilized acres, have 8 existing units, a combined base unit potential of 35 units, and 76 units under HOA.

     •      Sites 36, 121-124 encompass 4.17 vacant and underutilized acres, have 4 existing units, a combined base unit potential of 61 under GP density UR 15, and 123 under HOA.

     •      Sites 30, 91, 92 encompass 3.37 acres have 5 existing units, a combined base unit potential of 31 under GP density UR 10 and 67 under HOA.

     •      Sites 90 and 93 encompass 2.57 acres, have 7 existing units, a combined base unit potential of 25 under GP density UR 10 and 52 under HOA.

     •      Sites 95-99 encompass 6.25 acres, have 5 existing units, a combined base unit potential of 61 under GP density UR 10 and 126 under HOA.

Summary. There exists the potential to combine 65 of the vacant and underutilized parcels listed in Tables 7.4 and 7.5, into 18 consolidated project sites in five of the County USAs. Five of these sites could be consolidated into parcels of 1 to 4 acres in size with a base unit potential of 135, potential for 195 units under program HOA, and 100 units under program HOC. Ten of these sites could be consolidated into parcels 4 to 8 acres in size with a base unit potential of 511, potential for 849 units under program HOA, and 221 units under HOC. Three of the sites could combine in to parcel 8 acres or greater with base unit potential of 280 units, 273 units under program HOA, 273 units under HOC, and 35 units under State density bonus law. Combining parcels has a total base unit potential of 926 units, 1317 HOA units, and 591 HOC units, respectively.

Second dwelling units are allowed in all urban areas. In rural areas, second units are allowed on most parcels over two acres, except for areas included in the "Z" combining district where such units are not allowed, primarily due to groundwater scarcity. Second units can be new units or conversions of existing guesthouses or illegal units.

A conservative estimate of the capacity for new or converted second units in the unincorporated County under existing zoning regulations is 18,000. In practice, some of these units may not be developable due to environmental factors that limit available capacity (e.g., slopes, septic capacity, water, etc.). Nonetheless, the availability of sites for second units is clearly not a constraint on development of this housing type. The estimated feasible inventory for second units over the 5-year planning period is 500 units (see Table 7.9). However, the County has sought to increase second unit opportunities through incentives proposed by Policy HE-3a, which include subsidies of development impact fees, a reduction in minimum lot size from 2 to 1.5 acres and an increase in maximum unit size form 840 to 1,000 square feet. Based on these incentives, which are only available to units restricted to affordable rents, it is estimated that 29 of these second units would be affordable to very low-income households, 142 to lower income households and 167 to moderate income households. The balance of 162 units is allocated to above moderate households.

The initial calculation of available land within this category was derived from an inventory of commercial properties in urban service areas that have zoning designations allowing mixed use development. For both vacant and underutilized properties the maximum building size was assumed at 30 percent of the site. For underutilized parcels, the existing building square footage was subtracted from the maximum potential building size to determine the remaining square footage of expansion potential. That result was then divided by 1,000 square feet to determine the potential number of housing units.

For vacant properties, the maximum potential building size was multiplied by 33 percent to reflect current zoning requirements that limit the square footage of residential development to only 50 percent of commercial development square footage. This result was also divided by 1,000 square feet to determine the housing unit potential (assuming an average gross unit size of 1,000 square feet).

The initial total calculated capacity within this category is estimated to be 1,534 new housing units on vacant and underutilized commercial sites already zoned to allow for mixed use development. However, current zoning regulations are not conducive to construction of mixed use projects and, consequently, very few such units have been developed in the unincorporated area. The primary constraint is that the size of the residential component of a mixed use project can be no more than 50 percent of the size of the commercial component. Accordingly, Policy HE-3c proposes adding mixed use development to industrial zoning districts and relaxing development standards for mixed use in commercial areas. A refined inventory of potential mixed use sites was prepared, which analyzed only vacant parcels in commercial and industrial zoning districts. The estimated feasible inventory over the 5-year housing planning period (see Table 7.9) was calculated as follows:

     •      As shown in Table 7.5, commercial sites, which are eligible for residential development under current zoning regulations the vacant acreage as assumed to develop at 50 percent, and the result was divided by 850 -assuming 850 square feet per residential unit. Of the total of 156 sites in commercial districts, 30 percent of the resulting units were assumed to be feasibly during the 5-year housing program period.

     •      As shown in Table 7.8, industrial sites, where residential units are proposed to be permitted pursuant to Policy HE-3c, the same formula was applied as was used for commercial sites. As with the commercial sites, 30 percent of the resulting 761 were assumed to be feasible during the 5-year housing program period.

In distributing the commercial and industrial mixed use site inventory among income categories, Table 7.9 makes the conservative assumption that 40 percent of the feasible inventory will be affordable to moderate income households, and 60 percent will be affordable to above moderate income households.

An analysis was conducted of potential new sites for mobile home parks in R2, R3, and PC zones. A minimum of four acres is needed for a new park under current zoning regulations. Since no sites were found in urban areas that are not also counted as potential sites for conventional housing, there is no available capacity for new mobile home parks. However, there may be some capacity for additional mobile homes in existing parks, or through minor expansions of existing parks. A conservative estimate suggests capacity for 59 new mobile home units in unincorporated Sonoma County under current regulatory conditions. As shown in Table 7.9, these sites are distributed among the low- and moderate-income households and 11 for moderate-income households.

As described in Section 2.2.1, the existing Zoning Ordinance allows farmworker bunkhouses by right in all three agricultural zoning districts. The County's zoning regulations also allow for development of two other types of housing units for farmworkers: agricultural employee housing and farm family housing. The land supply for these types of farmworker housing units in rural areas was assumed to exist on larger parcels where sufficient land and well and septic capacity are most likely to exist. The initial inventory focuses on parcels in agriculture and resource zones over 20 acres in size and identified sites for 6,326 units. From this, 15 percent were deducted as likely to already have some form of farmworker housing, leaving 5,377 parcels available for new agricultural employee and farm family housing.

In conformance with State law, the County presently allows day care for up to 8 children without requiring a use permit. The County also allows transitional housing without limit on number of clients in all urban residential zones without a use permit, and allows community care facilities and re-socialization facilities with up to 6 clients in all zoning districts without a use permit. Proposals which exceed 8 children or 6 clients require approval of a use permit.

The initial site inventory used County assessor records to determine the potential for new SRO rooms. Only "K" zoned properties allowing motel rooms and that are within urban service areas were evaluated to avoid double counting with other categories. Sites with use codes indicating golf courses, community halls, private parks/outdoor recreation facilities, Sears Point Raceway, Water Agency and State/Federal lands, as well as completely unusable lands were deleted from consideration. A 30 percent maximum site coverage was assumed for the remaining parcels. The result was divided by 1,000 square feet to determine units. The unit tally was finally reduced by 66 percent to reflect floodway zones and other physical constraints. This is because the majority of sites are within the Russian River urban service area. The initial calculated capacity within this category is estimated to be 3,102 rooms (see Table 7.9).

While the site potential described above exists, it is unlikely that property owners will choose to develop new SRO facilities. It is far more likely that SRO facilities will be created through conversion of existing, older motels that are at a competitive disadvantage with newer motel and hotel rooms. In order to verify the presence of rooms in older motels that are potentially available for conversion to SRO occupancy, the County further analyzed specific data from the Russian River Redevelopment Plan and related documents. "Conversion to SRO occupancy" is defined as rehabilitation of existing motel rooms to include kitchens and such other improvements needed to accommodate long-term occupancy by very low- and low-income individuals or households. Table 7.7 shows that there are 358 existing rooms in older motels that have the potential for conversion to SRO occupancy in the Russian River Redevelopment Study Area. Some of these motels currently pay transient occupancy tax, while others do not. This implies either that some motels serve tourists but are not paying the required tax, while others have been converted to long-term occupancy without the benefit of required permits.

Other than the required set-aside of 20 percent of redevelopment revenues for affordable housing, existing redevelopment documents do not specifically address the potential for conversion of existing rooms in older motels to SRO occupancy. Any such action would require the approval of the Russian River Redevelopment Oversight Committee and the Board of Supervisors acting as the Community Development Commission. However, inclusion of SRO policy language in the Housing Element will commit the County to considering such action.

Policy HE-3d and Program #16 call for the County to revise the existing Zoning Ordinance to facilitate SRO development by allowing such uses in urban commercial districts. Policy HE-3e and Program #16 calls for the County to inventory existing properties with SRO potential and provide additional incentives and programs to encourage SRO development. Residential density limits will not be applied to such properties since SROs will be located in commercial districts where density limits do not apply.

Sonoma State University is engaged in the development of residential apartment units to serve the student population. These units each have kitchens and are designed to function independently of campus dining services. Each has an entrance from outside or from an interior public corridor, thus they meet the US Census definition of a housing unit. Rents for these units are $6,000 per academic year, which qualifies the apartments as housing for very low-income individuals who would otherwise have to see housing off-campus. The University opened 165 such units in the fall of 2000, so these are deducted from the County's 7.5-year RHND need. An additional 327 new apartment units are proposed for occupancy in Fall 2003 and Fall 2004, so they are counted as sites for very low-income housing in the site inventory.

Table 7.9 presents a summary of the County's refined housing site inventory, based on current zoning and housing programs. This table includes a comparison of the inventory to the County's remaining Regional Housing Needs for the 2001-2006 housing planning period. As can be seen from this table, the inventory based on current zoning and housing programs does not provide sufficient capacity to meet the County's remaining Regional Housing Need. Section (1) of Table 7.9 shows that the feasible capacity of zoned and available sites for low- and moderate-income housing totals 3,018, while the remaining RHND for low- and moderate- income sites totals 3,613.

To address this, this Housing Element includes a variety of policies and implementing programs aimed at increasing the available sites for housing development, with a concentration on housing for low- and very low-income households. These include the addition of an affordable housing overlay zone for commercial, industrial, public facilities, and lower-density residential lands (Policy HE-3o), more favorable zoning regulations for development of mixed use housing (Policy HE-3c), incentives for construction of affordable second units (Policy HE-3a), as well as other programs. See Chapter 9 for a full discussion of these programs. Section (2) of Table 7.9 shows that the increase in feasible site capacity attributable to new programs during the 2001-2006 housing planning period will provide sufficient sites to accommodate its full share of the remaining Regional Housing Need.

Groundwater is the main source of urban water supplies for the unincorporated communities of Sonoma County. However, in two cases unincorporated communities rely on the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), an independent special district whose main function is to supply water to cities in Sonoma and Marin Counties. The two unincorporated communities receiving SCWA supplies are Forestville Water District and Valley of the Moon Water District.

Sewer service for the urban unincorporated communities is provided by 12 sanitation districts or county service areas. None of these districts is a County agency. Each is independent, in the sense that it has an independent, elected Board of Directors, or members of the Board of Supervisors act as an independent Board of Directors. The largest of these is the South Park County Sanitation District, which serves the unincorporated South Santa Rosa Area under contract to the City of Santa Rosa.

The following discussion details the findings regarding infrastructure capacity to the various urban service areas of unincorporated Sonoma County. Table 7.6 summarizes these findings.

Water service to residential uses in this Urban Service Area is provided by Citizens Utilities (CU), but this system does not serve industrial development around the County Airport, which is served by the Town of Windsor. In addition, CU serves a small area of rural residential development in the vicinity of Mark West Station Road, which is outside the Urban Service Boundary. Sewer service to both the residential/commercial areas of Larkfield-Wikiup and the Airport Industrial Area is provided by the Airport/Larkfield/Wikiup County Sanitation Zone (ALWSZ), but generally does not extend beyond the Urban Service Boundary.

Water Service. Based on the CU Water Master Plan (1999) the system now serves 2,300 connections and is planning for a maximum of "about 2,500" connections. This leaves approximately 200 connections until the planned capacity of the system is reached. Ability to serve connections between 2,300 and 2,500 depends on the development of a new well in 2001 (or the ability to connect to the SCWA system to obtain Russian River water), a second well in 2002 and the development of about 500,000 gallons of new storage. A location for a storage tank of 250,000 gallons is available at the existing North Wikiup tank site. When questioned regarding the ability of the system to accommodate the 891 residential units remaining to 1990 holding capacity of the General Plan Land Use Map, CU staff indicated that the system has added 340 connections since 1990. Given current plans to serve an additional 200 connections, staff indicated that their plans do not currently address service to about 350 units which are anticipated by the General Plan. However, they indicated that the system "fully intends to provide adequate supply and service to all of its existing and future customers in accordance with regulatory requirements."

Sewer Service. Staff for the ALWSZ has stated: "We will be able to provide sanitary sewer service for the [ALWSZ] assuming the existing urban service boundary and land use identified in the existing General Plan do not change. Changes to the General Plan may require changes to our facilities plan to accommodate any potential increase in treatment plant, storage, or disposal capacity."

7.3.2    Bodega Bay

Public water and sewer services are provided by the Bodega Bay Public Utilities District (BBPUD). The water and sewer service areas of the BBPUD are coterminous.

Water Service. According to BBPUD district staff, a total of 83 Residential Unit Equivalents (RUEs) are currently available on a first come, first served basis. Most of this capacity is likely to go to the approved Romancia development of 84 units, including 14 affordable units to be developed by Burbank Housing Development, Inc. The BBPUD's 1998 Master Water Plan calls for acquisition of a new well site and construction of additional water storage. The new well site is expected to be acquired and operational within two years. The Master Water Plan states that, "The [Phase I] Sonoma County Coastal Plan...was used as a basis for estimating future water requirements on a parcel-by-parcel basis." Development beyond the Phase I Land Use Plan is contingent upon construction of a Highway 1 bypass, for which funding and timing are uncertain. The BBPUD appears to have water supply and distribution system improvements in planning that are adequate to accommodate the Phase I Land Use Plan only.

Sewer Service. The BBPUD's 1996 Master Plan for Wastewater Treatment, Storage, and Disposal found that there were 1,409 Rues connected to the system, and projected that future needs would increase to 1,920 Rues, including residential and commercial development. The District has recently completed an upgrade of its treatment facilities to provide tertiary treatment, constructed a 16.5 million-gallon storage pond and increased the capacity of existing storage ponds. Projected increases in demand would require 55 million gallons (less recent improvements) of additional storage and 49 acres of additional irrigation area. The Master Plan identifies and analyzes likely sites for both types of facility.

The Master Plan states "the 1994 Master Plan included projections for undeveloped land that utilized future residential densities that were on the high end of the given range for specific land uses...District staff and the Current Board...believe that a mid-range density for undeveloped land, similar to nearby existing densities, would provide a more realistic number of future users for which to project future needs. The result is to reduce the total projected sewer RUE from 2,023 to 1,920.." It appears that the 400+ increase in sewer RUE is adequate to serve Romancia, but would only allow for development of remaining vacant residential parcels to the mid-point of the density range shown on the Coastal Plan Land Use Map. District staff states that the treatment capacity resulting from recent improvements (.432 MGD) is "adequate to serve the project 400 RUE increase in demand, and that timely development of additional storage and disposal capacity will be undertaken to ensure that 400 additional RUE can be served."

7.3.3    Forestville/Mirabel Heights

Water service is provided by the Forestville Water District (FWD). Sewer service is provided by the Forestville County Sanitation District (FCSD), but discussions are underway to transfer operation of the sanitation district to the FWD. The service area of the water district is considerably larger than that of the sewer district, which is limited to the "downtown" Forestville area. However, the General Plan Urban Service Boundary encompasses a much larger land area than the existing service area of the FCSD.

Water Service. The FWD has a flat contracted allocation from the Sonoma County Water Agency of 1.5 million gallons per day, or 45 million gallons/month. Total water demand in the most recent highest demand year (1997) was 15.554 million gallons for 766 residential connections, at an average rate of 19,000 gallons per unit per month. Assuming conservation maintains average demand per unit at 1997 levels, the FWD could accommodate about 1,600 additional units. Since the 1990 holding capacity of the General Plan Land Use Map for the area within the Forestville sewer Urban Service Area was 226 additional units, it appears that the water system has more than enough capacity to accommodate the growth anticipated by the General Plan. However, there is the potential for development of 50 existing vacant lots in the Mirabel Heights area that would also need to be served, which does not appear to pose a problem given available supply. However, the potential for redevelopment of existing residential, commercial, and industrial uses in ways that may require a greater water supply is inherently uncertain.

Sewer Service. Staff of the FCSD has stated: "we will be able to provide sanitary sewer service for the [FCSD] assuming the existing urban service boundary and land use identified in the existing General Plan do not change. Changes to the General Plan may require changes to our facilities plan to accommodate any potential increase in treatment plant, storage, or disposal capacity."

Water service is provided by the Geyserville Water Works, while sewer service is provided by the Geyserville Sanitation Zone (GSZ).

Water Service. The Geyserville water system operates under a state permit which allows for 300 service connections. The system currently serves 295 connections, so the ability to serve new development is limited. System staff has indicated that a new well site is needed, along with 200,000 gallons of additional storage. If these improvements are developed, the system should be able to accommodate an additional 50 connections. Staff estimated that the timing of these improvements is approximately one year for the new well, and two years for the additional storage. However, the system is up for sale, so the actual timing of construction is uncertain. Given that 1990 Land Use Map holding capacity data indicates the potential for an additional 149 units, and including the potential for additional commercial/industrial development or redevelopment, system staff was doubtful that holding capacity could be served with planned improvements. Staff indicated that additional supply from the Russian River may be needed.

Sewer Service. Staff for the GSZ has stated: "We will be able to provide sanitary sewer service for the [GSZ] assuming the existing urban service boundary and land use identified in the existing General Plan do not change. Changes to the General Plan may require changes to our facilities plan to accommodate any potential increase in treatment plant, storage, or disposal capacity."

The Graton area has no community water service; the only water source is private wells. Since the community is located in a groundwater recharge area, there are no known constraints on development of additional wells. Sewer service is served by the Graton Sanitation Zone (GSZ). The boundaries of the General Plan Urban Service Area and the service area of the GSZ are coterminous.

Sewer Service. Staff for the GSZ has stated: "We will be able to provide sanitary sewer service for the [GSZ] assuming the existing urban service boundary and land use identified in the existing General Plan do not change. Changes to the General Plan may require changes to our facilities plan to accommodate any potential increase in treatment plant, storage, or disposal capacity."

The Monte Rio area of the lower Russian River is served by the Sweetwater Springs Water District (SSWD) and has no existing sewer service provider. However, a pollution control project has been underway since 1997 due to identified health hazards associated with existing malfunctioning septic systems, and plans have been completed for a wastewater treatment and disposal system. The service area of the proposed sewer system will be confined to a small area of existing lots in "downtown" Monte Rio which has the most significant pollution hazards.

Water Service. Most existing residences are already served by SSWD, but the sewer project would allow for development of 131 existing vacant lots, which would be served by the SSWD and would come out of the 988 additional connections that could be served by the SSWD (see discussion under "Russian River," below). It appears that the SSWD is capable of serving all new residential development.

Sewer Service. The Project Report for the Monte Rio Wastewater Pollution Control project proposes a sewer system that would serve 455 existing residences and existing commercial development. The proposed system would serve existing development, and allow development of 131 existing vacant residential parcels at a projected rate of 10 per year. However, the project's feasibility and governance remain in doubt.

The town of Occidental is served by the Occidental Water Company and the Occidental County Sanitation District (OCSD). The water service area extends slightly beyond the service area of the OCSD in the area of Coleman Valley Road, which also constitutes the General Plan Urban Service Area.

Water Service. The Occidental Community Development Committee approves new hookups within the OCSD at an average rate of 6-8 per year. According to OWC staff, there currently is not an adequate supply for fire flow. New water hookups are approved on a case-by-case basis at a maximum of one new hookup per year, with new hookups for the years 2000 and 2001 already committed. Occidental has a substantial number of commercial uses, including hotels and restaurants. No new commercial hookups will be approved until 2002. Plans for improvements are uncertain.

Sewer Service. Since 1990 General Plan holding capacity data shows only 27 potential units remaining; the OCSD may be able to serve this level of development. However, water availability is significantly constrained, and there is a known need for upgrading of wastewater treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. The potential for new demand from commercial development or redevelopment is uncertain. Staff for the OCSD has stated: "We will be able to provide sanitary sewer service for the [OCSD] assuming the existing urban service boundary and land use identified in the existing General Plan do not change. Changes to the General Plan may require changes to our facilities plan to accommodate any potential increase in treatment plant, storage, or disposal capacity."

Water service in the Penngrove area is provided by the Penngrove Water Company (PWC), while sewer service is provided by the City of Petaluma under contract to the Penngrove Sanitation Zone (PSZ). The PWC provides service within the Urban Service Boundary, to a few scattered parcels on the west side of the Urban Service Boundary, and to the Cannon Manor subdivision.

Water Service. PWC has water service from the SCWA. PWC staff "doesn't know" if they have sufficient supply to serve the holding capacity of the General Plan Land Use Map, which were 189 units in 1990. Future ability to increase service will depend on the ability of SCWA to increase diversions of Russian River water.

Sewer Service. The contract for sewer service with the City of Petaluma has a service area population cap of 3,000 persons. Service is currently provided to 460 ESDs (equivalent single family dwellings). Averaging the 1990 household sizes of the two Census tracts in which Penngrove is located yields an average household size of 2.655 persons, yielding a current service area population of 1,220 persons. Subtracting 1,220 from 3,000 suggests that the service area could accommodate an additional 670 housing units at the 1990 average household size. Since 189 units remain to be built under 1990 holding capacity estimates, it appears that sufficient capacity exists to serve the population anticipated by the General Plan Land Use Map.

Urban water and sewer service in the lower Russian River area are provided by the Sweetwater Springs Water District (SSWD) and the Russian River County Sanitation District (RRCSD). The service areas of the two entities are very different, with the SSWD service area encompassing a large area that is outside the service area of the RRCSD. The RRCSD service area is coterminous with the General Plan Urban Service Boundary, and includes the communities of Guerneville and Rio Nido, plus the intervening area along the Russian River.

Water Service. According to SSWD staff, the District has water rights to 1,214 acre-feet per year, with 147.32 acre-feet per year available to serve new connections. Current average demand per connection is 4,048 gallons per month, with no peaking issues due to adequate storage. Therefore, the SSWD could serve an additional 988 connections at the average demand rate. Since the 1990 holding capacity of the General Plan Land Use Map for the Urban Service Area allowed for 636 additional residential units, it appears that the SSWD could serve all residential development allowed by the General Plan within the Urban Service Area. However, the potential for additional demand originating outside the boundaries of the Urban Service Area is unknown, as is the potential for commercial/industrial redevelopment.

Sewer Service. Staff of the RRCSD has stated: "We will be able to provide sanitary sewer service for the [RRCSD] assuming the existing urban service boundary and land use identified in the existing General Plan do not change. Changes to the General Plan may require changes to our facilities plan to accommodate any potential increase in treatment plant, storage, or disposal capacity."

Sea Ranch is a planned community on the North Coast of Sonoma County, served by The Sea Ranch Water System. The water system service area encompasses the entire development, but the Sea Ranch Sanitation Zone (SRSZ) has a more limited service area, with some homes designed to be served by private septic systems.

Water Service. The Sea Ranch development is planned for a maximum of 2,300 residential units, plus 90 units at a site to be determined (the "transfer site"), of which about 1,500 have been constructed. The water supply consists of 375 acre-feet per year from the Gualala River, plus wells, supplemented by reservoir storage used only when flow in the river falls below 5 c.f.s. (cubic feet/second). Sea Ranch Water System staff state they "are confident they can serve unbuilt units, including transfer site units, with existing resources." Therefore, the water system can accommodate the holding capacity of the General Plan Land Use Map.

Sewer Service. The SRSZ is owned by the SCWA and operated by the Sea Ranch Water Company. Staff for the SRSZ has stated: "We will be able to provide sanitary sewer service for the [SRCSZ] assuming the existing urban service boundary and land use identified in the existing General Plan do not change. Changes to the General Plan may require changes to our facilities plan to accommodate any potential increase in treatment plant, storage, or disposal capacity."

Water service in unincorporated portions of the Sonoma Valley outside Kenwood is provided by the Valley of the Moon Water District (VOMWD). Sewer service is provided by the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District (SVCSD). The SVCSD Urban Service Area includes some areas zoned for agriculture and rural residential uses located between the unincorporated communities of Agua Caliente and Eldridge. The service area of the VOMWD encompasses all of the sanitation district, but includes some areas outside the Urban Service Boundary; these areas include rural residential subdivisions located east of Arnold Drive that are, for the most part, fully developed. They also include scattered parcels located north of Glen Ellen.

Water Service. VOMWD staff indicates that the system has water entitlements equal to 4.7 million gallons per day (MGD), and that demand was 4.3 MGD in the highest peak month in recent years (1999). The most significant service problems are the reduction of water loss due to an aging distribution system and the provision of sufficient water pressure to higher elevations at times of peak demand. The system's ability to serve additional development is limited and dependent on the construction of additional aqueduct capacity by the SCWA or the development of additional wells. New wells are planned to be developed at the rate of one per year for the next 3-4 years. An Eldridge-Madrone parallel pipeline and the addition of booster pumps are planned to address water pressure issues within 2-3 years. The timing of aqueduct construction is dependent on the resolution of larger issues regarding the amount of future diversions of additional water from the Russian River, which would need to be approved by State and federal agencies.

Sewer Service. Staff for the SVCSD has stated: "We will be able to provide sanitary sewer service for the [SVCSD] assuming the existing urban service boundary and land use identified in the existing General Plan do not change. Changes to the General Plan may require changes to our facilities plan to accommodate any potential increase in treatment plant, storage, or disposal capacity." However, a restriction on annexation of new lands into the SVCSD is currently in effect.

This area is within the urban boundary and sphere of influence of the City of Santa Rosa. The City provides water service to areas where water lines exist upon approval of a City Utility Certificate. The City also provides sewer service to this area pursuant a contract with the South Park County Sanitation District (SPCSD). The area where sewer and water service is available does not encompass the entire city sphere of influence in the Southwest Area, but lands within the SPCSD are zoned by the County for urban development.

Water Service. The City Department of Public Utilities provides water service to any County-approved project within the service area of the SPCSD upon approval of a City Utility Certificate. Ability of the County to approve projects within the SPCSD will gradually diminish as the City annexes land within their urban boundary/sphere of influence.

Sewer Service. The contract between the City and the SPCSD allocates 0.7 MGD (million gallons per day) of treatment and disposal capacity to the SPCSD. Current flows from 1,973 connections total 0.335 MGD, leaving 0.365 MGD in available capacity. At an average rate of 170 gallons per unit per day (for single family dwellings) and 80% of this rate for multifamily dwellings, available capacity will accommodate 2,147 additional single family dwellings. More housing units could be served, depending upon the number of multifamily dwellings proposed. Staff for the SPCSD has stated: "We will be able to provide sanitary sewer service for the [SPCSD] assuming the existing urban service boundary and land use identified in the existing General Plan do not change. Changes to the General Plan may require changes to our facilities plan to accommodate any potential increase in treatment plant, storage, or disposal capacity." This statement applies only to lands within the existing SPCSD service area.

Table 7.1

Table 7.2

Table 7.3

Table 7.4

Table 7.5

Table 7.6

Table 7.7

Table 7.8

Table 7.9

8.0    HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES AND QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES

8.1    GOALS AND POLICIES

Government Code Section 65583(b)(1) requires that Housing Elements contain "a statement of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing." This Section provides goals, objectives, and policies for Sonoma County. The policy framework sets forth six overarching housing goals. Subordinate to each of these goals are objectives that more clearly state the expected results, including quantified objectives where appropriate. Individual policies, linked to the objectives, express how the objectives will be achieved. Housing Action Programs that implement these objectives and policies are described in Section 9.0.

The County's existing housing programs sponsored by the Community Development Commission (CDC) should continue as the basis of County affordable housing production and subsidy efforts. Also, it is important to retain existing affordable and assisted housing units and to continue rehabilitation programs. Without efforts to retain expiring units and to rehabilitate deteriorating ones, affordable units would be lost from the housing stock.

Objective HE-1.1:  Continue existing County and Community Development Commission efforts and programs with the objective of producing 610 new affordable units [243 very low; 177 low; and 190 moderate income units] between 2001 and 2005.

Objective HE-1.2:  Maintain affordable status of 142 existing subsidized housing units in the unincorporated area that are at risk of losing their affordable status over the 2001-2005 period, and another 70 units over the subsequent five years.

Objective HE-1.3:  Continue existing Community Development Commission efforts and programs, specified in the HUD-required Sonoma County Consolidated Plan for the 2001-2005 period, to use CDBG, redevelopment and/or other funds to provide comprehensive rehabilitation loans to make needed improvements to conventional single- and multifamily housing and mobile homes owned and/or occupied by very low- and low-income households. The occupants of some of these rehabilitated housing units will also include special needs households.

Objective HE-1.4:  Continue existing Community Development Commission efforts and programs, specified in the HUD-required Sonoma County Consolidated Plan for the 2001-2005 period, to use CDBG, redevelopment and/or other funds to provide assistance to conventional single- and multifamily housing and mobile homes owned and/or occupied by very low- and low-income households to complete flood and earthquake hazard mitigation measures, to eliminate health hazards by connecting properties to public water and/or sewer systems, and to perform access modifications for units occupied by persons with disabilities. The occupants of some of these assisted units will also include other special needs households.

Objective HE-1.5:  Strive to ensure that 15 percent of the affordable housing units produced pursuant to the County's quantified objectives are available to persons with special housing needs, including but not limited to the elderly, persons with developmental and physical disabilities, persons diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, the mentally ill, farmworkers, children, homeless persons, and others in need of transitional housing or group care.

The following policies shall be used to accomplish these objectives:

Policy HE-1a:  Continue all existing County and CDC sponsored programs, including but not limited to CDBG, HOME, and RDA funding programs.

Policy HE-1b:  Evaluate existing housing programs in view of changes in State and Federal housing policy and emerging local initiatives, both public and private. Actively seek opportunities for program expansion and more efficient use of limited resources.

Policy HE-1c:  Continue the three existing density bonus programs, including the state density bonus incentive and the County's Housing Opportunity Types A and C Programs as described in Section 2.2.1. Any design review required for affordable housing projects shall not result in a reduction of overall project density, or the number of affordable units, unless the project as proposed would result in one or more specific adverse impacts on public health or safety, and there is no other feasible method to mitigate the adverse impact(s).

Policy HE-1d:  Conserve the existing affordable housing stock by providing funding through the Community Development Commission to nonprofit organizations to subsidize the acquisition of properties that are at risk of losing their affordability and restricting them to long-term occupancy by low and very low income households.

Policy HE-1e:  Continue to prioritize the retention of rental units. Pursuant to State law, the following criteria will be considered when evaluating an application for condominium conversion:

1.   The surplus of vacant multifamily residential units offered for rent or lease should be in excess of 5 percent of the available multifamily rental stock in the community in which the proposed project is located, not including areas within cities.

2.    At least 30 percent of the units included in the proposed condominium conversion should be reserved for sale to low and very low income households by means of a Housing Agreement to insure that such units remain affordable to very low and low income households for the maximum period allowed by law.

3.    Tenants should be granted the right of first refusal concerning the purchase of the units. Tenants who are 60 years or older should be offered lifetime leases. Tenants not qualifying for lifetime leases should be offered a 10-year lease. The subdivider should provide a plan to assist in relocating tenants displaced by the conversion to comparable rental housing.

Policy HE-1f:    Continue to administer the County's Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance.

The Housing Site Inventory identified an adequate number of sites to meet the (RHND) housing requirements, however there are a number of constraints that make it difficult for these sites to be developed with affordable units. Policies are needed which would enhance the opportunities for affordable housing production on these sites. These policies focus on the need to educate the public about the need for housing and adequate infrastructure to serve this type of development as well as ways to design and site units in a way that is sensitive to the community environment.

Objective HE-2.1:  Assist potential private sector and nonprofit developers in locating available sites and accessing programs for affordable housing.

Objective HE-2.2:  Improve community acceptance of housing projects.

Objective HE-2.3:  Provide ongoing, dedicated PRMD and CDC staff support for Housing Element implementation programs, coordination of all County departments involved in permitting and review of affordable housing projects, and cooperation with the CDC and Health and Human Services functions.

Objective-HE-2.4:  Assist public service providers in planning for adequate infrastructure capacity for housing.

Objective HE-2.5:  Work with the cities of Sonoma County to accommodate higher density affordable housing projects within city limits through transfer agreements authorized under state law.

Objective HE-2.6:  In cooperation with the County's cities, maintain a countywide jobs/housing balance that does not exert excessive upward pressure on housing sales prices and rents.

The following policies shall be used to accomplish these objectives:

Policy HE-2a:  Publish a popular summary that identifies available housing opportunity sites in the unincorporated County.

Policy HE-2b:  Establish a public information program regarding the County's housing programs and, specifically, the merits of providing additional housing in the County's Urban Service Areas. Directed at community concerns regarding higher density housing, impacts upon infrastructure, and socioeconomic changes, this program would include workshops and other presentations focused on demographics, design, and community needs with respect to affordable housing.

Policy HE-2c:   Publish a design manual, with examples of affordable projects in Sonoma County and its cities, that illustrates appropriate design that is sensitive to community values and character and environmental principles.

Policy HE-2d:   Provide priority permit processing for affordable housing projects and units. Expand the current policy utilized by the PRMD planning function to other disciplines that participate in permit review within all county departments.

Policy HE-2e:  Address potential public service and infrastructure capacity issues by assisting in the preparation and adoption of Public Service Master Plans for each Urban Service Area. Where applicable, include sufficient capacity for density bonus and second-dwelling units.

Policy HE-2f:   Notify all public sewer and water providers of their responsibility under state law to give affordable housing projects priority for existing service capacity.

Policy HE-2g:  As part of the forthcoming General Plan Update, explore potential for using package treatment plants for affordable housing in rural areas where standard septic and mound system construction is limited by soil conditions, and where health and safety issues can be adequately addressed.

Policy HE-2h:   Assign dedicated staffing from PRMD and CDC to be responsible for planning functions associated with implementation of the Housing Element. This position would be dedicated to programs identified in Section 9 of this Element that are normally outside of the purview of PRMD and CDC. Additionally, evaluate the impact of housing policies and programs on CDC staffing, and consider requests for additional CDC staffing to assist in implementing housing policies and programs.

Policy HE-2i:   In accordance with General Plan Policy LU-1d, monitor development that results in job or housing growth and include these data in periodic reports to the Board of Supervisors on the status of the General Plan.

Policy HE-2j:   Working cooperatively with the County's cites, identify and comment on proposed general plan amendments and development projects that may improve or worsen the countywide jobs/housing balance.

Policy HE-2k:  Encourage service providers to retain 50% of available sewer and water service capacities for housing units affordable to moderate and lower households.

Policy HE-2l  Prepare design guidelines for new residential development.

Policy HE-2m:  Consider sewer and water district annexations or out-of-service-area agreements on properties adjoining urban service boundaries for moderate or lower income housing projects.

In order to increase the available opportunities for housing it will be essential for the County to actively promote affordable housing production. Such promotion will occur primarily through changes in planning, zoning, and building regulations and procedures.

Objective HE-3.1:  Increase the potential opportunities for the construction of affordable housing in urban and rural areas by 961 units [462 very low, 327 low, and 172 moderate income units] over the 2001-2005 period. Accomplish this goal by a combination of regulatory changes that rely primarily upon existing available urban residential sites, but also on additional opportunities for second dwelling units, residential units within mixed use projects, farmworker housing, infill development, single room occupancy (SRO) conversion, and mobile home parks.

Objective HE-3.2:  In order to increase the potential opportunities to meet Objectives 3.1, provide sites for an additional 500 units affordable to very low- or low-income households on urban parcels within the affordable housing combining district outlined in Policy HE-3o. General Plan and Development Code amendments to implement the affordable housing combining district will be completed by July 1, 2003.

Objective HE-3.3:  Review the existing density bonus programs in order to determine the precise reasons why builders and developers do not take advantage of such provisions.

Objective HE-3.4:  Eliminate existing unneeded regulatory constraints on affordable housing production.

Objective HE-3.5:  Consider regulatory changes that will require a portion of new market rate projects to include affordable housing units.

Objective HE-3.6:  Strive to ensure that 15 percent of the affordable housing units produced pursuant to the County's quantified objectives are available to persons with special housing needs, including but not limited to the elderly, persons with developmental and physical disabilities, persons diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, the mentally ill, farmworkers, children, homeless persons and others in need of transitional housing or group care.

The following policies shall be used to accomplish these objectives:

Policy HE-3a:  Provide regulations and incentives that increase the opportunities for construction of second dwelling units in both urban and rural areas, while avoiding areas with potential environmental constraints, such as geologic and flood hazards, and wetlands, and assuring that public service capacities are addressed. A use permit shall be required for all second units in Class 3 and 4 water scarce areas. These regulations and incentives, which will be accomplished as part of the preparation of the County's Integrated Development Code (currently in progress) include the following:

1.  Eliminate the requirement for a use permit, except in Class 3 and 4 water-scarce areas.

2.  Increase the maximum unit size to 1000 square feet and the maximum area of unconnected garage or storage space to 500 square feet, provided that such units are rent-restricted to moderate or lower income households.

3.   Develop pre-approved plans for second dwelling units.

4.   Reduce the minimum parcel size in rural areas from 2 acres to 1.5 acres (except in Class 3 and 4 water-scarce areas) and reduce the minimum parcel size in urban areas from 6,000 to 5,000 square feet provided that all other applicable lot development standards and codes are met and provided that such units are rent restricted to low- or very low-income households.

Policy HE-3b:  Provide additional regulation and incentives to expand the supply of housing for farm workers by continuing the current priority processing of farmworker housing projects and revising existing zoning regulations and procedures as follows:

1.  Develop pre-approved construction plans for farmworker housing.

2.   Allow multifamily farmworker units in zoning districts where farmworker housing is permitted.

3.   Review existing Zoning Ordinance provisions governing agricultural employee and farm family housing in order to identify any potential changes that would result greater production of affordable housing units.

Policy HE-3c:  Provide additional regulations and incentives that will expand the opportunities for increased residential use within mixed use developments in Urban Service Areas, such as rental flats above retail uses, provided that public service capacities are addressed. These regulations and incentives will be accomplished as part of either of two programs currently in progress, the General Plan Update and the Integrated Development Code. They may consist of the following:

1.   Increased base percentage of project floor area allowed for residential use in Urban Service Areas.

2.   Additional residential floor area allowed provided that affordability restrictions are included.

3.   Expansion of mixed use to urban areas designated as Recreation and Visitor Serving Commercial.

4.   Allowance for residential use of existing underutilized properties designated as Industrial or Commercial where needed to supply worker housing in adjoining businesses.

Policy HE-3d:  Inventory existing properties, including vacant and underutilized urban commercial parcels and existing older motels, in order to identify all unincorporated urban commercial land with SRO development potential. Develop additional incentives and programs that would encourage new SRO development, rehabilitate existing motel rooms for SRO occupancy and sustain the housing units provided.

Policy HE-3e:    Revise existing regulations as necessary to expand the potential supply of "single room occupancy" (SRO) units by allowing such uses in commercial districts within Urban Service Areas .

Policy HE-3f:    Consider revising existing regulations in order to allow long term occupancy of travel trailers and/or recreational vehicles in existing campgrounds, in compliance with State and County codes and regulations. Until this program is implemented as part of the General Plan Update, the County will stay any code enforcement actions related to residential occupancy of travel trailers and recreational vehicles in campgrounds outside flood zones where such occupancy was established prior to adoption of this Housing Element, except where necessary to protect health and safety.

Policy HE-3g:    Revise regulations pertaining to mobile home parks in order to expand the potential supply of affordable mobile homes in urban service areas, provided that public service capacities are addressed. These revisions would include the following:

1.   Reduce the existing minimum site area requirement from the current four-acre standard.

2.   Exempt a park from the General Plan and Zoning density restrictions, if units in excess of the mapped density are affordable.

3.   Streamline the use permit requirement.

4.   Consider expanding the range of zoning districts where mobile home parks are allowed within Urban Service Areas.

5.   Continue to enforce the requirements for conversion of mobile home parks set forth in Section 65863.7 and 65863.8 of the California Government Code.

6.   Consider rezoning additional land for mobile home parks.

Policy HE-3h:  Encourage "infill" projects on underutilized sites within Urban Service Areas by revising zoning restrictions so as to allow development on existing residential lots that otherwise could not be developed due to parcel shape, setback, location of existing structures, or similar constraints. Such flexibility in standards would only be allowed if the resulting unit is restricted for sale or rent to moderate, low, or very low income households.

Policy HE-3i:  Revise the Zoning Ordinance to eliminate the current use permit requirement for Housing Opportunity Program projects within ¼ mile of another such project.

Policy HE-3j:  Seek needed improvements and additional incentives that encourage developers and builders to take advantage of existing density bonus provisions.

Policy HE-3k:  Consider establishment of an inclusionary zoning program that would require that all subdivisions or other residential projects which involve 5 or more units provide the following:

1.   20 or more percent of the base units would be sale- or rent-restricted for households earning median income or less.

2.   In lieu of providing the affordable units directly, the developer could pay a fee equal to the subsidy cost of producing the number of units not constructed that would be earmarked for other affordable housing funding programs.

3.   20 percent of the base units would be accompanied by second-dwelling units affordable to low or very low-income households.

Policy HE-3l:  Existing regulations require that all lots designated "Urban Residential, 7+ units per acre" must be developed at or above the mapped density. Revise these regulations to apply this minimum density policy to all Urban Residential parcels.

Policy HE-3m:  Establish an "amnesty program" for illegal housing units that encourages such units to be brought up to current building and public health and safety standards, provided they are rent-restricted to be affordable to moderate or lower income households.

Policy HE-3n:  Amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the creation of parcels for farmworker housing on Williamson Act parcels, pursuant to Section 51230.2 of the California Government Code.

Policy HE-3o:  Develop an affordable housing combining district for application to parcels in unincorporated communities with adequate urban sewer and water services. The purposes of the overlay zone would be to allow built densities of at leas 20 units per acre on urban sites currently zoned for commercial, industrial, or public use. If insufficient sites exist in these zoning districts, sites in residential or other zoning districts may be designated. The following criteria shall be applied to affordable housing projects proposed within the district:

1.   Sites will be at least two acres in size.

2.  Project shall be permitted by right, subject to design review.

3.  Approval shall be subject to conditions designed to maintain the long-term affordability of the affordable units constructed.

4.  Consider proximity to licensed healthcare programs or facilities in the selection of sites.

Policy HE-3p:   Review the existing structure of development impact fees on new residential development, and consider creating a tiered fee structure with two or more levels. The intent is to make impact fees responsive to the actual impacts of new residential development. This could be accomplished by reducing fees on smaller residential units and increasing fees on larger residential units, provided the overall effect of these changes is revenue neutral.

Goal HE-4  Increase Funding for Affordable Housing

Achieving increased production of affordable housing units will require an introduction of new funding sources and related financing and cooperative efforts with other public agencies and private companies. The number of affordable units that will be produced with the aid of new funding resources has already been included in the number of units generated by new programs, presented in Objective HE-3.1.

Objective HE-4.1:  Increase the public revenue base that can be utilized to accomplish Housing Element programs.  Actively seek additional public/private partnerships to increase the funding available for building affordable housing.

Objective HE-4.2:  Subsidize or reduce development impact fees applied to affordable housing units where necessary services and infrastructure costs can be offset from other sources.

Objective HE-4.3:  Consider lowering the cost of affordable housing by exploring options to make surplus County land available for housing programs and projects as a high priority use.

Objective HE-4.4:  Work with nonprofit organizations to secure existing mobile home parks that provide de facto affordable housing so that they provide permanent affordable housing for low and very low income households.

Objective HE-4.5:  Inventory all State and Federal affordable housing funding opportunities including grants, tax credits, rental vouchers, and other assistance and access undersubscribed programs or new opportunities that can yield additional funding.

The following policies shall be used to accomplish these objectives:

Policy HE-4a:  Cooperate with private sector, nonprofits, and local jurisdictions in the establishment of a Housing Trust Fund that would be managed as an ongoing source of funding to carry out Housing Element programs. Leverage public contributions (regulatory incentives, financial subsidies, etc.) with the creative talents of the for profit and nonprofit builders toward the objectives of the various housing programs. Consider financing a portion of this Trust Fund by placing on the ballot a 1/4 cent sales tax whose proceeds would be dedicated to housing programs.

Policy HE-4b:  Give funding priority for affordable housing projects to nonprofit organizations in order to increase the likelihood that units will remain affordable for a longer period of time.

Policy HE-4c:  As part of the forthcoming General Plan Update, consider amending General Plan and Zoning designations in order to increase opportunities for recreational and visitor-serving uses, thus increasing County Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues. Allocate funds from these increased visitor-based revenue sources to a broad array of Housing Element programs that address needs identified in this Element.

Policy HE-4d:  Cooperate with the County's cities in the joint effort to determine the impact of employment growth on housing affordability. Participate in the preparation of a Workforce Housing Study with the Cities. If an appropriate nexus is established, consider requiring that businesses that impact the housing market provide housing necessary for their workforce at the appropriate affordability level. This requirement could be met in one of the following ways, or with a combination thereof, provided that the appropriate nexus to the impact is demonstrated:

1.   Construction of housing on site or in another appropriately zoned location in close proximity to the place of employment.

2.   Payment to the County of a housing impact fee.

3.   Contribution to another public or private housing fund.

Policy HE-4e:  Continue the existing County employee First Time Homebuyer Loan Program and the Rental/Mortgage Assistance Program.

Policy HE-4f:  Consider increasing the portion of the mandated 20 percent of Redevelopment Agency Set-aside Funds that is devoted to housing programs that directly produce new permanent affordable units or rehabilitate existing units. These units should be affordable to very low and low income households.

Policy HE-4g:  Cooperate with the County's cities and other public agencies in solving regional infrastructure problems including transportation, water supply, sewage treatment, as well as open space preservation.

Policy HE-4h:  Issue housing bonds through the Community Development Commission for funding a range of affordable housing programs in cooperation with other public agencies or nonprofit housing entities, including:

1.   Acquisition of existing affordable units at risk of converting to market rate housing.

2.   Subsidies for the purchase of mobile home parks by nonprofit organizations, as called for by Policy HE-4k.

3.   Subsidies for development of a homeless shelter, farmworker housing, and other housing available to low and very low income households.

4.   Offsetting of the waiver of development impact fees for affordable second units and multifamily units, pursuant to Policy HE-4i.

5.   Development of affordable housing for very low income households with developmental or physical disabilities, HIV/AIDS, or the mentally ill.

Policy HE-4i:  Consider waiving impact fees for second-dwelling units provided that the units are sale or rent restricted to be affordable to moderate or lower income households. Similarly, consider fee waivers for multifamily housing projects provided that the units are affordable to very low and low income households. To the extent feasible, offset the lost fee revenue from other funding sources, but limit fee subsidies to a total amount that does not compromise the ability of the County or local special districts to provide adequate and safe services and infrastructure for affected residents and businesses of the County. Consider using a "sliding scale" waiver depending upon the income level served.

Policy HE-4j:  Identify County-owned lands suitable for housing and consider leasing such land to developers or nonprofit housing entities for the production of affordable housing. In cases where surplus county land is available, consider making lands available for affordable housing and/or associated services.

Policy HE-4k:  Assist nonprofit organizations in the purchase of existing mobile home parks in order to maintain long-term affordability of mobile homes.

Policy HE-4l:   Increase participation in equity partnerships with lower income households to provide secondary mortgage financing with no down payment and no points.

Policy HE-4m:  Consider ways in which the County, acting in cooperation with a nonprofit organization, could assist in the creation of perpetually affordable housing using the community land trust model.

Policy HE-4n:  Continue to use CDBG funds, and consider use of any other funding sources created pursuant to the policies of the Element (e.g., Housing Trust, housing bonds, workforce impact fees, in-lieu fees) for financing predevelopment activities for affordable or special needs housing projects.

While some special needs housing will be provided as a part of the affordable housing unit production targets, there are a number of special housing types that require specific effort, especially affordable and accessible housing for the elderly, developmentally and physically disabled persons, the mentally ill, farmworkers, children, and homeless persons.

Objective HE-5.1:  Create an additional supply of housing for special needs populations, including group care homes, transitional housing, and homeless shelters.

Objective HE-5.2:  Continue to support efforts to attract funding for homeless programs.

Objective HE-5.3:  In cooperation with social service entities, sustain and expand group home facilities for foster children and other children in need of special care.

The following policies shall be used to accomplish these objectives:

Policy HE-5a:   Review the current zoning regulations for group homes, transitional housing, and the full range of licensed healthcare programs and facilities in order to determine whether or not they can be changed to encourage additional use of residences or construction of new facilities for these purposes.

Policy HE-5b:  Support an interjurisdictional affordable housing coordinating committee to facilitate affordable housing projects in both the County and cities.

Policy HE-5c:  Revise regulations to allow emergency shelters in urban zoning districts subject to approval of a use permit.

Policy HE-5d:  Consider allowing small-scale homeless shelters accommodating up to ten people in Urban Service Areas as a permitted use or with an expedited use permit, provided all applicable code requirements can be met. Any conditions imposed on a homeless shelter through the use permit process will not constrain, but will encourage and facilitate the development and operation of the shelter, unless such conditions are necessary to protect public health and safety.

Policy HE-5e:  Revise regulations to allow churches to operate as small-scale homeless shelters and service providers on church property on either a long term or rotating short term basis, provided all applicable code requirements can be met.

Policy HE-5f:  In cooperation with other jurisdictions and social service entities, identify a site or sites for and contribute financially to the construction of a permanent homeless shelter in Sonoma County. Give priority to sites identified by Shelter Solutions, which include:

1.  The Army Reserve Center site at the northeast corner of Finley Avenue and Wright Road, Santa Rosa;

2.  The site adjoining the National Guard Armory on Armory Drive, Santa Rosa;

3.  The vacant parcel next to the old General Hospital on South A Street, Santa Rosa; or

4.  The warehouse building on Standish Road, Santa Rosa.

In addition, provide financial assistance in the provision of a permanent shelter in a cooperating city. The shelter should be large and accommodate up to 120 beds in an urban location near public transit, job sites, and local services. Consider use of County-owned surplus property as potential shelter sites. Give priority to the site selection criteria used by Shelter Solutions in evaluating other potential shelter sites. Any conditions imposed on a homeless shelter through the use permit process will not constrain, but will encourage and facilitate the development and operation of the shelter, unless such conditions are necessary to protect public health and safety.

Policy HE-5g:  Participate with other jurisdictions in a comprehensive survey of the County's homeless population in order to establish the need for homeless facilities.

Policy HE-5h:  Inventory existing group home facilities and determine sustainability of these operations and consider providing financial incentives and other considerations needed to sustain existing facilities and develop additional facilities to meet the County's needs. Include in this effort support for modification of State and Federal reimbursement rates in a manner that recognizes the high costs of operating licensed healthcare facilities and programs in Sonoma County.

Policy HE-5i:  Continue to support efforts to enforce anti-discrimination laws through mediation of disputes and provision of assistance in filing discrimination complaints.

Policy HE-5j:  Discourage the demolition or conversion of units having three or more bedrooms, unless either the unit is found to be substandard and not suitable for rehabilitation upon inspection by PRMD; or conversion of the unit to multifamily occupancy is intended to meet the housing needs of special needs groups; or unless the unit(s) are being replaced by units of equal or larger size; as determined by PRMD.

Policy HE-5k:  Place priority on assistance to large families in utilizing federal programs which provide financial assistance to households for the purpose of paying a portion of housing expenditures.

Policy HE-5l:  To promote affordable housing units which are accessible to the physically disabled, in rental projects that are required by State law to provide more than one unit equipped for physically disabled persons the County will require that at least 50% of such units be affordable to very low, lower or moderate income households.

Policy HE-5m:  Permit housing for persons or families who are in a transition from a homeless shelter to permanent housing in all urban residential categories subject to the following:

1.  The occupancy of such dwellings shall not exceed the types of housing allowed by the Land Use Element, nor shall the character of the dwelling used for such purposes be inconsistent with the character of the housing types expressed in the general plan and zoning ordinance. The construction of new dwellings for such purposes shall conform to the provisions of the Sonoma County Code.

2.  Each transitional housing unit or apartment building be supervised by a manager.

Policy HE-5n:      Encourage construction of new housing for occupancy by farmworkers. The highest priority is for year-round family housing and the second priority is housing for transient single-persons. Housing intended for seasonal occupancy by farmworkers may be permitted in rural locations which are accessible to agricultural lands, pursuant to the temporary farmworker housing ordinance. Where feasible, provide assistance to organizations in providing new farmworker housing.

Policy HE-5o:  Farmworker housing code enforcement activities shall be intended to abate unsafe conditions and to expedite, where practicable, the rehabilitation and continued availability of lawfully-constructed farmworker housing units.

Policy HE-5p:  Designate one or more sites for a camp for 50 seasonal farm workers on State, County, or private land to be operated and maintained by a qualified nonprofit organization. Campsite facilities may include the provision of farm worker-related social services and would be subject to compliance with all applicable health and safety codes.

Policy HE-5q  As 2000 Census data become available, update the analysis of special housing needs and prepare a report to be made available to applicable agencies and the public.

Policy HE-5r:  In the revision of the County's Development Code, include language providing reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities seeking fair access to housing in the application of the County's zoning regulations.

Policy HE-5s  In connection with proposed conservation and open space easements over agricultural lands, consider allowing for construction of farmworker housing in a manner consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

Goal HE-6  Improve Conservation of Energy and Natural Resources

Housing is a considerable source of demand for energy, water, and other natural resources. While existing regulations (e.g. Title 24) impose rigorous energy and water conservation measures on new housing, additional effort will yield additional energy savings particularly in the remodeling of existing older homes.

Objective HE-6.1:  Promote conservation of energy, water, and other natural resources as a cost-saving measure in existing residential development.

Policy HE-6a:     Encourage improvements that result in conservation of energy, water, and other natural resources in existing residential development, particularly in renter-occupied units by offering workshops, individual consultations, and financial assistance for weatherization and other conservation measures. Support and expand existing programs administered by the Community Development Commission.

Policy HE-6b:     Continue to provide funding through the Community Development Commission for retrofits of existing affordable housing units that result in conservation of energy, water, or other natural resources.

8.2    SUMMARY OF QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES

The quantified objective for affordable housing production was prepared through an assessment of both existing and new housing policies and programs. As a result of County policies and actions a total of 1,571 units affordable for rent or for sale to very low, low, and moderate income households are expected to be produced. An additional 1,317 units priced for above moderate income households are anticipated, based on historical production by private developers in the County in response to market demand.

Table 8.1 presents the quantified objective for housing units in Sonoma County by housing unit prototype and affordability category. Table 8.2 summarizes the quantified objective and compares it with the RHND requirements. Table 8.3 demonstrates the number of units that are expected to be achieved through construction, rehabilitation, and retention of expiring units. Overall, the quantified objective, reflecting the combination of existing programs and a range of new programs, equals 47 percent of the total RHND affordable unit requirement. While not expected to meet the RHND production target, the combined effort reflected in the Action Program represents a significant increase over prior affordable housing efforts and resulting unit production. Market conditions, high costs of subsidizing affordable housing units, and lack of additional public funding from discretionary or new funding sources will all limit the ability of the County to meet the RHND.

The core of Sonoma County's housing program effort will be (as committed in Goal HE-1) a continuation of the ongoing efforts of the Community Development Commission (CDC). The CDC has been very effective in its efforts to provide and maintain affordable housing, given the resources available. Similarly, a variety of regulatory programs and policies have been effective and should be continued.

Major sources of affordable housing units from existing programs will derive from projects that receive subsidies (CDBG, HOME, RDA funds) and that take advantage of the density bonus program. Modifying policy and regulations for second units and sustaining production levels of farmworker units also have the potential to substantially increase permanent affordable stock.

The County has a wide range of programs through which it can increase affordable housing production. The programs discussed above reflect a range of such programs that will encourage housing production, provide new funding sources, alter regulatory requirements, and increase County financial participation. These programs, taken as a whole, will certainly require additional effort and new initiative by the County but are not beyond reasonable norms.

Under the proposed new programs, major sources of affordable housing units (especially for lower- and very low-income households) will likely result from:

1.   Acquisition of expiring units or subsidizing production through new funding sources;

2.   Continuing to offer density bonuses of up to 100% of mapped densities in exchange for provision of affordable housing;

3.   Increasing the incentives for construction of affordable second dwelling units;

4.   Providing design flexibility to encourage construction of affordable infill units in Urban Service Areas;

5.  Continuing to provide regulatory incentives for construction of farmworker housing in agricultural areas, as well as considering farmworker housing needs in development of affordable housing in Urban Service Areas;

6.   Increasing opportunities for mobile home parks, and,

7.   providing opportunities and/or funding for SRO projects and emergency homeless shelters.

In addition to examining projected affordable housing needs, Government Code Section 65582 requires that jurisdictions conduct an analysis of any existing special housing needs such as those of the elderly, disabled (including individuals with HIV/AIDS), large families, single parent households, and farmworkers. The following discussion presents a qualitative assessment of the housing needs of these groups. The quantitative analysis of these groups' current housing needs is found in Section 5.2. The County also recognizes the housing needs of several subpopulations not specifically mentioned in State law such as the mentally ill, developmentally disabled, and youth transitioning from foster care. Efforts have been made to highlight and address these special needs where appropriate.

Several of the special needs populations mentioned above do not require housing that is operationally different from that required by the general low-income population. Single-parent households, large families, and able-bodied elderly households, for example, do not require significant operational intervention. While such households may benefit from housing that is proximate to schools, workplaces, or services (e.g., day-care, after-school activities, senior centers, etc.), they typically do not need to be located in different types of developments than the general population. Design modifications, such as adding extra bedrooms and bathrooms for large families or limiting entry stairs or internal stairs in units for elderly, can accommodate these households.

Other special needs populations may require very specialized housing types. The physically and developmentally disabled may require supportive housing options that provide quarters for personal assistants, or group home facilities that provide services and staffing on site. The same holds true for less able-bodied elderly, the mentally ill, and people with chronic and/or terminal illnesses.

Populations that have self-care and/or mobility limitations have faced increased housing challenges in Sonoma County in recent years. Limitations on the operational revenues of housing and service providers combined with escalating property values have caused some service providers to cease operations in favor of the financial windfalls available through closing and selling their properties. This trend is particularly problematic to lower-income residents, as they may not have the financial recourse to secure alternative arrangements for housing and care.

The homeless population also requires operational support, as do many families and individuals transitioning from social services to independent housing. Homeless shelters and transitional housing (such as group homes, SRO hotels, etc.), and supportive housing options, should be located within proximity of complementary services (e.g., job training, day-care, substance abuse programs, etc.).

Finally, a diverse population of farmworkers requires diverse housing opportunities. Those farmworkers who live with their families or with friends and coworkers year-round in Sonoma County may not require units that are different from the general lower-income population. However, migrant farmworkers (typically men traveling alone) often can be adequately accommodated in SRO hotels, group homes, or bunkhouse units on agricultural lands.

Policy opportunities and incentive programs to develop housing for these special needs populations are discussed in Section 9.

Table 8.1

Table 8.2

Table 8.3

9.0    HOUSING ACTION PROGRAMS

Section 65583 (c) requires that housing elements contain "a program which sets forth a five year schedule of actions." in order to implement stated goals, objectives, and policies. Moreover, this program of actions is required to include programs which 1) identify sites available for new housing; 2) assist in development of affordable housing; 3) reduce governmental constraints; 4) improve the conditions and sustaining the amount of existing affordable housing units; 5) promote equal housing opportunities for all persons; 6) preserve the number of existing assisted housing units.

The following Action Program organizes individual programs into six general action categories that relate to the housing goals set forth in Section 8:

•   Sustain existing housing programs and affordable housing units.

•   Promote the use of available sites for affordable housing construction and provide adequate infrastructure.

•   Promote production of affordable units.

•   Increase funding for affordable units.

•   Promote production of special needs housing units.

•   Improve energy efficiency of housing.

The programs included under these categories include a range of existing and newly recommended programs that, taken as a whole, will assure that the County achieves the quantified objectives listed in Section 8. As noted in the Introduction, the housing programs were developed through an evaluation of existing programs and an identification of New programs. Through public workshops and other consultations and communications members of the public and various interest groups have had the opportunity to review proposed programs and to suggest additional programs.

9.1    SUSTAIN EXISTING HOUSING PROGRAMS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS

The County currently uses Federal, State, and local funds to promote production of new affordable housing and to encourage the retention of existing affordable units. The County also uses zoning regulations and incentives to promote affordable units.

Housing Program #1.    Sustain Existing Housing Production and Programs that Create Permanent Affordable Housing

Description: Currently the County provides funding assistance to affordable housing developments through CDBG, HOME, and RDA funds. These funds are awarded and distributed by the County Community Development Commission (CDC) to developers who are then able to provide safe, affordable housing to households in a range of income groups. These funds can be used to construct new affordable housing as well as to rehabilitate existing units, which can be added to the permanent affordable stock through affordability restrictions. Most rehabilitation efforts are accomplished directly by CDC staff. The County will continue its support of the CDC's activities and strategies outlined in the Consolidated Plan and Continuum of Care to ensure that existing production levels are maintained.

Agency: Community Development Commission, Permit, & Resource Management Dept.

Implementation: Ongoing

Housing Program #2.    Retain Existing Affordable Units through Acquisition Subsidies

Description: Currently the USC has 142 affordable units that will be lost due to expiring affordability restrictions; over the next ten years an additional 70 units in the USC are scheduled to expire and as a result may be lost from the affordable housing supply. The Community Development Commission will seek funding to assist nonprofit organizations with the acquisition of these properties (see Program #28).

Agency: Community Development Commission

Implementation: New program, beginning in 2002 and ongoing

9.2    PROMOTE THE USE OF AVAILABLE SITES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING

The County recognizes the need to educate the public about the provision of affordable housing, in particular with regard to such topics as the location of available sites, design options, and infrastructure issues.

Housing Program #3.    Continue to Administer County's Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance.

Description: The County currently administers a mobile home rent stabilization ordinance that limits the rate of space rent increases.

Agency: Community Development Commission

Implementation: Ongoing

Housing Program #4.    Improve Information about and Community Acceptance of Affordable Housing

Description: A significant barrier to low income housing production is often community resistance; neighboring land owners fear that low income housing developments will spoil the character of their neighborhood and introduce social problems that are stereotypically and often incorrectly associated with low-income individuals. The County will make a concerted effort to educate the public about affordable housing through presentations and workshops that offer visual and written information about affordable housing design and the demographics of low income renters and homeowners.

Agency: Community Development Commission, Permit, & Resource Management Dept.

Implementation: New program, beginning 2002 and ongoing

Housing Program #5.    Provide Priority Processing for Affordable and Farmworker Housing
Description: The County will require all Departments to provide priority processing for affordable and farmworker housing. Priority processing is currently in effect only for planning approvals.

Agency: Department of Emergency Services, County Council, and other County permitting agencies

Implementation: New program, beginning in 2002 and ongoing

Housing Program #6.    Assist in the Preparation and Adoption of Public Service Master Plans for Urban Service Areas

Description: The County will address potential public service and infrastructure capacity issues by assisting various service providers in the preparation and adoption of Public Service Master Plans for each Urban Service Area. Where applicable, include sufficient capacity for density bonus and second dwelling units.

Agency: Permit & Resource Management Dept.

Implementation: New program to be carried out as part of the General Plan update, scheduled for completion on 2003

Housing Program #7.    Notify Utility Providers of their Responsibility to Prioritize Service to Affordable Projects under State Law

Description: The County will notify all public sewer and water providers of their responsibility under State law to give affordable housing projects priority for existing service capacity.

Agency: Permit & Resource Management Dept.

Implementation: New program to be accomplished in 2002

Housing Program #8.    Package Sewer Treatment Plants

Description: The County will consider amending planning regulations to allow for wider use of package sewage treatment plants in rural areas where package plants result in the production of affordable housing.

Agency: Permit & Resource Management Dept.

Implementation: New program to be carried out as part of the General Plan Update, scheduled for completion in 2003

Housing Program #9.    Fund Staffing Dedicated to Housing Element Implementation

Description: The County will increase funding for staffing needed to implement the programs outlined in this Housing Element. In addition to this general responsibility, this staffing will have specific responsibility for implementing Policies HE-5j, HE-5k, HE-5l, HE-5o, HE-5p, HE-5q, and HE-5r.

Agency: Permit & Resource Management Dept., Community Development Commission

Implementation: New program to begin in 2002 and ongoing

Housing Program #10.    Adequate Sites Monitoring Program

Description: PRMD will conduct an annual review of the status of sites listed in the Housing Element urban land inventory (Table 7.4) and its use/reuse to accommodate the County's share of the regional housing need by income level. Should the review completed for 2003 show that sites identified in the land inventory have been developed for other than residential purposes, or developed at less than proposed densities (Housing Opportunity Area A or C), the County will identify alternative sites that will be made available through appropriate zoning and/or provide additional incentives to facilitate the reuse, recycling or redevelopment of existing sites for residential purposes.

Agency: Permit and Resource Management Dept.

Implementation: The review will be completed annually as part of annual General Plan progress report pursuant to Government Code Section 65400, which is to be submitted to HCD. If alternative sites or incentives are required as a result of the review completed for 2003, such programs or sites will be identified within a 6-month period.

9.3    PROMOTE PRODUCTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITES

Through its planning and zoning regulations, Sonoma County will endeavor to encourage and expand affordable housing production. Existing zoning incentives are described in Section 2.2.1. Programs that expand the County's capacity to meet its affordable housing goals are described below.

Housing Program #11.    Preparation of Affordable Housing Combining District

Description: The County will identify specific urban sites now zoned for commercial, industrial, public facilities or residential use and designate them for development of a minimum of 500 housing units affordable to low and very low income households. Sites so identified shall be at least 2 acres in size, and development will be allowed with "as built" densities of at least 20 units per acre. This program shall include establishment of a monitoring program to track the production of affordable housing on these sites.

Agency: Permit and Resource Management Department

Implementation: New program to be carried out as part of the General Plan Update and Integrated Development Code Update, both scheduled to be completed in 2003.

Housing Program #12.    Increase Opportunities for Second Units

Description: Second units are currently allowed with a zoning permit in urban areas and with a use permit on appropriately zoned parcels in rural areas, and over the past ten years 338 second units have been permitted. The County will consider regulations and incentives that increase the opportunities for construction of affordable second units in both urban and rural areas, while avoiding areas with potential environmental constraints such as geologic and flood hazards and wetlands, and assuring that public service capacities are addressed. Proposed incentives include:

1.    Eliminate the requirement for a use permit except in Class 3 and 4 water-scarce areas.

2.    Increase the maximum unit size and the maximum area of unconnected garage or storage space.

3.    Develop pre-approved plans for second-dwelling units.

4.    Reduce the minimum parcel size for second unit eligibility except in Class 3 and 4 water-scarce areas.

Agency: Permit & Resource Management Dept., Community Development Commission

Implementation: New program to be carried out as part of the integrated Development Code Update, scheduled for completion in 2003

Description: The County will continue to consult with residential builders and property owners on an ongoing basis to determine what future incentives may be needed to ensure wider use of existing density bonus programs.

Agency: Permit and Resource Management Department and Community Development Commission.

Implementation: Ongoing

Description: The County will promote the production of farmworker housing by providing pre-approved structural plans, allowing multifamily farmworker units, and reviewing regulations pertaining to agricultural employee housing and farm family units.

Agency: Permit & Resource Management Dept.

Implementation: New program to be carried out as part of the Integrated Development Code Update, scheduled for completion in 2003.

Description: The County would expand opportunities and provide incentives for mixed use by the following means:

1.     Increased base percentage of project floor area allowed for residential use in Urban Service Areas.

2.     Additional residential floor area allowed provided that affordability restrictions are included.

3.     Expansion of mixed use to urban areas designated as Recreation and Visitor Serving Commercial.

4.     Allowance for residential use of existing underutilized properties designated as Industrial or Commercial where needed to supply worker housing in adjoining businesses.

Agency: Permit & Resource Management Dept.

Implementation: New program, to be carried out as part of the Integrated Development Code Update and/or the General Plan Update, scheduled to be completed in 2003

Description: SRO hotels offer a low-cost, flexible housing option for single adults. The County would allow SRO hotels in urban commercial districts in order to increase housing opportunities for groups at risk for homelessness such as farmworkers, youth transitioning from foster care, mentally ill, and individuals transitioning from treatment programs and homeless shelters. Residential density limits will not be applied to such properties, since SROs will be located in commercial districts where density limits do not apply.

Agency: Permit & Resource Management Dept.

Implementation: New program to be carried out as part of the General Plan Update, scheduled for completion in 2003

Description: The County will establish a program to inventory, legalize, and conserve the County's existing supply of SRO housing, primarily located in older motels and cabins in the Russian River area. The intent will be to provide additional incentives and programs to encourage the preservation of existing SRO housing and the creation of new SRO housing.

Agency: Permit & Resource Management Dept.

Implementation: New program beginning in 2001

Description: The County will consider amending its zoning ordinance to allow long-term residential occupancy of travel trailers and recreational vehicles in existing campgrounds outside flood zones, and stay any enforcement of current regulations until they can be revised, except where necessary to protect health and safety.

Agency: Permit & Resource Management Dept.

Implementation: New program to be carried out as part of the Integrated Development Code Update, scheduled for completion in 2003

Description: The County will amend its zoning ordinance to reduce the minimum site area requirements and to remove density limits in exchange for provision of affordable units; the County will also streamline the use permit requirement and consider allowing parks in other urban zoning districts.

Agency: Permit & Resource Management Dept.

Implementation: New program to be carried out as part of the Integrated Development Code Update, scheduled for completion in 2003

Description: The County will reduce regulatory impediments and development costs to new residential development on infill parcels unable to meet subdivision criteria due to parcel shape or other similar constraint in order to encourage housing production.

Agency: Permit & Resource Management Dept.

Implementation: New program to be carried out as part of the Integrated Development Code Update, scheduled for completion in 2003

Description: Currently the County requires affordable housing developments to locate at least one-quarter mile away from other affordable projects unless a use permit is obtained. This policy limits availability of sites appropriate for higher-density affordable development. The County will amend this requirement to allow housing opportunity projects to locate within closer proximity.

Agency: Permit & Resource Management Dept.

Implementation: New program to be accomplished in 2001

Description: The County will consider the adoption of an inclusionary zoning program that will include a requirement that 20 or more percent of the base units for any subdivision or other residential project consisting of 5 or more units be available for households earning median income or less, that a fee equal to the subsidy cost of producing the affordable units could be paid in-lieu of the units, and that 20 percent of the base units would be required to provide second units affordable to low or very low income households.

Agency: Permit & Resource Management Dept.

Implementation: New program to be carried out in 2002

Description: This policy currently exists on lots designated UR 7 and above. The County would revise its zoning regulations to expand this policy to apply to all urban residential lands.

Agency: Permit & Resource Management Dept.

Implementation: New program to be carried out in 2001

Description: The County will amend the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as necessary to allow consideration of sewer and water district annexations or out-of-service-area agreements on properties adjoining urban service boundaries for moderate or lower income housing projects.

Agency: Permit and Resource Management Department

Implementation: New program to be carried out as part of the general Plan Update and Integrated, scheduled to be completed in 2003.

Description: The County would establish a procedure to allow illegal units that meet health and safety codes to be granted amnesty in exchange for affordability restrictions.

Agency: Permit & Resource Management Dept., Community Development Commission

Implementation: New program to be carried out in 2002

9.4    INCREASE FUNDING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING

The County will endeavor to identify and generate new sources of income for affordable housing programs (such as impact fees, in-lieu fees, intergovernmental grants, etc.). In addition, it may also be appropriate for the County to increase its own budgetary contributions to such programs. [27]

Description: In Sonoma County, affordable housing is developed by nonprofit or private developers rather than directly by the public sector; public/private partnerships are inherent in the process of building affordable units. Additional public/private partnerships are in place for homeless shelter operations, rent subsidies, financing and lending practices, and other critical housing programs. Participants may include nonprofit housing developers and social service agencies, lending institutions, and faith-based organizations.

Sonoma County would work with cities, the private sector, and nonprofit organizations to establish a Housing Trust Fund. Such an organization could serve as the designated manager of linkage fees and/or housing in-lieu fees from new development, and could also promote participation from existing employers and other funding sources, as has been successfully achieved in Silicon Valley. A potential source of funding is the 1/4 cent sales tax proposal outlined in Policy HE-4a. Also, new employment development in Sonoma County could make contributions to a Housing Trust Fund in-lieu of linkage fees. Such an organization could adopt a regional or Countywide perspective, and help to address some of the disparities that exist in places like USC, where the housing has historically outweighed jobs and potential revenues from employment linkage fees are limited vis-à-vis those achievable in other jurisdictions.

Agency: Community Development Commission, Permit, & Resource Management Dept.

Implementation: New program beginning in 2002 and ongoing

Description: In the County's experience, nonprofit owners usually extend their affordability contracts whereas for-profit owners convert to market rate at the end of their subsidy period. In order to promote unit affordability in perpetuity, the County will give discretionary funding preference to nonprofit developers when it is practicable to do so.

Agency: Community Development Commission

Implementation: New program beginning in 2001

Description: The County will consider amending General Plan and Zoning Maps to create more parcels zoned for " Recreation and Visitor-Serving Commercial" uses. The County will use the resulting increase in hotel/motel rooms, and increased transient occupancy tax to create a secure source of funding for affordable housing.

Agency: Permit & Resource Management Dept.

Implementation: New program to be carried out as part of the General Plan Update, scheduled for completion in 2003. Some components of this program could be carried out sooner than 2003 if opportunities present themselves.

Description: The County has already committed funding to conduct a study to determine the nexus between new employment-driven real estate development and housing. The County would consider amending its regulations to require that businesses provide housing in proportion to their impact by construction, fees, or other contributions.

Agency: Permit & Resource Management Dept.

Implementation: New program to be considered in 2002

Description: The County currently offers its employees loans for mortgage or rent payments and loans for first-time homebuyers. These programs help to reduce the cost of housing for County employees, and serve as a significant benefit to attract and retain employees. The County should continue to offer these programs, and to increase them as opportunities permit. This program indirectly contributes to the number of affordable units in the County.

Agency: Community Development Commission

Implementation: Ongoing

Description: The Redevelopment Agency (RDA) currently generates tax increment through its two Redevelopment Areas (a third redevelopment area, Russian River, is projected to begin generating revenue next year). By law, 20 percent of this increment is required to be set-aside for housing production programs. The County will devote its housing set-aside funds specifically to the production of new permanent affordable units and/or the rehabilitation of existing units (which could be added to the permanent affordable stock through affordability restrictions) for low and very low-income households.

Agency: Community Development Commission

Implementation: Ongoing

Description: The County will cooperate with other cities in the County and other public agencies to address regional infrastructure problems including transportation, water supply, sewage treatment, and open space preservation.

Agency: County Administrators Office, Permit & Resource Management Dept., and County dependent service districts

Implementation: Ongoing

Description: The County Community Development Commission will consider issuing revenue bonds to fund a range of affordable housing programs in cooperation with other public agencies or nonprofit housing entities or private housing developers, including:

1.    Acquisition of existing affordable units at risk of converting to market rate housing.

2.    Subsidies for the purchase of mobile home parks by nonprofit organizations, as called for by Policy HE-4k.

3.    Subsidies for development of a homeless shelter, farmworker housing, and other housing available to low and very low income households.

4.    Offsetting of the waiver development impact fees for affordable second units and multifamily units, pursuant to Policy HE-4i.

Agency: Community Development Commission

Implementation: Renewal of program beginning in 2001

Description: The County will consider subsidizing impact fees for second units and multifamily units in exchange for affordability restrictions.

Agency: Community Development Commission, Permit, & Resource Management Dept.

Implementation: New program beginning in 2002

Description: Currently the County leases land for affordable and farmworker housing on a limited basis. The County will consider expanding this program in order to reduce the cost of affordable housing construction through low-land lease rates.

Agency: County Administrator's Office, General Services

Implementation: Ongoing

Description:The County will review the existing structure of development impact fees on new residential development, and consider creating a tiered fee structure of with two or more levels, with the intent to make impact fees responsive to the actual impacts of new residential development, by lowering fees for smaller residential units and raising fees for larger units.

Agency: Permit and Resource Management Department, County Administrator's Office

Implementation: New program beginning in 2002

Description: The County will consider partnerships with nonprofit organizations to assist in the purchase of existing mobile home parks in order to increase affordability.

Agency: Community Development Commission, local non-profits

Implementation: New program beginning in 2002

Description: The County Community Development Commission will consider increasing its participation in equity partnerships with lower income households by providing secondary mortgage financing. Such programs will supplement the amount a lower income household could otherwise afford to pay for a house, bringing a larger supply of homes within reach. A variation on this type of program is already in place; CDC's silent second mortgage program offers financing for new homes developed with CDBG funds.

Agency: Community Development Commission

Implementation: Ongoing

Description: The County will consider the establishment of a community land trust (CLT) designed to buy existing housing units and then resell (or rent) the improvements to income-eligible households while retaining ownership of the land. A CLT could also bank vacant land for future development of affordable housing. Affordability for very low, low, and moderate income households would be maintained in perpetuity.

Agency: Permit & Resource Management Dept., Community Development Commission

Implementation: New program beginning in 2002

9.5    PROMOTE PRODUCTION OF SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING UNITS

Although certain special housing needs have been addressed in the preceding sections, other needs, such as those of the homeless, mentally ill, and developmentally disabled, require specialized programs. Options may include supportive housing, transitional housing, and temporary shelters.

Description: The County will amend its zoning ordinance to reduce constraints on group homes and transitional housing, especially the number of beds triggering use permit requirement. Amendments will be made where possible, consistent with State law.

Agency: Permit & Resource Management Dept.

Implementation: New program to be carried out as part of the Integrated Development Code Update, scheduled to be completed in 2003

Description: The County and cities could support an interjurisdictional housing coordinating committee to facilitate affordable housing projects that serve both the County and cities and that receive coordinated supportive services from other agencies.

Agency: County Administrator's Office

Implementation: New program beginning in 2001

Description: The County is in need of increasing its supply of emergency shelter beds. The County would allow homeless shelters in all urban zoning districts in order to increase the siting opportunities for homeless facilities.

Agency: Permit & Resource Management Dept.

Implementation: New program beginning in 2001

Description: The County would consider amending its Zoning Ordinance to allow small-scale homeless shelters (for example, up to 10 residents) in urban service areas subject to a streamlined use permit process.

Agency: Permit & Resource Management Dept.

Implementation: New program to be carried out as part of the Integrated Development Code Update, scheduled for completion in 2003

Description: The County would allow churches to operate small-scale homeless shelters (for example, up to 10 residents) on either a long-term or rotating basis.

Agency: Permit & Resource Management Dept.

Implementation: New program to be carried out as part of the Integrated Development Code Update, scheduled for completion in 2003

Description: In cooperation with other jurisdictions, the County will support development of a large homeless shelter or shelters for urban locations with access to public transit, job sites, and social services. Support would include assistance in financing and/or provision of a suitable site(s).

Agency: County Administrator's Office

Implementation: Ongoing

Description: There is a need to conduct a comprehensive survey of the homeless in Sonoma County so that policies and programs can be designed appropriately to meet their needs and to enable the County to receive funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development under its Continuum of Care program. As possible, the County will participate with other jurisdictions in funding such a study.

Agency: Office of Commissions, Community Development Commission

Implementation: New program in 2001

Description: The County will identify a site or sites for establishment of a County-funded 25-30 bed homeless shelter on County-owned property, or other property.

Agency: County Administrator's Office

Implementation: New program to be accomplished by June 30, 2002

Description: The County will inventory existing group home facilities and determine the sustainability of these operations and consider providing financial incentives and other considerations needed to sustain these existing facilities.

Agency: Community Development Commission, Permit, & Resource Management Dept.

Implementation: New program beginning in 2002

Description: The County will amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow for creation of parcels for farmworker housing on Williamson Act parcels, pursuant to Section 51230.2 of the California Government Code.

Agency: Permit and Resource Management Dept.; Community Development Commission

Implementation: New program to be carried out in 2002.

Description: The County currently funds a fair housing program.

Agency: Community Development Commission

Implementation: Ongoing

9.6    IMPROVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN HOUSING

Promoting energy efficiency in new and existing residences is both an environmental sustainability measure and also a method for keeping housing utility costs low for renters and homeowners alike.

Description: Energy conservation can be encouraged in existing development through weatherization and rehabilitation programs. Successful programs may include County sponsored workshops, individual energy consultations provided free of charge, and weatherization and rehabilitation loan programs that provide low-interest financing for making improvements. In particular, these programs should target renter-occupied units. The County Community Development Commission currently administers several programs that provide loans, grants, and matching funds for rehabilitation and retrofitting, which can include energy efficient improvements.

Agency: Community Development Commission

Implementation: Ongoing and expanded

Appendix A

Appendix B

[1]  The Windsor Redevelopment Area was transferred out of Sonoma County to the Town of Windsor after the Town's incorporation in 1992.

[2]  Source: ABAG Projections 2000.

[3]  Much of the high vacancy rate in 1990 was attributable to seasonal homes in the Russian River area and other popular vacation locations; however, it is believed that this vacancy rate has decreased as previously seasonal units have been converted to year-round use.

[4]  Based on data from the Sonoma County Assessor for all housing unit types.

[5]  Assumes a sales price of $300,000 and a 20 percent down payment with 30-year mortgage financing at 8 percent interest.

[6]  Includes attached and detached units, but not multifamily units.

[7]  Moderate Income means households with incomes up to 120 percent of Countywide median income; Low Income households have less than 80 percent of Countywide median income.

[8]  Home prices have not been adjusted for inflation. This comparison is presented as a measure of the relative increase in home prices over the past decade particularly vis-à-vis incomes, which have grown at a slower rate (13 percent).

[9]  Based on data from Apartments.com surveying 40 apartment buildings throughout Sonoma County. Most of these apartments are located in large multifamily buildings. In general rental units in buildings with fewer than six units are not represented.

[10]  Assumes 30 percent of gross income paid for gross rent.

[11]  ABAG estimates 1990 mean household income at $55,300 in 1990 versus $64,100 in 2000.

[12]  As noted in Section 4.3.2, 60 percent of housing units were owner-occupied in 1990, while 28 percent were renter-occupied, for a total of 88 percent being occupied and 12 percent being vacant. These figures translate to 68 percent of occupied units being homeownership, and 32 percent being rentals.

[13]  Assumes 20 percent down payment and mortgage payment of 25 percent of gross income, with 30-year financing at 8 percent interest.

[14]  Source: RAND California data for permits; does not equal net gain shown on Table 3.1 due to demolition of some older units.

[15]  Sources: Burbank Housing Development Corporation; BRIDGE Housing; NVCH.

[16]  Several methodologies were considered because the California Government Code does not indicate a preferred methodology for reconciling ABAG's 7.5-year needs projection with the requirement for a five-year schedule of actions.

[17]  See Table 3.4 for details on unit permits.

[18]  See Table 2.6 for details on affordable housing projects assisted by Sonoma County.

[19]  Derived from 1990 Census data of Sonoma County population over age 64 divided by householders over age 64.

[20]  ABAG Projections 2000 data estimates that the median age in Sonoma County will increase from 34.3 in 1990 to 37.1 in 2000 and 38.6 in 2010.

[21]  According to 1990 US Census data, elderly-disabled account for another 2.2 percent of Countywide population. Because elderly housing needs have already been estimated, elderly-disabled needs will not be included in this section to avoid double counting. Notably, 16 percent of the elderly population in Sonoma County is disabled and therefore a significant portion of housing for seniors should be designed to accommodate disabled residents.

[22]  California Department of Economic Opportunity estimates that California is able to adequately house only about 30 percent of its migrant farmworkers.

[23]  Capitalized value estimates resale or investment value of a rental unit, and is calculated with full-service rent payment of $726/month (30 percent of monthly gross income at 50 percent of median income), operating costs of 25 percent of full-service rents, and capitalization rate of 9.0 percent.

[24]  Source: Burbank Housing Development Corporation; BRIDGE Housing; NVCH.

[25]  For example, a four-person moderate income household (earning 120 percent of median income) can afford a $245,000 home with a 20 percent down payment, but only a $218,000 home with a 10 percent down payment.

[26]  As noted in Section 4.1.2, few of the rental units surveyed in Sonoma County are priced at this affordable level. As such, both the monthly rent price and the cost of entry for an average rental unit are beyond the reach of many lower income households.

[27]  Government Code Section 65589 (a) (1) states, "Nothing in this article shall require a city, county, or city and county to . . . expend local revenues for the construction of housing, housing subsidies, or land acquisition." However, the County may voluntarily deem such programs necessary.