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 Son