📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
Score: +77
(90/13/13)
Sonoma County Grand Jury
• 2021-2022
Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future “Do It, or the State Will Do It For You”
Published: January 01, 2022
26 pages
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 24 findings
F1
Increased Affordable Housing has been mandated by the State of California and officially accepted by Sonoma County and its nine Cities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should identify properties within their jurisdictions and Spheres of Influence that could support the construction of infill housing and accessory dwelling units. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F16, F17)
F2
Housing jurisdictions must show sufficient progress in meeting 6th cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation mandates or they risk being fined or losing local authority over their housing programs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should identify properties within their jurisdictions and Spheres of Influence that could support the construction of infill housing and accessory dwelling units. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F16, F17)
F3
Sonoma County and its nine Cities have officially recognized the need for Affordable Housing but not all have fully endorsed the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or met earlier goals.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should identify properties within their jurisdictions and Spheres of Influence that could support the construction of infill housing and accessory dwelling units. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F16, F17)
F4
Some cities hinder the development of Affordable Housing through designation of new historic districts, increased landscaping requirements, highly restrictive zoning, and exploitation of environmental concerns.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should identify properties within their jurisdictions and Spheres of Influence that could support the construction of infill housing and accessory dwelling units. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F16, F17)
F5
Public acceptance of the need for Affordable Housing is not universal; NIMBYism and misinformation can negatively impact the planning and development process.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
In Sonoma County, costs and availability of land, building supplies, and labor impede development and construction of Affordable Housing.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
There is great variability in the planning and approval processes and procedures for developing Affordable Housing in the County and its Cities, thus complicating and slowing development.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should begin to streamline their procedures, from preliminary review through the permitting process, related to the development of Affordable Housing. (F7, F10, F11, F13)
F8
Financing of Affordable Housing projects is unusually complex, slow, and uncertain.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Funding of Affordable Housing is often directed to specific groups such as seniors, veterans, or agricultural workers.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Design review and project approval are often slow and very complex, and hinder the development of Affordable Housing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should begin to streamline their procedures, from preliminary review through the permitting process, related to the development of Affordable Housing. (F7, F10, F11, F13)
F11
The permitting regulations, processes, and fees differ by jurisdiction.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should begin to streamline their procedures, from preliminary review through the permitting process, related to the development of Affordable Housing. (F7, F10, F11, F13)
R3
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should meet to discuss the coordination of fee reduction standards for Affordable Housing throughout the County. (F11, F12, F14)
F12
Mitigation fees vary by individual projects and jurisdictions, complicating the building of Affordable Housing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should meet to discuss the coordination of fee reduction standards for Affordable Housing throughout the County. (F11, F12, F14)
F13
The speed of issuing permits has improved in some jurisdictions, but greater efficiency would help meet the building needs of Sonoma County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should begin to streamline their procedures, from preliminary review through the permitting process, related to the development of Affordable Housing. (F7, F10, F11, F13)
F14
Payment of in-lieu fees to the housing jurisdiction results in fewer inclusionary Affordable Housing units and houses being built.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should meet to discuss the coordination of fee reduction standards for Affordable Housing throughout the County. (F11, F12, F14)
F15
Development of commercial projects such as hotels and big box stores is often favored over housing due to lesser demand on public services and increased sales or occupancy tax revenue.
No recommendations for this finding
F16
Recent legislation encourages construction of transit-oriented infill housing but has yet to show a large effect.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should identify properties within their jurisdictions and Spheres of Influence that could support the construction of infill housing and accessory dwelling units. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F16, F17)
F17
Changes to city boundaries by annexation of land within their Spheres of Influence could allow the development of more Affordable Housing but is resisted due to the high costs of additional infrastructure.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should identify properties within their jurisdictions and Spheres of Influence that could support the construction of infill housing and accessory dwelling units. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F16, F17)
F18
The time periods for which new Affordable Housing units cannot convert to market- rate prices have been lengthened to preserve the units as Affordable.
No recommendations for this finding
F19
Rehabilitation and the repurposing of existing properties both preserve and increase the supply of Affordable Housing.
No recommendations for this finding
F20
Inclusive Affordable Housing must be equivalent to market rate units and be dispersed throughout a project making it harder to identify and stigmatize them.
No recommendations for this finding
F21
Manufactured and factory built home construction provide less expensive routes to Affordable Housing without necessarily reducing its quality.
No recommendations for this finding
F22
Design modifications can help make Affordable Housing projects economically viable.
No recommendations for this finding
F23
Contrary to commonly expressed fears, Affordable Housing does not usually affect local property values.
No recommendations for this finding
F24
Vacation homes, time shares, Airbnb, Pacaso houses, and vacant houses reduce the number of units available to permanent residents and, by reducing supply, increase the cost of housing.
No recommendations for this finding
Additional Recommendations 5
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R2By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should meet to consider standardizing their procedures related to the development of Affordable Housing. (F7,
-
R5By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should identify properties within their jurisdictions and Spheres of Influence that are likely opportunities for rehabilitation or repurposing to increase the availability of Affordable Housing. (F16,
-
R6By June 1, 2023, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should develop permit ready accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit plans. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5,
-
R7By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should discuss integration of preliminary design review committees with their planning commissions to help expedite the construction of Affordable Housing. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F7, F10, F11,
-
R8By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should review their permitting requirements to allow nontraditional options such as manufactured homes, factory built homes, and tiny houses to increase housing supply. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5,
Conclusions 8
-
CL1 Page 18The sheer complexity of navigating the bureaucracy in all aspects of a project
-
CL2 Page 18The high cost of land in Sonoma County
-
CL3 Page 18The difficulty, complexity, and slow pace of financing a project
-
CL4 Page 18The shortage and high cost of building materials and supplies
-
CL5 Page 18The shortage of both skilled and unskilled labor as well as labor costs
-
CL6 Page 18The complexity and costs of mitigation fees and building permits
-
CL7 Page 18The inconsistency of costs, procedures, and regulations among the jurisdictions within the County
-
CL8 Page 18Public opposition and misunderstanding of Affordable Housing and its recipients
Agency Responses 11
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.
▶
City of Cloverdale
January 01, 2023
•
5 pages
View Details ▾
No structured response data extracted yet.
View the PDF for full details.
▶
City of Cloverdale
November 08, 2022
•
11 pages
• 2 responses
•
Score: 0
(+1, 0, -1)
View Details ▾
2 responses to findings and recommendations
F7
There is great variability in the planning and approval processes and procedures for developing Affordable Housing in the County and its Cities, thus complicating and slowing development.
Response: Disagree
Score: -1
above, the differences in permitting regulations and processes amongst the jurisdictions is due in large part to the fact that the vision, character and makeup of each individual jurisdiction is different from one another. These regulations and permitting processes evolve over time along with the evolution of the character, makeup and vision ofthe community. Regarding differences in fees, jurisdictions typically base their fees on the amount of staff time required to process a particular application/permit. However, each jurisdiction has unique benefits packages for their employees, each juris...
F22
Design modifications can help make Affordable Housing projects economically viable.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
I (we) agree with the findings numbered 1.2.3,5,6.8,9,1-1-,13,74,76.1-8.19.7O,2L,22.23,24 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: 4 7 10 tz 15 11 (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are dlsputed with an explanation of the reasons.) RECOMMENDATIONS: R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8 Recommendations numbered : _L,2,3,4,6,7,8 _have been implemented. (Attach a summary describing the implemented actions.) numbered: Recommendations 5 have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. (Attach a timeframe for the implementation.) Rec...
▶
City of Cotati
June 01, 2023
•
9 pages
• 12 responses
•
Score: +1
(+6, 1, -5)
View Details ▾
12 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
Increased Affordable Housing has been mandated by the State of California and officially accepted by Sonoma County and its nine Cities.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
Agreed. F2. Housing jurisdictions must show sufficient progress in meeting 5th cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation mandates or they risk being fined or losing local authority over their housing programs. Cotati Response: Agreed. F3. Sonoma County and its nine Cities have officially recognized the need for Affordable Housing but not all have fully endorsed the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or met earlier goals. Cotati Response: Disagree, in part. City of Cotati staff cannot speak for or comment on the endorsement by other jurisdictions, however Cotati has demonstrated full endorsement o...
R1
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should begin to streamline their procedures, from preliminary review through the permitting process, related to the development of Affordable Housing. (F7, F10, F11, F13)
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
R1, have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future.
F3
Sonoma County and its nine Cities have officially recognized the need for Affordable Housing but not all have fully endorsed the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or met earlier goals.
Response: Disagree
Score: -1
disagree wholly or partially with the findingsnumbered: F3.
F5
Public acceptance of the need for Affordable Housing is not universal; NIMBYism and misinformation can negatively impact the planning and development process.
Response: Disagree
Score: -1
Public acceptance of the need for Affordable Housing is not universal; NlMBYism and misinformation can negatively impact the planning and development process. Cotati Response: Agreed. However, it should be noted that in the age of social media and electronic communications, the rapid spreading of misinformation and a lack of factual information can be said to have negatively impacted many aspects of civil society. . F7 There is great variability in the planning and approval processes and procedures for developing Affordable Housing in the County and its Cities, thus complicating and slowing de...
F7
There is great variability in the planning and approval processes and procedures for developing Affordable Housing in the County and its Cities, thus complicating and slowing development.
Response: Disagree
Score: -1
above, there are many State regulations governing the development review process, ensuring a baseline level of consistency across all .iurisdictions. Similarly, the development impact fees charged by jurisdictions in the County of Sonoma do vary by individual project and community, however when aggregated are near parity. The design regulations are unique to each community, just as each community within the County has its own identity and priorities. F12. Mitigation fees vary by individual projects and jurisdictions, complicating the building of Affordable Housing. Cotati Response: Disagree, i...
F10
Design review and project approval are often slow and very complex, and hinder the development of Affordable Housing.
Response: Disagree
Score: -1
. Design review and project approval are often slow and very com plex and hinder the development of Affordable Housing. Cotati Response: Disagree. As outlined in the response to Finding FT,local agencies are very capable of streamlining processing for affordable housing projects, and it is generally other factors that impede construction. The Design Review process is necessary to ensure that projects make a positive contribution to the built environment of each individual community, therefore enhancing the overall acceptability ofthe project (and future development) to the surrounding neighbor...
F13
The speed of issuing permits has improved in some jurisdictions, but greater efficiency would help meet the building needs of Sonoma County.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
Agree. Greater efficiency in all aspect ofthe development process would help to meet the (housing) needs of Sonoma County. F14. Payment of in-lieu fees to the housing jurisdiction results in fewer inclusionary affordable housing units and houses being built. Cotati Response: Disagree, in part. lt is correct that the in-lieu fees typically charged of a developer to build inclusionary housing units in a project do not cover the costs to develop those units at an alternative location. ln Cotati, construction of on-site "inclusionary'' affordable housing for any project over nine units is required...
F16
Recent legislation encourages construction of transit-oriented infill housing but has yet to show a large effect.
Response: Disagree
Score: -1
Disagree, in part. Over the last two decades, land use designations in Cotati (and throughout Sonoma County) have trended toward more dense and intense mixed-use environments in transit rich areas (ie. Transit Oriented Development (TOD). Most recently approved projects in Cotati have been on infill sites in transit rich areas ofthe City. However, it is true that a majority of these approved project have not been constructed. Whetherthis orientation towards TOD has had a large effect is a subjective judgement, especially given the various non-TOD influences affecting the development of housing....
F19
Rehabilitation and the repurposing of existing properties both preserve and increase the supply of Affordable Housing.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
Agree F20. lnclusive Affordable Housing must be equivalent to market rate units and be dispersed throughout a project making it harder to identify and stigmatize them. Cotati Response: Agree. Cotati has historically and consistently required inclusionary
affordable housing units to be developed as a component of larger market rate development projects, and this philosophy is clearly integrated into the City's adopted Housing Elements, both past and present. Affordable housing should be well-designed and benefit from the location and amenities or market rate homes. F21. Manufactured and factor...
F20
Inclusive Affordable Housing must be equivalent to market rate units and be dispersed throughout a project making it harder to identify and stigmatize them.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
Agree F20.
F21
Manufactured and factory built home construction provide less expensive routes to Affordable Housing without necessarily reducing its quality.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
Agree F22. Design modifications can help make Affordable Housing projects economically viable. Cotati Response: Unknown. Finding is vague and needs to provide more insight for an adequate response to be provided. Affordable housing should be ofthe same quality as the adjacent market rate housing. Response to Recom mendations:
R1.
By Decem ber 31 ,2022, Petmit Sonoma and the nine Cities should begin to stream line their procedures, from preliminary review through the permitting process, related to the development of Affordable Housing. (F7, FlO, F11, F13) Cotati Response: Cotati continually s...
F22
Design modifications can help make Affordable Housing projects economically viable.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
Agree F22.
▶
City of Cotati
June 14, 2022
•
8 pages
• 18 responses
•
Score: +7
(+7, 9, 0)
View Details ▾
18 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
Increased Affordable Housing has been mandated by the State of California and officially accepted by Sonoma County and its nine Cities.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
, Cotati's recent staff increases and on-going conversations with the County CDC and consultant/non-profit resources will ensure robust and local compliance monitoring of projects within the City resume in Fiscal Year 202212023. F3. On-site (in-person) monitoring beyond that required by law is rare due to insufficient personnel, budgetary limitations, and relatively low incentives. Cotati Response: Disagree, in part. Please see responses to Findings F1 and F2.
F4.
COVID-19 further reduced in-person on-site monitoring due to public health restrictions Cotati Response: Agree.
F5.
Surprise or...
R1
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should begin to streamline their procedures, from preliminary review through the permitting process, related to the development of Affordable Housing. (F7, F10, F11, F13)
Response: Requires Analysis
Due: December 31, 2022
Scheduled: Ongoing participation in County-initiated meetings
Score: 0
Cotati Respo n se: This recommendation requires additional analysis. Each jurisdiction has its own set of policies, programs, codes and affordability covenants governing affordable housing. For that reason, it may not be reasonable or warranted to develop one set of agreed-upon standards and procedures to monitor all affordable housing units in the County.
F2
Housing jurisdictions must show sufficient progress in meeting 6th cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation mandates or they risk being fined or losing local authority over their housing programs.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
Cotati Res po n se: Disagree, in part. While this may have been true forthe properties with limited numbers of inclusionary units where the affordability covenants rest with the City and no other agencies are involved in monitoring (30 units total or approximately 9%), this is not true of owned units with deed restrictions or units with required monitoring performed by CHFA, CDBG, LIHTC and HUD, all of which conduct regular on-site monitoring in addition to desktop monitoring.
R2
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should meet to consider standardizing their procedures related to the development of Affordable Housing. (F7,
Response: Will Implement
Due: December 31, 2022
Scheduled: Scheduled to begin October or November 2022, may not be completed until mid-2023
Score: +1
R2 R5 R7 have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future.
F3
Sonoma County and its nine Cities have officially recognized the need for Affordable Housing but not all have fully endorsed the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or met earlier goals.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
Cotati Response: Disagree, in part. Please see responses to Findings F1 and F2.
R3
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should meet to discuss the coordination of fee reduction standards for Affordable Housing throughout the County. (F11, F12, F14)
Response: Will Implement
Due: December 31, 2022
Scheduled: As needed based on actual unit construction
Score: +1
. By January L,2023, the Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the nine Cities review and ensure that they have sufficient personnel to conduct on-site monitoring and process self-reported monitoring data to meet future Regional Housing Needs Allocations. (FL, F2, F3, F5, F6, F11) Cotati Response: This recommendation will be implemented for Cotati as it becomes needed. The City of Cotati cannot commit any other City in the County to any mandate or effort. Secondarily, the Regional Housing Needs Allocations (RHNA) are planning a tool intended lo plon ond zonelor projected local hou...
F4
Some cities hinder the development of Affordable Housing through designation of new historic districts, increased landscaping requirements, highly restrictive zoning, and exploitation of environmental concerns.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
COVID-19 further reduced in-person on-site monitoring due to public health restrictions Cotati Response: Agree.
F5
Public acceptance of the need for Affordable Housing is not universal; NIMBYism and misinformation can negatively impact the planning and development process.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
Surprise or unscheduled monitoring of individual units is not done, for reasons of privacy, availability, efficiency, and practicality. Cotati Response: Agree. F6. Unscheduled monitoring of properties and management, in order to review tenant files, grounds, and the amenities is not done. Cotati Response: Partially Disagree. Cotati City staff do regularly monitor the grounds and amenities of the larger affordable housing unit developments through unscheduled visits to these sites. F7, The Community Development Commission has informational documents and policies to provide upfront training in t...
R5
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should identify properties within their jurisdictions and Spheres of Influence that are likely opportunities for rehabilitation or repurposing to increase the availability of Affordable Housing. (F16,
Response: Will Implement
Due: December 31, 2022
Scheduled: Ongoing participation in County-led meetings
Score: +1
R5 R7 have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future.
F6
In Sonoma County, costs and availability of land, building supplies, and labor impede development and construction of Affordable Housing.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
Cotati Response: Partially Disagree. Cotati City staff do regularly monitor the grounds and amenities of the larger affordable housing unit developments through unscheduled visits to these sites.
R6
By June 1, 2023, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should develop permit ready accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit plans. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5,
Response: Requires Analysis
Due: June 1, 2023
Scheduled: Exploring options and best practices
Score: 0
Cotati Response: The City of Cotati cannot commit any other jurisdiction in the County to any mandate or effort. This recommendation may not be implemented directly by the City. As noted in Findings F1, the City of Cotati has begun to engage with the County CDC regarding their resumption of monitoring and compliance efforts on behalf of the City.
F7
There is great variability in the planning and approval processes and procedures for developing Affordable Housing in the County and its Cities, thus complicating and slowing development.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
Cotati Response: Cotati agrees with this finding, with the following clarification. City staff is not familiar with the specific informational documents and policies referenced by the Grand Jury, however City staff can confirm that the County does maintain webpages with current area median income limits, rent limits and utility allowance schedule - which the City refers affordable housing property managers and owners to as needed.
R7
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should discuss integration of preliminary design review committees with their planning commissions to help expedite the construction of Affordable Housing. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F7, F10, F11,
Response: Will Implement
Due: December 31, 2022
Scheduled: Anticipated prior to November 7, 2022
Score: +1
R7 have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future.
F8
Financing of Affordable Housing projects is unusually complex, slow, and uncertain.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
Cotati Response: Disagree, in part. Most jurisdictions, Cotati included, have detailed affordability covenants with developers and/or managers of inclusionary housing which specify the requirements and compliance expectations of projects with affordable housing units. Cotati Community Development Department staff and contract consultants/nonprofits to provide substantial technical assistance to developers and managers of inclusionary housing projects during the development review process and throughout the initial marketing of newly constructed affordable housing units to ensure clear understa...
R8
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should review their permitting requirements to allow nontraditional options such as manufactured homes, factory built homes, and tiny houses to increase housing supply. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5,
Response: Implemented
Due: December 31, 2022
Scheduled: Completed
Score: 0
Cotati Response: The recommendation has been implemented by the City of Cotati
F9
Funding of Affordable Housing is often directed to specific groups such as seniors, veterans, or agricultural workers.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F10
Design review and project approval are often slow and very complex, and hinder the development of Affordable Housing.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F11
The permitting regulations, processes, and fees differ by jurisdiction.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with Finding 11 with the following clarification.
▶
City of Healdsburg
September 08, 2022
•
6 pages
• 16 responses
•
Score: +16
(+16, 0, 0)
View Details ▾
16 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
Increased Affordable Housing has been mandated by the State of California and officially accepted by Sonoma County and its nine Cities.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F 10 & F11 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: (Attach a statement specifying any portion of the finding(s) that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
F2
Housing jurisdictions must show sufficient progress in meeting 6th cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation mandates or they risk being fined or losing local authority over their housing programs.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F 10 & F11 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: (Attach a statement specifying any portion of the finding(s) that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
R2
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should meet to consider standardizing their procedures related to the development of Affordable Housing. (F7,
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
R2, R3, R5, R6, R7 have not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future (Attach a timeframe for the implementation).
F3
Sonoma County and its nine Cities have officially recognized the need for Affordable Housing but not all have fully endorsed the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or met earlier goals.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F 10 & F11 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: (Attach a statement specifying any portion of the finding(s) that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
R3
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should meet to discuss the coordination of fee reduction standards for Affordable Housing throughout the County. (F11, F12, F14)
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
R3, R5, R6, R7 have not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future (Attach a timeframe for the implementation).
F4
Some cities hinder the development of Affordable Housing through designation of new historic districts, increased landscaping requirements, highly restrictive zoning, and exploitation of environmental concerns.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F 10 & F11 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: (Attach a statement specifying any portion of the finding(s) that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
F5
Public acceptance of the need for Affordable Housing is not universal; NIMBYism and misinformation can negatively impact the planning and development process.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F 10 & F11 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: (Attach a statement specifying any portion of the finding(s) that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
R5
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should identify properties within their jurisdictions and Spheres of Influence that are likely opportunities for rehabilitation or repurposing to increase the availability of Affordable Housing. (F16,
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
R5, R6, R7 have not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future (Attach a timeframe for the implementation).
F6
In Sonoma County, costs and availability of land, building supplies, and labor impede development and construction of Affordable Housing.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F 10 & F11 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: (Attach a statement specifying any portion of the finding(s) that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
R6
By June 1, 2023, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should develop permit ready accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit plans. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5,
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
R6, R7 have not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future (Attach a timeframe for the implementation).
F7
There is great variability in the planning and approval processes and procedures for developing Affordable Housing in the County and its Cities, thus complicating and slowing development.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F 10 & F11 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: (Attach a statement specifying any portion of the finding(s) that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
R7
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should discuss integration of preliminary design review committees with their planning commissions to help expedite the construction of Affordable Housing. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F7, F10, F11,
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
R7 have not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future (Attach a timeframe for the implementation).
F8
Financing of Affordable Housing projects is unusually complex, slow, and uncertain.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F 10 & F11 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: (Attach a statement specifying any portion of the finding(s) that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
F9
Funding of Affordable Housing is often directed to specific groups such as seniors, veterans, or agricultural workers.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F 10 & F11 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: (Attach a statement specifying any portion of the finding(s) that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
F10
Design review and project approval are often slow and very complex, and hinder the development of Affordable Housing.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F 10 & F11 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: (Attach a statement specifying any portion of the finding(s) that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
F11
The permitting regulations, processes, and fees differ by jurisdiction.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F 10 & F11 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: (Attach a statement specifying any portion of the finding(s) that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
▶
City of Santa Rosa
November 08, 2022
•
6 pages
• 17 responses
•
Score: -6
(+1, 3, -7)
View Details ▾
17 responses to findings and recommendations
F2
Housing jurisdictions must show sufficient progress in meeting 6th cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation mandates or they risk being fined or losing local authority over their housing programs.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
This recommendation has been implemented and the information is presented in the City's draft Housing Element which is available at https :/iwww.santa rosaforwareLeomrtlE. R5. By December 31,2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should identify properties within their jurisdictions and Spheres of lnfluence that are likely opportunities for rehabilitation or repurposing to increase the availability of Affordable Housing. (F16, F19, F22) Sanla Rosa Response: This recommendation has been implemented and the information is presented in the City's draft Housing Element which is available at https...
R2
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should meet to consider standardizing their procedures related to the development of Affordable Housing. (F7,
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
Disagree, partially. The City has accepted and planned for its Regional Housing Needs Allocation and has sought to meet its goals for every cycle. The City has little control over the private housing market and recognizes that the extreme needs of housing construction for rebuilding efforts after the 2017 and 2020 fires have contributed to the lack of new housing constructed in recent years. The City has exercised all available tools and strategies to encourage housing developmenl and to streamline the entitlement process. This includes the adoption of a Housing Action Plan, multiple specific ...
F3
Sonoma County and its nine Cities have officially recognized the need for Affordable Housing but not all have fully endorsed the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or met earlier goals.
Response: Disagree
Score: -1
Disagree, partially. The City has accepted and planned for its Regional Housing Needs Allocation and has sought to meet its goals for every cycle. The City has little control over the private housing market and recognizes that the extreme needs of housing construction for rebuilding efforts after the 2017 and 2020 fires have contributed to the lack of new housing constructed in recent years. The City has exercised all available tools and strategies to encourage housing developmenl and to streamline the entitlement process. This includes the adoption of a Housing Action Plan, multiple specific ...
R3
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should meet to discuss the coordination of fee reduction standards for Affordable Housing throughout the County. (F11, F12, F14)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
Disagree, partially. The City has accepted and planned for its Regional Housing Needs Allocation and has sought to meet its goals for every cycle. The City has little control over the private housing market and recognizes that the extreme needs of housing construction for rebuilding efforts after the 2017 and 2020 fires have contributed to the lack of new housing constructed in recent years. The City has exercised all available tools and strategies to encourage housing developmenl and to streamline the entitlement process. This includes the adoption of a Housing Action Plan, multiple specific ...
F4
Some cities hinder the development of Affordable Housing through designation of new historic districts, increased landscaping requirements, highly restrictive zoning, and exploitation of environmental concerns.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
This recommendation has been implemented and the information is presented in the City's draft Housing Element which is available at https :/iwww.santa rosaforwareLeomrtlE. R5. By December 31,2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should identify properties within their jurisdictions and Spheres of lnfluence that are likely opportunities for rehabilitation or repurposing to increase the availability of Affordable Housing. (F16, F19, F22) Sanla Rosa Response: This recommendation has been implemented and the information is presented in the City's draft Housing Element which is available at https...
R6
By June 1, 2023, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should develop permit ready accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit plans. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5,
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
Disagree, partially. The City has accepted and planned for its Regional Housing Needs Allocation and has sought to meet its goals for every cycle. The City has little control over the private housing market and recognizes that the extreme needs of housing construction for rebuilding efforts after the 2017 and 2020 fires have contributed to the lack of new housing constructed in recent years. The City has exercised all available tools and strategies to encourage housing developmenl and to streamline the entitlement process. This includes the adoption of a Housing Action Plan, multiple specific ...
F7
There is great variability in the planning and approval processes and procedures for developing Affordable Housing in the County and its Cities, thus complicating and slowing development.
Response: Disagree
Score: -1
Disagree, in part. Santa Rosa acknowledges that there is variability between jurisdictions, but this is not a primary cause for slowing development. Santa Rosa's approval process for housing is streamlined and has aided affordable housing development. The complications of affordable housing
generally stem instead from unpredictable financing, over which the City has little control. F9. Funding of Affordable Housing is often directed to specific groups such as seniors, veterans, or agricultural workers. Santa Rosa Response: Disagree. While some funding for affordable housing is directed to cer...
F9
Funding of Affordable Housing is often directed to specific groups such as seniors, veterans, or agricultural workers.
Response: Disagree
Score: -1
Disagree. While some funding for affordable housing is directed to certain populations, many sources of funding are not overly prescriptive and are available to all applicants. The greatest challenge for financing affordable housing is the limited and competitive nature of the funds available. F10. Design review and project approval are often slow and very complex and hinder the development of Affordable Housing. Santa Ros Resoonse: Disagree. As noted, local jurisdictions, including Santa Rosa, streamline and prioritize affordable housing projects. The greatest challenge for financing affordab...
F13
The speed of issuing permits has improved in some jurisdictions, but greater efficiency would help meet the building needs of Sonoma County.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
Already lmplemented. lt is unclear what specific measures the Grand Jury is requesting with this recommendation but the City has employed all available strategies to streamline the entitlement of affordable housing projects. Most multi-family housing projects, regardless of affordability, are approved 'byright" if located within Priority Development Areas. Those housing projects that do require zoning approvals are subject to streamlined permit review as described above. Moreover, for all housing projects, the City offers a no-cost pre-application process to identify issues before project subm...
F14
Payment of in-lieu fees to the housing jurisdiction results in fewer inclusionary Affordable Housing units and houses being built.
Response: Disagree
Score: -1
Disagree, in part. The City agrees that commercial projects have tax revenue benefits, however they are not developed in lieu of housing, or favored over housing. The General Plan land use dictates what type of 2022 Revised June Response to Grand Jury Response Form
development can be built in which locations. The General Plan is written to ensure a balanced approach to development and is required by law to identify sufficient housing sites to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Furthermore, state law requires there is "no-net-loss" if housing sites are developed for other USCS....
F15
Development of commercial projects such as hotels and big box stores is often favored over housing due to lesser demand on public services and increased sales or occupancy tax revenue.
Response: Disagree
Score: -1
Disagree, in part. The City agrees that commercial projects have tax revenue benefits, however they are not developed in lieu of housing, or favored over housing. The General Plan land use dictates what type of 2022 Revised June Response to Grand Jury Response Form
development can be built in which locations. The General Plan is written to ensure a balanced approach to development and is required by law to identify sufficient housing sites to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Furthermore, state law requires there is "no-net-loss" if housing sites are developed for other USCS....
F16
Recent legislation encourages construction of transit-oriented infill housing but has yet to show a large effect.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
This recommendation has been implemented and the information is presented in the City's draft Housing Element which is available at https :/iwww.santa rosaforwareLeomrtlE. R5. By December 31,2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should identify properties within their jurisdictions and Spheres of lnfluence that are likely opportunities for rehabilitation or repurposing to increase the availability of Affordable Housing. (F16, F19, F22) Sanla Rosa Response: This recommendation has been implemented and the information is presented in the City's draft Housing Element which is available at https...
F17
Changes to city boundaries by annexation of land within their Spheres of Influence could allow the development of more Affordable Housing but is resisted due to the high costs of additional infrastructure.
Response: Disagree
Score: -1
disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: !!-!ffNf!Q-f!f-f,!!-f!! F17, F20.
F19
Rehabilitation and the repurposing of existing properties both preserve and increase the supply of Affordable Housing.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
This recommendation has been implemented and the information is presented in the City's draft Housing Element which is available at https ://www.santa rosafonryaleleQmrtlE. R6. By June 1, 2023, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should develop permit ready accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit plans. (F1, F2,F3,F4, F5, F7, F10, F11,F13,F21,F221 Santa Rosa Resoonse: Partially implemented. The Napa-Sonoma ADU Center has taken the lead on working with local jurisdictions to develop permit-ready ADU plans. By December 31,2022, Santa Rosa will provide a response to the Grand Jur...
F20
Inclusive Affordable Housing must be equivalent to market rate units and be dispersed throughout a project making it harder to identify and stigmatize them.
Response: Disagree
Score: -1
disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: !!-!ffNf!Q-f!f-f,!!-f!! F17, F20.
F22
Design modifications can help make Affordable Housing projects economically viable.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
This recommendation has been implemented and the information is presented in the City's draft Housing Element which is available at https ://www.santa rosafonryaleleQmrtlE. R6. By June 1, 2023, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should develop permit ready accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit plans. (F1, F2,F3,F4, F5, F7, F10, F11,F13,F21,F221 Santa Rosa Resoonse: Partially implemented. The Napa-Sonoma ADU Center has taken the lead on working with local jurisdictions to develop permit-ready ADU plans. By December 31,2022, Santa Rosa will provide a response to the Grand Jur...
F23
Contrary to commonly expressed fears, Affordable Housing does not usually affect local property values.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F23.
▶
City of Santa Rosa
September 13, 2022
•
6 pages
• 9 responses
•
Score: +9
(+9, 0, 0)
View Details ▾
9 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
Increased Affordable Housing has been mandated by the State of California and officially accepted by Sonoma County and its nine Cities.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
The City agrees with the Findings numbered: F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, FB The City disagrees wholly or partially with the Findings numbered: F1-,F2,F9,FlO,F]l (See attached statement specifying an explanation of the reasons.
F2
Housing jurisdictions must show sufficient progress in meeting 6th cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation mandates or they risk being fined or losing local authority over their housing programs.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
The City agrees with the Findings numbered: F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, FB The City disagrees wholly or partially with the Findings numbered: F1-,F2,F9,FlO,F]l (See attached statement specifying an explanation of the reasons.
F3
Sonoma County and its nine Cities have officially recognized the need for Affordable Housing but not all have fully endorsed the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or met earlier goals.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
The City agrees with the Findings numbered: F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, FB The City disagrees wholly or partially with the Findings numbered: F1-,F2,F9,FlO,F]l (See attached statement specifying an explanation of the reasons.
R3
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should meet to discuss the coordination of fee reduction standards for Affordable Housing throughout the County. (F11, F12, F14)
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
R3 has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future.
F4
Some cities hinder the development of Affordable Housing through designation of new historic districts, increased landscaping requirements, highly restrictive zoning, and exploitation of environmental concerns.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
The City agrees with the Findings numbered: F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, FB The City disagrees wholly or partially with the Findings numbered: F1-,F2,F9,FlO,F]l (See attached statement specifying an explanation of the reasons.
F5
Public acceptance of the need for Affordable Housing is not universal; NIMBYism and misinformation can negatively impact the planning and development process.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
The City agrees with the Findings numbered: F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, FB The City disagrees wholly or partially with the Findings numbered: F1-,F2,F9,FlO,F]l (See attached statement specifying an explanation of the reasons.
F6
In Sonoma County, costs and availability of land, building supplies, and labor impede development and construction of Affordable Housing.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
The City agrees with the Findings numbered: F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, FB The City disagrees wholly or partially with the Findings numbered: F1-,F2,F9,FlO,F]l (See attached statement specifying an explanation of the reasons.
F7
There is great variability in the planning and approval processes and procedures for developing Affordable Housing in the County and its Cities, thus complicating and slowing development.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
The City agrees with the Findings numbered: F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, FB The City disagrees wholly or partially with the Findings numbered: F1-,F2,F9,FlO,F]l (See attached statement specifying an explanation of the reasons.
F9
Funding of Affordable Housing is often directed to specific groups such as seniors, veterans, or agricultural workers.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
The City agrees with the Findings numbered: F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, FB The City disagrees wholly or partially with the Findings numbered: F1-,F2,F9,FlO,F]l (See attached statement specifying an explanation of the reasons.
▶
City of Sebastopol
September 07, 2022
•
8 pages
• 20 responses
•
Score: +20
(+20, 0, 0)
View Details ▾
20 responses to findings and recommendations
R1
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should begin to streamline their procedures, from preliminary review through the permitting process, related to the development of Affordable Housing. (F7, F10, F11, F13)
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
R1, R2, R3, R5 (partial) , R6, R7 have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future.
F2
Housing jurisdictions must show sufficient progress in meeting 6th cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation mandates or they risk being fined or losing local authority over their housing programs.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: FL, F2, F5, F6, F8, F9, F11, F18, FLg, FzO, F23, F24 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F3 F4 F5 F7 FL2 F15 F16 F77 F2t.
R2
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should meet to consider standardizing their procedures related to the development of Affordable Housing. (F7,
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
R2, R3, R5 (partial) , R6, R7 have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future.
F3
Sonoma County and its nine Cities have officially recognized the need for Affordable Housing but not all have fully endorsed the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or met earlier goals.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: FL, F2, F5, F6, F8, F9, F11, F18, FLg, FzO, F23, F24 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F3 F4 F5 F7 FL2 F15 F16 F77 F2t.
R3
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should meet to discuss the coordination of fee reduction standards for Affordable Housing throughout the County. (F11, F12, F14)
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
R3, R5 (partial) , R6, R7 have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future.
F4
Some cities hinder the development of Affordable Housing through designation of new historic districts, increased landscaping requirements, highly restrictive zoning, and exploitation of environmental concerns.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: FL, F2, F5, F6, F8, F9, F11, F18, FLg, FzO, F23, F24 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F3 F4 F5 F7 FL2 F15 F16 F77 F2t.
F5
Public acceptance of the need for Affordable Housing is not universal; NIMBYism and misinformation can negatively impact the planning and development process.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: FL, F2, F5, F6, F8, F9, F11, F18, FLg, FzO, F23, F24 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F3 F4 F5 F7 FL2 F15 F16 F77 F2t.
R5
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should identify properties within their jurisdictions and Spheres of Influence that are likely opportunities for rehabilitation or repurposing to increase the availability of Affordable Housing. (F16,
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
R5 (partial) , R6, R7 have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future.
F6
In Sonoma County, costs and availability of land, building supplies, and labor impede development and construction of Affordable Housing.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: FL, F2, F5, F6, F8, F9, F11, F18, FLg, FzO, F23, F24 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F3 F4 F5 F7 FL2 F15 F16 F77 F2t.
R6
By June 1, 2023, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should develop permit ready accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit plans. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5,
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
R6, R7 have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future.
F7
There is great variability in the planning and approval processes and procedures for developing Affordable Housing in the County and its Cities, thus complicating and slowing development.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: FL, F2, F5, F6, F8, F9, F11, F18, FLg, FzO, F23, F24 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F3 F4 F5 F7 FL2 F15 F16 F77 F2t.
R7
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should discuss integration of preliminary design review committees with their planning commissions to help expedite the construction of Affordable Housing. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F7, F10, F11,
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
R7 have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future.
F8
Financing of Affordable Housing projects is unusually complex, slow, and uncertain.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: FL, F2, F5, F6, F8, F9, F11, F18, FLg, FzO, F23, F24 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F3 F4 F5 F7 FL2 F15 F16 F77 F2t.
F9
Funding of Affordable Housing is often directed to specific groups such as seniors, veterans, or agricultural workers.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: FL, F2, F5, F6, F8, F9, F11, F18, FLg, FzO, F23, F24 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F3 F4 F5 F7 FL2 F15 F16 F77 F2t.
F11
The permitting regulations, processes, and fees differ by jurisdiction.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: FL, F2, F5, F6, F8, F9, F11, F18, FLg, FzO, F23, F24 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F3 F4 F5 F7 FL2 F15 F16 F77 F2t.
F15
Development of commercial projects such as hotels and big box stores is often favored over housing due to lesser demand on public services and increased sales or occupancy tax revenue.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: FL, F2, F5, F6, F8, F9, F11, F18, FLg, FzO, F23, F24 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F3 F4 F5 F7 FL2 F15 F16 F77 F2t.
F16
Recent legislation encourages construction of transit-oriented infill housing but has yet to show a large effect.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: FL, F2, F5, F6, F8, F9, F11, F18, FLg, FzO, F23, F24 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F3 F4 F5 F7 FL2 F15 F16 F77 F2t.
F18
The time periods for which new Affordable Housing units cannot convert to market- rate prices have been lengthened to preserve the units as Affordable.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: FL, F2, F5, F6, F8, F9, F11, F18, FLg, FzO, F23, F24 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F3 F4 F5 F7 FL2 F15 F16 F77 F2t.
F23
Contrary to commonly expressed fears, Affordable Housing does not usually affect local property values.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: FL, F2, F5, F6, F8, F9, F11, F18, FLg, FzO, F23, F24 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F3 F4 F5 F7 FL2 F15 F16 F77 F2t.
F24
Vacation homes, time shares, Airbnb, Pacaso houses, and vacant houses reduce the number of units available to permanent residents and, by reducing supply, increase the cost of housing.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: FL, F2, F5, F6, F8, F9, F11, F18, FLg, FzO, F23, F24 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F3 F4 F5 F7 FL2 F15 F16 F77 F2t.
▶
City of Sebastopol
September 07, 2022
•
5 pages
• 2 responses
•
Score: +1
(+1, 0, 0)
View Details ▾
2 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
Increased Affordable Housing has been mandated by the State of California and officially accepted by Sonoma County and its nine Cities.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
The City intends to contract with the Sonoma County CDC as it did in the past. The City itself would not hire any personnel. The Planning Director is responsible for coordinating any contract requirements. An affordable housing monitoring fee may be needed to cover the costs of any contractual obligations for monitoring of units, and this would likely become the responsibility of the developer' ln regard to ownership units, the City ofSebastopol intends to utilize a partnership with the Sonoma County Housing Land Trust (HLT) and developers for future inclusionary units, as this will ensure on ...
F9
Funding of Affordable Housing is often directed to specific groups such as seniors, veterans, or agricultural workers.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
. The cities of Petolumo ond Rohnert Pork use computerized complionce monitoring progroms to focilitote and improve the quolity of their work. Cannot agree or disagree with this Finding, as it is not applicable to the City of Sebastopol. F10. The propefty titles of Affordoble single fomily houses hove not olwoys been flogged os deed restricted. Disagree. The City of Sebastopol Municipal Code, Section 17.25O.O9O, requiresall affordable units include a deed restriction. While this code has been modified through time, past units approved by the City and within the City's housing inventory of affo...
▶
Town of Windsor
December 31, 2022
•
5 pages
• 16 responses
•
Score: +16
(+16, 0, 0)
View Details ▾
16 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
Increased Affordable Housing has been mandated by the State of California and officially accepted by Sonoma County and its nine Cities.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F3,F4,F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, and F11 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F1 and F2 (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
R1
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should begin to streamline their procedures, from preliminary review through the permitting process, related to the development of Affordable Housing. (F7, F10, F11, F13)
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
R1, R2, R5, R6, and R7 have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future.
F2
Housing jurisdictions must show sufficient progress in meeting 6th cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation mandates or they risk being fined or losing local authority over their housing programs.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F3,F4,F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, and F11 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F1 and F2 (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
R2
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should meet to consider standardizing their procedures related to the development of Affordable Housing. (F7,
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
R2, R5, R6, and R7 have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future.
F3
Sonoma County and its nine Cities have officially recognized the need for Affordable Housing but not all have fully endorsed the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or met earlier goals.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F3,F4,F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, and F11 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F1 and F2 (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
F4
Some cities hinder the development of Affordable Housing through designation of new historic districts, increased landscaping requirements, highly restrictive zoning, and exploitation of environmental concerns.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F3,F4,F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, and F11 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F1 and F2 (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
F5
Public acceptance of the need for Affordable Housing is not universal; NIMBYism and misinformation can negatively impact the planning and development process.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F3,F4,F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, and F11 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F1 and F2 (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
R5
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should identify properties within their jurisdictions and Spheres of Influence that are likely opportunities for rehabilitation or repurposing to increase the availability of Affordable Housing. (F16,
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
R5, R6, and R7 have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future.
F6
In Sonoma County, costs and availability of land, building supplies, and labor impede development and construction of Affordable Housing.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F3,F4,F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, and F11 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F1 and F2 (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
R6
By June 1, 2023, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should develop permit ready accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit plans. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5,
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
R6, and R7 have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future.
F7
There is great variability in the planning and approval processes and procedures for developing Affordable Housing in the County and its Cities, thus complicating and slowing development.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F3,F4,F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, and F11 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F1 and F2 (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
R7
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should discuss integration of preliminary design review committees with their planning commissions to help expedite the construction of Affordable Housing. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F7, F10, F11,
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
R7 have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future.
F8
Financing of Affordable Housing projects is unusually complex, slow, and uncertain.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F3,F4,F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, and F11 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F1 and F2 (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
F9
Funding of Affordable Housing is often directed to specific groups such as seniors, veterans, or agricultural workers.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F3,F4,F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, and F11 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F1 and F2 (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
F10
Design review and project approval are often slow and very complex, and hinder the development of Affordable Housing.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F3,F4,F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, and F11 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F1 and F2 (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
F11
The permitting regulations, processes, and fees differ by jurisdiction.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F3,F4,F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, and F11 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F1 and F2 (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
▶
Town of Windsor
November 08, 2022
•
6 pages
• 13 responses
•
Score: +13
(+13, 0, 0)
View Details ▾
13 responses to findings and recommendations
F2
Housing jurisdictions must show sufficient progress in meeting 6th cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation mandates or they risk being fined or losing local authority over their housing programs.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: Ft, F2, F3, F5, ttL, FL3, Fl4, Ft6, F]-g, F2O, F27, F22, F23, F24 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F3, F4, F7 , FIO, tt2, Fl7 (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
F3
Sonoma County and its nine Cities have officially recognized the need for Affordable Housing but not all have fully endorsed the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or met earlier goals.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: Ft, F2, F3, F5, ttL, FL3, Fl4, Ft6, F]-g, F2O, F27, F22, F23, F24 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F3, F4, F7 , FIO, tt2, Fl7 (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
F4
Some cities hinder the development of Affordable Housing through designation of new historic districts, increased landscaping requirements, highly restrictive zoning, and exploitation of environmental concerns.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: Ft, F2, F3, F5, ttL, FL3, Fl4, Ft6, F]-g, F2O, F27, F22, F23, F24 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F3, F4, F7 , FIO, tt2, Fl7 (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
F5
Public acceptance of the need for Affordable Housing is not universal; NIMBYism and misinformation can negatively impact the planning and development process.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: Ft, F2, F3, F5, ttL, FL3, Fl4, Ft6, F]-g, F2O, F27, F22, F23, F24 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F3, F4, F7 , FIO, tt2, Fl7 (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
R5
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should identify properties within their jurisdictions and Spheres of Influence that are likely opportunities for rehabilitation or repurposing to increase the availability of Affordable Housing. (F16,
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
R5, and R8 have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future.
F7
There is great variability in the planning and approval processes and procedures for developing Affordable Housing in the County and its Cities, thus complicating and slowing development.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: Ft, F2, F3, F5, ttL, FL3, Fl4, Ft6, F]-g, F2O, F27, F22, F23, F24 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F3, F4, F7 , FIO, tt2, Fl7 (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
R8
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should review their permitting requirements to allow nontraditional options such as manufactured homes, factory built homes, and tiny houses to increase housing supply. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5,
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
R8 have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future.
F14
Payment of in-lieu fees to the housing jurisdiction results in fewer inclusionary Affordable Housing units and houses being built.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
The Town of Windsor agrees with the findings numbered: FL, F2, F3, F5, Fl1-, Ft3, F14, F16, Ftg, F20, F2l, F22, F23, and F24.
F16
Recent legislation encourages construction of transit-oriented infill housing but has yet to show a large effect.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
The Town of Windsor agrees with the findings numbered: FL, F2, F3, F5, Fl1-, Ft3, F14, F16, Ftg, F20, F2l, F22, F23, and F24.
F20
Inclusive Affordable Housing must be equivalent to market rate units and be dispersed throughout a project making it harder to identify and stigmatize them.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
The Town of Windsor agrees with the findings numbered: FL, F2, F3, F5, Fl1-, Ft3, F14, F16, Ftg, F20, F2l, F22, F23, and F24.
F22
Design modifications can help make Affordable Housing projects economically viable.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: Ft, F2, F3, F5, ttL, FL3, Fl4, Ft6, F]-g, F2O, F27, F22, F23, F24 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F3, F4, F7 , FIO, tt2, Fl7 (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
F23
Contrary to commonly expressed fears, Affordable Housing does not usually affect local property values.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: Ft, F2, F3, F5, ttL, FL3, Fl4, Ft6, F]-g, F2O, F27, F22, F23, F24 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F3, F4, F7 , FIO, tt2, Fl7 (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
F24
Vacation homes, time shares, Airbnb, Pacaso houses, and vacant houses reduce the number of units available to permanent residents and, by reducing supply, increase the cost of housing.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: Ft, F2, F3, F5, ttL, FL3, Fl4, Ft6, F]-g, F2O, F27, F22, F23, F24 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F3, F4, F7 , FIO, tt2, Fl7 (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
No Responses Found 4
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.