Superior Court of California County of Sonoma*

The downturn in new home construction following the recession, combined with low vacancy rates, high rents, wage stagnation and the desirability of Sonoma County as a place to live or vacation, has resulted in systemic undersupply of housing of all types. We agree with this finding.

The end of redevelopment agencies reduced funding for affordable housing by $10 million annually between the County and City of Santa Rosa. We agree partially with this finding. We agree that the dissolution of redevelopment reduced funding for affordable housing. However, we disagree with the $6 million of loss attributed in the report and find that the annual loss of affordable housing funding is approximately $1.34 million.

Increasing the supply of affordable housing is dependent upon budgeting priorities because a $48-$60,000 local subsidy is required for every unit of Very Low and Extremely Low Income Housing. We agree with this finding.

The County would need to invest $40 million annually to ensure adequate development of affordable housing for Very Low and Extremely Low Income Housing. We agree partially with this finding. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * We agree that to ensure for the adequate development of affordable housing for Very Low and Extremely Low Income Housing, additional investment is required. However, we are uncertain as to the methodology used to calculate the $40 million attributed in the report.

Density bonus allowances make it possible for private sector developers to build Low and Moderate Income housing without public subsidies. We agree partially with this finding. Sonoma County has a unique density bonus program which extends well beyond the bonus available under state law by allowing up to 100% density bonus for a rental project if 40% of the total project units are provided as affordable. The remaining units may be provided at market rents. While the program has been utilized by both for-profit and non- profit developers, we cannot fully agree that the use of density bonuses removes the need for public sector support as affordable housing development is typically dependent upon a complex mix of layered funding sources.

Private sector developers, including individual homeowners with granny unit potential, are often stymied in their efforts to pursue development opportunities due to high unit-based permitting costs, long bureaucratic delay, neighborhood opposition and CEQA compliance. We partially agree with this finding. Many policies are already in place to streamline and reduce the cost of developing additional dwelling units, particularly with regards to delays, neighborhood opposition and CEQA compliance. Granny units are a permitted use on qualifying parcels and are exempt from CEQA review. Housing development of all densities is allowed by-right on appropriately designated sites, removing the potential for neighborhood opposition related to land use. Residential projects that meet their required affordable housing program contribution by providing units on site are fast-tracked through the approval and plan check processes. Still, the County recognizes that high per-unit permit costs may dissuade developers. Impact fees are approved by the Board based on recommendations from the departments responsible for providing those services. Transportation and Public Works recommends Impact Fees for Road maintenance, Regional Parks recommends Impact Fees for Parks maintenance, and Permit and Resource Management recommends Impact fees for Affordable Housing. To reduce costs for smaller developments, the affordable housing fee is graduated in 10 square foot increments with no cost for the first 1,000 square feet. Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and Community Development Commission Response to Spotlight on Affordable Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Area Specific Plans can accelerate the development approval process and would facilitate private development. We agree with this finding. The County is currently preparing two specific plans for the Airport Investment Area and the Sonoma Springs Area that will accelerate the permit process and therefore will facilitate private housing development.

New or untapped sources of public and private monies are accessible to jurisdictions within the County. We agree with this finding.

The impact that vacation rentals have on the overall supply of housing in the County is difficult to quantify. We agree with this finding.