Score: +20
(25/9/5)
Sonoma County Grand Jury
• 2015-2016
Spotlight on Affordable Housing*
Published: June 01, 2016
13 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 9 findings
F1
Page 10
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.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Page 10
The end of redevelopment agencies reduced funding for affordable housing by $10 million annually between the County and City of Santa Rosa.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Page 10
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.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Page 10
The County would need to invest $40 million annually to ensure adequate development of affordable housing for Very Low and Extremely Low Income Housing.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Page 10
Density bonus allowances make it possible for private sector developers to build Low and Moderate Income housing without public subsidies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Page 11
The Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the Santa Rosa Housing Authority take necessary steps to pre-approve building sites with maximum density allowance to take advantage of transit-oriented development grants available from Cap and Trade funds (F 4,5,8).
F6
Page 10
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 delays, neighborhood opposition and CEQA compliance.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Page 10
Area Specific Plans can accelerate the development approval process and would facilitate private development.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
Page 10
New or untapped sources of public and private monies are accessible to jurisdictions within the County.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Page 10
The impact that vacation rentals have on the overall supply of housing in the County is difficult to quantify.
No recommendations for this finding
Agency Responses 6
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.
▶
City of Petaluma - Mayor and City Manager's
August 02, 2016
•
4 pages
• 8 responses
•
Score: +1
(+1, 4, 0)
View Details ▾
8 responses to findings and recommendations
R2
The City of Santa Rosa Planning and Economic Development Department and the Petaluma Planning Department encourage construction of granny units by reducing permit fees and zoning restrictions (F6). Affordable Housing-FINAL-052616.docx
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
The current Implementing Zoning Ordinance allows such units subject to development standards that are common in suburban communities and are not overly restrictive (e.g., allows maximum size of 640 square feet, requires one additional parking space, allows use of setbacks for accessory structures.) The Ordinance also has no maximum lot coverage limitations, which are often a constraint for the development of in-fill second units in established neighborhoods. Impact fees were reduced on accessory units in 2010 to 25% of the fees of a typical single-family unit. <i>R3</i> The Sonoma County Board...
R3
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, City Council of Santa Rosa and City Council of Petaluma improve regulation and oversight of vacation rental activity in order to determine how rental rates are affected by having long-term rentals removed from the market (F9).
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
The current Implementing Zoning Ordinance allows such units subject to development standards that are common in suburban communities and are not overly restrictive (e.g., allows maximum size of 640 square feet, requires one additional parking space, allows use of setbacks for accessory structures.) The Ordinance also has no maximum lot coverage limitations, which are often a constraint for the development of in-fill second units in established neighborhoods. Impact fees were reduced on accessory units in 2010 to 25% of the fees of a typical single-family unit. <i>R3</i> The Sonoma County Board...
R4
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, City Council of Santa Rosa and City Council of Petaluma develop appropriate tax and fee schedules to offset the impact of short-term vacation rentals on housing supply (F9).
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
The current Implementing Zoning Ordinance allows such units subject to development standards that are common in suburban communities and are not overly restrictive (e.g., allows maximum size of 640 square feet, requires one additional parking space, allows use of setbacks for accessory structures.) The Ordinance also has no maximum lot coverage limitations, which are often a constraint for the development of in-fill second units in established neighborhoods. Impact fees were reduced on accessory units in 2010 to 25% of the fees of a typical single-family unit. <i>R3</i> The Sonoma County Board...
F6
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 delays, neighborhood opposition and CEQA compliance.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
The current Implementing Zoning Ordinance allows such units subject to development standards that are common in suburban communities and are not overly restrictive (e.g., allows maximum size of 640 square feet, requires one additional parking space, allows use of setbacks for accessory structures.) The Ordinance also has no maximum lot coverage limitations, which are often a constraint for the development of in-fill second units in established neighborhoods. Impact fees were reduced on accessory units in 2010 to 25% of the fees of a typical single-family unit. <i>R3</i> The Sonoma County Board...
F7
Area Specific Plans can accelerate the development approval process and would facilitate private development.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
The Grand Jury's recommendation that Petaluma donate surplus lands to Land Trusts or to sell these properties at below market rates to developers in exchange for commitments to include affordable housing has been implemented in Petaluma in the past. This practice is consistent with the goals found in Petaluma's Housing Element and the Community Development Block Grant Consolidated Plan, which benefits the low income , a housing community, and will be recommended to be incorporated into the Housing Element when it is next updated. As noted in the report, there are two properties in Petaluma tha...
F8
New or untapped sources of public and private monies are accessible to jurisdictions within the County.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: <math>1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9</math>
F8
New or untapped sources of public and private monies are accessible to jurisdictions within the County.
F9
The impact that vacation rentals have on the overall supply of housing in the County is difficult to quantify.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
In 2015, the City Council approved a short-term vacation rental ordinance which is Chapter 7.110 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. There are conditions that need to be met in order to rent property as a short-term vacation rental. This program is used to regulate short-term rentals and charge fees for the program. The ordinance contains a review provision to determine its impacts and effectiveness; this review will occur in approximately 24 months. Twelve properties have applied for the short-term rental program. The City's ordinance also stipulates the difference between "hosted" and "non...
R9
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, City Council of Santa Rosa and City Council of Petaluma consider invoking AB 2135 to donate surplus lands to Land Trusts or to sell these properties at below market rates to developers in exchange for commitments to include affordable housing (F7,8). <b>REQUIRED RESPONSES</b> Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the Grand Jury requires responses as follows:
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
The current Implementing Zoning Ordinance allows such units subject to development standards that are common in suburban communities and are not overly restrictive (e.g., allows maximum size of 640 square feet, requires one additional parking space, allows use of setbacks for accessory structures.) The Ordinance also has no maximum lot coverage limitations, which are often a constraint for the development of in-fill second units in established neighborhoods. Impact fees were reduced on accessory units in 2010 to 25% of the fees of a typical single-family unit. <i>R3</i> The Sonoma County Board...
▶
City of Santa Rosa - Planning and Economic Development's
June 27, 2016
•
53 pages
• 14 responses
•
Score: +12
(+12, 2, 0)
View Details ▾
14 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
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.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F1, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: <math>F2, F3, F4</math> (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
R1
The Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department and the City of Santa Rosa Planning and Economic Development Department reduce impact fees where possible by changing from per unit to per square foot calculation and prioritize working with for- profit developers by continuing to improve permitting turnaround time (F5, F6).
Response: Requires Analysis
Scheduled: FY 2016-17
Score: 0
, below), and other fees may be analyzed as part of the second unit barrier analysis described above. Lastly, staff will analyze sources to potentially provide for subsidizing fees for second units within new developments, such as a portion of the $3 million allocated by the Santa Rosa City Council as a pilot program to aid implementation of the Housing Action Plan. It is anticipated that second unit regulations will be reviewed and revised during 2017. Recommendation 6: The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, Community Development Commission and Santa Rosa Housing Authority prioritize the dev...
F2
The end of redevelopment agencies reduced funding for affordable housing by $10 million annually between the County and City of Santa Rosa.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F1, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: <math>F2, F3, F4</math> (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
R2
The City of Santa Rosa Planning and Economic Development Department and the Petaluma Planning Department encourage construction of granny units by reducing permit fees and zoning restrictions (F6). Affordable Housing-FINAL-052616.docx
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
R2, R6, R9 have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future.
F3
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.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F1, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: <math>F2, F3, F4</math> (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
F4
The County would need to invest $40 million annually to ensure adequate development of affordable housing for Very Low and Extremely Low Income Housing.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F1, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: <math>F2, F3, F4</math> (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
F5
Density bonus allowances make it possible for private sector developers to build Low and Moderate Income housing without public subsidies.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F1, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: <math>F2, F3, F4</math> (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
F6
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 delays, neighborhood opposition and CEQA compliance.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F1, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: <math>F2, F3, F4</math> (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
R6
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, Community Development Commission and Santa Rosa Housing Authority prioritize the development of new sources of affordable housing funding by supporting the passage of AB 1335, applying for grants from the National Housing Trust Fund and creating Community Revitalization and Investment Areas or Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (F8).
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
R6, R9 have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future.
F7
Area Specific Plans can accelerate the development approval process and would facilitate private development.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F1, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: <math>F2, F3, F4</math> (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
F8
New or untapped sources of public and private monies are accessible to jurisdictions within the County.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F1, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: <math>F2, F3, F4</math> (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
R8
The Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the Santa Rosa Housing Authority expedite formation of Area Specific Plans to facilitate private housing development (F7).
Response: Requires Analysis
Scheduled: fiscal year 2015
Score: 0
, Santa Rosa has increased allowed development density and intensity around rail and bus transit through the adoption of specific plans. Along with the adoption of these specific plans, consistent zoning has also been adopted in order to facilitate future development of sites in these areas. In the Transit Village Medium zoning district, multifamily residential uses are permitted by right, without a use permit. In the Transit Village Mixed
Use zoning district, residential uses are permitted by right on the second floor and above, and a use permit is only required if residential uses are reque...
F9
The impact that vacation rentals have on the overall supply of housing in the County is difficult to quantify.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: F1, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: <math>F2, F3, F4</math> (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
R9
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, City Council of Santa Rosa and City Council of Petaluma consider invoking AB 2135 to donate surplus lands to Land Trusts or to sell these properties at below market rates to developers in exchange for commitments to include affordable housing (F7,8). <b>REQUIRED RESPONSES</b> Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the Grand Jury requires responses as follows:
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
R9 have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future.
▶
County of Sonoma Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector's
September 01, 2016
•
3 pages
• 6 responses
•
Score: +2
(+4, 0, -2)
View Details ▾
6 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
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.
Response: Disagree
Score: -1
disagree wholly or partially with these findings: F1.
R1
The Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department and the City of Santa Rosa Planning and Economic Development Department reduce impact fees where possible by changing from per unit to per square foot calculation and prioritize working with for- profit developers by continuing to improve permitting turnaround time (F5, F6).
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
R1 - This recommendation will be implemented in the future.
R2
The City of Santa Rosa Planning and Economic Development Department and the Petaluma Planning Department encourage construction of granny units by reducing permit fees and zoning restrictions (F6). Affordable Housing-FINAL-052616.docx
Response: Will Not Implement
Score: -1
R2 - This recommendation will not be implemented.
F3
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.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with these findings: F3.
R3
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, City Council of Santa Rosa and City Council of Petaluma improve regulation and oversight of vacation rental activity in order to determine how rental rates are affected by having long-term rentals removed from the market (F9).
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
R3 - This recommendation will be implemented in the future.
R4
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, City Council of Santa Rosa and City Council of Petaluma develop appropriate tax and fee schedules to offset the impact of short-term vacation rentals on housing supply (F9).
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
R4 - This recommendation will be implemented in the future.
▶
Permit and Resource Management Department
September 01, 2016
•
2 pages
View Details ▾
No structured response data extracted yet.
View the PDF for full details.
▶
Sonoma County Development Commission's
August 01, 2016
•
5 pages
• 8 responses
•
Score: +8
(+8, 0, 0)
View Details ▾
8 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
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.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: <math>F1</math>, <math>F3</math>, <math>F8</math>, <math>F9</math> I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: <math>F2</math>, <math>F4</math>, <math>F5</math> (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
F2
The end of redevelopment agencies reduced funding for affordable housing by $10 million annually between the County and City of Santa Rosa.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: <math>F1</math>, <math>F3</math>, <math>F8</math>, <math>F9</math> I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: <math>F2</math>, <math>F4</math>, <math>F5</math> (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
F3
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.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: <math>F1</math>, <math>F3</math>, <math>F8</math>, <math>F9</math> I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: <math>F2</math>, <math>F4</math>, <math>F5</math> (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
F4
The County would need to invest $40 million annually to ensure adequate development of affordable housing for Very Low and Extremely Low Income Housing.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: <math>F1</math>, <math>F3</math>, <math>F8</math>, <math>F9</math> I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: <math>F2</math>, <math>F4</math>, <math>F5</math> (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
F5
Density bonus allowances make it possible for private sector developers to build Low and Moderate Income housing without public subsidies.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: <math>F1</math>, <math>F3</math>, <math>F8</math>, <math>F9</math> I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: <math>F2</math>, <math>F4</math>, <math>F5</math> (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
F6
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 delays, neighborhood opposition and CEQA compliance.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with Finding F6; however, I note that the County has a policy of fast-tracking the approval process for affordable housing development, which helps to mitigate "bureaucratic delays".
F8
New or untapped sources of public and private monies are accessible to jurisdictions within the County.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: <math>F1</math>, <math>F3</math>, <math>F8</math>, <math>F9</math> I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: <math>F2</math>, <math>F4</math>, <math>F5</math> (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
F9
The impact that vacation rentals have on the overall supply of housing in the County is difficult to quantify.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agree with the findings numbered: <math>F1</math>, <math>F3</math>, <math>F8</math>, <math>F9</math> I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: <math>F2</math>, <math>F4</math>, <math>F5</math> (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.
▶
Sonoma Local Agency Formation Commission's
June 29, 2016
•
3 pages
• 6 responses
•
Score: -3
(+0, 3, -3)
View Details ▾
6 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
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.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
We disagree partially with this finding. The Sonoma LAFCO Guide to Special Districts provides information about the independent and dependent special districts over whose boundaries LAFCO has jurisdiction. This document can be found on the Sonoma LAFCO website: www.sonomalafco.org in the section "Spheres, Studies and Guides/Special Studies, Reports and Guides." Districts not under LAFCO jurisdiction, such as the Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District, Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District, or lighting districts in various areas of the County, are not in...
R1
The Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department and the City of Santa Rosa Planning and Economic Development Department reduce impact fees where possible by changing from per unit to per square foot calculation and prioritize working with for- profit developers by continuing to improve permitting turnaround time (F5, F6).
Response: Will Not Implement
Score: -1
The recommendation has been partially implemented. Representatives from the Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector, the Sonoma County Clerk-Recorder-Assessor, and Sonoma LAFCO met in August and determined that information is or will be available on their websites about special districts in the County. A Guide to Special Districts over whose boundaries Sonoma LAFCO has jurisdiction is available on the Commission's website (www.sonomalafco.org), under the section "Spheres, Studies and Guides/Special Studies, Reports and Guides." Information provided about each district includes: date of form...
F5
Density bonus allowances make it possible for private sector developers to build Low and Moderate Income housing without public subsidies.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
We disagree with the finding, in that citizens interested in obtaining financial information and records may contact individual special districts. Citizens can also seek information from the Sonoma County Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector. F6. The Local Agency Formation Commission does not complete Municipal Service and Sphere of Influence Reviews for special districts every five years as required by Government Code Section 56430. Response: We disagree partially with the finding. State law does not require Municipal Service Reviews (MSRs) to be conducted every five years; MSRs are to ...
R5
The Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the Santa Rosa Housing Authority take necessary steps to pre-approve building sites with maximum density allowance to take advantage of transit-oriented development grants available from Cap and Trade funds (F 4,5,8).
Response: Will Not Implement
Score: -1
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The Grand Jury Report's recommendation implies that "Municipal Service and Sphere of Influence Reviews" is a single action. This is inconsistent with the requirements of state law and with the Commission's interpretation and policy relating to review of spheres of influence and conducting Municipal Service Reviews (MSR). California Government Code Section 56425 (g) requires LAFCOs to review and update spheres of influence every five years "as necessary." In accordance with this requirement, Sonoma LAFCO reviews special dis...
F6
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 delays, neighborhood opposition and CEQA compliance.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
We disagree partially with the finding. State law does not require Municipal Service Reviews (MSRs) to be conducted every five years; MSRs are to be conducted "in order to prepare and to update spheres of
influence" (Government Code Section 56430). Government Code Section 56425(g) does require that, every five years, "the commission shall, as necessary, review and update each sphere of influence." Sonoma LAFCO has established a sphere of influence for every district under its jurisdiction. With few exceptions, spheres of influence of special districts are coterminous with their boundaries. On...
R7
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors coordinate with local and regional financial institutions to discharge their Community Reinvestment Act obligations by investing in affordable housing efforts (F8).
Response: Will Not Implement
Score: -1
We disagree partially with this finding. The Sonoma LAFCO Guide to Special Districts provides information about the independent and dependent special districts over whose boundaries LAFCO has jurisdiction. This document can be found on the Sonoma LAFCO website: www.sonomalafco.org in the section "Spheres, Studies and Guides/Special Studies, Reports and Guides." Districts not under LAFCO jurisdiction, such as the Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District, Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District, or lighting districts in various areas of the County, are not in...
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.