Page 16 - Sonoma County Gazette - May, 2018

HOUSING cont’d from page 15
An affordability component, increased parcel size and environmental review would help address these issues. The supervisors will review the ordinance soon. The ordinance is intended to align county policies with new state law that eases permitting of Accessory Dwelling Units - SEE: http://www.hcd.ca.gov/ policy-research/docs/SummaryChangesADULaws.pdf
The decision will specifically benefit a single developer, who recently bought a large undeveloped parcel that was once a State Farm facility. While the new developer has not submitted any plans to date, the Council approved a last- minute staff recommendation to eliminate the city’s 15 percent affordability requirement for the project.
Airport Specific Plan Update: The commercial and industrial area around the Sonoma County Airport is being eyed for new housing development by the county. This represents a significant change in use; the area is not zoned for housing. Last year before the fires, the county held public workshops to update the Airport Specific Plan using public grant funds. The grant was focused on improving traffic, bike and pedestrian access, not adding housing.
Like other cities, Rohnert Park has fallen short of state-mandates for affordable housing, specifically extremely low and moderate. Most homes being built now are at market rate or above.
The planning staff claimed the need to remove affordable housing provisions was that the “concentration of affordable housing in the downtown, (is) well
in excess of the City’s goals and potentially to the detriment of downtown development.” Only City Councilmember Jake Mackenzie voted against removing affordable housing requirements downtown.
The area, once farmland, has been used for the airport and a business park since 1984. A controversial apartment project, Vineyard Creek was allowed off Airport Boulevard next to Highway 101 in about 2006 after extensive environmental review. The apartments get water from the Town of Windsor due to lack of sufficient groundwater.
In the same action, the city for the first time imposed housing impact fees on new rental housing and for-sale projects that will be held in a fund for future affordable housing in areas other than in the downtown district.
Now that the SMART station at the airport is operating, the county is pressing to open the area up to more housing.
The Town of Windsor: In March, the Town of Windsor also rolled back affordability requirements for a developer for a cash payout of $2 million. The developer of the controversial Vintage Oaks project was allowed to rescind agreements to build low income or moderate housing in the 387-unit housing development, even though the town is falling far short of meeting its state mandate for affordable housing. City Council member Deb Fudge was the lone “no” vote, after strong public comment against the move.
Sonoma County Unincorporated Areas
Recently, the Sonoma County Planning Commission signed-off on a proposed ordinance to allow as many as 2,000 large second units of up to 1,200 square feet (a doublewide mobile home) on small rural parcels of one acre or less that have septic systems and wells designed to serve one existing home. No affordability requirements were included, so they can be rented at market rate or above.
New public workshops focused on housing are getting
underway, and public input is essential. Read more here https://
s o n o m a c o u n t y . c a . g o v/ P R M D/ L o n g - R a n g e - P l a n s /A i r p o r t - A r e a - S p e c i f i c - P l a n - Update/
Unless financing is available for affordable housing, it will be hard for make room for our work force, let alone teachers, nurses, and law enforcement officers. A coalition of non-profit housing developers, business, labor, environmental and community groups have developed a vision for a countywide housing bond that would provide as much as $300 million over 26 years for local funding for affordable rental and for-sale housing. Santa Rosa City Council member Jack Tibbetts and Supervisor Lynda Hopkins are leading the bond effort.
Projects funded would need to be within voter-approved Urban Growth Boundaries and unincorporated areas with sewer and water, not in community separators or greenbelts. Once on the ballot, the Housing Recovery Bond will require a 2/3 vote to pass.
If you are interested in getting involved in the housing conversation, contact Teri Shore, 707 575 3661, and your Supervisors & City Council.
Second Units on Small Rural Parcels
The smaller parcel size combined with the larger unit is pushing the public health and safety envelope for rural septic systems and wells, according to planning staff. Commissioners raised groundwater depletion and drinking water contamination as potential problems seen elsewhere in the county. Yet no environmental review is planned.
The funds would be used to leverage state and federal housing funds that require local matches. The draft bond policy calls for 75 percent of the funding to go to new rental housing for people making less than 80 percent of county median income (extremely low to low). The other 25 percent would help fund for-sale affordable housing for those earning up to 120 percent of county median (moderate) income. Farmworker housing would be eligible.
One of the commissioners noted that this action conflicts with longstanding county policies to direct new development into existing cities and towns. Since these second units would built far away from public transit, there will be more cars on the roads and with therefore more tailpipe emissions. If finalized by the supervisors, this action could result in 5,000 or more new residents that were never accounted for in the General Plan and can’t be counted toward state housing mandates.
Sonoma County Housing Recovery Bond
16 - www.sonomacountygazette.com - 5/18