Report: Community Mtg. about Broadway Affordable Housing Project
Satellite Affordable Housing Associates (SAHA), at an 8/25/16 informational meeting at the Community Center, made a presentation about the 20269 Broadway affordable housing project. SAHA executive director Susan Friedland opened by saying this project represents “housing for folks left out of the marketplace”. Friedland went on to say that SAHA doesn’t build and run; they stay in the community.
SAHA currently manages 3000 units and made a strong presentation of their capabilities and of the quality of life they try to foster in their developments. Many SAHA units have one main wage earner or have seniors. Rents are subsidized, and rent will be affordable to workforce annual earnings below the Area Median Income, (AMI).
AMI is measured on a percent basis around 100% of the median income. The 2016 county median income goes from $57,800 for an individual to $109,070 for a household of eight. Extremely low income is below 50% of AMI, very low is 50% of AMI, low is 80% of AMI, and moderate is 120% of AMI. The bulk of county population is in the 120% AMI and below category, with the median being less.
SAHA asked, who is going to live at 20269 Broadway? How will we insure we are good neighbors? Angela Cavanaugh, SAHA director of property management outlined the lease process. They start taking applications six months from completing construction; they have a random lottery, do screening, do income verification, and then all applicants are individually interviewed.
SAHA has on-site resident services two days a week. They try to build community, and look to see that residents succeed; they help seniors remain independent, have youth programs, and community gardening.
Project description
The 20269 Broadway project will have 49 units, 11 units less than potentially allowed under current zoning plus density bonus. The property is two acres and is zoned for 20 units per acre, plus the density bonus, making the max number of units 60. The property has been zoned this way for four years. The makeup of the project as a whole will be 22 one bedroom units making up 45%, 14 two bedroom units 30% and 13 three bedroom units 25%.
The buildings will have the same scale as the surrounding housing and development.
70 parking spots are planned, and based on SAHA’s 3000-unit experience, parking will be kept on site and the number of cars is projected to be 1.3 per unit.
Resident Selection
How do they find residents? SAHA advertises locally, has a website, and an e-mail list. SAHA has to comply with fair housing act law. From the US Housing and Urban Development (HUD) website, “The Fair Housing Act protects people from discrimination when they are renting, buying, or securing financing for any housing. The prohibitions specifically cover discrimination because of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability and the presence of children.”
Some asked about whether there can be preferences for applications from the local community? It may be possible to have preferences for the local community, but there is no answer yet from city and county attorneys. On preferences, the city needs to be careful not to discriminate against any group of people, any religion or ethnic group or families with kids. Sonoma and the county have not had preferences like this in the past.
SAHA’s local property manager at Valley Oaks said that SAHA applications are mostly local, “the vast majority of residents are from nearby”. At 20269 Broadway, a property manager would live on site, as well as an on-site maintenance person.
Eve Stewart, SAHA director of housing development gave an example of possible discrimination. If Sonoma has low diversity and there is a stipulation that only locals can apply, then that discriminates because the applicants will all be white. This would be inconsistent with the wider diversity in the region. The city, county and SAHA could then be sued for discrimination.
The issue of overt and covert discrimination has come out before in public and private comment surrounding this project, where some citizens feel that long-standing red lining patterns are being recapitulated here in Sonoma. Other citizens claim they are just having, as said at this meeting, the “right to their feelings”.
Neighbor Questions and Concerns
Perceived Traintown parking problems on Clay Street were mentioned, and the possible eventuality of a mid-block Cal Trans crosswalk. John Haig of the Sonoma County Community Development Commission said a crosswalk was not likely because Cal Trans doesn’t like to break up a block and decrease traffic flow. At any rate said Haig, a cross walk could take five years.
What would the maximum occupancy of units and the project be? HUD does not allow discrimination on household size per unit. For example, there would be a max of five people for a two-bedroom unit. Out of 3000 SAHA units, the average, occupancy is for 1.28 per one-bedroom unit, 2.42 for a two-bedroom unit and 3.7 for a three-bedroom unit. The total population is expected to be 110.14 given SAHA average figures over 3000 units. If the project was maxed as to allowable household size, the top population would be 205 people. Neighbors questioned where parking would be in that case?
Neighbors invoked worst-case scenarios and at this meeting, really objected to the density and potential parking and traffic problems. One person asked why it is so dense? The answer: SAHA got a density bonus on top of the allowed zoning. It is dense because the property is zoned according to city compliance with Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and ABAG’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), to support that density and type of housing. This is a city housing opportunity (HO) site, in a time when affordable housing is a serious regional and city problem. Also, according to ABAG and long-time planning principles, and to Climate Action 2020, infill and higher urban density are good regional planning. Another factor is the urban growth boundary (UGB) combined with upcoming green separators measure. Due to the UGB and current green separators, there are constraints on San Jose-type expansion and sprawl; in this context it is important to use urban land resources as efficiently as possible to create the housing that is needed for a growing population.
One neighbor suggested there should be more porches to open things up and make the living more pleasant for on-site residents. However, it was pointed out that SAHA Community Advisory Committee neighbors didn’t want any project windows or porches that would face them. Another neighbor then said porches were too noisy and a source of trouble. To this porch discussion, one attendee asked neighbors to “think of other things besides yourself”.
Negative scenarios, in multiple forms, were raised about density, parking, traffic, safety, kids and SAHA reiterated that they were there for the long run and that SAHA has a lot of experience. In some cases, on Leveroni Road for example, overall tourist traffic volume seemed to be conflated by a neighbor with potential project traffic.
The proximity of project residents to shopping and municipal facilities was questioned. The project is considered to be in a “rural location”, and thus any stipulations for shopping and access to transportation etc., are less stringent. Unmentioned were the many free local services provided for people in transportation need.
In response to a comment that the Fetter’s Hot Springs affordable housing project was a “monstrosity”, one citizen said we need many more projects just like that and like the SAHA project.
Commenting on subsidized housing, one neighbor said “I didn’t get a handout”. One neighbor said that the SAHA project had already lowered property values and effected the sale price of some homes.
Echoing a comment at the council and Planning Commission joint study session, one neighbor said, “I moved here because I don’t want to live in a high density place.” “We worked really hard to be here, and now we don’t know about our home values.” As a result of the SAHA development, some see the quality of the neighborhood as deteriorating.
What’s Next?
The Planning Commission will conduct a study session on the SAHA 20269 Broadway affordable housing project on Sept. 8 at 6:30 PM in the Community Meeting Room.
By Fred Allebach
13 thoughts on “Report: Community Mtg. about Broadway Affordable Housing Project”
Comments are closed.
Was there a way to identify neighbors at this meeting?
“Neighbors” self-identified, or were already known as Sonoma Gateway folks, which is an immediate neighbor group.
I developed the website http://www.sonomagateway.org with the input of a core group of people. We try to be accurate and I update the site when new information becomes available. We have been educating ourselves on the site proposals for 20269 Broadway since first learning the RFP went out to developers, back in October. We got our information and continue to get our information from David Goodison, Susan Gorin, John Haig of the CDC, and SAHA. We’ve attended meetings in Santa Rosa, initiated meetings with Susan Gorin, the CDC, and the City, met with several key people at SAHA on a few occasions and we’ve walked the property together. We have met with Council member Agrimonti and Planning Commissioner Coleman and attend City Council and Planning Commission meetings. There was a steep learning curve but we feel we now have a good understanding of the project and the process. Several people in our group serve on SAHA’s Community Advisory Committee, which adds another dimension to our collective understanding.
Our core group of about ten continues to work together even as the larger group has grown to approximately 80 neighbors, whose interests and priorities spread across a spectrum, as you might imagine. Many of them did not have the benefit of learning about all this with the direct support of the smaller core group, which meets to discuss the issues around the proposed housing development, but I do send them announcements and links to articles about affordable housing issues and how other small towns in California are dealing with the Density Bonus Law, which necessarily overrides local policies and long term growth management. I have read widely about matters that are associated with housing shortages such as economic stagnation, lack of living wages, environmental racism, the disappearing middle class, along with reading about walkable and livable communities, good public policy, an so on. I send many of these articles out to the entire group for the purpose of encouraging them to learn more about the complexities of the lack of affordable housing. That said, I don’t know if they read them or if they can get past the emotions they have about what they see as a fast changing Sonoma. My job, as I see it, is to try to keep people informed and connected, at least through email.
The few people involved in the creation of the website sometimes struggle to stay focused on the facts but we do try. As to the other 65 or 70 people who are on the email list, I can’t comment because I don’t know them except for emails they send to me, where they express their fear of the unknown and their various concerns. It would not be fair to say everyone in the email group is on the same page because we are not.
If you go to http://www.sonomagateway.org and you find information there is incorrect or questionable, please let me know and I will follow up.
I re-read your post here and appreciate the nuance you are bringing to the table. I remember being impressed by the tone of one woman at a previous SAHA meeting. Maybe that was you? I also appreciate that your core group can’t control all public comments by a larger associated group. In Eric Hoffer’s book, The True Believer, he points out that groups with an agenda get defined in public view by their lowest common denominator. Maybe there is a way to define what the sonomagateway platform is, and identify that at meetings, so as the public won’t conflate all comments questioning the project with your group?
The California Density bonus allows for up to 35% more than code. Since code is 20/acre and this lot is 1.97 that would 53 or 54 units, not 60. Any of those numbers is too dense for that site. At 49 it’s 24.87 units/acre and more dense that any development of similar demographics in the city or Sonoma Valley. The Springs project mentioned at the meeting is only 16 units/acre and the new Fetters project will only be 19.6/acre. There is no question that affordable housing is needed, but I don’t believe putting a development that is denser than what has been built previously is the way to go.
I attended the SAHA meeting and I did not hear SAHA say there would be two staff living on-site. It would be either the property manager or the maintenance person. At the other SAHA site in Sonoma, only the maintenance person lives there. There will be 62 parking spaces for residents; 8 of the 70 are for visitors so that makes the parking ratio 1.27 per unit. Come on down to the intersection on any weekend when Train Town is in high gear and you can perceive for yourself the parking problems.
SAHA’s data on the number of residents is averages and based on what is on the lease. They validate those numbers once a year after notifying the resident that they will be doing so. And those are just averages which means some developments are higher than the average.
Here’s my take. The bottom line for the 20269 Broadway SAHA affordable housing project: you either want it or you don’t. “Facts” in this matter then follow from either of the latter primary assumptions. However, facts based on opposite all-or-nothing presumptions are necessarily partial and incomplete. This is where fact and fiction (myth) get mixed up. We’ve seen the exact same dynamic with Measure B, Montini dogs, use permits for wine tasting venues on the Plaza and leaf blowers. The discussion gets framed along the talking points most frequently repeated.
It would be more honest and to the point if people just laid out their values instead of having to try and frame opinion as fact.
If there were facts, here might be one: The higher the density, the more affordable, and the more you reduce density, the less affordable; this is simple math, more units reduces the cost of everything; that’s why there is a density bonus. This is why a 24 pack of anything of costs less per unit. The density is about creating an economy of scale, for needed housing at a decent price. Therefore, any compromise for less density is going to reduce affordability.
Density itself has come to be a proxy term for all the fears and myths people have about this project. I think those opposed to this SAHA project realize they are not going to win the war, because the city and the county need this project and are for it. Tactically, opponents are trying to get a density reduction as a compromise to win a battle. But since density is such a critical component of affordability, this tactic undermines the whole raison d’être of the project. And, the driving force to provide infill, higher density and affordable housing is first a matter of social, collective, and planning principle, not a matter of investor return money, nor to preserve exclusive suburban advantages.
Maybe those who don’t want this project will bring a CEQA lawsuit against the probable negative declaration? This brings up another bit of spin, that the Planning Commission has already decided against an EIR. We are not even at that stage yet. It has only been said that an EIR has not been done for similar projects.
The following ABAG link,
http://www.abag.ca.gov/services/finance/fan/housingmyths2.htm
from a city and regional planning perspective, addresses myths about affordable housing; these myths have to do with crime, traffic, city or neighborhood character, access to public services and infrastructure, property values, and, that prospective residents are not members of community or of the workforce. And as we see from how our local issues unfold, one person’s myth is another person’s fact.
I think at the end of the day, the magnitude of the housing problem is so great that the Planning Commission and the city council can do nothing other than approve this project at the proposed density and number of units. To do less would be to go against the tide of public opinion and solid regional planning principles.
And so, “change” comes to Sonoma. Nobody wants it next to them but in the end, immediate neighbors make a loud protest, but their numbers are not great enough to outweigh an overall socio-economic tide. This line of observation may cut against me in other local issues like luxury hotels, but I’m clear on my values: I’m with the underdogs, the 99%, and people who have been structurally discriminated against.
Fred,
A note on local preference: Burbank Housing uses a lottery system for its housing selection process whereby applicants lots are separated into 3 boxes. Box 1 is for those who live and work in the community (the City). Box 2 is for those who live and work in adjacent areas and communities (the Valley). Box 3 is for all others. Some predetermined number of lots are drawn from box 1. Then the contents of box 1 are emptied into box 2. Then some number of lots are drawn from box 2 and so on till the lottery is complete.
I wonder if this would circumvent any sort of discrimination claim.
Here’s your take, “The bottom line for the 20269 Broadway SAHA affordable housing project: you either want it or you don’t.”
Do you believe you contributed something positive to the process when you participated in CAC?
I believe citizens who have offered opinions have not only contributed in ways that made the design better before CAC members even saw their first plan but also in furthering a deeper understanding of a complex issue that has been around since the early 1980’s.
No one who has been involved in looking into the proposed SAHA development and making suggestions based on facts as well as opinions believes “You either want it or you don’t”. There are few things that arrive in this world fully formed and don’t require making changes–changes are the direct result of ideas. Ideas, thoughts, and opinions have been encouraged by the people at SAHA because they required our assistance and it was the prudent thing to do.
Fred, I was just thinking about you. You give the impression you are someone who has schooled himself over the years in the area of public policy as it pertains to affordable housing. I’ve read your articles over the past many months and I think you are passing up many teachable moments. If you have vast knowledge in this area you could use it to educate people who haven’t thought about it much till now. As a teacher, I find it much more effective to lead people to a broader viewpoint without calling them names, implying they are inferior in their thinking, or discouraging discussion. When I read your stuff, I not only see you losing opportunity after opportunity to educate, I also see a lack of respect for your audience. That is a sure way to diminish your effect.
Hi Lynn,
You’re right that tone counts and is something to pay attention to.
For education on affordable housing, look at Isabel Wilkerson, The Warmth of Other Suns, The Epic Story of America’s Great Migration pp. 376-78 and see how many of the same property values, “concentrated poverty”, and crime comments (some on your website) made about the SAHA project recap some of the worst racist housing history in this country. These are the same type of coded arguments that have been used to preserve and maintain white suburban segregation. When people here say this is just how they feel, there is deep context and history to those type of feelings. Wilkerson lays out exactly why it is necessary to have the Fair Housing Act, and why some people might need subsidies.
Chris, I guess the preference issue is still to be determined by lawyers, what is fair and in congruence with the Fair Housing Act. If Burbank is fair, then so be it. The Burbank method sounds like the NBA draft lottery, where the worst team gets a weighted number of ping ping balls, but not to the point where tanking all season pays off with a sure #1 pick.
Lynne, my number one concern is the number of units stay at 49 and that they be from the low end of the AMI spectrum. Working in the CAC with design was fun, and I like the architect a lot, but I ultimately defer to the neighbors on design. And I agree, citizens have been positioning on this issue way before the CAC, and the making of those various points has got us to where we are today, a hopefully deeper place. But I stick to my view of how people are fundamentally framing this, as a yes or no project, and then all possible aspects came and will come in as points of contention. That’s how these local issues go, arsenals of ammo for or against, and not many in the middle, no common substrate of facts.
You said that 49 units is required for affordability. Interestingly enough Burbank Housing’s proposal for this site was for 39 units. I can’t imagine they would propose that if it wasn’t economically feasible. And 70% of the units were proposed at 50% AMI or below.
Hi Roda,
This is because Burbank was scared a higher number would not get passed; they made a conservative call. The county chose SAHA not for money reasons but because of the scope of the housing need and that affordable housing is primarily a matter of principle rather than one of simple economic returns for “investors”. Sure a lower number of units would be economically feasible, but that’s not the issue at stake; the issue is how to get as many affordable units built in a market where for-profit developers can’t get the job done for anyone near 100% AMI on either end of the spectrum. SAHA came in with the greatest good for the greatest number.