Fred Allebach is a member of the City of Sonoma’s Community Services and Environmental Commission, and an Advisory Committee member of the Sonoma Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency. Fred is a member of Sonoma Overlook Trail Stewards, as well as Sonoma Valley Housing Group and Transition Sonoma Valley.
Fred’s UGB grab bag
Three talking points regarding Sonoma’s Urban Growth Boundary
- Proposed UGB Ordinance language changes
- The green checkmate revisited
- Affordable Housing planning options
ONE. Urban growth boundary ordinance needs language changes.
The current Sonoma urban growth boundary, or UGB is expiring. After 20 years, the ordinance is up for renewal by December 2020. The current UGB has provisions that allow adding land at city edges for Affordable Housing, for projects that are primarily 80% of area median income, or AMI. Affordable Housing, in capital letters, is what people who make a range of the area median income can afford to buy or rent. For a family of four in 2019, 100% AMI is $93,300. 80% AMI for a family of four is $86,400. The 80% AMI level is middle class, the type of housing that serves teachers, firemen, and other mid-level earners.
I consulted with a land use attorney for this piece. They confirmed that in spite of UGB supporter claims that land at city edges can be added for Affordable Housing, current UGB ordnance language actually works to prevent this.
Habitat for Humanity has a possible 62-unit project on 285 Napa Rd. that would serve people who make 80% AMI and less. This possible project reveals weaknesses in current UGB language.
The purpose of the following proposed language changes is to make the UGB ordinance friendlier for Affordable Housing.
The following proposed language changes can be referenced in the UGB ordinance, Section 3, Adoption of Urban Growth Boundary Policies, 4.2 UGB Implementation.
(b.) The five-acre per year limit on land additions needs some flexibility. 285 Napa Road is 6.5 acres. As long as the land does not exceed the total allowed, a small overage in one year should be allowed.
The first provision, (4.2 b.1) is to allow Affordable Housing at city edges is adequate for Habitat’s possible project, “That the land is immediately adjacent to (a) the existing UGB, and (b) serviceable water and sewer connections.”
The second provision, (4.2 b.2) “That the proposed development will consist of primarily low- and very low-income housing…”, seems OK, as “low income” is 80% AMI, and Habitat is proposing 80% AMI and below. “Very low” income is 50% AMI and less. Since the current housing crisis leaves all of the area median income cohort burdened for housing costs, more language flexibility could be added here. The object should be to include the Sonoma AMI workforce housing when possible.
I propose to strike or substantially amend the third provision, (4.2 b.3) from the UGB ordinance, “That there is no existing vacant or undeveloped residentially-designated land within the UGB to accommodate the proposed development and it is not reasonably feasible to accommodate the proposed development by redesignating lands within the UGB for low-and very low-income housing.” This leaves open the possibility for endless arguing about what “reasonably feasible” means, and what constitutes under-developed land. Habitat has found no land equivalent to 285 Napa Rd. within the UGB. This third provision needs more clarity at least, so that a Habitat-type project cannot be stalled by arguing on these technicalities.
The fourth provision, (4.2 b.4) should be struck, “That the proposed development is necessary to comply with state law requirements for the provision of low- and very low-income housing and the area of land within the proposed development will not exceed the minimum necessary to comply with state law.” Why would Sonoma want to limit Affordable Housing to the minimum in the middle of an acknowledged state, regional, and local housing crisis? The current displacement rate of the AMI workforce, and demographic imbalance of Sonoma to white and wealthy, calls for more than Affordable Housing minimums.
Sonoma has never produced more than a fraction of its Regional Housing Needs Assessment or RHNA numbers for low and moderate income housing, going back decades. Historically, Sonoma has a massive shortfall of affordable housing production. This is contrasted with the over-production of high income housing over the same time period.
Provision (4.2 c) goes on to have sub-clauses having to do with unconstitutional takings of property. My attorney said that takings law can take a lifetime to resolve. These should be struck as well.
The above proposed UGB language changes are a start for public, staff, and council discussion on how to make the next UGB ordinance friendlier and more flexible for the exact type of housing that is most in need. There will be a community meeting sponsored by Habitat for Humanity of Sonoma County on October 22nd, from 7-9:PM at the Sonoma Community Center to educate the public about the possible Habitat project, gauge interest, and where people can get on a Habitat housing information list for future notification.
TWO. Green checkmate revisited.
At a recent public meeting about the city General Plan (GP) process, a sheet was given out by city staff listing General Plan and Housing Element goals. Having studied the packet materials, I noted a requirement that General Plan Elements must be consistent with each other.
Some of the General Plan goals listed: CD-2 “Achieve a balance between protecting open space, and providing housing and employment consistent with the small-town character of Sonoma”; CD-3 “Expand joint planning efforts with the county”; CD-4 “Encourage quality, variety, and innovation in new development”; CE-2,0 “Create a circulation network that supports and encourages travel by non-automobile modes.”
Housing Element goals listed: 19. “Ensure diversity”; 20. “Improve housing affordability”; 22. “Reduce government constraints”; and 23. “Promote equal housing opportunities.”
Given that General Plan Elements cannot be inconsistent with each other, I see Sonoma has a serious problem. Balance has not been achieved. Elements and goals are inconsistent. The environment is over-protected, low wage work is too predominant, housing costs are way too high, and NIMBYs stop about anything from happening. Something has to give.
Small town character (homeowners) and green space (environmentalists) have strong and active protector lobbies. Business lobbies are very strong with the city and county. Tenants and renters are left as collateral damage in an ongoing local war between protectors, and developers and the city. The scales need to be tipped so that social equity gets more value, and that the others share more and/or get less; small town character, environment, business, and municipal actors already have too much control.
What I see is that the city’s General Plan is chock-a-block full of references to protecting and preserving small town character. This aspiration, plus ones for protecting and preserving the environment, and to have a thriving economy are clearly overshadowing aspirations for social equity. Why? Because small town character is in many cases code for a segregated, low density zoned, high-priced lifestyle, that benefits all but environmental and social equity actors. Preserving the environment however, has come to mean that not one inch of land outside the urban growth boundary (UGB) can be used for Affordable Housing, even though the UGB ordinance supposedly allows for the edge to be pushed for Affordable Housing. A thriving economy seems to mean that only a few get benefits while the workforce gets squeezed with low wages and higher and higher prices.
This out-of-balance pattern is what I have termed the green checkmate. Nothing can go outside the city, nothing can go in. The existence of the green checkmate is indicative of a General Plan where elements are inconsistent and out of balance. The city needs new rules that balance the scales in favor of workers. If voters want Sonoma to be Carmel, fine; if not, some changes need to be made.
What is necessary is to build and create Affordable Housing for workers ASAP, and to recruit stores like Grocery Outlet, so that area median income (AMI) people can have a place to shop locally. The AMI cohort is not “poor people”; it is today’s middle class; 80% AMI in 2019 for a family of four is $84,000 a year. In the city’s Housing Our Community series, a strong public turnout chose a goal to build and create 275 deed-restricted Affordable Housing units in the next 10 years. If this goal is to be met, we’ve got to get moving!
For such Affordable Housing, the possible 62-unit Habitat for Humanity project on 285 Napa Rd. is the exact kind of relief valve needed to defuse the green checkmate. This possible Habitat project meets all the General Plan and Housing Element goals listed above. And, it meets the Housing Our Community series’ goals. The project is aimed at people who make 80% AMI and less. If we are going to value social equity and get some balance back into Sonoma, what the town needs is for people to lobby the city council to support this project, to insist that the new UGB ordinance allows for projects like these, and to insist that a robust discussion of Affordable Housing be worked into the city General Plan and urban growth boundary processes.
Please attend a Habitat for Humanity informational meeting at the Community Center on October 22nd from 7 – 9:PM to learn more about how Sonoma can work with the county, and achieve a balance in providing housing. Something has to give, or the green checkmate will forestall any new housing, of any type.
THREE. Affordable Housing Planning Options
Link UGB to General Plan. Planning is a core point of contention with Sonoma’s urban growth boundary, or UGB issue. The Sonoma Valley Housing Group has asked that deliberations about a Sonoma UGB take place in conjunction with the Sonoma and county General Plan updates. This, so Affordable Housing considerations, relative to city/ municipal boundaries, can be thoughtfully worked into future city and valley housing plans.
Question: is high density central development, i.e. put all new development on Highway 12, more desirable, and able to meet Affordable Housing needs better than select projects on the edges (A), where land is more affordable and non-profit builder projects will pencil out? Which plan will produce necessary Affordable Housing in the least amount of time?
Particular plans
Within the city General Plan process, a UGB is a primary land use thesis, a container within which all has to conform. This is why it makes sense to have discussions and deliberations, and consider alternatives about what sort of primary land use thesis the City wants to have. A UGB for what purposes? To benefit who and why? How will answers here pragmatically affect the provision of Affordable Housing (1)?
Why are questions about a hard boundary such an issue? Because there are controversial cost/ benefit issues involved: growth, territoriality, seniority, change, environment, adaptation, stasis, and social equity. Local cohorts compete to see that they reap the benefits and not the costs. Whose interests? Renters, home owners, businesses, developers (non-profit/profit), environmentalists, city, and county.
True believer zero-sum versus win-win iterative planning?
Supporters of the current UGB ordinance have fixed beliefs about what constitutes good and proper planning. They do have some good points, but some of them are so convinced they are 100% right, they intend to force their plans on everybody else.
When there can be no middle ground, compromise, or alternatives, there is nothing left but to fight. Frankly, it is UGB supporters whose stance allows for no discussion. This strategy amounts to playing hardball with what could be a collaborative process. Core actor(s) in the UGB group feel collaboration is naïve, and that having an open mind is “against” Sonoma’s UGB. Why? They are at war with the city and with developers.
Collaboration is the only way to get to sustainability, which is where competing interests can be reconciled. With no collaboration, we’ll never get to sustainability, as we end up recapping age-old forms of tribal warfare.
Upshot: this is not a battle of plans, it’s a challenge of how to get along and work together.
Alternatives?
In the city’s Housing Our Community series (2), the public had many more ideas than to just put everything on the Highway 12 corridor. City planning should not be an all-or-nothing game.
Less greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts?
One of the central rationales for putting all new Affordable Housing on the Highway 12 corridor is that a dense, core population will reduce transportation greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and forestall human-caused global warming. Putting all of the area median income workforce on Napa Street West will not necessarily save GHG emissions, because one, public transit here is inadequate, two, service workers need to drive to work at locations not served by public transit, three, there is no local shopping tenants can afford to walk or bike to, and four, low density homeowners and commuters continue as top-level, unaccounted-for GHG generators.
Parking
Starving high density, centrally located residents of parking and forcing them to use public transit is part of the environmental wing of UGB supporter’s plan. Plans for parking and transportation however, need to be fair and equitable, and should not force the poor to bear all the costs.
Sprawl
“The term urban sprawl is highly politicized… (and) there is widespread disagreement about what constitutes sprawl and how to quantify it.” “Urban sprawl or suburban sprawl mainly refers to the unrestricted growth… of housing, commercial development, and roads over large expanses of land, with little concern for urban planning.” (3)
No one anywhere in Sonoma is calling for unrestricted growth over large expanses of land. Adding boundary edge, non-profit housing projects is not sprawl. What is seen as infill or sprawl all gets back to what a cohort’s primary interest are.
Power and control
Sprawl is clearly a politicized term in Sonoma. UGB advocates have sought to reduce a UGB land use discussion to a slogan level. Sprawl and character are the slogans; these serve as lightning rods in a simple zero-sum game framing of issues, to appeal to and rally homeowners and environmentalists. Environmentalists are concerned with nature and GHG impacts, homeowners are concerned with small town character. Environmentalists see a bigger picture, homeowners tend to NIMBYism.
Low density is sprawl
Sonoma’s East Side and other low-density neighborhoods represents the sprawl of an earlier era, yet this sprawled, automobile–dependent landscape is now seen as the backbone of Sonoma’s small town character that needs to be protected from further sprawl? What we have here is a kind of burn the bridge mentality, do as I say, but not as I have done.
Single-story, single-family homes, with lawns, landscaping, and garage parking characterize Sonoma’s low density sprawling pattern. Lawns and parking take up a significant amount of land in these low-density areas. This type of zoning and development, like the American lifestyle in general, is now seen as unattainable and unrealistic for earth’s billions of people. This is why one planning alternative for low density areas is that they need to be integrated with higher density Affordable Housing projects, to offset the social inequity and segregation that past “sprawl” has fostered.
One planning remedy here is to diversify and integrate neighborhoods, not to simply chunk all the brown-skinned and working class people in the core area, to recap the very segregated central city situation that urban renewal was supposed to cure in the 1960s.
There appears to be no “new urbanism” plans in Sonoma, for low density homeowners to move downtown.
Low density protectionism is NIMBYism
Given the chance, who would not want more rather than less space? Yet if we are zeroing in in climate protections as the prime sustainability mover, everyone has to sacrifice.
The case of the Donald Street neighborhood’s resistance to Springs Specific Plan up-zoning shows that low-density zoned neighborhoods feel entitled to keep the out-of-balance bounty that they have. There is an unspoken social contract, that property will keep increasing in value. No high density will be tolerated there.
Given this example, why would anyone assume that any high density plans for central Sonoma will not be held up by CEQA appeals and lawsuits, for many years, just as have all other projects in the central Sonoma area? The case can be made that a powerful faction of low-density homeowners has prevented any change in Sonoma for years, and that the prospects for any quick central remedy for the housing affordability crisis will simply not happen. The actors involved have proven that they don’t want to work with anyone, and it is their way or the highway.
This does not bode well for solving our collective climate and social equity problems.
Greenbelts
Preserving agriculture and open space is the stated goal of greenbelts. Yet local ag is not in food production, and the ag jobs that spin off of wine grapes are for the most part, low-paying and inadequate for people to live here. Taking up small pieces of ag and open space lands at city edges, for housing won’t have any effect on food production, and will in fact, provide much-needed lodging for people who work in local low wage jobs. This housing is needed now, not in 10 years.
Conclusion
Sonoma and the Springs unincorporated area, as a whole community, needs to do its proportional and fair share to provide Affordable Housing to the working people who serve this community. Affordable Housing is at an emergency level now; we don’t have time to wait for plans that won’t produce the numbers needed. 50% and more of county residents make a range of the area median income, and that is the proportion of Affordable Housing that needs to be provided here, along with county-representative racial and ethnic proportions as well.
Sonoma’s UGB discussion needs to work-in provisions for gaining Affordable Housing in all possible ways. Possibilities like the Habitat for Humanity project on 285 Napa Rd need to be make explicitly easier in UGB ordinance language. More efforts at balance and sharing is needed from homeowners and environmentalists.
NOTE: This piece was self-edited by the author
Footnotes
(A) For example, the Habitat for Humanity possible project on 285 Napa Rd.
(1) “Affordable” housing to some may have a connotation of low income housing, along with unstated racial overtones. Today, however, the post war middle class is gone, and what’s left from that cohort are people who make a range of the area median income. People who make a range around the county median income cannot afford median rents and home prices… today’s working and middle class are collapsed into an area median income cohort.
(2)
The city’s Housing Our Community series has called for, 275 deed-restricted Affordable Housing units in the next 10 years. The public attending this series realized the seriousness of the regional housing crisis.
(3) Wikipedia
