The URL can be used to link to this page

2010/05/11 City Council Resolution 2010-52RESOLUTION NO. 2010-52 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE 2007 -2014 HOUSING ELEMENT (PL2007- 007GP) WHEREAS, state law requires cities and counties to prepare and adopt a General Plan to guide the future development of a city or county; and WHEREAS, a General Plan must contain certain elements, including a Housing Element which sets forth goals, policies and programs to encourage the development of housing for all income groups and persons with special needs; and WHEREAS, state law requires that cities and counties comprehensively update their General Plan Housing Elements every seven years to ensure their plans can accommodate future demand for housing; and WHEREAS, on October 23, 2007 the City Council initiated action to form a General Plan Update Steering Committee and prepare an update to the General Plan Housing Element for the 2007 -2014 planning period; and WHEREAS, on December 13, 2007, February 28, 2008, March 26, 2009, and December 11, 2009 the General Plan Steering Committee held noticed meetings to discuss and provide guidance on the Draft Housing Element; and WHEREAS, the public participation opportunities were provided through several means, including, public noticing of General Plan Update Steering Committee meetings, outreach to stakeholder groups, and hosting of a Housing Summit; and WHEREAS, on May 14, 2009, the Draft Housing Element was submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for comment and review; and WHEREAS, on October 22, 2009, after reviewing the City's response, HCD issued certification of the 2007 -2014 Draft Housing Element; and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study on the proposed Housing Element update per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; said analysis concluded that the proposal would have no significant environmental effects on the environment; a Negative Declaration was prepared and duly noticed for public review and comment between August 24, 2009 and September 24, 2009; no comments were received; and WHEREAS, on January 14, 2010 the City of Rohnert Park Planning Commission having considered the evidence and public testimony, approved RESOLUTION NO. 2009-30 recommending approval of the Negative Declaration for the Draft 2007 -2014 Housing Element Update and recommending adoption of the 2007 -2014 Housing Element Update; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park has reviewed the evidence submitted, including the Draft 2007 -2014 Housing Element Update and the associated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, on April 27, 2010, the City Council adopted a resolution approving the 2007- 2014 Draft Housing Element Negative Declaration finding it consistent with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. WHEREAS, all evidence of records, the Draft Housing Element, staff reports, correspondences, the initial environmental study and Negative Declaration are on file in the offices of the City of Rohnert Park; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the 2007 -2014 Draft Housing Element based on the following: o The 2007 -2014 Draft Housing Element- PL2007 -007GP (attached as Exhibit A) is consistent with the City of Rohnert Park General Plan DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED on this 11th day of May, 2010, by the City of Rohnert Park City Council by the following vote: Attest: City Mayor, City of RM&rt Park BELFORTE: AYE BREEZE: AYE CALLINAN. ATrw'RACKENZIE: AYE STAFFORD: AYE AYES: (5) NOES: (0) ABSENT: (0) ABSTAIN: (0) Exhibit A Resolution No. 2010 -52 .CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Draft Housing Element Update Zoo ? -20 4 r OR, 1. Prepared by DYETT & BHATIA Urban and Regional Planners October 28, 2009 RECEHtVED NOV 02 2009 CITY. OF RORNERT PARK Rohnert Park Draft Housing Element Update 2007 -2014 October 28, 2009 Table of Contents 9 HOUSING ..........................................................................................................:.......... ............................9 -1 9.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... ............................... 9 -1 Relationship to Other Elements ................................................................. ............................9 -1 HousingElement's Timeframe ........................... :.................................................................... 9 -1 DataSources ................................................................................................ ............................... 9 -2 CommunityInvolvement .............. ............... ............... ................................... .. ......................... 9 -2 9.2 POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS .............................................. ............................... 9 -3 PopulationGrowth Trends ..................... :. .................................. . ............. :.............................. 9 -3 HousingUnit Growth Trends ...................................... :......................... : ............ :.................... 9-4 Household and Job Growth Trends. ....................................:..:.......:........ ............................... 9 -5 NeighboringJ urisdictions .......................................................................... ............................... 9 -5 Populationby Age ... ...................................................... . ................... :......................................... 9 -6 Population by Race and Ethnicity .:...... ....................................... .... ........................................ 9 -8 Employmentby Industry ................ .:.:...:....................: .......... :. ....... : ....................... .................... 9 -9 HouseholdCharacteristics ........................... . .................... ....................................................... 9 -13 9.3 HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS AND NEED ........................... ............................. ........ 9 -19 StatewideHousing Needs ....................................................................... ............................... 9 -19 HousingStock Characteristics ............................. :................................................................. 9 -19 Potential Loss of Assisted Units At -Risk of Conversion ................. ............................... 9 -30 SpecialNeeds Housing ........................... . ......................................................... . ............... :...... 9 -35 94 PROJECTED HOUSING NEEDS .............................................................. ...........................9 -51 CurrentHousing Needs .............................................................................. ..........................:9 -51 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)— Future Housing Needs .....................9 -52 Housing Production Under the Previous RHNA .................................. ...........................9 -53 9.5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND RESOURCES .............................. ...........................9 -55 Potential Residential Development .......... ........................................................................... 9 -55 Agency and Funding Resources ..................................................... 9-66 ....................................... Opportunities for Energy Conservation .................................................. ...........................9 -72 9.6 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS ...................................... ...........................9 -73 Governmental Constraints ......................................................................... ...........................9 -73 Rohnert Park General Plan NongovernmentalConstraints .............................................................. ............................... 9 -91 9.7 HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS ........................... ... ...................:.......9 =97 GuidingPolicy ....................::.......................................................................... ...........................9 -97 Goal: Housing Supply ................................................................................... ..............:............9 -97 Policies: Housing Supply ..........................................................................:... ...........................9 -97 Goal Balance of Housing Types .............................................................. :: ........................... 9 -99 Policy: Balance of Housing Types ......................::...................................... ...........................9 -99 Goal: Provision of Affordable Housing ....... :..................................................................... 9 -100 Policies: Provision of Affordable Housing ..................: Goal: Preservation of Affordablity , .:.............................................:....... ...................:.......... .. 9 -105 Policies: Preservation of Affordability .................. :....... ....................................... : .............. 9 -1.05 Goal: Housing for Special Needs ......... ............................... : ................... ............................ 9 -107 Policies: Housing for Special Needs ......... :........................ ::.:...:............. . ............ ............... 9 -107 Goal: Fair Housing :........... :.............................. .......................................................... .. .......... 9 -1 11 Policies: Fair Housing.".;— ...... .................... :................. :................................. :............... 9 -1 1 1 Goat:Preservation Improvement of Housing Stock. ......:........... ............................9 -1 13 Policies: Preservation and Improvement of Housing Stock :........ : .................... ........... 9 -1 13 Goal: Energy Conservation ........... ....... :....:................. ...::: ........................... ............ 9 -1 15 Policy: Energy Conservation ............ :.................. : ............................ ....: ................. 9-4 15 Goal: Attainment of Housing Goals .............. ............................... .................................... 9 -1 16 Policy: Attainment of Housing Goals., .................................................... e ........................... 9-1 16 Quantified Objectives— ............... ................ ............................... ......... ....... :.............9 -1 17 `APPENDIX A ......................... ............................... . ; .:9 -1 19 :APPENDIX B ............................................ ............................... .......................... ....................:.........9 -155 APPENDIXC .................................................................................................:....... ........:...........:.........9 -157 Chapter 9: Housing List of Tables Table 9.2 -I: Rohnert Park Population Since Incorporation 1962- 2008 ............. ,...........................9 -3 Table 9.2 -2: City and County Population Trends 1980- 2008 ........................... ............................... 9 -3 Table 9.2 -3: Rohnert Park Dwelling Units, 1980 — 2008 ................................... ............................... 94 Table 9.2 -4: Projected Growth within City Limits, 2005 - 2015 ........................ ............................... 9 -5 Table 9.2 -5: Household and job Growth of Neighboring Cities, 2005 -2015 .............................. 9 -6 Table 9.2 -6: Rohnert Park Population Age Characteristics: 1990, 2000, and 2005 - 2007........ 9 -7 Table 9.2 -7: Race and Ethnicity in Rohnert Park and the Sonoma County ... ............................... 9 -8 Table 9.2 -8: Labor Force Characteristics in Rohnert Park and Sonoma County ..................... 9 -10 Table 9.2.9: Civilian Labor Force Employment Characteristics in Rohnert Park and SonomaCounty, 2000 ...................................................................... ............................... 9 -11 Table 9.2 -10: Where Rohnert Park Residents Work, 2000 ................................. ...........................9 -12 Table 9.2-11: Employment Growth Trends in Rohnert Park and Sonoma County ...................9 -12 Table 9.2 -12: Household Composition in Rohnert Park and Sonoma County ...........................9 -14 Table 9.2 -13: Characteristics of Rohnert Park Housing Stock ............................. ...........................9 -16 Table 9.2 -14: Tenure by Race and Ethnicity in Rohnert Park and Sonoma County ...................9 -17 Table 9.2 -15: Tenure by Age of Householder in Rohnert Park and Sonoma County ...............9 -18 Table 9.3 -1: Rohnert Park Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms ........... ............................... 9 -20 Table 9.3 -2: Rohnert Park Vacant Units, 2000 ....................................................... ...........................9 -21 Table 9.3 -3: Year Housing Unit Built ........................................................................ ...........................9 -22 Table 9.3-4: Maximum Funds Available for Housing, by Income Category . ............................... 9 -23 Table 9.3 -5: Rohnert Park Median Rent (March 2009) ................................ ................................... 9 -24 Table 9.3 -6: Overpayment by Tenure ...................................................................... ...........................9 -26 Table 9.3 -7. Household Overcrowding in Rohnert Park and Sonoma County ........................9 -27 Table 9.3 -8: Affordable Housing Developments and Restrictions ................ ............................... 9 -31 Table 9.3 -9: Cost of Preserving At -Risk Housing for Very Low - and Low - Income Households ................................................................. ............................... 9 -33 Table 9.3 -10: Qualified Entities, Sonoma County, 2009 ..................................... ............................... 9 -35 Table 9.3-11: Select Elderly Service Organizations ................................................. ...........................9 -37 Table 9.3 -12: Persons with Disability by Disability Type ....................................... ...........................9 -38 Table 9.3-13: Poverty Status, Married v. Single - Female Households .............. ............................... 9-42 Rohnert Park General Plan Table 9.4 -I: Housing Need by Income Level, 2000 .............................................. ...........................9 -51 Table 9.4 -2: Rohnert Park Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA): 2007-2014 ............ 9-52 Table 9.4 -3: RHNA Met by Rohnert Park: 1999 - 2006 ......................................... ...........................9 -53 Table 9.4-4: Housing Units Approved but not Constructed, 1999- 2006 ........ ...........................9 -53 Table 9.5 -1: Residential Development — Current City Limits (from July 1, 2006 onward) .... 9-56 Table 9.5 -2: Potential Residential Development — Outside of City Limits (within Sphere of Influence) ................................................................. ...........................9 -62 Table 9.6 -1: Residential Land Use Designations, ............................................................................... 9 -74 Table 9.6 -2: Selected Development Standards for Residential Zones ........................ :. ............... 9 -79 Table 9.6 -3: Per Unit Development Impact Fees on Housing (Public Facilities FinancePlan), 2008........... . ..................................................... : .......................................... 9 -85 Table 9.6-4: Rohnert Park Planning Fees ................................................................. ...........................9 -85 Table 9.6 -5: Comparison of New Home Characteristics Nationwide ............. ...........................9 -94 Table 9.7 -1: Rohnert Park Quantified Objectives (January I, 20.07 to June 30, 2014) .......... 9 -118 Appendix A: Implementation of the 1999 -2006 Rohnert Park Housing Element ....................9 -119 AppendixB: Emergency Shelter ............................................................................ ..............................9 -155 iv Chapter 9: Housing List of Figures Figure 9.2 -I: Rohnert Park Population By Age ............................... ............................9 -7 Figure9.C: Rohnert Park Housing Sites .................................................................. ..............................9 -159 Rohnert Park General Plan This page intentionally left blank. vi 9 Housing 9.1 INTRODUCTION The Housing Element is one of the general plan elements required by state law. This element has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of California Government Code Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580). This element contains: • An assessment of housing needs in the City, • The identification of constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for all income levels, • An inventory of resources available to the City to meet these needs, • A statement of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies related to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, and • A seven and one -half year schedule of actions the City is undertaking or intends. to under- take to implement.the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Ele- ment. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER ELEMENTS The Housing Element is an integral part of the City's General Plan. In particular, the General Plan Diagram and the policies contained in the Land Use and Growth Management and the Community Design elements were used to determine the location, amount, and type of potential housing. The Land Use and Growth Management Element was used to identify housing capacity. HOUSING ELEMENT'S TIMEFRAME Unlike the other elements of the General Plan, the Housing Element's timeframe is tied to a five - year "housing needs process" schedule set by the State. The California Housing and Community Development Department determines each region's share of the state housing need. However, this requirement was suspended for a number of years, and the Bay Area's last Housing Needs Deter- mination occurred ten years ago. In 2008, the State initiated a housing needs process for the San Francisco Bay Area communities that covers January 1, 2007 June 30, 2014. Therefore, this Housing Element's timeframe is consistent with that period. 9 -1 Rohnert'Park General Plan DATA SOURCES The most current housing data and information available was used during the preparation of the Housing Element. The most recent version of the United States Census, which is a primary source of housing information, is 2000. The Census Bureau also puts out the American Community Sur- vey (ACS). The ACS is not a census., but a survey; about three million housing unit addresses are selected annually. In. the past, the Census Bureau only released an annual ACS for jurisdictions with populations of at least 65,000, but in 2008, the ACS released its first multi -year estimates based on ACS data collected from 2005 -2007. These estimates are available for populations of 20,000 or more, including Rohnert Park. Department of Finance and ABAG data were also used as were various trusted sources of housing industry data. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT An extensive community outreach effort accompanied the preparation of the Housing Element. Events were posted on the City's website, as well as advertised in the local newspaper and public access television station. Outreach took the form of a. day ,of interviews with housing stakeholders as wel_1 as a Housing Ele- ment Summit, open to the public.. The. stakeholder interview day included interviews with 16 stakeholders from 12 different organizations. Stakeholders ranged from residents in neighborhood associations to affordable housing :developers to a representative from Sonoma' State University. The Summit was organized as a drop -in event on a Saturday morning and breakfast wa's provided. Residents and other interested parties walked through . the. five open house stations, read informa- tion about the housing element, wrote comments, and asked questions from staff and consultants. In addition to outreach focused on the Housing Element, an Open House to solicit viewpoints on sustainable development was also held. Overall, stakeholders agreed that more supportive housing is needed in Sonoma County and in Rohnert. Park with services that include mental health therapy, job skill building, and childcare. Stakeholders also spoke of the need for supportive housing to be close to neighborhood amenities such shopping, doctor's offices, and transit. Several stakeholders also brought up the increasing need for housing options. for seniors. There was agreement that more affordable housing targeting lower income family households is needed: Participants in the Housing Element Summit mentioned the need for more transitional housing as well as workforce. housing, for those who work but cannot afford to live in Rohnert Park. Transi- tional housing is meant to serve as temporary housing for those who were formerly homeless and are working toward apermanent living situation. Workforce housing refers to housing affordable to those who. fill critical roles in communities, such as police officers, firefighters, teachers, and libra- rians. While these professionals are essential to a community's well -being and happiness, they fre- quently are not paid enough to afford the majority of housing in cities with relatively expensive rental and ownership housing markets. Participants echoed the need for more affordable housing in general, stating that it is common that friends and family are not able to afford living in the City. 9 -2 Chapter 9: Housing 9.2 POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS POPULATION GROWTH TRENDS Since its incorporation in 1962, Rohnert Park has grown rapidly, along with the surrounding areas of Sonoma County. As shown in Table 9.2 -1, Rohnert Park's population grew exponentially during the first several decades of its existence; there are 15 times the number of inhabitants today than at the time of its incorporation, 45 years ago. Table 9.2 -1: Rohnert Park Population Since Incorporation, 1962 -2008 Year Population Percent Increase 1962 2,775 - 1970 6,133 121.0 1980 22,965 274.4 1990 36,326 58.2 2000 42,436 16.8 2008 43,062 1.5 Sources: Rohnert Park General Plan (luly 2000); 2000 U.S. Census, each decade, Department of Finance, E 5a -2008. Table 9.2 -2 compares recent population growth in Rohnert Park and Sonoma County since 1980. Table 9.2 -2: City and County Population Trends, 1980 -2008 Percent Increase (annually) Jurisdiction 1980 1990 1980 -90 2000 1990 -00 2008 2000 -08 City of 22,965 36,3.26 5.8% 42,436 1.7% 43,062 01% Rohnert Park Sonoma 299,681 388,222 3.0% .458,614 1.8% 484,470 0.7% County Sources: 1980, 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census, Department of Finance, E 5a -2008. Overall, the City's population growth rate far surpassed that of the county from 1980 to 1990, due to the relatively short time that had elapsed since Rohnert Park's incorporation and the rapid ex- pansion of the City's planned neighborhoods. For a variety of reasons, including general economic conditions, the rate of growth in both areas slowed significantly during the 1990s and 2000s, par- ticularly in the City of Rohnert Park. From 1990 to 2000, the City grew an annual average of 1.7 percent and the county by an annual average of 1.8 percent. 9 -3 Rohnert Park General Plan Growth slowed even more from 2000 -2008 with the City growing just under 0.2 percent annually and.the county just 0.7 percent annually. Moreover, during the last eight years, according to Cali- fornia Department of Finance (DOF) estimates, the City has only grown by 1.5 percent -from 42,436 in 2000 to 43,062 in 2008.1 An alternative estimate by the Association of Bay Area Gov- ernments (ABAG) calculated that the City's population was 42,700 in 2005 and will reach 44,800 by 2010, with an annual growth rate of just under one percent, consistent with the City's Growth Management Program. HOUSING UNIT GROWTH TRENDS In general, the City was and continues to be developed using a neighborhood concept in accor- dance with a master plan, with the City Center development being promoted to achieve a more compact urban core. Each neighborhood area includes single - family and multi - family housing types arranged around a school and park. Shopping centers have been designed to be within conve- nient walking distance from local neighborhoods. In 1962, there were only 903 housing units in Rohnert Park. In the early 1960s and 1970s, the pri- mary market was single - family detached housing units and some mobile home parks. Such housing was affordable by a great majority of residents and families moving into the area. During the 1970s, increasing numbers of ..apartments, townhouses, condominiums, and mobilehomes were added to the City's housing inventory as lower -cost alternatiyes to single - family housing. The 1980s saw continued strong development of single - family housing as well as numerous apart- ment,projects. From 1980 to 1990, single- family housing nearly doubled from 4,819 to 8,143 units, as shown in Table 9.2 -3, The City's housing stock has increased by about seven percent since 2000 with the majority consisting of multi - family units. Table 9.2 -3: Rohnert Park Dwelling Units, 1980 – 2008 Housing Type 1980 1990 2000 2008 Single- family 4,819 8,143 8,960 9,361 Multi- family 2,837 4,306 5,020 5,770 Mobilehomes /travel trailers 1,299 1,466 1,467 1,413 Total 8,955 13;915 15,447 16544 Sources: 2000.U.S. Census, California Department of Finance. i The DOF estimate is based on net changes in housing stock as reported by the City of Rohnert Park; combined with assumptions about vacancy rate and persons per household. The DOF estimates are adjusted retroactively once the next U.S. census is conducted. 9 -4 Chapter 9: Housing During the 1990s, the City saw -its tallest residential building constructed - -a four -story elderly housing project, "Altamont Apartments "— and.the development of numerous other housing units for lower income households. Development of large custom homes occurred at the north end of the City. No additional mobile home parks were developed during this period. During this decade, the City's single - family and multi - family housing stock increased 10 percent and 17 percent, respec- tively. HOUSEHOLD AND JOB GROWTH TRENDS ABAG has recently released Projections 2007 for the Bay Area, which projects regional and,local growth and distribution of population, households, employment, income, and labor force during the period 2005 -2035. Projections 2007 forecasts are based on regional and county growth models, and the local availability of land, local development policies, density assumptions, and travel demand. For Rohnert Park, Projections 2007 provides estimates for the area within the current city, limits, as well as a larger subregional study area that - encompasses large areas outside of the City. The Hous- ing Element focuses on the former in order to provide consistency with ABAG'sprojected housing needs discussed in the next section. ABAG projects the following household and job growth within the City limits during the Housing Element's planning period of January 1, 2007 to June 30, 2014. Tab!16 ➢.2-4: Projected Growth within City Limits,.2005 -201 S 20Q5 , ; 2015 Diff rQnce % Change Households . 1:5,810 16,970 1;1'60 7 Total Jobs 15,930 24,770 8,840 55 Note: The 2005 -2015 timeframe does not perfectly, match that of the planning period because ABAG calculates projections in five -year intervals. Source: AMG Projections 2007. The specific types of projected jobs within the City limits have not been provided by ABAG. How- ever, ABAG anticipates that nearly two -third of the new jobs projected to be added within the Rohnert Park sub - regional area between 2005 and 2015 will be in the service and retail sectors, which typically pay some of the lowest wages (see "Housing Affordability," on page 9.3 -3), and the same will likely be true for jobs within the City limits. The increase in low- paying jobs will have an associated increase in the demand for affordable housing. NEIGHBORING JURISDICTIONS Table 9.2 -5 compares household and job growth from 2005 to 2015 between Rohnert Park and neighboring cities. Rohnert Park is predicted to have the same household growth rate as Cotati (7 %), while Petaluma and Santa Rosa are expected to see a 13 percent jump in the number of households within their City limits. Rohnert Park is forecasted to have the highest job growth of the four cities (55 %), followed by Cotati (33 %), Santa Rosa (19 %), and Petaluma (13 %). 9 -5 Rohnert Park General Plan Table 9.2.5: Household and job Growl th of Neighboring Cities, 2005 -201.5 2005 2015 Difference % Change HousehOds Rohnert Park . 15,810 16,970 1,160 7 Cotati 2,820 3,030 210 7 Petaluma 20,840 23,490 2,650 13 Santa Rosa 59,880 67,480 7,600 13 jobs 'Rohnert Park 15,930 241770 8,840 55 Cotati, 2,550 3,400 850 33 Petaluma 31,430 35,380 3,950 13 .:Santa Rosa 85,940 102; I:90 _. - 16,250' 19 NoterThe 2005 =2015. timeframe does'notper#ectlyJ"h6tch that of the planning period'because ABAG calculates protections in five -year intervals: Source: ABAG Projections 2 00 7. 'POPULATION-BY AGE The City's combined pre - school and elementary (0 -9 years old) and middle and high school (10 -19 years old) population percentage remained about the same between 1990 and 2000 (about 39 %), as did its young adult population (20 -24 year olds) ..at about ten;percent, a_s_shown in Figure 9.2 -1 and Table 9.2 -6. The combined pre - school and elementary (0 §:years old) and middle and high school (10 =1.9 years old) population percentage decreased som6What (to under 27 %) by 2005 -2007; and the young adult population (20 -24 year olds)' increased to over 12 percent. 9 -6 Chapter 9: Housing Table 9.2 -6: Rohnert Park Population Age Characteristics: 1990, 2000, and 2005 -2007 1990 2000 2005 -2007 Age Group Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 0 -9 years 6,072 16.7 5,587 13.2 5,673 14.1 10-19 years 5,196 14.3 7,075 16.8 5,034 12.5 20 -24 years 3,663 10.1 4,274 10.1 4,650 11.6 25 -34 years 7,617 21.0 6,369 15.1 5,989 14.9 35 -44 years 6,183 17.0 7,152 16.9 5,683 14.2 45 -54 years 2,952 8.1 5,672 13.4 5,655 14.1 55 -59 years 982 2.7 1,629 3.9 2,657 6.6 60-64 years 926 2.5 1,062 2.5 1,560 3.9 65 -74 years 1,651 4.5 1,632 3.9 1,388 3.5 75 -84 years 885 2.4 1,337 3.2 1,101 2.7 85+ years 199 0.5 447 1.1 723 1.8 Total 36,326 100 42,236 100 40,113 100 Median Age 30.6 31.5 32.9 Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census; 2005 -2007 ACS, which is an estimate Rohnert Park Population By Age 85+ years 75 -84 years 65 -74 years 60- 64years 55 -59 years 45 -54 years `' '' "' "t" 1990 35 -44 years ;.�� .f �r 25 -34 years h.� �• ,,;}w .. _._ hs.::.., r•;,, A 2000 20 -24 years >t,,,.: 10 -19 years 0 -9 years ,:: -,,- x,K•x•n; ;•s,�u.r= ,;;..;,;,::.ri:,n:: 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Figure 9.2 -1: Rohnert Park Population By Age 9 -7 Rohnert Park General Plan Overall, the median age of the City's population increased by about one year between 1990 and 2000 (to 31.5 from 30.6 years old) and by over one year between 2000 and 2005 -2007 (to 32.9 from 31.5 years old). Whether the City's.population will continue to get older on average depends, in part, on the desire of current residents to remain in the City as they age and the availability of housing and support services that meet their changing needs. It should be noted that in recent years several senior housing and assisted living developments have been built in the City (see section 9.3). ABAG projects that the countywide median age will increase from 37.5 in 2000 to 40.7 in 2010. However, Rohnert Park's population is much younger than that of the region because of the presence of Sonoma State University. POPULATION BY RACE AND ETHNICITY Overall, Rohnert Park has proportionately more residents of color than Sonoma County. In 2000, while both populations were majority white (Rohnert Park's population was 89.7% white, while Sonoma County's was 93.1% white), Rohnert Park had a significantly higher percentages of Asian residents (6.7% to Sonoma County's 3.8 %) and black or African - American residents (2.3% to So- noma County's 1.7 %). However, Rohnert Park had a lower population of Hispanic/Latino residents than the County as a whole (13.6% to 17.3 %, respectively). According to the 2005 -2007 ACS, Rohnert Park has become less white since 2000. The City also currently has proportionately more Hispanic/Latino residents than it did in 2.000 (Table 9.2 -7). Table 9.2 -7: Race and.Ethnicityin Rohnert Park and the Sonoma County 2000 2005 -2007 Rohnert Park Sonoma County Rohnert Park Sonoma County Racelfithnicity Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent American 202 0.6 3,477 0.9 70 0.2 3,252 0.9 Indian /Alaskan Native Asian 2,320 6.7 13,786 3.8 2,506 8.0 17,553 5.0 Black/African- 799 2.3 6,116 1.7 868 2.8 6,165 1.8 American Native 168 0.5 828 0.2 20 0.1 1,026 0.3 Hawaiian /Other Pacific Islander White 31,266 89.7 341,686 93.1, 27,502 87.9 322,267 91.7 Other 119 0.3 921 0.3 305 1.0 1,059 0.3 Total 34,874. 100.0 366,814 100.0 31,271, 100.0 351,322 100.0 Two or More 1,631 3.9 12,289 2.7 807 2.0 10,927 2.4 Races Hispanic /Latino' 5,731 13.6 79,511 17.3 8,035 20.0 101,295 21.9 1. Persons of Hispanic /Latino ethnicity may be of any race. Sources: 2000 U.S. Census; 2005 -2007 ACS, which is an estimate. 9 -8 Chapter 9. Housing EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY Labor Force Size and Distribution The "labor force" is defined as the number of residents who are age 16 or older who are employed or unemployed, but actively seeking work. This includes residents who may be employed in Roh- nert Park or elsewhere. The members of the labor force who are employed in non - military jobs are referred to as the "civilian labor force." Table 9.2 -8 summarizes Rohnert Park and Sonoma County labor force characteristics. It shows that the City had a larger labor force participation rate in 2000 (72 %) than the county as a whole (67 %). The City had nearly all of its labor force in the civilian sector rather than in the military. These trends held true in 2005 -2007. In 2000, about three percent of both the City's and the county's civi- lian labor force was unemployed. In 2005 -2007, the unemployment rate increased to 4.6 percent in the City and 3.4 percent in the county. In 2000, females accounted for just over one -third (35 %) of the City's labor force and little under one -third (31 %) of the county's labor force; these statistics mirror those in 2005 -2007. It should be noted that with the recent economic downturn, the overall county unemployment rate rose to 8.6 percent in January 2009 — slightly higher than the rate na- tionwide, but considerably lower than the California unemployment rate which was 10.6 percent in January 2009.2 2 Kevin McCallum, "Jobless rate soars to 8.6 percent in Sonoma County." Press Democrat, 3/5/2009. 9 -9 Rohnert Park General Plan Table 9.2 -8: . Labor Force Characteristics in Rohnert Park and Sonoma County 2000 2005 -2007 Rohnert Park Sonoma County . Rohnert Park Sonoma County Labor Force Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent In the Labor Force 23;687 72.1 -240,198 66.8 21,513 68.1 244,236 65.6 Civilian Labor Force 23,547 71.6 239,445 66.6 21,440 67.8 242,578 65.1 Employed 22,617 68.8 229,227 63.7 19,997 63.3 230,078 61.8 Unemployed 930 2.8 10,218 2.8 1,443 4.6 12,500 3.4 Armed Forces Employment 140 0.4 753 0.2 73 0.2 541 0.1 Not in the Labor Force 9,184 27.9 119,538 33.2 10,094 31.9 128,216 34.4 Total Age 16 and Older 32,871 100.0 359,736 100.0 31,607 100.0 372,452 100.0 Females Age 16 and Older 17,289 52.6 184,912 51.4 16,420 52.0 189,948 51.0 Female in the Labor Force 11,394 34.7 11.1,671 31.0 10,337 32.7 1121359 30.2 Female Civilian Labor Force 11,371 34.6 111,518 31.0 10,337 32.7 111,063 29.8 Employed 10,820 32.9 105,637 29.4 9,914 .31.4 104,736 28.1 Unemployed 551 1.7 4,881 1.4 423 1.3 6,327 1.7 Sources: 2000 U.S. Census, 2005 -2007 ACS, which is an estimate. Civilian Employment Profile The occupational profile of the City's civilian labor force is significantly different from the county labor force, as shown .in Table 9.2 -9 s For example, about 32.5 percent of employed residents in Rohnert Park work in sales and office, 30 percent in management, professional and related occupa- tions, and 15 percent in service occupations. In the county, the top three occupations are manage- ment, professional and related occupations (35 0/o), sales and office (26.5 %) and service occupations (15 %). Rohnert Park has large percentages of its civilian labor force employed in the private and public sectors, and thus a lower percentage of self - employed and unpaid family workers than in the county as a whole. Rohnert Park's labor force is heavily concentrated in the educational, health and social services, as well as the manufacturing and retail . sectors of the economy (45 %). The county's occupational profile is quite similar (43 %). The City has a larger proportion of the civilian labor force in finance, insurance, etc (11 %) than the county (8 %). On the other hand, the county has larg- er percentages of its civilian labor force. in professional and scientific industry (11 %), construction (8.5 %), and arts, entertainment, and recreation (8 %) than does the City., 3 2005 -2007 ACS statistics were not available for this table. 9 -10 Chapter 9: Housing Table 9.2 -9: Civilian Labor Force Employment Characteristics in Rohnert Park and Sonoma County, 2000 Rohnert Park Sonoma County Characteristics Number Percent Number Percent Occupations Mgmt., Professionals, Related 6,935 30.7 80:,333 35.1 Services 3,490 15.4 34,646 15.1 Sales and Office 7,342 32.5 60,935 26.6 Farming, Fishing & Forestry 12 0.1 3,744 1.6 Construction 2,289 10.1 23;442 10.2 Production and Transportation 2,549 11.3 26,127 11.4 Total Civilian Labor Force 22,617 100.0 229,227 100.0 Class of Worker Private Wage & Salary Workers 18,098 80.0 170,184 74.2 Government Workers 3,070 13.6 31,227 13.6 Self- employed Workers 1,380 6.1 26,882 11.7 Unpaid Family Workers 69 0.3 934 0.4 Industry Sector Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, etc 70 0.3 5,912 2.6 Construction - 1,706 7.5 19,400 8.5 Manufacturing 3,036 13.4 29,01.9 12.7 Wholesale trade 615 2.7 7,104 3.1 Retail trade 3,441 151 27,321 11.9 Transportation and Warehousing 1,044 4.6 9,384 4.1 Information 756 3.3 6,048 2.6 Finance, insurance, etc. 2,420 10.7 17,948 7.8 Professional, Scientific, etc. 2,038 9.0 24,806 10.8 Educational, Health and Social Services 3,771 16.7 42,733 18.6 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 1,605 7.1 18,214 8.0 Other Services 1,272 5.6 12,369 5.4 Public administration 843 3:7 8,969 3.9 Source. 2000 U.S. Census. According to the 2000 Census, about one-quarter (23 1/o) of the City's labor force worked within the City and therefore about three - quarters (77 %) commuted to work locations outside Rohnert Park, as shown in Table 9.2 -10. Since about 76 percent of the City's labor force worked in Sonoma County, most of those working outside the City were employed elsewhere in the county (53 %). About 24 percent.worked in another California county and the balance (0.3 %) worked outside the state. 9 -11 Rohnert Park General Plan Table 9.2 -10: Employment Growth Trends in Where Rohnert Park Residents Work, 2000 2005 Projected 2015 Annual Growth, 2005 - 2015 (%) Rohnert Park Place of Work Number Percent Rohnert Park 5,104 23.1 Other Sonoma County 11,701 52.9 Subtotal Sonoma County 16,805 76.0 Other California 5,255 23.8 Outside California 59 0.3 Total Employed Workers 22,119 100.0 Source: 2000 U.S. Census. While the 2005 -2007 ACS does not include the number of Rohnert Park residents who worked in Rohnert Park, it does provide data on City residents who worked in the County (14,784, 75.8 %) as well as those who worked. elsewhere in California (4,701, 24.1 %). This is nearly identical to the 2000 Census data. While the . City's workforce is projected to decrease slightly until 2010, this trend is likely to change-.4 According to the Association of Bay Area Governments, the number of employed resi- dents in Rohnert Park will then progressively increase. In fact, between the years of 2005 and 2015 (which roughly mirrors the planning period of this Housing Element, 2007 - 2014); -the number of employed residents will increase 0.4 percent on an annual basis, see Table 9.2 -11. Table 94-1 1: Employment Growth Trends in Rohnert Park and Sonoma County 2005 Projected 2015 Annual Growth, 2005 - 2015 (%) Rohnert Park Employed Residents 23,140 23,970 0.4 Total. Jobs' 17,200 26,080 4.3 Jobs /Employed Residents Ratio 0.7 1.1 Sonoma County Employed Residents 237,700 251,700 0.6 Total Jobs' 220,460 256,170 1.5 Jobs /Employed Residents Ratio 0.9 1.0 1. The "Jobs" numbers in this table are somewhat different than those in Table 9.2-4 because the numbers in this table include the City's Sphere of Influence (SO[) while those in Table 9.2 -4 do not. The SOI numbers were used here because, the City-only numbers do not include an "Employed Residents" cateeorv. Source: ABAG Projections 2007 SSA 4 The ABAG 2007 Sub - Regional Study Area (SSA) projections state that the number of employed residents in Rohnert Park went/will go from 23,671 to 23,140, and 23,100 in 2000, 2005, and 2010, respectively. 9 -12 Chapter 9. Housing During the same ten -year period, from 2005 -2015, the number of employed. residents in Sonoma County as a whole is projected to increase 0.6 percent annually. However, while the percentage of jobs in the county is projected to increase 1.5 percent annually, the number of jobs located in Roh- nert Park is forecast to increase 4.3 percent each year. Given the large discrepancy between the an- nual percent increase of employed residents (0.4 %) and the annual percent increase of jobs (4.3 %) in Rohnert Park, employers will likely need to hire people who live in neighboring cities or coun- ties. HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS Although the characteristics of individual residents are important to understanding the growth and evolution of a City, the more useful unit for analysis concerning housing needs is the household. The U.S. Census Bureau considers all people living. in the same dwelling unit to be a household, whether or not they are related. A dwelling unit is defined as "a house, an apartment, a group of rooms, or a single room, occupied as separate living quarters, or if vacant, intended for occupan- cy. Housing Growth Trends According to ABAG, in 2005, there were 16,000 households in Rohnert Park, representing a three percent increase in the number..of households since 2000. Household Types As reported by the 2000 Census, families made up about two thirds (63 %) of Rohnert Park's households in 2000. "Families" include married couples, (47% of households) and other family types, such as single parents with children (17% of Households). The 2005 -2007 ACS shows the proportion of family households in Rohnert Park. declining to 58.2 percent. This could be partially accounted for by increased, enrollment at Sonoma State University— between 1999 /2000 and 2008/2009, the student population increased by almost 1,900 students .5 Non - family households accounted for the remaining 37 percent of households in the City in 2000. Most of the non - family households were single - person households (24% of all households) and about 13 percent were households with more than one person in which the household members were unrelated to one another. According to the 2005 -2007 ACS, non - family households accounted for 41.8 percent of households in the City —an. almost 5 percent increase since 2000. Again, this could be due to the increased student population. In 2000, the county as a whole had a similar per- centage of family households (65 %) and non - family households (35 %), while in 2005 -2007, the county had notably more family households (63.7°/x) than did the City (58.2 1/o). Overall, the house- hold composition in Rohnert Park was very similar to Sonoma County in 2000, although it gained proportionately more non - family households in 2005 -2007. 5 Tim Tiemens, Sonoma State University, December 1999 and Email with Nicole Hendry, Associate Director of Housing Services, Sonoma State University, 12/18/08. 9 -13 Rohnert Park General Plan Table 9.2 -12: Household Composition in Rohnert Park and Sonoma County 2000 2005 -2007 Rohnert Park Sonoma County Rohnert Park Sonoma County Household Type Number Percent Number Percent, Number Percent Number _ Percent Family Households 9,799 63.2 112,397 65.2 9,1.22 58.2 112,902 63.7 Married Couple 7,239. 46.7 86,712 50.3 6,825 74.8 87,473 77.5 Other Family Households 2,560 16.5 25,685 14.9 2,297. 25.2 25,429 22.5 Non- Family Households 5,704 36.8 60,006 34.8 6,543 41.8 64,429 36.3 Living Alone 3,727 24.0 44,340 25.7 4,659 71.2 49,044 76.1 Other Non - Family Households 1,977 1.2.8 15,666 9.1 1,884 28.8 15,385 23.9 Households with Children < 18 5,891 38.0 59,796 34.7 5,340 34.1 57,337 32.3 Households with Individuals 65+ 2,663 17.2 41,314 24.0 2,460 115.7 42,267 23.8 Total Households 15,503 100.0 172,403 100.0 15;665. 100.0 177,331 100.0 Average Household Size 2.65 NA 2.6 NA 2.54 NA 2.55 NA Average - Family Size '3:2 NA 3.12 ` NA NA NA NA NA Sources: 2000 U.S. Census, 2005 -2007 ACS, which is an estimate. About 38 percent of Rohnert households'included children age 18 or younger and about 17 percent included seniors (age 65 or older). In 'the county, -the corresponding percentages were 35 percent (children) and 24 percent (seniors). While there were a lower percentage of households. with mem- bers age 65 or older in the City as compared to the County, the City's senior population is projected to increase as baby_ boomers reach retirement age. Household and Family Size Table 9,2 -12 . also shows that the average family household size in Rohnert Park was 3.2 in 2000. In comparison, the average family household in Sonoma County in 2000 hid 3.1 inhabita its.6 6 Average family size was not available from the 2005 -2007 ACS. 9 -14 - - Chapter 9. Housing Housing by Tenure Table 9.2 -13 describes the tenure and the type according to the 2000 Census and 2005 -2007 ACS of occupied housing units in Rohnert Park. The overall tenure pattern in the City in 2000 was 57- percent owner- occupied; 41 percent renter- occupied and 2 percent vacant. In 2005 - 2007, the City had 54 percent owner- occupied, 41 percent renter- occupied, and 5 percent vacant units. This in- crease in vacancy is likely due to the recent wave of home foreclosures that has swept through the region and the nation as a whole. Out of the total occupied housing units in the City in 2000 (15,553) about 49 percent were single - family detached homes. About 12 percent were single- family attached homes and duplexes, about 5 percent were in 3-4 unit buildings, and about 26 percent were in buildings with five or more units. Almost 9 percent of the City's total occupied housing units were mobilehomes. The 2005 -2007 statistics largely mirror the 2000 distribution, with slight decreases in the fewer unit building cate- gories and a slight increase in the number of homes in buildings with five or more units. 9 -15 Rohnert Park General Plan Table 9.2 -13: Characteristics of Rohnert Park Housing Stock 2000 2005 -2007 Number at; %`of Total % of Total Type and'Tenure . Units Occupied Units Number o f Units Occupied Units Single- Family Detached . 7,559 48.6 7,43`1 47.4 Owner- Occupied 6,331 40.7 5,963 38.1 .Renter-Occupied 1,228 7.9 1,468 9.4 :Single- Family Attached 1,682 10.8 1,428 9.1 Owner- Occupied I, 156 7.4 1,141 7:3 Renter= Occupied 526` 3.4 287 1.8 Duplex 106 0.7 205 1.3 Owner- Occupied .22 :. 0.1 104 .0.7 Renter- Occupied 84 0.5 101 0.6 3 to 4 Units 812 5.2 758 4.8 Owner- Occupied 127 0.8 102 0.7 Renter- Occupied 685 4.4 656 4.2 5+ Units 3,966 25.5 4,430 28.3 Owner- Occupied 272 1.7 253 1.6 Renter- Occupied 3,694 ' 23.8 4,177 26.7 Mobile Homes 1,316 8.5 1,350 8.6 Owner- Occupied 1,108 7.1 1,282 8.2 Renter- Occupied 208 1.3 68 0.4 Other 52 0.3 63 0.4 Owner- Occupied 24 0.2 0 0.0 Renter- Occupied 28z 0.2 63 0.4 Total Occupied Units 15,553 100.0 15,665 100.0 Owner- Occupied 9,040 58.1 8,845 56.5 Renter- Occupied 6,513 41.9 6,820 43.5 Sources: 2000 U.S. Census, 2005- 2007AC5, which is an estimate. 9 -16 Chapter 9: Housing Tenure by Mace Table 9.2 -14 shows how tenure varies in Rohnert Park and Sonoma County by the race of the householder. -In both 2000 and 2005 -2007, whites made up a larger percentage of total homeowners than total renters in the City and the county. Over all, people of color made up larger percentages of renter versus ownership households. Table 9.2 -14: Tenure by Race and Ethnicity in Rohnert Park and Sonoma County 2000 2005 -2007 Rohnert Park Sonoma County Rohnert Park Sonoma. County Race /Ethnicity Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Owner- Occupied Units White 7,898 87.4 100,870 91.3 7,311 83.2 99,085 88.5 Black or African - American 127 1.4 823 0.7 98 1.1 721 0.6 Native American 73 0.8 599 0.5 NA NA 876 0.8 Asian /Pacific Islander 390 4.3 2,680 2.4 546 6.2 4,101 3.7 Some other race 331 3.7 3,176 2.9 688 7.8 5,476 4.9 Two or more races 221 2.4 2,363 2.1 145 1.6 108 1.5 Latino /Hispanic' 751 8.3 7,083 6.4 1,203 13.6 11,922 10.7 Renter - Occupied Units White 5,183 79.6 50,189 81.1 5,635 83.0 51,374 78.7 Black or African- American 148 2.3 1,081 1.8 202 3.0 1,826 2.8 Native American 91 1.4 940 1.5 NA NA 686 1.1 Asian /Pacific Islander 385 5.9 1,777 2.9 281 4.1 2,394 3.7 Some other race 293 4.5 -5,104 8.3 578 8.5 7,163 11.0 Two or more races 413 6.3 2,801 4.5 96 1.4 1,951 3.0 Latino /Hispanic' 694 10.7 9,830 15.9 817 12.0 12,926 19.8 I. Persons of Hispanic /Latino ethnicity may be of any race. Sources: 2000 U.S. Census, 2005 -2007 ACS, which is an estimate. 9 -17 Rohnert Park General Plan Table 9.2 -15 shows tenure by age of householder in the City versus the County in both 2000 and 2005 -2007. In general, the trends were quite similar during these two time periods. The highest percentage of owner - occupied units in Rohnert Park was owned by people between the ages of 35 and 54, while the highest percentage of units was rented by people between the ages of 15 and 34. People age 55 and over owned about two- and -a -half times as many units as they rented. There were similar ownership and rental trends in the City and County, although young people renting in Roh- nert Park made up a higher percentage of total renters versus in the county. This is likely because of the existence of Sonoma State University. Also, of total elderly households (age 65 and older), a higher percentage in Rohnert Park rented (32 %) than in the county (22 %). This trend continued through 2005 -2007, with 33.6 percent of senior households renting in the City versus 23.1 percent in the county as a whole. Therefore, the demand for senior rental units in Rohnert Park is likely to be higher than the county as a whole. Table 9.2 -15: Tenure by Age of Householder in Rohnert Park and Sonoma County 9 -18 2000 2005 -2007 Rohnert Park Sonoma County Rohnert Park Sonomo ,County Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Owner- Occupied Units 15 to 34': 1,269 14.0, 8,578 7.8 1,202 13.6 %04 8.1 35 to 54 _ 4,713 52.1 52,824 47.8 4,119 46.6 48,249. 43.1 55 to 64 1,429 15.8 19,327 17.5 2,136 24.1 25,%0 23.2 65.and over 1,629 18.0 29,782 27.0 1,388 .15.7 28,687. 25.6 Total 9,040 100.0 110,511 100.0 8,845 100.0 111,937 100.0 Renter- Occupied Unit 15 to 34 3,102 47.6 20,865 33.7 2,938 43.1 22,183 33.9 35 to 54 2,198 33.8 27,929 45.1 2,670 39.1 26,985 41.3 55 to 64 443 6.8 4,899 7.9 511 7.5 7,612 11.6 65 and over 770. 1.1.8 8,199 13.3 701 10.3 8,614 13.2 Total 6,513 100.0 61,892 1 M 6,820 100.0 65,394 100.0 Sources: 2000 U.S. Census; 2005 -2007 ACS, which is an estimate. 9 -18 Chapter 9: Housing 9.3 HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS AND NEED STATEWIDE HOUSING NEEDS A recent memorandum put out by the California Department of Housing and Community Devel- opment (HCD) identifies the following statewide housing needs: • Much higher levels of housing construction are needed to adequately house the state's population. • High housing cost burdens are increasingly an issue for both owners and renters. The com- bination of upward price. pressure in the housing market and relatively tight urban housing markets has led to increasing cost burdens, particularly for low- income renter residents. • In addition to high housing cost burdens, in some portions of the state, the level of over- crowding has dramatically increased. • A substantial portion of affordable rental housing developments statewide are at risk of conversion to market rate use. This situation threatens thousands of low- income elderly households and families, exacerbating local housing needs. • California has an extensive agricultural economy that depends on temporary workers to harvest and process crops. Significant numbers of these critical workers migrate through- out the state, facing housing challenges that impact their welfare. • The homeless individuals and households who have "fallen through the cracks" face signif- icant difficulties in obtaining shelter and reintegrating themselves into the broader society. • Thirty-five percent of California households and 40 percent of renters spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing • California has the second - lowest home ownership rate in the country (55.9 %, the national average is 68.1 %). The City of Rohnert Park faces many, of these statewide housing concerns, which this housing ele- ment discusses and addresses. HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS. This section describes the type and condition of housing units, housing costs and affordability, va- cancy rates, and other housing unit characteristics. 7 California's Deepening Housing Crisis, Division of Housing Policy Development: Department of Housing and Community Development, Sept. 25, 2008. 9 -19 Rohnert Park General Plan Housing Type As shown in Table 9.3.1, two- and three - bedroom units represent the majority of housing types in the City, although one- and four - bedroom units are also prevalent. Units with five bedrooms or more are very uncommon, comprising just 3.6 percent of the housing stock in 2000 and 2.7 percent of the housing stock, according to the 2005 -2007 ACS. While the percentage of the City's housing stock made up of studio units appears to have declined from 2000 to 2005 -2007, the percentage of two - bedroom units increased from 26.3 to 30.0 percent. Table 9.3 -1: Rohnert Park Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms 2000 2005 -2007 % of Total % Of Total Number of Bedrooms Number of Units Occupied Housing Number of Units Occupied Housing Studio 391 2.5 97 0.6 One Bedroom 2,571 16.5 2,742 16.6 Two Bedrooms 4,089 26.3 4,938 30.0 Three Bedrooms 5,452 35.1 5,609 34.0 Four Bedrooms 2;497 16.1 2,652 16.1 Five or more Bedrooms 553 1.6 441 ` 2.7 Total 15.,553 100.0 16,479 100.0 Source: 2000 U.S. Census 2005 -2007 ACS, which is an estimate. Vacant Units In 2000, Rohnert Park had a total of 15,820 housing. units (Table 9.3 -3); 267 (or 1.7 0% ) of which were vacant (Table 9.3 -2). In contrast to the City, Sonoma County's housing stock was 11.4 per - cent vacant. In Rohnert Park, about 40 percent (115) of vacant units were for rent, while less than twenty percent (45) were for sale. The balance consisted of units that were rented or sold but not occupied (40), for seasonal recreational, or occasional use (57), or vacant for some other reason (10). The Census reported that Rohnert Park had no vacant units available specifically for migrant workers. The 2005 -2007 ACS provides less detailed vacancy data for Rohnert Park. In 2005 -2007, Rohnert Park had approximately 16,479 housing units; 814 (or 4.9 %) of which were vacant. In 2005 -2007, Sonoma County's housing stock was 9.3. percent vacant. In general, low vacancy rates indicate that residents, especially lower income residents, will have a difficult time fording affordable housing. The 2000 data was collected before the housing foreclo- sure crisis, and the 2005 -2007 data likely only captured the beginning of the crisis. It is likely that currently, there are more vacant ownership units and fewer vacant rental units in the City, although that balance will shift as more and more homebuyers are attracted by low home prices. However, even in this climate, while it is likely that moderate - income households can take advantage of low- er home sale prices, home ownership is still prohibitively expensive for low -, very low -, and ex- tremely low- income households. These households could have an even harder time finding afford- able rental housing at this time. 9 -20 Chapter 9: Housing Table 9.3 -2: Rohnert Park Vacant Units, 2000 Rohnert Park . Sonoma County For rent 115 1,228 For sale only 45 1,151 Rented or sold, not occupied 40 871 For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 57 6,532 For migrant workers 0 29 Other vacant 10 939 Total 267 10,750 Sources: 2000 U.S. Census. Housing Conditions and Rehabilitation Need The City performed a housing conditions survey in November 1999. This survey consisted of the visual inspection of the older neighborhoods in Rohnert Park, including Sections A, B, C, E, and L, as well as all five. of the mobilehome parks. A total of 2,898 conventionally- constructed residences and 1,466 mobilehome units were .visually surveyed. The overwhelming majority of units surveyed were found to be in "sound" condition, with the appearance of regular maintenance of the home and landscaping. The City's'mobilehomes were also found.to be well - maintained. Since the last housing conditions survey was done ten years ago and only included a portion of the City, the following Census data is included to supplement the survey findings. The percentage of units built before 1960 can be used to estimate the City's maximum rehabilitation need. According to the 2000. Census, in Rohnert Park only 3.3 percent of housing units were built before 1960. This makes sense given that the City was only incorporated in 1962. According to the 2005. -2007 ACS, 3.1 percent of the City's housing units were built before 1960, a slight decline. The 2005 -2007 ACS also reports that 5.1 percent of the City's housing units were built between 2000 and 2005; this amounts to about 844 units. 9 -21 Rohnert Park General Plan Table 9.3 -3: Year Housing Unit Built Year Built Number of Units Percent of Total 1999 to March 2000 199 1.3 1995 to 1998 748 4.7 1990 to 1994 1,647 10.4 1980 to 1989 4,960 31.4 1970 to 1979 5,991 37.9 1960 to 1969 1,749 11.1 1950 to 1959 399 2.5 1940 to 1949 60 0.4 1939 or earlier 67 0.4 Total 15,820 100.0 Source: 2000 U.S. Census. ,,Housing Affordability 'Housing cost is generally' the greatest single expense` item for households. For owner- occupied households, housmg ;expenses consist of mortgage and interest payments, insurance, maintenance, and properly` taxes. For renter= occupied households, housing expenses'conssf of rent and °utilities. Higher income households may choose to spend greater portions of .their income for housing ex- penses. However, many lower `income households' must involuntarily spend a large share of their income on �housmg 'Many of the jobs in Rohnert Park And the region have salaries within the lower income range. These include jobs in the service`sector, such as waiters, cooks, room cleaners; and food preparation workers; in the retail sector, such as sales clerks; and professional jobs such as accountants, librarians, and nurses. In many cases, even the combined wages of two working par- ents result in a lower income household. Households earning the 2009 median income fora family of four in Rohnert Park ($80,200) could afford to spend up to $24,060 a year, or $2,005 per month, on housing without being considered "overpaying" (see "Overpayment" section, above). For renters, this is a straightforward calculation, but home ownership costs are less transparent: A household can typically qualify to purchase a home that is 2.5 to 3.0 times the annual income of that household, depending on the down payment, the level of other long -term obligations (such as a car loan), and interest rates. In practice, the inte- raction of these factors allows some households to qualify for homes priced at more than three times their annual income, while other households may be limited to purchasing homes no more than two times their annual incomes. Indeed, as can be seen in Table 9.3=4 below, there is not a steady relationship between a household's annual income and the maximum affordable price of a home it can afford because of the impact of a down payment and the interest rate on households in the different housing income categories. Rather, while a household making only 30 percent of the county median can only afford a home that is about 3.4 times its annual income, a household mak- ing 120 percent of the county median can afford a home well above 5.4 times its annual income. 9 -22 Chapter 9: Housing Table 9.3 -4: Maximum Funds Available for Housing, by Income Category Housing Income Category Annual Income' Maximum Affordable Monthly Rent' Maximum Affordable Purchase Price 30 percent of county median $24,050 $601 $81,000 50 percent of county median $40,100 $1,003 $179,000 80 percent of county median $64,000 $1,600 $324,000 100 percent of county median $80,200 $2,005 $423,000 120 percent of county median $96,250 $2,406 $520,000 I. HUD's 2009 limits. Assumes a four- person household 2. Assumes 30 percent of income available for housing cost. 3. Assumes monthly payments equal to the amounts shown in the "Maximum Affordable Monthly Rent" column, assuming a down payment of 20,percent, an annual interest rate of 4.6 %, average property taxes and home insurance for California, and 30 -year term Source: "Memorandum. Official State Income Limits for 2009," California Department of Housing and Community Development, April 2, 2009, the Bank of America mortgage calculator was used to find maximum affordable purchase prices. Mobilehomes are a good source of affordable housing in the City. Furthermore, in 1987, the City established a Mobilehome Rent Stabilization program, which is described on page 9.5 -17. Housing Cost—Ownership Housing The recent housing foreclosure crisis has hit California particularly hard. Although southern Cali- fornia has been more affected than northern California, Sonoma County and Rohnert Park have still felt the impact. Home prices fell over 14 percent between 2006 and 2007 from $484,500 to $415,000.8 Housing prices continued to fall; in September 2008 the median home price in the City was $295,000 (an over 40% drop from the 2007 median and about a 32% drop from September 2007).9 In February 2009, the median price had fallen still further to $252,750 (an over 30% drop from February 2008).10 In May 2009, the website Realtytrac.com reported that there were 165 properties in default and 144 bank -owned properties in Rohnert Park.' 1 8 DQNews: http: / /www.dgnews.com/Charts /Annual- Charts /CA- City- Charts /ZIPCAR07.aspx 9 DQNews: http: / /www.dgnews.com/Charts/Monthly- Charts /CA- City- Charts /ZIPCAR.aspx 10 DQNews: http:// www. dgnews .com/Charts/Monthly- Charts/CA- City- Charts /ZIPCAR.aspx 11 Realtytrac.com, search on 5/4/2009. 9 -23 Rohnert Park Genera► Plan Ownership Affordability As stated earlier, in February 2009 the median home price in the City was $252,750.12 This is great- ly decreased from only one year ago, making ownership housing more affordable in the City. Therefore, of the five housing income categories in Table 9.3 -4, those earning 80 percent of the median or higher could afford the median home price in Rohnert Park. Just one year prior, only those earning 100 percent of the median or higher could. afford to buy a home in the City. Overall, housing in the City is affordable to those earning at least 80 percent of the county-wide median income. As is typical in other cities across the state, extremely low- and very low- income households have a difficult time finding affordable housing to buy in Rohnert Park. Housing Cost—Rental Housing While rental data is provided in the Census, at this point, this data is almost a decade old and does not include information about the size of the unit.. Given the fact that many people use craigslist.org when looking for an apartment for rent, rental price information from this website was collected. Table 9.3-5: Rohnert Park Median Rent.(March.2009) Number of Bedrooms Number of Apartments Median Rent 29 $075. 2 41 $1,1900 3 17 $1,650 4 7 $1,795 5 2 $2,450. Source: Craigslist search on 03116109. Rental Affordability Given the information displayed in Table 9.3 -5: Rohnert Park Median Rent (March 2009), above, a family of four earning only 30 percent of the county median cannot afford to rent a 1- bedroom apartment in Rohnert Park without overpaying. A family of four earning 50 percent of the county median can just barely afford a 1- bedroom unit. A family of four earning 80 percent of the county median can afford a 2- bedroom and almost afford a 3- bedroom apartment. A family of four earning the median income can afford to rent a 3- or a 4- bedroom unit. Therefore, while lower income households are hard pressed to find affordable housing in Rohnert Park, moderate income house-. holds (those earning 80% of the median) and above. have a reasonable time finding affordable housing. (z DQNews: http: / /www.dgnews.com/ Charts /Monthly- .Charts /CA- City- Charts/ZIPCAR.aspx 9 -24 Chapter 9. Housing Section 8 Almost 10,500 applications for the Section 8 rental assistance program were on the Sonoma Coun- ty Housing Authority's active list as of March 31, 2009.13 Of these applications, nearly 80 percent are from extremely low- income households whose income is at 30 percent of the area median or lower. Over 20 percent of the households on the active list, are black or African- American, while over 50 percent are white. The balance are American Indian/Native Alaskan, Asian, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. Over 15 percent of the households are identified as Hispanic. Many of the households waiting to receive assistance remain homeless or at -risk, improperly housed, and under- served. Of these households, many are special needs groups: families with, disabilities make up almost 37 percent of the list, elderly families make up 13 percent, and families with children make up almost 47 percent. In Rohnert Park, 657 households receive Section 8 housing choice vouchers, six were assisted through the Mobile Home Space Rent Assistance Program, three were assisted by diet Home Te- nant -Based Rental Assistance Program, and ten were helped with the Shelter Plus Care Program. All mentioned programs are managed by the Sonoma County Housing Authority. 14 Overpayment for Housing The State of California considers a lower income household that pays more than 30 percent of its income for housing to be living in unaffordable housing and "overpaying" for housing (see Table 9.3 -6). Based on 2000 Census data, roughly forty percent of all Rohnert Park households overpaid for housing in 2000, while almost 70 percent of households earning under $50,000 overpaid. In 2005 -2007, according to the ACS, almost 50 percent of households .overpaid for housing, while nearly 80 percent of households earning under $50,000 overpaid. Whereas in 2000, over 50 percent of renters overpaid while :fewer than; 50 percent of owners did the same, in 2005 -2007, both renters and owners were more likely to overpay than not. In 2000, owner- occupied households were slightly less likely to have overpaid than renter- occupied house- . holds; this held true in 2005 -2007. This may be because lower income people are more likely to rent, and more likely to overpay. 13 Of these approximately 10,500 applications about 37 percent were from applicants who currently live or work.in the jurisdiction of the Sonoma County Housing Authority. Separate demographic statistics are not available for this group. 14 Email communication with Carol Turner, Leased Housing Manager, Sonoma County Housing Authority, 03/31/2009. 9 -25 Q a c aD api l7 V a° d G O C4 L 3 F •C C �O d M E CL O O V N O W 3 Q � t N 7 O !� fn C 00 M Co^ n � O O '— ten. C 'Q 00 M .0 N V: N v C (V Ln M � 0^0 000 V1 n t� "t to � of V p C — M M d` N C N v to P. o \° -0 O O O 'A O O M 2 g 2 N O i* v O% O O% M %O O%,%O v N v 00 On o• O o _ O LO a V .� M O 00 Ln ..!r1 L %O � — N O. T cV 1� O o0 •F, O O C U d O% 0 '�' 0 0 = vi vl coa C4 m v- 000_ 3 =_ o L0% 2 2 N O C14 M Ln O C O N O p`. -- d 64 64 64 64 o 3r 64 64 EA 64 C O Q Q N Ro h N O� u9 O O Lq` N. N — O N 'gip NV' C 00 O �! � O H O 3 o y.) co. . N M O 00. N O: u1 to .� 0 co — 00 00 T N O% co v N ' N TO 2 ' = p 0 %O I'D O O — O Ln 00 r� C N M = V, : _ V' OD 0 O� Nit V N O. v N. v N v� %O N'. �':: C W.. , d ^ Ln n V 00 � Ln M V Co ^ N V. o n (V �' .. 0 M O' ' O �' —' — 'OQ'_ Ln Yl1 to M to yam-' L 3 F •C C �O d M E CL O O V N O W 3 Q � t N 7 O !� N dd O N 7 u d 0 0 a N td 3 id O C 0 V tko lu C N' L C1. O w: a N1- G 0 v 3 V Q n O O N 0 C N 3 e v O O d 7 H' %O N fn C ti0 O% C v O N '— ten. C 'Q 00 M .0 N N .. 0^0 000 t� � O N m N O OD V V N N LO M .O d` N C to P. -0 O O H 'A O O 2 g 2 H, d. O, o. O C Z N •a On o• O o _ O LO a V .� M L fh V u O" 00% O o0 •F, O O C U d O% 0 '�' 0 0 = vi vl coa � °O 000_ 3 =_ L0% 2 2 N O C14 M Ln O C O N M.� 0 -- d 64 64 64 64 o 3r 64 64 EA 64 C O Q Q Ro N dd O N 7 u d 0 0 a N td 3 id O C 0 V tko lu C N' L C1. O w: a N1- G 0 v 3 V Q n O O N 0 C N 3 e v O O d 7 H' %O N Chapter 9: Housing Overcrowding High housing costs force lower income households to share living accommodations with extended family and friends, or rent out rooms in their homes, leading to crowded living conditions. Large household sizes, multi - generational households, high numbers of children per household, low in- comes, and the limited availability of large rental units all are related to overcrowding. The U.S. Census Bureau defines an "overcrowded" household as one in which there are more than 1.01 persons per room; a household more than 1.51 people per room is considered severely over- crowded. While these definitions do not take cultural and other considerations into account, they do provide a basic standard of analysis. By these definitions, 959 (about 6 %) of Rohnert Park's house- holds were overcrowded in 2000, and only 463 (almost 3 1/o) were severely overcrowded. Accord- ing to the ACS, only 655 (about 4 %) of City's households were overcrowded in 2005 -2007, and only 61 (0.4 %) were severely overcrowded. The county as a whole had about the same percentage of overcrowded units during both time periods. These patterns are shown in Table 9.3 -7. Table 9.3 -7: Household Overcrowding in Rohnert Park and Sonoma County Occupants per Room 2000 Rohnert Park Sonoma County Number Percent Number Percent 2005 -2007 Rohnert Park Sonoma County Number Percent Number Percent Less than 1.0 14,721 94.7 160,648 93.2 15,010 95.8 170,730 96.3 1.01 to 1.50 496 12 5,533 3.2 594 3.8 5,132 2.9 1.51 1. to 2.0 352 2.3 3,615 .2.10 61 0.4 1,307• 0.7 2.01 or more 111 0.7 2,607 1.5 0 0.0 162 0.1 Total Households 15,553 100.0 172,403 100.0 15,665 100.0 177,331 100.0 Source: 2000 U.S. Census; 2005 -2007 ACS, which is an estimate. Vulnerability to Natural Disaster Impacts The City of Rohnert Park would be subjected to very high levels of shaking in the event of a mag- nitude 7.1 earthquake on the Healdsburg - Rodgers Creek fault. In such'an event, the Association of Bay Area Governments estimates that at least 13,669 dwelling units in Sonoma County would be uninhabitable.15 More than half of the "red- tagged" .units are anticipated to be mobilehomes, which tend to sustain greater damage from equivalent intensities of shaking than wood -frame buildings. During an earth- quake, the jacks on which a coach is typically placed will tip, causing the coach to. fall off some or all of its supports. Although the jacks may punch holes through the floor of the coach, it is usually relatively undamaged. Despite the minimal damage, however, the,mobilehome becomes uninhabit- able, as it must be returned to its foundation, leveled again, and reconnected to. utilities. . 15 "Shaken Awake!," Association of Bay Area Governments, 1996. 9 -27 Rohnert Park General Plan Although single - family, wood -framed homes are less likely to be red- tagged, significant damage can occur from falling hot water heaters, failed cripple walls, falling unreinforced masonry chim- neys, and dislocation of structures from their foundations. Two -story homes with living space over garages are particularly vulnerable to damage... Similarly, multi - family wood - framed buildings may have living areas above parking areas, sup- ported only by posts. The "soft" first story may also be constructed of concrete masonry unit bear- ing walls. These designs offer little resistance to lateral seismic forces.. In 2001 /2002, the City's building official identified 30 to 40 multi - family units in four buildings with ground floor parking that could be highly susceptible to seismic damage. A consultant was retained by the City in 2005 to collect data on the susceptibility of all residences in Rohnert Park to seismic activity with the goal of producing a seismic retrofit ordinance. The Building Division is in the process of preparing such an ordinance based on the data that was collected. During the previous Housing Element planning period, the Rohnert Park Community Development Commission (CDCRP) completed the installation of earthquake - resistant bracing systems in more than 474 mobilehomes, which represent nearly one -third of the 1,466 mobilehomes within the City. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds; which are allocated through the County, are periodically.used.to install - mobilehome bracing systems. "16 Fair Housing. According to a local representative -of the U ..S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), only two fair Housing complaints were received by HUD. from Rohnert Park residents over the past year. Actual complaints typically represent only 10 percent of all fair housing viola- tions, however. In 2007, Fair Housing of Marin (FHOM) received a disability complaint from a Rohnert Park resi- dent. FROM responded by advising and directing the complainant to fill out a U.S. Department of Housing and Economic Development (HUD) complaint form. In 2007, FROM also sent two notifi- cation letters to housing providers in the City who placed advertisements on Craigslist which were flagged for discriminating against families with children!8 16 Email correspondence with Gary Tabbert, Sonoma County Community Development Commission, Community . Development Associate, 2/17/09. 17 Chuck Hauptman, Regional Director, HUD San Francisco Branch, 12/23/08 (email correspondence). 18 Email correspondence between the Brian Goodman, City of Rohnert Park and Nancy Kenyon, Fair Housing of Marin (FHOM),11 /8/2007. FROM helped launch Fair Housing of Sonoma County; however that organization has suffered from insufficient funds. Therefore, FROM continues to monitor fair housing issues in. Sonoma County and when necessary, report issues to HUD. 9 -28 Chapter 9. Housing City Fair Housing Practices Existing fair housing practices of the City of Rohnert Park include: • Reviewing the fair housing records and practices of agencies and firms during contract ne- gotiations, and including provisions in contracts allowing City inspection of fair housing documentation. • Including fair housing practices among the items addressed by the CDCRP's auditor dur- ing annual visits to the sites of contracting agencies and firms. CDCRP staff also conducts occasional site visits and program audits of agency contractors; fair housing and discrimi- nation compliance is one purpose of such inspections. • The dissemination of fair housing information through mailings to all City households, phone requests, posters in public locations, and referrals to Sonoma County Rental Infor- mation and Mediation Services. • Monitoring the occupancy characteristics of housing projects targeted towards lower in- come households to ensure that minorities, families, and the disabled are fairly represented. An annual report of program data is made to the CDCRP. • Monitoring the racial and ethnic characteristics of loan recipients in City- supported projects and programs to promote equal representation and discourage discrimination or re- strictions in housing choice. • . Requiring contractors to file monthly or annual progress reports that include information on program beneficiaries. Fair housing and discrimination compliance are reviewed when these reports are examined. • Adopting the Uniform Housing Code standards for maximum occupancy of dwelling units, which has no limit on the number of residents in a dwelling unit, as long as minimum floor area requirements are met. • Providing equitable public services throughout the City, including public transportation, crime prevention, police protection, street lighting, street cleaning, trash collection, recrea- tional facilities and programs, and schools; and providing for the development of commer- cial centers in all neighborhoods • Publicizing openings on City boards and commissions through several newspapers. • Ensuring that an over - concentration of lower income housing does not occur in neighbor- hoods. • Encouraging the provision of a full array of banking services in convenient locations throughout the City. • Promoting the provision of housing affordable to lower income households, which affirma- tively furthers fair housing because minority families and persons with disabilities are dis- proportionately represented among those that would benefit from low -cost housing. 9 -29 Rohnert Park General Plan POTENTIAL LOSS OF ASSISTED UNITS AT -RISK OF CONVERSION Thousands of publically assisted housing units across the state of California will be eligible to change from low - income to market -rate during the next decade due to the expiration of various government subsidies and restrictions on rental rates and covenants on ownership housing. State law 1.9 requires owners of such projects to provide at least nine months notice of contract ter- mination or prepayment of federal assistance to tenants and public agencies. Owners who are pro- posing to sell or dispose of their properties must also provide first right of refusal to purchase, those properties to entities who agree to maintain the affordability of the units. Program 11,4 includes a monitoring program for at -risk units. "Assisted housing units" are defined as units with rents subsidized by federal, State or local go- vernmental programs. California Government Code Section 65583 requires that housing elements include an inventory of all assisted multi- family rental housing units within the local jurisdiction that are at -risk of losing subsidies, mortgage prepayment, or being converted, to other uses if the expiration date of their financing program is between 2009 -2019 (i.e. within the next 10 years). 19 Government Code Section 65863.10. 9 -30 Chapter 9: Housing Table 9.3 -8• Affordable Housing Developments and Restrictions 20 While affordability restrictions on the Muirfield Apartments are technically up in 2019, the owner plans to renew. Phone Conversation with Bella Hutt, Northbay Industries (Property Manager), 3/16/2009. 9 -3 I Reserved for Expiration Reserved for Households Date of Development Household Total Households below below 80% of Affordability Affordability Name Type Units 50% of the AMI the AMI Start Restrictions Altamont Senior 230 31 70 1991 2021 Apartments The Arbors Family 56 34 21 2007 2062 Copeland Creek Senior 170 17 153 2006 2061 Apartments Crossbrook Family 226 0 45 1995 2010 Apartments Edgewood Family 16.8 0 67 1996 2026 Apartments Las Casitas Mobile 63 25 38 2001 2051 Home Park Marchesiello Family 20 0 7 2006 2061 Muirfield Family 24 24 0 1997 201920 Apartments Oakview Senior Senior/ 207 4 41 2005 2035 Living Disabled Park Gardens II Family 20 l 2 2006 2035 Rancho Feliz Mobile 178 60 118 2002 2034 Home Park Redwood Creek Family 232 0 35 2005 2035 Santa Alicia Family 20 8 12 1996 2026 Gardens Tower Family 50 49 0 1993 2033 Apartments Valley Village Mobile 114 57 57 2005 2060 Home Park Vida Nueva Supportive 24 23 0 2008 2062 (COTS Housing Commons) Total 1,802 333 666 Source: "Gty of Rohnert Park Affordable Housing Complexes by Household Type," Bob Branson, Community Development Assn- date. Sonoma County Community Development Commission, November 12, 2008 and "City of Rohnert Park Affordable fordable Hous- ing," Rohnert Park Community Development Department: http: / /www.rpdtyorglcontentiview /74911851. 20 While affordability restrictions on the Muirfield Apartments are technically up in 2019, the owner plans to renew. Phone Conversation with Bella Hutt, Northbay Industries (Property Manager), 3/16/2009. 9 -3 I Rohnert Park General Plan As Table 9.3 -8 shows, of the 999 units, 316 units are dedicated to the elderly (people age 62 and over) and disabled. The remaining units are for very low- and low- income families.21 In all, out of a total of 999 assisted units in Rohnert Park there are 45 units at -risk of conversion. These are the 45 units reserved for families that earn below 80 percent of area median income at the Crossbrook Apartments development, which has affordability restrictions that may expire as early as 2010. Twenty percent of the development has been affordable because of Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds that were issued by the City to the owners in 1995. While the bonds are scheduled to mature in 2025 (with the affordability restrictions to expire at the same time), the owner has the option of retiring the bonds as early as 2010. The City has started a -dialogue with the owners of the Crossbrook development with the hope that it can persuade them to continue the affordability restrictions. On April 8, 2009, the City sent a let - ter to the owners indicating as much and stating that the City's mission is to preserve low- and moderate - income housing. The City will continue actively monitoring the situation. Cost of Preservation vs. Acquisition vs. Replacement Preservation As stated earlier in this chapter, affordable rent is considered to account for no more than 30 per - cent of a household's income. Because of the recent economic downturn, rents in the City of Roh- nert Park and,'in many other areas across the State, have become more affordable. In fact; the State of California - defined 2009 Income Limits for Sonoma County (which are parallel to' the HLD- defined income limits) now exceed the 2009 HUD Fair Market Rents for Sonoma County.. This means that, as can be seen in Table 9.3 -9, no subsidy to preserve affordability with replacement would be required for the 45 low - income family units in Crossbrook Apartments if the property owner decides to end the current affordability restrictions. In fact, the property owner of Crossbrook would .not benefit financially at this time by ending the affordability restrictions since s/he would receive the same amount of rent from a low- income te- nant under affordability restrictions as from a tenant at market rate. 21 In addition to the units listed in Table 9.3 -8, there are currently 27 households with vouchers from the Sonoma County Housing Authority residing at Country Club Village in Rohnert Park. This complex was previously affordable and dedicated to seniors, but the affordability restrictions ended in 2000. However, at the time, the owner agreed to let those currently living at Country Club Village continue to live there until they chose to move out. Email correspondence between Linda Babonis, City of Rohnert Park, and Carol Turner, Leased Housing Manger, Sonoma County Housing Authority, March 19, 2009. 9 -32 Chapter 9. Housing Table 9.3 -9: Cost of Preserving At -Risk Housing for Very Low - and Low - Income Households Crossbrook Apartments Units Very Low Low Studio 0 0 1 BR' 0 22 2 BR 0 23 3 BR 0 0 Total 0 45 Total Fair Market Monthly Rent -- $52,380 Total Max. Affordable Monthly Rent -- $57,760 Total Annual Subsidies Required -- 464,560 Average Monthly Subsidy Per Unit -- - $2,068 Average Annual Subsidy Per Unit -- - $24,816 I. Assumes I- bedroom apartments are. occupied by I person 2. Assumes 2- bedroom apartments are occupied by 3 people since low- income families often consist of a parent and two children. Source: "City of Rohnert Park Affordable Housing" Rohnert Park Community Development Department http : / /Www.rpdty.orglcontent/view 174911851; California Official State Income Limits for 2009, HUD FY 2009 Final Fair Market Rents for Existing Housing Acquisition According to Trulia.com, a real estate search website, in Rohnert Park one.- bedroom condominiums sold for a median price of $97,000 and two- bedroom condominiums sold for a median price of $138,000 from mid- October 2008 to mid -July 2009. Using these median prices, this means that acquiring 22 one - bedroom units would cost approximately $2.1 million and acquiring 23 two - bedroom units would cost approximately $3.2 million for acquisition costs totaling $5.3 million. Replacement Burbank Housing Development Corporation is an affordable housing non - profit developer in So- noma County. Recently, Burbank has found that development costs (including land acquisition, improvements; construction, and soft costs) for one - bedroom units are around $328,000 and $354,000 for two - bedroom units. Therefore, the cost of building 22 one - bedroom and 23 -two bed- room low- income units would be approximately $15.4 million in Rohnert Park.ZZ 22 Phone conversation with Craig Meltzner, Craig Meltzner, Associates, a consultant who works with Burbank Housing, 7/13/2009. 9 -33 Rohnert Park General Plan Conclusion As mentioned previously, currently no subsidy would be required to supplement the rent paid by a low- income household residing in a one- or two- bedroom apartment in Rohnert Park. This is be- cause the current fair market rent is lower than 30 percent of such a household's income. Further- more, as shown in Table 9.3 -5, actual rents in the City are still lower than the HUD- defined fair market rents. The cost of acquiring all 45 at -risk units would cost approximately $5.3 million. This cost leaves out any rehabilitation costs as well as management costs, which together would make the cost of acquiring the units substantially higher. Finally, the cost of replacing these units— building 45 new units —would be the highest at $15.4 million. For the time being, the subsidy option is the most cost effective as no subsidy would be required for the 45 households currently residing in the affordable Crossbrook units to find equally afforda- ble housing in the City. Of course, the fair market rents (and actual rents) in Rohnert Park will go up eventually, again creating the need for affordability- restricted units in the City. It is difficult to determine 'which would be most cost effective now. — providing subsidies for a 30 =year period or acquiring, rehabilitating and managing the units. While home sales are currently-at a low point making acquisition by cities and non - profits an attractive proposition, fmancing has become: more difficult.to obtain. Therefore, it is likely that providing subsidies fora 30 -year period would be'the least costly option, especially considering. that at present and perhaps'for several years to come, no subsidies would be required. Qualified Entities The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) keeps a current list of all of the qualified entities across the State. A "qualified entity" is a nonprofit or for profit organi- zation or individual that must be notified by a property owner who .does not wish to renew the af- fordability restrictions on a particular development. A qualified entity could acquire `such a ' devel- opment and agree to maintain its long -term affordability. The qualified entities that HCD. lists for Sonoma County are found in Table 9.3 -10. 9 -34 Chapter 9. Housing Table 9.3 -10; Qualified Entities, Sonoma County, 2009 Organiiation City Phone Number Affordable Housing Foundation San Francisco (415) 387 -7834 BRIDGE Housing Corporation San Francisco (415) 989 -I 111 Burbank Housing Development Corporation Santa Rosa (707) 526 -9782 Christian Church Homes of Northern California, Inc. Oakland (510) 632 -6714 Community Home Builders and Associates San Jose (408) 977 -1726 Divine Senior Apartments Occidental (707) 874 -3538 Eden Housing, Inc. Hayward (510) 582 -1460 Foundation for Affordable Housing, Inc. San Jose (408) 923 -8260 Nehemiah Progressive Housing Development Corp.. Sacramento (91.6) .231- 1999 Pacific Community Services, Inc. Pittsburg (925) 439 -1056 Petaluma Ecumenical Properties Inc. - Petaluma (707) 762 -2336 Senior Housing Foundation Clayton (925) 673 -0489 Sonoma County Community Development Commission Santa Rosa (707) 565 -7505 Source: California Department of Housing -and Community Development 2009. SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING Housing Element'law requires the consideration of the special housing "needs of certain persons and households. The Elderly The 2000 Census reported 2,735 City residents age 65 or over (about 7 percent of the total popula- tion); and 2,399 households headed by persons 65 and over. This figure is one percent higher than in neighboring Cotati. However, as compared to other nearby communities and the. county as a whole, the elderly make up a much smaller portion of Rohnert Park. Of the total elderly house- holds, 1,629 were owner - occupied units (18% of all owner- occupied households) and .770, were renter- occupied households (12% of all renter:occupied households). The 20.05 -2002 ACS reported 3,212 City residents age 65 or over (about 8 percent of the total population). There were 2,089 households headed by persons G5 and over in 2005 -2007; with 1,388 being owner - occupied .units (15.7% of all owner - occupied households) and 701 being renter - occupied. households (10.3% of all renter - occupied households). Existing Housing for the Elderly Approximately one -half of senior households in Rohnert Park live in housing specifically designed for seniors, senior multi - family complexes, or mobilehome parks. Multi - family complexes in Roh- ner Park that have been designed to meet the needs of the elderly include 205 market -rate units located in Merrill Gardens, a comprehensive retirement complex, 230 subsidized units in the Alta - mont Senior Apartments, 63 subsidized units for seniors at Country Club Village, and 207 (20% of which are affordable) units at Oak View Senior Apartments. Oakview has plans add an assisted living component in the future. Out of 172 units at Copeland Creek Apartments, only 5 units are occupied by persons who are less than 65 years of age. 9 -35 Rohnert Park General Plan Of the five mobilehome parks in the City, two were designed and are operated to meet the needs of seniors and have a total of 544 spaces. The other two .parks allow families but the majority of resi- dents are also elderly. Mobilehomes meet the needs of many seniors because they provide an:inde- pendent living environment with smaller yards and homes requiring lower levels of maintenance. There are approximately ten group care homes licensed in the City that can accommodate up `to 80 el- derly individuals; some of whom can be non- ambulatory or developmentally- disabled: Characteristics of Elderly.Households The majority of the. elderly are on fixed incomes such as. pensions, social, security,. and personal savings. Many elderly households_ pay an excessive proportion of their income for housing because their incomes are low. In 2000, 44 percent of elderly households in the City had incomes of less than $25,000 as compared with only 16 percent of Rohnert Park households as -a whole. However, only about 6' percent'bf residents over the age of 65 were living in poverty in. 2000. Of these, 78% were elderly women. These:, statistics were somewhat 'different in 2005 -2002. In -that t time - period, about 35 .percent of,elderly households in the City had incomes of less, than,.$25 QOQ as."cgmpared with about.a6,percent of Rghnert -,Park households as a whole. Slightly over 4 peercent of residents over the age of 65 were livmg in poverty in 2005 -2007, of these about 63 percent were elderly women. Elderly homeowners often cannot afford`mamtenanee and repairs l.eeause of their lower,. fixedr.in- comes. They may also not be able to afford inadifications that are needed to their homes to ensure their safety and improve their mobility, such as grab bars and �ranps: `Rohnert Bark" has several ownership housing rehabilitation assistance pfograms r(see "9,5 Housing Opportunities and Re- sources Elderly Housing Needs As citizens get older, their, housing needs change Special housing needs of the elderly include smaller and more efficient housing to miunuze maintenance and barner -free designs to accommo- date restncted functions "Many older persons own tli'eir homes and most prefer'to remain there as they grow 0 A er.23 There - fore, efforts are nestled to help the elderly maintiun independent life styles In 2000, 969 elderly A,. ; "Rohnert Park residents were identified as having a mobility "lunitation, `thi`s number increased; to 1,337, according to the 2005 2007 ACS i3o of locations near public transit are needed for senior citize s because they may -not drive. The elderly need "additional 1. auxiliary 'services such As house- cleaning, "health care, and grocery' delivery when illness and, disability limit their capacity to fend for themselves. The City is working on a universal design ordinance which'would facilitate homes being updated as occupants age and needs change. 9 -36 Chapter 9. Housing House sharing can provide older homeowners with revenue, as well as added security and compa- nionship, and provides renters with affordable housing. Second unit apartments, which are separate units within a home, offer the same advantages plus privacy. As of May 2003, second units are permitted administratively (beforehand they required a conditional use permit). As it becomes increasingly difficult for the elderly to live independently,. there is a need for con- gregate or group housing that provides small individual units without kitchens or with minimal provision for cooking, and some common facilities and services, including shared arrangements for meals and housekeeping services. Congregate care housing is particularly attractive to 'older per- sons, as building design and services can be tailored to their specific needs. Life care facilities can also provide all levels of care on the same site to meet the progressively greater needs of the elderly. These facilities often have apartments; congregate housing, an infirma- ry, and nursing home in the same or adjacent buildings. Elderly persons buy into a life care project with an initial fee, and then pay a monthly fee thereafter. The fee usually guarantees occupancy in a particular size of apartment and one meal a day. Tenants may also move into a "personal care" unit or nursing facility if health support needs change. Table 9.3-11: Select Elderly Service Organizations Organization Service(s) Provided Phone Number AARP Driver Safety Program Class information on educational driving 707- 257 -7859 programs for mature drivers Council on Aging /Meals on Wheels Provides in -home meal delivery to seniors in all 707- 525 -0143 of Sonoma County areas except coast and Petaluma Council on Aging of Sonoma County Elder Abuse Prevention Project Experience Works Family Service Agency /Senior Peer Counseling Programs Housing information and assistance A project of the Sonoma County Area Agency on Aging. Provides community education Training, placement and service program for limited income seniors (55 +) Senior peer counseling, individual and group counseling, and widow support 707 -525 -0143 707 -565 -5950 707 -565 -5620 707 - 545 -4551 . x 209 Redwood Empire Food Bank Information on emergency food resources and 707- 523 -7900 food distribution Rohnert Park Senior Center Activities,.programming, and meals (noon, M -F) 707- 585 -6787 Rohnert Park, Sunshine Bus Van rides by appointment, limited hours and days 707 -585 -6780 Source: "Senior Resource Guide." Sonoma County Area Agency on Aging July 2008. 9 -37 Rohnert Park General Plan The Disabled The 2000 Census reported that the Rohnert Park population had 12,011 disabilities tallied. This is the total number of various types of disabilities added.up; one person could have more than one disability, so the number of disabled residents in the City is smaller (6,675).24 The 2005 -2007 ACS does not collect a comparable tally of the number of people with disabilities by disability type. While this figure may seem high for a City of 43,00025 people — indicating that nearly one in six Rohnert Park residents has a disability— according to the .Census Bureau, almost one in five people nationwide has a disability. Of those with disabilities in the City, 25 percent had a disability that prevented them from holding a job. Although not all persons with work or other types of disabili- ties require special housing, those with severe mobility constraints need specially designed housing located near transportation, shopping, and services. Because many of the physically disabled are elderly, developments designed for seniors may also include some specially adapted units for the disabled. For disabled people requiring a degree of supervision, group homes are ideal. Converted single - family houses are often used for this purpose. Table 9.3 -12: Persons with Disability by Disability Type 24 According to the 2005 -2007 ACS, 5,537 Rohnert Park residents had a disability. However, it is unlikely that the disabled population in the City declined from 2000 to 2005 -2007 since the population as a whole (as well as the elderly population, in particular) increased. 25 Department of Finance 2007 9 -38 Number Percent Total disabilities tallied 12,011 100.0 Total disabilities tallied for people 5 to 64 years 9,186 76.5 Sensory disability 825 6.9 Physical disability 1,754 1+61. Mental disability 11689 14.1 Self -care disability 490 4.1 Go:- outside -home disability 1,420 11.8 Employment disability 3,008 25.0 Total _disabilities tallied for people 65.yeam and over. 2,82.5 23.5 Sensory disability 511 4.3 Physical disability 969 8.1 Mental disability 321 2.7 Self -care disability '285 2.4 Go- outside -home disability 739 6.2 Source: 2000 U.S. Census. 24 According to the 2005 -2007 ACS, 5,537 Rohnert Park residents had a disability. However, it is unlikely that the disabled population in the City declined from 2000 to 2005 -2007 since the population as a whole (as well as the elderly population, in particular) increased. 25 Department of Finance 2007 9 -38 Chapter 9. Housing The County Health Service Department, Mental Health Division, estimates that approximately 20 percent of county residents have mental disabilities. 26 A specific estimate for Rohnert Park is not available. The Mental Health Division has identified the following housing needs of mentally -ill persons: • Mentally ill adults need more supportive housing options. The Hendley Circle model [San- ta Rosa] has worked well. More of this type of housing is needed, particularly in the [coun- ty's] southern regions, including Rohnert Park and Sonoma. • A recent development within the past few years is a crisis in residential care options for el- derly persons living on Supplemental Security Income who have mental health problems. It is nearly impossible to fmd any residential care home that will accept low- income, elderly persons who have a mental health diagnosis. • Duplex studio units, units that count as one unit but offer single- occupancy living spaces, are needed for this population. Existing Housing for the Disabled Muirfield Apartments, a 24 -unit project completed in 1999, provides housing for people with deve- lopmental disabilities who are capable of living independently. The tenants will likely have jobs in the community and do their own cooking. The rents are subsidized through a project rental assis- tance contract with HUD, so the tenants only pay 30% of their income in order to live there. The project was facilitated by a $292,000 below - market interest rate loan from the CDCRP for pre- development costs and project development. Additionally, eight units in The Gardens apartment project, constructed in 1995 with the assistance of the CDCRP, are fully handicapped- accessible. Sixteen units in Vida Nueva, a supportive hous- ing development that opened in December 2008, are also specifically set aside for residents with mental health disabilities and mental health services are provided on- site ?' There are approximately 7 licensed group homes in Rohnert Park for developmentally disabled adults that can accommodate up to 42 individuals. State and Federal Requirements In response to the serious lack of accessible housing in the United States, the Fair Housing Act re- quires that all ground floor dwelling units in buildings of four or more units without elevators and all dwelling units in elevator buildings of four or more units include the following basic features of accessible and adaptive design: • Public and common areas must be accessible to persons with disabilities • Doors and hallways must be wide enough for wheelchairs 26 Phone conversation with Gary Pierce, Mental Health Division, County Health Service Department, 12/22/08. 27 Phone conversation with Gary Pierce, Mental Health Division, Sonoma County Health Service Department, 12/22/08. Vida Nueva was financed partly through Mental Health Service Act funding. 9 -39 Rohnert Park General Plan All units must have: • An accessible route into and through the unit • Accessible light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats and other environmental controls • Reinforced bathroom walls to allow later installation of grab bars and • Kitchens and bathrooms that can be used by people in wheelchairs. The Fair Housing requirements are included in California's Title 24 regulations, which are en- forced by the City through its building codes, building plan review, and site inspections. In the case of persons with a physical or mental disability (including hearing, mobility and visual impairments, chronic alcoholism, chronic mental illness, AIDS, AIDS Related Complex and men- tal retardation) that substantially .limits one or more major life activities, landlords may not: • Refuse to let tenants make reasonable modifications to their dwelling or common use areas, at their expense, if necessary for the disabled person to use the housing, or • Refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services if ne- cessary for the disabled'person`to use the'housing. Dssabkd: Housing Neeals Despite recent efforts by the Giry to assist m the construction, of disabled,accessible housing, there continues to be a significant demand, especially at the. lower income levels., as ,evidenced by _ the high proportion of disabled. persons on. the waiting list .for the Section 8 'housing assistance pro - ..:gram.... ..: .Besides: the construction of knew ,accessible housing, the needs of individuals with .hnutations can sometimes be met by simply retrofitting existing:housing,tol transform conventional units into suit- able housing. This is perhaps the least costly way.in which to provide housing specifically for indi- viduals with special limitations, There is also a need.to improve the "visitability" of housing to allow mobility- impaired residents to visit families and friends zs A visitable home provides less accessibility than an accessible home, and is meant to be those units not required to be accessible. Visitability means that: • . At least one entrance is at grade (no step) and can be' approached by an accessible route, such as a sidewalk, and, The entrance door and all interior doors on the first floor are at least 34 inches wide, offer- ing 32 inches of clear passage space. 28 Fair Housing Planning Guide, U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development 940 Chapter 9. Housing A visitable home also serves persons without disabilities, such as a person pushing a stroller,. a per- son delivering large appliances, or a person using a walker. City Staff are working on a Universal Design Ordinance that will facilitate visitable home creation. Large Families Large families are defined by the Census as family households. with five or more members. In 2000, there were 1,648 family households with five or more inhabitants, or 16 percent of all house - holds in Rohnert Park. The. 2005 -2007 ACS counted 1,279 large family households, or about 8 per - cent of all households in the City. In 2000, of the total large households, 1,083 lived in owner - occupied units, and 504 occupied rental units. This is a large increase over 1990, when there were only 488 large family households. While the 2005 -2007 ACS data indicates that the number of large families in the City has decreased, the large increase since 1990 indicates that there still maybe be a need for affordable and large rental and ownership units. Lower income, large households generally have difficulty locating appropriately -sized housing. A survey of market -rate .rental projects conducted in 1994 by Burbank Housing Development Corpo- ration found. very few offering three - bedroom units, and none offering four - bedroom units. The Sonoma County Housing Authority's waiting lists show a significant number of `.`large families" waiting for rental assistance. Whereas 76.5 percent of owner - occupied homes in 2000 contained three or more bedrooms, only 24.3 percent of renter - occupied homes were as large .29 Overall, owner - occupied units had more than one more bedroom, on average, than renter - occupied units. The Gardens. apartment project (1995) included four three - bedroom units and four four- bedroom units to help address the housing needs of large families. The Arbors and Redwood Creek Apart- ments also provide larger units. Single- Parent Households The 2000 Census documented 1,082 Rohnert Park families with minor children that were headed by a female with no husband present (20 percent of all families with minor children), contrasted with 408 families headed by a male with no wife present (7 1%). The 2005 -2007 ACS found 933 families with minor children that were headed by a female with no husband present (about 18 percent of all households with children) and 486 families with minor children that were headed by a male with no. wife present (almost 10 percent of all households with children). 29 The 2005 -2007 ACS statistics are very similar. 9 -41 Rohnert Park General Plan In 2000, the incomes of female- headed households with children were lower than .those of other types of families, with a median income of $32,596 compared to a median income of $60,843 for all families with children. These families represented 45 percent of all families living below pover- ty level in 1999. In 2005 -2007, the median income of female - headed households with children was $40,349 compared to a median income of $67,097 for all families with children. These families represented nearly. 52 percent of all families living below the poverty level in 2007. This is a marked increase over 2000 data. The incomes of 141 female - headed households with children were below the poverty level in 2000. In 2005 -2007, this number was 242. This made up 11.3 percent of all female- headed households in 2000 (14.9% in 2005- 2007). Conversely, only 1.7 percent of married- couple households with children were below the poverty level in 2000 (4.0% in 2005- 2007). Table 9.3 -13: Poverty Status, Married v. Single- Female Households 2000 2005 -2007 Below Poverty Above Poverty Below Poverty Above Poverty Ceuel Level Level Level Married - couple 71 4,1:22 _ 149 3,618 families witfi children 1.7% 983% 4:0% 96.0% Female- headed 141 1' I"to 241 '845 households with 30 U.S. Census 2000 (SF3); this data was not available via the 2005 -2007 ACS. 9 -42 Chapter 9. Housing Existing Housing for Single Parent Households Over the last few years, the CDCRP has purchased five four - bedroom/two -bath homes in Rohnert Park (and has assisted in development of the Vida Nueva development, which opened in December 2008) that are suitable for single - parent families. These homes are operated by Committee on the Shelterless (COTS). Three to five families share each house. The rent proceeds are used to main- tain the homes and landscaping, and pay for utilities. Residents from COTS' family shelter in Peta- luma can apply to live in one of the homes after completing a 2 -3 month program and staying so- ber. COTS also accepts applicants who are referred by other agencies in the county. All residents are provided with living skills training and counseling. `Residents normally live in the homes for one and a half years, although the maximum is two years. The City supported The Gardens, a 1995 project that targets lower income families and, partly be- cause of a request by the City, specifically accommodates single- parent households through a number of architectural features. The City also supported the Arbors, which provides larger units that can accommodate this type of arrangement. The three-bedroom units are designed to facilitate shared rentals so that a single parent could arrange for live -in assistance with childcare from a rela- tive, friend; student, or senior. The floor plans provide a separate downstairs bedroom for some separation from the upstairs bedroom suites. Even in the two- bedroom townhomes, there are ge- nerous separate living spaces to .allow a single parent to create some "adult space." Additionally, the units incorporate a movable kitchen work island so that a parent can attend to childcare needs more readily while cooking. 31 Farmworkers The 2.000 Census reported that 53 City residents were employed in farming, forestry, and fishing; however it is not known how many of these, if any, were farmworkers. This is almost four times fewer residents that reported these professions on the 1990 Census. Data from the 2005 -2007 ACS was not available. ABAG's Projections 2007 show no jobs related to agriculture and natural resources in the Rohnert Park Sphere of Influence (SOI) through 2035. This could reflect the fact that agricultural operations in the immediate vicinity of the City are generally limited to family -owned and operated farms cen- tered on cattle grazing and hay growing that do not customarily require hired and temporary farm labor. The SOI is much larger than the City limits. Projections 2007 does not include an estimate for agricultural jobs within the City itself, but given the complete absence of land in agricultural pro- duction within the City limits, it can be assumed that there are no farmworker jobs and there will be none during the planning period. The Zoning Ordinance was updated in 2003 to add farmworker housing as a permitted use in the R- R, R -E and R -H districts and as a permitted use if incidental to a larger project or otherwise condi- tionally- permitted in the OS -ARM district. 31 1994 Low- Income Housing Tax Credit Application for The Gardens, Burbank Housing Development Corp. 9 -43 Rohnert Park General Plan While no agricultural jobs exist in Rohnert Park, as an agricultural county, Sonoma County as a whole has a great need for farmworker housing. The County is a significant producer of wine grapes, which is an over $430 million annual industry in the County. Fannworkers are often moti- vated to seek out the lowest cost housing so that they can send as a large percentage of their earn- ings home to their families. The County produced 427 agricultural employee units and beds from 2000 through September 2007 in the unincorporated County and. now has a total of 883 beds. Giv- en that there are an estimated 1,500, migrant farmworkers countywide, a shortage of farmworker housing exists, resulting in overcrowded homes, apartments, and motel rooms. In addition, many migrant farmworkers are homeless.32 Furthermore, a growing number of migrant farmworkers do not leave California during the non -farm season, but instead stay in the area and perform non -farm work such as construction and odd jobs. Since the agricultural community does not take responsi- bility for housing farmworkers during the off - season, the farmworkers that remain in the county year -round place an additional strain on County housing resources. During the County's Housing Element Update process, the County Planning Commission "concurred with staff that policies and programs should. be included in the Housing Element to consider 1) a per- planted -acre assessment to help fund farmworker housing programs, similar to a successful program in Napa County; and 2) changes to the bunkhouse program to allow more persons per facility and a longer season of occu- 33 p-ancy ve The. Homeless A person oufamily is considered homeless if:they lack .a fixed and regular night time.residence :or has a primary night -time residence that is x supervised publicly - operated :shelter designated; for providing temporary living accommodations, or is residing in a public or private place not desig- nated for, or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings34 twd The Sonoma' County Task Force on the Homeless reports that a majority of the homeless are coon- tyresidents, rather than transients. Characteristics of the Homeless Reasons for homelessness in Sonbma,County include 3s • , :The lack of permanent affordabte. housing • The high cost of housing • The large gap between housing costs and low wages • A rentaL:vacancy rate at or below 1% • Personal emergencies • Cutbacks in federal housing assistance 32 2009 Sonoma County Housing Element Draft, Section 4. 33 Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Memorandum, 1/13/2009. 34 Federal definition of a homeless person per the. McKinney Act (1987) 3s Sonoma Co. Consolidated Plan 2000, Draft 11, Sonoma Co. Community Development Comm., May 2000 9-44 Chapter 9: Housing • Chronic substance abuse • Insufficient support systems •. Spousal/partner abuse or abandonment • Physical or mental illness • A lack of life skills • Loss of employment Populations at risk of becoming homeless also include those living in subsidized housing units if their subsidies are discontinued, and those who have fixed or low incomes facing rent. increases. It is very difficult to reliably estimate the numbers of homeless. However, the Sonoma County Continuum of Care performs a homeless census every year that resulted in a Rohnert.Park home- less count of 97, or almost 3 percent of the county total in 2009.36 Rohnert Park's total population makes up approximately 9 percent of the county total, so the City actually has proportionally fewer homeless persons than its population would indicate. Out of the 97 homeless persons counted in the City, 23 were in families and 74 were individuals. Seventy-three (73) of the 97 were un'sheltered.37 Housing experts have determined that, on average, about one. percent of a .community's population may be homeless at some time during the year. Based -on a population of about 40,000, approx imately 400 people in Rohnert: Park may become homeless. during a year.. These individuals and families may fmd temporary housing. with friends and relatives, stay in a garage, camp out in their automobile; or stay in a shelter. The Sonoma County Consolidated. Plan 2005 estimates. the County's homeless population.: to be 1,761, which is almost evenly divided between individuals and families. This division significantly differed from the. statewide homeless population, whose composition is closer to two- thirds indi- viduals and one =third families. The 2009 Sonoma Couiity Homeless Census and Survey, organized and published by the Sonoma County Continuum of Care, counted 3;247 homeless people in the County through a thorough street -by- street canvassing methodology: The methodology change ac- counts for this significant increase; in the past; volunteers were sent out to interview the homeless only: at certain target sites. 38 36 "2009 Sonoma County Homeless Census and Survey." Sonoma County Continuum of Care; May 2009, 37 Ibid. 3s Ibid. 9-45 Rohnert Park General Plan The number of homeless children today is higher than at any other time since the Great Depression. In November 2005, California committed to a statewide planning process to develop a Ten Year Plan for Ending Family Homelessness. This collaboratively - developed plan "establishes preventing and ending family homelessness as a priority for the State, lays out a strong vision for accomplish- ing this effort, and identifies key strategies and actions for the State to take that are consistent with its role and responsibilities."" A 1999 report40 found that families account for 38 percent of U.S. homeless, and children are the fastest - growing segment of the homeless population. Consequently, the nationwide demand for emergency shelter by families with children has increased 50 percent since 1995 and 15 percent in 1999 alone. It is estimated that the statewide housing need for homeless persons is divided among the following types of housing:41 • Emergency shelter need 27.4 %. e Transitional housing need 35.0 %0 • ..Permanent housing. need 37.7% Cary Assistance for the Homeless. Although the City has contributed financially to the Armory Shelter Program in Santa Rosa, its, of forts have focused,pnmarlly n ;preventW- ` homelessness: and',providing, transitional housmg It provides substan4ia` support` to £orgaiuzations such as Sonoma.: County Adplt acid outli Deveiop- menu services; parent education; alcohot/drug diversion, family advocacy,, Attiio connnu tyk:o�tt reach, and emergency rental assistance-Specifically, the City contribute$ -. SCA 'D'S homeless Prevention and Rental Assistance Program which offers one =time financial assistance with rent or depcisittfl eligible fhes�who ar`e' in danger o�becomng homeless in Rohnert Park and L?otatt As preciously �nentirned, tlirough�an agi�e'ement v�ithComnittee on the S'leiterless 1`CO'3'S�; rthe Crty has supported the purchaserfve dour bedroomftwo `bath'.home's w Rohnert <Park. to > >- provdde transitional housing for families. who wore at risk of.becoming homeless : Up. }to dour farnil'es share each =house The,Citq's Work,with COTS is o gomg. The CCivry partieipated.in the develnpmeW f <:the.Vida Nueva.housing project which provides.housirig for persons. andfamihes that vaere'recently homeless. Vida Nueva opened its doors in December 2008, and provides 24 -units of permanent supportive housing. 39 "DRAFT California Action Plan to Address Homelessness among Families with Children." Review Copy, November 7, 2006. 40 Homeless in America: A Children's Story, Institute for Children and Poverty and Homes for the Homeless. 41 The State of California's Housing Markets, 1990 —1997, Statewide Housing Plan Update.Phase II, Institute for Urban and Regional Development University of California Berkeley, 1999. 9-46 Chapter 9. Housing Permanent supportive housing is affordable housing with support services on -site that are designed to help the persistently homeless achieve long -term stability. It is unlike many low- income housing projects in that it is not transitional, and the support services are voluntary and not required to live at Vida Nueva. Emergency Shelters Although there is no emergency shelter in Rohnert Park, emergency shelter is available nearby in Santa Rosa and Petaluma. In Santa Rosa, Catholic Charities operates the Family Support Center which provides emergency, overnight shelter for families with children and the Homeless Services Center, a day service center for homeless individuals. The Center, with 138 available, serves 75 to 100 persons during the spring and summer, and 100 to 150 individuals during the winter months. Other homeless facilities in the vicinity include a homeless shelter at the National Guard. Armory in Santa Rosa that is operated during the winter months by Catholic Charities. The Armory shelter has a. typical population of 120 men and women, and a capacity of approximately 170. It is open about 12 hours per day, opening each evening around, 7 pm. Users of the shelter are allowed a shower, dinner, and breakfast. In 2004, Committee on the Shelterless (COTS) completed construction of the Mary Isaak Center, which offers 100 emergency shelter beds and 30 transitional housing beds for adults. COTS also . runs the Center for Homeless Children and their Families, which provides 35 beds for adults and children. The Redwood Gospel Mission in Santa Rosa houses from 70 to 80 men each night. The Redwood Gospel Mission also operates "The Rose," a women's shelter which houses about 12 women each night. The Manna Home, also run by Redwood Gospel Mission, pro - vides emergency shelter for women and children. The women's emergency shelter (operated by the YWCA) provides emergency shelter for women and children fleeing domestic violence. See Ap- pendix B for a full listing of emergency shelter services in Sonoma County. According to the 2007 Homeless .Count, the emergency shelters assist about 30 percent of homeless persons in Sonoma County during the year. 42 Statewide, there is sufficient inventory of available facilities to meet the needs of only about one in six homeless individuals, and only one in five homeless families. as Many local churches and charities provide funds for emergency shelter at local motels when fami- lies are displaced from their homes by fires or other circumstances. 42 "Homelessness in Sonoma County 2007: The Sonoma County Point in Time Homeless Count " Sonoma County Continuum of Care, May 24, 2007. 43 The State of California's Housing Markets, 1990 —1997, Statewide Housing Plan Update Phase II, Institute for Urban and Regional Development University of California Berkeley, 1999. 9 -47 Rohnert Park General Plan In addition, Neighbors Organized Against Hunger (NOAH) distributes food to those in need every Wednesday afternoon from 4:00- 6:OOPM at the Old Fire Station on Southwest Boulevard. 44 Several churches and other organizations in Rohnert Park share the responsibility of operating the food dis- tribution. During the first three weeks of January 2009, an average of approximately 815 people were assisted each week, almost 40 percent of whom were under 18 as While no emergency shelter exists in the City currently, the City: 1) Updated its Zoning Ordinance in 2003 to allow churches to serve as emergency shelters by -right for six or fewer people and with a Conditional Use Permit for seven or more people; and 2) Includes Programs 16.1 and 16.2 in Section 9.7, which call for a revision to the Zoning Or- dinance to comply with SB 2. There are currently 23 churches in Rohnert Park. Because of the 2003 zoning update, each one of these churches could provide emergency shelter to up to six people per night. This means that the churches alone can shelter 138 people at any given time. This identified capacity, combined with the potential sites identified in Section 9.7 under Program 16.1 more than cover the Rohnert Park emergency' shelter need of 73 beds.' Unwersity Students Sonoma Stale. University (SSU). is located adjacent to the Rohnert Park city limits and receives sewer. service from the City. The ,university creates a need fqr student housing m the corrimunty: n77Yf 1'10 the :1nnQ_7nnQ erhnnl VPAY ilia ?,". b Olt+ . to ,.;A .f1,—.4 Q inn A_'Iv «4.. TA,. -' for the university anticipates an eventu 'te-n- rolhnent of,10,000. students. 7. The un yersity's. goal is ta;provide campus housing for at least the first.two years (freshman. and sophomore) of.a student's ten ..,and have some additional space for, upperclassmen Currently, campus housing provides -space for 2,376students This number will_ increase to a little over 3,100 for the fall of 2009. For` the next five years, there are no other plans to build on= campus student housing.46. The SSU Associated Students also operates a transitional housing program that provides housing assis- tance for up to two weeks, depending on available funds 47 44 Food is available for residents of Rohnert Park, Cotati, and Penngrove and residency must be proven with a utility bill or driver's license. Conversation with Reverend Newt Kerney of Cross and Crown Church on 2/10/2009. Reverend Kerney serves as the contact for NOAH and can be reached at (707)795 -7853. 45 "NOAH Weekly Report, Week of January 21, 2009" Email communication from Joanne Holcomb. 46 Email with Nicole Hendry, Associate Director of Housing Services, Sonoma State University, 12/18/08. 47 Email correspondence with Nicole Hendry, Associate Director of Housing Services, Sonoma State University, 12/18/08 and 12/19/08. 9-48 Chapter 9. Housing Student Housing Needs New student housing should be located near the university and appropriate commercial centers to ensure access without the need for automobiles. In general, students should have housing they can rent for the school year. Rents for student housing should be as low as possible to meet limited student budgets. Students with limited financial resources may find it difficult to meet move -in requirements for rent and se- curity deposits. Landlords and apartment managers are generally not willing to accept parents as co- signers or to consider financial aid income (such as loans, grants, and scholarships) when de- termining whether a student meets the income requirement of three times the rent level .48 Allegro Student Apartments (formerly Jung Haus) on Beverly Drive rents its 35 four - bedroom apartments exclusively to Sonoma State University and Junior College students. Several students have claimed at City Council meetings that they have faced discriminatory rental practices in Rohnert Park. 48 Tim Tiemens, Sonoma State University, December 1999. 9 -49 Rohnert Park General Plan This page intentionally left blank. 9 -50 Chapter 9: Housing 9.4 PROJECTED HOUSING NEEDS CURRENT HOUSING NEEDS It is often difficult for lower income households to find affordable housing. Housing is considered affordable when a household spends 30 percent or less of its income on housing- related costs. Ex- tremely low- income households are especially likely to overpay for housing - almost 80 percent spend more than 50 percent of their incomes on housing- related costs. Program 8.5 in Section 9.7 addresses the needs of extremely -low income households. Table 9.4 -1, quantifies the housing need of extremely low -, very low -, and low - income households in Rohnert Park. Table 9.4 -1• Housing Need by Income Level, 2000 Source: State of Cities Data Systems: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data, 2000. Extremely low - and very low - income households are disproportionately likely to have housing - related problems49 (83 and 79 %, respectively) and spend 30 percent or more of their incomes on housing (81 and 78 %, respectively).. In fact, 71 percent of extremely low - income households spend 50 percent or more of their incomes on housing. About 58 percent of low- income households in the City also do not live in housing considered affordable. Across the board, larger percentages of ren- ters spend 30 percent or more of their incomes on housing. This may be because more households bought their homes when they were more affordable or because the rental market is comparatively tighter. 49 The Department of Housing and Urban Development defines "any housing problems" as cost burden greater than 30% of income and/or overcrowding and/or without complete kitchen or plumbing facilities. http:// socds .huduser.org/CHAS /CHAS_java.htm 9 -51 Total Renters Total Owners Total Households Extremely Low ( <30% of AMI) 1,127 543 1,670 % with any housing problems 84.1 79.9 82.8 % Cost Burden >30% 84.1 75.5 81.3 % Cost Burden >50% 79.3 54.3 71.2 Very Low (30 -5076 of AMI) 888 550 1,438 % with any housing problems 85.9 68.4 79.2 % Cost Burden >30% 85.0 65.8 77.7 % Cost Burden >50% 38.3 35.1 37.1 Low (50 -809/6 of AMI) 1,524 1,380 2,904 % with any housing problems 63.6 63.8 63.7 % Cost Burden >30% 56.6 60.1 58.3 % Cost Burden >50% 4.6 23.2 13.4 Source: State of Cities Data Systems: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data, 2000. Extremely low - and very low - income households are disproportionately likely to have housing - related problems49 (83 and 79 %, respectively) and spend 30 percent or more of their incomes on housing (81 and 78 %, respectively).. In fact, 71 percent of extremely low - income households spend 50 percent or more of their incomes on housing. About 58 percent of low- income households in the City also do not live in housing considered affordable. Across the board, larger percentages of ren- ters spend 30 percent or more of their incomes on housing. This may be because more households bought their homes when they were more affordable or because the rental market is comparatively tighter. 49 The Department of Housing and Urban Development defines "any housing problems" as cost burden greater than 30% of income and/or overcrowding and/or without complete kitchen or plumbing facilities. http:// socds .huduser.org/CHAS /CHAS_java.htm 9 -51 Rohnert Park General Plan REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA)— FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS Periodically, the State of California provides funds for HCD to determine the housing needs for each region. The housing needs process focuses attention on one of the most significant problems facing the state, region, and community, and calls upon each local community to address its fair share of responsibility. HCD determines the supply and affordability of housing that would, if met, make housing more accessible to existing and future residents. This determination is based on ex- isting housing need, including the level of overcrowding, the potential loss of housing due to demo- lition, and projected regional growth rates (projected population, jobs, and households). HCD has recently determined the Bay Area's 2007 -2014 housing construction need to be 214,500 units. This number is a goal that is not meant.to match, and often exceeds, anticipated and actual growth in housing. . In turn, ABAG is responsible for allocating the regional housing need goal among the cities and counties in the Bay Area. The numbers adopted by ABAG are required to be included in each lo- cality's general plan, along with a strategy aimed at meeting their housing need. ABAG has assigned 6.3 percent of the 2007 -2014 regional housing construction need, or 13,650 units, to Sonoma County . Of the county's total, 1,554 units have been allocated: to the_Ci y. of Roh- nert.Park to be developed within the..city limits. This housing goal is further divided among four income categories:. that are defined in Table 9.4 -2. Table 9A -2; Rohnert Park Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA): 2007 102014. Income Category RFINA ' :' Perce'nt. Very Low (<56% of`AMI, <$38,500) :37.1 23.9 Low (50 -80% of AMI,.$38,50;1- $61,5Q ©)' 231 r' 14.9 Moderate (81- 120% of AMI'-$61,5U0`:$93,400) 273 17.6 Above Moderate (> I20% of AMI >$93,400) .679 43.7 Total;: 1,554. 11 00 Sources: WO Fjna1 Regional Housing Needs. Allocation. _5/IS/ 2008," and `:`Of aal State ►ncome.Umits for 2008." HCD, 212812008:" Of the 371 very low- income units in the RHNA, HCD guidance states that it is fair to assume that half or about 186 are for extremely low - income households (those earning less than 30% of AMI, or under $23,100). This equals approximately 12 percent of the total RHNA. Furthermore, the 2007 ABAG projections predict that the City will have 16,970 households in 2015 (see Table 9.24). If these same proportions hold in 2015, the citywide housing demand will be about 2,036 extremely low -, 2,036 very low -, 2,529 low -, 2,987 moderate -, and 7,416 above moderate - income units. 9 -52 Chapter 9: Housing HOUSING PRODUCTION UNDER THE PREVIOUS RHNA The previous Housing Element addressed the RHNA that covered the years 1999 to 2006. As Table 9.4 -3 shows, total housing production in Rohnert Park met about 60 percent of the RHNA during the previous planning period. However, because of the City's effort, over 130 percent of the low- income housing goal was met. This means that although only about 50 percent of the very low - income goal was met, over all, the City met almost 84 percent of its RHNA for lower income hous- ing units. Additionally, almost 70 percent of the moderate - income housing goal was met. Table 9.4 -3: RHNA Met by Rohnert Park: 1999 -2006 RHNA for 1999 -2006 RHNA Met by the City % Met by City Very Low 401 207 52 Low 270 355 131 Moderate 597 406 68 Above Moderate 856 315 37 Total 2,124 1,283 60 Source: City of Rohnert Park, 2008. Furthermore, because of .the declining housing market, during the previous planning period the University District Specific Plan and the Creekwood development were approved but not con - structed. In total., these developments contain sites for 1,676 housing units, 300 of which will be affordable to very low- and low - income households (Table 9.4 -4). Since these units were not con- structed and the sites are still available, they can be counted towards the 2007 -2014 RHNA. Table 9.4 -4: Housing Units Approved but not Constructed, 1999 -2006 Very Low /Low Income ModeratelAbove Moderate Income Total University District 286 1,294 1,580' Creekwood 14 82 96 Total 300 1,376 1,676 1. This number varies from the University District housing unit total in Table 9.7 -1 and in the Rohnert Park Housing Sites map in Appendix A which both state a total of 1,771 units. This is because a development agreement has only been approved with Brookfield Homes, the developer with the greatest number of parcels in the speck plan, although the City expects to approve development agreements for the remaining parcels imminently. Source: City of Rohnert Park, 2008. 9 -53 Rohnert Park General Plan This page intentionally left blank. 9 -54 Chapter 9: Housing 9.5 HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND RESOURCES During the planning period for this Housing Element (1/1/07 - 6/30/14), new housing will be pro- vided through the construction of units .within the current. city limits as well as in growth areas to the east and west. Other opportunities for housing include the development of second units on ex- isting single - family lots. Please see Appendix C for a map of the City's.housing sites for this planning period. POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Development within the Current City'Lirnits Given the fact that Rohnert Park is a young city, much of the residential development within its borders is fairly new.(See "Housing Conditions and Rehabilitation Need," section 9.3). Therefore, as the City approaches buildout within its current boundaries, there are limited opportunities for residential construction. As shown in the following .table, 24 units have been constructed since the beginning of the current planning period, and there are opportunities for approximately 2,527 more units within the current city limits. 9 -55 Rohnert Park General Plan Table 9.5 -1: Residential Development— Current City'Limits 00ornJuly 1. 2006 onward) 9 -56 Realistic Infrastructure „ p Approved/ Development Zonin g Designation F. General Plan Dsignatio Unit Capa city Capacity (YIN) . Constructed/ Potential? � : City Hall ;l N}06IOS2 R -H 4 >` Public /•. -.q 55 r O1� CiHaH� Y A Institutional` ' sz r . R_H i* 4 b F F r i OGi Hall Y w. zN; 143 0 022T R -H �i 1-1 I1: Y a j� City Center y t050�65 M -U 4 w4 Mixed Use fl' S 100 CS `` eOffice Y K - P x143 05 0 6 M -U /rant; Y y+' ft 2y^'. 5 N, 1" b143L`05'1076 ' �� frr� M -U '� arkngiLot Y .r NSF Creekwood Y �1� 3OtOb' �� M -U� �q' � '� ��, Mixed Use r � 3�P 96 "� *' Mi i��r'age o �� Y ' n t � � -iL ti y aa✓ -. .� ��,. .7g } 4� 2 ?"i L�� kv. ,Iy,e�' `"^i .�a'r �hy1 ,n.•' � �,� ata%tb;'� �� Southwest Shopping ` � <x � 143 150,05$x, M -U �4 Mixed Use ,. a3 2�� 143 4,� l- f �tetztij f YCZJ Y P 143 X150 009 S k 3 Sz' Y ak Si: M -U 4 x �^+s�,, 8 Center h hf ✓c 44 =fir t`43Y�150 UJ 0 M -t1 N,�4� * ' i y Y xJ . s� `' M -U Y4'YPu ty.4P J y N rt�C J� y( k+�1'. .`— 'Te`jt"� 3 'k4✓!M1 . S° : 143 150 012'x: M -U X� xt" �4 i bra:�� r� car; Y x143 I50 023. M -U� z� a009' Y X143 f 50 024 M -U "'��'4 f i aF Y �':..: 10AN X09.. ahT,t �� W�cat Stadium '{1t43'0�40j116' i��r h,. PDD Retail/ �I 338 Y J. A Area 3� k° �. Institutional rah; and � t 1z43Q40 ;� 173: PDD _ Residential It ,4e coned Y N High Density and. r Park`11 ..��e$.+>: 9 -56 Chapter 9: Housing Table 9.5 -1: Residential Development - Current City Limits (from July I, 2006 onward) The parcels below the dotted line are the Brookfield Homes parcels that have already been approved for 1,580 units. The remaining 191 units (above the dotted line) are included in the Specific Plan but not yet approved. Source: City of Rohnert Park Community Development Department, 2009. 9 -57 Allowable:: Realistic infrastructure OnS►te Approved/ Zoning General Plan Unit Capacity Constriamts ; Constructed! Development AFN /Address Designation (unitslacre) Designation Acres Capacity ExisbngFUse "` (Y /N)Y /N).; Potential? University 04S 2:53 007,; SP n /a: Rural �� 3 06` 1,580 ; undeveloped, N N A District Estate, Low > 045 253 009 SP n/a x und:e, veloped N N' Density, n . 0454253 010: SP = z ± n/a undeveloped N Medium k + {klr 734' 045 253 01 1,.; SP z `' n/a > Density, rl` 73 s; e undeveloped .` N {� High x t 045 253 012 ; SP n/a .; 1 7`} "= undeveloped N N Density 045 253 018: SP s , � �., k N N' r Residential, and Mixed k 045 2b2`001 SP ` T 20 < un'levslo fed N N 1` f " Use s ,6`204 :: ,' s undeveloped: N N' 5 ` 045 22 `OQ2 SP : ` n /a- 045'262'003 SP, ` n/a I S` ; undev�icpe`d N ,f I k 0 045 262 004. SP ' `n /a ��inde 4el e �' QP., d N +' , t' : x..�.. YN. 46 25ti 045 13 l 019 SP n/a 7''uri` R ed N N '' ;,.fi.. <feyelo 047 131 024 SPA n /a. 29 05`=: � undeveloped � N ; �E ,. a,r, .: ..: a 4x ,. ^mar ✓.. .. +..' ,. h4 047 13 f 025 SP undeveloped N N °r 047�t,I SP n /ar 276 ' �`�urrdeveloped N „026 047 13I 027 SP undeveloped N N:# Vida Nueva '-. 143 391 052 R -H 24 Regional S1''' 24 Vida`Nueva<: Y °” Commercial N {r4 t- f G C 14 39 i 093 R -H , a 24 Residential) 83 Vida Nueva `- Y y High_ r� Densi�wo ty Z x Total 2,336 = The parcels below the dotted line are the Brookfield Homes parcels that have already been approved for 1,580 units. The remaining 191 units (above the dotted line) are included in the Specific Plan but not yet approved. Source: City of Rohnert Park Community Development Department, 2009. 9 -57 Rohnen Park General Plan Privately -Owned Vacant Land The potential for residential development on privately -owned vacant land within the current City limits is extremely limited. During the General Plan Update process, other vacant and uncommitted sites were evaluated as to their suitability for residential development. It was concluded that most of the sites should retain their commercial or industrial designations due to a future need to provide community services, or because the sites were unsuitable for residential use because of high noise levels, inadequate access, incompatible uses in the vicinity, and/or lack of adequate services. Nevertheless, residential development could be approved for these sites through a conditional use permit. However, the land use designation was changed to "Mixed Use" for two sites that were previously designated "Commercial" in order to encourage residential development. The Mixed Use designa- tion will allow residential development as a permitted use on the following sites: • An 8.36 -acre vacant site on the west side of Commerce Boulevard, north of Hinebaugh Channel (approximately 6025 Commerce Blvd.). This is the Creekwood development, which is approved but not yet constructed, mentioned in Table 9.5 -1. Although the rear of the parcel is unsuitable for residential development due to its proximity to ; the freeway, the site will accommodate multi- family units on'the front portion. Access and other infrastruc- ture necessaiy to.support.resident al use on the site are:alreaid m place • The seven acre Southwest Boulevard Sl oppmg_Centpr, included iii'Table 9 5 i. above, is another location for :housing sites.; to fulfill the current RHNA Also, . ee further discussion under; "Potential Redevelopment," on page 9.5 -5. In total, .these'sites could.potentially accommodate. almost 240 units of housing, 15 percent.. or 36 units of which would ':be affordable. Second Untts As described in the previous section, a second unit is an additional residential umt on the: sane lot as a primary single-f, one or more persons Second units could potentially be developed`on many existing lots;�part c ilariy in the City's older neighborhoods thatare larger in area. Secondunits are usually considered housing affordable to lower income households because there are no land costs associated, with their devel- opment and they frequently rent for less than comparably - sized' apartments. They may also occupy unused space in large homes, and by supplementing the income. of the homeowner, allow the elder- ly to remain in their homes or make it possible for lower income families to afford homes. The Zoning Ordinance was revised in May of 2003 to allow ministerial approval of second units as required by State law. 9 -58 Chapter 9. Housing Potential Redevelopment The number of sites within the city limits that could be redeveloped with residential uses is very limited. Single - family areas are fully developed and occupied, and units have been generally main- tained in good condition. Multi - family housing complexes likewise are almost completely occupied and have been maintained in standard condition. Industrial parcels are also largely utilized and have been maintained. However, a few redevelopment opportunities exist: City -Owned Land Vacant City-owned property within the current city limits that would be suitable for residential de- velopment is very limited. The development potential of each is described below. Revenue bonds to construct a new City Hall were sold, and the recent construction of the City Hall at 130 Avram Avenue could be a catalyst for mixed -use development nearby. The former City Hall site, combined with other parcels owned by the City, is planned to be redeveloped with at least 55 units of housing affordable to very low- and low - income households. The City is in talks with developers at present. The sites are designated as R -H by the General Plan Diagram, which will allow high density residential development as a permitted use. Access and other infrastructure necessary to support residential uses on the sites are already in place. • The City owns 14 undeveloped acres on the west side of the community that adjoin a for- mer baseball stadium site and wastewater, holding ponds (the Stadium Area). The City is in the process of selling these to a private developer for redevelopment.with commercial and residential uses. • A 10 -acre, City-owned site located at the northeast comer of Rohnert Park Expressway and Snyder Lane was given to the City with the stipulation that. it be used for medical uses. The first phase of the project has been developed as the Oakview senior housing project and the second phase of the project (assisted living units) is forthcoming. • There are three parcels in the City Center area that are zoned for mixed -use development and could accommodate 100 units of housing, 15 of which would be affordable, due to the City's inclusionary housing ordinance. These parcels total over three acres. Non -City Owned Land Portions of the seven -acre Southwest Boulevard Shopping Center are aging and it has lost viability as a neighborhood commercial center. While specialty stores. occupy some of the commercial space, other commercial space has remained vacant for several years. Owner- ship of the center is split among several owners and the site is divided among multiple par- cels. The portion that is ripe for redevelopment is made up of seven parcels. Multi- family development of up to 143 units has been discussed for just the largest of the seven parcels. (this parcel is 3.24 acres), Twenty-two of these units would be affordable. Existing access and other infrastructure appears adequate to accommodate residential development on the site. 9 -59 Rohnert Park General Plan University District Specific Plan Area The University District Specific Plan has already been adopted, but is not yet constructed. Potential residential development within the University District, as shown in the specific plan for the project includes: • A 25-40 acre mixed -use center has been approved for 150 units. • Approximately 35 to 45 acres of High Density Residential development is shown imme- diately adjacent to the district's commercial core or along the linear park. This High Densi- ty Residential development need not be in a continuous uniform width band around the commercial core; however, all High Density Residential development in the area shall be adjacent to the core. Land with a High Density Residential designation has been approved for 612 units. • Medium Density Residential development (60 to 70 acres) around the commercial core/High Density Residential uses. Land with a Medium Density Residential designation has been approved. for 537 units. • Low Density Residential. development (55 to 65 acres) east of the medium density area. Land with a Low: Density Residential designation has been approved for 320 units. • Rural Estate Residential`developmentof 30 to 35 acres on the eastem edge of the Specific Plan area_ , rea_ Land with a'Rural .Estate'designation has been - approved for 26 units. • 126 second units have also been approved for the District Of th& total 1,771 units tliat are permitted m the University Distdcuunder the Specific ;Plan; 1,580 are approved as per -a development agree' neat with Brookf eid -Homes, a :developer and majority landowner in the area These 1;580 units ^include' S5 very iow- and 105 low = income units as well as 1. 26 second units, half of which . are assumed to be. very low- and half to be low income units. Therefore, the Brookfield Domes';- .properties contain a;.total,of 11$, very;,low and.,l68 low-income units, ;for a total of 286_affordable ,amts , U shguld also. be iA oted.that ;the Brookfield Homes devel- opment agreement contains: 58 moderate - income. units as well.-, Furtherinore because of the City's 15 percent nclusionary ordinance li.e xemaining 191 units permitted in the; Specific .Plan will yield a minimum of 29 additional: very low- and low- income . units for a minimum grand total of 315 af- fordable units in the University District. Sonoma Mountain Village Sonoma Mountain Village (SMV) is located at the southwest comer of Bodway Parkway and Ca- mino Colegio. The developer is seeking to make SMV a sustainably designed community based on the "One.- Planet Living" ecological footprint principle. _ The development area is the former site of the Agilent Campus, and contains several existing buildings. In total, the final development plan comes to approximately 175 acres. The land currently carries an Industrial General Plan land use designation. The developer is seeking to rezone the land as a planned development (PD), with de- velopment being a combination of residential, retail, and office/business, and commercial uses. In total, 1,892 housing units are .proposed for the development, about 450 of which would be afforda- ble units. SMV is currently not shown on the City's General Plan Land Use Diagram and is still awaiting entitlements, so it is not listed in Table 9.5 -1. 9 -60 Chapter 9. Housing Development Outside of the Current City Limits (but within the Sphere of Influence) Over half of the City's regional share of housing for the planning period is.to be provided within the current city limits. However, significant residential growth is planned to occur in areas outside of the current City limits, but within the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI). This is an important point, since only annexation approval is needed from LAFCO, not a SOI amendment; the City had specifically initiated SOI amendments at the time of the adoption of the current General Plan in 1999 (with the updated SOI approved by LAFCO in 2002). There are several specific plans that the City and developers are actively engaged in, that are planned to be annexed and adopted by 2011; all of these specific plans are already a part of the City's adopted General Plan and within the SOI. 2002 Sphere of Influence The City's Sphere of Influence is comprised of the area within the current City limits and five areas outside of it: the Northwest, Northeast, and Southeast specific plans, the 25 -acre Wilfred/Dowdell Specific Plan area (proposed for a commercial center), and the Canon Manor neighborhood. The Canon Manor rural subdivision, an unincorporated area located immediately south of Sonoma State University, was once accessed by graveled roads and supported by individual water wells and septic systems. In the past, the subdivision was plagued by failing sewer systems and contaminated water supplies, however roads have now been paved water and sewer lines have been installed.. Potential development of the Canon Manor area as provided for by the General Plan includes ap- proximately 113 Rural Estate Residential infill units and 191 Low Density Residential units south of Alice Drive. Expanded Urban Growth Boundary The Land Use and Growth. Management Element of the General Plan provides for potential con- struction of 2,465 dwelling units outside of the City limits (but within the 2002 SOI), distributed among the various specific plan areas as shown in the following figure and Table 9.5 -2. 9 -61 Rohnert Park General Plan Table 9.5 -2: Potential Residential Development - Outsitle=of City Limits (within Sphere of Influencel Specific 1 0, Generol Plan R.eallsdc Unit' r Infrastructure Y,te CrI st a',n Approved/ Constructed/ . Plan � Zonin g g ntion aM a ac, ty �.., Capacity (YIN) Potential? 0�452�2002 SP n os N a . �Y ve oped� N z 0452�2001� s? SP /elopedF 0522OQS SP F3 N �. `'0452�ZOD'6� �r SP ��veoped N, �a 0!n U4�5 k2�22�00 SP fi Snw 'v eve opecl N .ra a; �. ` 1, ande� 045 222 �ff�l�l SP 3 N N Pr 445222U13 SPn e7i . „.' 045�230�4 SP N %uhe�eoped° 4045;2220�19� SP N a ` Rurat / Estate , $ X0452 -0Z0 Sp un e�veioeil N Low Density, Mediumnde ,. z 04222021 SP °per eloped N �f '' Northeast a Density and l 090 ' F ncv ped N P Y 045`2 <20�0; SP 045'Z22�7 a� 3k� SP High - Density... . ;Residential oped4 N N �� G F a f F04°22 0� 8 �r SP i ev .lo N 91, 0422g22�{ SP PON 'lo d N e N 0 "425YQ0 zy SPap N `1a� N I'M M, d SP X04 ,�5 00 SP N jf�k4 �f252tl SP c N 022}03' SPA` nee elo'ed ,p y N $2nde OA425210I5 SPa elopeif a}; N lax r 9 -62 Chapter 9: Housing 9 -63 045 =252 017 SP ;n /a 102 Undeveloped:;: N Y 045 -252 0'19 SP n/a 0. undeveloped N Y 045: -252 022 ' SP n/a 0 58 Undeveloped " N Y 045; =252 023 SP Undeveloped > N Y 045 =252 024 ; SP undeveloped N Y Rural /Estate, 045 -252 025 SP n/a a l` 02 undeveloped ; N Y Low Density, 1; undeveloped Northeast N Y 045 -252 026 SP n/a Medium Density, and 1,090 p 045 =252 027. SP n/a 0 58 undeveloped N Y High- Density 045 =252 428 SP n/a ; z Residential 0 58 undeveloped N Y r: 045 -252 029 SPn N Y 045 =252 030 SP nla Q S81 undevelorped . N Y } 045.252 031 SP n /a r '° D 9,1 undeveloped ; N Y Y F '045: =252 032 SP >n /a `0 91 s. undeveloped N Y 045 261 0� Is :; SP:n /a 30 88f ;undeveloped N Y 045 `074 00:1 SP =n /a 0.48 undeveloped N 045 =074 002 ? SP n/a 0 26 undeveloped N N 045 =074 004` ' SP n/a I undeveloped ' N Northwest High Density 045:074 006 ': SP n/a 1, undeveloped ` N N 045 -074 007 SP n)a r. Residential 5: 900 undeveloped , N N P 04S .074 009. SP n /a�� Fr 25 24 undevelopedr :. N 045 074 01`I ti n SP nJa�y� f 's 1:49 undeve�oPed , N NA`tr c f.� .rd f, 3�j t? i ,yN, •l4 f S 045074 012 40 S P 0:52 b uFlCelvelopedz ; N J''P M�SlaYY � 0450�4f014��' SP ti /a I,.S� ufssieped N 44 7 r N Northwest X045 074 O�IS� f SP nC Hi h Denser 900p z` , 5m N `" t' r . R t I siden is ]� nundevelo edf N�r�� P 045b74 4Fb Y .;.. . SP l 3Sf undeveloped N s 9 -63 Rohnert Park General Plan Source: City of Rohnert. Park Comm 9 -64 Chapter 9. Housing The range of residential densities will provide opportunities for housing at all income levels. In general, development within Rural Estate and Low Density areas will produce housing within the above - moderate income .range, Medium Density will accommodate above - moderate and moderate- income housing, and High Density and Mixed Use will provide opportunities for lower income housing as well as higher - income units. A total of 816 units affordable to extremely low -, very low- and low- income households will be produced from the above developments. The General Plan Diagram also promotes a range of housing densities, types, and sizes within resi- dential. neighborhoods (CD -H). The Community Design Element allows townhomes and multi- family dwellings to be integrated with single - family residences (CD -17). Development outside of the current city limits will occur within four designated specific plan areas (depicted in Figure 2.4 -1 of the Land Use and Growth Management Element). Except for the provi- sions of the Growth Management program, no phasing requirements have been imposed on these areas, and property owners of any specific plan area can submit a specific plan and annexation re- quest to the City. The City has been working actively with developers interested in the mentioned specific plan areas and is very optimistic that they will'be processed and adopted imminently. Drafts of the Southeast and'Northeast specific plans are currently in review and should be adopted in 2009 with annexation `apotkations to follow and a Preliminary Draft Specific Plan for the Northwest Area has been adopted and a Final Plan is expected to be submitted in 2009, with adop- tion and annexation to follow. The type and location of residential development for each of the specific plan areas is summarized below, as described in the Land Use and Growth Management Element. Northeast Specific Plan Area The General Plan Diagram provides for approximately 23.1 acres of Rural Estate Residential and 109.1 acres ` of Low Density Residential along the east side of Snyder Lane, between Copeland Creek and the "G Section" Neighborhood; as well as - approximately 6.6 acres of Medium Density Residential and 12.5 acres of High Density Residential along the north and. south sides of Eleanor Avenue. Community Design Element Policy CD -43 stipulates that the High Density Residential develop- ment is to be located adjacent to open space and along the proposed north -south arterial and collec- tor streets to maximize accessibility. A total of 1,090 units are proposed for the Northeast area, 164 of which would be affordable per the City's 15 percent inclusionary housing ordinance. The properties along Keiser Avenue have a substantial creek setback (50 -100 feet) which reduces the developable -land area. 9 -65 Rohnert Park General Plan Southeast Specific Plan Area The.. General Plan Diagram provides for approximately 6.3 acres of mixed -use development, which could result in the development of approximately 81 units, 22.3 acres of Low Density Residential, and 34.,1 acres of Medium Density Residential in the Southeast Specific Plan Area. The Southeast Area also includes about 16 acres of Rural Estate Residential land. A higher floor ratio would be allowed for a mixed - use area if it were to include residential development as part of commercial structures (1.0 as opposed to 0.4) to encourage the development of housing in this area. A total of 475 units are proposed for the Southeast area, 71 of which would be affordable per the City's 15 percent inclusionary housing ordinance. State law .authorizes local governments to establish one or more redevelopment project. areas to eliminate blight, and to expand. improve the supply of low and moderate- income housing. Re- development agencies may use the power of eminent domain to assemble and acquire sites for housing, both within and outside of a project area. They may also issue revenue bonds to finance infrastructure and provide long -term, low - interest loans for construction and rehabilitation. Addi- tionally, funds may be generated by tax increment financing, which captures for a time, all or a portion of the increased tax revenue that results from greater private investment in a project area. 9 -66 Chapter 9. Housing The Community Development Commission of the City of Rohnert Park ( CDCRP) was created in 1987 and established a Redevelopment Project Area that is generally west of the Northwestern Pa- cific Railroad tracks, with the exception of several isolated areas east of the tracks that are included within its boundaries. Existing residential areas contained within the Project Area include the A, B, and L Section neighborhoods, and portions of the C and M sections, as well as three mobilehome parks. The CDCRP's powers and funds generation represent an important resource for housing, not only in the redevelopment project area, but outside of its boundaries as well. According to state law, 20 percent of the CDCRP's gross tax increment (less certain adjustments) must be transferred to the Twenty Percent Set -Aside Fund each year. This allocation must be spent on housing- related pro- grams and assistance within five years of their deposit into the fund.50 The City projects that from 2009 to 2014, an estimated $3.515 million dollars will be taken into the Fund and expended.51In addition, the City has available $13.3 million in tax allocation bonds. available for acquiring land, assisting developers, and providing other incentives for lower income housing.sz California Community Redevelopment law specifies that at least 30 percent of all new or rehabili- tated dwelling units developed by the Community Development Commission must be affordable to low- or moderate - income households. Not less than 50 percent of the affordable dwelling units de- velopedby the CDCRP must be affordable to very low - income households. Overall, at least 15 percent of all new or rehabilitated dwelling units developed by the CDCRP and other.entities in ,the .project area must be affordable to low- or moderate- income households, and not less than 40 percent of the affordable dwelling units must be affordable to very low- income households. According to the CDCRP's 2004 -2008 Five Year Implementation Plan, the CDCRP aims to pro - duce a total of 1,624 housing units within the ten year planning period (2004- 2014), 244 of which are to be affordable units, based on statutory thresholds. However, given the prior period carryover of 399 affordable units, the Project Area is projected to have a surplus of 155 affordable units dur- ing this ten year planning period. The surplus could vary depending on the actual level of construc- tion or substantial rehabilitation in the Project Area over the ten year planning period; any surplus for the planning period may be applied to meet housing needs over the duration of the Redevelop- ment Plan. so In addition to the Twenty Percent Set -Aside Fund, the City has the Housing Trust Fund, described under "Inclusionary Housing Program" in Chapter 9.6, which is dedicated solely to assisting with the production of affordable units. s' During 2009 -2010, the City has available $743,413 in the Twenty Percent Set -Aside Fund to assist affordable housing organizations and provide incentives for affordable housing development. sz Rohnert Park Community Development Department, 2009. 9 -67 Rohnert Park General Plan Since its establishment, the redevelopment agency has undertaken numerous programs and ex- pended significant funds to support the development and conservation of housing. Its actions be- tween 1999 and 2006 are described in detail in Appendix A, Implementation of the 2002 Housing Element. Current Programs Programs that are currently sponsored and supported by the CDCRP include the following: • Rebuilding Together (formerly Christmas in April). The redevelopment agency coordinated a Rebuilding Together program in Rohnert Park on April 15, 2000. Since its inception, the program has revitalized 135 homes and 16 nonprofit facilities in Rohnert Park and Cotati,51 all low - income and most very low- and extremely -low income. Using community volun- teers and donated materials, seven homes occupied by very low- income households, in- cluding five elderly and one disabled households, were originally rehabilitated to provide warmth, safety, and security. Typical repairs included fixing leaky roofs, building wheel- chair ramps, electrical rewiring, repairing plumbing, installing new furnaces and hot water heaters, installing smoke detectors, replacing doors and windows, landscaping, and paint - ing. The CDC. RP's 2008 -2009 budget provided $50,000 of funding for the .program. From 2000 through 20.06, the City' contributed a total of $262,000 to Rebuilding Together. In 2006, 23 extremely low- and very low- income .households were assisted by the program. The 2008 -09 budget allocation for Rebuilding together is $50,000. Owner Occupaed Housing Rel abiktdoon Program. The CDCRP's 2008 =2009 budget in- cludes $100000 fo administrative costs Viand loans for "the rehabilitation of owner- occupied housing (both conventional construction and`tnobilehomes); the Sonoma County' Comnu- nity Development Commission .(SCCDC) administers the program. The program assists low and moderate- income households with incomes of up. to 120 percent of area median income,. The maximum loatr amount is- $.5,0,00.0 for single family homes, $25,000 for multi family units, and $24,000. for mobilehomes, Deferred, forgivable loans are available to very low - and low income households, and.amortized loans are available at below- market interest rates to moderate - income: households. The purpose of the Program is to provide loans to low- income households to maintain owner- occupied residential properties located within Rohnert Park. The primary objective of the Program is to provide decent, safe and sanitary housing for low- income residents of the City through the correction of actual or potential health and safety problems in existing structures. The secondary objectives of the Program are to preserve the City's affordable housing stock and to assist in the process of neighborhood revitalization. 53 "Rebuilding Together RP- Cotati news." The Community Voice. 10/24/2008 9 -68 Chapter 9. Housing SCCDC staff developed brochures, flyers, and press releases to market the program. Ad- vertising and outreach includes newspaper articles and press releases, direct mailings to property owners, and neighborhood informational meetings. From 1999 -2006, the City helped 31 households with redevelopment funds (Extremely low, 5; Very low, 8; Low, 16; Moderate, 2). From 1999 -2006, CDBG funds helped the City assist 22 households (Extremely low, 6; Very low, 8; Low, 8; Moderate, 0). CalHome Program. Also administered by the SCCDC, this program is similar to the Own- er- Occupied Rehabilitation Program. The City was awarded 600,000 in 2008 for the pro- gram. Only 25 percent of this amount can be awarded at any one time. Loan payments from homeowners are recycled back into the program and can only be used for CalHome activities. The loan amounts for this program are $34,500 for single - family homes and $24,000 for mobilehomes. These funds are to be spent no later than three years after the award was made or whatever is not spent will be disencumbered. • Support to Homeless Service Providers. The CDCRP helps fund Sonoma County Adult and Youth Development's ( SCAYD) Homeless Prevention and Rental Assistance Pro- gram. In 2008 -2009, the City contributed $145,000 ($130,000 for homeless prevention grants and $15,000 for the Sonoma Grove Rental Assistance Program, which.is adminis- tered by SCAYD). This program provides one -time financial assistance with rent or depo- sit to eligible families. To qualify, applicants need to have lived in the county for at least six months, currently live in or moving to Rohnert Park or Cotati, . and be of low to mod - erate income. SCAYD does not fund households that have received assistance within a two year period. The maximum grant per household is $550 for rental assistance or $.1,000 for depo §it assistance. The 2008 -2009 budget also allocated a total of $119,000 to the Committee on the Shelter- less (COTS}- $50,000 to provide programs /services for residents of the Vida Nueva per- manent supportive housing project that opened in December 2008, and the remainder to manage the shared living homes and provide programmatic support. From 2000 through 2006, the City contributed $227,200. Mortgage Credit Certificate Program. The redevelopment agency participates .in the So- noma County Mortgage, Credit Certificate (MCC) Program, which is a federal income tax program that allows a.household to take a portion of their mortgage interest as a credit ra- ther than a deduction. The program is available to low and moderate - income households. The allocation for 2008 for the cities of Rohnert Park, Cloverdale, Cotati, Healdsburg, Pe- taluma, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma and the Town of Windsor is approximately $3.2 million. This will aid 13 -16 first -time homeowners. 54 • Shared Living Home. The CDCRP owns five, four - bedroom transitional houses that are managed by the Committee on the Shelterless ( "COTS ") which is a non - profit service or- ganization. The Shared Housing Program houses single- parent families who are transition- ing from homelessness to independent living. COTS manages and operates the five homes owned by the CDCRP. Each house accommodates approximately four families. sa Rohnert Park Community Development Commission Resolution No. 2008 -5 9 -69 Rohnert Park General Plan The City is considering acquiring more homes since the cost of acquiring properties is cur- rently low. Housing bond money or Housing Trust Fund money are possible sources. • California Homebuyers Fund. In 2007, the City of Rohnert Park, the Town of Windsor and the other cities in Sonoma County collectively decided to participate in the California Ho- mebuyers Fund ( "CHF ') Program. They chose to become an associate member in the CHF program by. allocating Sonoma County's 2007 Single Family Allocation from the Califor- nia Debt Allocation Committee to participate in the CHF program. This allows Sonoma County residents, including those residing in Rohnert Park, access to a variety of home loan opportunities, including loans designed to benefit homebuyers having low- to mod- erate- incomes and homebuyers needing assistance with down - payments and related closing costs. The purchase price limits under the CHF guidelines are currently higher than the MCC program, benefiting more residents of Sonoma County. • Affordable Housing Linkage Fee. In 2006, the City adopted Ordinance No. 771, which charges non- residential development fees that are collected to provide affordable housing for workers employed in Rohnert Park. Fees started to be collected in July 2008. Sonoma County Community Development Commission The City's -redeveiopnientagency .contracts with SCCDC for administrative services for its rehabil- itation programs The SCCDC employs` staff with training and`experi ence in couducting:such pro - grams: Its services include marketing rehabilitation loan funds, taking applications and obtaining thlyd parry venfica ft . oxls of appllcatlon Information, employing underwntmg standards in the ap- proVal a'f loans, obtaining appralsas, venfymg payment:of taxes, ordermg credlt reports; obtaining title reports, venfying Insurance c...ove. ge, procuring _pest reports,`preparilig rehabllltation work programs, `procunng'eontractors "for rehabihtatlon "work, Inonitonng `constiiictlon and oti'taining re. Teases; and preparing: and recording final.oan documents. S000mA County C d =Pl onsolidatean In order to recelve Community Development Block Grant; HOME Investment Partnership Act, and Federal'Emergency Shelter Grant funds; the City of Rohnert Park executes'a Joint'Powers Agree - ment for Community Development with Sonoma County and six other cities within the county that do not quallfy .for their own entltlements. The City and town managers of the participating munici- palltles `form the Technical Advlsoty Committee that revlews and makes recomlriendations to the Board of Supervisors on Issues relating to the distribution of funds within their�urisdichons. 9 -70 Chapter 9. Housing Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds have been used by the City in the past to facilitate the development of affordable housing, fund a rehabilitation program, and carry out an earthquake- bracing program for mobilehomes. In the 2008 calendar year, $85,773 in CDBG funds were used for the Owner- Occupied Housing Rehabilitation. If the County has CDBG funds availa- ble, these funds may also be utilized by residents who apply for a rehabilitation loan in Rohnert Park if other funds are exhausted.ss Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Mobilehomes constitute a major source of affordable housing in Rohnert Park. In an effort to pro- vide reasonable standards for, and limit space rent increases to reasonable levels, the City's voters approved Ordinance 494 in 1987. Rather than setting rent ceilings, as in some apartment rent con- trol ordinances, Ordinance 494 established a process by which park owners may obtain adjustments in space rent, linked to changes in the Consumer Price Index and capital improvements within the parks. The City established a Mobile Home Rent Appeals Board to ensure that Municipal Code Chapter 9.70 (Ordinance 494) is administered fairly for both mobilehome park residents and park owners, who may file space rent petitions. If a petition is filed, the Board serves as a quasi-judicial body that issues rulings on the space rent. issue. The Board is staffed by the Housing and Redevelopment Manager and Housing and Redevelopment Assistant. Mobilehome park residents fund the Board through their registration fees. Fair Housing of Sonoma County Fair Housing of Sonoma County ( FHOSC) is a joint project between Fair Housing of Marin °and Sonoma County People for Economic Opportunity. FHOSC is funded by HUD to conduct fair housing services in Sonoma County, to counter illegal discrimination, and to educate Sonoma County tenants, managers and property owners as to. their rights and responsibilities under state and federal fair housing laws. FHOSC provides bilingual counseling, investigative services, mediation, and legal referrals to per- sons confronted with housing discrimination, followed by mediation or referrals to HUD, the Cali- fornia Department of Fair Employment and Housing, or to attorneys, as appropriate. There is no charge for these services. The agency also provides information and training for rental property owners, real estate agents, and apartment managers on discrimination issues. Community Support Network Community Support Network (CSN) is a non -profit agency that provides a wide range of services to mentally and/or emotionally ill and homeless adults. CSN offers a network of social services, including residential alternatives to institutional care, social and vocational rehabilitation, chemical dependency counseling, case management, supportive housing, and other special social services. ss Email correspondence with Gary Tabbert, Sonoma County Community Development Commission, Community Development Associate, 12/23/08. 9 -71 Rohnert Park General Plan OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION Rohnert Park has taken many actions to reduce its impact on the environment by becoming more sustainable. Highlights of recent efforts include: • Green Building Ordinance 2007 -782 (July 2007) • Energy Efficiency Ordinance 2007 -779. This ordinance also established Title 14- Sustainablity, in the Municipal Code (March 2007) • City Council adopted resolution 2004 -111, which sets a goal for greenhouse gas reductions of 20 percent by the year 2010 for internal City operations (baseline year 2000) (May 2004) • City Council adopted resolution 2005 -233, which sets a goal for greenhouse gas reductions of 25 percent by the year 2015 for community-wide use, private and public (baseline year 1990) (July 2005) The City's soon -to -be adopted Sustainability Element will further address energy efficiency /green energy and sustainable building techniques. The Cityl has .implemented the ;provisions of Title: 24 of the State Building Code that - require, new residential buildings; to me..et a, comprehensive -set :of standards;for .energy conservation: Builders.-of these units may achieve compliance either, by calculating energy performance in a prescribed man- ner or by selecting from alternative component packages that prescribe a .faced method --of com- pliance. All proposed residential units are checked by the Building Department to ensure that their design and construction complies with Title 24 energy standards.: -Additions and;: alterations must also meet these standards if they increase, the heated or cooled floor, space of a building Opport iYU ies for improvmg' energy conservation m the design of residential development mciude ensuring the consistency of tentative tract`maps with Section 66473 1`'W the Subdivision Map Act, which requires the designs of subdivisions to provide for future passive or natural lNeating or cdol- ing opportunities, and requires the planting of trees along streets and in parking lots io reduce heat. Homes constructed `in the City between 1956 and 1975 probably need to be insulated or °have sup- plemental insulatibn installed The ownership `and rental 'rehabilitation programs funded by `the _CDCRP cover such energy conservation retrofitting' as insulati6in and weather - stripping. 9 -72 Chapter 9: Housing 9.6 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS A number of factors may constrain the development of housing, particularly housing affordable to lower income households. These factors can generally be divided into "governmental constraints," or those that are. controlled by federal, state, or local governments; and "nongovernmental con- straints," factors that are not generally created or cannot be affected by government controls. An analysis of these factors can help in the development of programs that lessen their effect on the supply and cost of housing. GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS Governmental regulations and exactions are designed to achieve desirable land use patterns, coor- dinate development with infrastructure expansion, finance capital improvements, equitably distri- bute the cost of public services, maintain the ambiance of existing neighborhoods, improve the ur- ban environment, and preserve open space and unique ecosystems. However, they should be evaluated to determine whether they are excessive and represent an unne- cessary constraint on the availability or affordability of housing being built, or contribute to the loss of existing affordable housing. General Plan Policies In addition to the Housing Element, two of the General Plan's other elements directly affect the location, type, and timing of housing that may be developed: the Land Use . and Growth Manage- ment Element, and the Community Design Element. Land Use and, Growth Management Element The Land Use and Growth Management Element provides for a variety of housing types, including Rural Estate Residential, a housing type currently not found in the City, as well as higher density housing to meet the needs of students and lower income households. Density and FAR The Element includes four land use designations, with the density and floor area ratio (FAR) para- meters shown in Table 9.6 =1. Minimum densities are included in all residential designations in or- der. to maximize residential development on a limited supply of land, and achieve a balance and variety of housing types (Policy LU -8). The density and FAR provisions outlined in Table 9.6 -1 are sufficiently high to allow the develop- ment of housing affordable to lower income households, based on previous housing projects, espe- cially when combined with the 35 percent lower income housing density bonus required by state law. 9 -73 Rohnert Park General Plan Table 9.6 -1: Residential Land Use Designations FAR Land Use Designation Density (units /gross acre) Factor Max. Building Area (sq. (t.) Rural Estate up to 2.0 none no maximum Low Density 4.0-6.0 0.40 600 + FAR factor x net lot area' Medium Density 6.1— 12.0 0.55 400 + FAR factor x net lot area' High Density 12.1-24.0 1.15 FAR factor x net lot areal Mixed -Use Developmene Not separately regulated n/a 2.0 FAR' from FAR I. Includes garages and accessory structures 2. Residential uses mixed with office and /or commercial uses 3. Excludes parking structures and garages Source: Gty of Rohnert Part , January 2009. The 2.0 FAR allowed for mixed -use developments that incorporate residential uses is a higher FAR than allowed for developments without housing (1:5), and is intended is promote housing in these areas. As proposed in the Housing Element for the previous period, the City amended its ordinances to comply with State law as follows: Second units are approved rropot pally and density bonuses are granted in addition to,the maximum densities otherwise allowed • The minimum lot size in the Low Density classificationds 5;000 square feet, but the Zon- ing Ordinance may permit lots as small as 4,50:Q square feetito promote compact d&6lop- ment :if they meet spp4fied , community design §.tandards in.specific.neighborhgods. The`potent>alresidential development that could occur based on the Element's designations is dis- cussed in Section 9.5. Public Facilities Land Use and Growth Management Element policies56 require `residential development applications 'to include. a Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) that demonstrates how streets, water, wastewa- ter and solid waste disposal, and parks will be provided to the project. The Plan must demonstrate that completion of all necessary public facilities concurrently with the development is feasible. The PFFP, which applies to all new development, is updated periodically and applies Citywide. 16 GM -9 through GM -12 9 -74 Chapter 9. Housing Additionally, Growth Management Policy GM -15 requires the City to prepare, adopt, and imple- ment a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to provide a framework to undertake citywide public facility improvements needed to accommodate anticipated growth. Some public facilities may be deferred, but only under specific provisions of Policies GM -11 and -12. The CIP process .is updated annually. Urban Growth Boundary and Growth Management The Land Use and Growth Management Element provides for the establishment of an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) that represents the ultimate edge of urban uses in the Rohnert Park Plan- ning Area by the year 2020. It includes the area within the current city limits as well as all of the annexation and specific plan areas provided for in the General Plan. In November 2000, a 20 -year Urban Growth Boundary ballot measure was approved by the voters replacing Policy GM -2 in the General Plan. It may be modified only by public vote, except in certain circumstances. The City then adopted a Growth Management Ordinance that is consistent with General Plan policies. The UGB promotes a compact urban form. that ensures the efficient. provision of services, and pre- serves agricultural and open space outside of the boundary. The growth management provisions of the Element are intended to ensure that growth within the UGB is paced to achieve General Plan build -out over a.20 -year period, representing. an annual av- erage population growth rate of one percent, as well as ensuring that the necessary infrastructure and public facilities are provided for new development. The growth management program anticipates an average of approximately 225 new housing units per year, and only applies a limitation on'developmetit`during the following calendar year if resi- dential building permit implementation in any two successive calendar years exceeds 560 units. Furthermore, housing that is affordable to very low- and low - income. households is not included in the total housing counts for the cap (Policy GM -3). The program also allows the cap to, be adjusted up or down by as much as 10 percent by the City Council on an annual basis to accommodate changes in land use program assumptions (for example, vacancy rate factors and household size). When applications for residential approvals exceed the growth management program's -annual lim- its, a project's contribution towards housing affordable to lower income households. will be given top priority in determining preference for allocation of development approval (Policy GM -5). The growth management program will also be reviewed annually to determine, in part, whether priority should be given to specific housing types to achieve a balanced land use and. housing program (Pol- icy GM-4). 9 -75 Rohnert Park General Plan During this planning period, the City's RHNA allocation is 1,554 units, of which 602 are to be af- fordable to very low=:,-and low- income households. Therefore, the growth management program's provisions for annual growth exceed the 173 -unit annual average needed to meet the regional hous- ing need preliminarily allocated to the City for the January 1, 2007 — June 30, 2014 period. 17 Balance of Housing Types A balance of housing types is also encouraged by Policy GM -16, which requires that specific plans and implementing ordinances ensure that the contemplated housing types for each specific plan area are attained at build -out. Based on this evaluation, it can be concluded that the provisions of the Land Use and Growth Management Element do not represent a constraint on the development of housing for all "income levels. Community. Design Element The Community Design Element is intended to protect and enhance Rohnert Park's physical and visual character. Several of its policies .promote a diverse and affordable .housing base, including gr ily dwellings with single - family residences (Policy the integration of townhomes and multi -faint CD -17) and .consideration for reducing parking requirements for high= density and senior housing ,(Policy CD 29). The follovcrmg' is a list of several other Element policies: 57 Given that 602 of the City's 1,554 unit RHNA is made up of units affordable to very low- and low- income households, 952 units remain that are affected by the growth management program; affordable units do not count toward the trigger cap calculations. Dividing the 952 units by 5.5 years (the length of time remaining in this planning period), an average of 173 per year would need to be built to fulfill the RHNA. This is well below the 225 unit per year limit imposed by the growth management program. 9 -76 Chapter 9. Housing Zoning. Ordinance Requirements The provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance directly control the approval process for residential development and affect the type and design of housing that may be constructed. A complete revi- sion of the Zoning Ordinance was undertaken and a new Zoning Ordinance adopted in 2003 fol- lowing the 2000 adoption of the General Plan update, to reflect its new policies and programs, as well as incorporate many State - mandated provisions. The following is an evaluation of the effects of this Zoning Ordinance. Residential Zoning Districts The City's Zoning Ordinance specifies the zoning districts in which residential development may occur and under what circumstances. There are four basic residential zones: • R -R/R -E District allows single - family dwellings as a permitted use. Manufactured housing requires a certificate of zoning compliance as do second units. This is ministerially done. SRO units are allowed with an administrative permit.58 im R -L District allows single - family dwellings as a permitted use. As in the R -R/R -E district, Manufactured housing and second units require a certificate of zoning compliance. • . ' R -M District allows single - family dwellings as well as side -by -side duplexes as permitted uses. Manufactured housing and second units require a certificate of zoning .compliance. Multi- family projects are not permitted. • R -H District allows multi - family housing as a permitted use. Single - family dwellings are allowed with a conditional use permit. SRO units are allowed with an administrative per - mit. As with the other districts, manufactured housing and second units require a certificate of zoning compliance. Much of the City's single- family development has occurred in the R -L District, although a custom - home subdivision was completed on larger lots at the northern City boundary, and the "D" Section is developed at an overall density of over five units per acre. Residential Development in lion Residential Districts The Zoning Ordinance allows residential development in all commercial zones as part of a mixed use project when located in the same building as anon-residential use with a conditional use per- mit. Live /work, townhouse, and multi - family residential uses are allowed in the M -U, Mixed Use district as a permitted use. This provision is especially important since practically all residentially - zoned property within the current City limits has been developed and this is the only means of pro- viding opportunities for housing development at present. 58 An Administrative Permit is a permit that is conditionally approved by Community Development staff —a faster process than a Conditional Use Permit, which is approved by the Planning Commission. 9 -77 Rohnert Park General Plan Zoning Ordinance Definitions The ordinance's definition of "family" does not restrict the number of individuals who may reside in a home. Single -Room Occupancy (SRO) units are currently defined as a commercial use in the Zoning Or- dinance. Program 4.2 calls for amending the Zoning Ordinance to define SROs as a residential use. State Requirements Amending the Zoning Ordinance in the following area to implement provisions of State law would facilitate residential development: • Sites for emergency shelters: State law (SB 2) requires the City to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are permitted by -right or enter into a multi jurisdictional agree- ment with neighboring cities to provide shelter services.59 The City must not only identify a zone /s but also show that there are possible sites in this zone /s where a shelter could con- ceivably be located. Currently, the City's Zoning Ordinance allows shelters housing six or fewer persons as a permitted use in all residential and commercial zones. Emergency shel- ters accommodating more than six people 'are allowed in the Residential -High Density (R- H) and Public Institutional' (P-I) zones as well as all commercial zones with a conditional use permit. The Zoning. Ordinance must be amended to not restrict the size of, emergency shelters allowed in .zone /s as a. permitted use. Program 16. 1, m Section 9:7, addresses this need by making emergency shelters of any size by-xght in the Residential Nigh Density (R =H) zone and all commercial zones. • Density bonus provisions .:The City updated its _Zoning Ordinance in 2005to comply with new State Jaw, SO i'$18, which increased the maxunu n bonus to 3S percent Currently; the City requires a .Conditional Ilse Permit (CUP) for a project to be granted a density bonus. However, per Government Code;65915,et seq.. the fact .that a projec$ is entitled to a density bonus cannot be used as a basis for requiring discretionary re view if. .a �unsdictioh density bonus provisions ,do not exceed those required:. by State law.. Therefore, Program 5.4,: ,m section 9,7 calls for amend n the Zomna Ordinance to remove the ( I ren nrPm0.hf Administrative Permit provisions: Certain uses in they City, such as SRO units,` require an Administrative Permit. This is a conditional :use permit approved:by Staff. - .Since :ahis. per mit.is discretionary, per State law, it requires, the,provision of a hearing. Such aprovision is currently not .included m the Zoning Ordinance. Program 5.5 calls for amending the ordin- ance to provide fora hearing in the Administrative Permit process. Residential Development Standards The Zoning Ordinance prescribes minimum standards for residential lot sizes, yards, and open space per unit, and maximum lot coverage. (Table 9.6.2). These standards are typical of many Cali- fornia communities and contribute to the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare; and the maintenance of the City's quality of life. 59 SB 2 also requires jurisdictions to treat transitional and supportive housing projects as any other residential use of property. Rohnert Park's Zoning Ordinance does not distinguish between these housing uses and others. 9 -78 Chapter 9: Housing Table 9.6 -2: Selected Development Standards for Residential Zones Minimum Site Requirements Minimum Setbacks (ft) Min. Open Density Side Space/ Max. Lot (units/ (interior/ dwelling Coverage District Width Depth Area (s. f.) acre) Front corner) Rear unit (s.f.) (%) R -R 100 150 40,000 up to 2 50 10/20 50 n/a 30 R -E 100 150 17,000 up to 2 25 10/20 25 n/a 40 R -L 50 100 5,000 4 -6 20 5/10 20 n/a 50 R -M 40 80 3,700 6 -1'2 20 5/10 20 500 40 R -H 60 100 10,000 12 -30 20 5/10 20 400 40 Source: Rohnert Park Zoning Ordinance. Modifications to minimum standards are allowed under many circumstances, including: • A minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet may be allowed in the RL- District for projects that utilize design features such: as clustering and common open space areas. This is .done through specific plan, planned development, and/or subdivision review. • In the M -U District, front, rear, and/or side yard setbacks may be reduced or eliminated if approved by the Planning Commission and if structures remain outside of an easement and comply with City- approved design guidelines. This is done through design review. • The interior side yard setback may be eliminated for attached dwelling units in the R -M and R -H districts, provided the applicable building code requirements can be met. This is done through specific plan, planned development, and/or subdivision review. Maximum height limitations on residential development are as follows: 35 feet in.R -R, R -E, R -L, and R -M districts and 45 feet in the R -H district for primary structures. A height limit of 12 feet applies to accessory structures in all residential districts. None of these development standards have been identified by applicants as prohibitively restrictive. They report that meeting the minimum open space and maximum lot coverage provisions has not been an obstacle. Furthermore, non - profit housing groups seeking to provide housing affordable to lower income households have found the densities allowed in the higher density districts to be suf- ficient for their needs, especially with a density bonus. It should also be noted that the maximum allowed density in the R -H zone (30 units /acre) exceeds the City's state - defined default density (20 units /acre) for very low- and low - income housing. Parking Standards Minimum residential parking standards in the Zoning Ordinance are: • Single- family dwellings (detached): 2 spaces enclosed in a garage or carport • Single - family dwellings (attached): 2 spaces per unit, 1 of which must be covered plus 1 space per 4 units for guest parking 9 -79 Rohnert Park General Plan • Duplexes: 4 spaces, 2 of which must be in a garage or carport plus 1 space per four units for guest parking • Multi- family units: 1 space per studio or one - bedroom unit; 2 spaces per two- bedroom unit, 2.5 spaces per three - bedroom unit; 1 additional space per bedroom for units with 4 or more bedrooms plus 1 guest parking space for every four units • Mobilehome parks and trailer parks: 1.5 spaces per unit, 1 of which must be covered The Zoning Ordinance was amended during the previous planning period to permit reduced park- ing requirements for senior housing to one space per unit plus one space per every four units for guest parking. The Planning Commission may grant exceptions to parking. requirements through a conditional use permit. This provision has been used frequently in the past to allow the conversion of garages to living space, without a requirement for any new covered parking to offset the. loss of parking. The Commission has indicated its desire to continue allowing such conversions because they may be needed by a family to accommodate additional living space Residential developers and City staff have identified the need for reduced parking standards for student housing:` projects near Sonoma State University. The City is open -to such a provision on a case -by=case basin should off - campus student housing be proposed to facilitate the development process. Design, Review The Zoning'.Ordniance - requires architectural and design review. of residential development for any ,:;,new buildmg;;:other than.a singlefanuly Dome on a single lot.:The site plans, elevation- .drawings, andlandscaping plans of larger. projects are typically reviewed by the Planning Commission. The City adopted design guidelines in 2001 The City has been working on updated guidelines, which are" summarized below (see 'Program 4 3).''These guidelines ihdude ~general prmcipies'relat- ing to site design; scale of buildings, and the orientation of "'structure. as well' as street and "path access to creeks to. promote neighborhood and open space connectivity.' Guidelines 'associated with residential design include: • Variation from adjoining'structures in the height, bulk, area, openings or breaks in the fa- cade facing a street, andlor line and pitch of roof • Variation from adjoining structures in the arrangement on the parcel 0 Variation in architectural motifs • Variation from directly. adjacent structures of materials, color and arrangement of exterior materials • Specific guidelines pertaining to main entrances, garages, and driveways • Specific guidelines pertaining to multi - family developments including breaking up. build- ing facades and rooflines to give the appearance of a collection of smaller structures, and orienting windows of frequently used rooms (e.g. living and dining areas) to overlook common open space and child play areas for increased security 9 -80 Chapter 9. Housing Each specific plan has its own set of design guidelines. Subdivisions of single- family dwelling units are required to'have specific numbers of exterior design variations depending upon the num- ber of lots in the subdivision, and to provide architectural designs that vary from those in adjacent subdivisions. Developers are encouraged to provide a variety of floor plans. The Zoning Ordinance also includes design standards for manufactured homes to ensure that they are compatible with conventionally -built residential structures in the surrounding area. These stan- dards do not exceed the limitations prescribed by State law. Although the Zoning Ordinance delegates design review authority to the Director of Planning and Community Development, in practice most residential projects are reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The Zoning Ordinance was amended to reflect current procedures, and clearly delegate certain responsibilities to the Director during the previous planning period. Project Review Delays in processing housing development applications through a City's review and approval process can add to housing costs. If the developer buys the land outright, there are interest costs, and if they obtain an option to purchase, . there are option costs to hold the land. Length of Review In recent years, varying amounts of time were taken to consider and approve housing construction proposals. However, in general, typical entitlements take 3 -6 months and larger projects —such as a specific plan —take 1 -2 years. As in other cities, CEQA adds considerable time to the process. Generally, the greater the public controversy regarding a proposal, the longer the time. spent in the review process. Controversy and resulting delays are often prompted by a zoning change —in other words, if sites are already zoned for residential use, expected delays are minimal. Public hearing continuances have resulted from requests by project opponents for additional information, studies, and project re- designs. Each change in the project design can have associated architect and engi- neering fees, which grow with each revision. Processing delays can also result from incomplete submittals by project applicants, inadequate res- ponses to staff requests for additional information and exhibits, and failure to design projects to City standards. Appeal Process The review process can also be delayed by provisions of the Municipal Code, as was the case of with the conditional use permit application for a housing project targeted towards lower income households that was denied by the Planning Commission during a prior planning period. The appli- cant's appeal to the City Council was delayed for several weeks by a provision in the Zoning Or- dinance (Section 17.62.070 D.) that allowed the Council to decide whether it wanted to hear an appeal. In 2003, the City Council revised the Zoning Ordinance by eliminating the step of having the City Council first determine if it. will hear an appeal before actually hearing the appeal itself. 9 -81 Rohnert Park General Plan Specific Plan Requirement The Land Use Element requires the preparation of specific plans prior to development in any of the growth areas. While this requirement will lengthen the review and approval process, it is necessary to ensure that development occurs in a manner consistent with land use and design criteria, envi- ronmentally- sensitive areas are conserved, and adequate infrastructure is provided. Furthermore, specific plans are also required by the Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) before it will consider annexation. The City has two professional planning staff to expe- dite the preparation and approval of specific plans, as well as the residential growth anticipated by the Land Use Element. Article 34 Authority Article 34 of the California Constitution requires that when a City develops, constructs, or acquires a housing project in which a majority of the units are set aside for lower income households, its qualified electors must approve the project by a majority. This means that projects financed with, redevelopment funds (but not those receiving grants) require voter approval. In November 2001 an Article 34 measure was approved by voters to allow construction of very low - and low- income housing units with the assistance .of redevelopment set -aside housing funds. The measure stipulates that authorized units will not exceed four percent of units in the City and that no more than 15 percent of such units will be located in any Section (A through S) or specific plan area. Furthermore, 20 percent of the units will be reserved for elderly or di- sabled households. The authori zation =expires on November' 8y 202U: Adopted Codes . The City has adopted the 2007 California Building Sfandards Code inco rporating the` National E lectrical Code, Uniform Plumbing' Code,' Uniform Mechamcal Code' the International `Fire Code, the Uniform HousmgCode; and the CaliformaFire Code subject to several''additions and amend- ments to reflect local'conditions: The City has amended these codes in a few instances when necessary to protect the health, safety. , and welfare of its residents. For example, the Building Code has been amended with additional . re- quirements for concrete slab floors to mitigate local expansive soil` conditions Lighted address numbers are "required to ixriprOVe identification of homes by emergency personnel. Smoke detectors are required in single - family homes and automatic fire alarm systems must be provided in multi- family complexes, apartment complexes, and condominium complexes. Automatic fire suppression systems must be installed in new residential structures and substantially- remodeled dwelling units. While these measures result in higher initial housing costs, they are offset over the long run by sav- ings on homeowners insurance and property damage. On average, five residential code enforcement actions occur each month. Given that buildings con - structed in Rohnert Park are aging, the need for building code enforcement activity has increased in recent years. 9 -82 Chapter 9. Housing Site Improvements -The Community Design Element calls for a 52 -foot wide local neighborhood street section (CD Figure 3.2 -5) that provides two travel lanes, two parking lanes, sidewalks, and curbs and gutters on either side. This design is intended to adequately accommodate traffic, parking, pedestrians, and drainage. Additional requirements in the City's Subdivision Ordinance include the planting of street trees and the installation of utility lines underground. These requirements greatly enhance the appearance of residential neighborhoods and are not particularly onerous for developers. Water Availability Issues related to water supply are complex in Sonoma County in general, and Rohnert Park in par- ticular, with multiple lawsuits — first on the 1999 General Plan EIR that the City settled, as well as another lawsuit challenging a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared by the City in 2005 (for more detail on this subject, see the City's Drafft Water Supply Element at http://www.ci.rohnert- park.ca.us/ Modules /ShowDocument.aspx ?documentid= 1929). As the culmination of several years of litigation, in November 2008, a State Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the City. of Rohnert Park, upholding the validity of the City's 2005 WSA, which states that the City has adequate and sufficient water supplies to implement its General Plan. The General Plan provides the framework for all of the specific .plans described in the Housing Sites chapter of this Housing Element (9.5) along with the number of housing units they are to contain. Therefore, the City will have adequate water supply to fulfill this RHNA. Public Facilities are described on page 9.6 -2; there will also be adequate sewer capacity to fulfill this RHNA. The City of Rohnert Park currently derives its drinking water supply from municipal wells (groundwater), the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) Petaluma Aqueduct, and recycled wa- ter. The sources of the aqueduct water are from the Dry Creek and Russian River watersheds. The City is able to achieve a balance of these supplies as necessary to meet demands and limit impacts. For instance, between June and September, in accordance with the Temporary Impairment MOU, the City reduces its use of SCWA water and makes up for this reduction with groundwater and re- cycled water. In 2003, the City installed residential water meters. Water demand has dropped as a result of meter installation and commodity pricing. The 2005 WSA assumed a ten percent reduction in single - family residential unit demand between 2005 and 2025 as a result of water conservation efforts; this is consistent with the City's water conservation policy, which seeks to achieve a voluntary ten percent reduction through conservation efforts. Recycled water is supplied by the City of Santa Rosa Subregional System. The Subregional System maintains a contract with each individual user on the Rohnert Park Urban Reuse system, including the City. Rohnert Park is one of the largest users of reclaimed water in the county. Sites in Rohnert Park that use reclaimed water include all parks and school grounds south of Golf Course Drive, the North and South Rohnert Park Municipal Golf Courses, Roberts Lake, and various commercial and industrial sites. 9 -83 Rohnert Park General Plan According to the City's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, "combined projected water supplies for all 5 -year increments. through 2030 are sufficient to meet its projected demands.s60 While new development .extending to the 2020 Urban Growth boundary would necessitate the installation of additional distribution lines to serve growth outside of the existing city limits, specific plan devel- opers are aware of this additional cost and are prepared to incur it. Impact Fees and Exactions The City charges a variety of development impact fees. While in the past the City charged fees for capital outlay, water and sewer connections, water reclamation, traffic impacts, and parks /open space /recreation, these were simplified in 2004 with the adoption of the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP). The PFFP outlines a comprehensive strategy for managing the costs of capital facili- ties, maintenance and services that are impacted by new development. Fees are adjusted for infla- tion annually, and vary by unit type and location. For example, fees charged per single- family dwelling unit are higher than those charged per multi - family dwelling unit and fees charged to greenfield development are_ higher than those charged to infill development. 60 "2005 Urban Water Management Plan: City of Rohnert Park." Adopted August 28, 2007. 9 -84 Chapter 9: Housing Table 9.6=3: Per Unit Development Impact Fees on Housing (Public Facilities Finance Plan), 2008 Location Single- Family Multi- Family Senior Housing Assisted Living Northeast and University District $20,197 $12,698 $11,947 $6,575 Specific Plans Southeast Specific Plan $20,547 $12,917 $12,166 $6,683 Wilfred Dowdell. and Northeast $15,126 $9,529 $8,778 $4,990 Specific Plans and Stadium Lands Redevelopment Area Canon Manor Specific Plan $10,23.0 $6,394 $6,394 $3,197 Infill West of Highway 101 $15,050. $9,482 $8,731 $4,966 Infill East of Highway, 101 $ 14,086 $8;879 $8,128 $4,665 Source: "City of Rohnert Park: Council Agenda Item Tiansmittdl Report Reso. No. 2008- 126 — Updating the Public Facilities (PF) Fee for All Development in the City of Rohnert Park." 811212008. The Planning Division also charges development fees (Table 9.6 -4). The Division is currently. un- dertaking. a fee study. While results are not currently available, staff is making an effort to keep fees in -line with neighboring communities. Furthermore, the previous study concluded that fees charged were significantly lower than all surveyed cities, and that the City provided services with limited cost recovery from applicants for staff time and materials. Table 9.6=4: Rbhnert Park Planning Fees Fee Type . Fee Use Permits . Existing. $.300 New $1,000 Site.Plan and Architectural Review $600 Variance $600 GP Amendments $3,000 Rezonings . $1,200 Specific Plans $3,500 Planned Development $2,000 Negative Declaration (Initial Study) $400 Tentative Maps Major $1,200 Minor $2,000 Development Agreements $2,000 Sign Program Reviews $350 Appeals $75 . Source: City of Rohnert Park, January 2009 9 -85 Rohnert Park General Plan Rohnert Park has developed according to the neighborhood concept. Residential neighborhoods are constructed around a park and/or school site, the dedication of which is required by the City's sub - division regulations. The. required area is approved by the City Council upon approval of the :tenta- tive map with the City's Parks and Recreation Commission providing input regarding the proposed park site and its improvements. Standards in the General Plan provide guidance as to how much land needs to be dedicated. Inclusionary Housing Program The inclusionary housing requirement (Program 9.1 of Section 9.5) is a critical component of the City's housing program and an active means of providing affordable units to households typically shut out of the housing market. Developers of residential projects over five units are required to rent 15 percent of the units at prices affordable to very low- and low - income or sell 15 percent of the units at prices affordable to low- and moderate- income households. It is City practice to require that affordable units are comparable, in number of bedrooms, exterior appearance, and overall quality of construction to market rate units: in the same project. 61 Furthermore, the inclusionary program is intended to promote the economic integration of lower income households:in neighborhoods and the .dispersion of_ such units. throughout'theicity.: There- quirement= may also <proovide <an incentive for. developers to take the next, step and -: increase- their project'sahare �of ututs affordable to= lower:: income , households to 35 percent in.order to- qualify. =for A, housing densxty;bonus 62 _. The inclusionary requirement is also intended to offset the negative effects of new market rate. housing on the provision of non - market rate housing. The construction of above moderate income housing depletes the amount of available residential land, while contributing to rismg land paces because of a greater scarcity of developable sites; although given that.the Rohriert Park: +General Plan.. an accommodate a much .greater population than projected by. ABACr or housing `units- quired by the:RHNA, housing sites are not scarce. Market =rate housing development also. exacer- bates the affordable housing problem by creating greater needs for goods and services;:typically provided by employees earning lower wages Since 2003 when the Inclusionary Housing Program (as well as ilid1h- )Lieu'Fee requirements and Housing Trust Fund) was adopted by City Council, 599 affordable units have been constructed and an additional 314 affordable units approved 61 Any differences in size or interior features of affordable units compared to those of market- rate units requires written approval of the Planning Manager and the City Manager, and requires that construction be of similar quality to market -rate units and consistent. with contemporary housing standards. 62 In way of further explanation, there is nothing in either the density bonus or inclusionary housing provisions from preventing a developer from taking advantage of the density bonus option as well as complying with the inclusionary housing requirements, creating more flexibility for the developer. 9 -86 Chapter 9. Housing Inclusionary Housing Options Instead of building at least 15 percent affordable units, developers have two options: (1) pay in -lieu fees that will be used to create affordable housing or (2) commit to one of three "alternative equiva- lent actions." In -Lieu Fees In certain circumstances, developers have the option of paying in -lieu fees into the Housing Trust Fund, which is solely dedicated to assisting in the development of affordable housing. Currently, the Housing Trust Fund has a balance of $614,627. Two developers have taken advantage of the in- lieu fee option thus far. In the case of one developer, in -lieu fees were calculated based on the max - imum HUD assistance for low- and very-low income one -, two -, and three - bedroom units in So- noma County.63 In the case of the other developer, the required affordable units were built, but the moderate - income units would not sell (given current market conditions) so an agreement was nego- tiated with the City to pay in -lieu fees for those units to enable them to be marketed without restric- tions. The City intends to have a standard in -lieu fee calculation methodology; in fact, the City re- cently conducted a study to compare possible in -lieu fee calculation methodologies; staff is in the process of evaluating these and forwarding a recommendation to the City Council for approval (see Program 9.2). In -lieu fees can be made for fractions of required units or when a project is located on less than one acre of land or if it contains 10 or fewer units. However, in -lieu fees will only be accepted to meet the inclusionary housing requirement if the developer can produce financial data showing that it is not feasible to build affordable units, i.e. the array of incentives offered by the. City (see descrip- tion that follows) do not mitigate additional costs incurred by the developer. In the case of demon- strated infeasibility, the cumulative impact on development costs is eased by the ability to pay in- lieu fees (instead of requiring the on -site building of affordable units).65 There has been extensive debate over the question of who bears the cost of an inclusionary re- quirement. Depending on the relative strength of the housing market, the costs may be incurred by: • Land owners, who may receive a lower price for their land if developers are expecting a lower profit margin from the inclusionary requirement • Developers, who may have to accept lower profits if housing prices cannot be raised 63 In the case, the developer decided to build the 15% required low - income units (35 units —the entire project has 200 units) and pay into the Housing Trust Fund to help facilitate a future affordable project which would include 17 very low- income units. The unit size proportions of the development were used to calculate that the 17 units should be broken down as follows: 8 one - bedroom, 8 two- bedroom, and 1 three - bedroom unit. The subsidies per unit were $14,500 (per one - bedroom unit), $17,500 (per two bedroom), and $23,000 (per three bedroom unit). 64 To prove financial infeasibility, developers must submit a report identifying (1) all overriding conditions impacting the project that prevent the developer from meeting the inclusionary requirement, (2) sufficient independent date, including appropriate financial information, that supports the developer's claim that it is not feasible to constructed the required affordable units, and (3) a detailed analysis of why the concessions and incentives provided will not mitigate the identified overriding conditions preventing the construction of the affordable units. 65 See the further discussion that follows on the cumulative effects of the inclusionary housing requirement in general. 9 -87 Rohnert Park General Plan • The purchasers of market -rate units, who may have to pay higher housing prices if the lo- cal and regional housing supply is limited and prices are at least as high in areas outside the City The fact that land- owners, developers, and/or the purchasers of market -rate units may incur a por- tion of the cost of providing affordable units, may be construed to act as a constraint to the overall development of housing in a community. Rohnert Park's inclusionary ordinance, however, miti- gates this prospect by providing a wide range of incentives to developers who provide affordable housing units. These incentives include: • Expedited processing for development applications; • Deferment of fee payment; • An additional density bonus (to the maximum 35% already granted by the City, subject to the City Council's review and approval); • Development standard reductions /modifications (i.e. minimum lot size, open space, park- ing and/or setback requirements);, • Approval of mixed -use zoning in conjunction with a housing project if non - residential uses Will reduce the cost of residential. development and if non - residential uses are compatible with residential uses and surrounding development; and 4, Direct financial. assistance in the form,.of a.loan. orgrant.;(money from the;trust fund)..; These >incentives are meant, <to. o ffset development costs .by, for example, providmg:a density bonus ;above that eurrently.:allowed m the City: (a maxunum:of 35 %) In the case of the..;develgper,- ;that ,elected.to pay:in lieu :fees,,aparking reduction.was also,granted, helping offset costs; Additionally, the City has undertaken a study to look at a broader.use of to -lieu fees_ to further pro mote affordable housing. More specifically, the :City is examining if it could expand the use of in- ;lieu fees to virtually all types and sizes of re sidential.projects; as long as the. number of aft" le, units produced is equal, to or exceeds what the. developer would.have provided using the 15 .percent inclusionary requirement. Developers have expressed interest in this flexibility and City staff be= lieves.:it will be a good way to work with them to achieve affordability. Also, the resulting in -lieu fees will be more understandable to, developers and can more. easily factored upfront into a project's pro forma (see Program 9.3).66 66 Rohnert Park Community Development Department, 2009. 9 -88 Chapter 9: Housing Alternate Equivalent Actions Instead of building affordable units or paying in -lieu fees, developers can choose amongst three other options: (1) land donation, (2) transferring of inclusionary credits, or (3) creating second dwelling units. An applicant may donate land to a nonprofit housing developer in place of actual construction of required affordable units upon approval by City Council. The dedicated land must be appropriately zoned, buildable, free of toxic substances and contaminated soils as well as large enough to accommodate the number of required affordable units. An applicant may also transfer inclusionary unit credits from one residential development project to another, upon approval of the City Council. Credit certificates are issued for specific income categories and may only be used to satisfy the requirements for affordable units within the same category. Finally, an applicant may create second units to meet not more than 50 percent of the inclusionary housing requirement at a ratio of two second dwelling units per required affordable unit. Furthermore, these second units must meet the City's continued affordability requirements for affordable housing. Conclusion The inclusionary housing requirements have not had a negative effect on housing production in the city since they were instituted six years ago. A substantial number of housing units have been built in the city since 2003, and property owners have initiated and completed specific plans for virtually all growth areas —where a vast majority of new housing in the city will be built in the coming two decades —since that time. The inclusionary requirements do not have the effect of diverting resi- dential development to other Sonoma County jurisdictions, since inclusionary requirements have been adopted by neighboring Santa Rosa, Petaluma, and Cotati; as well as Healdsburg, Sonoma, Sebastopol, and Windsor. Also, given that the City's development processing procedure times and impact fees are in -line with those in neighboring communities, the cumulative effect of City devel- opment requirements is not overly burdensome. Furthermore, by limiting the inclusionary requirement to 15 percent, providing alternative means of compliance, as well as various incentives, the program is not seen as an undue or onerous con- straint on the provision of market -rate housing. Constraints to Housing for Persons with Disabilities Given that persons with disabilities frequently have difficulty finding housing that meets their needs, the State requires special analysis of governmental constraints to housing for persons with disabilities. 9 -89 Rohnert Park General Plan Zoning and Land Use Policies and Practices The City complies with State and federal fair housing laws and has a number of its own fair hous- ing practices (See 9.3). The Zoning Ordinance's definition of "family" complies with applicable statutory and case law and does not restrict the number of individuals who may reside in a unit that otherwise complies with the Building Code. The Land Use Element does not require any minimum distance for the siting of community care facilities housing disabled persons. The City works with affordable housing developers to provide housing tailored to those with physical and mental dis- abilities. There are approximately 7 licensed group homes in Rohnert Park for developmentally disabled adults that can accommodate up to 42 individuals.67 Evaluation of the Permit and Processing Procedures for Reasonable Accommodations The City currently refers those who would like to make an accessibility retrofit to standards in the California Code Chapter 11(a). As with other permit requests, the Building Division requires that plans are submitted. Plan check takes a maximum of three weeks and normally the Building Divi- sion responds with comments. Once revised plans are submitted, there is a maximum two -week turn around. Depending on permit traffic, plan check and turn around could take, time. Program 14;5 in section 9.7 creates an over- the - counter, ministerial process for modifying zoning standards for reasonable accommodation, thereby shortening:' the period of•time that A takes to accommodate persons:with disabilities. The City complies.with all State laws regulating licensed residential. care.facihtes: Facilities with ewerahan six persons in single fanuly zones are, treated the same as :any ,other single famuly home: The City also complies with State; laws regarding facilities with seven or more people (a condition- al use -pernut is required,in,lugh density residential zones) The. group'homc.pubhc comment period is not .dtfferent from Ghat for other types of residential development, The- City will consider stan- dards that apply to all group living situations, such as. dorms; assisted living and :residential care facilities (see Program 14.6 in section 9.7) to eliminate the chance that conditions will be imposed on an,ad hoc basis; and;;facilitate the development of this type.,of housing. Building Code Review The City has adopted the 2007 California Building Standards Code. The City is currently in the process of developing a universal design ordinance,' which ` wouuld apply to 'new, single4amily homes, (multi - family developments are regulated by the State). 67 "Find Licensed Care." California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division. 12/23/08. http://www.ccld.ca.gov/docs/ccld—search/ccld—search.aspx 9 -90 Chapter 9: Housing NONGOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS Nongovernmental constraints are those that are not created by local governments, but may be les- sened through their actions. Market Conditions The number of home sales in Sonoma County bottomed out in the May of 2007, after declining for 19 consecutive months. During much of this time, median home sale prices also fell: for instance from May 2006 to May 2007, the Sonoma County median home sale price dropped from .$567,500 to $519,000.68 However, according to MDA DataQuick, a housing industry analyst, housing sales in the Bay Area are picking up again. This is especially the case in lower -cost inland areas such as Sonoma County, were evidence shows that the recovery began to get underway during summer 2008. The question remains whether home sales will continue to grow in 2009 or if they will get derailed by the eco- nomic crisis. In Sonoma County, foreclosure deals accounted for 48.7 percent of sales, up from 5.7 percent in 2007. Since sales were concentrated at lower prices, the cost of mortgages that buyers took out also dropped. In Sonoma County, buyers committed to a $1,642 payment, down from $2,536 a year ago.69 Across the state, during fall 2008, the number of single - family home sales rose 56.7 percent com- pared with a year earlier, while the median price dropped 40.5 percent.70 In Sonoma County, spe- cifically, sales of single - family, re -sale homes were up 47.9 percent in November year- over -year, and up 19.7 percent year -to -date. In Rohnert Park, the number of home sales was up 117 percent in November 2008 from last year. In the county as a whole, the median price for a single- family, re -sale home dropped 9.8 percent from October and was down 35 percent year- over -year. Because of this drop in median price, the California Association of Realtors reported that affordability in Sonoma County in the third quarter of 2008 more than doubled from the year before. Last year, 25 percent of households could afford to buy an entry-level home compared with 52 percent this year. 71 68 "Sonoma County Housing Market Hits New Low." eFinance Directory. 5/17/2007. http:// efinancedirect6ry.com/articles/Sonoma County_Housing Market Hits New Low.html 69 "Home sale surge around Bay Area: Report cites signs of recovery in housing market even as prices fall to lowest level in five years." Michael Coit, The Press Democrat. 10/22/2008. http: / /www.pressdemocrat .com/article /20081022BUSINESS/ 810220317 /1132BUSINESSO4 ?Title =Home sales sur ge_around_Bay_Area 70 "California home date does some wild gyrations." Carolyn Said, San Francisco Chronicle. 11/26/2008.. 71 "Home Sales Up Year- Over -Year Eighth Month in a Row." The Real Estate Report: Sonoma County, California. 11/2008. http: / /rereport.com/sonoma/ 9 -91 Rohnert Park General Plan Direct Construction Costs Construction Materials Housing prices are influenced partly by the types of construction materials used. Homes in Rohnert Park are generally of wood frame construction and finished with stucco or wood siding. This type of construction is the least expensive conventional method (brick, stone and concrete block are more costly). Composition shingle and built -up roofs, which are found on a large share of the community's homes, are also the -least expensive, followed by wood shingle, wood shake, concrete tile, metal tile and clay tile. The cost of lumber and wood products accounts for one -third of the costs of materials used to build a home. A typical 2,000 - square foot home uses nearly 16,000 board feet of lumber and 6,000 square feet of structural panels, such as plywood.73 While the composite price for lumber was $334 per 1,000 board feet in January. 2004, and has been in the $450/1,000 board foot range at times since then, for much of 2007 and 2008 it has been under $300/1,000 board feet, and is currently around $215/1,000 board feet .74 It is likely that the decreased pace of housing construction nation- wide due to the subprime lending crisis and resulting home foreclosures as well as overall worsen - ing economy, have caused -lumber and other construction material. prices to drop. The median construction cost of a. median -sized (2,220 square feet) single- family home in 2007 was almost.$240,000,75 Over the long term; direct construction costs (including materials an I a bor) have decreased as a proportion of total costs due to a dramatic drop in the :number of person -hours required to (construct a unit, and the use of less - skilled (and therefore, lower -paid) workers because of a greater use of pre- fabricated materials. These costs, however, remain the largest component of the overall cost of a new single- family home.76 72 Residential Cost Handbook, 1990. 73 National Association of Home Builders 74 "Framing Lumber Prices." National Association of Home. Builders. 12/14/2008. http : / /www.nahb.org/ generic. aspx? sectionID = 133 &genericContentID=527 75 "Building Materials Data and Reports." National Association of Home Builders. 12/14/2008. http://www.nahb.org/page.aspx/category/sectionlD=133 76 1988 California Statewide Housing Plan 9 -92 Chapter 9. Housing The City can minimize construction costs by not requiring more costly kinds of building materials on residences, such as clay tile roofs. However, there is nothing within the City's power to affect the availability and cost of skilled labor. Design and Location Preferences Housing costs are affected in part by a residence's location, size, design, and the number and type of amenities. Housing Type and Location While Rohnert Park housing stock is mainly made up of single - family, detached homes, the City also contains a large number of mobilehomes, single - family homes on small lots, condominiums, and apartments. Size and Amenities There was a dramatic change from 1971 to 2008 in the size of housing units and the amenities pro- vided to them nationwide, as shown. in Table 9.6-4. The average size of a single- family home is 70 percent. larger today than in 1971. Over one -third of new homes have four or more bedrooms, de- spite the drop in average household size, partly due to the rise of specialty rooms such as home of- fices, sunrooms, media rooms, and exercise rooms. All of these design trends can result in higher prices for housing. Countering higher construction costs is a trend towards smaller residential lots. The average lot size for new homes nationwide dropped nearly 5,000 square feet from 1980 to 2000. Future Trends The Census Bureau is projecting a boom in the population groups most likely to choose smaller dwelling units such as apartments: young adults, one: person households, households with no child- ren and retired or senior households.' Apartments offer a lifestyle better suited to the needs of these groups by combining convenience and amenities. They also provide flexibility to respond to job and lifestyle changes. 71 "Historical Census of Housing Tables: Living Alone ": http: / /www. census. gov /hhes /www/housing/census /historic /livalone.httnl, "America's Families and Living Arrangements: 2003," by Jason Fields: http: / /www. census .gov /prod/2004pubs /p20- 553.pdf, "National Population Projections," by Jennifer Cheeseman Day: http: / /www. census .gov /population/www /pop - profile /natproj:html, and "Young Adults Delaying Marriage," by Sharon Jayson and Anthony DeBarros: http:// www. usatoday .com/news /nation/2007- 09 -12- census - marriage N.htm 9 -93 Rohnert Park General Plan Table 9.6 -S: Comparison of New Home Characteristics Nationwide Characteristic 1971 1999 2008 Average floor area 1,500 sq. IL 2,225 sq. ft. 2,534 sq. ft. Homes _< 1,600 sq. ft. 65% 260/6 31 Homes _> 2,400 sq. ft. 9% 67% 42% Two or more stories 17% 52% 60% 2 Y, or more bathrooms 15% 53% 59% Four or more bedrooms 18% 33% 36% Two -car or greater garage 537.(1975) 79% 90% Central air conditioning equipped 36% 84% 89% Fireplace(s) equipped 36% 61% over 50% Sources: "Characteristics of New Homes Completed," 1971 and 2008 "Census Bureau, 1998 Builder Practices Survey, NAHB Research Center. Furthermore, tax law changes in 1997"have caused many Americans to question the assumption that owning a home is better from an:economic standpoint than renting..Now that the first $500,000 of capital gains on homes Sold by joint filers, :are exempt from taxes, many people particularly empty nesters — are choosing to sell their homes and rent, letting someone else worry about cutting the grass, household repairs, and paying property taxes. . Land Costs Approximately 25 percent of lid" sin:g costs are attributable to land costs in most real estate mar- kets. Land costs are also affected by such factors as zoning density, the availability of i.n6astruc- ture, the existence or absence of environmental constraints; and. the relative amount of similar "I" and available, 6r development: There is currently no vacant; residentially -zoned property within the': =Rohnert . Park city limits other than: • Residential sites within the Stadium Area and University District, and • The Creekwood site (see Table 9.5 -1) which was approved for 96 units but is still vacant. In 2002, there was a .75 -acre infill site off of E. Cotati Avenue. This site was recently under a pur- chase agreement for $220,000, with an associated land cost of $10,000 per unit. The parcel has since been developed with 20 units as part of the Park Gardens project. Land costs for residential development in the other areas designated for growth by the General Plan will not be known until properties have been annexed and development costs have been calculated. Whatever the future values are, it can be assumed that the cost of land will be a major factor in the cost of lower -cost housing. The City has assisted with pre - development costs for lower income housing projects in the past, including the securing of property options, and it is likely that similar assistance in the future could prove useful to the development of such housing. 9 -94 Chapter 9. Housing Financing Costs Mortgage Interest Rates Besides lowering monthly interest payments. for new buyers, lower interest rates allow existing homeowners to refinance their homes, thereby lowering. monthly housing costs and perhaps pre- serving their ownership status. In September 1998, mortgage interest rates fell to 6.66 percent for a 30 -year, fixed -rate conforming mortgage. At the time, this was the lowest level since 1971. However, in December 2008, the rate on the same mortgage had fallen to 5.54 percent.'$ This low rate means that lower income buyers may be better able to qualify for a loan than they were previously. Many major financial institutions and mortgage lenders that finance housing have offices in Roh- nert Park. Additional financial institutions and mortgage lenders that lend in Rohnert Park have offices located in nearby Santa Rosa or Petaluma. Given the number and the size of some of the financial institutions in Rohnert Park, up until the recent home foreclosure crisis associated with subprime lending, there was no shortage of financ- ing for housing projects. While loan money is still available for new construction, housing rehabili- tation and mortgage financing, it is harder to borrow money since financial institutions must exer- cise more caution than in the past. Homes sales are occurring in all parts of the community, and there is no evidence of mortgage- deficient areas in the community for new construction or rehabilitation loans. Construction Financing Financing costs for construction are affected partly by how early in the development process loans must be taken out, and how long the loans must be carried. Project delays can increase total interest payments, as well as create greater financial risk for a project. Overall, construction financing usually represents a small contribution to total housing costs. Down Payments and Move In Costs The ability to accumulate a down payment remains a formidable barrier to many potential home - buyers. Low - income households find it difficult to make the transition from rental to ownership units because they cannot accumulate a down payment while renting.79 A $295,000 home (the Sep- tember 2008 median price of a home in Rohnert Park) would require a 20 percent down payment of almost $60,000,80 Therefore, of the five housing income categories defined by State law, only those earning 100 percent of the median or higher could afford the median home price in Rohnert Park without assistance. 78 http: // mortgages .interest.com /content/compare/ 79 CDBG Program Application for First Time Home Buyer Program, 2000. 80 DQNews: htt p:// www. dgnews .com/Charts/Monthly- Charts/CA- City- Charts /ZIPCAR.aspx 9 -95 Rohnert Park General Plan Similarly, low - income households may find it difficult to obtain rental housing because they may have problems accruing the necessary down payment in the form of security deposits and first and last months' rents. 9 -96 Chapter 9: Housing 9.7 HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS The following goals, policies,. and programs are designed to address the existing and projected housing needs of the City of Rohnert Park. Each program has one or more individuals, bodies, or agencies responsible for its implementation, along with a potential or committed funding source, and a schedule for its implementation during the 2007 -2014 planning period. This section of the Housing Element is also the implementation plan for the Community Develop- ment Commission of Rohnert Park. GUIDING POLICY The City of Rohnert Park supports safe and affordable housing for all social and economic seg- ments of the community as a means of securing desirable social and economic diversity. GOAL: HOUSING SUPPLY HO -A Promote opportunities for housing development to accommodate projected growth and fa- cilitate mobility within the ownership and rental markets.. POLICIES: HOUSING SUPPLY HO -1 Promote residential development within the current city limits. Program 1.1 Require that development of the following sites designated as "Mixed Use" by. the General Plan Diagram include at least the specified number of multi - family units: a) The City Center area: a minimum of 100 multi- family units b) The Southwest Boulevard Shopping. Center redevelopment site: a mini - mum of 100 multi - family units Responsibility: Planning Staff, Planning Commission, City Council Funding Source: Developer fees for review of proposals Schedule: February 1, 2007 June 30, 2014, as development propos- als for the mixed -use sites are submitted. HO -2 Facilitate residential development within the growth areas. Programs 2. L Facilitate the preparation of specific plans and annexation applications. Responsibility: Planning Division Funding Source: Developer fees 9 -97 Rohnert Park General Plan Scheduler Draft specific plan applications for the Southeast and Northeast areas are currently in review and should be ap- proved in 2009, with annexation applications to the So- noma County Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO) to follow. A Preliminary Draft Specific Plan for the Northwest Area has been adopted and a Final Plan is expected to be submitted in 2009 -10. Final applications are expected by 2011, with an annexation application to LAFCO to follow. February 1, 2007 — December 31, 2011, as applications are submitted 2.2 Deny proposals for residential down - zonings or reclassifications of residentially- designated property to nonresidential uses if such changes would have adverse impacts on the achievement of the City's Quantified Objectives that could not be offset or minimized. When applications. are reviewed to change zoning districts that also require Gen - eral Plan amendments, Planning Staff check to see how the General Plan is im- pacted. Staff also check for compatibility with the General Plan when they re- view a specific plan; planned development; or design review application for a residential project. Responsibility: Planning Commission, City Council Fu�dmg Source: Developer:fees: Schedule: Ongoing program; continue. 2.3 Following the approval of a specific .plan, require the. applicant to post sites des- ignated for high-density-housing with visible, durable signs containing informa- tion about the site's development potential. Require such information to be pro - vided'in appropriate sales offices and provided to.prospective buyers of nearby homes. Responsibility: Community Development Director Funding Source: Project Applicant Schedule: Following approval of specific plans (Ongoing; in Zoning Ordinance) HO -3 Ensure that residential sites are served by adequate infrastructure and services. Programs 3.1 Continue to work with regional agencies to ensure an adequate long -term water supply and wastewater disposal system. The City complied with State law (SB 1087) by approving Resolution No. 2006- 192, to guarantee water and sewer priority for developments with affordable housing. 9 -98 Chapter 9: Housing Responsibility: Engineering and Public Works departments, City Council Funding Source: General Fund, Developer fees Schedule: February 1, 2007 - June 30, 2014 3.2 Continue to establish assessment districts and utilize subdivision agreements to finance adequate infrastructure. Responsibility: City Council and Engineering Public Works staff Funding Source: Developer fees Schedule: February 1, 2007 - June 30, 2014, during the processing of specific plans GOAL: BALANCE OF HOUSING TYPES HO -B Provide for a range of housing types within the community to accommodate a variety of incomes and lifestyles, and enable residents to remain in Rohnert Park throughout their lives if they so choose. POLICY: BALANCE OF HOUSING TYPES HO-4 Promote a diversity of housing types, including single - family detached and attached residences, mobilehomes, multi - family rental and ownership units, second units, and units combined with non - residential uses. Programs 4.1 During the application and review process for specific plans, ensure that they provide for the diversity of housing types specified in the Land Use and Growth Management Element. Responsibility: Planning Division, Planning Commission, City Council Funding Source: Developer fees Schedule: The City has already reviewed draft specific plans for the Northeast and Southeast areas, a Preliminary specific plan for the Northwest Area, as well as a Draft development plan for Sonoma Mountain Village..Housing type mix will continue to be reviewed as plans are fmalized. February 1, 2007— December 31, 2011, as applications are reviewed- 4.2 Encourage the development of housing affordable to extremely low - income households. Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units are a good source of housing affordable to extremely low - income households. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to (1) define SRO units as residential instead of commercial facilities, and (2) provide incen- tives for SRO development such as reduced development standards and potential funding from the Housing Trust Fund. 9 -99 Rohnert Park General Plan Responsibility: Funding Source: Schedule: Planning Staff, Planning Commission, City Council General Plan The Zoning Ordinance will be amended by 2010 to reflect this change. 4.3 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to update the design guidelines. Responsibility: Planning Staff, Planning Commission, City Council Funding Source: General Plan Schedule: The Zoning Ordinance will be amended by 2010 to reflect the updated design guidelines. GOAL: PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING HO -C Address to the maximum extent feasible the housing needs of all economic segments of the present and future community, giving highest priority to lower income households. POLICIES: PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING HO -5 Minimize governmental constraints on the provision of housing that is affordable to lower income households. Programs. 5.1 Revise the Zoning Ordinance's parking standards . to, provide reduced. parking re- quirements for student housing near Sonoma State University. Responsibihty Planning Staff, Planning Commission, City Council Fundmg. Source: General.Fund Schedule: February 1, 2007:- June 30.1 2014 5.2 Continue Article 34.authority:to use redevelopment set -aside funds to provide fi- nancing for lower income housing. In November 2001. an Article 34 measure was approved by voters to allow construction of very low- and low- income housing units with the assistance of redevelopment set -aside housing funds. See Governmental Constraints section for description of Article 34 authority. Responsibility: City Council Funding Source: General and Redevelopment Funds Schedule: Ongoing program; continue. 5.3 Continue annual review pursuant to Policy GM -4 and the Growth Management Ordinance of the Growth Management Program 9 -100 Chapter 9. Housing Annual reviews evaluate the Growth Management Program's "trigger cap" to ensure that the City's fair share allocations can be achieved within the context of the Ordinance. The sixth annual policy review of the Growth Management Pro- gram was completed in May 2008 and concluded that the Ordinance was not creating an impediment to the City achieving its fair share allocation. Responsibility: City Council Funding Source: ' General and Redevelopment Funds Schedule: Ongoing program; continue. 5.4 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to take away the CUP requirement for density bo- nus projects. Currently, projects that apply for density bonuses must also attain a CUP, even if without the density bonus, these projects would be allowed by -right. This amounts to a governmental constraint on providing affordable housing. Responsibility: Planning. Staff, Planning Commission, City Council Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: The Zoning Ordinance will be amended by 2010 to reflect this change. 5.5 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include for the provision of a hearing in the Administrative Permit process. Per State law, when development is subject to. discretionary approval, the oppor- tunity for a hearing should be provided. Responsibility: Planning Staff, Planning Commission, City Council Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: The Zoning Ordinance will be amended by 2010 to reflect this change. HO -6 Facilitate the availability of market -rate housing to low- and moderate - income, first -time homebuyers. 9 -101 Rohnert Park General Plan Programs 6.1 Continue to issue, in cooperation with other jurisdictions in .Sonoma County, mortgage credit certificates to qualified low- and moderate- income, first -time homebuyers. Work with the Sonoma County Housing Authority to ensure that Rohnert Park receives a share of future allocations. (Potential number of house- holds assisted: 36 first -time buyers)81 Responsibility: CDCRP Funding Source: State program Schedule: Ongoing program; continue. HO -7 Comply with the affordable housing requirements of California Community Redevelopment Law to maximize the number of affordable units provided. Program 7.1 Ensure that at least 30 percent of all dwelling units developed by the CDCRP are affordable Ito low- or moderate- income households, and that not less than 50 per- cent of these are affordable to very low- income. households. Ensure that at least 15 percent of all dwelling units developed in the redevelopment project area by public or private entities or persons other than the agency are affordable to low- or moderate- income households, and that not less than 40 percent of these are af- fordable;:to very low- incomehouseholds. These .requirements are consistent with California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety t6de Section 33413). They may'also be satisfied by several alternative methods. Responsibility: Planning Division, City Council, CDCRP Funding Source: CDCRP Schedule: 0. ngoing program; continue. HO -8 Make the maximum use of resources available for the provision of housing affordable to lower income households. 81 The 2008 Mortgage Credit Certificate allocation for the cooperative agreement that Rohnert Park is a part of along with the cities of Cloverdale, Cotati, Healdsburg, Petaluma, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma and the Town of Windsor is for about $3.2 million. This should be sufficient to assist 13 -16 first -time homebuyers in 2008 and 2009. This means that if the allocation continues every two years through the end of the planning period, the cooperative agreement will help about 36 households. Not all of these will be in Rohnert Park, however. 9 -102 Chapter 9: Housing Programs 8.1 Continue to work with other agencies to take advantage of their administrative resources and receive a reasonable share of federal, state and private funding for housing. Responsibility: City Manager, Planning Staff, City Council, CDCRP Funding Source: General and Redevelopment funds Schedule: Ongoing program; continue. 8.2 Maintain contacts with nonprofit housing organizations to benefit from their ex- pertise in developing and supporting affordable housing. Refer potential devel- opers of such housing to these organizations for assistance. Responsibility: Planning Staff, City Manager, CDCRP Funding Source: General and Redevelopment funds Schedule: Ongoing program; continue. 8.3 Publicize affordable housing programs through the City's public communica- tions and publications. Responsibility: City Manager, Planning Staff, CDCRP Funding Source: General and Redevelopment funds Schedule: Ongoing program; continue 8.4 Impose a housing impact (linkage) fee on businesses that generate a significant number of jobs in the community. The City adopted a workforce housing linkage fee that went into effect in 2008. Responsibility: City Council, Planning Staff. Funding Source: Developer fees Schedule: Ongoing program; continue 8.5 Prioritize 10. percent of Housing Trust Fund money to assist extremely low - income households through housing rehabilitation or new construction. The descriptions of the Rebuilding Together and Owner- Occupied Housing Re- habilitation programs in the Agency and Funding Resources section on page 9.5- 12, discuss extremely low - income household assistance. Table 9.7 -1 projects the assistance level of these programs during the planning period (67 units). Responsibility: CDCRP, Planning Staff, City Council Funding Source: Redevelopment funds Schedule: This action will occur by 2011. HO -9 Require the provision of affordable housing as part of residential development throughout the community. 9 -103 Rohnert Park General Plan Program 9.1 Require below - market rate housing to be included as part of residential projects, as follows: a) 15 percent of the units in a rental housing .project of five or more units shall be affordable to very low- and low- income households. b) 15 percent of the units in a for -sale project of five or more units shall be af- fordable to low- and moderate - income households. c) Alternative methods of meeting the intent of the inclusionary requirements, such as the provision of land for the required inclusionary units or the pay- ment of an in -lieu fee, may be permitted under certain circumstances. d) The inclusionary units shall be constructed concurrently with market -rate units when feasible. e) The long -term affordability of the inclusionary units shall be guaranteed. Responsibility: Planning Staff, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Planning Commission, City Council Funding Source: Developer fees Schedule: Ongoing pro gram; continue 9.2 Forward preferred methodology fox<inclusionary housing -in -lieu fee calculation to City Council for approval. The City has conducted a study that compares .various mclusioinary housing in- lieu fee calculation methodologies. In order to standardize the methodology used by;the City, the City Council must vote on which .methodology to use. Prior to requesting a vote by the City Council, City staff will .get developer input as to • which methodology should be chosen so that this; information can inform the City Council decision. Responsibility: Planning Staff, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Planning Commission, City Council Funding Sources: General Fund Schedule: This will occur by May 2010. 9.3 Evaluate in -lieu fee options and present findings to City Council. The City has undertaken a study to evaluate the flexibility of in -lieu fee options and other options of meeting the inclusionary requirement. The findings of this study have not, however, been presented to City Council for review and action. Responsibility: Planning Staff, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Planning Commission, City Council 9 -104 Chapter 9: Housing Funding Sources: General Fund Schedule: This will occur by May 2010. GOAL: PRESERVATION OF AFFORDABLITY HO -D Preserve the City's existing affordable housing stock, and ensure the long -term affordability of new non- market rate units. POLICIES: PRESERVATION OF AFFORDABILITY HO -10 Preserve the affordability of the City's existing affordable housing stock. Programs 10.1 10.2 Continue to enforce Chapter 9.70, which controls space lease increases to protect the interests of mobile home park residents and park owners, and provide staff- ing to the Mobile Home Rent Appeals Board. Responsibility: City Council, Assistant City Manager, City Attorney, Housing and Redevelopment Division Funding Source.. General Fund, Developer fees Schedule:. Ongoing program; continue Continue to enforce' Chapter 16.58 of Title 16 (Subdivisions), which regulates the cessation of use; change of use, or conversion of use in mobilehome parks. The provisions of this chapter require the filing of a report with the City Council when a subdivision application is filed for the conversion'of a mobilehome park to another use, or at least six months before the closure of a park or the cessation of use of the land as a mobilehome park. The report shall address the impact of the conversion,. closure,. or cessation of use. The Council is required to hold a public hearing on the report and may impose measures to mitigate associated impacts. Responsibility: Planning Division, City Council Funding Source: General Fund, Developer fees Schedule: Ongoing program; continue HO -11 Ensure the long -term affordability of units developed or provided with City assistance. Programs 11.1 Impose resale or rent controls on all units that receive City financial assistance or state housing density bonuses for not less than 45 years for for -sale units and 55 years for rental units. Responsibility: Planning Staff, Planning Commission, City Council Funding Source: General Fund, Developer fees Schedule: Ongoing program; continue, as projects are approved 9 -105 Rohnert Park General Plan 11.2 Impose long -term re -sale or rental controls on affordable units provided through the inclusionary housing program or City subsidies to ensure that they remain af- fordable to the targeted income groups. The Inclusionary. Housing Ordinance was amended to increase the affordability period from 30 years to 55 years for rental units and 45 years for sale units. Responsibility: Planning Commission and City Council Funding Source: General and Redevelopment funds Schedule: Ongoing program; continue, as projects are approved 11.3 Encourage and facilitate to the extent possible, participation by property owners in federal for -sale and rental housing assistance programs that maintain afforda- bility for very low - and low- income residents. Responsibility: City Housing and Redevelopment staff, CDCRP Funding Source: General and Redevelopment funds Schedule: Ongoing program; continue 11.4 Monitor units at risk of conversion to „market rate Cre�atea .List of units at -risk of conversion within the current and next planning periods and update it on an an- nual basisPublcize exstmg `State and federal notice requirements to nonprofit . de�relopexs and property owners of at nsk housing Meet with owners of at -risk units, tf they intend to opt out Hof a Section 8. contract, hold ii public .hearing two years pnot to the expiration.of affordability restrictions to ensure that :noticing 4regiure tints and potent }al strategies. {such as transf ar Abe units to a uonproft developer) are,exammed to,preserve;:or rep ace,the units nr otherwise assist the ; , tempts t In addt ion, the. Cjty will examm�e: thg possibility of i (1) 'providing %nan- eial resources and assistmg owners .with f}u3dmg apphcat'ions and (2) providing ongoing technical assistance -and education -to affected.tenants and the .cominuni- H ty. at large on -the.; need .to, preserve at -risk units Responsibility: City Housing and Redevelopment staff, CDCRP Funding - Source , General. and Redevelopment funds . Schedule:. These actions will occur by 2011. 9 -106' GOAL: HOUSING FOR SPECIAL NEEDS HO -E Promote housing opportunities for special needs groups. POLICIES: HOUSING FOR SPECIAL NEEDS HO -12 Promote the provision of housing for persons with special needs. Program Chapter 9: Housing 12.1 Defer City fees for housing projects that meet special needs when necessary to improve the financial feasibility of such projects. Responsibility: CDCRP, City Council Funding Source: Redevelopment and General Funds (until reimbursed by developers) Schedule: Ongoing. program; continue HO -13 Promote the provision of rental.units for larger families. Program 13.1 Require apartment projects that receive CDCRP funding to include units with more than two bedrooms. Responsibility: City Housing and Redevelopment staff, City Council Funding Source: Redevelopment Fund, Developer fees Schedule: Ongoing program; continue, as appropriate HO -14 Promote the provision of disabled - accessible units and housing for the disabled. Programs 14.1 Give a high priority to projects that include disabled- accessible units when allo- cating CDCRP support and funding. Responsibility: CDCRP, Housing and Redevelopment staff Funding Source: Redevelopment Fund, Developer fees Schedule: Ongoing program; continue, as projects are submitted 14.2 Target households with disabled persons when promoting the CDCRP's rehabili- tation program. Two programs currently exist, both of which are available to persons with dis- abilities. These programs are the Owner- Occupied Home Rehabilitation and the Rebuilding Together programs. Both programs use CDCRP housing funds. The City sends out fliers about these programs to various senior and disability advo- cacy organizations. Responsibility: Housing and Redevelopment staff 9 -107 Rohnert Park General Plan Funding Source: Redevelopment Fund Schedule: Ongoing program; continue 14.3 Support efforts to provide housing for mentally- or emotionally - disabled adults. Responsibility: City Council, CDCRP Funding Source: General and Redevelopment Funds Schedule: Ongoing program; continue 14.4 Review City building codes to determine their consistency with HUD regula- tions and State law concerning housing for persons with disabilities. Require de- velopers to strictly comply with these regulations in order to increase the stock of housing accessible to persons with disabilities. Review for compliance will occur at plan check. Responsibility: City Council, Building Division Funding Source: General and Redevelopment funds, Developer fees Schedule: Ongoing program; continue 14.5 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow Staff approval of development. standard modifications for features needed to .accommodate persons with disabilities (e.g. wheelchair ramps that encroach mto4required yards). Responsibility: Housing and Redevelopment staff Funding. Source: " Staff tune Schedule: The Zoning Ordinancewill be amended by 2010 to reflect this change. 14.6 Consider standards° that would;-apply to .all groups living situations. (e:g. dormito- ries, assisted living, and residential care facilities). A set of standards for all group living situations would assure equal treatment and eliminate -ad -hoc determinations:' Responsibility: Housing and Redevelopment staff Funding Source:' Staff time Schedule: A Zoning Ordinance amendment will be considered by 2011 to reflect this change. HO -15 Promote housing for the elderly. Programs 15.1 . Target elderly households when promoting the CDCRP's rehabilitation pro - grams. 9 -108 Chapter 9: Housing Two programs currently exist, both of which are available to elderly households. These programs are the Owner- Occupied Home Rehabilitation and the Rebuild- ing Together programs. Both programs use CDCRP housing funds. The City sends out fliers about these programs to various senior and disability advocacy organizations. Responsibility: Funding Source: Schedule: Housing and Redevelopment staff Redevelopment Fund Ongoing program; continue HO -16 Prevent homelessness and support efforts to provide housing for the homeless. Programs 16.1 Revise the Zoning Ordinance to allow emergency shelters that can house seven or more people in High Density Residential and Commercial districts by -right to facilitate the provision of such shelters. Ensure that development standards en- courage and facilitate the use and only subject shelters to the same development and management standards that apply to other allowed uses within High Density Residential and Commercial districts. High Density Residential and Commercial districts make up nearly 20 percent of the City's acreage. Potential shelter locations include the following sites that may become available after construction of the new City hall: former finance of- fice building, and any school sites determined to be surplus. See discussion of emergency shelter need in the Special Needs Housing section, page 9.3 -23. Responsibility: Planning Director, Planning Commission, City Council Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: The Zoning Ordinance will be amended by 2010 to reflect this change. 16.2 Include definition of permanent supportive housing in the Zoning Ordinance and clarify that transitional and supportive housing is permitted as a residential use and only subject to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. While the Zoning Ordinance already contains a definition of transitional hous- ing, it does not provide a definition of supportive housing nor does it clarify that transitional and supportive housing should be treated the same as other residen- tial uses in the same zone. Responsibility: Planning Staff, Planning Commission, City Council Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: The Zoning Ordinance will be amended by 2010 to reflect this change. 9 -109 Rohnert Park General Plan 16.3 Continue providing homeless prevention and support services by providing fund- ing to agencies that work to prevent homelessness and/or provide services to the homeless. (The County has 215 shelter beds that are almost always occupied every night of the year.) Currently the City provides funding to Sonoma County Adult and Youth Devel- opment (SCAYD) to support their Homeless Prevention. and Rental Assistance Program and to Committee on the Shelterless (COTS), to manage the City's supportive and transitional housing. Responsibility: CDCRP Funding Source: Redevelopment Fund (FY 08 -09: $145,000 to SCAYD, $130,000 for homeless prevention and $15,000 for Sono- ma Mountain Grove rent subsidy; $114,500 to COTS) Schedule: Ongoing program; continue 16.4 Continue working with the Committee on the Shelterless to provide shared hous- ing for. families who would otherwise become homeless as well as the chronical- ly homeless. Responsibility: CDCRP Funding. Source: Redevelopment Fund.:. . Schedule: Ongoin&program; .continue 16.5 Provide information zegardng homeless services to City employees who are likely'to be in contact with those needuig shelter. Direct employees to refer such persons as-appropriate. Responsibility: Funding Source: Schedule: 9 -110 Specified City employees; City Manager General Fund Ongoing. program; continue Chapter 9: Housing GOAL: FAIR HOUSING HO -F Promote housing opportunities for all people regardless of race, religion, disability; gender, marital status, ancestry or national origin. POLICIES: FAIR HOUSING HO -18 Discourage discriminatory housing practices. Programs 18.1 Provide information about Fair Housing of Sonoma County to City employees who are likely to receive fair housing complaints. Direct employees to refer such persons as appropriate. Responsibility: City employees specified by City Manager Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Ongoing program; continue 18.2 Post information regarding local, state and federal fair housing programs in such public places as City Hall, Community Center, Senior Center, and the post of- fice. Responsibility: Housing and Redevelopment staff Funding Source: General and Redevelopment fluids Schedule: Ongoing program; continue 18.3 Continue to review the fair housing records and practices of agencies and firms during contract negotiations, and include provisions in contracts allowing City inspection of fair housing documentation. Responsibility: City Housing and Redevelopment staff, City Attorney Funding Source: General and Redevelopment funds, Developer fees Schedule: Ongoing program; continue 18.4 Continue to include fair housing practices among the items addressed by the CDCRP's auditor during annual visits to the sites of contracting agencies and firms. Conduct occasional site visits and program audits of agency contractors for fair housing and discrimination compliance. Responsibility: City Housing and Redevelopment staff Funding Source: General and Redevelopment funds Schedule: Ongoing program; continue 18.5 Monitor the occupancy characteristics of housing projects targeted to lower in- come households to ensure that minorities, families, and -the disabled are fairly represented by collecting demographic information from development managers on an annual basis. 9 -III Rohnert. Park General Plan Responsibility: City Housing and Redevelopment staff Funding Source: General and Redevelopment funds Schedule: January 1, 2007 -June 30, 2014 18.6 Monitor the racial and ethnic characteristics of loan recipients in City- supported projects and programs to promote equal representation and discourage discrimi- nation or restrictions in housing choice. This will be achieved by collecting data and monitoring the demographic information of loan recipients on an annual ba- sis. Responsibility: City Housing and Redevelopment staff Funding Source: General and Redevelopment funds Schedule: January" 1, 2007 -June 30, 2014 18.7 Continue to require contractors to file monthly or annual progress reports that in- clude information on program beneficiaries.. Review fair housing and discrimina- tion compliance when these reports are examined. Responsibility: City Housing and. Redevelopment staff Funding Source: General and Redevelopment funds Schedule: Ongoing program; continue 18.8 Continue :to proytde equitable, public services throughout the City, including public transportation, crime prevention, police protection, street lighting, street cleaning, trash collection ,recreational`facilities and ptogramss, and schools. Responsibility' City Co.,uncil Funding Source: General:Fund Schedule: Ongoing program; continue 1.8.9 Continue to, publicize openings, on City boards and commissions through several newspapers. Responsibility: City Council, City Clerk Funding Source: General Fund." Scheduler Ongoing program; continue 18.10 Continue to ensure that an over - concentration of lower income housing does not occur in neighborhoods. Responsibility: Planning Division, Planning Commission, City Council Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Ongoing program; continue; as projects are reviewed 9 -112 Chapter 9: Housing 18.11 Contact Fair Housing of Sonoma County to inform them of possible rental dis- crimination against students, and request an investigation of its existence, fol- lowed by possible remediation. Responsibility: Funding Source: Schedule: Housing and Redevelopment staff General and Redevelopment funds Ongoing program; continue GOAL: PRESERVATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF HOUSING STOCK HO -G Preserve and improve the City's existing housing stock. POLICIES: PRESERVATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF HOUSING STOCK HO -19 Promote the maintenance of the existing housing stock. Programs 19.1 Continue administering the adopted housing rehabilitation program, seeking to rehabilitate as many units as possible. (Potential households assisted: 28) The program provides deferred, twenty -year loans of up to $24,000 to. mobile home owners, up to $25,000 for multi- family homeowners, and up to $50,000 to conventional homeowners with incomes of less than 120% of area median in- come. Loans can be forgiven under the discretion of the CDCRP Executive Di- rector. The program's priority is making the moderate quality improvements ne- cessary to assure that the homes meet code requirements and basic housing quality standards. Responsibility: City Housing and Redevelopment staff, Sonoma County Housing Authority Funding Source: Redevelopment Fund (There is $100,000 allocated . in the 2008/09 budget) and CDBG funds (almost $86,000 is al- located for 2008/09) Schedule: Ongoing program; continue 19.3 Fund a Rebuilding Together program in Rohnert Park, focusing on lower income households, particularly the elderly and people with disabilities. (Total house - holds assisted in 2006: 23 very low- and low- income households.) Using community volunteers, this program rehabilitates homes to provide warmth, safety, and security. Typical repairs include fixing leaky roofs, building wheelchair ramps, electrical rewiring, repairing plumbing, installing new furnac- es . and hot water heaters, installing smoke detectors, replacing doors and win- dows, landscaping, and painting. Responsibility: City Housing and Redevelopment staff Funding Source: Redevelopment Fund (In FY 2008 -09, allotted funding was $50,000) 9 -113 Rohnert Park General Plan Schedule: Ongoing program; continue HO -22 Minimize the extent of potential earthquake damage to housing. Programs 22.1 Encourage owners of wood -frame homes to ensure that they are adequately se- cured to foundations and have adequate bracing by .providing guidelines and sample plans at the Building Department. The City hired a consultant to review existing buildings to determine where seismic retrofitting may be needed: Responsibility: Building Official Funding Source: General Fund Schedule: Ongoing program; continue 22.2 Inform owners of multi - family housing whose structures may be highly suscept- ible to.seismic damage, and help owners obtain financing for retrofitting. As mentioned above, the City hired a consultant to review existing buildings to deterrnine.where seismic retrofittmg_.may be needed. . Responsibility:. Building Official CDCRP Funding Source: General.and Redevelopment, Funds Schedule:; Ongoing.program continue 22.3 Include information about the need for 'residential seismic ;.f..6trofitting and, retro- fitting methods.. in the . City's communications with residents. Publicize Fannie Mae s. Project Impact Disaster: Prevention Loan Program. Responsibility: Building Division, City Manager's Office Funding Source: General and Redevelopment funds Schedule: Ongoing,program; continue 22.4 Consider. funding and implementing another mobilehome bracing program. A previous bracing program reinforced more than 474 of the City's mobile homes. Responsibility: Building Division, CDCRP Funding Source: Redevelopment Fund Schedule: Consider during preparation of FY 2010 -2011 CDCRP budget ` HO -23 Use the provisions of California Community Redevelopment Law to ensure that a share of housing units that are rehabilitated are affordable to lower income households. 9 -114