Healdsburg City Council
September 6, 2022

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Healdsburg this 6th day of September 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ABSTAINING: Councilmembers:

SO ORDERED: ATTEST:
_________________________________ ___________________________________ Osvaldo Jimenez, Mayor Raina Allan, City Clerk

6.K.a
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Resolution (3751 : Professional Services Agreement with PFM Asset Management)

CITY OF HEALDSBURG

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 6, 2022
SUBJECT: Amend Professional Service Agreement with Fecunditatis to Pursue Grant Funding for Drought Mitigation Projects and Microgrid Projects PREPARED BY: Patrick Fuss, Water/Wastewater Engineer
STRATEGIC INITIATIVE(S):

Pursue Initiatives that Promote Environmental Stewardship Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and Facilities
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Adopt a Resolution approving an amendment with Fecunditatis increasing the not to exceed amount by $48,960 to $109,750, extending the term length to provide that the agreement term shall expire on September 30, 2023, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the amendment on behalf of the city.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT/OUTREACH:

Not applicable.

BACKGROUND:

The City is pursuing grant funding for projects consisting of water supply enhancement through groundwater / aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) wells, water demand mitigation through a recycled water pipeline to deliver recycled water to municipal turf that need not be irrigated with potable water, and power supply improvements and resiliency through microgrids.

The ASR Wells Project enhances the City’s water supply to include ground water in addition to the present source which is solely surface water. The ASR Wells project will allow the City to replenish water withdrawn, making the process sustainable, as well as allow the City the ability to store water in the aquifer when water is plentiful. The City has been notified that the ASR Wells Project has been selected by FEMA for further review under the 2021 BRIC grant program for which requests for information (RFIs) are expected. Additionally, the 2021 BRIC grant will cover 70% of the project costs to approximately $6 million. The remaining 30% (or greater) of the project costs will be from non-federal sources. These sources can be local funds or state grants.

6.L
Packet Pg. 153
The Municipal Recycled Water Pipeline Project was presented as a 4.5-mile pipeline project in the grant application to the Department of Water Resources (DWR). However, DWR funded only $7 million of the project costs. This has caused the City to reduce the size and scope to less than 2-miles. An additional $7 million is needed to complete the project as originally envisioned.

Additional grant opportunities are emerging specific to local electric generation combined with microgrid electric storage at both the state and federal level. The City is interested in studying and designing a microgrid project that would reduce the City’s peak demands on the state power grid and provide critical backup power during natural disasters and other long-term outages.

Additionally, the Healdsburg Community Center, which serves as a regional emergency center, lacks electrical backup generation. This site would benefit from backup power that could be provided primarily by solar cells with a battery backup system and secondarily by a traditional fuel-powered generator.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

City Council on March 21st, 2022 by Resolution No. 28-2022 authorized execution of an Agreement with Fecunditatis on behalf of the City in accordance with the City Municipal Code and/or other applicable law. The City entered into an agreement with Fecunditatis on April 8th, 2022 for $60,790 to support the grant processes for the ASR and Recycled Water Pipeline Projects. As of September 30, 2022, the contract hours are expected to be exhausted and the Agreement is set to expire. Staff are recommending increasing the not to exceed amount of the contract and extending the contract term length for another year in order to ensure staff have continued support during the grant application review process.

ASR Wells Project
For the ASR Wells Project, FEMA will have questions in the form of RFIs that must be resolved prior to this project being funded. Along with City staff time, staff anticipate that some involvement from the grant writing consultant will be required to respond to RFIs. The recommended action will provide 40 hours of consultant time to assist with RFI responses for the FEMA RFIs associated with he 2021 FEMA BRIC grant.

As noted above, the FEMA BRIC Grant would fund approximately 70% of project costs up to approximately $6 million in federal funds. Staff recommends that state funding be sought to assist with the non-federally funded share. As a State agency, DWR has a drought mitigation funding program that would provide funds for the non-federally funded portion of the BRIC grant and provide contingency funds should the BRIC grant be insufficient. The recommended action will provide 40 hours of consultant time to assist with preparing a grant application for the DWR Urban Community Drought Relief Program for the ASR Wells Project.

Recycled Water Pipeline Project
The Municipal Recycled Water Pipeline Project was originally envisioned as a $14 million project when the initial grant application was submitted to DWR. DWR funded half of the costs and the project was scaled back to be within this constraint. There is additional funding available under the DWR Urban Community Drought Relief Program. This program requires a 25% match, which for the roughly $7 million of the Recycled Water pipeline Project that is not already funded would equate to a 5.25 million grant request with a $1.75 million local share. The

6.L
Packet Pg. 154
recommended action will provide 30-hours of consultant time to assist with preparing a grant application for the DWR Urban Community Drought Relief Program.

Microgrid Project
For the Microgrid project, Staff has submitted a grant request for the study phase in the 2022 FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). This grant application is under review by the California Office of Emergency Services. Requests for information are expected. The recommended action will provide 12-hours of consultant time to assist with responding to RFIs associated with the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant for the microgrid study.

There is additional state funding available from a soon-to-be-released grant opportunity administered through the California Energy Commission (CEC). Staff anticipates that some aspects of emergency power for critical facilities cannot be part of a submission to the CEC program. The recommended action will provide 65-hours of consultant time to assist with preparing a grant application for the California Energy Commission grant application.

The CEC program in conjunction with Federal grant application could present a phased approach for developing the microgrid system, consisting of the study, design, construction, and implementation of microgrids at key locations within Healdsburg. It should be noted that, with the level of funding available from the State and the length timelines of federal funding, perusing funding directly from the state will likely be much more efficient and expedient.

The recommended action will provide 85-hours of consultant time to assist with preparing applications and RFI responses related to microgrids.

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP:

The water supply projects that potentially would be funded under the recommended action supplement the City’s surface water sources with ground water source and replace potable water usage with recycled water. Both projects can reduce the demand of surface water which leaves more natural water in the streams which benefits the environment and can allow more water to remain in storage reservoirs upstream which benefits the region water supply.

The microgrid project expands the use of solar generated power to periods after sundown without contributing greenhouse gases to the environment.

ALTERNATIVES:

City Council could decline to amend the grant writing professional services agreement to include these efforts. Staff does not recommend this alternative, because the grant application and RFI response processes are arduous, and the consultant has specialized skills to efficiently conduct this work.

City Council may elect to authorize only portions of the proposed work. If Council makes this election, staff requests clarification of which grant efforts will move forward with consultant support.

6.L
Packet Pg. 155
FISCAL IMPACT:

The proposed increase to the professional services agreement is $48,960 bringing the total contract value to $109,750. Staff recommends apportioning the cost of each proposed additional task from existing departmental approved budgets with total expected expenditures of $19,800 from the Water Operating Fund and $29,160 from the Electric Operating Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:

Pursuant to Title 14, the California Code of Regulations, Section 15378(b)(5) of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) guidelines, the proposed action of awarding a professional services agreement for grant writing assistance is an administrative activity of the City that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment; and therefore, is not a project for purposes of CEQA.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Resolution

6.L
Packet Pg. 156

CITY OF HEALDSBURG
RESOLUTION NO. - 2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

HEALDSBURG APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO A

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH

FECUNDITATIS FOR GRANT WRITING ASSISTANCE,
INCREASING THE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT BY $48,960
TO $109,750, EXTENDING THE TERM LENGTH TO PROVIDE

THAT THE AGREEMENT TERM SHALL EXPIRE ON
SEPTEMBER 30, 2023, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANGER TO EXECUTE THE AMENDMENT ON BEHALF OF

THE CITY
WHEREAS, the City applied for grant funding under the 2021 FEMA BRIC grant program for its Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Well Project that was selected by FEMA for further review and requests for information; and
WHEREAS, consultant assistance will be useful in responding to FEMA requests for information; and
WHEREAS, the 2021 FEMA BRIC will fund 70% of the project cost up to approximately $6 million of the ASR Wells Project costs with the remainder funded by non-federal money; and WHEREAS, California Department of Water Resources’ Urban Community Drought Relief Program has a grant program that could offset costs not federally funded under the 2021 FEMA BRIC grant for the ASR Wells Project; and
WHEREAS, consultant assistance will be essential in preparing the Department of Water Resources’ Urban Community Drought Relief Program grant application for the ASR Wells Project; and
WHEREAS, the City has been awarded a grant from the Department of Water Resources for the Municipal Recycled Water Pipeline Project; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Water Resources grant award was approximately half the total project costs; and
WHEREAS, the project scope was scaled down to fit within funding constraints; and WHEREAS, Department of Water Resources’ Urban Community Drought Relief Program has a grant program that could fund the balance of the originally proposed project; and WHEREAS, consultant assistance will be essential in preparing the Department of Water Resources’ Urban Community Drought Relief Program grant application for the remaining

6.L.a
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Resolution (3750 : Grant Application Support) Resolution No. – 2022

Municipal Recycled Water Pipeline Project; and
WHEREAS, the City has applied for a grant under the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program to study construction of a microgrid in the City; and WHEREAS, the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant application for the microgrid study will likely have requests for information during funding agency review; and WHEREAS, consultant assistance will be essential in responding to FEMA Hazard mitigation requests for information associated with the microgrid study; and WHEREAS, California Energy Cooperative and 2022 FEMA BRIC have grants that could fund the study, design, and construction of the City microgrid; and WHEREAS, consultant assistance will be essential in preparing applications for California Energy Cooperative and 2022 FEMA BRIC grants; and
WHEREAS, City Council on March 21st, 2022, by Resolution No. 28-2022 authorized execution of an Agreement with Fecunditatis on behalf of the City in accordance with the City Municipal Code and/or other applicable law for a not to exceed amount of $60,790; and WHEREAS, the Agreement with Fecunditatis is set to expire on September 30, 2022; and WHEREAS, Fecunditatis has offered a proposal to conduct this grant assistance work; and WHEREAS, staff have reviewed the proposal and found it reasonable for the work required; and
WHEREAS, Fecunditatis regularly engages in the work of responding to funding agency requests for information, and grant application preparation and will provide a good value to the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Title 14, the California Code of Regulations, Section 15378(b)(5) of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) guidelines, the proposed action of awarding a professional services agreement for grant writing assistance is an administrative activity of the City that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment; and therefore, is not a project for purposes of CEQA.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Healdsburg hereby:

1. Find that pursuant to Title 14, the California Code of Regulations, Section 15378(b)(5) of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) guidelines, the proposed action is an

6.L.a
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Resolution (3750 : Grant Application Support) Resolution No. – 2022

administrative activity of the City that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment.

2. Approve an amendment to the professional services agreement with Fecunditatis for grant writing assistance, increasing the not to exceed amount by $48,960 to $109,750, and extending the term length to provide that the Agreement term shall expire on September 30, 2023.

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute said amendment with Fecunditatis on behalf of the City.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Healdsburg, this 6th day of September 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers: ( )
NOES: Councilmembers: ( )
ABSENT: Councilmembers: ( )
ABSTAINING: Councilmembers: ( )
SO ORDERED: ATTEST:
_________________________________ _________________________________ Osvaldo Jimenez, Mayor Raina Allan, City Clerk

6.L.a
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: Resolution (3750 : Grant Application Support)

CITY OF HEALDSBURG

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 6, 2022
SUBJECT: Authorize a Response to the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Investigation Reports Entitled,“Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future” and “Affordable Housing Monitoring and Compliance.” PREPARED BY: Stephen Sotomayor, Housing Director
STRATEGIC INITIATIVE(S):

Provide Effective Governance
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Adopt a Resolution authorizing a response to the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Investigation Reports entitled, “Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future and “Affordable Housing:

Monitoring and Compliance.”

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT/OUTREACH
The City’s response to the Civil Grand Jury Investigation reports will be heard at a public meeting in which there will be an opportunity for the public to provide comment. In addition, the topics covered in the Civil Grand Jury reports will be an ongoing discussion as the City continues its work on the General Plan Housing Element Update and the work of the Housing Element Work Group. Both these processes encourage public participation.

BACKGROUND:

The Sonoma County Civil Jury (CGJ) is an independent institution with the principal function of overseeing all aspects of county, special district, and city governments in Sonoma County to ensure that the best interests of its citizens are being served. The 19 Grand Jury members are selected annually from applications submitted by County residents to serve a one-year term. The CGJ conducts investigations based on citizen complaints and on its own initiative. The CGJ has the authority to inspect and audit the financial expenditures of county and city departments and special districts to ensure the public funds are properly accounted for and legally spent, inquire into the performance of any county, city, or special district public official or employee.

The CGJ issued the Final Report for 2021-2022 on June 19, 2022. Topics listed in the report include Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future; Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance; Department of Health Services; Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety;

6.M
Packet Pg. 160
SMART Decision Making; and What Happens When the Grand Jury Makes Recommendations.

The CGJ notified the City on June 14, 2022, of its obligation to respond to the “Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future” and “Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance” investigation reports. The City Council has 90 days, or until September 12, 2022, to provide a response.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

The “Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future” investigation resulted in 24 findings and 8 recommendations. The City of Healdsburg, as well as all the other Sonoma County cities are required to respond to the following CGJ recommendations:

R1. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should begin to streamline their procedures, from preliminary review through the permitting process, related to the development of Affordable Housing.

R2. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should meet to consider standardizing their procedures related to the development of Affordable Housing.

R3. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should meet to discuss the coordination of fee reduction standards for Affordable Housing throughout the County.

R4. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should identify properties within their jurisdictions and Spheres of Influence that could support the construction of infill housing and accessory dwelling units.

R5. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should identify properties within their jurisdictions and Spheres of Influence that are likely opportunities for rehabilitation or repurposing to increase the availability of Affordable Housing.

R6. By June 1, 2023, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should develop permit ready accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit plans.

R7. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should discuss integration of preliminary design review committees with their planning commissions to help expedite the construction of Affordable Housing.

R8. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should review their permitting requirements to allow nontraditional options such as manufactured homes, factory-built homes, and tiny houses to increase housing supply.

The “Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance” investigation resulted in 11 findings and 8 recommendations. The City of Healdsburg, along with the other Sonoma County cities are required to respond to the following CGJ recommendations:

R1. By December 31, 2022, the Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the

6.M
Packet Pg. 161
nine Cities meet and develop agreed-upon standards and procedures for the monitoring of Affordable Housing
R2. By October 1, 2022, the Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the nine Cities resume on-site monitoring.

R3. By January 1, 2023, the Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the nine Cities review and ensure that they have sufficient personnel to conduct on-site monitoring and process self-reported monitoring data to meet future Regional Housing Needs Allocations R5. By January 1, 2023, the nine Cities develop informational documents and policies to provide both upfront and ongoing training in the monitoring and compliance procedures for developers and managers of Affordable Housing projects.

R6. By November 1, 2022, the nine Cities meet and discuss to jointly or individually utilize Affordable Housing monitoring software.

R7. By November 1, 2022, the nine Cities meet and discuss pooling resources to fulfill their monitoring responsibilities, through either a consultant or designated employees.

R8. By December 31, 2022, the Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the nine Cities should update and maintain their inventory of Affordable houses within their jurisdictions and verify that all their property titles are flagged for restricted sale.

Staff has provided the Council with the draft response to the CGJ report and recommends the Council adopt these recommendations to meet the deadline of September 12, 2022. The City’s responses are provided in the following attachments:
“Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance.”
• Attachment 1: Response to findings and Recommendations. “Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future.”
• Attachment 2: Response to Findings and Recommendations.

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP:

This item does not have a direct correlation to environmental stewardship.

ALTERNATIVES:

The Council may choose to make changes to Staff’s recommended responses during the public meeting and staff will revise the City’s response.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There are no financial impacts resulting from the approval of the attached resolution.

6.M
Packet Pg. 162
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:

Adoption of this Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the “common sense” exemption in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Resolution
Attachment 1a_Monitor_f_090622
Attachment 2_AHPPF
CGJ_AHPPF
CGJ_AHM

6.M
Packet Pg. 163

CITY OF HEALDSBURG
RESOLUTION NO. -2022

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

HEALDSBURG AUTHORIZING A RESPONSE TO THE

SONOMA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT
REGARDING “AFFORDABLE HOUSING: PAST, PRESENT
AND FUTURE” AND “AFFORDABLE HOUSING:

MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE”
WHEREAS, THE Sonoma Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) is an independent institution with the principal function of overseeing all aspects of county, special district, and city governments in Sonoma County to ensure that the best interested of its citizens are being served; and WHEREAS, the CGJ has the authority to inspect and audit the financial expenditures of county and city departments and special districts to ensure that public funds are property accounted for and legally spent, inquire into conditions of jails and the treatment of inmates, and inquire into the performance of any county, city, or special district, public official, or employee; and WHEREAS, the CGJ issued the final Report for 2021-2022 on June 19, 2022; and WHEREAS, the CGJ notified the City on June 14, 2022 of its obligation to respond to the “Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future” and “Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance” investigations; and
WHEREAS, adoption of this Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the “common sense” exemption in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Healdsburg hereby authorizes staff to submit all required documentation to the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury in relation to the CGJ report regarding “Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future” and “Affordable Housing Monitoring and Compliance.”
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Healdsburg, this 6th day of September 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers: ( )
NOES: Councilmembers: ( )
ABSENT: Councilmembers: ( )
ABSTAINING: Councilmembers: ( )
SO ORDERED: ATTEST:
________________________________ ____________________________________ Osvaldo Jimenez, Mayor Raina Allan, City Clerk

6.M.a
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Resolution (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Response to the Grand Jury Report
Report Title: Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance Report Date: June 14, 2022
Response By: Osvaldo Jimenez Title: Mayor
Agency/Department Name: City of Healdsburg
FINDINGS: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11
I (we) agree with the findings numbered: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F 10 & F11 I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered:
(Attach a statement specifying any portion of the finding(s) that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.)
RECOMMENDATIONS: R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8
• Recommendations numbered: R6 & R8 Have been implemented (Attach a summary describing the implemented actions).
• Recommendations numbered: R2, R3, R5, R6, R7 have not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future (Attach a timeframe for the implementation). • Recommendations numbered R1 require(s) further analysis. (Attach an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe of the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed including the governing body of the public agency where applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report).
• Recommendations numbered: N/A will not be implemented because they are not warranted or are not reasonable. (Attach an explanation).

Date:________________________ Signed:__________________________________________ Number of Pages attached:________________________________________________________

6.M.b
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Attachment 1a_Monitor_f_090622 (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) RESPONSE TO THE GRAND JURY REPORT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE, CITY OF HEALDSBURG Item Position Finding Response
F1
Partially Agree Monitoring of compliance with
Affordable Housing regulations has
been inconsistent and often
inadequate
The City does have compliance requirements for all its affordable units. These requirements are memorialized through regulatory agreements that include tenant rent certification, annual reports and inspections, and record retention requirements. Many affordable housing projects have multiple layers of project monitoring, especially when several sources of funding are utilized. The City does agree that across different funding programs and across the County, there is no one consistent standard.

F2 Partially Agree The use of self-reported data in
monitoring is the accepted norm
The City partially agrees with this finding. Developers are responsible for monitoring requirements as memorialized in regulatory agreements. All affordable homeownership units are deed-restricted and are managed by the Housing Land Trust of Sonoma County. Developers do self-report but with clear and specific requirements and third-party audits.

F3 Agree On-site (in-person) monitoring
beyond that required by law is rare
due to insufficient personnel,
budgetary limitations, and relatively
low incentives
The City does not currently have the resources to conduct annual on-site inspections for all its affordable housing properties. The City, however, is in the process of hiring a full-time position in the Housing Department that will assume on-site monitoring responsibilities as needed and as required.

F4 Agree COVID-19 further reduced in-person,
on-site monitoring due to public
health restrictions
On-site monitoring was either waived or requirements were suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic by most funding agencies; however, reporting was not suspended, which still provides the information necessary to determine program compliance.

F5 Agree Surprise or unscheduled monitoring
of individual units is not done, for
reasons of privacy, availability,
efficiency, and practicality
The City always strives to respect the privacy and equitable treatment of tenants in affordable housing units and therefore, noticing is required prior to entering residences.

F6 Partially Agree Unscheduled monitoring of
properties and management, in
order to review tenant files,
grounds, and the amenities is not
done.

While the City does not have a program for unscheduled monitoring of properties, staff does conduct visual inspections of its affordable housing inventory. If the City does receive a complaint from a tenant, it will request documentation from the property owner outside of the normal reporting required in the regulatory agreement(s) to determine compliance. The ability to conduct unscheduled monitoring is preserved in regulatory agreements.

F7 Agree The Community Development
Commission has informational The City agrees with this finding.

6.M.b
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Attachment 1a_Monitor_f_090622 (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) RESPONSE TO THE GRAND JURY REPORT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE, CITY OF HEALDSBURG documents and policies to provide
upfront training in the monitoring
process.

F8 Agree There is limited or no standardized
training in Affordable Housing
compliance regulations for
developers and managers of
inclusionary housing with the nine
Cities.

Expectations on monitoring and compliance are outlined in the City’s Regulatory Agreements and the City meets with each developer to review such agreements; however, these are one-on-one meetings and not a formalized training program. The City would participate in any training related to affordable housing compliance.

F9 Agree The cities of Petaluma and Rohnert
Park use computerized compliance
monitoring programs to facilitate
and improve the quality of their
work.

The City agrees with this finding.

F10 Partially Agree The property titles of Affordable
single-family houses have not
always been flagged as deed
restricted.

The City of Healdsburg requires covenants on all its for-sale housing. The City retains the Housing Land Trust of Sonoma County to monitor the City’s for-sale housing stock. The City partially agrees as it cannot speak for other jurisdictions.

F11 Agree The majority of the housing
representative the Grand Jury
interviewed felt that there is not
enough staff within their
departments to make anyone a fulltime compliance monitoring The City Agrees with the finding. The City is in the process of hiring a full-time employee in the Housing Department to address this need.

6.M.b
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Attachment 1a_Monitor_f_090622 (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) RESPONSE TO THE GRAND JURY REPORT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING: MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE, CITY OF HEALDSBURG Item Status Recommendation Response
R1
Further
Analysis
By December 31, 2022, The Sonoma
County Community Development
Commission and the nine Cities meet
and develop an agreed-upon standards
and procedures for the monitoring of
Affordable Housing.

The recommendation requires additional analysis as one standard may not apply to all funding programs or agreements, especially if deed-restrictions involve local programs, such as the City of Healdsburg’s Measure P units that serve residents up to 160% of AMI. The City is more than willing to meet, and already has met, with the County and other cities to discuss monitoring. The City feels that the County is in the best position to spearhead this effort.

R2
Will be
Implemented
The Sonoma County Community
Development Commission and the nine
Cities resume on-site monitoring by
October 1, 2022.

The City is currently hiring a full-time position in the Housing Department that will be responsible for monitoring activities The City will resume on-site monitoring by October 1, 2022.

R3
Will be
Implemented
By January 1, 2023, the Sonoma County
Community Development Commission
and the nine Cities review and ensure
that they have sufficient personnel to
conduct on-site monitoring and
process self-reported monitoring data
to meet future Regional Housing Needs
Allocations.

The City adopted a Housing Department budget that includes funding for monitoring activities and will hire a full-time employee to oversee the program.

R5
Will be
Implemented
By January 1, 2023, the nine cities
develop informational documents and
policies to provide both upfront and
ongoing training in the monitoring and
compliance procedures for developers
and managers of Affordable Housing
Projects.

The City has will hire a full-time position in the Housing Department that will be responsible for monitoring and compliance. The City will continue to implement and will expand upon one-on-one developer meetings to review compliance requirements and will provide technical assistance as needed.

R6
Implemented
By November 1, 2022, the nine Cities
meet and discuss to jointly or
individually utilize Affordable Housing
monitoring software.

The recommendation has been implemented. The County has already scheduled these meetings. The City is open to utilizing software for monitoring if the benefit of the software merits the cost and if it is suitable to the needs of the City.

R7 Will be
Implemented
By November 1, 2022, the nine Cities
meet and discuss pooling resources to
fulfill their monitoring responsibilities,
The City is willing to and already has collaborated on regional solutions for affordable housing monitoring. The County would be in the best position to lead this effort.

6.M.b
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Attachment 1a_Monitor_f_090622 (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) RESPONSE TO THE GRAND JURY REPORT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING: MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE, CITY OF HEALDSBURG through either a consultant or
designated employees.

R8
Implemented
By December 31, 2022, the Sonoma
County Community Development
Commission and the nine Cities should
update and maintain their inventory of
Affordable houses within their
jurisdictions and verify that all their
property titles are flagged for
restricted sale.

All of the City’s Affordable housing properties are deed restricted.

6.M.b
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Attachment 1a_Monitor_f_090622 (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Response to the Grand Jury Report
Report Title: Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future Report Date: June 14, 2022
Response By: Osvaldo Jimenez Title: Mayor
Agency/Department Name: City of Healdsburg
FINDINGS: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14, F15, F16, F17, F18, F19, F20, F21, F22, F23, F24
I (we) agree with the findings numbered: F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14, F15, F16, F18, F19, F20, F21, F22, F23, F24
I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: F17 (Attach a statement specifying any portion of the finding(s) that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.)
RECOMMENDATIONS: R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8
• Recommendations numbered: R1, R2, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8 Have been implemented (Attach a summary describing the implemented actions).
• Recommendations numbered: R1 & R3 have not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future (Attach a timeframe for the implementation). • Recommendations numbered require(s) further analysis. (Attach an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe of the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed including the governing body of the public agency where applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report).
• Recommendations numbered: N/A will not be implemented because they are not warranted or are not reasonable. (Attach an explanation).

Date:________________________ Signed:__________________________________________ Number of Pages attached:________________________________________________________

6.M.c
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Attachment 2_AHPPF [Revision 1] (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) RESPONSE TO THE GRAND JURY REPORT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE, CITY OF HEALDSBURG Item Status Recommendation Response
F1 Agree
Increased Affordable Housing has been
mandated by the State of California
and officially accepted by Sonoma
County and its nine Cities.

The City of Healdsburg agrees with this finding. The City is currently meeting its RHNA and is in the process of updating its 6th Cycle Housing Element, which will outline the policies and goals needed to achieve the 6
th Cycle of RHNA.

F2 Agree
Housing jurisdictions must show
sufficient progress in meeting 6th cycle
Regional Housing Needs Allocation
mandates, or they risk being fined or
losing local authority over their
housing programs.

The City of Healdsburg agrees with this statement. The City is on track to achieve its 5
th Cycle RHNA and is in the process of updating its 6th Cycle Housing Element, which will outline the policies and goals needed to achieve the 6th Cycle of RHNA.

F3 Agree
Sonoma County and its nine Cities have
officially recognized the need for
Affordable Housing but not all have
fully endorsed the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation or met earlier goals.

The City of Healdsburg has not only recognized the need for affordable housing but has gone beyond the requirements set-forth by the State. In the 5th Cycle Housing Element, the City developed and implemented a communitydeveloped Housing Action Plan that established goals for housing production beyond RHNA.

F4 Partially Agree
Some cities hinder the development of
Affordable Housing through
designation of new historic districts,
increased landscaping requirements,
highly restrictive zoning, and
exploitation of environmental
concerns.

The City of Healdsburg disagrees with this finding as it relates to Healdsburg but is not in a place to respond for all jurisdictions and therefore, partially agrees with the finding. Healdsburg has consistently supported affordable housing development and sought new strategies and innovative approaches to increase and facilitate affordable housing. In fact, the City of Healdsburg has met its 5th Cycle RHNA and already identified and begun partnerships which will meet and exceed the 6th Cycle RHNA.

F5 Agree
Public acceptance of the need for
Affordable Housing is not universal;
NIMBYism and misinformation can
negatively impact the planning and
development process.

In the City of Healdsburg, affordable housing has consistently been a top priority for both the City Council and the community. This is further evidenced by the City dedicating 2% of its TOT revenue towards affordable housing and by the City being one of the few California jurisdictions that will exceed its RHNA.

The City cannot speak on behalf of all jurisdictions, and is aware that NIMBYism comes in many forms, and agrees with the statement in general.

F6 Agree
In Sonoma County, costs and
availability of land, building supplies,
and labor impede development and
construction of Affordable Housing.

The City of Healdsburg agrees with this finding. The City has been successful in navigating these costs and has a dedicated affordable housing fund (Measure S) that can be leveraged with other funding programs to help reduce gaps in construction; however, the City recognizes that the factors listed in this finding are contributing to the increased cost of developing units.

6.M.c
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Attachment 2_AHPPF [Revision 1] (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) RESPONSE TO THE GRAND JURY REPORT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE, CITY OF HEALDSBURG F7 Partially Agree
There is great variability in the planning
and approval processes and
procedures for developing Affordable
Housing in the County and its Cities,
thus complicating, and slowing
development.

The City of Healdsburg partially agrees with this finding. Variability exists in the planning and approval processes because each jurisdiction is unique, and each project has different conditions. Short of waiving all approval processes, variability among different jurisdictions is to be expected because many variables are not within the control of the local jurisdiction (e.g. wetlands, environmental clearances, funding requirements and reviewing agencies). To offset this, the City has a dedicated Housing Department that works with affordable housing developers to navigate and expedite projects where possible.

F8 Partially Agree
Financing of Affordable Housing
projects is unusually complex, slow,
and uncertain.

The City of Healdsburg agrees with this finding. To counteract this, the City dedicated 2% of its TOT revenues towards affordable housing. The City of Healdsburg is making every effort to expedite, simplify and streamline the complexity of affordable housing financing.

F9 Partially Agree
Funding of Affordable Housing is often
directed to specific groups such as
seniors, veterans, or agricultural
workers.

The City of Healdsburg partially agrees with this finding. There are myriad funding sources, each unique, but largely they all are based upon Area Median Income. Local funding will always provide the highest level of flexibility in addressing the specific populations within a community.

F10 Partially Agree
Design review and project approval are
often slow and very complex and
hinder the development of Affordable
Housing.

The City of Healdsburg partially agrees with this finding and recognizes that the process of design review can be considered onerous. However, the City has taken steps to make this process as clear and smooth as possible. The City recently adopted design guidelines that reflect the community’s desire and expectation for future growth allowing developers to design their projects with those guidelines in mind. The City offers a One-Stop program in which applicants can receive feedback from all departments early in a project’s development and a workshop program with the Planning Commission to receive early input from the decision-making body. The City of Healdsburg staff works closely and in partnership with its non-profit housing developers to expedite the processing of affordable housing projects.

F11 Agree The permitting regulations, processes,
and fees differ by jurisdiction.

The City of Healdsburg agrees with this finding. The differences in regulations and fees are often linked to the needs of the community, which are unique to each jurisdiction. The City has made every effort to ensure fees are reasonable and justified.

6.M.c
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Attachment 2_AHPPF [Revision 1] (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) RESPONSE TO THE GRAND JURY REPORT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE, CITY OF HEALDSBURG F12 Agree
Mitigation fees vary by individual
projects and jurisdictions, complicating
the building of Affordable Housing.

The City of Healdsburg partially agrees with this finding. Mitigation fees do vary by individual projects and jurisdictions. Each individual city has different infrastructure needs, based on the age of the city. Cities with older infrastructure may need to charge more in mitigation fees to continue to provide services to the community.

F13 Agree
The speed of issuing permits has
improved in some jurisdictions, but
greater efficiency would help meet the
building needs of Sonoma County.

The City of Healdsburg agrees with the finding. The City of Healdsburg recognizes that increased efficiency in review and issuance of building permits is vital to housing projects.

F14 Agree
Payment of in-lieu fees to the housing
jurisdiction results in fewer
inclusionary Affordable Housing units
and houses being built.

The City of Healdsburg agrees with this finding as a general statement because it is well known that in-lieu fees are not always sufficient to build units, whereas on-site inclusionary requirements are developed concurrently. In 2019, the City updated its inclusionary requirements to require on-site units for residential or mixed-use projects with five or more dwelling units. In addition, the City has been very successful in negotiating inclusionary affordable housing through Development Agreements with Hotel developers to increase the supply of affordable housing in the City.

F15 Partially Agree
Development of commercial projects
such as hotels and big box stores is
often favored over housing due to
lesser demand on public services and
increased sales or occupancy tax
revenue.

The City of Healdsburg partially agrees with the finding because it cannot speak for all jurisdictions. The City of Healdsburg has made affordable housing development a priority, which is demonstrated by the fact that over 10% of the City’s housing stock is deed-restricted affordable housing and even more affordable housing is in progress. The City has also been successful in leveraging Hotel developments to provide affordable housing through Development Agreements.

F16 Agree
Recent legislation encourages
construction of transit-oriented infill
housing but has yet to show a large
effect.

The City of Healdsburg agrees with this statement as many smaller jurisdictions may not qualify for funding based upon program requirements that set criteria for transit-oriented development.

F17 Partially
Disagree
Changes to city boundaries by
annexation of land within their Spheres
of Influence could allow the
development of more Affordable
Housing but is resisted due to the high
costs of additional infrastructure.

The City of Healdsburg partially disagrees with this finding. While there are parcels that lie outside of Healdsburg’s City Limits and within the Urban Growth Boundary these parcels have significant site-specific challenges to the development of housing, particularly affordable housing. These parcels have environmental constraints such as steep topography and are within the wildland urban interface. These areas have high costs of development

6.M.c
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Attachment 2_AHPPF [Revision 1] (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) RESPONSE TO THE GRAND JURY REPORT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE, CITY OF HEALDSBURG regardless of the costs of infrastructure and the City has received little to no interest in annexation from these areas. Furthermore, with respect to affordable housing these areas are often far removed from transportation and services. The more feasible development is infill development which can rely on existing infrastructure and avoid the high costs of extending infrastructure into new areas.

F18 Agree
The time periods for which new
Affordable Housing units cannot
convert to market- rate prices have
been lengthened to preserve the units
as Affordable.

The City of Healdsburg agrees with this finding. The City has been very successful in extending the affordability periods for affordable housing covenants through the refinancing of the projects and the use of affordable housing preservation funding.

F19 Agree
Rehabilitation and the repurposing of
existing properties both preserve and
increase the supply of Affordable
Housing.

The City of Healdsburg agrees with this finding. The City leveraged multiple sources of funding to acquire 39 units of naturally occurring affordable housing for an acquisition and rehabilitation project. The City plans to incorporate this strategy into its 6
th Cycle Housing Element.

F20 Agree
Inclusive Affordable Housing must be
equivalent to market rate units and be
dispersed throughout a project making
it harder to identify and stigmatize
them.

The City of Healdsburg agrees with this finding. The City’s inclusionary housing requirements, as adopted, require that inclusionary units be constructed concurrently, that units shall be distributed throughout the project and reflect the range of bedrooms in the project, and the finishes and amenities of the inclusionary units be substantially similar to market rate units. (HMC 20.20.030 (F))
F21 Agree
Manufactured and factory-built home
construction provide less expensive
routes to Affordable Housing without
necessarily reducing its quality.

The City of Healdsburg agrees with this finding. The City is working closely with the Sonoma Napa ADU non-profit to encourage manufactured and factory built ADU’s.

F22 Partially Agree
Design modifications can help make
Affordable Housing projects
economically viable.

The City of Healdsburg partially agrees. While design modifications can provide an economy of scale, there is a point of diminishing returns when land costs are excessive. The City feels that a combination of design and density provide a more robust solution.

F23 Agree
Contrary to commonly expressed fears,
Affordable Housing does not usually
affect local property values
The City of Healdsburg agrees with this finding. This is evidenced by increasing home prices.

F24 Agree Vacation homes, time shares, Airbnb,
Pacaso houses, and vacant houses
The City of Healdsburg agrees with this finding. The City only allows vacation rentals in certain commercial zoning districts and only with a CUP. The City also

6.M.c
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Attachment 2_AHPPF [Revision 1] (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) RESPONSE TO THE GRAND JURY REPORT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE, CITY OF HEALDSBURG reduce the number of units available to
permanent residents and, by reducing
supply, increase the cost of housing.
enforces these rules through code enforcement actions. The City plans to further study the impact of second/vacation homes through a community housing committee.

6.M.c
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Attachment 2_AHPPF [Revision 1] (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) RESPONSE TO THE GRAND JURY REPORT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE, CITY OF HEALDSBURG Item Status Recommendation Response
R1
Will Be
Implemented
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma
and the nine Cities should begin to
streamline their procedures, from
preliminary review through the
permitting process, related to the
development of Affordable Housing.
(F7, F10, F11, F13)
While it is our opinion that the City of Healdsburg has streamlined its procedures, from preliminary review through the permitting process, for the development of affordable housing, we recognize that there is always room for improvement.

The City has updated its accessory dwelling unit (ADU) ordinance over the years to maintain consistency with the State and in some cases going further.

The City waives impact fees for ADUs 850 square feet or less and charges impact fees for ADUs greater than 850 square feet at a proportional rate not to exceed 50% of the cost of a single-family dwelling. In addition, ADUs 850 square feet or less are exempt from lot coverage requirements making ADUs feasible on smaller sized lots. All ADUs regardless of size are exempt from parking requirements. In addition to ordinance updates the City in partnership with the Napa Sonoma ADU Accelerator Program has hosted Healdsburgfocused webinars on ADUs, produced handouts on the process of permitting and building ADUs, and is launching a pre-reviewed ADU program. The result of these efforts has been a dramatic increase in the number of ADUs built each year, in fact this year Healdsburg is on pace to double the highest number of ADUs permitted in a single year.

In response to SB 9 and 10, the City will be drafting amendments to its Municipal Code to implement the goals and requirements of this legislation. In the meantime, the City has recently adopted reduced application fees for SB 9 lot splits as a further incentive for these projects.

Healdsburg in partnership with local nonprofit developers has significant affordable housing projects currently under construction and in the approval process. Forty-one units are under construction as part of the Mill District in partnership with Eden Housing, 58 units are scheduled for a hearing in September in partnership with Burbank Housing on Dry Creek Road, and 118 units are tentatively scheduled for a hearing in October in partnership with

6.M.c
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Attachment 2_AHPPF [Revision 1] (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) RESPONSE TO THE GRAND JURY REPORT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE, CITY OF HEALDSBURG Freebird Development Company. Healdsburg is both getting affordable housing projects approved and built. The City has already identified projects in the pipeline that will meet the upcoming 6th Cycle RHNA without the need for costly and time-consuming general plan and zoning amendments.

The City is currently in the process of developing our 6th cycle Housing Element which will further identify governmental and nongovernmental constraints and develop programs to address those constraints. Upon adoption the City will continue with its commitment to implementing these programs and providing annual reporting updates on housing production.

R2 Implemented
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma
and the nine Cities should meet to
consider standardizing their
procedures related to the development
of Affordable Housing. (F7, F10, F11,
F13)
This recommendation is being implemented as Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities held a meeting on July 21, 2022, to discuss ways in which procedures could possibly be standardized. The City will participate in any necessary additional meetings in addition to the ongoing meetings the City already participates in with our Sonoma County partners to discuss issues of regional importance and to keep apprised of the challenges and policy initiatives that all jurisdictions are facing. This communication and collaboration occurs on a variety of levels and on a regular schedule, including monthly City Manager meetings, monthly Planning Advisory Committee meetings, quarterly City Attorney meetings, and similar across a variety of departments. Of relevance, the Sonoma County jurisdictions have established a housing ad hoc that meets regularly to discuss specific housing issues and share approaches among jurisdictions. The City of Healdsburg remains committed to the collaboration and partnership with our regional partners as it assists in creating efficiencies and learning from the relevant experiences of other Sonoma County jurisdictions. The City will participate in any subsequent meeting(s) with Permit Sonoma and the nine Sonoma County cities to discuss the findings and recommendations of the Grand Jury Report. However, the level or appropriateness of standardizing procedures related to the development of affordable housing remains unknown given the localized needs and community vision of each jurisdiction.

6.M.c
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Attachment 2_AHPPF [Revision 1] (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) RESPONSE TO THE GRAND JURY REPORT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE, CITY OF HEALDSBURG R3
Will Be
Implemented
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma
and the nine Cities should meet to
discuss the coordination of fee
reduction standards for Affordable
Housing throughout the County. (F11,
F12, F14)
This recommendation is being implemented to the extent possible. The nine Cities met on July 21, 2022, and this topic of coordinating fee reduction standards amongst all Sonoma County jurisdictions will continue to the extent possible within the timeframe provided. The City of Healdsburg has an ongoing practice of meeting with our Sonoma County partners to discuss issues of regional importance and to keep apprised of the challenges and policy initiatives that all jurisdictions are facing. This communication and collaboration happen on a variety of levels and on a regular schedule, including monthly City Manager meetings, monthly Planning Advisory Committee meetings, quarterly City Attorney meetings, and similar across a variety of departments. The Sonoma County jurisdictions have established a housing ad hoc that meets regularly to discuss specific housing issues and share approaches among jurisdictions, and for all meeting going forward through the timeframe provided above will appropriately not continue to be an ad hoc group meeting. The City remains committed to the collaboration and partnership with our regional partners as it assists in creating efficiencies and learning from the relevant experiences of other Sonoma County jurisdictions.

The City will participate in any additional meeting(s) with Permit Sonoma and the nine Sonoma County cities to discuss the findings and recommendations of the Grand Jury Report. However, the level or appropriateness of coordinating fee reduction standards for affordable housing remains unknown given the localized needs of each jurisdiction, parameters of each jurisdictions existing impact fee programs as well as the differences in land costs between jurisdictions.

R4 Implemented
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma
and the nine Cities should identify
properties within their jurisdictions and
Spheres of Influence that could support
the construction of infill housing and
The recommendation has been implemented. The City of Healdsburg and all of the nine Sonoma County cities have General Plans that include land use designations for all properties within each cities’ Urban Growth Boundaries. A residential land use designation indicates that the City has previously analyzed

6.M.c
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Attachment 2_AHPPF [Revision 1] (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) RESPONSE TO THE GRAND JURY REPORT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE, CITY OF HEALDSBURG accessory dwelling units. (F1, F2, F3,
F4, F16, F17)
and identified the property as appropriate to support the construction of residential development. The City, as a part of its Housing Element Update, has recently reviewed the availability of land for residential development.

R5 Implemented
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma
and the nine Cities should identify
properties within their jurisdictions and
Spheres of Influence that are likely
opportunities for rehabilitation or
repurposing to increase the availability
of Affordable Housing. (F16, F19, F22)
The City of Healdsburg has completed a survey of properties within the City that would be likely opportunities for rehabilitation or re-purposing for affordable housing. The City’s Housing Element update will include programs and goals for this type of activity and a review of previous work. This will be complete by December 31, 2022.

R6 Implemented
By June 1, 2023, Permit Sonoma and
the nine Cities should develop permit
ready accessory dwelling unit and
junior accessory dwelling unit plans.
(F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F7, F10, F11, F13,
F21, F22)
This recommendation has been implemented as the Napa Sonoma ADU Center recently launched the Napa Sonoma ADU Standard Plans Program in an effort to accelerate production of ADUs throughout both Napa and Sonoma Counties.

The Napa Sonoma ADU Center has collaborated with all nine Sonoma County cities and Permit Sonoma to compile each jurisdiction’s ADU regulations, fee structure, and permitting process. Additionally, the organization has compiled a wide range of ADU plans that are offered for a reduced cost through licensing with the architect. A set of pre-reviewed plans are currently in development and will be added to the program. The City of Healdsburg is contributing financially, as many Sonoma County cities also contributed, to the ongoing operation of the organization.

R7 Implemented
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma
and the nine Cities should discuss
integration of preliminary design
review committees with their planning
commissions to help expedite the
construction of Affordable Housing.
(F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F7, F10, F11, F13,
F19, F20, F21, F22)
This recommendation has been implemented as the nine Cities held a meeting on July 21, 2022 and discussed existing procedures in place in each jurisdiction and how each jurisdiction who has not already done so could integrate these and similar committees/commission where they exist. Healdsburg has already combined the design review function with its planning commission and offers applicants the opportunity for workshops to gather input and direction prior to submitting a formal application and moving to a hearing. This process has

6.M.c
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Attachment 2_AHPPF [Revision 1] (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) RESPONSE TO THE GRAND JURY REPORT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE, CITY OF HEALDSBURG streamlined the design review process and results in most projects receiving approvals in a single meeting.

R8 Implemented
By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma
and the nine Cities should review their
permitting requirements to allow
nontraditional options such as
manufactured homes, factory-built
homes, and tiny houses to increase
housing supply. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F10,
F11, F13, F21, F22)
This recommendation has been implemented to the fullest extent possible. The City of Healdsburg’s current regulations allow for manufactured homes, factory-built homes and tiny homes subject to the City’s ADU ordinance, CA Building Code and Fire Code.

6.M.c
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Attachment 2_AHPPF [Revision 1] (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 1
Affordable Housing: Past, Present and
Future
“Do It, or the State Will Do It For You”

SUMMARY
Housing in Sonoma County is widely considered to be in short supply and very expensive. The State of California, working through the Association of Bay Area Governments, has mandated that in the next few years 14,562 new houses and apartments should be built in the County.

Specific allocations give approximately one-third of the units to Santa Rosa, one third to the other eight Cities, and one-third to the unincorporated areas of the County. This housing expansion is expected to occur between 2023 and 2031 as part of the State’s larger strategic plan; it is referred to as the 6th cycle housing element, following a much less ambitious 5th cycle covering 2015 to 2023. The 5th cycle plan was essentially aspirational and advisory. The 6th cycle plan is mandatory; jurisdictions that do not meet expectations can be fined or even lose local control of housing to the State.

Of the almost 15,000 new homes and apartments in the allocation, more than half are designated as Affordable Housing for very low, low, and moderate-income families. These income categories are defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in relation to the Area Median Income (AMI), which is determined annually by HUD. For Sonoma County, the 2022 AMI for a family of four is $103,300. HUD then defines very low income as 30-50% of AMI, low income as 50-80% of AMI, and moderate income as 80-120% of AMI. (Some programs define low-income as below 60% of AMI.) The 6th cycle allocations for Sonoma County include 3,999 very-low-income units, 2,302 low-income units, and 2,302 moderate income housing units.

Affordable Housing costs cannot exceed 30% of a family’s gross income. This means that rent and utilities for a family of four earning $50,000 cannot exceed $15,000 per year or $1,250 per month, regardless of the much higher market price of equivalent housing. To be economically viable, Affordable Housing development employs a variety of subsidies, inducements, and demands. This report examines factors that affect the development of Affordable Housing, both positive and inhibitory. A companion report, “Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance,” looks at governmental oversight of existing Affordable Housing.

Some housing developments are 100% Affordable; every apartment in the complex is rented at a rate determined by family gross income. Affordable Houses are sold on the same basis. These developments are usually created by non-profit, mission-oriented organizations, and they rely heavily on grants, subsidies, and concessions. A second type of development, referred to as inclusionary housing, requires Affordable Housing units to be included within a market rate development. Different inclusionary housing ordinances govern Sonoma County and each of its Cities. They specify that 5% to 20% of apartments or houses, in projects of five to ten or more units, must be dedicated in one or more of the Affordable Housing categories.

Many programs exist to support construction of Affordable Housing. Financing is usually a central concern. Federal tax credits, which can be sold to investors to provide cash for planning and construction, are the most common. Low interest long term loans and HUD loan guarantees

6.M.d
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: CGJ_AHPPF (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 2
also provide financing. Grants are sometimes available, often to support Affordable Housing directed to specific groups such as farm workers, veterans, or seniors. Builders of Affordable Housing may be eligible for specific concessions such as reduced or waived costs for fees, expedited review, modification of housing density limitations, or reduction of requirements for amenities such as off-street parking or landscaping.

Recent changes in the State law also encourage the production of Affordable Housing.

California Senate Bill 9 allows, with specific limitations, construction of a second rentable house on an existing lot. Senate Bill 10 encourages zoning changes that allow the development of smaller projects as infill, within existing neighborhoods and especially near public transit centers such as SMART stations or bus hubs. Senate Bill 35 allows qualifying projects with at least 50% Affordable Housing units to move more easily through the approval process and restricts the ability of local governments to reject qualifying projects. Other laws simplify construction of rentable Accessory Dwelling Units (sometimes called in-law units) on a lot with an existing house.

There are also many impediments to the creation of Affordable Housing. Land costs in Sonoma County are high and typically constitute about 20% of the cost of a project. The availability of financing is highly competitive and very complex. Proposals are subjected to careful scrutiny and analysis before consideration, and the process is very slow. For example, federal loan guarantees may take seven months to a year for approval. Projects normally need several different forms of financing, each of which has its own application procedures, regulations, and timetable.

Inclusionary housing ordinances differ for each jurisdiction in the County. The same is true of various mitigation fees, designed to offset the costs to the jurisdiction of additional demand for parkland, fire and police services, sewage, traffic, and separately to school districts. There are also different fees and procedures for building permits in the Cities and County. The complexity generated by different fees and rules, each subject to interpretation, increases the cost and difficulty of building Affordable Housing. The cost of permits and mitigation fees is significant; a range of 11-20% of building costs is cited by several interviewees.

A major problem in the development of Affordable Housing is public opposition, often summarized by the phrase “Not In My Backyard” or the acronym NIMBY. Opposition takes many forms: anti-development or environmental concerns, traffic worries, potential property value losses, and more, including both open and unspoken racial and ethnic prejudices. It is vital that local opinions are heard and that accommodations be made whenever reasonable. Several interviewees indicated that no Affordable Housing will be built if a small number of opponents cannot compromise.

This is a self-initiated report by the 2021-2022 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury).

The Grand Jury makes several recommendations that could simplify and accelerate the development of Affordable Housing and help the County and its Cities reach their Regional Housing Needs Allocation mandates.

GLOSSARY
• ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
• ADU Accessory Dwelling Unit
• AMI Area Median Income
• CDC Sonoma County Community Development Commission

6.M.d
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: CGJ_AHPPF (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 3
• CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
• HAP Housing Assistance Payments
• HLT Housing Land Trust of Sonoma County
• HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
• JADU Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit
• LIHTC Low Income Housing Tax Credits
• NIMBY Not In My Backyard
• RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
• SCHA Sonoma County Housing Authority
• YIMBY Yes In My Back Yard

BACKGROUND
In 2021, The Press Democrat published a series of articles detailing the rental of Affordable Housing units to unqualified individuals at an apartment development near Santa Rosa. The Grand Jury also received citizen complaints about this particular situation. A companion report, Affordable Housing: Compliance and Monitoring, details the Grand Jury’s investigation of the general problem of oversight of existing Affordable Housing in Sonoma County. Further questions arose during the investigation, leading the Grand Jury to an expanded look into Affordable Housing in the County and its cities.

The term ‘affordable housing’ can have different meanings depending on context:
“AH” = In this report and more generally in the housing industry, we use capital letters to identify Affordable Housing as apartments or houses that are potentially available to rent or are deeded as Affordable for those who earn a specified percentage of the median income.
“ah” = Lower case letters are used to differentiate between the two meanings of affordable housing; “ah” is a more general term. An apartment that rents for $3,500/month might be affordable to a company executive but may not be affordable to a junior employee, a retiree, or a person with disabilities.

Affordable Housing in the context of this report refers to housing that is priced on the basis of ability to pay, and not on the market rate of a rental apartment or of a house to buy or rent.

Affordability is defined relative to the Area Median Income (AMI), the income at which an equal number of families earn more and an equal number of families earn less. The AMI value is determined annually by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and is specific to an area.

The AMI for a family of four is derived from selected census data. As of January 1, 2022, this value for Sonoma County is $103,300. This number is updated annually. AMI values for other sized families are determined mathematically using this number as a basis. Four-person family income limits that define eligibility for Affordable Housing are then defined in several categories as shown below.

6.M.d
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: CGJ_AHPPF (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 4
Table 1. Income Limits to Qualify for Affordable Housing Source: CDC
*60% of AMI is used as a data point for other programs using the local region’s “Housing Affordability Index” (HAI)
**HUD defines Low income as 50-80% of AMI and Very Low Income as 30-50% of AMI to qualify for Section 8 housing vouchers.

Annual costs for Affordable Housing are then determined as a maximum of 30% of gross income. As an example, a family of four with a gross income of $45,000 would be classified as Very Low-Income. Their maximum housing costs would be 30% of $45,000 or $13,500 per year / $1,125 per month. Utilities are included within the 30% limit, as are property taxes and insurance for owner-occupied housing. The calculations above are only relevant if an Affordable Housing unit is available. Housing officials, builders, and advocates have all told this Grand Jury that Affordable Housing units are in very short supply with long wait lists.

The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) periodically evaluates the housing situation in the region, including Sonoma County, and makes recommendations for specific housing goals.

The County is currently involved in planning its 6th Cycle Housing Element, a part of the County’s general plan. The housing element includes:
• A housing needs assessment.
• Evaluation of past performance—in this case 5th cycle success or failure. • An inventory of potential housing sites.
• Community outreach.
• Analysis of constraints and barriers to housing development. • Establishment of policies and programs to meet the goals.

The 6th Cycle Housing Element covers the period of 2023 to 2031. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) from ABAG demands a large increase in all areas of the County, including significant numbers of new Affordable Housing units. For example, unincorporated Sonoma County is mandated to create 3,881 new housing units—apartments or single-family homes— during this period, and 1,632 of these should be Affordable in the low and very-low income categories. This is a sharp increase over the total of 515 units allocated to unincorporated Sonoma County in the 5th cycle. The nine cities of the County also have specific 6th cycle allocations as shown in Table 2.

Category Percent of AMI Maximum Annual Income
Acutely Low Income 15% $15,500
Extremely Low Income 30% $34,900
Very Low Income 50% $58,150
AMI* 60% $69,780
Low Income ** 80% $93,050
Median Income 100% $103,300
Moderate Income 120% $123,950

6.M.d
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: CGJ_AHPPF (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 5
Table 2: The Final RHNA Allocation
Source: ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan 2023-2031 RHNA allocations in the past have been strong recommendations and housing goals for Sonoma County and its nine cities. These recommendations and goals have not always been met. Recent legislative changes make the 6th cycle allocations more of a mandate, with the threat that if counties or cities do not fulfill their obligations, they can be fined and even lose authority to the State over their housing programs. The chart in Appendix A outlines this process.

In this report the Grand Jury examines the larger questions surrounding the need for additional housing in Sonoma County, and in particular its shortage of Affordable Housing. What is planned? What progress is being made? What are the incentives? What are the obstacles to meeting housing goals? This is a self-initiated investigation of a topic of wide concern and activity.

METHODOLOGY
For this investigation, the Grand Jury conducted 21 interviews including:
• Housing representatives from Sonoma County and its nine cities • Individuals involved in planning, construction, and management of Affordable Housing • Housing advocates and advisors
The Grand Jury also examined multiple websites and documents dealing with aspects of Affordable Housing policy, programs, and regulations. In addition, Grand Jury members attended public meetings on this topic.

DISCUSSION
California is infamous for its housing costs and shortages, and Sonoma County is no exception.

Based on house sales data, The Press Democrat reported median resale house prices in January 2022 exceeded three quarters of a million dollars in the County; median prices in Healdsburg or along the coastline were twice as high. Houses that were too expensive a year ago are more expensive now. The State of California recognizes that we have a housing crisis, and in

6.M.d
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: CGJ_AHPPF (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 6
particular a significant shortage of Affordable Housing. Sonoma County has become a place where people with ordinary incomes cannot afford to live.

Factors that Favor the Development of Affordable Housing Governmental Policies and Commitment
The State of California has mandated the creation of new housing, including significant amounts of Affordable Housing. This mandate is quantified through the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) determination of needs in the San Francisco Bay Area. ABAG allocates housing units through its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for the 6th Cycle Housing Element. Sonoma County and each of the nine Cities officially favor increasing the supply of housing, although not always with full acceptance of RHNA allocations. Results from the 5th Cycle Housing Element are also informative. Although the 5th cycle continues through the end of 2022, and all housing jurisdictions reported progress, though not all their goals, such as those for low-income and very low-income units, will be attained. Fifth cycle allocations were recommendations, and they were small compared to the 6th cycle requirements. The jurisdictions will need to increase their efforts to avoid the possibility of State sanctions or State assumption of local control over housing: “Do It, or the State Will Do It For You” Changes in Law
The State of California has passed several new laws to encourage housing development in general, and Affordable Housing in particular.
• SB 9 Housing Development: Approvals, which took effect January 1, 2022, allows construction of a second full unit on a lot that already has a single-family home or duplex. Because cities and counties maintain local control under SB9, and can impose limitations on lot size, etc., it is unclear how often it will be used. It allows larger structures than the existing Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or ‘in-law” unit, and can be available for rent. This law also allows for the modification to an existing dwelling unit to include rentable space as a Junior Additional Dwelling Unit (JADU). However, in most jurisdictions, there is no guarantee that the ADU or JADU will be affordable housing.
• SB 10 Planning and Zoning: Housing Development: Density, which took effect January 1, 2022, eases the development of small housing complexes (10 or fewer units) as infill within cities or near transit hubs such as SMART stations or bus hubs. Infill can be described as building on unused and underutilized lands within existing development

6.M.d
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: CGJ_AHPPF (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 7
patterns. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research states that infill is critical to accommodating growth and redesigning our cities to be environmentally and socially sustainable. While maintaining local control, SB 10 allows pro-housing governments to re-zone appropriate land parcels with fewer potential roadblocks. It does not change the approval process for the building(s).
• SB 35 Planning and Zoning: Affordable Housing: Streamlined Approval Process, has been in effect since 2018. It allows qualifying projects with at least 50% Affordable Housing units to move more quickly through the approval process. It also restricts the ability of local governments to reject qualifying projects, and in some cases removes requirements for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of the project. • SB 330 Housing Crisis Act of 2019, modifies planning and zoning law. It prohibits local jurisdictions from enacting new laws or raising administrative barriers that would reduce or delay housing construction. This law was set to expire in 2025, but SB-8 (2021) extends parts of the legislation to 2030 and 2034. • AB 491 Housing: Affordable and Market Rate Units, enacted in 2021, requires that Affordable Housing apartments in multifamily developments be integrated within the complex and have the same access to common areas and amenities. AB 1043 (2021) adds “Acutely Low Income”, defined as below 15% of AMI, as a category of lower income households that can be targeted for Affordable Housing.

Local housing ordinances have also been passed or modified to increase the percentage of Affordable units in a project and to lengthen the time period that the units must be rented as Affordable Housing. Many earlier projects had 30-year timespans for required affordability while current restrictions usually range from 50 to 99 years.

Paths to Affordable Housing
The two major paths to the creation of Affordable Housing are:
• 100% Affordable Housing complexes: In this type of project, every apartment or house is intended to be available under the umbrella of Affordable within one or more of the categories of Table 1. These developments are most often apartment complexes, built and managed by not-for-profit organizations such as Burbank Housing and Mid Pen Housing. These organizations are mission-oriented; they exist to provide Affordable Housing.

Projects are often opportunistic in that they depend heavily on the availability of land, often publicly owned. In addition, funding may be directed toward a specific need such as senior housing. Commercial builders may also construct 100% affordable projects. • Inclusionary Housing: Sonoma County and its cities have adopted ordinances that mandate that a percentage of apartments or houses in a development must be Affordable.

The mandate usually applies only when a development includes at least some specific number of units, typically 5 to 10. The percentage of Affordable units varies with the jurisdiction, usually 10-20%, often divided between low-income and very low-income.

The inclusionary units must remain Affordable for a defined time period, typically 50 years or more. Inclusionary housing ordinances guarantee that the supply of Affordable Housing will grow in conjunction with market-rate housing. They also foster integration

6.M.d
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: CGJ_AHPPF (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 8
of Affordable units within market-rate developments, leading to greater economic diversity.

Less common routes include:
• Rehabilitation and Repurposing: A variation on the theme of new building is rehabilitation and re-direction of an existing complex. For example, an apartment building could be purchased, then updated or rehabilitated, and re-occupied as Affordable Housing. Likewise, a motel can be remodeled and repurposed as transitional housing. • Housing Land Trusts: A less common avenue to Affordable Home ownership is exemplified by a Housing Land Trust. The Housing Land Trust maintains ownership of the land on which a house is built; the house is sold in accordance with Affordable Housing income limits.
• Accessory Dwelling Units: ADUs are additional housing units that are legally added to a residential property. Sometimes referred to as in-law units, they can be attached to or separated from the existing residence. ADUs may
be new construction or converted from existing
space. A Junior ADU (JADU) is a smaller version
of an ADU. It is an independent, legally rentable
unit that must exist within the existing dwelling
unit or an attached accessory structure such as a
garage. They can contain a very simple kitchen
with small appliances and share a bathroom with
the original dwelling. Consequently, development
costs for JADUs are lower. Both ADUs and
JADUs can be rented.

Who Builds Affordable Housing?
Non-Profit/Mission-Oriented Builders
Mission-oriented non-profit organizations such as Burbank Housing and MidPen Housing construct and manage developments in which every unit is Affordable. These organizations exist for the sole purpose of providing high-quality housing for those who cannot afford to rent or buy market-rate accommodations. They are widely respected and supported within Sonoma County.

Builders of Inclusionary Housing
Most housing developments within Sonoma County are required to include some percentage of Affordable units. They fall under inclusionary housing ordinances, which are in effect in Sonoma County and all of its nine Cities. Requirements vary, but most include provisions for both low-income and very low-income units. The ordinances typically specify that inclusionary units must be comparable to the market-rate units with respect to appearance, appliances, access to amenities, etc. Units cannot be concentrated in one building or area, but should be integrated throughout the development. The intent is to make the inclusionary houses or apartments difficult to identify as Affordable Housing and thus to avoid stigmatization.

A developer may decide that the mandated number of inclusionary units is inappropriate for the project. Most ordinances have provisions that allow payment of an in-lieu fee to either reduce or eliminate the inclusionary requirement. If ‘feeing out’ is approved by the jurisdiction, the fees

6.M.d
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: CGJ_AHPPF (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 9
go into a housing fund to support construction of Affordable Housing. Unfortunately, these fees rarely provide enough funding to actually build an affordable unit.

While a few jurisdictions support feeing out as a way of providing more flexibility to support future Affordable projects, other governing bodies oppose or have eliminated the payment of inlieu fees as counter to the desire for more Affordable Housing.

Housing Land Trust of Sonoma County
The Housing Land Trust of Sonoma County (HLT) is a non-profit organization supporting lowor moderate income housing. In the housing land trust model, the land on which a house (or possibly a condominium) is built, is owned by the HLT while the house itself belongs to the purchaser. The family income of the buyer, usually with zero down payment, determines the purchase price of the house. The owner is then responsible for the mortgage and taxes plus a small monthly lease payment on the land. The house deed is restricted; any resale must be in the category (low or moderate income) of the original purchase. Thus the house remains Affordable through the period of the land lease, usually 99 years. HLT houses can be inclusionary units in a development or one-off opportunities. The land title can be deeded to the HLT by the developer, donated by an owner or government agency, or purchased by the HLT.

Manufactured and Factory Built Housing
Both manufactured and factory-built housing have cost advantages over conventional construction methods and thus can increase the supply of Affordable Housing. • Manufactured housing generally refers to homes that are built totally in a construction facility and transported intact to a site such as a mobile home park. The cost of manufactured homes is typically less than that of custom-built homes. They are also more limited in size and design. Often the land on which a home sits is not owned by the homeowner, and rent must be paid. Although construction standards have improved, manufactured homes may still carry the stigma of being flimsy and unlikely to increase in value.
• Factory built housing refers to housing that is often modular, constructed in a facility and transported and assembled on a building site. It can be considerably less expensive than traditional on-site building. Modules can be more easily adapted to meet local building codes, and its design can be much more flexible than manufactured housing. However, many of the cost advantages of factory-built housing can be negated by long transportation distances and associated costs.

Rehabilitation of Existing Housing
Older apartment buildings may have included Affordable units that had shorter term restrictions (e.g. 30 years) before reverting to market rate. Other apartment buildings, motels, or homes may simply become available for purchase. If funds are available, developers or jurisdictions can purchase such properties, modernize or rehabilitate them, and repurpose the units as Affordable Housing.

Project Homekey, a successor to Project Roomkey, is a statewide effort to combat homelessness.

Administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, it makes grants to local housing entities to enable them to develop interim or permanent housing for unhoused people. Rehabilitation through Project Homekey has been used to purchase and re6.M.d Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: CGJ_AHPPF (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 10
purpose the Azura Hotel in Santa Rosa and the Sebastopol Inn in Sebastopol. They were then repurposed and converted into accommodations and support services for homeless individuals who were highly susceptible to COVID-19 infection. Both properties will eventually be converted to permanent Affordable Housing for households earning no more than 30% of AMI.

Targeted Housing
Affordable Housing is sometimes targeted to specific groups. Often the availability of directed funding provides an opportunity to generate Affordable Housing for defined populations. Senior Citizen housing complexes are the most common. Based on available funding from the U. S.

Department of Agriculture, a recently approved project in Cloverdale specifies housing for agricultural workers. Veterans, individuals with disabilities or special needs or other groups may qualify for specific projects.

Incentives to Build Affordable Housing; Loans, Grants, Tax Credits The cost of building an Affordable house or apartment is not inherently different from the cost of building a market-rate property, but the potential income from the Affordable unit is significantly less. Incentives are used to help projects be economically viable. A summary of these programs is provided below. A more detailed listing of programs is presented in Appendix A.

Federal Programs
• Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC): This program is the most important Affordable Housing support mechanism, worth $8 billion per year. The credits are issued to the states by the Federal Government. State housing agencies award the credits to developers of Affordable Housing. Developers can then sell the credits to investors to obtain funding for a project.
• Community Development Block Grants (CDBG): This HUD program allocates funds on a formula basis to states, counties and cities for projects that improve the quality of living for residents whose incomes are less than 80 percent of the AMI. Examples include housing acquisition, rehabilitation, and provision of homeless shelters. • HOME Investments Partnership Program: This program provides block grants to states and localities that are often used in partnership with local nonprofit groups to build, buy, or rehabilitate Affordable Housing.
• Federal Loan Guarantees: HUD has several programs that provide federal backup for long-term low interest fixed rate fully amortized loans. These loans usually range from $2 million to $100 million, with no upper limit. Affordable Housing properties have additional concessions and can be combined with the (LIHTC) program.

State Programs
• Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities: This program invests cap-and-trade money in Affordable Housing infill projects close to transportation services and infrastructure. In 2022, this program provides $130 million from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
• Building Homes and Jobs Act (SB 2): This Act created a trust fund for Affordable Housing through a $75 recording fee, charged every time real estate documents are recorded.

6.M.d
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: CGJ_AHPPF (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 11
• Multifamily Housing Program (SB 3): The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2018 provides $1.5 billion in bonds for this program which provides deferred payment loans for projects related to permanent and transitional rental Affordable Housing. • No Place Like Home: A 2016 Bond issue provides money in the form of noncompetitive funding and competitive grants for housing the unhoused and people living with mental illness. The actual funding started in 2019.
• California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) Loans: CalHFA offers low, fixed-rate mortgage products, as well as down payment and closing cost assistance to provide Affordable Housing opportunities for developers and low to moderate income first-time home buyers.
• Infill Infrastructure Grant Program. These grants provide gap funding for infrastructure improvements on qualifying infill housing projects.

Sonoma County and Local Funding programs
• Sonoma County Fund for Housing (CFH): CHF was established in 2003 to provide financial assistance for the development and preservation of low, very low, and extremely low income Affordable Housing. CFH provides loans and grants from various sources such as developer in-lieu fees, transient occupancy taxes and CFH loan processing fees. • Cities: Some cities utilize the fees that developers pay to fund Affordable Housing projects. Impact fees assessed on new residential developments, in-lieu fees, and linkage fees assessed on new commercial developments provide the funds.

Concessions
A variety of modifications to requirements for new construction are intended to increase the supply of Affordable Housing. Some of the most common are:
• Density bonuses: Zoning ordinances usually define the maximum allowable residential density on a site. Inclusion of greater than
required numbers of Affordable units can allow up
to 50% higher density in a project, resulting in
increased potential revenue.
• Fee reduction or waiver: Some jurisdictions may
waive or reduce mitigation fees for Affordable
Housing. This is common for ADU and JADU
construction; for example, Petaluma waives fees
on ADUs of less than 750 square feet. Fee waivers are also sometimes possible for other Affordable Housing construction projects. Santa Rosa has a fee reduction program for high density multi-unit Affordable Housing in the downtown area. Fresno allows deferral of all mitigation fees until an Affordable Housing unit is occupied, and recently expanded a fee waiver program for infill and transit-oriented units. • Development incentives: A variety of concessions or incentives support construction of Affordable Housing. For example, in return for increased inclusionary units, the Shiloh Terrace project in Windsor proposed a reduction in the number of parking spaces, changes in height restrictions and a reduction in open space requirements.

6.M.d
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: CGJ_AHPPF (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 12
• California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) waivers: CEQA serves to inform the public on environmental effects of proposed discretionary projects through environmental impact reports. Under some circumstances, CEQA requirements can be waived to speed up the process.
• There can be flexibility in other site-specific factors such as public transportation access, numbers of trees, covered parking spaces, walkability of the area, playground space, etc.

Public Education
Public opposition to housing growth is common, and informational programs and processes can help modify public opinion. Sonoma County and its cities all provide information on their websites that is intended to increase public awareness of local policies. Planning documents such as Sonoma County Five-Year Strategic Plan 2021-2025 outline housing policies and goals, including Affordable Housing. Generation Housing, a Sonoma County advocacy group, provides educational materials such as State of Housing in Sonoma County, January 2022, and a housing project tracking tool that provides identification and status information on Affordable Housing projects in the County. There is even a public support movement, Yes In My Back Yard (YIMBY), that argues for increased housing density in cities.

Factors that Inhibit Development of Affordable Housing
Although there is Federal, State and local support for the concept of Affordable Housing and there are many programs to support it, there are also barriers that keep its supply well below its demand. Some of these barriers are common to all housing construction, and some are more specific to Affordable Housing.

Public Acceptance of Affordable Housing - NIMBY: Not in My Backyard The need for more housing, including Affordable Housing, is officially recognized by the State of California, Sonoma County, and its nine cities. These housing needs are widely understood but not universally endorsed by the public and some cities, especially with respect to Affordable Housing. Often an opinion, stated as “Affordable Housing in some other city or county” is more popular than “Affordable Housing in my town”, which is perhaps better than “Affordable Housing in my neighborhood” and much more acceptable than “Affordable Housing next door to me.” The strongest opposition to a project most often comes from those it most immediately

6.M.d
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: CGJ_AHPPF (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 13
affects. Factors that contribute to Not In My Backyard (NIMBY)ism with respect to Affordable Housing include:
• Fear of any new development that will change the character of the County, city, or neighborhood. Many residents of Sonoma County are simply happy with the way things are. Many came here to escape more crowded environments. They see no need for population growth, more houses, new apartment complexes, high-rise buildings, busier roads, or losing their view, etc.
• Fear and misunderstanding of Affordable Housing residents: Affordable Housing is often seen as solely aimed at groups who will, in accord with negative stereotypes, alter or degrade the neighborhood. It should be noted that ordinances demand that Affordable Housing developments and houses be compatible with their neighborhoods and not stand out as different or of inferior construction. Inclusionary apartments should also be interspersed with the market-rate apartments in a multi-unit building. • Environmental concerns: In 2006 Sonoma County voters strongly supported the reauthorization of a 1990 sales tax increment to fund the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District. The rural and agricultural nature of the County is seen by some as incompatible with growth. Support for CEQA is generally high. Water shortages due to continuing drought, air quality degradation from more traffic, and loss of wildlife habitat are cited as concerns. Many environmentalists favor new housing, especially infill, because denser, city-centered developments, and modern construction methods can be more effective in reducing water and energy usage. • Infrastructure and resource concerns: New housing means more traffic and congestion, more streets and roads, more schools, stores and offices, more sewage and trash, yet all within the limitations of water, land, transportation, and the costs to the community of expansion. Residents fear that they will be paying the costs of newcomers, even though general housing expansion and Affordable Housing development are aimed at current Sonoma County residents who cannot find or afford a decent place to live. • Property value concerns: There is a common fear that the presence of Affordable Housing will lower the value of existing properties nearby. Don’t Put it Here!, a study from the New York University Furman Center, found that Affordable Housing had neither a positive nor a negative effect on nearby property values. A review of several studies by the Urban Studies Program at San Francisco State University found no effect on nearby property values in 13 of 14 investigations.
• Natural disaster preparedness: Sonoma County has experienced major disasters in the last few years and needs to be prepared for the next challenge: fire, flood, or earthquake.

Many areas in the County have only one or two potential escape or access routes. In an emergency, roads could quickly become impassable, overcrowded, or clogged with traffic. More housing raises fears of reduced safety. This concern needs attention from emergency management entities regardless of additional housing; it is not solely a concern for new housing.
• Racial and ethnic concerns: Few people openly admit to racial or ethnic prejudice.

Nevertheless, racial and ethnic stereotypes, although often unspoken, remain. There is concern that those people will not ‘fit into the neighborhood”. A potential cultural

6.M.d
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: CGJ_AHPPF (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 14
enrichment is seen as a threat. This is a problem that extends far beyond Sonoma County and needs to be understood and countered nationally and beyond.

Inconsistent and Complex Governmental Regulations and Commitment to Affordable Housing Although all jurisdictions in Sonoma County support the addition of Affordable Housing, the levels of support, commitment, and accomplishment are not uniform. • Inclusionary housing ordinances vary widely from city to city. The minimum number of units in an inclusionary development can be 5, 7, or 10 depending on city policy. In-lieu fees can be welcomed, tolerated or prohibited. The minimal number of inclusionary units ranges from 5% to 25%, with most jurisdictions requiring 15%. The mix of low, very low, and (sometimes) extremely low priced units is inconsistent between cities.

Santa Rosa and Petaluma have different requirements that favor city center developments over those outside the inner core.
• Zoning ordinances in some cities favor single family home construction over multifamily housing. Affordable single family homes for purchase are often directed at moderate (up to 120% AMI) or median income levels, whereas Affordable rental apartments are more commonly directed at low income (less than 80% or less than 60% AMI) or very low income (less than 50% AMI) families.
• Lack of political will from County officials or city councils: Elected officials are expected to consider the opinions of their constituents, and sometimes there is strong opposition to a project. For example, a project in Cloverdale was approved by a split vote in early 2022, but only after two council votes and considerable discussion. The City of Sonoma created or expanded three historic districts early in 2022, greatly limiting the possibility of expanding housing in those areas. The North Bay Bohemian cites a recent ordinance in the City of Sonoma that requires that any property on which a second housing unit is proposed must have at least three mature trees and ten shrubs.

These requirements would limit SB 9 implementation. In addition, a proposed multiunit development in Sebastopol has been on-hold since 2019 due to public concerns, but may be able to move forward based on SB 35 implementation. • Commercial development may be considered more favorably than housing, including Affordable Housing. Interviews with housing officials indicated that new housing had a negative impact on their budgets. Despite mitigation fees and taxes, services for new residents usually cost more than the income they bring to the jurisdiction. In contrast, a large commercial development such as a car dealership or a big box store brings in added sales taxes while not requiring social services, new schools, parks, etc. Similarly, a hotel generates occupancy taxes for a city.
• City Boundaries and Their Spheres of Influence: Each City has a well-defined boundary within which it has jurisdiction. The Sonoma Local Agency Formation Commission, which regulates city and special district boundaries, delineates Spheres of Influence:
areas adjacent to the cities and potentially appropriate for annexation and siting of Affordable Housing. Cloverdale has utilized this, resulting in City Council approval of the design and development plan for the Bumgardner Ranch Project in September 2020.

Other jurisdictions have hesitated to annex adjacent property. Most cited the costs of bringing infrastructure (water, sewers, roads, parks and other amenities) to the added territory in order to develop it into housing.

6.M.d
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: CGJ_AHPPF (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 15
• In November 2018, Santa Rosa voters defeated an Affordable Housing bond measure (Measure N), and Sonoma County refused to put a similar measure on the ballot.

Additionally, some housing advocates we interviewed don’t think Affordable Housing measures would pass today because of low levels of public acceptance.

Land and Construction Costs
Any factor that increases building costs has a disproportionate effect on Affordable Housing, since higher costs cannot be offset with higher rents or house prices. Land values in Sonoma County are high and rising. In their 2022 report State of Housing in Sonoma County, Generation Housing (Gen H, a non-profit advocacy group), indicates that the average cost of a quarter acre home lot rose 117% between 2012 and 2018, from $128,100 to $278,600. The land accounted for 34.7% of the cost of building a house. Apartment
developments require less land per unit than individual houses. Nevertheless builders report that land costs usually represent about 20% of the cost of such projects.

Skilled and unskilled building workers are in high demand and able to command good wages. It can be hard to find
construction workers. Interviewees indicated that project labor agreements (or prevailing wage agreements) can add to labor costs by as much as 20-30%. Construction
materials are also currently expensive and hard to get because of pandemic-induced supply problems. Lumber prices surged in 2021, and components that had been plentiful remain scarce.

A New York Times article in February 2022 indicated it took 20 weeks to acquire a garage door, without which a house normally cannot get an occupancy permit. Other shortages of materials can delay projects for weeks.

Availability and Complexity of Financing
There are many government programs that help finance Affordable Housing, yet there is never enough money to fund everything. Funding programs are almost all highly competitive, and application processes are complex and slow. For example, HUD advises applicants for Section 221(d)(4) loan guarantees that the time to complete the process is 7 to 12 months; documentation requirements are extensive and carefully checked, and application fees are significant. • 100% Affordable Housing projects can have larger hurdles to overcome. Extensive evaluation of the site, project details, local need, and especially the economic viability of the project need to be documented in detail. Financing is particularly complex. One person interviewed by the Grand Jury described a 100% Affordable Housing project that needed ten different sources of funding, and that a typical project uses seven. Multiple funding sources often have different affordability, documentation, monitoring, and timing requirements.

Complex Multistep Approval Processes
Even when a jurisdiction is strongly pro-housing, the pathway from concept to finished construction is complicated. For a typical inclusionary or 100% Affordable Housing project, steps include:
• Site identification and acquisition: A private builder may already own appropriately zoned land or be able arrange a loan and purchase through normal channels. A non6.M.d Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: CGJ_AHPPF (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 16
profit organization might first need to arrange low cost loans or grant funding for the purchase, or it could also depend on a donated site with restrictions on how it could be developed. This step may take a few months to over a year. • Preliminary design reviews: County or local design review boards concern themselves with multiple aspects of the project, including geology of the site, appropriateness of the project, housing density, size and appearance of the buildings, space use, landscaping and amenities, site access and parking, neighborhood impact, environmental considerations, access to utilities, and access to public transportation and services.

Financing for the project may be arranged, or at least in process. Public opinion is sought, and hopefully an economically viable project is given preliminary approval.

This step usually takes several months to more than a year, and occasionally a project can lie dormant for longer periods.
• Final design and approval involve public review, payment of a variety of mitigation fees, procurement of permits, and approval by city or county authorities. At this stage there may be modifications to plans to accommodate public or environmental concerns.

Sometimes a builder might want to alter the number of Affordable units by the payment of in-lieu fees. Funding must be finalized. This step may also take several months or more to complete.
• Construction can now begin. Recent shortages of materials and labor have slowed this step. It is in the interest of the builder to complete the project quickly since money is being spent but no rents are being collected.

Builders interviewed by the Grand Jury indicated that the process from concept to occupied housing usually takes four years or more. 100% Affordable Housing projects can be slower because of the greater complexity of obtaining funding.

The planning stages, which include negotiations between builders and planning staff, can be lengthy and involved. Several individuals the Grand Jury spoke with were critical of the complexity and bureaucracy involved in the planning process. Builders felt that their concerns were sometimes not understood.

CEQA Exploitation and Misuse
The California Environmental Quality Act was passed in 1970 with the aim of identifying and mitigating the environmental effects of public projects. As detailed in a recent article in The Atlantic, the scope of CEQA has expanded to cover almost any private project that requires a level of governmental approval. CEQA lawsuits are relatively easy and inexpensive to bring, but they can demand lengthy and expensive environmental studies and significantly delay a project, add to its costs, and even cause its abandonment. Studies cited in the article indicate that multifamily housing is the most common target of CEQA lawsuits, and that up to 80% concern infill housing, projects that are often likely to be more environmentally friendly than e.g. industrial construction. California SB 35 attempts to limit arbitrary use of CEQA.

Mitigation Fees: What Keeps Them from Building Quickly or At All Additional housing, including Affordable Housing, adds to the need for infrastructure and government services, such as fire and police. Mitigation fees, levied on both new construction and remodeling of housing, are designed to offset some or all of these costs. Fees vary widely in

6.M.d
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: CGJ_AHPPF (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 17
Sonoma County, but all are a significant cost of development. As an example, the fee schedule for Sebastopol is shown below.

Every other jurisdiction has its own set of fees, and both the amounts and the nature of the charges are different in each jurisdiction. For example, in Cloverdale, the list of fees is different, but the average total shown on their website is about $41,000 for a house and $30,500 per apartment unit. In January 2022, the fee total for a single family house in Santa Rosa was $51,862. In Windsor, traffic mitigation fees alone are $11,475 and $6,941. Developers complained to the Grand Jury about both the cost and the inconsistency of these fees.

In addition, school district mitigation fees are charged separately and also vary considerably.

The Rincon Valley School District charges $2.86 per square foot of newly constructed housing.

The equivalent figure for Cotati/Rohnert Park is $3.79 per sq. ft. while Cloverdale has a proposal for $4.79 per sq. ft. Some jurisdictions set fees that are directed at a specific problem or situation. As an example, the continuing drought has led to the adoption of a Water Demand Offset Policy in the City of Santa Rosa. Funds from this fee would be used to implement projects or plans to offset the water needs of the development.

Building Permits, Review Processes, and Personnel
Virtually any construction or rehabilitation of housing requires building permits from the governing authority. Again, there is great variability in the nature and costs of required permits and in the time needed to secure them. Grand Jury interviews of builders and developers indicate that they accept that permitting oversight is needed to ensure quality and meet accepted standards (code), and that costs are involved in approval processes. Builders also wish that more self-certification or video-based remote certification was available. They accept that permit personnel are generally reasonable and professional in their actions. Nevertheless, the inconsistency from jurisdiction to jurisdiction in processes and procedures is seen as a hindrance to development. They further complain that the permitting process is often very slow, and permit departments often fail to meet their own goals for timeliness. Slowness was considered to be more of a problem than permit costs.

Nevertheless, the total cost of mitigation fees and permit fees is significant. Interviewees indicated that, depending on the nature and cost of a project, between 11% and as much as 20% of the total cost of construction can go to paying fees.

Complex multi-step review processes also add to costs by slowing the pace of a development and increasing the amount of paperwork involved in it. Cotati has attempted to ease this problem by essentially combining preliminary and final review processes into a more streamlined and direct Purpose Single Family House Multiunit Apartment
(per unit)
Park Land $7,276 $4,958
Park Facilities 5,922 4,036
Traffic Impact 8,174 4624
General Government 3,017 2,056
Fire Facilities 1,000 681
Stormwater Facilities 5,502 2,830
Total $30,891 $19,185

6.M.d
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: CGJ_AHPPF (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 18
negotiation. Lack of sufficient personnel in planning departments was cited as a problem in several interviews. In Sonoma County, staffing of planning departments can range from one person to four or more. Understaffing complicates all aspects of development of additional housing. In contrast, Petaluma takes a novel approach by contracting with an outside consultant to manage their effective Affordable Housing programs.

Unoccupied Housing: Time Shares, Airbnb, Pacaso, etc.

Areas with high levels of tourism can experience large numbers of second or vacation homes that are unoccupied for much of the year or, in the case of Pacaso properties, occupied serially by non-residents. Time-share properties provide housing for short term visitors, as do vacation rentals such as VRBO and Airbnb. Properties of this sort are important to tourism, but they can also be a problem for tourist destinations; in Sonoma County this includes Healdsburg, the Russian River area, and the City of Sonoma. Every house or apartment that is removed from the housing supply, and made unavailable to residents, helps to increase the price of the remaining properties. At the same time corporate buyers purchase houses and leave them vacant while their values increase. This further contributes to the inflation of house prices and leads to the exclusion of local residents.

CONCLUSION
The State of California is committed to significantly increasing the supply of all housing, including Affordable Housing. In Sonoma County and its nine Cities this commitment is expressed through ABAG and the requirements of RHNA. The Grand Jury has confirmed that while there is strong official support for these goals, there is sometimes less commitment to their achievement. Many programs that support development of Affordable Housing are in place. Yet many barriers also exist and greatly inhibit housing development. The principal barriers identified in this report include:
• The sheer complexity of navigating the bureaucracy in all aspects of a project • The high cost of land in Sonoma County
• The difficulty, complexity, and slow pace of financing a project • The shortage and high cost of building materials and supplies • The shortage of both skilled and unskilled labor as well as labor costs • The complexity and costs of mitigation fees and building permits • The inconsistency of costs, procedures, and regulations among the jurisdictions within the County
• Public opposition and misunderstanding of Affordable Housing and its recipients

6.M.d
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: CGJ_AHPPF (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 19

FINDINGS
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury determined that:

F1. Increased Affordable Housing has been mandated by the State of California and officially accepted by Sonoma County and its nine Cities.

F2. Housing jurisdictions must show sufficient progress in meeting 6th cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation mandates or they risk being fined or losing local authority over their housing programs.

F3. Sonoma County and its nine Cities have officially recognized the need for Affordable Housing but not all have fully endorsed the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or met earlier goals.

F4. Some cities hinder the development of Affordable Housing through designation of new historic districts, increased landscaping requirements, highly restrictive zoning, and exploitation of environmental concerns.

F5. Public acceptance of the need for Affordable Housing is not universal; NIMBYism and misinformation can negatively impact the planning and development process.

F6. In Sonoma County, costs and availability of land, building supplies, and labor impede development and construction of Affordable Housing.

F7. There is great variability in the planning and approval processes and procedures for developing Affordable Housing in the County and its Cities, thus complicating and slowing development.

F8. Financing of Affordable Housing projects is unusually complex, slow, and uncertain.

F9. Funding of Affordable Housing is often directed to specific groups such as seniors, veterans, or agricultural workers.

F10. Design review and project approval are often slow and very complex, and hinder the development of Affordable Housing.

F11. The permitting regulations, processes, and fees differ by jurisdiction.

F12. Mitigation fees vary by individual projects and jurisdictions, complicating the building of Affordable Housing.

F13. The speed of issuing permits has improved in some jurisdictions, but greater efficiency would help meet the building needs of Sonoma County.

F14. Payment of in-lieu fees to the housing jurisdiction results in fewer inclusionary Affordable Housing units and houses being built.

F15. Development of commercial projects such as hotels and big box stores is often favored over housing due to lesser demand on public services and increased sales or occupancy tax revenue.

F16. Recent legislation encourages construction of transit-oriented infill housing but has yet to show a large effect.

F17. Changes to city boundaries by annexation of land within their Spheres of Influence could allow the development of more Affordable Housing but is resisted due to the high costs of additional infrastructure.

6.M.d
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: CGJ_AHPPF (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 20
F18. The time periods for which new Affordable Housing units cannot convert to marketrate prices have been lengthened to preserve the units as Affordable.

F19. Rehabilitation and the repurposing of existing properties both preserve and increase the supply of Affordable Housing.

F20. Inclusive Affordable Housing must be equivalent to market rate units and be dispersed throughout a project making it harder to identify and stigmatize them.

F21. Manufactured and factory built home construction provide less expensive routes to Affordable Housing without necessarily reducing its quality.

F22. Design modifications can help make Affordable Housing projects economically viable.

F23. Contrary to commonly expressed fears, Affordable Housing does not usually affect local property values.

F24. Vacation homes, time shares, Airbnb, Pacaso houses, and vacant houses reduce the number of units available to permanent residents and, by reducing supply, increase the cost of housing.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury recommends that:

R1. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should begin to streamline their procedures, from preliminary review through the permitting process, related to the development of Affordable Housing. (F7, F10, F11, F13)
R2. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should meet to consider standardizing their procedures related to the development of Affordable Housing. (F7, F10, F11, F13)
R3. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should meet to discuss the coordination of fee reduction standards for Affordable Housing throughout the County. (F11, F12, F14)
R4. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should identify properties within their jurisdictions and Spheres of Influence that could support the construction of infill housing and accessory dwelling units. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F16, F17) R5. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should identify properties within their jurisdictions and Spheres of Influence that are likely opportunities for rehabilitation or repurposing to increase the availability of Affordable Housing. (F16, F19, F22)
R6. By June 1, 2023, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should develop permit ready accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit plans. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F7, F10, F11, F13, F21, F22)
R7. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should discuss integration of preliminary design review committees with their planning commissions to help expedite the construction of Affordable Housing. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F7, F10, F11, F13, F19, F20, F21, F22)
R8. By December 31, 2022, Permit Sonoma and the nine Cities should review their permitting requirements to allow nontraditional options such as manufactured homes,

6.M.d
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: CGJ_AHPPF (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 21
factory built homes, and tiny houses to increase housing supply. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F10, F11, F13, F21, F22)

REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the Grand Jury requires responses as follows:
• Permit Sonoma (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Cloverdale (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Cotati (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Healdsburg (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Rohnert Park (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8) • City of Santa Rosa (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Sebastopol (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Sonoma (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Petaluma (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• Town of Windsor (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8)
The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that their comments and responses must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
• Association of Bay Area Governments, Association of Bay Area Governments • Association of Bay Area Governments, RHNA – Regional Housing Needs Allocation, Regional Housing Needs Allocation
• Association of Bay Area Governments, Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031, December 2021 ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan 2023-2031
• California Department of Housing and Community Development, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/accessorydwellingunits.shtml • California Department of Housing and Community Development, Infill Infrastructure Grand Program (IIG) https://www.hcd.ca.gov/infill-infrastructure-grant • California State Treasurer, California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, Compliance Monitoring https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/compliance.asp • State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, CEQA: The California Environmental Quality Act https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/
• State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Infill Development https://opr.ca.gov/planning/land-use/infill-development/ • City of Santa Rosa, Water Demand Offset Policy and Fees, March 29, 2022 https://srcity.org/3641/Water-Demand-Offset-Policy-and-Fees • County of Sonoma, Community Development Commission,
https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/development-services/community-developmentcommission

6.M.d
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: CGJ_AHPPF (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 22
• County of Sonoma, Community Development Commission, Community Development Block Grant https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/development-services/communitydevelopment-commission/divisions/housing-and-neighborhood-investment/fundingopportunities/cdbg • County of Sonoma, Community Development Commission, Housing and Neighborhood Investment, Income and Rent Limits https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/developmentservices/community-development-commission/divisions/housing-and-neighborhoodinvestment/income-and-rent-limits • County of Sonoma, Community Development Commission, Project Homekey https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/development-services/community-developmentcommission/divisions/homeless-services/be-part-of-the-solution/fundingopportunities/project-homekey • County of Sonoma, Sonoma County Five-Year Strategic Plan 2021-2025 https://socostrategicplan.org/
• Gray, M. N., The Atlantic, “How Californians are Weaponizing Environmental Law,” March 12, 2021 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/signatureenvironmental-law-hurts-housing/618264/ • Generation Housing, State of Housing in Sonoma County, January 2022 https://generationhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/2022_Feb_SOH_SonomaCounty.pdf • Jennifer Hernandez, Chelsea Maclean, Daniel Golub and Paloma Perez-McEvoy, California Housing Resources Handbook, 2020 California Housing Resource Handbook-2020 (Holland & Knight)
• Housing Land Trust of Sonoma County https://www.housinglandtrust.org/ • Manuela Tobias, North Bay Bohemian, Sonoma Among Cities Resisting New State Housing Law, April 12, 2022 https://bohemian.com/ca-cities-resisting-new-housinglaw/ • Nashelly Chavez, The Press Democrat, Developer enlists 2017 law to advance stalled Sebastopol affordable housing project, April 13, 2022
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/developer-enlists-2017-law-to-advancestalled-sebastopol-affordable-housing/ • NYU Furman Center, The Center for Housing Policy Insights from Housing Policy Research, Don’t Put it Here! https://furmancenter.org/files/media/Dont_Put_It_Here.pdf • Sonoma County, California – Code of Ordinances, Article 89 – Affordable Housing Program Requirements & Incentives, February 8, 2022
https://library.municode.com/ca/sonoma_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CH 26SOCOZORE_ART89AFHOPRREIN
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, https://www.hud.gov/ • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing Choice Voucher Program Guidebook, Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) Contracts, July 2021 https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PIH/documents/HAP_Contracts_HCV_Guidebook_Ch apter_July_2021.pdf
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R), Income Limits https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html • U.S. Department of Agriculture https://www.usda.gov/
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Home Investment Partnership Program https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/comm_planning/home

6.M.d
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: CGJ_AHPPF (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 23
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R), Low Income Housing Tax Credits
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/lihtc.html
• YIMBY Law, Fighting For Housing https://www.yimbylaw.org/

APPENDIX A
California Housing Law Enforcement

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development

6.M.d
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: CGJ_AHPPF (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 24

APPENDIX B
Funding Sources for Affordable Housing
There are many sources of funding for Affordable Housing, but there is no consistency in its availability from year to year. Sometimes a city may save its cash resources for a few – or several – years and then spend them all in one year; other times a city may qualify for some particular funding one time but may not qualify another time. Currently, the most popular source is Affordable Housing Tax Credits.
https://generationhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/200121-Gen-H-Housing-FundingOverview.pdf Federal Programs
• Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC): The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) subsidizes the acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing for low and moderate income tenants. The LIHTC was enacted as part of the 1986 Tax Reform Act and has been modified numerous times. The Federal Government issues the tax credits to the states. State housing agencies then award the credits to private developers of affordable rental housing projects through a competitive process.

Developers generally sell the credits to private investors to obtain funding. Once the housing project is placed in service (essentially, made available to tenants), investors can claim the LIHTC over a 10-year period. (Burbank Housing follows this model) but the property must be maintained as affordable housing for a minimum of 30 years. • 9% Tax Credit subsidizes 70% of the eligible costs and is available for projects such as new construction or substantial rehabilitation that do not use tax-exempt bonds. Priority is given to developments that are close to public amenities such as transit, schools or parks.
• 4% Tax Credit subsidizes 30% of eligible costs and is available for projects that do use tax-exempt bonds.
• Community Development Block Grants (CDBG): Funds are used for projects that improve the quality of living for lower-income residents whose incomes are less than 80 percent of the area median income as established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The project must meet certain criteria, including being beneficial to low and moderate income people. This could include housing rehabilitation and homeless shelters. Santa Rosa and Petaluma receive their funds directly while Sonoma County manages the funds for the smaller cities.
• HOME Investments Partnership Program (HOME): HOME provides block grants to states and localities that communities use - often in partnership with local nonprofit groups. At least 15 percent of HOME funds must be set aside for specific activities to be undertaken by a special type of nonprofit called a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO). A CHDO is a private nonprofit, community-based organization that has staff with the capacity to develop affordable housing for the community it serves.

6.M.d
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: CGJ_AHPPF (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 25
State Programs
Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC): This program invests cap-and-trade money in projects that connect Affordable Housing with low-emission transportation services and infrastructure. Funds are from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). It provides grants and loans for Affordable Housing, infill and compact transit-oriented development, and infrastructure connecting these projects to transit. In 2022, the state’s budget allocated $130 million from cap and trade auction revenues.
• SB2 Building Homes and Jobs Act: Effective January 1, 2018, this Act created a trust fund for Affordable Housing through a $75 fee charged every time real estate documents are recorded. This money funds a variety of housing activities, depending on the needs of the community. These include farm worker housing and mixed-income multifamily housing developments which provide Affordable Housing for Californians with lower and moderate incomes.
• SB3 and Multifamily Housing Program (MHP): In 2018 the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act, which funds $1.5 billion in bonds for this program, was passed. The program provides deferred payment loans for projects related to permanent and transitional rental housing.
• No Place Like Home: A 2016 Bond issue provides money in the form of noncompetitive funding and competitive grants for the unhoused and mentally ill. The actual funding started in 2019.

Loans
• California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA): The California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) offers low, fixed-rate mortgage products, as well as down payment and closing cost assistance to provide Affordable Housing opportunities for low- to moderate-income first-time home buyers.
• Federal Loan Guarantees: HUD has several programs that provide federal backup for long-term low interest fixed rate fully amortized loans. Section 221(d)(4) insures loans with up to 40 year duration for construction or rehabilitation of multifamily housing.

These loans usually range from $2 million to $100 million, with no upper limit. The application process is slow and complex, and HUD advises use of an experienced intermediary. HUD 223(f) loans are made for purchase or refinancing of existing multifamily properties. Affordable Housing properties have additional concessions and can be combined the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program.

Sonoma County and Local Funding
• Sonoma County Fund for Housing (CFH): The County Fund for Housing was established in 2003 to provide financial assistance for the development and preservation of Affordable Housing located in Sonoma County. The purpose is to accelerate the pace of development of Affordable Housing for low, very low, and extremely low-income households. CFH provides loans and grants to qualified developers, public entities, groups and individuals to build Affordable Housing. Various sources such as developer in-lieu fees, transient occupancy taxes and CFH loan processing fees provide the funding. County Fund for Housing (CFH) (ca.gov)

6.M.d
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: CGJ_AHPPF (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Past, Present and Future 26
Cities
• Some cities utilize the impact and in-lieu fees that developers pay to fund Affordable Housing projects. Impact fees are assessed on new residential developments and in-lieu fees are charged when developers pay a fee instead of providing inclusionary housing. • Linkage fees are assessed on new commercial developments: They are impact fees levied to fund the development of Affordable Housing. They are collected by Sonoma County and cities such as Cotati, Petaluma, Rohnert Park, and Sebastopol.

6.M.d
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: CGJ_AHPPF (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 1
Affordable Housing: Monitoring and
Compliance
Who is Watching the Henhouse?

SUMMARY
In response to citizens’ complaints and reports published in The Press Democrat, the 2021-2022 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) investigated the monitoring of Affordable Housing within Sonoma County. Affordable Housing, as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, is housing priced on the basis of family income, not the market rate. Monitoring involves verification of tenant incomes and continued eligibility for an Affordable unit, the owner’s or manager’s collection of required information, and the ongoing maintenance of the property and its amenities. Housing departments for the County and its nine Cities are required to monitor compliance with the regulations for occupancy of Affordable Housing.

All housing is in short supply; this includes Affordable Housing, which should be available only to those who qualify. This report examines the monitoring of existing Affordable Housing. A companion report, “Affordable Housing: Past, Present, and Future,” examines the potential for increasing its availability.

The Grand Jury investigated procedures used in the County and its nine cities and found that monitoring was inconsistent among the housing jurisdictions. All of the agencies were overly reliant on self-reported information from owners and managers. Direct observation and verification through on-site monitoring were rare and essentially ceased during the COVID-19 shutdowns. A low priority was often given to monitoring, and the staffing to do it was usually insufficient. The Grand Jury concluded that there was little probability that illegal behaviors, if they existed, would be detected using current procedures.

Recommendations from the Grand Jury include increased on-site personal monitoring at housing locations, more standardization of procedures, consistent and on-going training with developers and property managers, and better coordination and cooperation amongst agencies to increase efficiency.

GLOSSARY
• ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
• AMI Area Median Income
• CDC Sonoma County Community Development Commission
• HAP Housing Assistance Payments
• HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
• RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
• SCHA Sonoma County Housing Authority
• Section 8 Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers

6.M.e
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: CGJ_AHM (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 2

BACKGROUND
Housing in Sonoma County is widely acknowledged to be in short supply and very expensive. A chart1
in The Press Democrat for March 13, 2022 showed the median price of a home in January 2022 to be $789,000, up from $715,000 just a year earlier. As reported by the North Bay Business Journal, Sonoma County median rent for a one or two-bedroom unit is $2,167, and residents are increasingly unable to afford a suitable place to live.

Common complaints include:
• My adult kids can’t afford to live here and will have to move somewhere else. • My rent is so high I can’t afford to pay my other bills. • I couldn’t afford my house if I had to buy it today.
• Sonoma County needs to have more affordable places to live.” The term “affordable housing” can have different meanings:
“AH” = In this report and more generally in the housing industry, we use capital letters to identify Affordable Housing as apartments or houses that are potentially available to rent or are deeded as Affordable for those who earn a specified percentage of the median income.
“ah” = Lower case letters are used to differentiate between the two meanings of affordable housing; “ah” is a more general term. An apartment that rents for $3,500/month might be affordable to an executive but may not be affordable to a junior employee, a retiree, or a person with disabilities.

The Federal Government, State, County, Cities and private organizations have created programs that make home buying or apartment rental more attainable. Affordable Housing, as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), means that families pay rent or purchase homes at prices determined by their incomes rather than by the housing market. These programs have strict and specific conditions that define eligibility. Income and family size are central, but other factors such as individuals with disabilities, senior status, or veterans may sometimes be a consideration. Since many more residents are qualified to receive Affordable Housing than housing is available, it is reasonable to ensure that the limited supply is occupied by those for whom it is intended. It is also logical to ensure that the housing is managed and maintained appropriately. Local County and city housing departments are charged with monitoring compliance with the conditions of the programs. A draft of the Sonoma County CDC Affordable Rental Housing Monitoring Procedures, presented to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on December 7, 2021, outlines their recommendations. Each of the nine cities would benefit from also having clearly defined procedures if they do not already exist.

In 2021, The Press Democrat published award-winning reports on a situation in Sonoma County where individuals rented apartments for which they were not eligible. The Grand Jury also received citizen complaints about this specific situation. This case has been well documented by the press and investigated by County authorities and is still a subject for potential lawsuits.

For these reasons, the Grand Jury did not center its attention on this individual problem, but rather, asked more general questions. What are the requirements for access to Affordable Housing? What are the requirements for verifying and monitoring compliance with the

1 Prices are from the sales of single-family homes recorded in Sonoma County.

6.M.e
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: CGJ_AHM (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 3
regulations? How is the monitoring done? Is the monitoring sufficient to assure compliance? How common is fraud? How can monitoring be improved? This report attempts to answer these questions.

METHODOLOGY
This investigation was initiated in response to citizen complaints received by the 2021-2022 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury.

The Grand Jury conducted interviews with key individuals in Sonoma County who are involved in the Affordable Housing arena. They included:
• County and City officials
• Non-profit agencies
• Affordable Housing agencies and advocates
The Grand Jury reviewed and evaluated documents from a wide range of sources addressing Affordable Housing, including many websites, from Sonoma County, the nine cities, State and Federal agencies. The most important of these are listed in the Bibliography.

DISCUSSION
What is Affordable Housing?
Affordable Housing is defined in multiple ways and categories. Still, all are based on the ability of a tenant or buyer to pay no more than a specific percentage of their income for housing. The rules and requirements are complex; Article 89 of the Sonoma County zoning code, Affordable Housing Program Requirements and Incentives, is 215 pages long. Eligibility resides in four or more categories, with income levels compared to the area median income (AMI) in Sonoma County. The AMI is determined annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) using sampled census data for a four-person household. This number, which is currently $103,300, is used to calculate similar numbers for smaller and larger households using formulas developed by HUD. Rent levels are then defined in relation to family size and income level.

As an example, the tables below show income and rent limits used by the Sonoma County Community Development Commission (CDC) for rental housing in several (but not all) programs under its control. Other programs may use different limits, but the basic principles are the same; housing cost for the tenant is based on income, not on the market price of a comparable apartment or house.

Persons in
Household
Acutely Low
Income (15%
Area Median
Income)
Extremely
Low
Income
Very Low
Income
50% AMI
60%
AMI*
Low
Income
80%
AMI**
Median
Income
100%
AMI
Moderate
Income
120%
AMI
1 $10,850 $24,450 $40,750 $48,900 $65,150 $72,300 $86,750 2 12,400 27,950 46,550 55,860 74,450 82,650 99,150
3 13,950 31,450 52,350 62,820 83,750 92,950 111,550

6.M.e
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: CGJ_AHM (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 4
4 15,500 34,900 58,150 69,780 93,050 103,300 123,950
5 16,750 37,700 62,850 75,420 100,500 111,550 133,850
6 18,000 40,500 67,500 81,000 107,950 119,850 143,800
7 19,200 43,300 72,150 86,580 115,400 128,100 153,700
8 20,450 46,100 76,800 92,160 122,850 136,350 163,600
Table 1: Maximum Income to Qualify for Affordable Housing in Sonoma County Source: CDC website
As of January 1, 2022, the CDC uses the table above to determine eligibility for multiple categories of Affordable rental housing.
*60% of AMI is used as a data point for other programs using the local region’s “Housing Affordability Index” (HAI)
**HUD defines Low income as 50-80% of AMI and Very Low Income as 30-50% of AMI to qualify for Section 8 housing vouchers.

Unit Size (assumed #
occupants)
Extremely Low Income Rent
Limit (30% AMI)
Very Low Income Rent
Limit (50% AMI)
Low Income Rent
Limit (60% AMI)*
Studio (1) $611 $1,019 $1,223
1 Bedroom (2) 699 1,164 1,397
2 Bedroom (3) 786 1,309 1,571
3 Bedroom (4) 873 1,454 1,745
4 Bedroom (5) 943 1,571 1,886
Table 2: Maximum rent limits for Inclusionary Affordable Housing in Sonoma County Source: CDC website
*Housing Affordability Index vs. HUD definitions/thresholds The above table shows the maximum rent for an Affordable Housing unit as of January 1, 2022.

These rent limits are calculated using the formula in California Health & Safety Code 50052.5 & 50053. The rents are based on the income limits for an assumed household size equal to the number of bedrooms in the unit plus one person. For example, the rent for a three-bedroom unit is based on the income limits for a four-person household. Unless otherwise specified, utility costs are included in the maximum rent as set by federal housing laws.

Affordable Housing can also be further directed to specific groups such as seniors, farm workers, individuals with disabilities, veterans, and in some cases, specific professions such as educators or health care workers.

6.M.e
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: CGJ_AHM (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 5
Subsidies for Affordable Housing
Affordable Housing is most common in mid-size to larger developments and can be considered in two categories.

1. One hundred percent Affordable Housing developments: These projects are often constructed and managed by mission-driven non-profit organizations such as MidPen or Burbank Housing, but for-profit developers are also represented here. Building and amenity standards for developments are also expected to ensure comparability to marketrate housing.

2. Inclusionary Affordable Housing: To encourage construction of Affordable Housing, local ordinances may specify a percentage of Affordable units, usually 10-20%, which must be included in a project. Inclusionary housing is almost always built by ‘for-profit’ developers who will rent or sell these units at lower Affordable rates while the other units will be rented or sold at the market rate. Both apartment complexes and single-family home developments are subject to inclusionary housing ordinances. These ordinances take effect only when a development reaches a specific size set by the County or city, for example 10 units.

The limitations on income and allowable prices often bear little relationship to the real-world costs of building, managing, and maintaining a housing development. Materials and labor costs for a project are the same whether the end product is Affordable or the market determines prices.

Affordable Housing projects typically have multiple funding sources, including Federal and State loans that have long-term fixed low interest rates and may allow deferment of repayment and eventual forgiveness. Funding can also come from Federal or State grants, and construction costs may be reduced by accelerating approvals and modifying some requirements such as the number of off-street parking spaces required.

Subsidies are available to supplement rent payments and thus allow some qualified residents to occupy either Affordable or market-rate housing. The best known of these are Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8) which are funded by HUD and issued through local housing authorities. In Sonoma County, Section 8 vouchers are issued through the CDC and by the City of Santa Rosa Housing Authority. A voucher holder can occupy any acceptable rental property where the landlord accepts the voucher and agrees to the program's requirements. The voucher is valid anywhere in the County or beyond, and the holder pays only an income-based portion of the rent; HUD pays the remainder directly to the landlord.

Unfortunately, the need for Affordable Housing greatly exceeds the available supply. Each Affordable Housing development has a waiting list that may include several years wait before a unit becomes available. Section 8 vouchers within Sonoma County also have a long waiting list.

New applicants can only join the Section 8 waiting list through a lottery process. The last lottery was held in October 2021 and the next is not expected until about October 2023. Again, the wait is measured in years.

How Much Affordable Housing is There in Sonoma County?
The website of Affordable Housing Online suggests that there are 8,700 Affordable rental apartments in Sonoma County. The site delineates 2,510 income-based units for which direct subsidies (e.g. Section 8 vouchers) are available and 6,023 apartments which are subsidized indirectly (e.g. as inclusionary units).

6.M.e
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: CGJ_AHM (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 6
The CDC website identifies individual Affordable Housing developments, community by community. It shows a smaller number of apartments (8,129), but it is not clear when it was last updated. Santa Rosa lists individual complexes within the City, showing 3,817 Affordable units, while the CDC website shows 4,076 units in Santa Rosa. Again, it is unclear how current these numbers are. New construction is ongoing, and all of the specific numbers for Affordable units will probably be out of date by the time this report is published.

The number of Affordable apartments may appear to be large, but very few, if any, are actually available and unoccupied at any given time, resulting in long wait lists. Moreover, given the approximately half-million population of Sonoma County, there is not a sufficient supply to meet the need for an Affordable place to live.

The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) periodically evaluates the housing requirements of the greater area. It then prepares a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for each county and its cities. The allocation for Sonoma County for 2023-2031 calls for 14,562 new housing units to be added over the next several years. Of this total, 3,999 are designated as very-low-income housing and 2,302 as low-income housing units. In each category, roughly one-third is allocated to Santa Rosa, one-third to the eight other cities of the County, and onethird to unincorporated areas of Sonoma County. If fulfilled, RHNA allocations would increase the number of Affordable units by more than two-thirds. The demand for oversight of these new residences would increase accordingly.

Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Monitoring Requirements Access to Affordable Housing is a precious commodity and it should only be available to those who qualify. It is the responsibility of the local housing authorities to ensure that this is the case.

Monitoring of compliance with conditions and regulations is required on a regular basis for virtually all Affordable Housing programs. The diagram below illustrates the various obligations inherent in CDC oversight of Section 8 rental properties.

Figure 1. Participant Responsibilities in Section 8 Affordable Housing.

Source: Adapted from the CDC website.

Property owners must sign a rental agreement or lease with the Section 8 participant. The property owner agrees to provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing as confirmed by regular Housing Authority inspections. The primary benefit to the property owner for participating in the program is that the federal government guarantees a portion of the rent.

6.M.e
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: CGJ_AHM (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 7
Property Owner Responsibilities Include:
• Perform all management and rental functions, including screening and selection of tenants.
• Maintain the units and property in accordance with Housing Quality Standards. • Prepare information required under the Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contract and furnish the information to the Housing Authority.

Sonoma County Housing Authority Responsibilities Include:
• Make rental assistance payments to the landlord in a timely manner. • Regularly evaluate family eligibility including income and family size. • Inspect units at least once every two years.
• Investigate potential fraud or program abuse by tenants or landlords.

Tenant Responsibilities Include:
• Supply information determined necessary by the Housing Authority or HUD to administer the program, including the completion of scheduled income reviews. • Act responsibly as a tenant, paying rent and utilities on time and minimizing damage to the property.
• Notify the Housing Authority and the owner 30 (no more than 60) days before moving or terminating the lease.

Inclusionary Rental Housing Monitoring Requirements: How is it Done in the Real World? Monitoring of inclusionary housing is clearly defined by County ordinance:

Rental Unit Monitoring: “The CDC shall monitor the rental of affordable units for compliance with the Affordable Housing Agreement and the provisions of this Article. On an annual basis, the owner shall pay to the CDC a fee for monitoring each unit subject to the Affordable Housing Agreement, which fee shall be established by resolution of the Board of Directors of CDC from time to time. (Ord. No. 6085, § IV (Exh. C), 10-7-2014)” Other housing jurisdictions may have similar or less specific monitoring expectations, while some do not define their procedures at all (see Table 3 below). Thus, housing personnel must deal with different sets of expectations for multiple properties within their jurisdiction. There are two approaches to monitoring compliance with Affordable Housing requirements:
• Self-Reporting: The owner/manager/landlord of a rental property is required to reconfirm eligibility for at least a percentage or specific number of Affordable Housing tenants, often on a set schedule. This involves verification of income and other factors, such as occupancy numbers, depending on the program under which the unit is rented. This information is reported to the CDC or to the local housing jurisdiction for units not under CDC purview. The housing departments are then required to verify that the information supplied by the landlord is accurate and complete. There is currently no CDC requirement for on-going compliance training for owners, managers, or staff. Within the cities, training is also limited.
• On-site monitoring: It would be wasteful of staff and resources to replicate the activities of the landlord, but spot-checking of some number or percentage of units is feasible. A housing department monitor visits a site, interviews the manager or owner, examines

6.M.e
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: CGJ_AHM (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 8
selected records, verifies their accuracy with the tenants, and inspects the property, including one or more units.

In practice, on-site monitoring is done by first making an appointment with an owner or manager and describing what needs to be seen or done on a visit. Surprise or unscheduled monitoring is rarely or never done because the required documentation may be incomplete or unavailable. It could also be intrusive to tenants, and the owner, manager, or tenant may simply be unavailable when the monitor arrives. Interviewees stated that on-site monitoring was rare even before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. It was eliminated during the COVID-19 restrictions, when non-essential contact was minimized to avoid spread of the virus. In most cases, on-site monitoring has not been reinstated. In practice, the County and Cities rely almost totally on selfreporting from developers and managers.

The costs of on-site monitoring and verification of self-reported data are the responsibility of the housing agency, and monitoring is often seen as an unfunded mandate. It is therefore not surprising that housing agencies in Sonoma County are motivated to accept the data supplied by owners and managers as accurate. Monitoring is also limited by staff availability, which has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 crisis. This has resulted in an inability to actually visit sites and interact with residents and managers. The lack of personnel was a significant concern to almost all of the housing representatives the Grand Jury interviewed. Again, this results in reliance on self-reporting by development owners and managers.

There are good reasons for owners and managers to monitor compliance accurately. Non-profit developers of Affordable Housing are mission-oriented. They are committed to providing Affordable Housing to those who qualify for it. Non-compliance is not only wrong, but also a threat to their continued access to low-cost financing and other concessions. For-profit complexes with inclusionary units also have good reasons to assure compliance. They too could lose access to low-cost financing, be subject to fines or lawsuits, and generate bad publicity and public distrust if they fail to comply with Affordable Housing agreements.

Incentives for owners and managers to minimize monitoring also exist for various reasons. • Compliance verification takes time and effort and therefore involves costs. • It can be intrusive to a tenant when the monitor needs to enter or inspect their apartment or house.
• Not everyone follows the prescribed guidelines; an unqualified friend, relative, or associate could be favored.
• Through mismanagement, Affordable units could be rented for more than the allowable amount.

Compliance monitoring is a significant burden to the housing departments which conduct it. The burden will increase significantly as RHNA requirements are met and the supply of Affordable Housing units is greatly increased. Unfortunately, the person-power, time, and resources allocated to monitoring already appear to be insufficient. The table below illustrates the size of the monitoring task and the resources currently available to do the work. Future RHNA Allocations represent the number of units which are expected or required to be added in each community between 2023 and 2031.

6.M.e
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: CGJ_AHM (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 9
Housing
Authority
Current
Number Of
Apartments
Future
RHNA
Allocation
Monitoring
Personnel
On-Site
Monitoring *
Cloverdale 221 117 None dedicated No
Cotati 88 94 None dedicated No
Healdsburg 352 299 None dedicated Rare
Petaluma 1,206 787 One + one open
position Annual
Rohnert Park 564 629 None dedicated No
Santa Rosa 4,076 1,919 One (80%) Not since Covid
Sebastopol 327 86 One, occasional No
Sonoma 389 131 One, part time Some
Unincorporated
So Co 109 1,632 One Rare
Windsor 398 607 One, part time No
Total 7,730 6,301
Table 3. Monitoring Tasks and Resources
Source: Interviews with multiple housing personnel
*On-site monitoring should include file reviews, grounds inspections, and apartment/house inspections. This monitoring was suspended during the COVID restrictions.

Inclusionary Housing Ownership Monitoring Requirements
Single-family homes are a smaller segment of Affordable Housing and are governed by somewhat different rules and expectations. Potential homebuyers are evaluated and their incomes are verified. The price of the house is then set, based on the income of the family.

Mortgage payments, utilities, taxes, etc. are factored into the amount paid. Continued income verification is not required, and incomes can increase beyond the Affordable level at which the house was purchased. However, if the house is resold, it must be sold as Affordable. The Grand Jury recommends that this information be attached to the title of the house and apparent to any title company involved in a resale. The requirement is central to the original contract; it allows the buildup of equity through mortgage payments, but ensures that the house remains Affordable for the next buyer. Housing departments should maintain an inventory of Affordable houses within their jurisdictions and verify that their titles are flagged for restricted sale, and not at market rate.

Is There Significant Fraud in the Management of Affordable Housing? The Grand Jury investigation cannot provide a definitive answer to this question, nor can the housing departments that are charged with monitoring. No one the Grand Jury interviewed expressed fears of widespread misbehavior. Nevertheless, owners and managers have provided almost all of the information concerning compliance, with little or no opportunity for direct documentation by housing department monitors. Staff who were responsible for monitoring see this as a potential problem, and most expressed the desire to re-initiate on-site monitoring visits.

How Can Monitoring be Improved?
Housing personnel from the nine cities and the CDC meet regularly to discuss planning issues and the administration of their housing programs. Monitoring can be included in these

6.M.e
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: CGJ_AHM (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 10
discussions, but the Grand Jury found there is, as yet, little coordination or cooperation in the actual monitoring process. Each city has its own personnel, procedures, and expectations, and none claim to give monitoring their highest priority. The quality of monitoring throughout the County could be improved if the various agencies agreed on a common set of goals, expectations, and procedures that set higher and more uniform standards. The CDC once provided leadership in this process and appears ready to do so again.

Petaluma and Rohnert Park make use of a customizable program from City Data Services that, among other things, helps streamline the monitoring process by moving it online. This, or a similar system, could help in tracking activities, managing documentation, and generally improving the quality of monitoring while simplifying it.

Essentially all of the housing representatives the Grand Jury interviewed felt that there is not enough staff within their departments to make anyone a full-time compliance monitor. It is easy to suggest hiring more people, but that is especially unlikely to happen in the smaller cities due to budget restrictions. The Grand Jury believes it could be advantageous for the County and cities to cooperate by jointly using (and paying proportionately) staff to monitor countywide.

Alternatively, the agencies could jointly contract with a consulting firm to do the monitoring.

This would benefit the smaller cities in particular, since they have small staff sizes and fewer monitoring obligations that are more likely to be overlooked.

If self-reporting is to remain the main source of compliance information, it is important that those who collect and report it are adequately trained to compile the data. The people who do the reporting need to know how and why monitoring is important and necessary. The CDC, in conjunction with the Cities, could create an informational document or policy and procedures manual to provide upfront and ongoing training in the monitoring process.

CONCLUSION
Monitoring of compliance with the rules and regulations of Affordable Housing programs is complex. Responsibility lies with individual housing departments in the County and its nine cities. Staffing in these agencies is often insufficient, and there is little coordination amongst these organizations. Monitoring in general and on-site monitoring in particular have long been low priority. Requirements have been largely met by accepting self-reported data from owners and managers of apartment and housing units. The COVID-19 pandemic and the restrictions imposed in response to it placed almost total reliance on self-reported information. Systems that are already overburdened do not appear to be prepared for the large increases in Affordable Housing that are planned for the near future.

FINDINGS
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury determined that:

F1. Monitoring of compliance with Affordable Housing regulations has been inconsistent and often inadequate.

F2. The use of self-reported data in monitoring is the accepted norm.

F3. On-site (in-person) monitoring beyond that required by law is rare due to insufficient personnel, budgetary limitations, and relatively low incentives.

F4. COVID-19 further reduced in-person on-site monitoring due to public health restrictions.

6.M.e
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: CGJ_AHM (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 11
F5. Surprise or unscheduled monitoring of individual units is not done, for reasons of privacy, availability, efficiency, and practicality.

F6. Unscheduled monitoring of properties and management, in order to review tenant files, grounds, and the amenities is not done.

F7. The Community Development Commission has informational documents and policies to provide upfront training in the monitoring process.

F8. There is limited or no standardized training in Affordable Housing compliance regulations for developers and managers of inclusionary housing within the nine Cities.

F9. The cities of Petaluma and Rohnert Park use computerized compliance monitoring programs to facilitate and improve the quality of their work.

F10. The property titles of Affordable single-family houses have not always been flagged as deed restricted.

F11. The majority of the housing representatives the Grand Jury interviewed felt that there is not enough staff within their departments to make anyone a full-time compliance monitor.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury recommends that:

R1. By December 31, 2022, the Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the nine Cities meet and develop agreed-upon standards and procedures for the monitoring of Affordable Housing. (F7, F8)
R2. The Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the nine Cities resume on-site monitoring by October 1, 2022. (F3, F4)
R3. By January 1, 2023, the Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the nine Cities review and ensure that they have sufficient personnel to conduct on-site monitoring and process self-reported monitoring data to meet future Regional Housing Needs Allocations. (F1, F2, F3, F5, F6, F11)
R4. The Sonoma County Community Development Commission use informational documents and policies to provide ongoing training in the monitoring process for developers and managers of Affordable Housing projects by January 1, 2023. (F7) R5. By January 1, 2023, the nine Cities develop informational documents and policies to provide both upfront and ongoing training in the monitoring and compliance procedures for developers and managers of Affordable Housing projects. (F8) R6. By November 1, 2022, the nine Cities meet and discuss to jointly or individually utilize Affordable Housing monitoring software. (F9)
R7. By November 1, 2022, the nine Cities meet and discuss pooling resources to fulfill their monitoring responsibilities, through either a consultant or designated employees. (F11) R8. By December 31, 2022, the Sonoma County Community Development Commission and the nine Cities should update and maintain their inventory of Affordable houses within their jurisdictions and verify that all their property titles are flagged for restricted sale. (F10)

6.M.e
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: CGJ_AHM (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 12

REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, the Grand Jury requires responses as follows:
• Sonoma County Community Development Commission (R1, R2, R3, R4, R8) • City of Cloverdale (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Cotati (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Healdsburg (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Rohnert Park (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Santa Rosa (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8).
• City of Sebastopol (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Sonoma (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• City of Petaluma (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8)
• Town of Windsor (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8)
The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that their comments and responses must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
• Affordable Housing Online Affordable Housing Online
• Sonoma County, California – Code of Ordinances, Article 89 – Affordable Housing Program Requirements & Incentives, February 8, 2022 Affordable Housing Program Requirements and Incentives
• County of Sonoma, Community Development Commission Sonoma County Community Development Commission
• Sonoma County Five-Year Strategic Plan 2021-2025 https://socostrategicplan.org/ • Sonoma County Board Of Supervisor Agenda 12/7/2021, Consent Calendar Item 2021- 1179, Sonoma County Community Development Commission - Affordable Rental Housing Monitoring Procedures Attachment 1-Existing Procedures Manual (not amended at this time), with Exhibits Summary Report
• Association of Bay Area Governments Association of Bay Area Governments • Association of Bay Area Governments, RHNA – Regional Housing Needs Allocation Regional Housing Needs Allocation
• Association of Bay Area Governments, Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031, December 2021 ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan 2023-2031
• Jennifer Hernandez, Chelsea Maclean, Daniel Golub and Paloma Perez-McEvoy, California Housing Resources Handbook, 2020 https://housingactioncoalition.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/05/HK-Housing-Handbook-2020.pdf • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
• Ethan Varian and Andrew Graham, Gallaher companies to pay $500,000 to settle claim from whistleblower who alleged affordable housing fraud, The Press Democrat, August 21, 2021 Gallaher Companies To Pay 500000 To Settle Claim From Whistleblower

6.M.e
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: CGJ_AHM (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing) Affordable Housing: Monitoring and Compliance 13
• Ethan Varian and Andrew Graham, Former Gallaher employees at Santa Rosa apartment complex say they were pushed to take part in housing fraud schemes, The Press Democrat, September 3, 2021 Former Gallaher Employees At Santa Rosa Apartment Complex
• Ethan Varian and Andrew Graham, In wake of newspaper investigation, Sonoma County launches review of affordable housing oversight, The Press Democrat, October 9, 2021 In Wake Of Newspaper Investigation Sonoma County Launches Review Of Affordable Housing
• Ethan Varian and Andrew Graham, Sonoma County to bolster oversight of affordable housing compliance after Press Democrat investigation, The Press Democrat, December 8, 2021 Sonoma County To Bolster Oversight Of Affordable Housing Compliance • Press Democrat Staff, Press Democrat affordable housing investigation wins James Madison Award, The Press Democrat, March 16, 2022 Press Democrat affordable housing investigation wins James Madison Award

6.M.e
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: CGJ_AHM (3736 : Civil Grand Jury Response on Affordable Housing)

CITY OF HEALDSBURG

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 6, 2022
SUBJECT: Authorize the City Manager to apply to and participate in the State of California’s Prohousing Designation Program
PREPARED BY: Stephen Sotomayor, Housing Director
STRATEGIC INITIATIVE(S):

Expand Affordable Housing Opportunities
Provide Effective Governance
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit a Prohousing Designation Program Application to the California Housing Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD); and if the application is approved by HCD, authorizing the City Manager to execute all documents deemed necessary or appropriate to participate in the Prohousing Designation Program.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT/OUTREACH
This item will be heard at a public meeting in which the public will be provided an opportunity to provide comment on the adoption of this resolution and staff’s recommendation to participate in the Prohousing Designation Program.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Healdsburg has an opportunity to become a Prohousing Designated jurisdiction in the State, which provides a competitive advantage for grant funding opportunities and further demonstrates the City’s commitment to the development of affordable housing in our community.

In 2019, AB 101 established the Prohousing Designation Program (PDP) administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The PDP creates incentives for jurisdictions that are compliant with housing laws, housing element requirements, and have enacted Prohousing local policies that go beyond existing law.

On June 7, 2021, HCD released the PDP Emergency Regulations and Jurisdictions were able to begin applying for the Prohousing Designation starting July 1, 2021. Applications are reviewed

6.N
Packet Pg. 220
on a rolling basis.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the state mandated resolution required to apply for the PDP program. The adoption of this resolution will preserve the City’s ability to apply for the program while the City is in compliance with all applicable state housing laws. The timing of the application also is ideal as the City is in the process of updating its General Plan Housing Element.

Jurisdictions awarded a Prohousing Designation will receive a competitive advantage on some affordable housing and infrastructure grant programs, including the Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities Program, Transformative Climate Communities, and the Infill Incentive Grant Program.

Of particular interest to the City is the Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities Program.

This program has been identified as a key funding source for the Saggio Hills affordable housing development, currently underway by Freebird Development, LLC.

If the City is successful in its PDP application, Freebird Development will be eligible to receive an additional 10 points towards their application, which will make them more competitive in this process. Applications for this program are due in March of 2023.

Program Requirements
HCD’s review and consideration for designating jurisdictions as Prohousing include the following:
(A) The Jurisdiction’s actions to facilitate the planning, approval, or construction of a variety of housing types (e.g., increasing zoned capacity for supply, facilitating affordability for all income levels, removing regulatory barriers to development, and streamlining approval). Such action should be balanced by the Jurisdiction’s equal efforts to prevent displacement, preserve existing affordable housing, and establish tenant protections.
(B) The Jurisdiction’s accomplishment of integrated planning and development consistent with the state planning priorities set forth at Government Code section 65041.1 and/or the regional transportation plan adopted by the relevant transportation agency pursuant to Government Code sections 65080 and 65080.01. The Jurisdiction may accomplish this outcome through various actions, including, but not limited to, the facilitation of Location Efficient Communities that reduce auto dependence and VMT, and that are consistent with climate change priorities (e.g., climate change adaptation and hazard mitigation).
(C) The Jurisdiction’s meaningful actions to foster inclusive and equitable communities with adequate, affordable, and accessible housing and transportation infrastructure pursuant to Government Code section 8899.50.

6.N
Packet Pg. 221
(D) The Jurisdiction’s collaboration with public entities to align policies and programs, and with private entities to implement policies and to leverage funding and other resources.
(E) The Jurisdiction’s compliance with established housing law and recent housing reform statutes (e.g., the Housing Accountability Act, the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process (California Senate Bill 35 (2017)), and the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Stats. 2019, ch. 654).

The application will ascribe points using four scoring categories. Applicants shall demonstrate that they have enacted or proposed at least one policy that significantly contributes to the acceleration of housing production in each of the four categories as. A Prohousing Designation requires a total score of 30 points or more across all four categories:
(1) Favorable Zoning and Land Use (18 possible points). Examples include allowing duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes by right in single-unit dwelling zones, going beyond the State Density Bonus Law, going beyond State law for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), eliminating off-street parking requirements, and allowing residential land uses in non-residential zones.
(2) Acceleration of Housing Production Timeframes (19 possible points). Examples include ministerial approval processes for a variety of housing types, streamlined environmental review processes, streamlined permitting processes, and reduced plan check times.
(3) Reduction of Construction and Development Costs (11 possible points). Examples include deferred, reduced, or waived impact fees and pre-approved plans for ADUs and missing middle housing types.
(4) Providing Financial Subsidies (21 possible points). Examples include participating with a local housing trust fund, offering surplus City-owned land for affordable housing development, and prioritization of local general funds for affordable housing.

HCD has 60 days from the time the application is submitted to issue preliminary findings to the City. The City has 15 days to provide a written response to HCD. HCD then has 60 days to issue a final determination of the designation as a Prohousing Jurisdiction.

Should the Council approve this resolution, staff will prepare the application for the PDP program and submit it to the State for its initial determination.

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP:

The Prohousing Designation provides additional incentives for applying for and receiving funds through the State of California that can be used to address climate change, such as the Transformative Climate Communities program.

6.N
Packet Pg. 222
ALTERNATIVES:

The Council may choose to:

1. Not adopt the Resolution, and provide staff with additional guidance; or

2. Direct Staff to return to the Council with the final application prior to submitting it to the State.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There are no known financial impacts resulting from the approval of the attached resolution. The PDP designation will provide the City with advantages in certain grant funding programs, which may result in additional grant funding for affordable housing in the future.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:

Adoption of this Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the “common sense” exemption in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Resolution
Prohousing-Regulation-Text

6.N
Packet Pg. 223

CITY OF HEALDSBURG
RESOLUTION NO. - 2022

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

HEALDSBURG AUTHORIZING APPLICATION TO AND

PARTICIPATION IN THE PROHOUSING DESIGNATION

PROGRAM
WHEREAS, Government Code section 65589.9 established the Prohousing Designation Program (“PDP” or “Program”), which creates incentives for jurisdictions that are compliant with state housing element requirements and that have enacted Prohousing local policies; and WHEREAS, such jurisdictions will be designated Prohousing, and, as such, will receive additional points or other preference during the scoring of their competitive applications for specified housing and infrastructure funding; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Housing and Community Development (“Department”) has adopted emergency regulations (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 25, § 6600 et seq.) to implement the Program (“Program Regulations”), as authorized by Government Code section 65589.9, subdivision (d); and
WHEREAS, The City of Healdsburg (“Applicant”) desires to submit an application for a Prohousing Designation (“Application”).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Healdsburg hereby:

1. Applicant is hereby authorized and directed to submit an Application to the Department.

2. Applicant acknowledges and confirms that it is currently in compliance with applicable state housing law.

3. Applicant acknowledges and confirms that it will continue to comply with applicable housing laws and to refrain from enacting laws, developing policies, or taking other local governmental actions that may or do inhibit or constrain housing production.

Examples of such local laws, policies, and action include moratoriums on development; local voter approval requirements related to housing production; downzoning; and unduly restrictive or onerous zoning regulations, development standards, or permit procedures. Applicant further acknowledges and confirms that it commits itself to affirmatively furthering fair housing pursuant to Government Code section 8899.50.

4. If the Application is approved, Applicant is hereby authorized and directed to enter into, execute, and deliver all documents required or deemed necessary or appropriate to participate in the Program and all amendments thereto (the “Program Documents”).

6.N.a
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Resolution (3737 : Prohousing Designation Program) Resolution No. - 2022

5. Applicant acknowledges and agrees that it shall be subject to the Application; the terms and conditions specified in the Program Documents; the Program Regulations; and any and all other applicable law.

6. The City Manager is authorized to execute and deliver the Application and the Program Documents on behalf of the Applicant for participation in the Program.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Healdsburg, this 6th day of September 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers: ( )
NOES: Councilmembers: ( )
ABSENT: Councilmembers: ( )
ABSTAINING: Councilmembers: ( )
SO ORDERED: ATTEST:
__________________________________ ____________________________________ Osvaldo Jimenez, Mayor Raina Allan, City Clerk

6.N.a
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Resolution (3737 : Prohousing Designation Program)

CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
TITLE 25. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION 1. CHAPTER 6. SUBCHAPTER 6.6
SECTIONS 6600 THROUGH 6607, CONSECUTIVE

PROHOUSING DESIGNATION PROGRAM
If using assistive technology, please adjust your settings to recognize underline, strikeout and ellipsis.

Legend: This document uses strikeout and underline to specify text changes. *Text in single underline is proposed new text.
*Text in single strikeout is deleted text.

Adopt Subchapter 6.6
Subchapter 6.6 Prohousing Designation Program
Adopt Section 6600
§ 6600. Purpose, Scope, and Authority
(a) Pursuant to the Prohousing Designation Program, established by Government Code section 65589.9, the Department shall designate qualifying jurisdictions as Prohousing. Such Prohousing Jurisdictions shall receive additional points or other preference in the scoring of competitive applications for funding under programs that support housing, transportation, infrastructure, land use, and related objectives. The administrators of each program will determine the value and form of the preference. (b) These regulations establish the Program’s procedures for application submittal, application scoring, designation of jurisdictions as Prohousing, reporting, and monitoring pursuant to Government Code section 65589.9.

Note: Authority Cited: Section 65589.9, Government Code. Reference: Section 65589.9, Government Code.

Adopt Section 6601
§ 6601. Definitions
(a) This subchapter is governed by the following definitions. All terms not defined below shall, unless their context suggests otherwise, be interpreted in accordance with the definitions and intent of Government Code section 65589.9. (1) Acceleration of Housing Production. Promoting housing production by streamlining approval processes or timelines, reducing costs or financial barriers, or removing or mitigating regulatory barriers to development. Relevant activities include, but are not limited to, incentive zoning and modification to development standards (i.e., allowing developers to build higher-density projects than would be permitted under existing zoning in exchange for providing features that are considered to be in the community’s interest); increasing building heights and densities; zoning amendments to permit

6.N.b
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Prohousing-Regulation-Text (3737 : Prohousing Designation Program) residential uses in non-residential zones; corridor planning; modifications to development standards; non-discretionary review; supportive financing strategies; sliding scale fee modifications; facilitating adequate infrastructure to support development; and approval streamlining.
(2) ADU. Accessory Dwelling Unit.
(3) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. Affirmatively furthering fair housing is defined in accordance with Government Code section 8899.50. (4) Annual Progress Report. The annual report required to be submitted to the Department pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 65400 of the Government Code.
(5) CEQA. The California Environmental Quality Act.
(6) Compliant Housing Element. An adopted housing element that has been duly found to be in substantial compliance with the requirements of Housing Element Law. (7) Department. The California Department of Housing and Community Development. (8) Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District. An Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District is defined in accordance with Government Code section 53398.51, subdivision (f).
(9) Environmentally Sensitive or Hazardous Areas. Environmentally Sensitive or Hazardous Areas mean the following:
(A) Sensitive areas of a coastal zone, as defined in Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code, including any portion of the property that contains or is characterized by any of the following:
(i) Wetlands, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 13577 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
(ii) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas, as defined in Section 30240 of the Public Resources Code.
(iii) A tsunami run-up zone.
(iv) Use of the site for public access to or along the coast. (B) Either prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, as defined pursuant to United States Department of Agriculture land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for California, and designated on the maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Department of Conservation, or land zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation by a local ballot measure that was approved by the voters of that jurisdiction. (C)Wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993), hereby incorporated by reference. (D)An area within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178 of the Government Code, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public Resources Code.
(E) A hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, or a hazardous waste site designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code, unless the Department of Public Health, the State Water Resources

6.N.b
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Prohousing-Regulation-Text (3737 : Prohousing Designation Program) Control Board, or the Department of Toxic Substances Control has cleared the site for residential use or residential mixed uses.
(F) An area within a delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by the State Geologist in any official maps published by the California Geological Survey. (G)An area within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood (100-year flood) as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in any official maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
(H)An area within a regulatory floodway as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in any official maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
(I) Lands identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan pursuant to the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 2800) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), habitat conservation plan pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.), or other adopted natural resource protection plan.
(J) Habitat for protected species identified as candidate, sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully protected species, or species or native plants protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.), the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), or the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code).
(K) Lands under conservation easement.
(L) Areas that are, feature, or contain tribal cultural resources per Section 21074 of the Public Resources Code.
(10) HCD. The California Department of Housing and Community Development. (11) Housing. Any development that satisfies both (A) and (B) below:
(A) At least two-thirds of the square footage of the development must be designated for residential use; and
(B) The development includes a house, an apartment, a mobilehome or trailer, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied as separate living quarters, or, if vacant, is intended for occupancy as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live separately from any other individuals in the building, and which have direct access from the outside of the building, or through a common hall.
(C) Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units pursuant to Government Code sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 meet the definition of “housing” under this paragraph.
(12) High Density Development. Developments with maximum allowable densities pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (c). (13) Housing Element or Element. The housing element of a Locality’s general plan, as required pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 65302 of the Government Code and prepared in accordance with Housing Element Law.

6.N.b
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Prohousing-Regulation-Text (3737 : Prohousing Designation Program) (14) Housing Element Law. Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code.
(15) JADU. Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit.
(16) Jurisdiction. Any city, including a charter city; any county, including a charter county; or any city and county, including a charter city and county. (17) Locality. Any city, including a charter city; any county, including a charter county; or any city and county, including a charter city and county. (18) Local Public Entity. A local public entity is defined in accordance with Health and Safety Code section 50079.
(19) Location Efficient Communities. Current or future residential dwellings that provide multiple transportation options and short commutes to daily destinations, improve job and housing relationships, and/or mitigate impacts on or from Environmentally Sensitive or Hazardous Areas.
(20) Ministerial. A process for development approval involving no personal judgment by the public official as to the wisdom or manner of carrying out the project. The public official merely ensures that the proposed development meets all the "objective zoning standards," "objective subdivision standards," or "objective design review standards" in effect at the time that the application is submitted to the local government, but uses no special discretion or judgment in reaching a decision. A ministerial decision involves only the use of fixed standards or objective measurements, and the public official cannot use personal, subjective judgment in deciding whether or how the project should be carried out. (21) Objective Zoning Standard, Objective Subdivision Standard, and Objective Design Review Standard. Standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and that are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal.
(22) OPR. The California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. (23) Principles of Prohousing. The policies, concepts, and standards that direct HCD’s review and consideration of a Jurisdiction for a Prohousing Designation. HCD’s review and consideration will include the following:
(A) The Jurisdiction’s actions to facilitate the planning, approval, or construction of a variety of housing types (e.g., increasing zoned capacity for supply, facilitating affordability for all income levels, removing regulatory barriers to development, and streamlining approval). Such action should be balanced by the Jurisdiction’s equal efforts to prevent displacement, preserve existing affordable housing, and establish tenant protections.
(B) The Jurisdiction’s accomplishment of integrated planning and development consistent with the state planning priorities set forth at Government Code section 65041.1 and/or the regional transportation plan adopted by the relevant transportation agency pursuant to Government Code sections 65080 and 65080.01. The Jurisdiction may accomplish this outcome through various actions, including, but not limited to, the facilitation of Location Efficient Communities that reduce auto dependence and VMT, and that are consistent with climate change priorities (e.g., climate change adaptation and hazard mitigation).

6.N.b
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Prohousing-Regulation-Text (3737 : Prohousing Designation Program) (C) The Jurisdiction’s meaningful actions to foster inclusive and equitable communities with adequate, affordable, and accessible housing and transportation infrastructure pursuant to Government Code section 8899.50. (D) The Jurisdiction’s collaboration with public entities to align policies and programs, and with private entities to implement policies and to leverage funding and other resources.
(E) The Jurisdiction’s compliance with established housing law and recent housing reform statutes (e.g., the Housing Accountability Act, the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process (California Senate Bill 35 (2017)), and the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Stats. 2019, ch. 654).
(24) Program. The Prohousing Designation Program.
(25) Prohousing or Prohousing Designation. The designation conferred on those applicants that meet the requirements of the Prohousing Designation Program. (26) Prohousing Policy. A course or basis of action adopted or proposed by a Jurisdiction, which satisfies or purports to satisfy Sections 6605 and 6606, and which, as such, is reasonably likely to accelerate, streamline, or encourage housing production. A Prohousing Policy may include, but is not limited to, a law, regulatory rulemaking, or procedure. A Prohousing Policy may be freestanding, or it may be integrated with other Prohousing Policies as part of a larger Prohousing strategy. (27) Regional Housing Needs Allocation or RHNA. The projected need for housing for each region, as determined by the Department pursuant to Section 65584.01 of the Government Code.
(28) State Planning Priorities. Priorities which are intended to promote equity, strengthen the economy, protect the environment, and promote public health and safety for all communities in the state, and as pursuant to Government Code section 65041.1. (29) VMT. Vehicle Miles Traveled.

Note: Authority Cited: Section 65589.9, Government Code. Reference: Section 65589.9, Government Code.

Adopt Section 6602
§ 6602. Applications and Documentation
(a) Beginning July 1, 2021, the Department shall accept applications for a Prohousing Designation on a continuous, year-round basis. The Department shall make the application available on its Web site.
(b) The application will require the applicant to do all of the following:
(1) Certify or, where applicable, demonstrate that the applicant has met the threshold criteria under Section 6604.
(2) Identify each Prohousing Policy by providing a concise written description of the Prohousing Policy, and by specifying whether the Prohousing Policy is enacted or proposed.
(3) Submit the Jurisdiction’s documentary evidence in support of each Prohousing Policy, whether enacted or proposed. Submission may include links to the location of documents on a jurisdiction’s Web site.

6.N.b
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Prohousing-Regulation-Text (3737 : Prohousing Designation Program) (4) Self-score each Prohousing Policy in accordance with the scoring criteria set forth at Section 6606. The application will allow the applicant to utilize the enhancement factors set forth at subdivision (c) of Section 6606 to increase the application’s total point score.

Note: Authority Cited: Section 65589.9, Government Code. Reference: Section 65589.9, Government Code.

Adopt Section 6603
§ 6603. Submittal and Application Review
(a) Applicants shall submit a complete and self-scored application to the Department when applying for a Prohousing Designation. All applications shall be submitted electronically to [email protected].
(b) Within ten (10) calendar days of receiving the application, the Department shall provide the applicant with a written acknowledgment of receipt. (c) To complete its review of the application, the Department may request additional clarifying documentation and information from the applicant. (d) To assist with its review of the application, the Department may consult with and gather Program-relevant information from any individual, entity, or public agency. (e) The Department shall complete its review of the application within sixty (60) calendar days of receipt and promptly notify the applicant in writing of its final Prohousing Designation determination.
(f) Applicants may submit applications multiple times, but they may not submit multiple applications for contemporaneous review by the Department. (g) If the Department approves their application, applicants will receive an official letter of designation. A Prohousing Designation is permanent unless it is revoked pursuant to Section 6607. The Department’s letter of designation may specify conditions that must be satisfied to maintain the designation’s validity consistent with Government Code section 65589.9 and these regulations.
(h) At least once a year, the Department shall make publicly available a list of pending applications and their review status.
(i) The Department shall update its list of Jurisdictions that have received a Prohousing Designation on at least an annual basis. The Department shall report that list of designations to OPR, and to any other applicable agency or department, annually and upon request.

Note: Authority Cited: Section 65589.9, Government Code. Reference: Section 65589.9, Government Code.

6.N.b
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Prohousing-Regulation-Text (3737 : Prohousing Designation Program) Adopt Section 6604
§ 6604. Applicant Threshold Criteria

(a) Only Jurisdictions may apply for a Prohousing Designation. (b) Applicants shall certify, in the application, that each of the following threshold requirements is met:
(1) The applicant has adopted a Compliant Housing Element at the time of application or prior to designation.
(2) The applicant has submitted a legally sufficient Annual Progress Report at the time of application or prior to designation.
(3) The applicant has completed, on or before the relevant statutory deadlines, any rezone program or zoning that is necessary to remain in compliance with Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c)(1).
(4) The applicant is in compliance, at the time of the application, with applicable state housing law, including, but not limited to, Housing Element Law; “No Net Loss” Law (Gov. Code, § 65863); the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, § 65589.5); State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, § 65915 et seq.); laws relating to the imposition of school facilities fees or other requirements (Gov. Code, § 65995 et seq.); Least Cost Zoning Law (Gov. Code, § 65913.1); the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Stats. 2019, ch. 654); and antidiscrimination law (Gov. Code, § 65008).
(c) Applicants shall further submit, at the time of application, a valid Formal Resolution for the Prohousing Designation Program (New 04/21), which is hereby incorporated by reference. The Formal Resolution for the Prohousing Designation Program must have been duly adopted and certified by the applicant’s governing body and it must remain valid for the life of the designation.
(d) The Department shall reject an application for a Prohousing Designation if it determines that the applicant has not satisfied the threshold requirements set forth in subdivisions (b) and (c) above.
(e) The Department shall reject an application for a Prohousing Designation if it discovers that the applicant is engaging in any of the following activities during the Department’s review of the application:
(1) Enacting laws, developing policies, or taking other actions that are reasonably likely to inhibit or constrain housing production, or that can be objectively shown to have inhibited or constrained housing production. Examples of prohibited laws, policies, and actions include moratoriums on development; local voter approval requirements related to housing production; changing the zoning of an area or neighborhood to reduce the density of housing or permitted construction without actions to ensure no net loss of density; and unduly restrictive or onerous zoning regulations, development standards, or permit procedures.
(2) Violating Housing Element Law; “No Net Loss” Law (Gov. Code, § 65863); the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, § 65589.5); State Density Bonus Law (Gov.

Code, § 65915 et seq.); laws relating to the imposition of school facilities fees or other requirements (Gov. Code, § 65995 et seq.); Least Cost Zoning Law (Gov. Code, § 65913.1); the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Stats. 2019, ch. 654); or antidiscrimination law (Gov. Code, § 65008).

6.N.b
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Prohousing-Regulation-Text (3737 : Prohousing Designation Program) (f) The Department may consider comments, reports, and findings from governmental and non-governmental entities when determining if an applicant meets the requirements of this section.
(g) The Department shall reject an application for a Prohousing Designation if it determines that the applicant at any time provided false or inaccurate information in its application.

Note: Authority Cited: Section 65589.9, Government Code. Reference: Section 65589.9, Government Code.

Adopt Section 6605
§ 6605. Designation Criteria Requirements
(a) Applications must meet the following requirements in order to qualify for scoring review:
(1) The applicant must show that it has enacted or proposed Prohousing Policies by providing a concise written description, and by identifying or submitting documentary evidence, of each Prohousing Policy in accordance with the requirements set forth at subdivision (b) of Section 6602. Applicants with proposed Prohousing Policies shall satisfy the following additional criteria:
(A) The applicant’s application must also present at least two (2) enacted Prohousing Policies for the Department’s review; and
(B) The applicant shall certify that each proposed Prohousing Policy will be enacted within two (2) years of the date on the applicant’s application. (2) The applicant’s enacted and proposed Prohousing Policies must contribute to the Acceleration of Housing Production throughout the Locality or throughout a smaller geographic unit within the Locality, as demonstrated by the applicant’s documentary evidence in support of the Prohousing Policy.
(A) Project-specific planning documents or approvals do not qualify as Prohousing Policies unless they result in a locality-wide benefit or in an ongoing benefit that extends beyond the project.
(b) The Department may consider Prohousing Policies that are integrated with other planning priorities (e.g., open space preservation, hazard mitigation, minimization of displacement) if the Prohousing Policy results in a net benefit or gain for the Acceleration of Housing Production.
(c) Each Prohousing Policy identified in an application shall receive a point allocation only once for purposes of that application.
(d) Applicants may identify Prohousing Policies that are or will be carried out in partnership with other entities, where the Prohousing Policy will have a direct effect on land use or development within the applicant’s jurisdiction. Partnerships shall be formed pursuant to legally binding agreements. Partnerships may be formed with a Local Public Entity.

Note: Authority Cited: Section 65589.9, Government Code. Reference: Section 65589.9, Government Code.

6.N.b
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Prohousing-Regulation-Text (3737 : Prohousing Designation Program) Adopt Section 6606
§ 6606. Designation Criteria
(a) Applicants that meet the requirements in Sections 6604 and 6605 shall qualify for the review and validation phase of the application process. (b) The Department shall validate applicants’ scores based on the extent to which each identified Prohousing Policy contributes to the Acceleration of Housing Production.

The Department shall assess applicants’ Prohousing Policies in accordance with this section, Section 6605 of this Chapter, and Government Code section 65589.9, subdivision (f)(2). The Department shall further assess applicants’ Prohousing Policies using the four scoring categories set forth at paragraphs (1) – (4) below. Applicants shall demonstrate that they have enacted or proposed at least one policy that significantly contributes to the Acceleration of Housing Production in each of the four categories. A Prohousing Designation requires a total score of 30 points or more across all four categories:
(1) Favorable Zoning and Land Use:
(A) Three (3) Points. Sufficient sites, including rezoning, to accommodate 150 percent or greater of the current or draft RHNA, whichever is greater, by total or income category.
(B) Three (3) Points. Permitting missing middle housing uses (e.g., duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes) by right in existing low-density, single-family residential zones. (C) Two (2) Points. Sufficient sites, including rezoning, to accommodate 125 to 149 percent of the current or draft RHNA, whichever is greater, by total or income category.

These points shall not be awarded if the applicant earns three points pursuant to paragraph (1)(A).
(D) Two (2) Points. Density bonus programs which exceed statutory requirements by 10 percent or more.
(E) Two (2) Points. Increasing allowable density in low-density, single-family residential areas beyond the requirements of state Accessory Dwelling Unit law (e.g., permitting more than one ADU or JADU per single-family lot). These policies shall be separate from any qualifying policies under paragraph (1)(B). (F) Two (2) Points. Reducing or eliminating parking requirements for residential development as authorized by Government Code section 65852.2; adopting vehicular parking ratios that are less than the relevant ratio thresholds at subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of Government Code section 65915, subdivision (p)(1); or adopting maximum parking requirements at or less than ratios pursuant to Government Code section 65915, subdivision (p).
(G) One (1) point. Zoning to allow for residential or mixed uses in one or more nonresidential zones (e.g., commercial, light industrial). Qualifying non-residential zones do not include open space or substantially similar zones.
(H) One (1) point. Modification of development standards and other applicable zoning provisions to promote greater development intensity. Potential areas of focus include floor area ratio; height limits; minimum lot or unit sizes; setbacks; and allowable dwelling units per acre. These policies must be separate from any qualifying policies under paragraph (1)(B).

6.N.b
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Prohousing-Regulation-Text (3737 : Prohousing Designation Program) (I) One (1) Point. Establishment of a Workforce Housing Opportunity Zone, as defined in Government Code section 65620, or a housing sustainability district, as defined in Government Code section 66200.
(J) One (1) Point. Demonstrating other zoning and land use actions that measurably support the Acceleration of Housing Production.
(2) Acceleration of Housing Production Timeframes:
(A) Three (3) Points. Establishment of ministerial approval processes for a variety of housing types, including single-family and multifamily housing. (B) Two (2) Points. Establishment of streamlined, program-level CEQA analysis and certification of general plans, community plans, specific plans with accompanying Environmental Impact Reports (EIR), and related documents. (C) Two (2) Points. Documented practice of streamlining housing development at the project level, such as by enabling a by-right approval process or by utilizing statutory and categorical exemptions as authorized by applicable law (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21155.1, 21155.4, 21159.24, 21159.25; Gov. Code, § 65457; Cal Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15303, 15332; Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21094.5, 21099, 21155.2, 21159.28). (D) Two (2) Points. Establishment of permit processes that take less than four months. Policies under this subparagraph must address all approvals necessary to issue building permits.
(E) Two (2) Points. Absence or elimination of public hearings for projects consistent with zoning and the general plan.
(F) One (1) Point. Establishment of consolidated or streamlined permit processes that minimize the levels of review and approval required for projects, and that are consistent with zoning regulations and the general plan.
(G) One (1) Point. Absence, elimination or replacement of subjective development and design standards with objective development and design standards that simplify zoning clearance and improve approval certainty and timing. (H) One (1) Point. Establishment of one-stop-shop permitting processes or a single point of contact where entitlements are coordinated across city approval functions (e.g., planning, public works, building) from entitlement application to certificate of occupancy. (I) One (1) Point. Priority permit processing or reduced plan check times for ADUs/JADUs, multifamily housing, or homes affordable to lower- or moderate-income households.
(J) One (1) Point. Establishment of a standardized application form for all entitlement applications.
(K) One (1) Point. Practice of publicly posting status updates on project permit approvals on the Internet.
(L) One (1) Point. Limitation on the total number of hearings for any project to three or fewer. Applicants that accrue points pursuant to paragraph (2)(E) are not eligible for points under this subparagraph.
(M) One (1) Point. Demonstration of other actions, not listed above, that quantifiably decrease production timeframes or promote the streamlining of approval processes. (3) Reduction of Construction and Development Costs:
(A) Three (3) Points. Waiver or significant reduction of development impact fees for residential development.

6.N.b
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Prohousing-Regulation-Text (3737 : Prohousing Designation Program) (B) Two (2) Points. Adoption of ordinances or implementation of other mechanisms that result in less restrictive requirements than Government Code sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 to reduce barriers for property owners to create ADUs/JADUs. Examples of qualifying policies include, but are not limited to, development standards improvements, permit processing improvements, dedicated ADU/JADU staff, technical assistance programs, and pre-approved ADU/JADU design packages.
(C) One (1) Point. Adoption of other fee reduction strategies separate from paragraph (3)(A), including fee deferrals and reduced fees for housing for persons with special needs.
(D) One (1) Point. Promoting innovative housing types (e.g., manufactured homes, recreational vehicles, park models) that reduce development costs. (E) One (1) Point. Measures that reduce costs for transportation-related infrastructure or programs that encourage active modes of transportation or other alternatives to automobiles. Qualifying policies include, but are not limited to, publicly funded programs to expand sidewalks or protect bike/micro-mobility lanes; creation of on-street parking for bikes; transit-related improvements; or establishment of carshare programs. (F) One (1) Point. Adoption of universal design ordinances pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 17959.
(G) One (1) Point. Establishment of pre-approved or prototype plans for missing middle housing types (e.g., duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes) in low-density, singlefamily residential areas. (H) One (1) Point. Demonstration of other actions, not listed above, that quantifiably reduce construction or development costs.
(4) Providing Financial Subsidies:
(A) Two (2) Points. Establishment of local housing trust funds or collaboration on a regional housing trust fund.
(B) Two (2) Points. Provide grants or low-interest loans for ADU/JADU construction affordable to lower- and moderate-income households.
(C) Two (2) Points. A comprehensive program that complies with the Surplus Land Act (Gov. Code, § 54220 et seq.) and that makes publicly owned land available for affordable housing, or for multifamily housing projects with the highest feasible percentage of units affordable to lower income households. A qualifying program may utilize mechanisms such as land donations, land sales with significant write-downs, or below-market land leases.
(D) Two (2) Points. Establishment of an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District or similar local financing tool that, to the extent feasible, directly supports housing developments in an area where at least 20 percent of the residences will be affordable to lower income households.
(E) One (1) Point. Directed residual redevelopment funds to affordable housing. (F) One (1) Point. Development and regular (at least biennial) use of a housing subsidy pool, local or regional trust fund, or other similar funding source. (G) One (1) Point. Prioritization of local general funds for affordable housing. (H) One (1) Point. Demonstration of other actions, not listed above, that and quantifiably promote, develop, or leverage financial resources for housing. (c) The Department shall utilize enhancement factors to increase the point scores of Prohousing Policies. Each Prohousing Policy will receive, if applicable, two extra points

6.N.b
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Prohousing-Regulation-Text (3737 : Prohousing Designation Program) for the enhancement factor set forth at paragraph (1) below, and one extra point for each enhancement factor set forth at paragraphs (2) – (8) below:
(1) The policy represents one element of a unified, multi-faceted strategy to promote multiple planning objectives, such as efficient land use, access to public transportation, affordable housing, climate change solutions, and/or hazard mitigation. (2) Policies that promote development consistent with the state planning priorities pursuant to Government Code section 65041.1.
(3) Policies that diversify planning and target community and economic development investments (housing and non-housing) to improve lower opportunity areas. Such areas include, but are not limited to, Low Resource and High Segregation & Poverty areas designated in the most recently updated TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, and disadvantaged communities pursuant to California Senate Bill 535 (2012). (4) Policies that go beyond state law requirements in reducing displacement of lower income households and conserving existing housing stock that is affordable to lower income households.
(5) Rezoning and other policies that support high-density development in Location Efficient Communities.
(6) Rezoning and other policies that result in a net gain of housing capacity while concurrently mitigating development impacts on or from Environmentally Sensitive or Hazardous Areas.
(7) Zoning policies that increase housing choices and affordability in High Resource and Highest Resource areas, as designated in the most recently updated TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps.
(8) Other policies that involve meaningful actions towards affirmatively furthering fair housing pursuant to Government Code section 8899.50, including, but not limited to, outreach campaigns, updated zoning codes, and expanded access to financing support.

Note: Authority Cited: Section 65589.9, Government Code. Reference: Section 65589.9, Government Code.

Adopt Section 6607
§ 6607. Administration
(a) The Department shall monitor Prohousing Designations on an ongoing basis and may take revocation action, as specified herein.
(1) The Department may review and revoke a Prohousing Designation upon discovery of a Jurisdiction’s violation of applicable state housing law, including those laws specified in Section 6604.
(2) The Department may review and revoke a Prohousing Designation upon determining that the Jurisdiction has failed to implement a proposed Prohousing Policy within the timeframe specified in its application for a Prohousing Designation; taken action that is objectively in conflict with the Principles of Prohousing; or taken action inconsistent with the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing pursuant to Government Code section 8899.50.
(3) The Department shall receive and consider any complaint related to a Jurisdiction’s violation of any applicable state housing law (including any law specified in

6.N.b
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Prohousing-Regulation-Text (3737 : Prohousing Designation Program) Section 6604); failure to implement a proposed Prohousing Policy within the timeframe specified in the Jurisdiction’s application for a Prohousing Designation; action that is inconsistent with the Principles of Prohousing; and action that is inconsistent with the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing pursuant to Government Code section 8899.50.
(4) The Department shall promptly notify the Jurisdiction in writing of any review that is undertaken pursuant to this section.
(5) The Department shall allow thirty (30) calendar days for the Jurisdiction to respond in writing to notification of the review.
(6) The Department shall consider comments from and may consult with any party during its review of a Jurisdiction’s Prohousing Designation. (7) The Department shall make its preliminary findings available to the Jurisdiction within sixty (60) calendar days of its notification of review, and shall allow fifteen (15) calendar days for a written response from the Jurisdiction. (8) The Department shall issue its final determination within sixty (60) calendar days of the deadline for the Jurisdiction’s written response to the Department’s preliminary findings. The Department shall have the discretion to revoke the Jurisdiction’s Prohousing Designation.
(9) Jurisdictions may submit a new application for a Prohousing Designation upon remedying the violations or problems identified by the Department in its final determination to revoke a previously granted Prohousing Designation.

Note: Authority Cited: Section 65589.9, Government Code. Reference: Section 65589.9, Government Code.

6.N.b
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Prohousing-Regulation-Text (3737 : Prohousing Designation Program)

CITY OF HEALDSBURG

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 6, 2022
SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding with Healdsburg Unified School District for the Creation and Use of Pickleball Courts at Healdsburg High School PREPARED BY: Mark Themig, Community Services Director
STRATEGIC INITIATIVE(S):

Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and Facilities
Provide Resident-Driven Community Services
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Adopt a Resolution approving a Memorandum of Understanding with Healdsburg Unified School District to convert two sports courts at Healdsburg High School to pickleball courts, establishing a community-use monitoring program, and amending the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 budget.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT/OUTREACH:

Staff have been working with the pickleball community since 2017 when a group of players approached the City to create pickleball courts. In 2018 the City’s Parks and Recreation Commission considered and supported staffs’ recommendation to create the City’s first pickleball court. In 2019 the Commission reviewed options for adding additional dedicated pickleball courts. Representatives of the pickleball community have been engaged in the various efforts throughout this time.

BACKGROUND:

Pickleball is a relatively new sport. Many consider pickleball an “age-friendly” option for older adults and people of all ages, and the sport has seen significant interest and growth in participation. According to the United States Pickleball Association (USPA), pickleball is a court sport played on a badminton-sized court with the net set to a height of 34 inches at the center. It is played with a perforated plastic ball like a wiffle ball and composite or wooden paddles about twice the size of ping-pong paddles. It can be played indoors or outdoors and is easy for beginners to learn, but can develop into a fast-paced, competitive game for experienced players.

In addition, the game has developed a passionate following due to its friendly, social nature, and its multi-generational appeal. It’s typically played on a standard tennis court or court specially designed and constructed for pickleball.

6.O
Packet Pg. 239
The City created its first pickleball court at Giorgi Park in 2018 primarily from to the enthusiasm and advocacy of Healdsburg residents and pickleball players. This process was not without concern and opposition from tennis players and involved a lively debate at the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting where the commission reviewed a tennis court use analysis and heard comments from both tennis players and pickleball players. Ultimately, the Commission felt that pickleball was worthy of a try and concurred with staff’s recommendation to paint a set of pickleball lines on one tennis court at Giorgi Park. Since that time the City painted pickleball lines on the second Giorgi Park tennis court, pickleball players have added temporary lines (tape) to two sports courts at the Healdsburg High School tennis complex, and the City created an indoor pickleball court at the Community Center that is typically available August through May.

There are currently five public pickleball courts available for community use at designated times in the city. (See Attachment A)
Interest and participation in pickleball continues to grow nationally, throughout California, and locally in Sonoma County. Several local communities have added pickleball to existing tennis courts, and some have built new dedicated pickleball courts. In addition to the five courts available today, the planning work for the new park in the Saggio Hills development and/or the redevelopment of Badger Park contemplate pickleball facilities. Under the proposed funding plan, these new facilities would likely come online in 2025. However, representatives of the pickleball community have continued to advocate for dedicated pickleball courts to be developed sooner.

In December 2021 the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed a variety of options for creating dedicated pickleball courts that included partnering with Healdsburg Unified School District (HUSD) to convert existing tennis facilities to pickleball, constructing new pickleball facilities, and converting a section of the existing asphalt area on the south side of the Community Center to pickleball. (See Attachment B) At the time, the Commission recommended that staff pursue a grant application for the Community Center option on a 4-3 vote. However, since that vote staff conducted more detailed analysis of Community Center site with the surfacing contractor and determined that the longevity of this approach would likely be limited to a maximum of five years (and possibly less) due to the condition of the asphalt. As a result, direction turned to partnering with Healdsburg Unified School District to retrofit two existing tennis/sports courts to pickleball courts and developing an agreement to allow use of the courts by the community during school hours under a monitored program.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

City Council is being asked to consider a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that would fund the retrofit and conversion of two existing sports courts at Healdsburg High School into four dedicated pickleball courts and designate a monitoring program for community use of the pickleball courts during school hours. Staff has worked with representatives of HUSD to develop a proposal that would be mutually beneficial to HUSD students who would have access to the courts for school activities along with the community when not in use by HUSD. An important component of the MOU is that it creates a monitoring program for tracking who is on the school site during school hours ensuring that HUSD’s approach towards a secure campus remains a priority.

6.O
Packet Pg. 240
Terms of the MOU include the following:
• Allocating $46,500 in funding for the work. The funding would be a combination of City funding ($40,000) and fundraising by the pickleball community ($6,500). • The City would hold the contract for the work and work collaboratively with HUSD to schedule, oversee, and deliver the improvements. HUSD would own the improvements once complete.
• HUSD would have priority use of the pickleball courts for District activities. • Community use during school hours would be available from 8:00 a.m. – 12 noon when not in use for District activities with a monitoring program in place to document who is on the school campus.
• MOU is for five years or until the City builds permanent pickleball courts elsewhere, at which time the MOU would terminate.

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP:

Not applicable.

ALTERNATIVES:

City Council could choose to move forward with one of the other approaches that the Parks and Recreation Commission considered in 2021 or defer the creation of dedicated pickleball courts until the upcoming Saggio Hills and/or Badger Park projects.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Total cost for the project is $46,500. The adopted FY22-23 budget includes $25,000 for the project in the Community Services Capital Project Fund. The project is not a City Capital Project because HUSD will own the improvements once complete. The proposed action amends the budget by moving the existing $25,000 to the Operating Fund and allocating an additional $15,000 of Community Services funding. The remaining $6,500 to complete the project will be received as a donation by the pickleball community.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:

Pursuant to Title 14, the California Code of Regulations, Section 15378(b)(4)(5) of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) guidelines, the proposed action of entering into an MOU with Healdsburg Unified School District is an administrative activity of the City that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment; and therefore, is not a project for purposes of CEQA.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Resolution
Exhibit A
Current Pickleball Facilities
PRC 12.08.21 - Pickleball
Memorandum of Understanding

6.O
Packet Pg. 241

CITY OF HEALDSBURG
RESOLUTION NO. -2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

HEALDSBURG APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF

UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF HEALDSBURG

AND HEALDSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT TO

CONVERT TWO SPORTS COURTS AT HEALDSBURG HIGH

SCHOOL TO PICKLEBALL COURTS, ESTABLISHING A

COMMUNITY-USE MONITORING PROGRAM, AND
AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 22-23 BUDGET
WHEREAS, on January 18, 2012 the City (the “City”) and Healdsburg Unified School District (the “District”) entered into a Joint Use Agreement (the “Joint Use Agreement”) to provide for the shared use of facilities and fields owned and operated by the City and/or the District, and to provide for scheduling, rights of use, maintenance and repair obligations, liability allocation, and associated duties regarding the City’s and District’s use of facilities and fields owned by the other Party; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to collaborate with the District to fund and develop four dedicated pickleball courts at the Healdsburg High School tennis facility on the courts generally referred to as “Sports Courts”; and
WHEREAS, the adopted FY 22-23 Budget includes $25,000 for the project in the Community Services Capital Project Fund; and
WHERAS, additional project funding is proposed in the amount of $15,000 from Community Services Operating Funds and $6,500 in community donations; and WHERAS, the project is not considered a Capital Project as HUSD would own the improvements once complete; and
WHEREAS, when the project is complete the pickleball courts will accommodate District activities, and when not in use by the District, the pickleball courts will be available for community use under the terms and conditions as set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU); and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into the MOU to provide for the development of and joint use of the pickleball courts; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Title 14, the California Code of Regulations, Section 15378(b)(4)(5) of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) guidelines, the proposed action of entering into an MOU with Healdsburg Unified School District is an administrative activity of the City that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment; and therefore, is not a project for purposes of CEQA.

6.O.a
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Resolution (3582 : HUSD Joint Facility Use Agreement MOU - Pickleball Courts) Resolution No. -2022

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Healdsburg hereby:

1. Approves the Memorandum of Understanding with Healdsburg Unified School District.

2. Finds that the proposed action of entering into an MOU with Healdsburg Unified School District is an administrative activity of the City that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment; and therefore, is not a project for purposes of CEQA.

3. Approves amending the fiscal year 2022-23 budget as depicted on the attached Exhibit A.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 6
th day of September 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers: ( )
NOES: Councilmembers: ( )
ABSENT: Councilmembers: ( )
ABSTAINING: Councilmembers: ( )
SO ORDERED: ATTEST:
__________________________________ ____________________________________ Osvaldo Jimenez, Mayor Raina Allan, City Clerk

6.O.a
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Resolution (3582 : HUSD Joint Facility Use Agreement MOU - Pickleball Courts) Resolution No.

Exhibit A
Account Number Increase Amount Decrease Amount Description 582-3001-43205-00000 $ 25,000 Move Pickle Ball Court Funding To Operating Fund 585-3036-43205-00000 $ 25,000 Move Pickle Ball Court Funding To Operating Fund 585-3036-43205-00000 $ 15,000 Increase Pickle Ball Court Funding - Community Serivces 585-3036-43205-00000 $ 6,500 Increase Pickle Ball Court Funding - Donation 585-3036-37703-00000 $ 6,500 Increase Pickle Ball Court Funding - Donation FY 22-23 Budget Amendment

6.O.b
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Exhibit A (3582 : HUSD Joint Facility Use Agreement MOU - Pickleball Courts) Current Pickleball Facilities
Giorgi Park Tennis Courts with Painted Pickleball Lines High School Sports Courts with Temporary Pickleball Lines

6.O.c
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Current Pickleball Facilities (3582 : HUSD Joint Facility Use Agreement MOU - Pickleball Courts) Community Center Pickleball Court

6.O.c
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Current Pickleball Facilities (3582 : HUSD Joint Facility Use Agreement MOU - Pickleball Courts)

HEALDSBURG PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
AGENDA ITEM: 6.a. Pickleball
MEETING DATE: December 8, 2021
PREPARED BY: Mark Themig, Community Services Director
REQUESTED ACTION: Receive an update on the evolution of Pickleball, the City’s response to support the sport, and options for the future
BACKGROUND:

Pickleball is an “age-friendly” option for older adults and people of all ages, and has recently seen significant interest and growth in participation. According to the United States Pickleball Association (USPA), pickleball is a court sport played on a badminton-sized court with the net set to a height of 34 inches at the center. It is played with a perforated plastic ball similar to a wiffle ball and composite or wooden paddles about twice the size of ping-pong paddles. It can be played indoors or outdoors and is easy for beginners to learn, but can develop into a fast-paced, competitive game for experienced players.

In addition, the game has developed a passionate following due to its friendly, social nature, and its multi-generational appeal. It’s typically played on a standard tennis court or court specially designed and constructed for pickleball.

Pickleball is also an option for to remain active as people age, and for many it is a transition from tennis for reasons such as:

1. Smaller court size = lower impact on the joints

2. Lighter ball = easier reaction time for a person slower reflex, poor eyesight

3. Racket has no strings = less stress on tendons in the arm

4. Play is underhand = easier range of motion

5. Social/educational = learning a new sport good for the brain, meet new people & is a social activity

6. Cost effective & Portable = Rackets range from $50-$150, ball is $2 & the racket is twice the size of standard ping pong paddle. Attire is comfortable clothing for a court sport, there is no special attire needed.

After a tennis court use analysis and lively community debate, in 2018 the City created its first pickleball court with the striping of pickleball lines on one of the tennis courts at Giorgi Park. The pickleball community also added temporary lines to two sports courts at the High School, and the City created an indoor pickleball court at the Community Center for the winter months. In addition, the Montage resort has installed pickleball courts, and pickleball courts are also part of the Honor Mansion redevelopment project on Grove Street. Both facilities are private and not open to the public.

DISCUSSION:

Interest and participation in pickleball continues to grow nationally, throughout California, and locally in Sonoma County. Several local communities have added pickleball to existing tennis courts, as well as built new dedicated pickleball courts. As noted above, the City has added pickleball to both tennis courts

6.O.d
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: PRC 12.08.21 - Pickleball (3582 : HUSD Joint Facility Use Agreement MOU - Pickleball Courts) at Giorgi Park, and has incorporated pickleball into its master plans for both the new park in the Montage Development and the redevelopment of Badger Park, with construction likely to begin in 2023.

Options for Supporting Pickleball
Staff has been meeting with representatives of the local pickleball community over the past several months to work on options for providing more pickleball opportunities in Healdsburg. As part of this work the City added lines for a second pickleball court at the Giorgi Park tennis courts earlier this fall.

Other options that we have explored included:

A. Partnering with the School District to resurface the sports courts at the High School and developing pickleball as the primary sport and tennis secondary on the sports courts.

This option has the lowest cost and fastest project to deliver. However, the District restricts the public on the school site during school hours. The District is willing to allow the City to develop a monitoring program using volunteers for use of the courts during school use hours, provided the courts aren’t being used for school activities. These courts also have lights.

B. Identifying potential locations for constructing new courts. We looked at two sites that have potential for new court development in addition to the parks that are being master planned: (1) the Giorgi Park turf area next to the basketball court and (2) the site directly north of the Community Center parking lot.

This option has the highest cost and would take the longest to deliver. The Giorgi Park site would accommodate three dedicated courts; the pickleball community has expressed a strong interest in four dedicated courts. The Community Center site could easily accommodate four or more courts.

However, parking is limited and sometimes full depending on activities.

C. Creating interim courts on the south side of the Community Center.

Using a portion of the south side of the Community Center asphalt area has potential to create four dedicated pickleball courts, plus improve one of the basketball courts with new painting and lines that could add a dual use pickleball option for an additional two or three more pickleball courts. While we would lose space for other activities like parking or event staging, staff thinks that both can be accommodated. The City’s surfacing contractor inspected the area and indicated that the asphalt could be resurfaced to serve an interim 3-5 year timeframe. However, the condition of the asphalt will not sustain a long-term facility unless the pavement is fully reconstructed.

In our discussions with the pickleball community, staff recommends that the City move ahead with a modified option “A.” and option “C.”:
• Modified Option A. would involve working with the District to develop an addendum to the City/District joint use agreement that would allow public use of the pickleball courts at specified times during school hours with a volunteer monitoring program that would track who is on the District property. There would be no improvements to the courts. This is a low/no cost option. • Option C: Make improvements to the asphalt area on the south side of the Community Center as described above, provided the surfacing test area has satisfactory results. This option is estimated to cost +/- $150,000.

Funding
The City’s adopted FY20-25 Capital Improvement Program includes a place holder for development of the new Montage development park site and with Badger Park’s redevelopment. However, as the

6.O.d
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: PRC 12.08.21 - Pickleball (3582 : HUSD Joint Facility Use Agreement MOU - Pickleball Courts) Commission is aware the cost of these two projects is substantial, and staff is working on funding scenarios for the project. Pickleball is not included in the adopted CIP, and there are no funds allocated for pickleball. The City’s FY23-25 budget process will begin in late winter, and this process will include developing the FY22-27 Capital Improvement Program where new projects can be considered.

Staff has asked the pickleball community to research external funding options. One of the potential funding opportunities that the pickleball community has identified is the Proposition 68 (2018 Park Bond Act) Rural Recreation and Tourism Program grant. The application period is currently open. https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28439
Some of the correspondence that the Commission has received from the pickleball community questions the financial investment that the City makes in supporting our older adults. The FY22 budget for Active Adult and Senior Services is $487,077. This funding supports the Senior Center operations, programs, and services, including the City’s age-friendly initiatives. Other investments the City has made that support services for older adults include capital projects like the Foss Creek Pathway, and major work during the COVID-19 pandemic to make sure our older adult community remained connected and had appropriate nutrition.

Priorities
As noted above, pickleball is not included in the current capital improvement program. Staff feels that we have the ability to implement option A. (a monitoring program for use of the High School courts) over the winter, and continue to work on option C. (creating courts at the Community Center) for implementation in 2022 if funding is secured for the work.

ATTACHMENTS:

9.12.18 Staff Report on the Addition of Pickleball at Giorgi Park Community Center Pickleball Court Mock-Ups (examples only, not final) FY20-25 Capital Improvement Program

6.O.d
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: PRC 12.08.21 - Pickleball (3582 : HUSD Joint Facility Use Agreement MOU - Pickleball Courts)

HEALDSBURG PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
AGENDA ITEM: 3.a. Addition of Pickleball to Giorgi Park Tennis Courts MEETING DATE: September 12, 2018
PREPARED BY: Garrett Perdigao, Recreation Supervisor
REQUESTED ACTION: Receive a report on Pickleball and consider a recommendation to add Pickleball lines to one tennis court at Giorgi Park
BACKGROUND:

In June City Council authorized staff to submit an application to become an Age-Friendly City under the World Health Organization’s Age-Friendly community program. Part of this initiative is to identify opportunities – both large and small – to provide additional activities for our older adult and aging population to remain vibrant and valued members of the community. Ideally, these opportunities encompass a variety of ages, or “Eight to Eighty” as it is sometimes called. One activity that has risen in popularity nationally and locally that meets the Age-Friendly concept is pickleball.

Court Striping for Pickleball
Staff had received comments from tennis players about the condition of the surface at the Giorgi Park tennis courts so we included funding in our budget to resurface the courts. As part of this work the resurfacing contractor approached Parks Superintendent Jaime Licea about painting pickleball lines.

According to the contractor they have been painting pickleball lines on many courts that are being resurfaced.

The concept of adding pickleball lines to the courts at Giorgi Park came up in late June with the resurfacing contractor ready to start work. As a result, there wasn’t an opportunity to have a broader discussion about the opportunities and impacts of adding pickleball, so we deferred painting the lines until this discussion could occur. Since that time the concept has generated interest from both the pickleball players and the tennis players.

The addition of the lines would help meet one of the goals under the Age-Friendly City initiative at a relatively low cost: $500. Parks Superintendent Licea proposed that we stripe the court that is not used by City through its contracted tennis instruct, Joe Benavent, for lessons. The pickleball lines would follow the USTA (tennis) and the USAPA’s (pickleball) guidelines: both USTA and USAPA allow for overlays (called "blended lines") as long as they are in the same color family as the interior of the tennis court. (USAPA: “If adding lines to an existing tennis and basketball court, “tone on tone” lines in the same color family as the court itself should be used.” USTA: “Lines shall be textured line paint within the same family as the 78’ court color.”) In this case the pickleball lines would be striped a light green since the courts are dark green.

6.O.d
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: PRC 12.08.21 - Pickleball (3582 : HUSD Joint Facility Use Agreement MOU - Pickleball Courts) Giorgi Park Tennis Courts
High School Tennis Courts with Temporary Pickleball Stripes Multi-uses with multiple striping schemes in facilities is very common whether it be indoor gymnasiums, synthetic turf fields, and even Rec Park where there is football and soccer occurring at the same time. As we move forward, the courts at Giorgi Park may need to serve multiple uses as new needs are identified. A comparison to this would be the Prune Pits softball program playing on the little league fields at Healdsburg Elementary School or the Adult Soccer league playing at Rec Park during the High School football season. If we designated these fields as only little league or football, then we potentially eliminate other opportunities now and in the future like the Prune Pits’ or soccer usage.

6.O.d
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: PRC 12.08.21 - Pickleball (3582 : HUSD Joint Facility Use Agreement MOU - Pickleball Courts) Other cities have added pickleball to their tennis courts and based on the feedback we’ve received from Ukiah, Cotati, Windsor, and Rohnert Park, these communities have not had complaints from tennis players about confusion with the additional lines. Each community mentioned that users would prefer their own courts if they could have whatever they wanted. For example, Recreation Manager Cindy Bageley from Rohnert Park sent the following response: “Here in RP, we were going to stripe for Pickleball, but now we just got funding to eliminate 2 tennis courts and put in 6 permanent Pickleball courts. Our Tennis Club is very receptive to Pickleball lines and say that as long as they are painted a lighter shade of whatever color that actual tennis court is, that is shouldn’t create any issues.” DISCUSSION:

Tennis Program
Historically, the Giorgi Park tennis courts have been used by the community to practice their skills or play a match amongst themselves. They have also been used by the City’s contracted tennis Instructor, Joe Benavent, to teach both youth and adult participants. Tennis classes during the Fall, Winter, and Spring months occur Thursday-Saturday with the classes running during the week from 3pm-7pm and on Saturday mornings from 9am-12pm. During the summer months the schedule changes to have classes running Tuesday through Friday from 8am-12pm for youth classes and 6pm-8pm for the adult classes. There were a total of 295 registrations from 8/1/17 until 9/6/18. (Staff is verifying the actual number of individuals who participated in lessons and will provide this information as part of the presentation.)
During the period from 8/12/18 - 8/26/18 staff used a time randomizer to select three random times per day for two weeks to observe the courts to document usage:
12-Aug 13-Aug 14-Aug 15-Aug 16-Aug 17-Aug 18-Aug 19-Aug Sun Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun
Morning 10:53 10:44 8:35 11:00 10:05 11:19 8:56 10:49
0 0 2/east court 0 2/EAST Court 2/EAST Court 2/EAST Court 0 Afternoon 1:22 3:21 1:26 12:16 12:48 12:25 1:21 2:27
0 2/west court 0 2/EAST Court 0 2/EAST Court 0 0
Evening 4:47 5:19 5:37 4:25 5:43 7:29 7:52 6:38
Missed 0 0 0 2/EAST Court 0 0 0
19-Aug 20-Aug 21-Aug 22-Aug 23-Aug 24-Aug 25-Aug 26-Aug Sun Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun
Morning 10:49 9:02 9:46 11:16 11:14 10:20 8:00 9:31
0 4 2/EAST Court 5/both courts 0 2/EAST Court 2/EAST Court 0 Afternoon 2:27 12:29 12:23 1:28 2:26 1:10 1:58 3:12
0 4/both courts 0 0 0 0 0 0
Evening 6:38 7:25 7:33 6:54 4:26 4:12 6:52 5:01
0 0 0 2/EAST Court 3 2/EAST Court 0 0
26-Aug
Sun
Morning 9:31
0 Afternoon 3:12
0 Evening 5:01
0 6.O.d
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: PRC 12.08.21 - Pickleball (3582 : HUSD Joint Facility Use Agreement MOU - Pickleball Courts) In addition to the random observations documented above, local tennis players coordinated a sign-in process for a two-week period that overlaps a portion of this observation period (see attached). Their process documented an average over the two-week period of 4.9 hours of use per day on Court 1 and

4.5 hours per day on Court 2.

Pickleball
Pickleball is an “age-friendly” option for older adults and people of all ages, and has recently seen significant interest and growth in participation. According to the United States Pickleball Association (USPA) Pickleball is a court sport played on a badminton-sized court with the net set to a height of 34 inches at the center. It is played with a perforated plastic ball similar to a wiffle ball and composite or wooden paddles about twice the size of ping-pong paddles. It can be played indoors or outdoors and is easy for beginners to learn, but can develop into a fast-paced, competitive game for experienced players. In addition, the game has developed a passionate following due to its friendly, social nature, and its multi-generational appeal. It’s typically played on a standard tennis court or court specially designed and constructed for pickleball.

Pickleball is also an option for to remain active as people age, and for many it is a transition from tennis for reasons such as:

1. Smaller court size = lower impact on the joints

2. Lighter ball = easier reaction time for a person slower reflex, poor eyesight

3. Racket has no strings = less stress on tendons in the arm

4. Play is underhand = easier range of motion

5. Social/educational = learning a new sport good for the brain, meet new people & is a social activity

6. Cost effective & Portable = Rackets range from $50-$150, ball is $2 & the racket is twice the size of standard ping pong paddle. Attire is comfortable clothing for a court sport, there is no special attire needed.

Over the past few months, pickleball players added temporary lines (tape) to two courts at the High School (shown above). In addition, staff added temporary lines and purchased a portable net for the Multi-Purpose Room at the Community Center:

6.O.d
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: PRC 12.08.21 - Pickleball (3582 : HUSD Joint Facility Use Agreement MOU - Pickleball Courts) Use of High School Courts
The community also has access to the High School tennis courts, and as noted previously, pickleball players have been using these courts with temporary taped lines. Historically use of the High School campus has been mostly unrestricted during the school days. However, in the era of heightened school security and the upcoming completion of the new synthetic turf, School District staff have indicated that the District will be moving toward a more secure campus during school and sport practice hours.

What that means for public usage of the tennis courts is that it will be limited to before school hours ending 30 minutes before the bell rings and will not be available until after school day ends at 3pm.

During August – October they will be unavailable until approximately 7pm when the High School tennis team has practices and matches.

Recommendation
The courts at Giorgi Park are an asset to the community. Based on the documented use information provided through random observations and the sign-in sheets, along with the feedback staff received from other communities, staff feels that the courts could be even more of an asset by adding pickleball striping.

Staff is recommending that one court (west court) be striped for pickleball. Under this recommendation our instructional tennis program would continue to have priority access, and recreational use of both courts would follow the same etiquette as currently used where players wait for their turn, whether it be pickleball on the west court or tennis on either court.

Based on recent interest in pickleball we plan on continuing to offer pickleball on designated days and times in the Multi-Purpose Room at the Community Center. We have also had preliminary discussions with School District officials about funding the painting of permanent lines on select courts at the High School, but no decisions have been made regarding this at this time.

Looking forward, with the upcoming master planning process for both Badger Park redevelopment and the Montage park development, the community can consider options for additional tennis and/or pickleball as part of these planning processes.

ATTACHMENTS:

Giorgi Park Sign In Sheet Summary (provided by the Tennis Community)

6.O.d
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: PRC 12.08.21 - Pickleball (3582 : HUSD Joint Facility Use Agreement MOU - Pickleball Courts) 1 Mark Themig
From: Janis Harwood Grattan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2018 1:23 PM
To: Garrett Perdigao; Mark Themig
Cc: Brigette Mansell; Cathy Hopkins; Cheryl Daniels; Janis Harwood Grattan; Joe Benavent; Natalee Tappin; Warren Watkins ([email protected]); [email protected]; jeanette thorpe; Shelley Gilbert
Subject: data on Giorgi tennis court use
Attachments: GiorgiTennis data.pdf; IMG_7212 (2).jpg
Hello Mark and Garrett,
Here is some information relevant to the courts issue scheduled to be heard on Wednesday, September 12. We request the staff consider this data in its analysis.

Everyone,
If you have an opinion, please let the Parks & Rec. Dept. know your thoughts. Email [email protected] To see the Sept. 12 agenda item, try  http://www.ci.healdsburg.ca.us/AgendaCenter/Parks‐Recreation‐Commission‐ 2    (but it might not be online, yet)
Data:

Under the leadership of Jeanette Thorpe, the community has voluntarily provided data on tennis court usage at Giorgi.

Method:  Jeanette placed 2 signup sheets, 1 for each court, asking players to anonymously enter their time spent on the Giorgi courts. Over a 2 week period, she collected the sheets and entered the data on a spread sheet. For ease of reference, she converted it to a Data Table, attached. We also have the signup sheets and can provide you with copies.

An image of a sample signup sheet is attached.

Summary:
2 weeks of voluntary data
206 players logged use
131 hours and 45 min logged
This averages almost 7.5 hours of court use per day (combined), and ~14 players per day 20 hours of class time (note: student numbers NOT logged) NOTES:

1. Data is voluntary, not perfect (i.e. possible players didn't log time, or logged incorrectly) ‐ should provide a good‐ enough snapshot of usage

2. Some data does conflict slightly (overlapping times) ‐ the basic assumption is that people did play and just logged time incorrectly (why else enter log?)

3. Data does not reflect players turned away for lack of court availability

4. Week 2 was less clement weather than week 1 (Week 2 had heavy cloud/drizzle) Thank you for considering our input.

Janis Watkins

6.O.d
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: PRC 12.08.21 - Pickleball (3582 : HUSD Joint Facility Use Agreement MOU - Pickleball Courts) Table 1

COURT DATE TIME NUMBER OF

PLAYERS
DURATION Average hours per
day usage
Class hours
14 days 206 7.2 20h 0m
TOTALS COURT 2 2w 98 62h 30m 4.5
TOTALS COURT 1 2w 108 69h 15m 4.9
1 Thu, Aug 16, 2018 6:45 AM 4 1h 15m
8:00 AM 2 1h 0m
4:00 PM 4h 0m classes
Fri, Aug 17, 2018 8:00 AM 2 1h 15m
10:00 AM 2 1h 30m
3:50 PM 2 1h 0m
Sat, Aug 18, 2018 5:30 PM 2 2h 0m
7:00 PM 2 1h 15m
Sun, Aug 19, 2018 3:20 PM 2 1h 0m
5:00 PM 3 2h 0m
Mon, Aug 20, 2018 6:30 AM 2 2h 0m
6:30 AM 2 1h 0m
Tue, Aug 21, 2018 9:00 AM 2 1h 30m
11:00 AM 4 1h 0m
3:00 PM 2 1h 15m
6:00 PM 2 1h 0m
Wed, Aug 22, 2018 11:00 AM 3 1h 0m
1:30 PM 3 1h 0m
3:00 PM 2 1h 0m
4:00 PM 2 1h 0m
Thu, Aug 23, 2018 8:30 AM 2 1h 0m
2:30 PM 2 1h 0m
4:00 PM 4h 0m classes
Fri, Aug 24, 2018 8:00 AM 4 2h 0m
10:00 AM 4 2h 0m
8:00 PM 2 2h 0m
8:00 PM 2 2h 0m
1:00 PM 2 1h 0m
4:00 PM 2h 30m classes
6:30 PM 2 1h 0m
Sat, Aug 25, 2018 7:30 AM 3 1h 30m
10:00 AM 2 1h 0m
2:15 PM 2 1h 0m
8:00 PM 2 1h 0m
Sun, Aug 26, 2018 7:30 AM 3 2h 0m
9:00 AM 2 1h 30m
COURT
1 6.O.d
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: PRC 12.08.21 - Pickleball (3582 : HUSD Joint Facility Use Agreement MOU - Pickleball Courts) 9:30 AM 2 1h 0m
10:30 AM 2 1h 15m
5:00 PM 2 2h 0m
6:30 PM 2 1h 0m
Mon, Aug 27, 2018 7:30 AM 4 1h 0m
9:45 AM 4 2h 30m
9:30 AM 3 1h 0m
Tue, Aug 28, 2018 7:00 AM 4 1h 30m
8:00 AM 2 1h 30m
4:00 PM 2 1h 0m
6:30 PM 2 1h 0m
2 Thu, Aug 16, 2018 7:00 AM 4 1h 0m
6:40 PM 2 1h 30m
Fri, Aug 17, 2018 7:00 AM 4 1h 0m
8:00 AM 4 3h 0m
9:00 AM 4 2h 0m
10:30 AM 4 1h 0m
2:20 PM 2 1h 0m
4:00 PM 2h 30m classes
6:45 PM 2 1h 15m
Sat, Aug 18, 2018 8:00 AM 5h 0m classes
2:30 PM 2 1h 0m
Sun, Aug 19, 2018 10:00 AM 2 1h 0m
11:00 AM 2 1h 0m
2:00 PM 2 1h 0m
Mon, Aug 20, 2018 9:30 AM 4 2h 0m
Tue, Aug 21, 2018 7:00 AM 4 1h 0m
8:30 AM 2 1h 30m
11:00 AM 2 1h 30m
2:00 PM 2 1h 0m
Wed, Aug 22, 2018 11:00 AM 2 1h 30m
2:30 PM 2 1h 0m
4:00 PM 2 1h 0m
Thu, Aug 23, 2018 9:00 AM 2 1h 0m
10:30 AM 2 1h 30m
4:30 PM 2 1h 30m
Fri, Aug 24, 2018 8:00 AM 2 1h 0m
9:30 AM 4 2h 30m
Sat, Aug 25, 2018 9:00 AM 2h 0m classes
12:30 PM 2 1h 0m
1:00 PM 4 2h 0m
2:30 PM 2 1h 0m

DATE TIME NUMBER OF

PLAYERS
DURATION Average hours per
day usage
COURT Class hours
2 6.O.d
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: PRC 12.08.21 - Pickleball (3582 : HUSD Joint Facility Use Agreement MOU - Pickleball Courts) Sun, Aug 26, 2018 7:30 AM 2 2h 0m
9:50 AM 2 0h 45m
3:00 PM 2 1h 30m
Mon, Aug 27, 2018 9:30 AM 3 1h 30m
2:00 PM 2 1h 30m
5:30 PM 3 1h 0m
6:30 PM 2 1h 0m
Tue, Aug 28, 2018 2:00 PM 2 1h 30m
Wed, Aug 29, 2018 2:00 PM 2 1h 30m
4:45 PM 2 1h 30m
6:15 PM 2 1h 30m

DATE TIME NUMBER OF

PLAYERS
DURATION Average hours per
day usage
COURT Class hours
3 6.O.d
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: PRC 12.08.21 - Pickleball (3582 : HUSD Joint Facility Use Agreement MOU - Pickleball Courts) 20'-0" 44'-0"
50'-0"
94'-0"
10'-0"
20'-0"
220'-0"
104'-0"
5'-0"
Option 01

6.O.d
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: PRC 12.08.21 - Pickleball (3582 : HUSD Joint Facility Use Agreement MOU - Pickleball Courts) 44'-0"
20'-0"
50'-0"
94'-0"
20'-0" 10'-0"
5'-0"
188'-0"
104'-0" 12'-0" 80'-0"
Option 02

6.O.d
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: PRC 12.08.21 - Pickleball (3582 : HUSD Joint Facility Use Agreement MOU - Pickleball Courts) 44'-0"
20'-0" 50'-0"
94'-0"
10'-0" 20'-0"
5'-0"
208'-0"
80'-0" 8'-0"
Option 03

6.O.d
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: PRC 12.08.21 - Pickleball (3582 : HUSD Joint Facility Use Agreement MOU - Pickleball Courts) Memorandum of Understanding
Between the City of Healdsburg and Healdsburg Unified School District for the Development of Pickleball Courts at Healdsburg High School (1024 Prince Street, Healdsburg, California)
This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is made and entered into on this day of September, 2022, (the “Effective Date”) by and between the Healdsburg Unified School District, a California public school district (“District”), and the City of Healdsburg, a California municipal corporation (“City”). The District and City are sometimes referred to herein individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties”.

RECITALS
WHEREAS, on January 18, 2012 the City and the District entered into a Joint Use Agreement (the “Joint Use Agreement”) to provide for the shared use of facilities and fields owned and operated by the City and/or the District, and to provide for scheduling, rights of use, maintenance and repair obligations, liability allocation, and associated duties regarding the City’s and District’s use of facilities and fields owned by the other Party; and WHEREAS, the City desires to collaborate with the District to fund and develop four dedicated pickleball courts at the Healdsburg High School tennis facility on the courts generally referred to as “Sports Courts” shown on Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, when the project is complete the pickleball courts will accommodate District activities, and when not in use by the District, the pickleball courts will be available for community use under the terms and conditions as set forth in this MOU; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into this Agreement to provide for the development of and joint use of the pickleball courts on the terms and conditions set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions hereinafter contained, it is hereby agreed as follows.

UNDERSTANDING

1. Purpose. This MOU memorializes the Parties’ agreement to fund and create pickleball courts on the Sports Courts at the Healdsburg High School campus. Creation of the pickleball courts will involve converting to two existing tennis Sports Courts to pickleball courts including removal of the existing tennis nets, relocating the divider fence, installing new pickleball netting, and resurfacing the asphalt with dedicated pickleball court layout as set forth in the proposal attached hereto as Exhibit B (the “Work”).

2. Term. This MOU shall commence on the Effective Date and continue for five years, automatically renewing in one-year increments until such time as the City creates permanent pickleball courts elsewhere. The Parties may agree to additional one-year extensions with written notice.

6.O.e
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Memorandum of Understanding (3582 : HUSD Joint Facility Use Agreement MOU - Pickleball Courts)

3. Obligations of the Parties.
a. The Work
i. City will provide $46,500 to fund the conversion of two Sports Sourts to pickleball courts at the Healdsburg High School as outlined in Exhibit B. ii. City will hold the contract for the Work, and the District hereby authorizes and provides the City a right of entry to the City and its contractor(s) to conduct the Work on District property.
iii. The City and the District will agree to scheduling the Work and will collaboratively oversee the Work. When the Work is underway the Parties understand that the Sports Courts will not be available for District or community use.
iv. Upon completion of construction, the District will accept the Work as complete and satisfactory by providing notice to the City in writing. v. Once the Work is complete, the District will own the improvements and assume responsibility for maintaining the improvements under the terms and conditions set forth in Section 7.c. of the Joint Use Agreement. b. Use of the Pickleball Courts
i. District shall have priority for scheduling use of the pickleball courts for District activities. The District shall provide the City two-weeks’ advanced notice of when the pickleball courts will be scheduled for use by the District.
ii. When not in use by the District, the pickleball courts shall be available for Third Party Uses as defined in Section 4 of the Joint Use Agreement under the terms and conditions of the Joint Use Agreement.
iii. In addition to being available for Third Party uses in accordance with the Joint Use Agreement, the pickleball courts shall also be available under a monitored program for community use when the High School is in session and the pickleball courts are not in use by District under the following terms and conditions (the “Monitored Program”:

A. The Monitored Program hours shall be between the hours of 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Monday-Friday when the High School is in session.

B. The City will work with the pickleball community to develop, implement, and manage the Monitored Program.

C. The Monitored Program shall require players to sign in with their name and address to document who is on school property during school hours. No one shall be allowed to play on the courts during the Monitored Program without signing in. The sign in sheet shall have the City’s standard waiver of liability.

D. The Monitored Program shall designate representatives of the pickleball community to unlock and lock the pickleball courts for community play during the Monitored Program hours.

6.O.e
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Memorandum of Understanding (3582 : HUSD Joint Facility Use Agreement MOU - Pickleball Courts) E. Representatives of the pickleball community have agreed to assume responsibility for overseeing and managing the Monitored Program. If the pickleball community discontinues or refuses to continue overseeing the Monitored Program the right to play during school hours as set forth in this MOU shall be terminated.

F. The City shall maintain a schedule of availability for community use under the Monitored Program.
iv. The City shall develop rules for use of the pickleball courts by the community. The District shall review and approve the rules. Once approved by the District, the City will fabricate and install signs informing community users of the rules.
c. Additional Items
i. The City may propose and fund additional improvements that would benefit both the District’s and community’s use of the pickleball courts such as additional benches and a storage shed for court maintenance supplies including brooms, squeegees, blower, etc. The District shall have final approval for any such improvements.

4. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. The City shall indemnify, defend, protect, hold harmless, and release the District, its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents and employees, from and against any and all claims, loss proceedings, damages, causes of action, liability, costs, or expense (including attorneys’ fees and witness costs) arising out of the negligent acts or omissions in the performance by the City under this Agreement; except such Liability caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the District. This indemnification obligation shall not be limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damages or compensation payable to or for the indemnifying party under workers’ compensation acts, disability benefit acts, or other employee benefits acts.

The District shall indemnify, defend, protect, hold harmless, and release the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents and employees, from and against any and all claims, loss proceedings, damages, causes of action, liability, costs, or expense (including attorneys’ fees and witness costs) arising out of the negligent acts or omissions in the performance by the District under this Agreement; except such liability caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. This indemnification obligation shall not be limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damages or compensation payable to or for the indemnifying party under workers’ compensation acts, disability benefit acts, or other employee benefits acts. In no event shall either party be liable for the consequential damages of the other party.

5. Insurance. The City shall provide the District with a Certificate of Insurance as evidence of all required in force insurance and an endorsement naming the District, its officers, employees and agents as an additional insured with regard to liability arising out of the City’s activities carried out under the terms of this Agreement.

6.O.e
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Memorandum of Understanding (3582 : HUSD Joint Facility Use Agreement MOU - Pickleball Courts) Liability Insurance. Throughout the term of this MOU, City shall maintain in full force and effect, Comprehensive General Liability or Commercial General Liability Insurance covering bodily injury (including death), personal injury, and property damage. i. Limits shall be in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence, and two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) aggregate if applicable.
ii. City shall name School District, its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, and employees, individually and collectively, as additional insureds.
iii. For any claims arising out of City’s performance of this Agreement, the City’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance coverage as respects to the District, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers.

Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability Insurance. Throughout the term of this Agreement, District and City shall maintain in full force and effect, Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance for any and all persons employed directly or indirectly. The Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance must be provided with limits of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per accident. The insurance shall be endorsed to waive all rights of subrogation against the other Party and its officials, officers, employees, and volunteers for loss arising from or related to the uses provided for in this MOU.

Property Insurance. School District shall be solely responsible for maintaining adequate property insurance coverage for the School District facilities.

Notification of Change. Required insurance coverage may not be suspended, voided, canceled, or reduced in coverage or in limits, unless thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the other Party to this Agreement.

6. Termination. The termination of this MOU other than the term set forth in “2. Term” must be mutually agreed upon by the City and the District in writing.

7. Assignment. Neither Party may assign or transfer their responsibilities or obligations under this MOU without the prior written consent of the non-assigning Party.

8. Amendment. This MOU may be amended or supplemented in writing signed by the Parties. The City Manager shall have authority to enter into amendments to this Agreement on behalf of the City, and the Superintendent shall have authority to enter into amendments to this Agreement on behalf of the District.

9. Severability. If any provision of this MOU is found to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the remaining provisions will continue to be valid and enforceable. If a court finds that any provision of this MOU is invalid or unenforceable, but that by limiting such provision it

6.O.e
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Memorandum of Understanding (3582 : HUSD Joint Facility Use Agreement MOU - Pickleball Courts) would be valid and enforceable, then such provision will be deemed to be written, construed, and enforced as so limited.

10. Understanding. The Parties agree to cooperate and communicate in good faith throughout the implementation of the Work, with the end goal of creating a space for the benefit of the District and the community.

11. Notice. Any notice or communication required or permitted under this MOU shall be sufficiently given if delivered in person, by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by email if an email address is provided, with acknowledgment of receipt, to the address set forth below or to another such address as one party may have furnished to the other in writing:

City: City of Healdsburg
401 Grove Street
Healdsburg, CA 95448
Attention: City Manager
District: Healdsburg Unified School District
1028 Prince Avenue
Healdsburg, CA 95448
Attention: Superintendent

12. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence in this Agreement, and the Parties agree to execute all documents and proceed with due diligence to complete all covenants and conditions.

13. Consent to Jurisdiction and Venue. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California. Any legal action or proceeding brought to interpret or enforce this Agreement, or which in any way arises out of the Parties’ activities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement, shall be filed and prosecuted in the appropriate California State Court in the County of Sonoma, California. Each Party waives the benefit of any provision of state or federal law providing for a change of venue to any other court or jurisdiction including, without limitation, a change of venue based on the fact that a governmental entity is a party to the action or proceeding, or that a federal right or question is involved or alleged to be involved in the action or proceeding.

14. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counteparts, each of which shall constitute an original and which collectively shall constitute one instrument.

15. Authorization. Each person signing below represents that they are duly authorized to do so by the Party they represent.

6.O.e
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Memorandum of Understanding (3582 : HUSD Joint Facility Use Agreement MOU - Pickleball Courts) City OF HEALDSBURG
By:

Jeff Kay, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Samantha Zutler, City Attorney
HEALDSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL District
By:

Chris Vanden Heuvel, Superintendent
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
District Attorney

6.O.e
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Memorandum of Understanding (3582 : HUSD Joint Facility Use Agreement MOU - Pickleball Courts)

6.O.e
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Memorandum of Understanding (3582 : HUSD Joint

ADAMS SURFACING
510 TALBOT AVE.

SANTA ROSA, CA 95405
707 528-9651
FAX 707 544-5349
Email: [email protected]
JULY 10, 2022
TO: CITY OF HEALDSBURG
401 GROVE ST.

HEALDSBURG, CA 95448
JOB: CONVERTING 2 TENNIS COURTS TO 4 PICKLEBALL COURTS (SOUTHWEST UNDERSIZED TENNIS COURTS @ HEALDSBURG HIGH SCHOOL, HEALDSBURG, CA

PROPOSAL

1. REMOVE EXISTING 4 FOOT HIGH FENCE WHICH SEPARATES TWO TENNIS COURTS AND REINSTALL 6-10 FEET FURTHER NORTH.

2. JACKHAMMER TO DIG OUT EIGHT TWO FOOT DEEP HOLES TO ACCOMMODATE NET POST SLEEVES FOR PICKLEBALL.

3. SUPPLY AND INSTALL EIGHT SLEEVES INTO CONCRETE MIX.

4. SUPPLY AND INSTALL FOUR SETS OF NEW THREE INCH ROUND NET POSTS (GREEN OR BLACK) AND FOUR NEW NETS FOR PICKLE BALL.

5. AIR CLEAN AND SPOT SAND COURTS.

6. FILL ALL CRACKS WITH LAYKOLD COURT PATCH AND LAYKOLD CRACK FILLER.

7. APPLY ONE COAT OF LAYKOLD NUSURF RESURFACER TO ENTIRE SURFACE OF COURTS.

8. APPLY TWO COATS OF LAYKOLD COLOR COAT SYSTEM TO FOUR PICKLEBALL COURTS.

COATS WILL BE TEXTURED WITH SAND. COLORS WILL BE LAYKOLD DARK GREEN INSIDE

PLAYING AREAS OF FOUR PICKLE BALL COURTS AND LAYKOLD RED OUTSIDE PLAYING AREAS AND “KITCHEN”.

9. MEASURE OUT AND APPLY GAME LINES WITH TEXTURED WHITE LINE PAINT FOR FOUR PICKLE BALL COURTS.

PRICE: $46,500.00 (FORTY SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS) DUE UPON COMPLETION OF JOB.
*ONE YEAR CONDITIONAL WARRANTY ON SURFACE MATERIALS ONLY (ABNORMAL FADING, ABNORMAL PEELING).
**DUE TO GROUND MOVEMENT AND/OR OTHER BASE PROBLEMS BEYOND OUR CONTROL, ADAMS SURFACING CANNOT OFFER WARRANTIES AGAINST THE APPEARANCE OF ANY CRACKS. ***THE CONCRETE FOOTINGS OF REMOVED EXISTING FOUR FOOT FENCE AND THE FOUR TENNIS NET POSTS SLEEVES WILL NOT BE REMOVED. THEY WILL BE FILLED WITH CONCRETE AND SURFACED OVER.

SUBMITTED BY:

STEVE ADAMS
CA CONTRACTORS’ LICENSE #689697
DIR: PW-LR-1000428835

6.O.e
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Memorandum of Understanding (3582 : HUSD Joint Facility Use Agreement MOU - Pickleball Courts)

6.O.e
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Memorandum of Understanding (3582 : HUSD Joint Facility Use Agreement MOU - Pickleball Courts)

CITY OF HEALDSBURG

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 6, 2022
SUBJECT: Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Remote Meetings PREPARED BY: Raina Allan, City Clerk
STRATEGIC INITIATIVE(S):

Provide Effective Governance
Maintain and Enhance Public Health and Safety
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Adopt a Resolution authorizing remote meetings of the City Council and other legislative bodies.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT/OUTREACH:

The City has made and continues to engage in extensive outreach to the community regarding the City’s response to COVID-19, including updates at public meetings.

BACKGROUND:

On or about March 4, 2020, as part of the State of California’s response to address the global COVID-19 outbreak, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a State of Emergency to make additional resources available, formalize emergency actions already underway across multiple state agencies and departments, and help the state prepare for broader spread of COVID-19 following one official COVID-19 death.

When the COVID-19 pandemic started, local agency boards struggled to conduct their meetings in compliance with the Brown Act’s public accessibility requirements while still abiding by stayat-home orders. As a result, Governor Newsom signed Orders N-25-20, N-29-20, and N-35-20 to grant local agencies the flexibility to meet remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic. These orders expired on September 30, 2021.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law AB 361 – Brown Act: Remote Meetings During Emergencies. AB 361, codified at Government Code Section 54953(e)(1)(B), amended the Brown Act to allow public agencies to allow local legislative bodies to continue meeting by teleconference during a gubernatorial proclaimed state of emergency if the local

6.P
Packet Pg. 271
legislative body determines, by majority vote, that as a result of the emergency, meeting entirely in person without restrictions would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.

By adopting the proposed resolution, the Council would, on behalf of the City Council and all other legislative bodies formed by the Council, make the findings required by AB 361 to meet remotely. Because the Council is required to make these findings every thirty days, staff will place a version of this resolution on the consent calendar at all subsequent meetings, until the Council decides that meeting fully in person will no longer pose an imminent risk to the health or safety of attendees.

The resolution was amended at the February 22, 2022, City Council meeting and further amended at the March 21, 2022 City Council meeting, to amend public meeting protocol in response to the latest COVID-19 conditions, as directed by the City Council.

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP:

This section is not applicable.

ALTERNATIVES:

Because the Governor’s Order authorizing online meetings has expired, if the Council does not adopt the proposed resolution, the Council should immediately return to in-person meetings.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is not a fiscal impact as a direct result of this action.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:

Pursuant to Title 14, the California Code of Regulations, Section 15378(b)(5) of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) guidelines, the proposed action is an administrative activity of the City that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Resolution
Public Meeting COVID-19 Protocols for the City of Healdsburg

6.P
Packet Pg. 272

CITY OF HEALDSBURG
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

HEALDSBURG AND ON BEHALF OF COMMISSIONS AND

COMMITTEES CREATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL

PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 54952(b) AUTHORIZING TELECONFERENCE
MEETINGS IN COMPLIANCE WITH AB 361 (GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 54953(e)) TO CONTINUE TO ALLOW

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SAFELY PARTICIPATE IN

LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEETINGS
WHEREAS, the City Council is committed to ensuring public access to observe and participate in local government meetings; and
WHEREAS, all meetings of the City Council and other legislative bodies created pursuant to Government Code Section 54952(b) are open and public, as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act, so that any member of the public may participate in local government meetings; and
WHEREAS, the recently adopted AB 361, codified at Government Code section 54953(e), makes provisions for remote teleconferencing participation in local government meetings, without compliance with the requirements 54953(b)(3), subject to the existence of certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency due to the outbreak of respiratory illness due to a novel coronavirus (now known as COVID 19) and that State of Emergency is still in effect in the State of California; and WHEREAS, the Sonoma County Public Health Officer continues to recommend teleconferencing or social distancing during public meetings of all legislative bodies to protect the community’s health against the spread of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, the City Council, acting as a legislative body pursuant to Government Code section 54952(a) and for the benefit of the commissions, committees and other bodies that were created by the City Council pursuant to Government Code section 54952(b) (collectively referred to as “Legislative Bodies”), finds that the current conditions meet the circumstances set forth in Government Code section 54953(e)(3) to allow Legislative Bodies to continue to use teleconferencing to hold open and public meetings if the Legislative Bodies comply with the requirements set forth in Government Code section 54953(e)(2) to ensure the public can safely participate in and observe local government meetings.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Healdsburg that the City Council does hereby:

1. Find that Current Conditions Authorize Teleconference Public Meetings of

6.P.a
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Resolution (3740 : Resolution authorizing remote meetings) Resolution No. -2022

Legislative Bodies. Based on the California Governor’s continued declaration of a State of Emergency and the Sonoma County Public Health Officer’s recommendation to continue teleconferencing or social distancing during public meetings, the City Council finds that the conditions continue to exist pursuant to Government Code section 54953(e)(3) to allow Legislative Bodies to use teleconferencing to hold public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(2) to ensure members of the public have continued access to safely observe and participate in local government meetings.

2. Authorize Legislative Bodies to Conduct Teleconference Meetings. The Legislative Bodies are hereby authorized to take all actions necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Resolution, including conducting open and public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(2) and other applicable provisions of the Brown Act.

3. Authorize Legislative Bodies to Conduct Hybrid Meetings. The Legislative Bodies are hereby authorized to conduct meetings in a “hybrid” format, whereby members of the Body and members of the public may elect to be present in person, utilizing appropriate safety procedures, or participate by teleconferencing technology. Such meetings of the Legislative Bodies that occur using teleconferencing technology will provide an opportunity for any and all members of the public who wish to address Legislative Bodies to do so, and will otherwise occur in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of members of the public attending the meeting via teleconferencing. In-person meetings will be held consistent with the protocols described in Exhibit A to this Resolution.

PASSED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Healdsburg, County of Sonoma, State of California, this 6th day of September 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers: ( )
NOES: Councilmembers: ( )
ABSENT: Councilmembers: ( )
ABSTAINING: Councilmembers: ( )
SO ORDERED: ATTEST:
________________________________ ___________________________________ Osvaldo Jimenez, Mayor Raina Allan, City Clerk

6.P.a
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Resolution (3740 : Resolution authorizing remote meetings)

PUBLIC MEETING COVID-19 PROTOCOLS

FOR THE CITY OF HEALDSBURG
SCOPE: These protocols shall apply to all public meetings held in the Council Chamber located at Healdsburg City Hall, 401 Grove Street, Healdsburg, California, by the City Council and by any and all boards, committees and commissions created and/or appointed by the City Council.

APPLICABILITY: These protocols shall apply to all participants, including members of the public, elected officials, appointed members of all boards, committees and commissions, city staff, consultants, applicants, contractors, and any other person or individual attending or participating in a public meeting in the Council Chamber.

In addition to these protocols, the City of Healdsburg will follow all laws, regulations, policies, and orders from all relevant public agencies, including the Center for Disease Control, California Department of Public Health, CalOSHA, and the Sonoma County Public Health Officer.

PURPOSE: The City intends to implement a hybrid public meeting format to allow all participants of a public meeting in the Council Chamber to participate either in-person or remotely via teleconference in a manner consistent with provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act. Due to the fact that all participants of a public meeting that choose to participate in-person in the Council Chamber will therefore be in a confined indoor space and, the period of confinement will more likely than not be longer than 15 minutes, the City is adopting these protocols to protect the public health, safety and general welfare and thereby limit the potential risks associated with COVID-19.

COMMITMENT TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None of the protocols established herein are intended to limit public participation by participants of a public meeting in the Council Chamber in any way; indeed, the intent is to protect the statutory and constitutional rights of participants appearing before the legislative bodies of the City of Healdsburg, while protecting the public health, safety and general welfare. Any participant of a public meeting that desires to participate in-person in the Council Chamber that is unable or unwilling to comply with the inperson attendance protocol outlined below, or otherwise chooses not to participate in-person in a public meeting in the Council Chamber, will have the right and ability to participate in a public meeting in the Council Chamber remotely via teleconference in a manner consistent with provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act.

IN-PERSON ATTENDANCE PROTOCOL:

1. Social Distancing and Occupancy Limits: The occupancy limit in the Council Chamber will be reduced by at least 50%.
a. Due to limited capacity, participants who indicate they are only interested in a specific item may be asked to wait outside the Council Chamber until their item is called on the agenda.
b. City staff will monitor occupancy within the Council Chamber to ensure proper social distancing is maintained. All participants of a public meeting permitted entry into the Council Chamber shall obey all directions from City staff provided to ensure proper social distancing is maintained. Any participant of a public meeting permitted entry into the Council Chamber who fails or refuses to obey the directions

6.P.b
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Public Meeting COVID-19 Protocols for the City of Healdsburg (3740 : Resolution authorizing remote meetings)

from City staff provided to ensure social distancing, following one or more warning(s) from an appropriate City official, shall leave the Council Chamber upon instruction from an appropriate City official.
c. City staff and outside consultants to the City will, as appropriate or directed by the City Manager, participate in the public meeting remotely via teleconference.

2. Enforcement: In the event a participant of a public meeting in the Council Chamber refuses or fails to obey a decision, direction or instruction of an appropriate City official issued pursuant to these In-Person Attendance Protocols, the Chief of Police, or his or her designee, may in his or her discretion, or at the direction of the City Manager or the Presiding Officer of the public meeting, take appropriate and reasonable steps to enforce the decision, direction or instruction of the appropriate City official and/or remove the offending participant from the Council Chamber. Additionally, the Presiding Officer of the public meeting may, in his or her discretion, suspend and adjourn the public meeting and/or clear the Council Chamber of all participants in the event of a disturbance and/or disruption to the public meeting, and thereafter reconvene the public meeting once the matter is resolved.

CLEANING PROTOCOL: The Council Chamber shall be professionally cleaned after each public meeting. City staff will additionally use an electrostatic cleaner to disinfect the Council Chamber after each use.

AIR FILTRATION: Air control settings in the Council Chamber will be adjusted to allow for maximum fresh air flow during public meetings. When conditions allow, doors may be left open to facilitate additional fresh air circulation.

DISTRIBUTION OF PROTOCOLS TO PARTICIPANTS: A copy of these protocols shall be published and posted on the City’s website and shall be made available at the entry to the Council Chamber for distribution to all participants of a public meeting seeking to gain entry to the Council Chamber.

CHANGES TO PROTOCOL: The City Council may, from time to time, amend, modify, suspend and/or terminate and repeal all or any portion of these protocols as it may determine to be appropriate and necessary in consideration of changes in conditions or the need to protect the statutory and constitutional rights of participants appearing before the legislative bodies of the City of Healdsburg, while protecting the public health, safety and general welfare.

6.P.b
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Public Meeting COVID-19 Protocols for the City of Healdsburg (3740 : Resolution authorizing remote meetings)

CITY OF HEALDSBURG

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 6, 2022
SUBJECT: Healdsburg's 2022 Electrification Reach Code
PREPARED BY: Terra Sampson, Utility Conservation Analyst STRATEGIC INITIATIVE(S):

Pursue Initiatives that Promote Environmental Stewardship Maintain and Enhance Public Health and Safety
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Introduce for first reading, by title only, waiving further reading of the text, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Healdsburg amending section 15.04.080 of the Healdsburg Municipal Code.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT/OUTREACH:

During the development and adoption of the City’s current reach code, several public meetings were held allowing for public comment. The reach code was also discussed during the February 7, 2022 Council meeting. A public hearing notice was provided for the September 6th meeting, and public website updates were completed for this item.

BACKGROUND:

Local governments can adopt optional local building code amendments, known as “reach codes”, that exceed state code standards. Cities and Counties can adopt amendments to the Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6) and California Green Building Standards CALGreen (Title 24, Part 11) codes to meet local environmental goals.

On December 16, 2019, City Council of the City of Healdsburg passed Ordinance No. 1196 to adopt a local reach code. The City’s existing reach code will expire with the current building code cycle on December 31, 2022. To continue to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with new construction, the City now needs to adopt a replacement reach code that will go into effect on January 1, 2023, in alignment with the new building code cycle.

GHG Emissions
In the upcoming code cycle, the City has forecasted the construction of approximately 360 single family and multi-family dwelling units, a combination of market-rate and affordable housing.

7.A
Packet Pg. 277
Below, the table quantifies the estimated avoided Greenhouse Gases (“GHG”) emissions of a 2022 code compliant home that is all-electric.

Annual GHG Emissions Avoided per home in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent Electrification Reach Code
Annual GHG Emissions
Avoided per home
(MTCO2e)**
Annual GHG Emissions
Avoided for all homes
(MTCO2e)**
90 Single Family Dwellings 0.723 65.07
270 Multi-Family Dwellings 0.374* 100.99
*According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration 2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey, apartments use 52% of the energy used in a single family home. This factor is applied to the single-family savings estimate in lieu of the Statewide Reach Codes Program analysis, which is not available for multi-family construction at this time. **For new homes that use the natural gas cooking appliance exception, these homes would have an estimated .14 MTCO2e fewer avoided emissions per year, totaling 52 MTCO2e if all new homes use the exemption. Homes that use the natural gas fireplace exception would have an estimated .11 MTCO2e fewer avoided emissions per year, totaling 41 MTCO2e if all new homes use the exemption.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration 2020 Residential Energy Consumption Survey, electricity is the most-used range fuel for cooking appliances with both an oven and a cooktop. Nationwide, 59% of housing units use electricity for their cooking range. In the Pacific West region, 43% of housing units use electricity and 46% use natural gas. If the cooktop and oven are separate appliances, it is most common in the Pacific West region to use natural gas for the cooktop (66% of housing units with a separate cooktop) and electricity for the oven (76% of housing units with a separate oven). Nationwide, electricity is the most common fuel source for both appliances (50% for cooktops and 85% for ovens). It is also notable that all affordable multi-family housing currently under construction in Healdsburg is all-electric and without gas appliances.

If all new homes in 2023-2025 are built as all-electric, it would avoid 166 MTCO2e of emissions annually. For context, the floating solar project saved 1,249 MTCO2e in 2021, the Recology’s electric garbage truck is estimated to avoid 65 MTCO2e per year, energy efficiency programs saved 37 MTCO2e in 2021, and the Sonoma County Transit electric bus that services Healdsburg is estimated to avoid 30 MTCO2e per year.

City Council Direction
Staff presented reach code options at the February 7, 2022 City Council meeting. At the meeting, City Council directed staff to develop an ordinance to continue the building electrification requirements for electric space and water heating but allowing natural gas for cooking and decorative fireplaces for low rise residential and non-residential newly constructed buildings.

Additionally, City Council directed staff to add pool and spa systems in the building

7.A
Packet Pg. 278
electrification requirements, which are exempt in the City’s current reach code.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

The proposed reach code ordinance requires electric heating and water heating appliances in newly constructed buildings but allows for gas cooking and decorative fireplaces. Space heating and water heating accounts for approximately two-thirds of average residential energy use.

Requiring these uses to be electric results in a measurable reduction of overall energy consumption and GHG emissions. A single family all-electric code compliant home is estimated to save 12 MMBTU of energy annually as compared to a standard mixed fuel code compliant home.

Proposed Reach Code
The proposed reach code applies to newly constructed buildings and buildings determined to be substantially remodeled. Based on City Council direction on February 7, 2022, the reach code ordinance for the City of Healdsburg would have the following standards and requirements:

Summary of proposed Reach Code requirements and standards Building Type Requirements and Standards
New Residential Buildings
(single family and multi-family)
Requires all-electric building for: space heating, water heating, clothes drying, pool and spa heating equipment
Exceptions:

Natural gas can be used for cooking and decorative direct-vent sealed-combustion type fireplaces
Attached accessory dwelling units are exempt, if using the existing primary dwelling’s mixed fuel system
Projects required to correct existing health, sanitary or safety code violations
Mitigation Measure:

Pre-wiring for electric appliances is required where natural gas appliances are used
New Non-Residential Buildings
Requires all-electric building for: space heating, water heating, clothes drying, pool and spa heating equipment
Exceptions:

Natural gas can be used for cooking and decorative direct-vent sealed-combustion type fireplaces
Projects required to correct existing health, sanitary or safety code violations
Essential service and public facilities (i.e., fire or police stations) may apply for exemption
Non-residential buildings may apply for exemptions under certain conditions
Mitigation Measure:

7.A
Packet Pg. 279
For all exemptions, natural gas appliance locations must be electrically pre-wired for future appliance installation when feasible
The California Energy Commission (CEC) has concluded that the all-electric requirement does not constitute an energy efficiency or conservation standard and is outside their scope, and that the all-electric requirement amendments be made in Part 11 of Title 24, called the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). The CEC reviewed the draft ordinance on August 23, 2022 and determined that it does not fall within their jurisdiction. The proposed amendments outlined above will be applied to the 2022 CALGreen. Buildings will still be required to meet the standards set forth in all parts of the 2022 California Building Standards Code as adopted by the City of Healdsburg, including the California Energy Code.

Cost Effectiveness
The California Energy Codes & Standards available studies present the research and cost effectiveness analysis of various building prototypes with different reach code options. However, cost effectiveness is not a requirement for amendments to CALGreen.

In 2019, the City had the cost-effectiveness analyses performed for Healdsburg’s electric rates, which differ from the investor-owned utility rates in California. The 2019 analyses found that it was cost-effective to construct all-electric buildings compared to the 2019 Standards Alternative Calculation Method (ACM) baseline.
2022 state-wide results are currently available for single-family homes and are shown below.

All-electric buildings are cost-effective under the 2022 code in part due to 1) cost savings experienced upfront in the construction phase by avoiding the cost to install natural gas infrastructure, 2) 2022 code prescriptively required heat pumps for space heating and water heating, and 3) 2022 code requirement for pre-wiring for all-electric appliances in residential mixed-fuel buildings. As additional cost-effectiveness studies are completed by the California Energy Codes & Standards, they will be shared with Council. ***The results above are based on investor-owned utility rates, which are higher than the Healdsburg electric rates.

The results are also based on state-wide electric emissions, which Healdsburg electric emission rate is lower than the state average.

7.A
Packet Pg. 280
Increased energy efficiency, high efficiency heat pump water heaters, and solar also increase cost-effectiveness, particularly for on-bill savings. New buildings are encouraged, but not required, to select higher efficiency appliances when possible.

Next Steps
If adopted by City Council on September 6 and September 19, staff will submit the proposed reach code to the Buildings Standards Commission (BSC). This Ordinance shall become effective upon the date the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) accepts the ordinance for filing, but in no event before January 1, 2023.

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP:

Healdsburg’s two largest producers of GHG emissions are the transportation sector and the building sector. The current reach code has reduced GHG emissions associated with new buildings and substantially remodeled buildings. Continuation of a policy to require all-electric buildings will support the Council’s goals to reduce GHG emissions and stem climate change.

ALTERNATIVES:

The City Council could choose to modify various aspects of the staff recommendations to accommodate a more precise application. This could include an all-electric reach code with different exemptions.

No Action: The City Council could direct staff to not pursue a replacement for the existing reach code and rely on state regulations for the control of GHG emissions. As the current and proposed building codes do not entirely require building electrification, this alternative would not achieve the Council’s goals of reducing GHG emissions. The City Council could therefore provide further direction to staff on how to achieve an equivalent GHG reduction and meet the Council’s climate goals.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Staff time to develop this program is within existing approved budgets. Staff will require support from qualified consultants experienced in the implementation and enforcement of building electrification policies over the next code cycle. Costs to implement and enforce the requirement are not expected to exceed $30,000 and are planned to be funded with proceeds from the sale of Cap-and-Trade greenhouse gas allowances over the three-year code cycle.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:

The City Council finds, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), that this ordinance is exempt from the requirements of CEQA on the grounds that these standards are more stringent than the State green building standards, there are no reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts and there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.

This ordinance is also exempt under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15307 and 15308 on the grounds that: a) the City, as a regulatory agency, is authorized to amend the Energy Code and Green Building Standards Code; b) this ordinance assures the maintenance and protection of the environment by amending the Green Building Standards Code to impose more stringent all7.A Packet Pg. 281
electric energy requirements for future building; and c) the Ordinance will institute regulatory requirements intended to protect the environment and natural resources, as the Ordinance will require the installation of less natural gas infrastructure and reduce the amount of GHG gas emissions in the City that are produced from buildings, and reduce the risk of catastrophic infrastructure failure, including explosions and fires caused by breaks and leaks in the natural gas distribution system as a result of upset conditions due to deferred maintenance or following an earthquake.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Ordinance
2019 Non-Residential Cost Effectiveness Study
2019 Residential Cost Effectiveness Study
2019 Healdsburg Electric Cost Effectiveness
2019 TRC All Electric Memo

7.A
Packet Pg. 282

CITY OF HEALDSBURG
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

HEALDSBURG AMENDING HEALDSBURG MUNICIPAL
CODE SECTION 15.04.080, CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE

AMENDMENTS TO ADOPT AN AMENDED

ELECTRIFICATION REACH CODE
WHEREAS, greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere as the result of human activity is the primary cause of the global climate crisis; and WHEREAS, the State of California enacted Senate Bill (SB) 32 to require that greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions be reduced to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-55-18 establishing a statewide target of carbon neutrality by 2045; and WHEREAS, California has committed to transition the state's electricity to 100% clean energy sources before 2045; and
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2019, the City Council of the City of Healdsburg passed Resolution No. 120-2019 declaring a climate emergency, and joined a nationwide call for a just transition away from fossil fuels; and
WHEREAS, on December 16, 2019, the City Council of the City of Healdsburg passed Ordinance No. 1196-2019 to adopt a local Reach Code, which expires on December 31, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Sonoma Climate Mobilization Strategy by the Regional Climate Protection Authority was adopted on March 8, 2021, which encourages local jurisdictions to pursue Reach Codes as a means to reduce GHG emissions; and WHEREAS, on February 7, 2022, the City Council of the City of Healdsburg reviewed and considered updated Reach Code options and provided direction to staff to proceed in development of an all-electric Reach Code with exceptions; and WHEREAS, in order to achieve carbon neutrality, the burning of fossil fuels and new sources of greenhouse gas emissions must be substantially reduced or eliminated; and WHEREAS, the California Building Standards Code, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, is updated every three years by the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), and the most recent edition was published July 1, 2022, and will be effective throughout California January 1, 2023; and
WHEREAS, in addition to enforcing the Title 24 standards, local jurisdictions are authorized by Health & Safety Code sections 18941.5, 17958.5, and 17958.7 to adopt local ordinances that change or are more restrictive than the minimum standards defined by Title 24

7.A.a
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Ordinance [Revision 1] (3738 : 2022 Electrification Reach Code) Ordinance No.