Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Animal Services in Sonoma County Jurors questioned how contracts were awruded. It became clear that NBAS proposals offered a full range ofservices for prices below those of competitors. Most ofthe multi-year contracts, including one for 10 years, are for flat annual payments without escalation clauses to accommodate increased costs.
It is unsurprising that the cities did not question whether NBAS bids were sufficient to provide contract services. The low cost would be desirable fthe terms ofthe contracts were being fulfilled. However, they are not. What the Jurors did not anticipate was the uniform lack of oversight and outright denial about NBAS shortcomings that was revealed in every city interview.
Each city official interviewed by the Grand Jury stated that they weren't aware ofsignificant issues with NBAS. Based on multiple interviews, the Grand Jury confirmed the original complaint, that NBAS is operating with insu{ficient oversight by its board of directors or the cities with which it contracts.
CONCLUSIONS
a Most Sonoma County residents are receiving animal services that approach, achieve, or even exceed industry standards. However, this is not the case for the over 20%o aflected by city contracts with NBAS.
The existing decentralization of animal control and shelter services and the lack of oversight by the county, the four Sonoma County cities with NBAS contracts, or by the agency's board ofdirectors, has allowed unacceptable performance by NBAS to persist without intervention.
The NBAS proposals on which its contracts are based promise an extensive range of services for a cost that is far below the budgeted costs of either SCAS or RPAS. The result is that NBAS is inadequately funded to fulfill its responsibilities.
In recent years, as an underfunded and underperforming non-profit agency, NBAS has failed to provide animal services which are compliant with state mandates and contract provisions. The 2012 DHS report cautioned that insufficient oversight could lead to this situation.
The existing fragmentation of services is inefficient and confusing for members of the public. It makes it difficult to know where to call in an emergency, or how to access needed services. Fees for licensing and services vary as does the range and quality of information available on websites and the ability to contact a shelter or animal control officer.
The lack ofshared data and communication channels poses unique challenges for animal control agencies, the County Deparunent of Health Services, and the Ofiice of Emergency Management. lt hampers compliance with legally mandated management and reporting of licensing data and the quarantine and tracking ofpotentially dangerous animals. It makes it more difficult for owners to locate lost pes. It can delay or disrupt response to emergency situations.
Following a series of disastrous fires and floods, the County appointed the SCAS Director as animal liaison to participate in development of the Sonoma County Emergency Operations Plan. ln 2018, it added an animal disaster response plan with t4
Agenda Item #9.3:
Sonoma County CiYil Grand Jury Animal Services in Sonoma County defined procedures and established MOUs to define roles for key NGOs. NBAS is not among these partners and not all cities have developed such plans. . Funding constraints and a lack ofcoordination among agencies leaves most municipal and non-profit shelters struggling to accomplish support functions that are essential to all such as timely license renewals and invoicing for fees, staff and volunteer Eaining, and maintenance of websites to provide effective public outreach. Thoughtful centralization ofsome or all these functions could lead to improved, cost-efficient solutions, and increased revenue collection.
. Rabies control efforts are undermined by failure to achieve high levels ofpet licensing and implement spay/neuter programs for population control. Failure to collect license and shelter service fees results in the loss of revenue to support animal services.
COMMENDATIONS
The Grand Jury recognized the steady progress achieved by SCAS to comply with best practices, and other recommendations contained in the 2012 DHS report. This progress is acknowledged in subsequent reports to the Board of Supervisors and is, in part, due to the Board's on-going oversight and support of improved animal services.
The exceptional volunteer and financial support provided to the Rohnert Park Animal Shelter by its community is testimony to the value of well-run, conveniently located facilities. At the Humane Society ofSonoma County, we experienced an independent non-profit shelter with minimal public funding whose public engagement and service on behalf of animals extends across city and county boundaries.
While our investigation did not extend to the dozens of private and non-profit programs caring for Sonoma County animals, we would be remiss not to call out the outstanding shelter and adoption services provided by Pets Lifeline and Dogwood and the exemplary work of Forgotten Felines to control populations ofpet and feral cats. These non-profit organizations depend on the generosity and volunteer support ofthe community. Our hats are offto all those who care for the county's companion animals.
15 Agenda Item #9.3:
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Animal Services in Sonoma County
FINDINGS
Fl. Failure by the county and its nine cities to adopt recommendations in the 2012 DHS Animal Services Report has left Sonoma County animal service agencies operating without shared standards, communication channels, data sharing or oversight.
F2. Services provided to the four Sonoma County cities by North Bay Animal Services are non-compliant either with state laws or industry standards for the care ofshelter animals as specified in its contracts.
F3. A lack of coordination between SCAS and NBAS is an obstacle to a fully coordinated implementation of the county-wide disaster response plan for animal evacuations.
F4. [nsufficient funding and stafling make it difficult for some agencies to provide effective training for staff and volunteers.
F5. Insufficient funding and staffmg make it difficult for agencies to maintain websites and social media content required for effective public relations.
F6. Having multiple different fee structures for animal licenses and services is confusing to the public and complicates billing and collection oflicense fees and fines.
F7. Failure to achieve high levels of licensing in all govemment jurisdictions and provide access to shared information undermines mandated rabies control, makes it more difficult to retum lost pets, and results in a loss of revenue.
F8. Based on SCAS data, uniform adoption of online licensing management through DocuPet (or a comparable vendor) would increase county-wide licensing rates and enhance compliance with state law.
F9. Failure to promote the benefits and legal requirement to license dogs, and failing consistently to send license renewal reminders, contribute to low license compliance and loss ofrevenue.
Fl0. Making centralized training resources available could enhance performance of animal services employees and volunteers.
Fll. Insufticient oversight either by the cities or by the organization's board ofdirectors has allowed NBAS to be non-compliant with state law and the terms of its contracts by:
failing to effectively manage licensing and renewals; failing to offer legally mandated rabies vaccination clinics; lailing to perlorm legally mandated spay/neuter of animals prior to placement; failing to consistently submit bite reports to the county health officer (through SCAS); failing to maintain the Petaluma animal shelter in compliance with industry standards; and failing to collect accurate data and provide reports that demonstrate compliance with contract terms.
Fl2. A lack ofresponsiveness to phone calls has eroded public confidence in the ability of NBAS to respond in a timely manner to calls for service or follow-up.
F13. While NBAS is responsible for general maintenance of the shelter, the City of Petaluma is not exercising due diligence with regard to facilities maintenanca and repair, which may include an adequate ventilation system based upon the Grand Jury's observations during its visits,
RECOMMENDATIONS
l6
Agenda Item #9.3:
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Animal Services in Sonoma County Rl. By November 1,2025, the Board of Supervisors will direct DHS to establish an Animal Services Task Force comprising county, city, and shelter representatives to revisit the 2012 DHS Animal Services Report and recommend a govemance structure for animal services that will: 1) provide county-wide oversight to ensure compliance with State Law; 2) standardize fees and engage a common licensing vendor to enhance public health and safety, licensing rates and revenue, and; 3) achieve economic efficiencies through shared resources. (Fl, F3, F4-F6 and F9-Fl0)
R2. By January l, 2026, each of Sonoma County's 9 cities will delegate one or more representatives to participate in the county-wide Animal Services Task Force convened by DHS. (Fl)
R3. By January l, 2026, the director or supervisor of SCAS, HSSC, RPAS, and NBAS will commit to participating in the county-wide Animal Services Task Force. (F I ) R4. By May 1,2026, the Board of Supervisors will direct DHS to launch a county-wide public information campaign in cooperation with the cities to explain the legal imperative and benefits of licensing pets. The campaign will commence no later than July 1,2026. (F7-F9)
R5. By November l, 2025, each city contracting with North Bay Animal Services will inspect and evaluate the shelter condition, and evaluate the shelter operation and animal control services, to determine whether NBAS is complying with legal mandates and other terms of its contract. (F2, Fl l-Fl2)
R6. By September 30, 2025, each of the cities that contracts with NBAS will require quarterly reports that include data and performance criteria sufficient to eyaluate compliance with its contract and all relevant laws. (F2, Fl l) R7. By November 1,2025, the Petaluma City Council will direct staff to implement a facilities assessment of the city-owned shelter and submit a report offindings related to the adequacy ofthe HVAC system and any improvements that may be required for the health and safety of animals and humans. (F13)
R8. By June l,2026, the City of Petaluma will correct any identified ventilation and/or other defects that put animal and/or human health and safety at risk. (F 13)
REQUTRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code $$ 933 and 933.05, the grand jury requires responses as follows:
. Sonoma County Board of Supervisors (Rl, R4, and F1, F3-F10) o Departsnent of Health Services Director (Rl, R4, and Fl, F3-Fl0) o The Cloverdale City Council (Rl-R2, R4-6, Fl-F3, F6-F1l) o The Cotati City Council (R1-R2, R4-R5, and Fl and F3-Fl0) o The Healdsburg City Counci[ (Rl-R2, R4-7, F1-F3, F6-Fll) o The Petaluma City Council (Rl-R2, R4-8, Fl-F3, F6-Fl3) o The Rohnert Park City Council (R1-R2, R4-R5, F1, F3-Fl0) o The Santa Rosa City Council (Rl-R2, R4-R5, Fl, F3-Fl0) t7
Agenda Item #9.3:
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Animal Services in Sonoma County . The Sebastopol City Council (Rl-R2, R4-6, Fl-F3, F6-Fll) . The Sonoma City Council (Rl-R2, R4-R5, F1, F3-Fl0)
o The Windsor City Council (RI -R2, R4-6, F1-F3, F6-F I l) The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that their comments and responses must be conducted subject to the rctice, agenda, and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act.
IIIVITED RESPONSES
The Grand Jury invites the following to respond:
o Sonoma County Animal Services Director (Rl, R4, R5, Fl, F3-F10) . The Petaluma City Manager (Rl-R2, R4-8, Fl-F3, F6-Fl3) o Humane Society ofSonoma County (Rl, R3-5, Fl, F3-12)
r North Bay Animal Shelter Executive Director (Rl, R4-R8, Fl -F13) o Rohnert Park Animal Shelter Supervisor (Rl, R3-5, and F I , F3- 12) Reslxtnses must be submitted to the presidingjudge of the Sonoma County Superior Court in accordance with the provisions of the Penal Code section 933.05. Responses must include the information requircd by section 933.05.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
. The Association of Shelter Veterinarians, Guidelines for Standords ofCare in Animal Shelters. Second Edition, December 2022.
https:,/,'g.u'w.aspcapro.ors,rsites/defaululiles./20?l-05/asvsuidelinessecondedition-2022.pdf . The Association of Shelter Veterinarians, Sanitotion in Animal Shelters. September 1, 2023.
https://w'wrv.sheltervet.org/assets/docs/5 Sanitation Final 06AUG?0?4.pdf o County of Sonoma-Department of Health Services, Sonoma County Animal Care and Control Govemance Model Review and Best Practices, August 2012. https://sonoma-counfy.sanicus.com,&letaVierver.pho?vieu' id=Z&clip id=?43&meta id+4249 o Animal Services Facility Needs Assessment Report to the Board of Supervisors, September 12,2023
https:,?sono ma-county . leqistar.c om./gatervav.asox?rn=l&id=lmatter.asox?kev= I 2398 County of Sonoma - Animal Services, Sonoma County Animab in Disaster Response Plan, December 2018
s:,/ l 0 lv F calo/o
?0 Sen'ic e s,Em e rgenclo/o20 IVlanagement/Doc uments/Archive/Administration/Services/2 I 4755365415CA SAnimaLAnnexo/o20FT,\{AL%2020 I 8%20DEC.odf
o State of Califomia Department of Finance, Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State-January l, 2023, and 2021,May 2024. https://dof.ca. gov/forecastin&/demographics/estimates-e I / l8
Agenda Item #9.3:
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Animal Services in Sonoma Countv . Califomia Department of Food and Agricultr-rre, Pet Ownership Calculator https://$rrrr.cdfaca.sov/ffi al_Heahh/eDrydocs/pet_ownersh o 2017 -2018 Sonoma County Civil Grand lrury, The Evacuation and Sheltering of Animals During the Firestorm of October 2017 .
httos://sonoma.courts.ca.govis-vstemitiles/grand-jury/gi-2017-201 8-finalrepon.odf l9
Agenda Item #9.3:
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury
APPENDIX A
Animal Related Regulations
ANIMAL CONTROL/SHELTERING
LICENSINGMICROCHIPPING
RABIES & VACCINATIONS
SPAYTNEUTER
Animal Sewices in Sonoma Countv
Depositary of animals must provide food,
shelter & veterinary care
Civil Code $1834.4 No animal shall be euthanized if it is adoptable
Humane Offi cers Appointment.
Reappointment & Training
Food and Ag $30503.5 Dog bite disclosure
Food and Ag $31 105 The taking up and impounding of alt dogs found running at large
Food and Ag $31 108 Provide for holding period for lost animals Food and Ag $g3l60l -31626; $$31641-
31646
Dangerous and vicious dog
Penal Code $597 Humane treatment of animals
Penal Code $599(d) Policy on euthanasia of adoptable or treatable animal
Food and Ag $30502 € Dog license tags provide for the keeping of a record to identity ofthe dog owner
Food and Ag $30652 Use offees for issuance ofdog license tags and fines
Food and Ag $3 I 752.1 Cats: Microchip implants requirement Health and Safety $ 121690 (a) Owner required to license any dog over the age of 4 months.
Califomia Code of Regulation $2606 Rabies, requires reporting of bites and quarantine of animals
Califomia Code of Regulation $2606.4 Officialty declared rabies areas along with requirement of licensing and vaccination:
requires rabies control activities reporting
Health and Safety Code $ I 2 1585
Health and Safety $ 12 1690 (a) - (e) Rabies Areas, licensing and vaccinations; duty ofthe goveming body to provide for a
rabies control program
Health and Safety $ I 2l 690 (0 Requires govemments to provide rabies clinics
Food and Ag $30503 Spay/neuter of dogs
Food and Ag $30503(aXl ) Spay/neuter of dogs prior to adoption Food and Ag $3 I 75 I .3 Spay and neuter of cats prior to adoption 20 Civil Code $1834
Corporations Code $ 14502
Defi nition of rabies area
Agenda Item #9.3:
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury
APPENDIX B
Animal Services in Sonoma County
Dog License Fees*
Citv/Aree Spayed/
Neutered
Intact
Animal
UDincorporated County sl6 $r9
Santa Rosa $r6 $r9
Cloverdale $20 s40
Healdsburg sls $30
Petaluma $20 $25
Windsor $20
Sebastopol $20 $50
Citv of Sonoma s2s s50
Rohnert Park (Dogs & Cats) $18 $36
Cotati (Cats voluntary) s20 $40
+Jurisdictions also offer different corrcessions, e.g., for seniors, veterans, or multiple pets.
2l
Agenda Item #9.3:
Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Animal Services in Sonoma County
APPENDIX C
Dog Licensing Compliance Data
Area 2023-24
Population*
Estimated
#of
Dogs**
2023
Licenses
Unincorporated 130,777 30,904 I3, 160 43Yo 9,726 3t%
Santa Rosa 174,890 41,328 I1,86? 29o/o 9,629 23%
Total SCAS* 305,667 72,2i2 25,027 3s%o 19,355 27v"
Cloverdale 8,710 2.058 617 30% 350 t7%
Healdsburg 10,985 2,596 39i l5Yo 282 |%
Petaluma 58,445 r3,81r 1,833 l3o/o 1,488 tr%
Sebastopol 7,295 1,724 230 l3Yo t4%
Windsor 25,394 6,001 1 .017 lTYo 822 t4%
Total NBAS 110,829 t,090 t6v" 3,175 t2v"
Sonoma City 10.532 2.489 NA 368 t5%
Rohnert Park 43,821 10,355 NA NA NA NA
Cotati 7,303 t,726 NA NA NA NA
Total Other 61,656 14,570
Countl.wide 178,152 112,992
*Population data source: hnDs:idofca.qor,:forecastingrdemosraDhicsi estimater-e1.' **Pet Calculator hnps:r','**rv.cdli.ca.eov/.A.HFSS,j.A.nimal Healthrepn,rdocs,'oet ownershiD calculator.pdf License dara provided by SCAS and NBAS
Note: NBAS contract with Healdsburg tel]Jj,inated2129l25 Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 requires thal reports ofthe Grand Jury nol contain the name of any person or facts leading lo lhe identity ofany person who provides information to lhe Civil Gra d Jury. 22 2024
Licenses #oA
26,190
NA
Agenda Item #9.3:
READ AND CONSIDE ED
BY
Who Can Afford to Live in Sonoma County?
A Tale of Two Cittes
SI]MMARY
Sonoma County, renowned for its picturesque landscapes and vibrant culture, is increasingly becoming a challenging place for many of its essential residents to call home. Service workers, agricultural laborers, teachers, and young families-the very backbone of the community-are finding it increasingly difficuh to afford housing in a region where the median sales price of a home reached a staggering $900 000 in April 2025. This price tag is simply out of reach for most homebuyers.
The pressing question beconps: how can Sonoma County makehousingmore affordable for these vital populations?
To address &is issue, it is crucial to define what we mean by "affordable housing." The U.S. Department of Housingand Urban Development ([IUD) defines affordable housing as housing that costs no more than 3 0olo of a household's gross income, encompassing both rental options and homeownership.
A report from the 2021-22 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury, ritled " and FutureL", provided a thorough examination ofthe affordable housing landscape in the county. The report revealed a significant shortfall in affordable housing, a situation exacerbated by rising construction costs, inticate financing challenges, and a scarcity of available land.
Unfortr:nately, the situation has not improved over the past two years. The California Departrnent of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has mandated that Sonoma Cowrty constuct 14.562 neu houlinllunits belween 2Q23 and 203 ! I through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation GHNA) process. While this figure may seem substantial, organizations like the non-profit Generation Ilousinq argue that it falls short of meeting the County's futcre housing needs.
The importance of foste ring a diverse mix of housing options cannot be overstated. A stable community benefits everyone. It is essential for families and workers to be able to afford to stay in the area.
Accordingto the October2024 report Star.of Horsinsin I from Generation Housing 3 1.4% of Sonoma County's worldorce commutes from outside the region, a tend that strains the local economy, exacerbates traffic congestion, increases the carbon footpring and adversely affects the health and educational outcomes of those workers and their families.
This report aims to shed light on the complexities of developing affordable housing and to showcase the strategies employed by two particular cities to promote such development. It discusses the contrasting approachesoftwo communities: Healdsburg, an affluent town celebrated for its tourism, historic plaza, and wine estates, and Rohnert Park, a more modest community known for is family-friendly afinosphere, Sonoma State Univenity, and the Graton Rancheria. Both cities have received the hohousing Designation from the State of Califomia and are on track to meet their expanded RHNA goals, offering a glimpse of hope in the ongoing struggle for affordable housing in Sonoma County.
This analysis examines the multifaceted strategies employed by these two municipalities to foster the development of affordable housing. It focuses on four critical elements: Growth Management and Land Acquisition, Entitlement Process, Financing Mechanisms, and Leadership and Community Involvemort lhtlps://sonoma.courts.cagov/syste(n,/lrles/affordable-housing-past-present-future.pdf 2 htQs://permitsonoma"org/housiDgelement
3hups ://generationhousingorg/resources/
Who Can Live h SGrma C-ounty? Page I of l7
snrGf '/f ?-;
Agenda Item #9.3:
Through a comparative case study approach, this report sets out the policies, programs, and collaborative efforts undertaken by these cities, highlighting successful interventions and persistent challenges in addressing regional housing affordability crises.
GLOSSARY
o ABAG: Association of Bay Area Govemments
o Affordable Housing: As defined by HUD, housing that costs no more that 30 percent ofa household's gross income
o Deed Restricted: A mechanism to ensure that homes or rental units remain affordable for lowincome residents for a set period, typically 55 years o Inclusionary Housing: A program that requires developers to build a percentage of new residential units which will be rented or sold at affordable prices based on income o Prevailing Wage: The minimum hourly rate of wages and benefits that contractors must pay workers on public works projects, set by the Califomia Department of Indusrial Relations o Pmhousirg Designation: Califomia Departrnent of Housing and Community Development acknowledges a jurisdiction that has gone beyond the state law to help accelerate housing production
o RHNA: Regional Housing Needs Allocation - State-mandated process that determines the number of housing units each city and county need
o Surplus Pmperty: Per the Surplus Property Act, land owned bya local public agency that is no longer necessary for the agency's use and that has been formally declared surplus by the agency. This land is then made available for affordable housing development under ceftain conditions
BACKGROUND
Sonoma County is grappling with a critical shortage of affordable housing, a situation worsened by rising construction costs, intricate financing challenges, and a scarcity of available land. ln 2022, the Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury released a report titled "Affordable Housing: Past, Present, and Future," which provided an in-depth analysis of the affordable housing landscape in Sonoma County.
This report examined historical policies, cunent obstacles, and future stategies to tackle the region's housing crisis, including a discussion of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation EffNA) process.
The California Sate Legislature mandates that all cities, towns, and counties proactively plan for the housingneeds of their residents. This planning is executed through a Housing Element and the RHNA process. The Califomia Departrnent of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determines the total number of new homes each region must constuct, and the affordability levels required to meet the diverse housing needs of its population. Once these figures are established, regional authorities, such as the Association of Bay Area Govemments (ABAG) for Sonoma County, allocate housing responsibilities among municipalities. Each municipality then updates its Housing Element to demonstrate its capacity to zone sufficient landforthe construction of the required housing units based on its RHNA allocation.
Housing Element plans operate on an eight-year cycle. The current sixth cycle (2023-2031) has set a RHNA goal of 14,562 new housingunits for tle county, a significant increase from the fifth cycle's goal Who Can Live h S0lGna C-ountv? Page 2 of 17
Agenda Item #9.3:
of 8,444 units. These targets encompass a range of housing types, from very low-income to market-rate units. It is important to note that the RHNA goals do not fully capture the total housing need within each county; rather, they represent the number of units for which the county is accountable. Municipalities may notdirectly construct all these units butcan collaborate with and/or incentivize private or non-proffi developers to meet these goals.
This report focuses on two distinct communities: Healdsburg an affluent area renowned for its wineries and tourism, and Rohnert Park, a family-oriented planned community. Both cities are on track to meet thet expanded RHNA goals for 2023-2031 and have achieved a Prohousing Designation. The 2019- 2020 Budget Act introduced a range of support, incentives, and accountability measures aimed at fulfilling California's housing objectives, including the establishment of the hohousing Designation Program. This program recognizes and supports jurisdictions that exceed state housing laws to expedite housing production Jurisdictions with a Prohousing Desigration may benefit from priority processing or additional fundingpoints when applying for various funding programs, including At-fordable Housinq and Slrstainable Communities (AHSC ).4 Furlhermore, this designation allows jurisdictions to apply for the Prohousinq Incentive Prolnarn (PlP):, which rewards local governments with extra funding to accelerate the production and preservation of affordable housing.
Ilealdsburg
Healdsburg has a long and rich history, beginning as the home of the Indigenous Pomo people. In the 19th century, the region came under Mexican control following a military campaign led by General Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo. In I 841, 50,000 acres were granted to Henry Delano Fitch, who introduced catde ranching to the area. Following Fitch's death, his widow sold portions of the land to the Anglo govemment. Harmon Heald, who had been homesteading in the area, purchased I 00 acres and formally incorporated the City of Healdsburg in 1867.
Healdsburg quickly grew into a commercial hub, supported by agriculture, timber, and mineral extraction-industries made more accessible by the Northwest Pacific Railway line. Over time, the region's agricultural base expanded to include orchardsand vineyards. By the 1970s, Healdsburg began to establish itself as a premier wine-producing region, drawing estate wineries to Dry Creek and Alexander Valleys and ushering in a growing tourism industry.
During the past 40 years, the City of Healdsburg has transformed from a small town serving the surrounding northem Sonoma County agriculture and other resource-based industries into a vibrant communitSr-center of the county's wine industry, as well as an attraction for destination-based tourism.
Healdsburg growth has been influenced by the county's wine industry, and the city's central plaza where award-winnhg restaurants, destination-oriented retail, and wine tasting shops now dominate retail space.
The plaza's pleasant surrounding residential neighborhoods, protected by planning policies and ballotbased gro*t}r restrictions, have all contributed to this transformation.
Healdsburg's fiscal and economic policies have been highly successful-the expanded retail uses, restaurants and lodging have created a stable and growing tax base for the city which supports high levels of municipal services to its residents. Increasing home values have led to substantial reinvestment and improvement of the existing housing stock, new developrnent, including higher density housing and lodging, and revitalization of existing commercial buildings. 4 htF://nlrw.hcd. ca- gov/gratrrs -arld-funding/programs -active/affordable-hous ing-and-su stainab le-commuoities 5 hnps://w\*1{.hcd. ca.goy/gran ts -and-fundin g/program s-active/prohousing-incentive-program Who Can Live b Smorna County? Page 3 of 17
Agenda Item #9.3:
However, this success has created a housing market that has become unaffordable to long-term residents and families with young children. The city's teachers, agricultural, and hospitality workers are increasingly displaced by rising land prices driven by a supply-constrained market. With a continuing decrease in working families and full-time residents, a variety of demographic effects have set in, including an overall aging of the population, a reduction in school-age population and attendance in local public schools, and a decrease in the percentage of Hispanic households, which have, over the rEcent decades, become the foundation of the local workforce serving agriculture, construction, retail, and lodging industries and which still comprise over 30 percent of the City's population.
Rohnert Park
Rohnert Park, originally agricultural land tied to the Rohne( family and seed farming in the early 20th century, was developed as one of the first planned communities in the United States in the 1950s and officially incorporated in l962.The intent was to develop a family-oriented community with cohesive neighborhoods, whereno child would have to walk more than one-third of a mile to school. At the time, each neighborhood would have 200 to 250 homes around local schools and parks.
At incorporation, Rohnert Park was 2.1 square miles with a population of 2,775. Growth exploded in the l970sand 80s, when two-thirds of the current housingunir were built. By 1999, the city occupied 6.9 square miles, nearly half of which was dedicated to residential use for its population of approximately 41,000. Since the year2000, the city has continuedto grow in size and add population. As of January l, 2020,the city had a populaion of 44,330 and land area of approximately 7.7 square miles. Rohnert Park is the third largest city in Sonoma County and has the highest population density in the county at over 6,000 residents per square mile.
Housing Goals for llealdsburg and Rohnert Park
Below are charts which describe the Regional Housing Needs Assessme t Goals for both communities, detailing the number of units by income category.
Healdsbwg
ln the fifth cycle Q014-2022),Heald$urg's RHNA goal was to build 157 housing units. The city built 342 units, exceeding its goal in all income categories. For the sixth cycle, Healdsburg's goal is 476 units. The city anticipates building 977 units, again exceeding goals in all income categories. Table I was provided to the Grand Jury by Healdsburg Housing staff.
Table 1: HeaLdsbu Housin P ress 202331 RH
See Appendix A for income range chaft
Rohnert Park
For the fifth cycle, Rohnert Park's RHNA goal was 899 new houses. It actually built I ,978, although the majority were above moderate income. Rohnert Park's sixth cycle RHNA goal is 1,580 units. Table 2, provided to the Grand Jury by Rohnert Park Housing staff, shows the city plans to build 2,834 units, again exceeding their RHNA goal.
Metric
Extremely
Low
lncome
Very Low
lncome
Low
lncome
Moderate
lncome
Above
Moderate
lncome Totats
RHNA Target 83 109 124 476
Totat, Credits 54 174 161 75 513 977
107 49
Who Can Live ir Suroma County?
Agenda Item #9.3:
Metric
very
Lou,
lncome
Low
lncome
Moderate
lncome
Above
Moderate
lncome Totat
RHNA Target 399 230 265 686 1,580
Total Units
(Credits + Sites) 375 128 2,123 2,834
Tabte 2: Rohnert Park Housin Progress (2023-31 RHtIA)
This report will discuss the unique aspects of each city and the strategies each employed to build community will and secure the essential land and financing to make it a reality.
METHODOLOGY
The 2024-2025 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury conducted is investigation into affordable housing issues in the cities of Rohnert Park and Healdsburg. This inquiry was prompted by ongoing community concems regarding the adequacy, availability, and planning of affordable housing in compliance with state mandates, particularly those related to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
To understand the scopeand nuances of affordable housing efforts in these two cities, the Grand Jury undertook the following activities:
o Interviews: The Grand Jury conducted confidential interviews with city officials and staff from the affordable housing depa(ments ofboth Rohne( Park and Healdsburg. Members ofthe respective city councils were also interviewed to gain insight into local housing policy priorities and political considerations.
o Media Review: The Grand Jury reviewed reports and articles from local and regional mass media sources.
o Ilousing Advocate Input: Conversations were held with unaffiliated housing advocates and nonprofit representatives working within Sonoma County. These advocates provided perspectiyes on systemic barriers, funding limitations, and the lived experiences of residents impacted by the lack of affordable housing.
o Document and Data Analysis: The Grand Jury reviewed housing element updates submitted by each city, planning commission meetingrecords, and RHNA allocation data as provided by the Califomia Departnent of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Additional online sources were used to verifo state laws and regulatory frameworks goveming local housing obligations, per the Association of Bay Area Govemments (ABAG).
DISCUSSION
The following discussion focuses on the key components each city is utitizing to reach its goals. The strategies of the cities differ but ultimately result in exceeding their housing targets. The salient ingredients of each city's success are the depth of understanding of necessary resources and development of community will. The catalyst in both cases is a knowledgeable, dedicated staff.
The following sections ofthe discussion will focus on the individual facets of each city's comprehensive strategy to accomplish their goals. Examples from each city are shown.
Who Can Live h Scnqna Cou y? Page 5 of l7
208
Agenda Item #9.3:
1. Introduction: Key Components for Affordable Housing Development The creation and preservation ofaffordable housing in urban and suburban environments necessitate a multi-pronged approach addressing systemic barriers and leveraging local assets. This section investigates how two Sonoma County cities, Healdsburg and Rohnert Park, have addressed four pivotal elements influencing affordable housing provision:
l Growth Management and Land Acquisition
2. Entitlement hocess
3. Financing
4. Leadership and Community Involvement
l.l Growth Management and Land Acquisition Strategies
Effective urban planning requires cities to balance growth pressrres with the imperative to acquire land suitable for affordable housing development in a cost-efficient manner. Both Healdsburg and Rohnert Park have instituted growth management saategies to regulate residential expansion.
Growlh Management Ordinances and General Plans
Healdsbure's Measure M!, enacted in 2000, established limits on residential building permits within the City's urban growth boundry. Subsequent modifications via Veasure P (2018 )l and Measure H (202 0 )! aimed to increase affordable housing opportunities by adjusting these permit allocations. Conversely, Rohnert Park utilizes its General Plan, specific plan areag and zoning ordinances as primary instrumens for growth managemenq thereby facilitating orderly development aligned with regional housing needs assessments. The City monitors demographic trendg employment data, and commute pattems to inform development strategies and address workforce housing requirements.
Headsb urg : Adoptive Growth Manageme nt
Healdsburs's 2000 Growth Manasement Ordinance (GMO)9 resticted the City to an average issuance of 30 residential building permits annually (maximum 90 per triennium), a measure intended to preserve the City's perceived small-town character. In response to escalating housing affordability concems, Measure P (2018) authorized an additional average of 50 annual permits for multi-family rental units, restricted to households eaming up lo ,60% of the Area Median Income (AMI). Measure H (2020) subsequently expanded this allowance to include for-sale units. An attempt in 2024 to further modify the GMO, Measure O, proposed allowing multi-family housing along desigrated Healdsburg Avenue corridors to stimulate middle-income and workforce housing. This measure was not adopted by voters.
Data from the Grand Jury's interviews suggests that yoter concerns centered on potential dilution of downtown character and insufficient safeguards for commrnity interess within the proposed legislation.
Nevertheless, the legislative intent underlying Measure O remains a significant consideration for Healdsburg s housing leadersh ip.
Rohnerl Parh: Urban Growlh Boundaries and Exemptions
Rohnert Park adopted its Urban Growth Bormdaries Act Measure N lo in 2000 to demarcate areas tor development and mitigate urban sprawl. The City's Grouth Manaeement Ordinance (*667)!1, 6https://healdsburggov/Agerdac€rte/ViewFileltem/3 I 47?f etF2403 8 ?https://ballotpedia.org/Healdsburg_Califomi4_Measure_P,_Additiona.l_HousinLPermils-for Retrtal-Units-(November-201 8) 8 htFs://ballotpediaorg/Healdsburg_Califomi4-Measure H,-ltrcome-ResEicted_HousinLfor_Rent_or_Sale_Ordhatrce_(March_2020) t hq:/Avww.ci.hea.ldsburgcaus/Documentcenter/Viewr66/Crowrh-ManagEment-Ordhance-Policies-and-Procedures-PDF f0 https://$.rrrf,.trorthb ay biz.cann\OS/O2l2gtpreserving-rohaert-parks-potentia, rr htgs://rpcity.granicus.com./Meraviewer.php?view_id=4&clip_id:358&E€ta id:333 l8 Who Can Live h Soncrna Cr;nty? Page 6 of l7
Agenda Item #9.3:
established in 2001 , aimed to align new housing development with infrastructure and public service capacities, stipulating a lo% annual population growth cap (approximately 225 new housing units per annum). Notably, this ordinance exempts specihc housing categories, including affordable units for lowand very low-income households, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), model homes, mobile home park conversions, residential infill projects, and conversions of non-residential properties to residential use.
Such legislative provisions indicate a pro-housing orientation within the electorate.
1.2 Land Acquisition Mechanisms
Municipalities employ diverse strategies for acquiring land suitable for affordable housing. These include the disposition of surplus lands, partnerships with community land tmsts, and the formation of public-private partnerships. Along with direct land acquisition, cities develop incentive programs designed to encourage developers to integrate affordable units into larger, mixed-use projects. Within Sonoma County, prevalent strategies include the use of surplus land, land banking and navigating the land entitlement process.
Sarp lus Land atifizatio n
Cities may sell or lease publicly owned land for affordable housing development, subject to compliance with Califomia's Surplus Land Act (SLA )-. The SLA was updated in August2024 to further incentivize affordable housing through streamlined disposition processes. Key SLA provisions mandate:
o Formal declaration ofland as surplus by local agencies at regular public meetings. o Submission of annual surplus property inventory reports to HCD. e Maintenance by HCD ofa list ofinterested affordable housing developers known as "sponsors".
If land is not sold or leased to a sponsor, the public entity mu$ record an Affordable Housing Covenant mandating at least I 5% affordable units in any future project comprising l0 or more units.
Healdsburs Example: In 2 003 , Healdsburg's former Redevelopment Agency acquired a property at I 5 5 Dry Creek Road for $ I .8 million that was designated for low to moderate-income housing. Following the surplus land process and securing an exemption, the city transferred the property to Burbank Housinq.:, a non-profit housing development corporation, for the nominal sum of $1. An additional $1.7 million in grants has been secured for construction, with Burbank Housing actively pursuing $9.7 million in farmworker housing grants and tax credits.
Rohnert Park Example: Over a decade ago, Rohnert Park purchased a 30-acre parcel for $12.5 million for a proposed downtown mixed-use developrnem. The city, in collaboration with HCD, designated this parcel as surplus, formulated a detailed development plan incorporating 150,000 sq. ft. of retail space and 400 residential units (25% designated affordable). It subsequently selected a developer via a competitive bidding process.
Itnd Banking
Land banking involves the acquisition and holding of land by public or private entities for future developmeng often prioritized for affordable housing or community revitalization. This shtery may encompass undeveloped, vacant, or blighted properties.
Healdsburs Example: The city is currently exploring the establishment of a Housing Trust Fund to support land banking for future affordable housing initiatives. This fund may evolve into a Housing l2 htp:/tu'wT v. hcd.ca gov/ptatrdng-ed-community -development/public-lods -affordab le-hous ing-developmeat l3 httss://burbankhou sing org/
Who Can Live h Sorma County? Page 7 of 17
Agenda Item #9.3:
ra hnp:/A,rr,r,r,v. congres s.gov/crs-product/RS2 2 3 t9#:-:texr-TheTrolowincomeTrohousingoz20t,,<o/o20credigo20(LlHTC)%20Itrogatno/A0is,fromo/o2050yo25o/Ahoo/o2025o/45; Who C-an Live h Sarcrna C.ounty? Page 8 of l7
Land Trust, with the primary objective of securing land for long-term affordability, operating independently but in alignment with city housing goals.
Rohnert Park Examole: The aforementioned acquisition of the 30-acre downtown parcel for $ 12.5 million, using city funds, also exemplifies land banking for future mixed-use development.
2. The Entitlement Process
A sigrrificant portion of Sonoma County's undeveloped land requires regulatory entitlements prior to residential or other forms ofdevelopment. This process entails adherenc€ to zoning regulations, land use policies, environmental review (Califomia Environmental Quality Act), and public inpul culminating in the issuance of necessary permis and approvals.
Both Healdsburg and Rohnert Park have implemented mea$rresto streamline their entitlement processes to meet sixth Cycle Housing Element objectives. These include offering early developer feedback and utilizing Development Agreements @As) for large-scale projects. DAs are negotiated contracts specifyingterms for land use, public benefits, project timelines, and vesting rights, providing developers with regulatory certainty.
Healdsburg Examole: The city provides no-cost pre-application meetings, offers fast-track processing for ADUs and affordable housing projects, and has established formal written pre-application procedures. Furthermore, Heald$urg prepares Program Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) to reduce environmental review costs andtimelines for projects covered under these programmatic assessments.
The city actively applies state housing laws.
Rohnert Park Examole: The city offers optional pre-4plication meetings with multidisciplinary staff to provide early project feedback. Upon formal application submission, projects undergo a structured review process, typically involving three-week cycles for staff feedback. Larger multifamily projects generally necessitate Site Plan and Architectural Review, a process taking approximately 90 days from application completeness to approval. While most projects receive administrative approval, Planning Commission review may be required under specific circumstances.
3. Financing Affordable Housing
Financing constitutes a critical, albeit complex, component of new housing development. A comprehensive delineation ofthe intricate and innovative financing strategies that influence the scope and viability of affordable housingprojects is beyond the purview ofthis report. This section, therefore, offers only a foundational overview. Affordable housing finance typically necessitates a confluence of public funding, private investment, and strategic partnerships.
The Low-[ncome Housins Tax Credit (LIHTC).il program serves as the principal federal instrument supporting affordable rental housing, incentivizing developers through Federal tax credits.
Municipalities augrnent these efforts by offering local incentives such as land donations, impact fee waivers. and density bonuses.
"lnclusionary housing" has emerged as a significant mechanism for affordable housing production in Sonoma County. As housing valuations increase, cities incentivize developers and landowners by allowing higher-value property development contingent upon the inclusion of affordable units. A typical inclusionary housing program might mandae that 10-3002 of new residential units be sold or rented to Agenda Item #9.3:
Iower-income households. Califomia state policy empowers municipalities to implement such local inclusionary policies.
Most municipalities require deed restrictions for a minimum of 45 years for for-sale projects and 55 years for rental projects on units approved under inclusionary housing programs that receive ciry financial assistance or state housing density bonuses. These restrictions ensure long-term affordability for targeted income goups and dictate terms conceming sale, rent controls, and property aesthetics.
Cities also employ other financing tools, including fee waivers, density bonuses, public-private partnerships, and state funding allocations.
3.1 City-SpecificFinancingExamples
Healdsbwg: A Muhi-Tiered Approach
Healdsburg has advanced its affordable housing initiatives through a combination of inclusionary housing mandates, state funding, and targeted special taxes.
Inclusionary llousing: Healdsburg requies 20%o of residential units to be affordable. Through negotiated Developmort Agreements @A), the city has secured affordable housing units in significant developments such as the Mill Disrict, North Village, Montage, and Hotel Trio. A notable provision in Healdsburg's DAs requires developers to obtain "certificates ofoccupancy" for affordable housing unis prior to constructing market-rate units.
Project & Unit Allocation:
o Mill Disrict: 42 units (The Randalt), 30 Middle Income Units o Hotel Trio: 37 Unit Citrine Apartnents (Low-to-Moderate Income) o North Village: 53 Very Low-Low Income, 27 Middle Income . Montage: 110 Affordable Units
State Funding: In August 2024, Healdsburg secured $21 .l million in state funding via the Affordable Housingand Sustainable Communities (AHSC) program for Phase I of the Saggio Hills development This phase, targeting households eaming between 16-60% of area median income (AMI), will deliver 48 affordable rental units within a larger 1 l8-unit project. The funds will support the constuction of these 48 units, a 3,00o-square-foot commrmity building and essential infrastructure and transportation improvements with broader community benefits. Notably, Saggio Hills achieved the highest score in the Rural Innovation Pro ect Area zuPA rsreflecting strong alignment with state objectives for greenhouse gas emission reduction. The development is projected to reduce 3,880 metric tons of COu equivalent over its lifespan.
Funding Allocation:
. $15.3 million: Housing development (48 affordable rental units, associated infrastructure). o $5.2 million: Public works and transportation (Healdsburg Shuttle expansion with ZEV multiuse trails, sidewalk enhancements, new bus shelters, CalVans vanpools). o $605,750: Community programs (transit passes, legal aid, workforce developmen! improved intemet access).
I5 hnps://sgc.ca.gov/grant-programVahsc/docs/20250325-AHSC R9 _Program_Overview_PDF_ADA.pdf Who Can LiYe h Scncma County? Page 9 of 17
Agenda Item #9.3:
Special Taxes: The Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), levied on lodging establishments, was increased by Healdsburg voters via Measure Sll in 2016. This authorized a 2% increase, raisingthe maximum rate from l2o/o to l4%, generating approximately $ 1.5 million annually, with all additional revenue restricted to supporting affordable housing services and programs.
Rohnen Park: Diverse Financial Instrumenls
Rohnert Park has employed inclusionary housing, state funding, density bonuses, and essential housing bond financing to bolster its affordable housing efforts.
Inclusionary llousing: Rohnert Park is undergoing significant residential growth. During the sixth housing cycle, the city anticipates the construction of 2,834 new housing units, of which 587 are projected for very low- and low-income households, and 128 for modaate-income households. Rohnert Park's inclusionary housing policies require that all new developmots of 50 unie or more include I 5olo affordable housingunits. Generally, the city requires market-rate develop€rs to donate land to non-profit housing developers, who then secure financing (e.g., LIHTCs) for affordable unit conskuction. These completed projects are typically owned and managed by the non-profit entities. Development agreements may stipulate various arrangements for land dedication and financing sometimes requiring certificates of occrpancy for affordable units before market-rate construction can proceed. For instance, in the Willow Glen subdivision, the developer partnered with Burbank Housing for the construction of 38 low-income rental units, sharing construction and financing responsibilities, and also built affordable duet units sold via the Sonoma [,and Trust.
State Funding: In August 2024, Rohnert Park secured $670,000 through the state's Prohousing Incentive Program (PIP). These funds are designated for predevelopment activities for affordable housing units in downtown Rohnert Park.
Density Bonus: Density bonus programs, mandated by Califomia law, incentivize developers to include affordable units by permitting increased project density beyond standard zoning regulations. While Rohnert Park currently has a density bonus program, the city is conducting a feasibility study for a Supplemental Density Bonus Program. This study will examine provisions such as deeper affordability levels, a higher proportion of affordable units, units for indMduals exiting homelessness, and universal design standards. The study is slated for completion by luly 2026, with recommendations to be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council by year-end 2026, potentially leading to municipal code adoption within six months thereafter.
Essential Housing Bond Financing: Rohnert Park is a member of the Califomia Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA), a Joint Powers Authority (JPA). CSCDA administers the Workforce Housing Program, issuing tax-exempt govemmental purpose bonds to acquire existing market-rate apartrnent buildings and convert them to rent-restricted housing for lower- and moderateincome households. The city has authorizedthe JPA to issue approximately $191,264,100 in bonds. This entails foregoing an estimated $337,346 in annual property tax revenue and committing staff resources (200 hours for program establishment and 200 hours per acquisition project). This initiative is projected to deliver at least222 affordable housing unis (99 veryJow-income, 57 low-income, 66 moderateincome). The city is also committed to a 2027 evaluation of housing production, with provisions for designating additional sites if RHNA obligations are not met. l6 https://ba.[oQedia-org/Healdsburg_C.a.lifomia.-Horel-Tax-AdjusElen! Measure S-(November_2016) Who Can Live h Smoma Co.rnty? Page 10 of l7
Agenda Item #9.3:
4. Leadership and Community Involvement
Leadership Dynamics: For the purposes of this analysis, leadership encompasses the city councils and dedicated housing staff. A salient finding is the recognition by leadership in both municipalities that sustainable community development is untenable if it displaces the working-class populationsincluding farmworkers, caregivers, teachers, and service workers-who form the socio-economic bedrock of the region. City councils in both Healdsburg and Rohnert Park have demonstrated a consistent alignment on the concept of affordable housing as a core. nonpartisan community priority. thus creating a political foundation conducive to pursuing ambitious initiatives. This commitment is manifested through strategic planning, funding allocations, and policy reforms, supported by knowledgeable and empowered staff.
The collaboration between housing staffand city councils is instrumental to the success ofthe affordable housing effort. Their efforts are focused on strategic planning, developing regulatory frameworks, r€source allocation, and community engagement.
Healdsb urg : Slr uctured Collab o ralio n
Recently, the Healdsburg City Council approved the establishment ofa forrnal Housing Departrnent and authorized a new position dedicated to implementing ie housing saates/. Key collaborative activities include:
Strategic Planning: Housin g staffand the City Council collaboratively develop affordable housing targets, considering market conditions, infrastructure capacity, community service needs, and resource availability.
Policv Develooment and lmplementation: The City Council enacts ordinances such as inclusionary zoning policies, while housing staff ensure effective implementation and monitor ongoing compliance.
Resource Allocation: The City Council actively engages in generating fmancial resources and supports viable affordable housing in itiatives.
alignment, referring meritorious projects to the City Council for review, amendmenq or approval ensuring conformity with community priorities.
lncentive hosrams: Housing staffdesign, implement, and manage incentive programs (e.g., reduced fees, infrastructure support), which, upon Council approval, encourage development.
Regular Reporting and Assessment: Housing staffmonitor projects and provide ongoing updates to the City Council on successes and failures, ensuring policies remain current.
Public-Private PartnershiDs: Housing staffengage with developers and non-profit organizations to leverage resources and expertise, with City Council support in negotiating agreements aligned with affordable housing objectives.
Rohnert Park: Integruted Polic!-Making
Rohnert Park's collaborative approach involves:
o Collaborative Policy-Makins: The City Council and housing staffjointly create and refine policies, such as density bonuses and streamlined approval processes, to facilitate affordable housing development, and continually review policies to reflect evolving needs.
Proiect Evaluation and Approval: Housing staffevaluate housing proposals for viability and goal Who Can Live ir Sonona County? PagelloflT
Agenda Item #9.3:
Public Engagement Initiatives: Both entities prioritize public involvement through transparent communication and public hearings, fostering a collaborative environment.
This close parurership between municipal staff and elected ofhcials is essential for crafting and implementing effective, integrated, and well-supported affordable housing strategies.
5. Community Involvement and the "Communit5r Will"
While legally mandated communiry review is a component of every proposed housing project, the successful realization of affordable housing objectives usually hinges on a proactive "community will." This implies a recognized and enthtsiastically embraced need for housing by community stakeholders, driven by motivations ranging from expanding the tax base to providing housing for essential service workers. The Spanish term "chispa," or "spark," aptly describes a driving force observed in both Healdsburg and Rohnert Park, crucial for fostering a proactivg "yes in my backyard" (YIMBY) stance.
Healdsbttrg: Catalyzing Engagement
Healdsburg's increasing affluence has exacerbated the problem of housing affordability for long-term residents, families, and service industy workers, a situation compounded by state-mandated housing goals. The "spark" in Healdsburg was significantly fanned by the Housing Element Working Group (HEWG), a diverse nine-person body including representatives from the business community, individuals with lived experience of homelessnes, non-profits, renters, the planning commission, faithbased organizations, and the community at large. The [{EWG, in conjunction with housing staff, developed the roadmap for the 6th cycle Housing Element. Through their analysis and community surveys, the Growth Management Ordinance (GMO) was identified as the primary govemmental constaint on development, while high construction costs (land, materials, labor) were noted as the principal non-govemmental constraints.
The following from Healdsburg's "Housing Element" and from the Grand Jury's interviews illustrate the city's outreach, philosophy, and culture:
o A community outreach interview captured the sentiment: "Aqui en Healdsburg la renta es muy caro... Tres o m6s personas tienen que vivirjuntos para cubrir la renta." @nglish: "Here in Healdsburg, the rent is very expensive... Three or more people need to live together to cover the rent. ")
. A comment by an HEWG member highlighted the city's partnership with Reach for Home, a non-profrt addressing homelessness, emphasizing a personalized approach: "In Healdsburg, they know those experiencing homelessness by name, not numbers..." o Another IIEWG committee member underscored the necessity of aust between the community, local legislature, and developers, alongside a clear, transparent plan for housing development.
This holistic, community-centric approach has yielded significant outcomes:
o Increasing deed-restricted affordable housing to over l0oZ oftotal housing stock in eight years. o Passage of Measure S, allocating 2oZ ofTOT revenue (approx. $1.5M annually) to affordable housing.
. Passage of Measures P and H, allowing middle-income deed-restricted housing outside GMO constraints, allowing middle-income deed-restricted housing outside GMO constraints. o Negotiating workforce housing inclusion in hotel developments.
Who C.an Live ir Sqrma County? Page l2 of l7
Agenda Item #9.3:
. Preserving 39 units of older, lower rent housing (often referred to as naturally occurring) affordable housing and establishing I 0 units for Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH), a term used to combine long-term affordable housing with supportiye services to help individuals, particularly those experiencing chronic homelessness, achieve housing stability. o Planning 168 affordable units on two city-owned sites. r Developing a Navigation Center providing homes for I I formerly homeless families/individuals. r Securing over $7 million in Proiect Homeker.Ll funding for an interim housing program. o Establishing a formal Housing Departsnent and new staffpositions.
Healdsburg's coordinared efforts have exceeded fifth Cycle Housing Element goals and established a foundation for the sixth Cycle, driven by this "spark" of community will.
Rohnert Park: hoacttve Odreach and Planning
Rohnert Park has emerged as a rcgional leader, surpassing its fifth Cycle Housing Element goal (1,794 units) and positioning itself to exceed the sixth cycle requirement (1,580 units, 2023-2031). This achievement reflects a strong commurity commitnent. Rohnert Park's demographic-younger and less affluent than the county average-faces significant rental cost burdens. In response, City leadership, including a supportive mayor and city council, empowered housing saff to conduct broad public engagement and community-based planning.
Key outreach elements included:
o A Housin Element .!! webpage attracting over 1,200 email subscribers. o A bilingual housing needs survey (Dec 2021) with 1,344 responses. o Five public workshops engagingover30 stakeholders, includingthe Federated Indians ofGraton Rancheria-
. Citywide newsletter distribution and targeted social media campaigns. o Door-to-door outeach in Spanish-speaking communities, distributing over 1,000 door hangers with multilingual QR-coded survey access.
. Repeated outreach in 2023 for feedback on the draft Housing Element. o A community-wide survey offering incentives generated over 1 ,500 comments, indicating strong public interest in addressing affordability, homelessness, and infrastructure related to new housing.
This consisten! multilingual, and inclusive approach fostered an informed and supportive resident base, reflecting a proactive "community will" instrumental in advancing Rohnert Park's affordable housing objectives.
CONCLUSION
The experiences of Healdsburg and Rohnert Park demonstrate that addressing affordable housing challenges requies a synergistic combination of adaptive growth management, strategic land acquisition, steamlined entitlement processes, diverse financing mechanisms, and robust leadership, I 7 \\I*wt /.hcd.cagov\gratrts-ed-fu trditrglhomekey
rE htF:/
^,ww.rpcity.org/city_hslydepduaenrs/development_servic.es/housing/housingelement_2123-2O3lx Who Can Live h Sonma County? Page l3 of l7
Agenda Item #9.3:
along with deep community involvenrent. While specific instrumants and approaches may vary based on local contexts, the underlfng commitrnent to proactive planning and collaborative engagement appears to be a crucial determinant of success in expanding affordable housing opportunities. The Grand Jury concluded that the key ingredient of this collaborative engagement is community will, which exists within Healdsburg and Rohnert Park and should be fostered throughout the county.
The Grand Jury believes that cities, unincorporatod municipalities and the County can leam from each other by meeting periodically, sharing experiences and identifying best practices. Rohnert Park and Healdsburg housing staff, community members and city leadership generously shared their successes and challenges with the Civil Cnand Jury, and we strongly encourage the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, housing staff, city mayors, city council members, grassroots representatives, and housing advocates throughout Sonoma County to meet with and leam from each other.
FIl\DINGS
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury determined that:
Fl. Adaptive growth management is crucial but faces limits: Both Healdsburg (Measures P & H) and Rohnert Park (exemptions for affordable housing within its GMO) have actively adapted their growth management ordinances to facilitate affordable housing. However, community concems regarding local character and a perceived lack of safeguards can limit further expansions, as evidenced by the failure of Healdsburg's Measure O.
F2. Strategic use of public land is a key lever: Both municipalities used land banking (e.g., Healdsburg's 155 Dry Creek Road, Rohnert Park's 30-acre downtown parcel) and then went through the surplus property process to make sites available for affordable housing development.
F3. A diverse portfolio of financing mechanisms is employed: Cities do not rely on a single funding source. Healdsburg utilizes inclusionary housing, significant state grants (e.9., $21.1 million AHSC for Saggio Hills), and dedicated local revenue from special taxes (Measure S TOQ.
Rohnert Park also uses inclusionary housin& state pro-housing incentives, density bonuses, and innovative bond financing through the CSCDA Workforce Housing hogram.
F4. Streamlined entitlement processes expedite development: Both Healdsburg (no-cost preapplication meetings, fast-tracking) and Rohnert Park (optional pre-application meetings, structured review cycles) have implemented measures to streamline their entitlement processes, offering early feedback and utilizing Development Agreements (DAs) to provide certainty for developers of affordable housing.
F5. Aligned political leadership and empowered staff are foundational: The success in both cities is partly attibuted to city councils that view affordable housing as a nonpartisan, moral imperative, coupled with knowledgeable and empowered housing staff who can effectively implement strategic plans, policy reforms, and resource allocation. Healdsburg even established a dedicated Housing Departsnent.
F6. Proactive and inclusive community engagement cultivates "community will": Both cities demonstrated that extensive, tailored community involvement-such as Healdsburg's diverse HousingElement Working Group (HEWG) and Rohnert Park's broad, multilingual outreach and surveys-is essential for building public understanding and the "community will" (or "chispa") needed to support and overcome opposition to affordable housing projects.
Who Can Live h Somra County? Page 14 of l7
Agenda Item #9.3:
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury recommends that:
Rl. By January 30, 2026, Healdsburg and Rohnert Park will each create an ongoing community engagement plan, which includes multilingual community outreach and education, surveys, public workshops, and dedicated working groups.
R2. By January 30,2026, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors @OS) and each of the nine city councils will agree to create an ongoing Affordable Housing Collaboraive, which includes jurisdiction leaders, community members, grass roots organizations and housing advocates, who will share both positive and negative experiences and identify "best practices."
REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code $$ 933 and 933.05, the Grand Jury requires responses as follows:
o Fl -6. City Councils ofHealdsburg and Rohnert Park.
. Rl. Crty Councils of Healdsburg and Rohnert Park.
o R2. Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
IITVITED RESPONSES
o R2: Mayor, Cloverdale; Mayor, Cotati; Mayor, Petaluma; Mayor, Santa Rosa; Mayor, Sebastopol; Mayor, Sonoma.
The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that their comments and rcsponses must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting rcquircments of the Bruwn Act.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
City of Healdsburg. (c. 2023). City of Healdsburg [6th Cycle] Housing Element. Healdsburg, CA: City of Healdsburg, Planning Department.
City of Healdsburg. (Various Years). Growth Management Ordinance (GMO) (Healdsburg Municipal Code Title 18, Appendix A" as amended by Measure M (2000), Measure P (2018), Measure H (2020). Healdsburg, CA: City of Healdsburg.
City ofHealdsburg. (2018). Measure S: Transient Occupancy Tax Increase for Affordable Housing. Healdsburg, CA: City of Healdsburg.
City ofRohnert Park (c. ZO23). City of Rohnert Park [6th Cycte] Housing Elemort. Rohnert Parlq CA: City of Rohnert Park, Development Services Department.
City of Rohnert Park. (2000). Measure N: Urban Growth Boundaries Act. Rohnert Park, CA: City of Rohnert Park.
City ofRohnert Park. (2001). Growth Management Ordinance (#667). Rohnert Park, CA: City of Rohnert Park.
Califomia Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). (Various Years). Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program Guidelines. Sacramento, CA: HCD.
California Departrnent ofHousing and Community Development (HCD). (Various Years). Prohousing Incentive Program (PIP) Guidelines. Sacramento, CA: HCD.
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). (Vadous Years). Surplus t and Act (Government Code sections 54220-54234) - Guidelines and Notices. Sacramento, CA: HCD.
Who Can Live h Scnorna County? Fage 15 of 17
Agenda Item #9.3:
Califomia Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA). (Various Years). WorKorce Housing Program InformationA,Iaterials. Walnut Creeh CA: CSCDA.
Generation Housing Q024). "State of Housing in Sonoma County" Interviews conducted by Sonoma County Grand Jury. @. 2023-2024). With Healdsburg City officialq housing staff, HEWG members, and other community stakeholders.
State of California- Califomia Government Code. Sections relevant to Housing Elernents (e.g., Article 10.6, $ 65580 et seq.), Density Bonus law (e.g., $ 65915 * seq.), ard other housing legislation mentioned (SB 9, SB 35, SB 330, AB 2162, Government Code Section 65583.1(c)).
Sonoma County Civic Grand Jury QU2-2023). "Affordable Housing: Pasl, Present, and Future" Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identfy individuak interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person orfacts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury.
APPENDD(
Income Limits for Affordable Housing in Sonoma County (2025 )re There are multiple definitions of low-income limits for affordable housing. The above link provides charts for state prograrns and for federal programs for Sonoma County. All limits are based on the percentage of Area Median Income and Household size. The charts below provide income limits and rent limis for both slate and federal programs.
State and Local Programs IncoDe Limits*
The income limits below apply to the following programs: Sonoma County Density Bonus, Sonoma County Second Dwelling Unit, County Fund for Housing Califomia Redevelopment Law These Income Limits apply only to Sonoma County Community Development Commission assisted units. They are not to be used as a guide for programs regulated by any agency other tlan the Sonoma County Community Development Commission. Please contact staff with any questions or concerns.
These lncome Limits do not apply to CDBG, HOME or NSP restricted units. Please refer to separate schedule for these units which are regulated by federal income limits set annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Efeaive June 1, 2025
*The Califcrnia Department ofHousiDgandccxnmunity Develognent (IICD) has made its flmal decbion to implement a new State Income Limit Hold Harmless (HH) Policy beginning20l3. l9 htps ://sonomacouoty.ca.gov/incooelimits#tocal
1 $13,8s0 $31,750 $52,850 $63,420 $84,6s0 $92,400 $110,900 2 15,850 36,250 60,400 72,44O 96,750 105,600 126,700
3 17,800 40,800 67,950 81,540 108,850 118,800 '142,550
4 19,800 45,300 75,500 90,600 120,900 132,000 158,400
5 21,400 48,950 81,550 97,860 130,600 142,550 171,050
6 22,950 52,550 87,600 105,120 140,250 153,100 183,750
7 24,550 56,200 93,650 112,380 149,950 163,700 '196,400 8 26,150 59,800 99,700 119,640 159,600 17 4,250 209,100 Who Can Live h Smmra County? Page l6 of l7
\REA
Agenda Item #9.3:
Studio (1-2) $794 $1,321 $1,s86 $2,116
1 gedroom (1-4) 906 1,510 1,A12 2,419
2 Bedroom (2-6) 1020 1,699 2,039 2,721
3 Bedroom (3-8) 1133 't,888 2,265 3,023
4 Bedroom (4-10) 1224 2,039 2,447 3,265
LOW INCOMI
RENT LIMIT a(P6 Rent Limit
Maximu Rent Linrrlts.' Uses Formula in California Health & Safew Code 50052.5 & 50053 afility Allob'arrce: Subtract from the maximum rent the approved utility allowance for any utilities that the tenant pays in addition to the rent. Confirm the appropriate utility allowance with the Sonoma County Community Development Commission.
Asumption: The rents are computed based on the income limits for an assumed household size equal to the number ofbedrooms in the unit plus one person. For example, the rents for a three-bedroom unit are based upon the income limits for a four-person household
Federul Prugams Income Limils: Tl'te inmme limits below apply to the following programs: Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG), Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) and Enrrgency Solutions Grant (ESG). These income limits apply only to Sonoma County Community Development Commission assisted units. They are NOT to be used as a guide for programs regulated by any agency other than the Sonoma County Community Development Commission.
These Income Limis do not apply to state or locally regulated programs (Density Bonus, Second Dwelling Unit, County Fund for Housing, Califomia Redevelopment taw). These units are regulated by state income limits set annually by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
Area Median lncome for a erson household: $128 100
Rent Limits: Maximum rent limits for all HOME, CDBG, and NSP Units as set by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 1 $31,7s0 s52,850 $63,420 $84,650
2 36,250 60,400 72,440 96,750
3 40,800 67,950 81,540 108,850
4 45,300 75,500 90,600 120,900
5 48,950 81,550 97,860 130,600
6 52,550 87,600 105,120 140.250
7 56,200 93,650 1 12,380 149,950
8 59,800 99,700 '119,640 159,600
HOME Low (Very Low-lncom e - 5095) $1,321 61,41s $1,6s8 $1,963 $2,190 HONIE High (Low lncome -65%) S1,699 $1,821 $2,1a7 $2,s19 $2,790 Who Can Live h Smcma County? Page l7 of l7
UNITSIZE PERSONS
IN HOUSEHOLD
(MTNTMUM -
MAXIMUMI
EXTREMELY
LOW INCOME
RENT LIMIT
VE RY LOW
INCOME RENT
LIMIT
:.. ]
Agenda Item #9.3:
Revised June 2025 Response to GJ Report Form
Response to Grand Jury Report Form
Report Title: Animal Services in Sonoma County: Separate and Not Equal Report Date: June 13, 2025
Response by: Patricia Farrar-Rivas Title: Mayor
Agency/Department Name: Sonoma City Council
FINDINGS:
[List numbers: F1, F3- F10]
I (we) agree with the findings numbered: _____F1, F3-F10_____________________________ I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered: _________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ (Attach a statement specifying any portions of the findings that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons.)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
[List numbers: R1-R2, R4-R5]
• Recommendations numbered: ________________________________ have been implemented.
(Attach a summary describing the implemented actions.)
• Recommendations numbered: _R1-R2, R4_____________________ 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 for 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 when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report.)
• Recommendations numbered: ____R-5_ (not applicable) __________ will not be implemented because they are not warranted or are not reasonable. (Attach an explanation.)
Date: Signed:
Number of pages attached: 3
(See attached PC Civil Grand Jury Response Requirements) Agenda Item #9.3:
PROPOSED RESPONSES
City of Sonoma — Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations (F1, F3-F10) - Animal Services in Sonoma County: Separate and Not Equal
Responses to Findings - Animal Services in Sonoma County: Separate and Not Equal F1. County/cities never fully adopted the 2012 DHS animal-services recommendations, leaving agencies without shared standards, communication, data-sharing, or oversight.
City Response: Agree. We support re-establishing a countywide framework for standards, data sharing, and oversight, and will participate in any county-convened task force and related initiatives.
F3. Lack of coordination between SCAS and NBAS impedes a fully coordinated countywide disaster animal-evacuation plan.
City Response: Agree. Although Sonoma does not contract with NBAS, fragmented coordination affects countywide readiness. We will engage through the County to ensure roles/communications are clear across all providers.
F4. Insufficient funding/staffing makes it hard for some agencies to provide effective training for staff/volunteers.
City Response: Agree. For City-managed animal control (Sonoma Police Department), we will formalize annual training (e.g., PC 832 compliance, disaster animal care/evacuation refreshers) and coordinate volunteer training expectations with SCAS and Pets Lifeline.
F5. Insufficient funding/staffing makes it hard to maintain websites and social media needed for effective public outreach.
City Response: Agree. We will improve City web content on licensing/rabies/spay-neuter and cross-link to SCAS and Pets Lifeline resources; we’ll also coordinate with the County’s campaign once launched.
F6. Multiple, different fee structures for licenses/services confuse the public and complicate billing/collections.
City Response: Agree. We support exploring a standardized countywide fee framework and shared online licensing administration to reduce confusion and improve compliance.
F7. Low licensing rates undermine rabies control, make returns-to-owner harder, and reduce revenue.
City Response: Agree. We will expand outreach, enhance renewal reminders, and support low-cost rabies vaccination access to raise compliance.
Agenda Item #9.3:
F8. Uniform adoption of an online licensing vendor (e.g., DocuPet or comparable) would increase licensing rates and compliance.
City Response: Agree. We will evaluate adopting a common online licensing platform in coordination with the County and other cities.
F9. Failure to promote licensing benefits/requirements and to send renewals consistently contributes to low compliance and revenue loss.
City Response: Agree. We will implement a communications plan (web, social, utility bill inserts, vet partners) and consistent renewal notices aligned with any countywide system.
F10. Centralized training resources could enhance performance of animal-services employees and volunteers.
City Response: Agree. We will coordinate with DHS/SCAS to access shared training resources and integrate them into annual training for Sonoma Police Department Animal Control and local shelter partners.
City of Sonoma — Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations (R1, R2, R4, R5) - Animal Services in Sonoma County: Separate and Not Equal
Context: Per the report, the City of Sonoma provides animal control through the Sonoma Police Department (including licensing). Shelter care is provided as needed by SCAS and Pets Lifeline; the City does not contract with NBAS.
R1. Establish a countywide Animal Services Task Force (action directed to BOS/DHS; due Nov 1, 2025).
Report text (summary): BOS to direct DHS to convene a task force of county, city, and shelter representatives to revisit the 2012 DHS report and recommend a governance structure; standardize fees and adopt a common licensing vendor; seek efficiencies via shared resources. (Addresses F1, F3–F6, F9–F10.)
City of Sonoma response: Agree (supports implementation by BOS/DHS). While the City cannot implement R1 directly, we support the formation of the Task Force and will participate fully once convened.
R2. Each city to delegate representatives to the Task Force (due Jan 1, 2026).
Report text (summary): Each of Sonoma County’s nine cities will assign one or more representatives to the Task Force. (Addresses F1.)
City of Sonoma response: Will be implemented. The City Manager will designate a representative to the Task Force. Timeline: Delegation completed by January 1, 2026.
Agenda Item #9.3:
R4. Countywide public information campaign on pet licensing (launch by July 1, 2026; BOS/DHS to lead).
Report text (summary): DHS to launch a countywide campaign, in cooperation with cities, explaining the legal imperative and benefits of licensing. (Addresses F7–F9.) City of Sonoma response: Will be implemented (in partnership). The City will amplify the County’s campaign locally by: posting licensing/rabies info on City channels; issuing renewal reminders; and cross-linking to SCAS/Pets Lifeline resources. Timeline: Begin local amplification upon County campaign launch, no later than July 1, 2026.
R5. Cities contracting with NBAS to inspect/evaluate shelter and services for compliance (due Nov 1, 2025).
Report text (summary): Contracting cities must inspect/evaluate NBAS’s shelter condition and operations for compliance with legal mandates and contract terms. (Addresses F2, F11–F12.) City of Sonoma response: Not applicable to Sonoma (does not contract with NBAS). The City of Sonoma’s model is Sonoma Police Department (animal control/licensing) with shelter care by SCAS and Pets Lifeline; therefore, R5’s NBAS inspection requirement does not apply.
Nonetheless, the City will continue ongoing oversight of its service providers through existing agreements and performance reviews.
Agenda Item #9.3:
Revised June 2025 Response to GJ Report Form
Response to Grand Jury Report Form
Report Title: Who Can Afford to Live in Sonoma County? A Tale of Two Cities Report Date: June 13, 2025
Response by: Patricia Farrar-Rivas Title: Mayor
Agency/Department Name: City of Sonoma
RECOMMENDATIONS:
[List numbers: R2]
• Recommendations numbered: ________________________________ have been implemented.
(Attach a summary describing the implemented actions.)
• Recommendations numbered: __________R2__________________ 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 for 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 when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report.)
• Recommendations numbered: _______________________________ will not be implemented because they are not warranted or are not reasonable. (Attach an explanation.)
Date: Signed:
Number of pages attached: 1
(See attached PC Civil Grand Jury Response Requirements) Agenda Item #9.3:
City of Sonoma — Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations (R2) - Who Can Afford to Live in Sonoma County? A Tale of Two Cities
Recommendation R2
Report text : By January 30, 2026, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and each of the nine city councils will agree to create an ongoing Affordable Housing Collaborative, which includes jurisdiction leaders, community members, grassroots organizations and housing advocates, who will share both positive and negative experiences and identify “best practices.”
City of Sonoma response: The City of Sonoma welcomes the opportunity to collaborate with other jurisdictions on affordable housing. We agree that sharing ideas and best practices can help all of us address housing challenges more effectively. At the same time, we believe it makes sense to build on the many groups and forums that are already working on these issues, such as regional housing coalitions and partnerships with organizations like ABAG and Generation Housing. By coordinating through these existing efforts, we can avoid duplication, focus resources, and strengthen solutions that work across the county. The City remains committed to participating in regional discussions and will continue to represent Sonoma’s perspective while learning from the successes of our neighbors.
Agenda Item #9.3: