Council, housing advocates spar over SB 9

The Sonoma City Council approved an urgency housing ordinance Dec. 15 to get ahead of a new state law going into effect Jan. 1 that could ratchet up the number of infill units built in residential neighborhoods.

While city officials made haste in recent weeks to place some local parameters around the law which expedites the addition of a second home or a duplex on eligible residential properties, local housing advocates questioned whether the city’s real intent was to deter applicants from taking advantage of the development opportunity.

“There’s a trust problem that’s developing,” affordable housing advocate Caitlyn Cornwall told the council at the Wednesday meeting. “(Housing advocates) are having a hard time believing the Planning Commission and the City really are producing those opportunities.”

Senate Bill 9, aka the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act, is intended to increase residential housing stock and incentivize the building of affordable housing units – with some legal experts predicting the law could have an impact on the amount of infill development coming to residential neighborhoods across the state.

Under the law, qualifying property owners can split their lots and either build a second home or duplex on the new lot, or tear down their home and build a pair of duplexes on the lots. Through SB 9, property owners can potentially turn what was formerly a single-family home into four separate residences.

SB 9 was passed by the state legislature in September and almost immediately sounded alarm bells in municipalities across the state. Under the bill, cities and counties are required to approve such split-lot proposals as long as they meet size and design standards – effectively removing oversight by city and county planning commissions. Cities like Sonoma quickly began developing urgency ordinances that specify some size and design standards for SB 9 applications.

About 5.4% of single-family parcels in California could feasibly allow for development under SB 9, according to a study by UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation. Based on that study, City of Sonoma staff estimates that about 131 parcels in Sonoma could potentially add housing to their properties under the law.

“Out of the 131 we’re not sure how many would want to use this process and would move forward,” associate planning director Kristina Tierney told the city council.

The city has already received “a couple” of inquiries from local architects about SB 9 lot splits of specific parcels, said Tierney.

Sonoma’s urgency ordinance establishes that new units under SB 9 be no greater than 800 square feet and generally limits units to one story with an 18-foot maximum height, unless certain criteria were met allowing for two stories with a 25-foot height limit.

The developments must also meet some already established city development code requirements, such as having one covered parking space for single-family unit, livable outdoor space and water efficient landscaping, among others. However, such objective standards must be waved if they prevent the development of two 800-square-foot units on the parcel.

The city also is requiring deed restrictions on the new units in an effort to ensure they remain affordable to lower income earners.

Several public commenters at the meeting cautioned that the restrictions would only serve to mitigate the financial feasibility of property owners interested in developing infill through SB 9.

Cal Weeks, policy director for housing advocacy group Generation Housing, said “from day one” city officials have been “transparent” in seeking to limit the implementation of the new law.

“Comments (from planning commissioners in recent meetings) smack of anti-housing sentiments that seek to protect vested interests in the community,” Weeks said. “The effort to thwart SB 9 is particularly concerning given equity issues, as well.”

Jim McFadden, of the Sonoma Valley Housing Group, said the deed restrictions place unnecessary limitations on the creation of “missing middle” housing.

“Deed restricting SB 9 units to low-income for renters and moderate-income owners assures nothing will be built,” McFadden said. “That type of affordability proposed is uneconomical for developers hoping to build on a lot-by-lot basis.”

Added McFadden: “The purpose of the urgency ordinance seems to be to evade the law.”

Housing advocate Fred Allebach lamented that SB 9 “has been framed only as a problem, not a benefit,” and that any points of guidance from local housing advocates seems absent from the urgency ordinance.

“I don’t think this is all about fending off evil speculators,” said Allebach about the concern that outside investors looking to flip properties might swoop in and take advantage of the law. “Rather, (this is about) the potential that the law would act as intended — create the missing middle and attainable housing.”

Sonoma Vice Mayor Kelso Barnett pushed back on the suggestion that local constraints on SB 9 should be viewed as anti-housing.

“I assume the point is that if you support housing that is affordable for working people, you should support the broad implementation of SB 9,” said Barnett. “And I just reject that premise.”

Barnett said he was dubious SB 9 alone would move the needle on making housing more affordable in Sonoma.

“There is a view out there that housing is all supply and demand — as long as you increase the supply it will reduce prices,” Barnett said. “That is just not how it works, and certainly not how it works in Sonoma.”

Barnett predicted the amount of additional housing needed to make homes in Sonoma affordable to low or moderate income earners would greatly impact the town’s “quaint, small-town atmosphere” much of its tourism industry relies upon. “But our quaint, small-town character currently pays the bills,” cautioned Barnett.

The council approved the urgency ordinance 4-0-1, with Councilmember Madolyn Agrimonti not in attendance. Council members also directed staff to amend the language as to the height limits of the units to reflect maximum heights of the walls, not the roofs. City staff expects to elicit more council and community feedback on SB 9 and bring a permanent ordinance to the council for consideration in March.

According to the Terner study, any impact of SB 9 on most communities will be incremental. “Relatively few new single-family parcels are expected to become financially feasible for added units as a direct consequence of this bill,” the study said.

Email Jason Walsh at Jason.walsh@sonomanews.com.