The City of Sonoma is creating barriers to housing that is more affordable. The of Sonoma has been warned by California’s housing agency, and singled out by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation and by the Sonoma County grand jury, specifically for its handling of SB9, a new state law that allows property owners in cities to split their properties to create more, smaller, infill homes. (Sonoma Valley Collaborative supports SB9.)

According to the Terner Center report, the City's requirements for SB9 projects "may make it challenging—or impossible—for projects to financially pencil without subsidies or offsets." The City requires SB9 projects to pay certain fees, and requires that one of the created units be deed-restricted affordable. "Localities usually exempt affordable housing impact fees on affordable projects to help facilitate and reduce the cost of their construction. ... Requiring affordability in certain projects without commensurate cost offsets can render development infeasible." Read the full report here.

The Sonoma County grand jury cites a "Lack of political will from County officials or city councils [to institute pro-affordable housing policies]." "For example...The City of Sonoma created or expanded three historic districts early in 2022, greatly limiting the possibility of expanding housing in those areas." "A recent ordinance in the City of Sonoma ... 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." Read the full Sonoma County grand jury report here.

A recent op-ed in the Sonoma Index-Tribune by City of Sonoma Vice Mayor Kelso Barnett sheds light on the City's reasoning. Kelso writes, "By taking away local control and unleashing market forces in an effort to build, build, build, the state hopes the market will solve the affordability crisis. ...The reality is that the market will not create the type of housing Sonoma needs for our essential workers, teachers and first responders. Demand for our town and Valley far outstrips supply, and has been exacerbated over recent years by 'amenity migrants,' residents who select places to live based on [their amenities]. The number of units required to meet this ... demand could significantly change Sonoma’s character and sense of place, which in turn, could also have dramatic impacts on our visitor-based economy. While housing affordability also impacts our local economy, balancing these issues require the sophistication and discretion local control provides."

Kelso cites the City's pro-housing actions: It requires a high percentage of affordable units in new housing projects (25%, the highest in the County). It has added “extremely low income” units to this requirement. And it has banned new short-term vacation rentals and timeshares. (Sonoma Valley Collaborative supports these policies.) Read Kelso's oped here.