Various jurisdictions in Sonoma County have long tried to increase affordable housing through “inclusionary zoning.” Inclusionary zoning is a set of policies that incentivize or require certain housing developments to meet a threshold for affordability in some of the planned units. Both Sonoma County and the City of Sonoma have inclusionary zoning policies. The policies from the City and the County have, over their implementation, led to the creation of affordable housing units in Sonoma Valley.
But there is no enforcement mechanism ensuring that these units remain affordable or are rented to low-income families. Inclusionary units are rife for abuse that defeats their purpose. In one particularly egregious instance, a local developer rented restricted affordable units in his properties to family and friends who were not low income, leading to a lawsuit and a half-million dollar settlement.
A Civil Grand Jury Report discussed the lack of meaningful monitoring and enforcement, making inclusionary policies effectively voluntary with no consequences for all but the biggest violators. The Grand Jury Report shows the lack of meaningful data on how many inclusionary units there even are in Sonoma County: the report cites to Affordable Housing Online–which despite the Grand Jury Report does not track inclusionary units–and to an undated Permit Sonoma report. Neither source clarifies the number, location, or affordability of inclusionary units in Sonoma County. Sonoma County, as of the date of the report, only had a single employee monitoring affordable units through the entire unincorporated area. The City of Sonoma had a single part-time employee doing its monitoring. On-site verifications of self-reported data were inconsistent or non-existent. The Report ultimately found that little monitoring or enforcement exists in the County and almost no coordination between jurisdictions.
Thus, for existing inclusionary zoning ordinances, there is little data available and almost no resources committed to monitoring or enforcement. This makes the system ripe for abuse as has occurred in the recent past. The County has too little affordable housing to not even be taking full advantage of the affordable units that should already exist.
A solution to the lack of monitoring and enforcement around inclusionary units will most likely have three steps:
Data collection, requiring some form of a registry. See Strategy: Adopt a Strong Rental Registry.
Monitoring, with jurisdictions committing to a monitoring strategy. Annual on-site visits or random audits of self-reported information would be effective. In the County’s recent tenant protection ordinance, the County has elected to track all eviction/termination notices in the unincorporated area via an online portal. A similar portal could be created to give notice to local officials when an inclusionary unit turns over, will be eliminated (tenant move-out, eviction, demolition, conversion), or comes up for sale.
Enforcement, with jurisdictions dedicating more to enforcement beyond the paltry staffing that currently exists.