Fred Allebach
4/12/23
The Green Checkmate revisited. The anatomy of Sonoma County and
blue state housing inequity and segregation.
Abstract
Unincorporated zoning and community separators have in many cases
made it impossible for lower-income renters/ community members to ever live in
tax credit high and highest resource opportunity areas. Community separators
and low-density zoning have a racist, segregating effect by prioritizing the
visual character and identity of areas where wealthy whites live and minimizing
the social character and identity of unincorporated-area working class Latinos.
Community separators have created and locked in islands of poverty
in Sonoma Valley while protecting low density wealth from integration. Liberal County
property owners, mostly white, while intending to save the environment and
protect low-density suburban character, create the Green Checkmate, a perfect
storm for segregation.
In order to combat systemic segregation in unincorporated Sonoma
Valley, housing options need to be found in all USA and USA-adjacent areas,
through a combo of extension of services, rezoning, and redesignation of lands.
For new housing production, Sonoma is not leading or showing political will to
go beyond pervasive market rate housing production. For the Valley urban area,
building out onto the Arnold corridor with SDC and Hanna are the only realistic
options. Doing nothing or building at scales that can never pencil as
affordable are not options.
Long-term, a unified Sonoma Valley urban core is needed. Annexation
of the full Springs USA area by Sonoma is the only real path forward to give
Valley Latinos an equal voice in government affairs.
Intro and discussion
This is an investigation of Sonoma Valley incorporated/
unincorporated zoning and community separators, with the intent of showing how
lower-income Latinos have been marginalized and disenfranchised by City and
County jurisdictional fragmentation and by land use rules and regulations.
Accompanying maps will illustrate the points made.
This essay applies to the County Housing Element and how to
satisfy County RHNA/ housing site inventory, and to Sonoma Valley Collaborative’s
current process to clarify what supporting housing in “already developed land”
means?
All working class residents (below 60% AMI in Low and Very
Low-income categories) have been marginalized and housing cost burdened by
excessive environmental protection and its effects on land use in Sonoma
Valley. I’m focusing on the lower income Latino community of interest in Tract
1503.05 and adjacent Block Groups, bc it is large, has the most needs, and easy
to identify as a discreet cohort.
What is community separator law?
Community separators were first put in Sonoma County in 2008 and
then expanded in 2016, like the Sonoma UGB (urban growth boundary), by an 80%
voter approved margin. The law* is about preserving visual aspects of the
County’s rural character. In separator areas, any increase in density or
intensity of land use is prevented until 2036, unless changed by voters.
Who votes?
In the 1st District, whites are registered and outvote
Latinos by a massive percent, approx. 85% to 10%. It’s unclear if community
separator changes could be voted on by District or if the vote would have to be
County-wide?
Census Tract 1503.05
Most all demographic analyses, (LAFCO, Environmental Justice
Element, HDI Index etc.) use a Tract-level view. Tract demography is the usual
basis for identifying an area for funding or aid.
Tract 1503.05 is the core area of unincorporated, lower-income
Sonoma Valley Latinos and has one of the lowest Human Development Index ratings
in the County. The Tract is made up of four Block Groups, with the bulk of the
population in the southerly three BGs.
Land use and equity problem: Part of the Tract 1503.05, Block
Group 1 population has membership in the Springs lower-income Latino DUC
(disadvantaged unincorporated community) but this membership in BG1 is frozen
from getting any upzoning or higher density housing by the terms of community
separator law. This BG1 has started to gentrify and is a TCAC High Resource
Opportunity Area, which will mean eventual displacement of the Latino DUC here.
How can the lower-income Latino DUCs take advantage of Sonoma
Valley higher resource opportunity areas if the opportunity to live there is
closed off by zoning and community separators?
Block
Group 1 of Tract 1503.05 specifics
BG1 is at the northern end of
Tract 1503.05 and is located between Agua Caliente Rd. and Madrone Rd., and
between Sonoma Creek and Hwy 12. BG1 has most of its area outside the Sonoma
Valley urban service area (USA) and is also a community separator and
a scenic landscape unit and is a 2023 TCAC High Resource Opportunity
Area.
BG1: 23% Latino, 55.3% of BG is below $74,999 median household
income or MHI.
BG1 is zoned LIA (land intensive agriculture) and DA (diverse
agriculture.) The community separator is all DA zoned. The scenic landscape
unit is zoned LIA. BG1 goes down to Agua Caliente Rd. where on the north side
of Agua Caliente it is zoned R2 and R3 zoning (medium and high-density
residential zoning) where many multi-family, over-crowded Latino households
live. To north of Agua Caliente in BG1 there
is a small R1, low-density-zoned neighborhood with many newly remodeled,
expensive homes.
Otherwise, BG1, is locked in all around by RR (rural residential)
zoning, a scenic landscape unit, and community separators. BG1 population is
made up part-ways by the same lower-income Latino community of interest as in
the rest of Tract 1503.05.
Note, BG3 of Tract
1503.05 just south of Agua Caliente Rd. has no community separators. BG3: 56%
Latino; 45.1% of BG3 is below $74,999 MHI.
Madrone Rd. residential area
The Madrone Rd. residential area is mostly R1 and R2 zoning. This
area sits in a combo of BG1 of Tract 1505.02 and BG2 of Tract 1503.03. This
area is locked in by LIA zoning to the east and RR to the west. Surrounding
land use designations and zoning leaves the Madrone Rd. residential area as an
island. The Madrone Rd residential area is made up part-ways by the same
lower-income Latino community of interest as in Tract 1503.05.
Here we see that land use designation has fragmented the unity of
the Springs Latino DUC, created an island, and made it impossible for any
annexation or zoning changes to bring this community of interest together. If
this was a land use chess game, white property owners with environment
preservation value have won and sequestered all the best, most scenic,
low-density land for themselves and low-income Latinos have lost by being
forced into the most dense, crowded spaces.
Identity, Tracts, BGs, zoning, and community separators
Madrone Rd. and BG1 of Tract 1503.05 are prevented from unifying a
core lower-income Latino social identity group by land use rules that
prioritize visual identity which benefits wealthier, low density-zoned whites.
A clear rationale emerges here to work not at Tract but at BG
levels to identify social and economic identities. County staff has said it is
too much time and work to dig into Block Group-level analysis, but if we don’t,
we’ll never see what’s really going on here.
If a Tract is the significant socio-economic unit of identity, why
was 1503.05 voted into being a partial community separator and scenic landscape
unit when it is also a core Latino residential area? In a land use puzzle with
Tracts, Block Groups, different zoning, and community separators, these various
units of measurement end up looking at and prioritizing different values.
It seems once again, green-protecting whites have aced out
lower-income Latinos for land use controls.
BG1 of Tract 1503.05 is an area appropriate for on-site
farmworker housing, but this would be prevented because any increased density
and intensity of use is disallowed by the community separator law.
This is all clearly a land use values power play where community
separators, which are centered in visual identity, are voted in primarily by
whites, to control land use and any growth in a primarily Latino area. By
fighting “sprawl” and “growth”, i.e., preserving white propert-owning character
and scale, well-meaning liberal whites, under the banner of green protections,
create conditions of scare housing that disproportionately impacts the lower
income working class, in Sonoma Valley those most negatively impacated are
primarily Latinos.
This same exact pattern can be seen on the western side of Hwy 101
Corridor through Rohnert Park and Santa Rosa.
How can the County Housing Element address systemic segregation in
Sonoma Valley?
What’s needed is planning that actively addresses Sonoma Valley
segregation. The fragmented Latino lower-income community of interest needs a
boost. Zoning needs to be upped. Infrastructure services need to be extended
into USA-adjacent areas so as to reduce islands and unite legacy communities.
TCAC High and Highest Resource Opportunity Areas need to be opened up to larger
scales so as to include and not exclude Valley working class residents who need
housing at the 60% AMI level and below.
Hanna Center and Hanna project sites
The Hanna Center and project site are in BG2 of Tract
1503.03 and is zoned PF, Public
Facilities District. This BG 1 is 87% white and 87% over $100,000 MHI; 10%
Latino, 9.9% of BG is below $74,999 MHI. This BG1 is part of a larger Sonoma
Mtn/ west of Arnold Tract that is very wealthy, white and a TCAC Highest
Resource Opportunity Area. This is a perfect area to integrate and address
Sonoma Valley patterns of segregation.
By being in a TCAC Highest Resource Opportunity Area, the Hanna
project area is perfect for AFFH (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) integration with lower-income housing. The
Hanna project site is in the USA and not in a community separator
or a scenic landscape unit.
Land use regulations that seek to protect the identity and
character of green visual spaces, and a wealthy status quo that segregates
socio-economic identities, do not apply to the Hanna project site. For
allowed-land use, the Hanna project site is appropriate for upzoning and for dense
infill.
From an equity standpoint, provided it includes a strong percent of
deed-restricted lower income affordable housing, the Hanna project could
address adjacent Latino concentrated poverty in BG3 of Tract 1503.05 and BG1 of
Tract 1503.04 Dense, equity-based infill
would be very strong cards to play in Hanna’s favor.
BG1 of Census
Tract 1503.04 (El Verano) immediately south of Hanna project site
BG1: 51% Latino; 45.7% of BG is below $74,999 MHI
BG3 of Census
Tract 1503.05 (Fetter’s/ Agua Caliente)
BG3: 56% Latino; 45.1% of BG is below $74,999 MHI
Glen Ellen, SDC, and the Arnold corridor
The majority of Glen Ellen zoning is R1 and R2. Downtown is LC
(limited commercial), K (rec and visitor-serving commercial/ hotels) along Hwy
12 and Warm Springs.
Glen Ellen is 81% white with 50% over $200,000 MHI, how to get more
affordable housing, integration, and social character there? Somehow it does not seem fair that such a
small area, with so many advantages, makes so much anti-infill noise and sets up so
many roadblocks to equity and integration.
With 5000-7000 lower-income Springs Latinos in need of more
affordable housing and the City of Sonoma treading housing water with little
will to tackle Valley-level housing equity issues, the Valley needs a pressure
relief valve for housing. SDC and Hanna are the valves. The Springs USA is
already too dense and concentrating poverty. AFFH calls for higher resource
opportunity areas to take more dense housing of all types.
Community separators are green segregators
When we look at the Census data and TCAC Highest
and High Resource Opportunity Area maps, and then see where there are community
separators and a preponderance of low-density zoning, we see the overlap of
land use and segregation in Sonoma Valley.
This amounts to green exclusionary zoning.
Temelec, the USA, and islands of poverty
The Sonoma Valley urban service area is smaller and not equal in
size to the full VOMWD (Valley of the Moon Water District) and City water
service areas. VOMWD and City water both serve a much larger area than the
formal USA.
The Sanitation District is about the same size as the USA but additionally
has Temelec and other areas trending toward the treatment plant on 8th
East.
Temelec, developed in the mid 1960s-70s, and then expanded in the
80s and 90s. This community, from an MHI standpoint, is a legit DUC island
because of so many seniors living on fixed incomes. Temelec has been completely
cut off as an island by community separators from the current USA.
Community separators have created and locked in islands of poverty
in Sonoma Valley while protecting low density wealth from integration.
Rational development and growth of Sonoma Valley?
Zoning, community separators, and the formal USA all add up to put
an inordinate emphasis on protection of visual identity and character. This has
benefited mostly white property owners and contributed to an increasing
gentrification.
Land use controls advanced by primarily white property owners, who
are heavily registered to vote, exclude and prevent the inclusion of lower
income community social identities. The outcome is increasing segregation.
Visuals are trumping societal diversity. Social community
character, i.e. class and racial diversity, becomes diluted by voting whites
who stack the land use deck all to their favor.
Why are lower-income Latino
neighborhoods in BG1 of Tract 1503.05 classed as protected open space?
In Sonoma Valley a low-income Latino DUC,
a disadvantaged unincorporated community, is living in a Census Block Group classed
as “rural open space and ag land.” This social identify is being erased in a low-density,
green-protected area so as to maintain the visual, scenic community identity, under
the guise of preventing “sprawl.”
Tract 1503.05 as a whole, shows up in
multiple ways, by many criteria, as a disadvantaged community, why is it also
part-ways a green separator? What about the “community identity” of the
primarily Latino residents of Tract 1503.05?
Herein is a racist aspect to Sonoma
Valley community separator and scenic land designation. When the community
separator vote happened in 2016, Springs Latinos may have not realized what was
at stake and had the wool pulled over their eyes by green/ rural character-protecting
whites. In any event, 1st District and Sonoma Valley whites vote and are
registered to vote by such a dominating margin, that white, property-owning
interests will win every time at the ballot box.
Thus, any effort for Valley Latino
equity, through annexation by voting for a 1st District supervisor,
to put their interests as equal to that of whites, seems doomed to failure.
This leaves state housing equity laws, AFFH, and the County Housing Element and
County Land Use Element as the only recourse for equitable housing and to
combat systemic segregation in Sonoma Valley.
References and Appendix
*
“The Community Separators dataset (see County GIS
maps, Scenic Resources) represents the Open Space and Resource Conservation
Scenic Resources Element 2.1 of the Sonoma County General Plan 2020 as adopted
on September 23, 2008 by Resolution No. 08-0808 and General Plan Amendment
16-0283 approved by Ordinance 6170 on August 2, 2016.”
“The broad purpose of the Sonoma County General Plan is to express
policies which will guide decisions on future growth, development, and
conservation of resources through 2020 in a manner consistent with the goals
and quality of life desired by the county's residents. Under State law many
actions on private land development, such as specific plans, area plans,
zoning, subdivisions, public agency projects and other decisions must be
consistent with the general plan.”
“The
community separators element assists in identifying areas that preserve the
visual identities of communities by maintaining open space areas between cities
and communities. These areas need to remain open or retain a rural character in
order to avoid corridor-style urbanization.”
“Therefore,
the community separators function as rural open space to separate cities and
other communities, contain urban development, and to provide city and community
identity by providing visual relief from continuous urbanization. Although
community separators are rural areas that have open space characteristics, many
of these areas are also scenic. The lands within community separators are
frequently subject to pressure for development because they are close to
developed areas and major roads.”
Community separators, from the County 2020 Open Space Element
“In order to preserve rural open space and agricultural land, maintain community identities, and prevent sprawl, shall the "Community Separators Protection Ordinance" be adopted to amend the Sonoma County General Plan to require voter approval of changes to the General Plan that increase the allowed density or intensity of development within Community Separators until December 31, 2036…”
RHNA and the Green Checkmate
When the County Housing Element and Sonoma Valley Collaborative go
looking for possible places to develop and satisfy the County’s high RHNA
allocation, what we see in place with current land use is a strategic blocking off
any chances of growth outward from the Sonoma Valley urban core.
The County has a 6th cycle Housing Element RHNA
allocation of almost 4000, all of which has to have a site inventory in
unincorporated areas, mostly in urban service areas or USAs of which the County
has 12.
This 4000 number is a lot higher than the 5th cycle and
represents the state and ABAG planning entities attempting to address a serious
housing shortage in a very desirable, coastal Cal location.
There is serious planning and policy tension over the higher RHNA
numbers. Whatever anyone thinks about the RHNA, there can be no doubt that
there is a housing crisis here, especially for Low and Lower-income residents.
For a Board of Supervisors reticent to enact tenant protections bc of effective
landlord lobbying ($), this only leaves preservation and production of affordable
housing as options.
Those buying into the smart growth meme want all dense infill to
be in cities near services and major transit routes, to protect open space and
ag lands, to preserve visual character, and to cut down on transportation
greenhouse gas emissions. On the other side of the coin, a pervasive NIMBYism
prevents dense housing in established low-density-zoned City areas. This is the
Green Checkmate The upshot is a serious housing crisis where new building
except market rate is prevented in all directions.
Sonoma Valley has a possible Hanna Center project with 600+ units,
many (exact number TBA) affordable to lower-income residents. This project is
in a USA and would go a long way to satisfying the County’s 6th
cycle RHNA.
TCAC, tax credit financing
CA state tax credit policy
link
Tax credit financing has been a way for the wealthy to possibly
benefit society by investing in lower income Census Tract areas. Tract 1503.05
is such an “Economic Opportunity Zone.” Tax credit financing in general
precedes any measures the Trump administration put in in 2017.
For the purposes of Sonoma Valley planning, tax credit maps show where
the highest areas of affluence are, and that these areas are creeping in from
the low-density, green-protected margins and inflating housing costs and cost
burdens in the core urban area.
The Springs area, Tract 1503.05 and adjacent Block Groups, have
taken a disproportionate amount of lower-income dense infill. At this point it
is incumbent on the City and for available USA areas to take more of the same.
