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.
No comments:
Post a Comment