Flood
According to flood factor data records, Cotati has a moderate risk of flooding over the next 30 years. About 387 homes out of 2341 homes are identified to have a greater than a 26% probability of being severely affected by flooding. Under the Sonoma County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Act, Flood Protection Advisory Committee was formed in three flood protection zones to address flood protection measures and provide recommendations on annual budgets involving expenditures related to flood protection, stream maintenance, and stormwater management within the zone area. The Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) categorizes the City of Cotati within Zone 1A- Laguna/Mark West Creek in the Stormwater Management Plan. The SCWA developed the Flood Management Design Manual to guide public agencies and private entities in the planning, design review process, and permitting procedures of individual project proposals relative to flood management. The City of Cotati in partnership with Sonoma Water applies the criteria in this manual when reviewing drainage design and plans for development projects.
State law accords local government the ability to put regulations in place that promote public health, safety, and welfare of its communities. Pursuant to state law, the City of Cotati has adopted floodplain management regulations. Municipal Code Title 15, Article V: Provisions for flood hazard reductions articulate the standard of construction including anchoring, construction methods and materials, and elevations and floodproofing for new construction in special flood hazard areas.
The following standards apply to all new constructions and existing residential structures in need of improvement:
• Adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure and be constructed with flood-resistant materials. • Structures on slopes must have adequate drainage paths and areas below the base flood elevations areas must install flood-resistant utility equipment. • The lowest floor (including basement) must be elevated to or above the base flood elevation (BFE).
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 53 • All enclosed areas below the lowest floor (excluding basement) must be designed to have openings on exterior walls that allow floodwater to exit and enter directly
Seismic & Geologic Hazards
Cotati is situated in a seismically active region and therefore has a very high earthquake risk. About 2,470 earthquakes have occurred since 1931, with the 1906 San Francisco earthquake (a 7.9 magnitude) being the most significant to adversely impact residents and property. The largest earthquake recorded within 30 miles of Cotati was a 6.0 magnitude in 2014. The USGS database indicates a 95.28% probability of a major earthquake within 30 miles of Cotati happening in the next 50 years. Earthquakes are also conducive to liquefaction, a state in which surface soil loses cohesion and converts to a fluid. The soil type determines the liquefication potential in areas. Soils in Cotati are susceptible to liquefaction. Areas along East and West Cotati Avenues, Wilford Lane, and Redwood Drive have moderate liquefaction risk. These areas are also associated with shrink-swell, with the potential of high shrink/ swell in the eastern area and moderate shrink/swell in the western area of the City. Seismic events, soil saturation, and development-related construction can trigger landslides, in addition, the area’s slope angle, vegetation cover, and the physical nature of the ground play a role in landslide occurrences. According to Cotati’s hazard risk assessment, the likelihood of landslide occurrence and its potential impact on people and property is medium risk. Landslides are not a significant constraint in future development projects because the City’s topography is relatively flat.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 54 Figure 1: Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Source: California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Figure 2: Deep-Seated Landslide Susceptibility
Source: California Geologic Survey Data Viewer, CGS Map Sheet 58
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 55 Figure 3: Earthquake Shaking Potential for California Source: California Geologic Survey, MS48: Earthquake Shaking Potential for California (revised 2016) Flood
The northeastern portion of Cotati is subject to flooding from the Laguna de Santa Rosa and Cotati Creek. Approximately 4.8 percent of the land within the city limits located within is subject to one percent of flooding in any given year and about 7.7 percent within the Urban Growth boundary are considered high flood hazards with the FEMA flood zone AE (a 100-year flooding scenario with base flood elevation determined).
The Downtown Specific Plan area is the only priority development area that has experienced localized flooding in the past, and no other areas are known to be susceptible to hazard risks. Based on the 100-year scenario of flood risk assessment, 200 residential buildings may be exposed to flooding.
Among critical facilities, the City of Santa Rosa’s wastewater treatment plant where Cotati wastewater is sent, has experienced significant flooding on several occasions and is likely to be exposed to flooding in the future.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 56 Figure 4: Flood Hazard Zones
Source: FEMA, National Flood Hazard Layer, 2008
Fire
There are 7 residential structures found in high relative hazard and 341 residential structures found in moderate relative hazard for wildfire. Wildland urban interface fires are prevalent in Sonoma County.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 57 Figure 5: Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Source: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, California Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), June 2, 2022
Special Status Species
State law requires cities to adopt policies and actions that address the protection of natural resources and habitats for sensitive plant and wildlife species. The
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 58 conservation element of Cotati’s General Plan consists of twenty policies and twelve actions that address the preservation, rehabilitation, protection, and enhancement of biodiversity communities and sensitive habitat areas. It prohibits new developments on the City’s hills where slopes are greater than 15% and requires the identification of appropriate mitigation measures for proposed development projects. Wetlands, riparian, lowland areas, and other environmentally sensitive areas providing habitat for a variety of plant and wildlife species are observed within and vicinity of Cotati.
Some of the special-status wildlife species spotted in Cotati include California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, Foothill yellow-legged frog, Western Pond turtle, California yellow-billed cuckoo, Tricolored blackbird, Pallid bat, and American badger.
Figure 6: California Tiger Salamander Range
Source: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Tiger Salamander Range, 2020
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 59 Infrastructure Constraints
The City of Cotati shares the same National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit with Sonoma Water, the County of Sonoma, and several Sonoma County cities. These agencies use similar programs, policies, and procedures to implement their respective stormwater programs. The Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual is a guiding document that these agencies use in compliance with the NPDES water permit.4 Development projects are required to follow the manual and refer to design guidelines to reduce stormwater runoff, protect water quality, and promote groundwater recharge. New development and redevelopment projects are also required to implement stormwater quality source and treatment controls and trash removal.
Multi-family residential projects and sites allocated for subdivisions are required to make on-site and off-site improvements needed for efficient service delivery. These requirements include constructing connections to existing water and sewer lines, electrical and gas lines, constructing streets with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, and providing fire hydrants, streetlights, and drainage structures. Single-family residential development on existing lots requires connection to an existing road, water service, sanitary sewer service, and gas and electric utilities. Subdivisions must provide adequate access and streets to all parcels, including paved access roads.
Neighborhood roadways must have a total right of way of 56 feet, which comprises 30 feet of pavement (two 8-foot vehicle traffic lanes with seven feet of curbside parking on each side) and a planting strip on either side of the pavement. Mixed-use projects that include residential units are required to provide streets in compliance with commercial street design standards. Commercial streets must have a total rightof-way of 68 to 80 feet, including 48 feet of pavement (two or four 11-foot vehicle traffic lanes with a 4 to the 6-foot bike lane and 7 feet of on-street parking on each side of the street) and a planting strip on either side of the pavement.
The building permit valuation process and infrastructure connectivity fees of multifamily residential projects are lower compared to single-family developments.
Overall, on-site and off-site infrastructural improvements required by the City do not pose constraints or limit the provision of any type of housing development.
Energy
As of 2019, Cotati uses 100% renewable electricity (Evergreen) provided by Sonoma Clean Power.
Water and Wastewater
Cotati’s main water supply comes from the Russian River surface water, and three groundwater wells located in Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin which are provided by Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) through two transmission pipelines. The City is entitled to receive up to 1,520 acre-feet per year under the water supply 4 Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 60 agreement with the SCWA. Cotati obtains about 1/3 of its water supply from three municipal groundwater wells. While the City has historically used groundwater to supply more than half of its demands, its current water management strategy is to draw its primary water supply from the Agency and utilize groundwater to supplement its needs during peak demand periods or periods of drought. The City is part of the Santa Rosa Subregional Water Reuse System (Subregional System), which provides wastewater treatment, disposal, and water recycling services to Cotati.
The City of Cotati owns and operates the wastewater collection system and provides sanitary sewer service to approximately 1200 acres in and around City limits. Sewage and wastewater generated is transported to the Santa Rosa Subregional Wastewater Reclamation System for treatment at Laguna Treatment Plant. According to the City’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, the City plans to implement a system that would deliver recycled wastewater treated at the Santa Rosa Subregional System. There is only one sewer project identified in the Capital Improvement Program from Fiscal Year 2020/21 through FY 2024/25. The City’s water and sewer systems do not pose a constraint to housing development.
4.5 ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING
4.5.1 Background and Sum m ary of Fair Housing Issues
Extremely low-income households, senior households, persons experiencing disabilities, farmworkers, female-headed households, and homeless individuals are special needs groups with the greatest need for affordable housing, resources, and services. The special needs groups are more likely than others to experience housing problems and severe cost burdens, paying more than half of their income towards housing expenses. Chronic or acute illnesses, domestic abuse, developmental disabilities, and other factors may exacerbate housing issues for special needs groups. Rising housing costs, inflation, and stagnant wages and housing growth may also exacerbate housing issues that can lead to severe cost burden and/or homelessness.
The requirement to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) is derived from the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, and later amended to include familial status and disability. The 2015 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Rule to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing and California Assembly Bill 686 (2018) mandates that each jurisdiction takes meaningful actions to address significant disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity. These measures are intended to address disproportionate housing needs of the City’s most vulnerable residents, including renters and cost burdened households.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 61 Housing Element Requirements
Under State law, affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, which overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” Housing Element law as amended by AB 686 (2018) requires that jurisdictions incorporate AFFH into their Housing Element updates, including community engagement and outreach, an assessment of fair housing, identification of housing sites, and goals, policies, and programs that meaningfully address local fair housing issues. The City of Cotati is addressing these requirements through the following means:
• Meaningful Engagement: Meaningful engagement and outreach efforts were conducted throughout the Housing Element process. These efforts and the incorporation of feedback received is detailed in Appendix A. • Assessment of Fair Housing: This section contains the assessment including the analysis and comparison of local data and regional data, trends, and patterns. This data is supplemented by local knowledge wherever available.
The AFH identifies fair housing issues and contributing factors based on the analysis in the five different subsections:
• Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
• Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
• Disparities in Access to Opportunity
• Disproportionate Housing Needs, including Displacement • Areas of Concentrated Poverty and Affluence Across Racial and Ethnic Groups
• Identification of Contributing Factors: Factors that contribute to fair housing issues have been identified for each area of the AFH and prioritizes these factors within Table 41.
• Summary of Fair Housing Issues: Fair housing issues are summarized in Section 4.5.6 of the AFH, along with the description of goals and actions in Table 41.
• Sites Inventory: Housing sites identified to meet regional housing needs have been evaluated relative to the components of the AFH. Section 11-3 contains the housing sites information, maps, and the sites analysis. Section 4.5.7 of the AFH contains additional analysis of the housing sites relative to the fair housing topics.
The City of Cotati has made efforts to affirmatively further fair housing through the adoption of the Housing Element, increasing funding for affordable housing, preserving existing and naturally occurring affordable housing, and enhancing local
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 62 fair housing protections. This Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) details the efforts and progress that the City has made to promote a fair and equitable housing market and highlights remaining fair housing issues that should be addressed during the implementation of the 6th Cycle Housing Element. These fair housing issues, contributing factors, level of priority, and the City programs and actions intended to address each issue are compiled at the end of this AFH.
4.5.2 Fair H ousing En forcem en t and Outreach Capacity Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity relate to the ability of the City and local fair housing entities to disseminate information related to fair housing and provide outreach and education to ensure community members are aware of fair housing laws and rights. In addition, enforcement and outreach capacity include the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints and obtaining remedies. While the City does not directly enforce fair housing laws, it does partner with and refer residents to local fair housing and housing legal support organizations.
Compliance with Existing Fair Housing Laws & Regulations Federal and State laws prohibit intentional housing discrimination and prohibit any actions or policies which may have a discriminatory effect on a protected group of people make it illegal to discriminate based on a person’s protected class, including race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, and disability. In California, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act also make it illegal to discriminate based on marital status, ancestry, sexual orientation, source of income, or any other arbitrary forms of discrimination. Examples of policies or practices with discriminatory effects include exclusionary zoning and land use policies, predatory mortgage lending and insurance practices, and residential rules that may indirectly inhibit religious or cultural expression.
Both the Federal and State governments have structures in place to process and investigate fair housing complaints. In California, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) maintains the authority to investigate complaints of discrimination related to employment, housing, public accommodations and hate violence. The agency processes complaints online, over the phone and by mail and provides protection and monetary relief to victims of unlawful housing practices. At a federal level, HUD also processes, investigates, and enforces any complaints in violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act.
Additional fair housing protections in the State of California include:
• The Ralph Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code § 51.7) forbids acts of violence or threats of violence because of a person’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation, or position in a labor dispute.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 63 • The Bane Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code § 52.1) provides another layer of protection for fair housing choice by protecting all people in California from interference by force or threat of force with an individual’s constitutional or statutory rights, including a right to equal access to housing. • California Civil Code § 1940 prohibits landlords from questioning potential residents about their immigration or citizenship status. In addition, this law forbids local jurisdictions from passing laws that direct landlords to make inquiries about a person’s citizenship or immigration status. • The California Tenant Protection Act (AB 1482 of 2019; California Civil Code 1946.2, 1947.12 and 1946.13) prohibits tenants from being evicted without “just cause,” which means that tenants who have lived in a unit for at least a year may only be evicted for enumerated reasons, such as failure to pay rent, criminal activity, or breach of a material term of the lease. The law also caps rent increases at 5% for a period of 10 years.
• California Government Code § 11135, 65008, and 65580-65589.8 prohibit discrimination in programs funded by the State and in land use decisions.
Specifically, changes to § 65580-65589.8 require local jurisdictions to address the provision of housing options for special needs groups, including:
o Housing for persons with disabilities (SB 520)
o Housing for homeless persons, including emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing (SB 2)
o Housing for extremely low-income households, including single-room occupancy units (AB 2634)
o Housing for persons with developmental disabilities (SB 812) The City of Cotati maintains compliance with all federal and state fair housing laws and is committed to ensuring access to fair housing services. Two locally implemented fair housing laws protect Cotati residents against discrimination based on the protected characteristic of sexual orientation and familial status.5,6 In addition to protection for these specific classes, the City promotes fair housing through the preservation and production of affordable housing for at-risk residents. The following affordable housing requirements can be found in City of Cotati Municipal Code:
• Inclusionary Housing Ordinance: The City requires that new housing projects with ten or more units reserve at least 15% of units as deed- restricted 5 Cotati Municipal Code, Chapter 9.32: Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Cotati/html/Cotati09/Cotati0932.html 6 Cotati Municipal Code, Discrimination Against Families with Children in Property Rentals, https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Cotati/#!/html/Cotati19/Cotati1908.html
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 64 affordable housing. There are some exceptions for housing that is developed offsite, and the units are deed-restricted for a minimum of 30 years.7 • In-Lieu Fees: The City offers the payment of in-lieu fee for developers who construct nine or fewer units. The fees paid by developers then go into the City’s affordable housing fund to be used to support the construction of affordable housing.8
• Linkage Requirements: The City requires non-residential developers to contribute to affordable housing by paying a housing linkage fee or construct affordable housing on-site. The fees paid by developers go into the City’s affordable housing fund to be used for the construction of affordable housing.9
• Mobile home Park Space Rent Stabilization: The City has made efforts to preserve its share of mobile home parks by implementing local review procedure for mobile home conversion projects and by imposing rent stabilization on these units.10 Developers intending to convert existing mobile home parks must provide adequate notice to existing park residents, offer residents the right of first refusal to purchase the park, conduct a review of impacts on existing residents, and secure the approval of the City Council before conversion may occur.11
Aside from these city-level actions, the County of Sonoma promotes the preservation and creation of affordable housing and works to affirmatively further fair housing through their own policies, programs, projects, and practices. The Sonoma County Community Development Commission (CDC) was established in 1970 and is “dedicated to creating homes for all in thriving and inclusive neighborhoods.” They strive to do so by offering three core services: rental assistance, homeless services, and investment in community and affordable housing projects. The goal is to create housing that is “affordable, available, and accessible to the County’s low-income and workforce residents.” The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors provides oversight to the CDC.12
Every three years, the CDC produces a Three-Year Strategic Plan to identify its role within the County of Sonoma and to guide its work efforts over the next several years. The most recent plan, released in August 2019, discusses recent evidence that “housing instability as measured by rent burdens, over-crowding, and concentrations of poor households in high poverty neighborhoods remains a pressing issue impeding 7 Cotati Municipal Code. Chapter 17.31: Affordable Housing Requirements, https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Cotati/html/Cotati17/Cotati1731.html 8 City of Cotati, Fee Schedule, October, 2021,
http://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_9669113/Image/City%20Hall/Master%20Fee%20Schedule %20%20-%20Published%2010222021_Revised%203_21_22.pdf
9 Cotati Municipal Code. Chapter 17.31
10 Cotati Municipal Code, Chapter 19.14: Mobile Home Park Space Rent Stabilization, https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Cotati/html/Cotati19/Cotati1914.html 11 Cotati Municipal Code. Chapter 17.46: Conversion of Mobile Home Park to Other Uses https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Cotati/html/Cotati17/Cotati1746.html 12 Sonoma County website “Community Development Commission” web page
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 65 the full recovery of the county and disproportionately impacting communities of color.”13 To address these issues, the CDC has created a strategic plan aimed at fostering a strong team, building trust through proactive engagement, and creating pathways to housing and community resources.
In addition to ongoing promotion of increased supply of affordable housing, Sonoma County also funds non-profit organizations to provide fair housing services such as fair housing advocacy, public education on renter and property owner rights, and assistance in attaining and retaining housing for those who live with a disability, some of which are featured in the next section.
Fair Housing Services, Outreach, and Enforcement at a Local Level The City of Cotati provides the following fair housing and affordable housing resources on the “Housing” page of their website:
Table 24: Housing Resources for Cotati
Service/Need Provider Website
Affordable Home
Ownership
Housing Land Trust
of Sonoma County
http://www.housinglandtrust.org/
Fair Housing Services Fair Housing
Advocates of Sonoma
County
http://www.fairhousingnorcal.org/
Food Distribution Redwood Empire
Food Bank
https://refb.org/
Neighbors Organized
Against Hunger
(NOAH)
https://www.noahfoodpantry.org/
Home Sharing Petaluma People
Services Center
https://petalumapeople.org/housing/
Housing Rehabilitation Sonoma County
Community
Development
Commission (CDC)
http://sonomacounty.ca.gov/CommunityDevelopment-Commission/ Housing Rehabilitation
Loan Program
Sonoma County
Community
Development
Commission
https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/CDC/Housingand-Neighborhood-Investment/HousingRehabilitation-Loan-Program/ Legal Assistance California Rural Legal
Assistance
http://www.crla.org/
Rent Assistance Reach for Home
(Formerly NSCS)
http://www.reachforhome.org/
13 SCCDC Three-Year Strategic Plan, August 2019
https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/Main%20County%20Site/General/Sonoma/Sample%20Dept/Department%2 0Information/Plans%2C%20Policies%20and%20Reports/_Documents/2019_08_20_3YearStratPlan_att1. pdf
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 66 Sonoma County
Homeless Resource
Guide
Sonoma County http://www.sonomacountyhomeless.org/
Transitional Housing Reach For Home
(Formerly NSCS)
http://www.reachforhome.org/
State Affordable
Housing Income
Limits
State of California https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grantsfunding/income-limits/state-and-federalincome-limits/docs/income-limits-2021.pdf Grants and Funding California
Department of
Housing and
Community
Development (HCD)
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grantsfunding/index.shtml
Cotati residents also benefits from regional and state organizations that provide fair housing information, outreach, and enforcement, including their capacity and resources available to them. These organizations include:
Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH)
The California DFEH is a state agency dedicated to enforcing California’s civil rights laws. Its mission targets unlawful discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations, hate violence, and human trafficking. Victims of discrimination can submit complaints directly to the department. DFEH is also a HUD Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) agency and receives funding from HUD to enforce fair housing laws.
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC)
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California is a private 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization with a stated mission of ensuring equal housing opportunity and educating communities on the value of diversity in their neighborhoods. FHANC is also a grantee under HUD’s Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP), which means that it receives funding from HUD to assist victims of housing discrimination. FHANC provides fair housing counseling services, fair housing complaint investigation, and assistance in filing fair housing administrative complaints to residents of Sonoma, Solano, and Marin counties. FHANC also offers counseling and education programs on foreclosure prevention and pre-purchase homebuying.
Legal Aid of Sonoma County
Legal Aid of Sonoma County represents low and very low-income residents within County. Legal Aid Sonoma County is also a grantee under HUD’s Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP), as it receives funding from HUD to assist victims of housing discrimination. Their housing practice provides legal assistance regarding public, subsidized (including Section 8 and other HUD subsidized projects) and private housing, fair housing and housing discrimination, housing conditions, rent control,
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 67 eviction defense, lockouts and utility shut-offs, residential hotels, and training advocates and community organizations. Legal Aid is restricted from representing undocumented clients.
Sonoma County Community Development Commission (CDC)
The County of Sonoma Community Development Commission (CDC) supports countywide development of affordable housing to help mitigate the effects of housing segregation by financing new affordable housing and/or rehab projects with federal, state, and local funds. The County also funds non-profit organizations to provide fair housing services such as fair housing advocacy, public education on renter and property owner rights, and assistance in attaining and retaining housing for those who live with a disability. More specifically, the Sonoma County Code of Ordinances (Sonoma County Mun. Code § 23-90-010, et seq.) provides for specific procedures for requesting reasonable accommodations under the FHA and FEHA.
To address discrimination within operations and decision-making processes, the County joined the Government Alliance on Race and Equity and participants from 12 county departments created Sonoma County Racial Equity Alliance and Leadership.
Subsequently, county employees formed the County Latinx Employee Resource Network. The Board of Supervisors also created the Office of Equity in the Summer of 2020. In January of 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved a five-year strategic plan supporting racial equity and promoting social justice. The goals contained in the strategic plan are to foster a county organizational culture that supports the commitment to achieving racial equity; implement strategies to make the County workforce reflect County demographic across all levels; ensure racial equity throughout all County policy decisions and service delivery; and engage community members and stakeholder groups to develop priorities and to advance racial equity.
Fair Housing Services, Outreach, and Enforcement at a Local Level Federally, Title VIII fair housing case may be filed based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, familial status, and retaliation for filing a Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) complaint. Between January 1, 2013, and March 19, 2021, there were three FHEO Inquiries in the City of Cotati, which is fewer than .5 per inquiries per one-thousand people. Of these inquiries, one was on account of Disability and two were on an undefined count. All three cases resulted in counts of “No Valid Issue.”14
Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity: Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors
The City of Cotati is in full compliance with all applicable fair housing regulations at the State and Federal levels. As discussed above, the City does not directly enforce fair housing laws, but does disseminate information about and refer residents to local fair housing and housing legal support organizations. Challenges related to fair 14 AFH Data Viewer: FHEO Inquiries by City (HUD, 2013-2021)
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 68 housing enforcement are primarily due to a lack of funding and staff capacity – including bilingual capacity – to ensure that residents, tenants, and property owners are aware of their rights and obligations related to tenancy and rental protections.
Program 4-3 (Nondiscrimination and Fair Housing Information) will help to ensure that this factor is mitigated and that outreach is more effective.
4.5.3 Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
Segregation is the separation of different demographic groups into different geographic locations or communities, meaning that groups are unevenly distributed across geographic space. Integration in the equal distribution of demographic groups within a geographic location or community. This section of the Assessment of Fair Housing will assess the extent of racial and income segregation and integration both on the neighborhood level and between the City and neighboring jurisdictions.
Segregation is partly a result of historical exclusionary zoning practices, which is a practice that either intentionally or unintentionally excludes certain types of land uses and/or races and ethnicities from a given community. Exclusionary zoning was introduced in the early 1900s, often to prevent racial and ethnic minorities from moving into middle- and upper-class neighborhoods. Zoning codes that discriminate based on race and ethnicity are now illegal, however, nearly all communities in the United States have land use patterns that reflect past practices. This can limit the supply of available housing units. In many cities, the implementation of these zoning practices, along with a host of other factors including historical disinvestment in lowincome neighborhoods, has resulted in segregation.
Cotati has taken steps to address past exclusionary zoning practices with each update of the Housing Element. The City is currently zoned according to the map in Figure 7 below. Most land is zoned for Residential Very Low Density (RVL) or Neighborhood, Low Density (NL.) The former type of zoning district is applied to areas deemed appropriate for low density areas of detached single-family homes and allows for densities ranging from one dwelling unit per 0.66 acres to one unit per one-half acre.
The latter type of zoning is applied to areas developed with and deemed appropriate for neighborhoods of detached single-family homes and duplexes with a maximum allowable density of six dwelling units per acre.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 69 Figure 7: Zoning Map of the City of Cotati
Source: City of Cotati Municipal Code, Chapter 17.2
Race and Ethnicity
The City of Cotati’s population is predominantly white by more than 50%, though the percentage has decreased since 2000. The percentage of the nonwhite population in Cotati has increased by 5.2 percentage points between 2000 and 2019 (Figure 8).
The White, Non-Hispanic population increased the most while the Black and African American, Non-Hispanic population decreased the most during this period.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 70 Figure 8: Population by Race in Cotati, 2000-2019
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002
There is a significantly greater share of white residents in Cotati (75%) than in Sonoma County (63%) and the San Francisco Bay Area (39%). Cotati also has a significantly smaller share Asians/APIs individuals (<4%) compared to the Bay Area (27%) and only slightly fewer compared to Sonoma County (4%). Another notable difference between local and regional racial compositions is the percentage of Black or African Americans who make up six percent of the Bay Area population but less than one percent of Cotati’s population (Figure 9).
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 71 Figure 9: Population by Race in Cotati, Sonoma County, and the Bay Area Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019 5-Year Estimates The racial dot map of Cotati in Figure 10 offers a visual representation of the spatial distribution of racial groups within the jurisdiction. When the distribution of dots does not suggest patterns of clustering, segregation measures tend to be lower.
Conversely, when clusters of certain groups are apparent on a racial dot map, segregation measures may be higher. There are no identifiable clusters of racial groups in Cotati.15
15 “AFFH Segregation Report: Cotati, produced by UC Merced Urban Policy Lab and ABAG/MTC Staff, March 6, 2022
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 72 Figure 10: Racial Dot Map of Cotati
Source: Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing
At the regional level, segregation is measured between cities instead of between neighborhoods. Racial dot maps can also be useful for examining racial segregation between different jurisdictions in the region. Figure 11 below presents a racial dot map showing the spatial distribution of racial groups in Cotati as well as in nearby Bay Area cities. While there is a notable concentration of Hispanic/Latino populations on the southern side of the City of Rohnert Park bordering Cotati, there are no notable clusters within the City itself.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 73 Figure 11: Racial Dot Map of Cotati and Surrounding Areas, 2020 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing
The racial isolation index compares each neighborhood’s composition to the jurisdiction’s demographics. This index ranges from zero to one. Higher values indicate that a particular group is more isolated from other groups. The index value indicates the experience of the average member of that group.
Cotati’s isolation index of 0.644 for white residents means that the average white resident lives in a neighborhood that is 64.4% white. Non-white racial groups are less isolated and more likely to encounter other racial groups in their neighborhoods.
The isolation index values for all racial groups in Cotati for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 are in Table 25 below. Among all racial groups in the jurisdiction, the white population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming less segregation from other racial groups.
The Bay Area Average column provides the average isolation index value across Bay Area jurisdictions for different racial groups in 2020. The data in this column provides context for the levels of segregation experienced by racial groups in Cotati. For
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 74 example, Table 25 indicates the average isolation index value for white residents across all Bay Area jurisdictions is 0.491 meaning that a white resident lives in a neighborhood that is 49.1% white in the average Bay Area jurisdiction, which is significantly lower than that of Cotati.
Table 25: Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Cotati Race Cotati Bay Area
2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.041 0.042 0.044 0.245
Black/African American 0.020 0.015 0.019 0.053
Hispanic/Latino 0.127 0.189 0.234 0.251
White 0.722 0.714 0.644 0.491
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S> Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.
While the racial isolation index measures the segregation of a particular group, the dissimilarity index measures segregation between two distinct groups. Table 26 provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in Cotati between white residents and residents who are Black, Hispanic/Latino, or Asian/Pacific Islander. It also provides the dissimilarity index between white residents and all residents of color in the jurisdiction across three time periods. In Cotati, the highest segregation is between Black/African American and white residents. The dissimilarity index of 0.119 means that 11.9% of Black/African American (or white) residents would need to move to a different neighborhood to create perfect integration between these two racial groups.
Table 26: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Cotati Cotati Bay Area Average
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.071* 0.079* 0.085* 0.185 Black/African American vs. White 0.111* 0.066* 0.119* 0.244 Hispanic/Latino vs. White 0.050 0.018 0.101 0.207
People of Color vs. White 0.024 0.026 0.074 0.168
Note: If a number is marked with an asterisk (*), it indicates that the index is based on a racial group making up less than 5 percent of the jurisdiction population, leading to unreliable numbers.
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S> Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 75 Finally, the Theil’s H Index measures how diverse each neighborhood is compared to the diversity of the whole city. Neighborhoods are weighted by their size, so that larger neighborhoods play a more significant role in determining the total measure of segregation. The index ranges from zero to one. A value of zero would mean all neighborhoods within a city have the same demographics as the entire city. A value of 1 would mean each group lives exclusively in their own, separate neighborhood.
The “Bay Area Average” column in the table below provides the average Theil’s H Index across Bay Area jurisdictions in 2020. Between 2010 and 2020, the Theil’s H Index for racial segregation in Cotati increased, suggesting that there may now be more neighborhood level racial segregation within the jurisdiction. However, in 2020, the Theil’s H Index for racial segregation in Cotati was lower than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions, indicating that neighborhood level racial segregation in Cotati is less than in the average Bay Area city.
Table 27: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation within Cotati Cotati Bay Area
Index 2000 2010 2020 2020
Theil’s H Multi-racial 0.003 0.002 0.010 0.042
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.
The Bay Area is a racially diverse region of over seven million people and more than one hundred incorporated municipalities, including the City of Cotati. Racial segregation occurs in every county and metropolitan statistical area. 11 This includes Cotati and Sonoma County, which has the highest percentage of white residents of any county in the Bay Area.
Across the region, white residents are the most segregated group even in counties where they are a racial plurality and/or a minority and have less exposure to members of other racial groups than any other racial group has to each other. This is particularly true of jurisdictions within Sonoma County, though the census tracts that run through Cotati experience low to medium levels of segregation comparatively and there are no tracts that include 85% or more white populations.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 76 Figure 12: Levels of Segregation in Census Tracts within Sonoma County, 2018 Source: Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area, Part 1, Othering & Belonging Institute
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 77 Key findings on income in Cotati from the “AFFH Segregation Report: Cotati” conducted by the University of California (UC) Merced Urban Policy Lab and ABAG/MTC Staff are as follows:
• As of 2020, white residents are the most segregated compared to the other racial groups in Cotati as measured by the isolation index. White residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to encounter other racial groups.
• Among all racial groups in Cotati, the white population’s index value has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020.
• The highest level of racial segregation in Cotati is between Black and white residents according to the dissimilarity index; however, this data point is based on a small population size and therefore not necessarily dependable. • Neighborhood racial segregation in Cotati increased between 2010 and 2020 according to the Theil’s H-Index.
Persons with Disabilities
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) defines a disability as a “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.” People with disabilities are at greater risk for housing insecurity, homelessness, and institutionalization, particularly when they lose aging caregivers. According to 2019 U.S. Census data, 763 individuals over the age of 18 reported a disability of any kind in Cotati which constitutes 10.2% of the population. Table 28 breaks down the proportion of reported disability types.
Table 28: Disability by Type, 2019
Disability value
With a cognitive difficulty 5.6%
With an ambulatory difficulty 5.0%
With an independent living difficulty 4.0%
With a hearing difficulty 2.7%
With a self-care difficulty 1.9%
With a vision difficulty 1.2%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019 5-Year Estimates Within this population, there are significant differences in disability status by race and ethnicity. Asian individuals are more likely to have disabilities than are Black individuals, with the incidence of disabilities among the much larger populations of White and Hispanic residents in between (Table 29). It is possible that the small number of Black and Asian residents along with disparities in age (which are highly correlated with disability status) partially explains the disparity.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 78 Table 29: Disability Status by Race and Ethnicity, City of Cotati, 2015-2019 Race or Ethnicity Total Population Number with a
Disability
% with a Disability
Total NonInstitutionalized
Population 7,545 771 10.3%
White Alone, Not
Hispanic or Latino 5,555 594 10.7%
Black or African
American Alone* 46 0 0.0%
Asian Alone* 131 17 13.0%
Hispanic or Latino
(of any race) 1,375 101 7.3%
Source: 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Note: As a result of how ACS Table S1810 disaggregates race and ethnicity data for persons with disabilities, Black and Asian population estimates are reflective of all persons who identify as Black or Asian alone, including those who also identify as Hispanic/Latino.
The share of the non-institutionalized population with a disability in Cotati (10.2%) is two percent lower than that of Sonoma County (12%) while it is on par with that of the Bay Area (10%).16
Figure 13: Population with a Disability, Cotati
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019 5-Year Estimates 16 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18101
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 79 Familial Status
American Community Survey data indicates that Cotati has a comparable share of single-person households (27.4%) to both Sonoma County (27.5%) and the Bay Area (24.7%) but has four percent more Female-Headed Family Households than both Sonoma County and the Bay Area.
Figure 14: Household Type in Cotati
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
There is no concentration of children in female-headed households within Cotati (Figure 15), but the north and west sides of the City have higher proportions of children within married-couple households (Figure 16).
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 80 Figure 15: Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019 5-Year Estimates Figure 16: Percent of Children in Married-Couple Households Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019 5-Year Estimates Income
Household income is the principal factor in determining a household’s ability to balance housing costs with other basic life necessities. Households with lower incomes face additional barriers when seeking adequate housing. While economic factors that affect a household’s housing choice are not a fair housing issue per se, the relationships among household income, household type, race/ethnicity, and other factors often create misconceptions and biases that raise fair housing concerns.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 81 Identifying geographies and individuals with a low- to moderate- income (LMI) is important to overcome patterns of segregation. HUD defines LMI areas as a Census tract or block group where over 51% of the population is LMI (based on HUD income definition of up to 80% of the area median income.)
Despite the economic and job growth experienced throughout the region since 1990, the income gap has continued to widen. California is one of the most economically unequal states in the nation, and the Bay Area has the highest income inequality between high-and low-income households in the state.
In Cotati, 55.9% of households earn more than the Area Median Income (AMI). This income group is slightly larger in Cotati than in Sonoma County and the Bay Area.
The share of Very-Low Income householders in Cotati, however, is 2.1% larger than that of Sonoma County and 1.1% larger than the Bay Area. The AMI in Cotati in 2018 was $82,182 meaning that a very low-income family of four should pay no more than $1,027.28 (30% of income) in rent for it to be considered affordable by federal standards. The rate of Extremely Low-Income households in Cotati is comparable to Sonoma County and 4.6% less than the Bay Area average. Many households with multiple wage earners – including food service workers, full-time students, teachers, farmworkers, and healthcare professionals – can fall into these lower AMI categories due to stagnant wages in many industries.
Figure 17: Households by Household Income Level
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Income demographics in Cotati for the years 2010 and 2015 are in Table 30 below.
The figure also provides the income composition of the nine-county Bay Area in 2015.
As of that year, Cotati had a lower share of very low-income residents than the Bay Area, a modestly higher share of low-income residents, a lower share of moderate12.A.b Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 82 income residents and a significantly higher share of above moderate-income residents.
Table 30: Population by Income Group in Cotati and the Region Cotati Bay Area Average
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 23.31% 24.25% 28.7%
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 17.03% 15.29% 14.3%
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 22.56% 13.52% 17.6%
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 37.1% 46.94% 39.4%
Source: Data for 2015 is from Housing U.S. Department of and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data The income dot map of Cotati below offers a visual representation of the spatial distribution of income groups within the jurisdiction. As with the racial dot maps, when the dots show lack of a pattern or clustering, income segregation measures tend to be lower, and conversely, when clusters are apparent, the segregation measures may be higher as well. This map shows predominance of Above Moderate households (dark red dots) but does not reveal any income clusters within Cotati (Figure 18).
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 83 Figure 18: Income Dot Map of Cotati, 2015
Source: 2011-2015 American Community Survey (ACS)
Income Isolation Index Values for Cotati and the average Bay Area jurisdiction are present in Table 31 below. Above Moderate-Income residents are the most isolated income group in Cotati. Cotati’s isolation index of 0.430 for these residents means that the average Above Moderate-Income resident in Cotati lives in a neighborhood that made up of 43.0% Above Moderate-Income households. The degree of isolation of this income group increased between 2010 and 2015 but was still lower than the average Bay Area City.
Like the tables presented earlier for neighborhood racial segregation, the “Bay Area Average” column in Table 31 provides the average isolation index value across Bay Area jurisdictions for different income groups in 2015. The data in this column can be used as a comparison to provide context for the levels of segregation experienced by income groups in this jurisdiction. For example, the average isolation index value for Very Low-Income residents across Bay Area jurisdictions is 0.269, meaning that in the average Bay Area jurisdiction a Very Low-Income resident lives in a neighborhood that is 26.9% Very Low-Income.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 84 Table 31: Income Group Isolation Index Values in Cotati (2010, 2015) and Average Bay Area Jurisdiction
Cotati Bay Area Average
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.234 0.275 0.269
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.189 0.148 0.145
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.215 0.171 0.183
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.382 0.430 0.507
Source: ACS 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data, ACS 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data.
Table 32 provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in Cotati between residents who are lower-income (earning less than 80% of AMI) and those who are not lower-income (earning above 80% of AMI). Segregation in Cotati between lower-income residents and residents who are not lower-income decreased between 2010 and 2015. Additionally, Table 32 shows income group dissimilarity index values for the level of segregation between residents who are very low-income (earning less than 50% of AMI) and those who are above moderate-income (earning above 120% of AMI). This supplementary data point provides additional nuance to an analysis of income segregation, as this index value indicates the extent to which a jurisdiction’s lowest and highest income residents live in separate neighborhoods.
Like other tables in this report, the “Bay Area Average” column shows the average income group dissimilarity index values for these income group pairings across Bay Area jurisdictions in 2015. For example, Table 32 indicates that the average income group dissimilarity index between lower-income residents and other residents in a Bay Area jurisdiction is 0.198, so on average 19.8% of lower-income residents in a Bay Area jurisdiction would need to move to a different neighborhood within the jurisdiction to create perfect income group integration in that jurisdiction.
In 2015, the income segregation in Cotati between lower-income residents and other residents was lower than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions. This means that the lower-income residents are less segregated from other residents within Cotati compared to other jurisdictions in the region.
Table 32: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation in Cotati Cotati Bay Area Average
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.166 0.045 0.198
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.038 0.068 0.253
Source: ACS 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data, ACS 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data.
Deed-restricted affordable housing helps to meet the needs of lower-income households but can serve to further contribute to segregation by income group. There are multiple rental housing projects in the City that include deed-restricted affordable units (Figure 19). Per California Housing Partnership, these include:
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 85 • Charles Street Village, 47 affordable homes, Seniors, 2001 • Marvin Gardens, 37 affordable homes, Family, 1983
• Wilford Lane Apartments, 35 affordable homes, Special Needs, 2003 • Windwood Apartments, 28 affordable homes, Family, 1981 Figure 19: Map of Existing Affordable Rental Housing Projects in Cotati and Surrounding Area
Source: California Housing Partnership Affordable Housing Map Key findings on income in Cotati from the “AFFH Segregation Report: Cotati” conducted by the UC Merced Urban Policy Lab and ABAG/MTC Staff are as follows:
• Neighborhood income segregation in Cotati stayed about the same between 2010 and 2015.
• Above Moderate-income residents are the most segregated compared to other income groups in Cotati. Above Moderate-income residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to encounter residents of other income groups.
• Among all income groups, the Low-income population’s segregation measure has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other income groups between 2010 and 2015.
• Segregation between lower-income residents and residents who are not lower income has decreased between 2010 and 2015. In 2015, the income segregation in Cotati between lower-income residents and other residents was lower than the average Bay Area jurisdiction.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 86 Poverty
Poverty thresholds, as defined by the Census Bureau, vary by household type but remain constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income. Approximately 10.0% of Cotati residents were determined to be living below the poverty level in 2020.17
Across the region, state, and country, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability due to the lasting impacts of historical housing policies that exclude them from opportunities extended to white residents. These economic disparities also leave communities of color at higher risk for housing insecurity, displacement, or homelessness. In Cotati, Black or African American residents experience the highest rates of poverty followed by Other Race or Multiple Races residents (Table 33).
Table 33: Poverty Status by Race in Cotati
Racial / Ethnic Group value
Black or African American (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) 23.9% Other Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) 16.9% Asian / API (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) 12.4%
Hispanic or Latino 9.9%
White, Non-Hispanic 9.1%
White (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) 5.8%
American Indian or Alaska Native (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) 0.0% Source: American Community Survey, 2019 5-Year Estimates Regionally, more than half of all households make more than 100% AMI, while 15% make less than 30% AMI (“extremely low income”). In Sonoma County, 30% AMI is equivalent to the annual income of $35,650 for a family of four. There is no concentration of poverty within the City (Figure 20), and poverty levels have remained about the same since 2014 (Figure 21).
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 87 Figure 20: Population by Poverty Status, 2019
Figure 21: Population by Poverty Status, 2014
Source: American Community Survey, 2019 5-Year Estimates As of 2019, Cotati had a smaller population of impoverished residents compared to the State of California and a slightly larger impoverished population compared to Sonoma County. In the Bay Area, more than half of all households make more than the Area Median Income, while 15% are Extremely Low Income. Households with multiple wage earners–including food service workers, full-time students, teachers, farmworkers, and healthcare professionals–can fall into lower AMI categories due to stagnant wages in certain industries.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 88 Table 34: Percent of Population Below Poverty Level for Whom Poverty Status is Determined in California, Sonoma County, and Cotati (2019) California Sonoma
County Cotati
Percentage of
population
below
poverty line
13.4% 9.2% 10.1%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2019), Table S1701 Racially & Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) and Affluence (RCAA)
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has determined that whites are the most racially segregated group in the United States and “in the same way neighborhood disadvantage is associated with concentrated poverty and high concentrations of people of color, conversely, distinct advantages are associated with residence in affluent, white communities.” HUD defines census tracts with a majority non-White population (greater than 50%) that have either a poverty rate that exceeds 40% or is three times the average tract poverty rate for the metro/micro area, whichever threshold is lower, as Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs). There are no R/ECAPS in the City of Cotati.
While RECAPs have long been the focus of fair housing policies, racially concentrated areas of affluence should be further studied to ensure housing is integrated, a key to fair housing choice. Scholars at the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs have created the Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) metric to tell the story of segregation more fully in the United States. Based on their research, RCAAs are census tracts where 1) 80% or more of the population is white, and 2) the median household income is $125,000 or greater. There are no RECAAs in Cotati.
In February 2017, the California Fair Housing Task Force (Task Force) created a map that more effectively reflects that level of racial and ethnic diversity in many parts of California. The map that was created filters areas that are both non-whites racially segregated and high poverty. Census tracts and rural block groups that have both a poverty rate of over 30% and that are designated as racially segregated are categorized by this statewide standard as “High Segregation and Poverty.” While there are no block groups of High Segregation and Poverty in Cotati, there are areas that are defined as Low Resource according to the 2022 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map. The populations in these areas can be deconstructed by race to reflect a general relationship between race and level of resources. Of the Low Resource areas in the City of Cotati, 70% of the population is white, and 23% of the population is Hispanic/Latino. Meanwhile, the white population in Moderate Resource Areas is nine percent larger and the Hispanic/Latino population is eight percent smaller than in Low Resource areas (Figure 22).
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 89 Figure 22: Population Living in Resource Areas by Race in Cotati Source: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)/California Housing and Community Development (HCD), Opportunity Maps (2020); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002 Integration and Segregation: Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors Cotati has no measurable fair housing issues related to segregation and integration and is more integrated than most areas nearby and in the region.
4.5.4 Dispar ities in Access to Opportun ities
Racial and economic segregation can lead to unequal access to opportunities within community such as access to high performing schools, good paying jobs, public transportation, parks and playgrounds, clean air and water, public safety, and other resources. A generational lack of access, particularly for people of color and lower income residents, has often resulted in poor life outcomes including lower educational attainment, higher morbidity rates, and higher mortality rates.
This section of the Assessment of Fair Housing identifies any socioeconomic barriers related to education, environment, employment, and transportation that could negatively impact certain communities in Cotati.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 90 Resource Areas
The TCAC Opportunity Areas 2022 Composite Score assesses the level of resources related to education, poverty, proximity to jobs and economic opportunities, low pollution levels, and other factors in neighborhoods across the City. The Composite Score, an index that weighs all these factors, indicates that Cotati is categorized as Low Resource, except for the most eastern census tract that is Moderate Resource.
Because census tract boundaries do not align neatly with city limit lines, these composite scores are influenced by activity happening in areas of the census tracts that fall outside of Cotati city limits.
Figure 23: TCAC Opportunity Maps (2022) – Composite Score Source: 2022 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas/Resource Areas
Over three quarters of those living in the Moderate Resource Area are white, and there are 8% more Hispanic/Latino residents living in Low Resource Areas than in the Moderate Resource Area (Figure 24).
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 91 Figure 24: Population Living in Resource Areas by Race Source: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)/California Housing and Community Development (HCD), Opportunity Maps (2020); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015- 2019), Table B03002
Education
2021 TCAC Opportunity Areas Education Scores shown in Figure 25 provide an index for measuring the level of educational outcomes within a census tract. The higher the score, the more positive the outcomes. All census tracts that intersect through Cotati score between 0.25 – 0.50, indicating less positive education outcomes in the City.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 92 Figure 25: TCAC Opportunity Areas (2022) Education Score by Tract Source: 2022 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas/Resource Areas – Education Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District serves 5,766 students from Transitional Kindergarten to Grade 12 in its eleven schools. The City is also close to two higher education institutions, Sonoma State University and Santa Rosa Junior College which offer various certificate and degree programs.
The California School Dashboard calculates the number of Socioeconomically Disadvantaged students in a district based on the number of students who are eligible for free or reduced priced meals or have parents/guardians who did not receive a high school diploma. In the Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District, 46.2% of students fall into this category (Table 35). The District has an enrollment of 5,766 students, 46% being socioeconomically disadvantaged and 17% being English learners. The largest racial/ethnic group is Hispanic with 43.5%.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 93 Table 35: Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified District Student Demographics Student Group Total Percentage
English Learners 986 17.20%
Foster Youth 29 0.50%
Homeless 22 0.40%
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 2,641 46.20%
Students with Disabilities 730 12.80%
Race/Ethnicity Total Percentage
African American 108 1.90%
American Indian 38 0.70%
Asian 171 3.00%
Filipino 63 1.10%
Hispanic 2,489 43.50%
Pacific Islander 27 0.50%
Two or More Races 366 6.40%
White 2,206 38.60%
Total Enrollment 5,468
Source: California School Dashboard, Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified, 2019 The California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress from 2018-2019 for all grades shows that the school district scores for Level 4 (Exceeds) is higher than for the County and State for English Language. The Math scores are lower than both the County and State.
Figure 26: English Language Arts/Literacy Distribution – All Grades, 2018-2019 Source: California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 94 Figure 27: Mathematics Achievement Distribution – All Grades, 2018-2019 Source: California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress Access to Healthy Environment
In October 2021, the California Office for Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (COEHHA) released the fourth version of CalEnviroScreen, a tool that uses environmental, health, and socio-economic indicators to map and compare community environmental scores. A community within the 75th percentile or above is one with higher levels of pollution and/or has other negative environmental traits and is categorized as a “disadvantaged community.” The City of Cotati contains no census tracts within the 75th percentile and therefore does not contain any Disadvantaged Communities by COEHHA metrics.
Figure 28: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentiles by Census Tracts in Cotati Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0, 2021 - Tract
The California Healthy Places Index (HPI) combines 25 community characteristics, like access to healthcare, housing, education, and more, into a single indexed HPI score. The healthier a community, the higher the HPI score. The HPI applies a positive frame focusing on assets a community has have they can build on, rather than what is lacking. According to this index, Cotati has healthier clean environmental conditions than 84.8% of other California Cities/Towns. Cotati’s Ozone quality scores particularly highly on this index in 96.4 percentile.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 95 Figure 29: Clean Environment Conditions in Cotati Compared to Other California Cities/Towns
Source: The California Healthy Places Index (HPI)
Transportation
Affordable and reliable transportation is of paramount importance to households affected by low incomes and rising housing prices. In Sonoma County, households without cars have the options of bus and train transit, bicycling, walking and an increasing network of ride-hail companies, also known as Transportation Network Companies (TNCs), all of which are less expensive than owning and driving a car or truck. Ideally, public transit would link people to job opportunities and services, especially low-income residents who are often transit-dependent. Affordable and reliable access to employment via public transportation can reduce the need for public assistance and increase housing mobility, which enables residents to locate housing outside of traditionally lower- and moderate-income neighborhoods. The lack of a robust public transit system, employment opportunities, and affordable housing may impede fair housing choice by limiting housing choice. In addition, elderly and disabled persons also often rely on public transit to visit doctors, go shopping, or attend activities at community facilities. Public transit operators work to provide access to job opportunities, public services, and affordable housing.
Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) is the San Francisco Bay Area’s newest transportation option for public transit, offering passenger rail service in Sonoma and Marin counties. SMART’s rail corridor includes 11 stations, from the Sonoma County Airport to Larkspur. The Cotati station is located at 980 East Cotati Avenue. SMART connects passengers to jobs, education centers, retail hubs and housing along the Sonoma-Marin corridor, and a bicycle-pedestrian pathway. In the future, SMART
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 96 service will be extended to Windsor, Healdsburg, and Cloverdale, and provide over 70 miles of passenger rail service.
Figure 30: Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) Service Corridor Map Sonoma County Transit (SCT), Golden Gate Transit (GGT) and Paratransit provide bus services in Cotati. SCT is the primary transit provider for all Sonoma County jurisdictions; it provides regularly scheduled fixed-route service to major activity centers and transit hubs within the City limits. Four SCT routes serve the City of Cotati:
• Route 48/48X travels daily between Santa Rosa and Petaluma and serves Rohnert Park and Cotati (on Old Redwood Highway). Route 48X is an express route deviation of Route 48 that bypasses the Rohnert Park and Cotati neighborhoods along Adrian Drive.
• Route 26 travels between Sebastopol and Sonoma State University on weekdays, serving the Cotati Park & Ride lot on the west side of US 101 along the way.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 97 • Route 10 offers local service between Old Redwood Highway in Cotati and Rohnert Park’s shopping areas, Sonoma State University and, on school days, to Rohnert Park primary and secondary schools.
• Route 44 provides daily service between Petaluma, Cotati, Rohnert Park, and Santa Rosa. All routes operate on approximately 45- to 90-minute headways. Sonoma County Transit staff indicated that all service routes in Cotati operate well within maximum capacity levels.
All routes operate on approximately 45- to 90-minute headways. Sonoma County Transit staff indicated that all service routes in Cotati operate well within maximum capacity levels.
Figure 31: Sonoma County Transit System Map
Source: Sonoma County Transit, 2022
Golden Gate Transit Routes 72, 80, and 101 serve Cotati with stops located at either the Hub or the St. Joseph’s Park and Ride. Commute service to and from San Francisco is provided on weekdays in the morning and evening hours at approximately one-hour intervals between 4:00 and 9:00 AM and 6:00 and 10:00 PM, with stops in various communities along the US 101 corridor including Santa Rosa to the north and various cities in Marin County to the south. Weekend service
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 98 is provided hourly between approximately 4:00 AM and 10:00 PM. No capacity issues were identified on existing service routes.
Paratransit, also known as dial-a-ride or door-to-door service, is available for those that are unable to independently use the transit system due to a physical or mental disability. Individuals must register and be certified as ADA eligible before using the service. The ADA requires paratransit operators to service areas within three-quarters of a mile of their respective, public fixed-route service. Volunteer Wheels serves as the ADA paratransit operator for Sonoma County Transit and the City of Cotati.
Service hours are Monday through Friday from 5:00 AM to 11:00 PM and Sunday and Sunday from 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM. Ride reservations can be scheduled daily.
SCT supports the needs of the disabled community by ensuring that all bus lines are accessible through wheelchair lifts, with at least two on each bus. In addition, the agency offers half-priced fares to youth between the ages of five and eighteen, senior passengers 65 years and over, Medicare card holders, children under the age of five, U.S. veterans, college students, and disabled passengers with identification.
The County of Sonoma partners with public and nonprofit agencies to provide senior transportation support. This includes the Medical Transportation Management (MTM), Non-Emergent Medical Transportation (NEMT), Sonoma County Area Agenda on Aging, Center for Volunteer and Nonprofit Leadership, and others. There are also volunteer driver programs currently supported by the Area Agency on Aging.
In June 2018, Sonoma County Transit began its first “Fare-Free” local route. This program has resulted in a significant increase in ridership on the “Fare-Free” routes and riders have cited the ease of boarding without needing to plan for paying for a ride or purchasing a pass as an attraction.
The California Health Places Index (HPI) uses Active Commuting and Automobile access as indicators of healthy transportation conditions in a jurisdiction. Cotati has healthier transportation conditions than 76.2% of other California cities according to this index. The rate of Active Commuting in the City is low but still within the 70.7 percentile. Ride share and micromobility options continue to gradually fill in transportation options around traditional fixed route public options.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 99 Figure 32: California Healthy Places Index: Transportation in Cotati Source: California Healthy Places Index
Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) outlines current and future options for public transit in their Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Moving Forward 2050.
This public document is updated every five years to ensure the plan is relevant and meets community needs. In the most recent update, released in September 2021, SCTA outlines “Equity Priority Communities” and “2020 Caltrans Active Transportation Program Disadvantaged Communities.” There is one small section of northern Cotati that falls within an Equity Priority Community areas as identified using MTC Plan Bay Area criteria; however there are no identified 2020 Caltrans Active Transportation Program Disadvantaged Communities.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 100
Figure 33: Sonoma County Equity Priority Communities
Source: Sonoma County Transportation Authority
The Plan suggests that rising transportation costs impact household incomes and affordability throughout Sonoma County. The Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) estimates that transportation and housing costs accounted for over 50% of household incomes in our county. Reducing household transportation will increase countywide affordability and improve quality of life in Sonoma County.
Economic Development and Job Access
The TCAC Opportunity Maps accounts for regional differences in access to opportunities within census tracts. The Economic Domain factors in the following indicators to generate Economic Scores for each tract:
• Poverty: Percent of population with income level above 200% of federal poverty line
• Adult Education: Percent of adults with a bachelor’s degree or above • Employment: Percent of adults aged 20-64 who are employed in the civilian labor force or in the armed forces
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 101
• Job Proximity: Number of jobs filled by workers with less than a BA that all within a given radius of each census tract
• Median Home Value: Value of owner-occupied units
A score of less than 0.25 (yellow) indicates a less positive economic outcome, while scoring greater than 0.75 (dark green) indicates greater access to economic opportunities. Most of Cotati scores in the lowest quartile by these metrics.
Figure 34: TCAC Opportunity Areas (2021) Economic Scores in Cotati Source: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas/Resource Areas (2021) – Economic Adequate access to FDIC-regulated banks reduces the likelihood of discrimination in lending and credit services as well as predatory lending practices that further racial and socio-economic inequities. Cotati has one of the smallest populations of all jurisdictions in Sonoma County as well as one of the smallest proportions of minority populations. The City has one FDIC-regulated full-service brick and mortar bank branches (Table 36).
Table 36: FDIC-Regulated Bank Branches by Sonoma County Municipality Municipality Population5 % Minority
Population
FDIC-Regulated
Full-Service Brick
and Mortar
Branches
FDIC-Regulated
Non-Brick and
Mortar Branches
Santa Rosa, CA 178,127 48.8% 38 11
Petaluma, CA 59,776 33.4% 10 1
Rohnert Park, CA 44,390 41% 8 0
Windsor, CA 26,344 46.7% 4 2
Healdsburg, CA 11,340 36.8% 11 0
Sonoma, CA 10,739 27.9% 11 0
Cloverdale, CA 8,996 42.2% 2 0
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 102
Cotati, CA 7,584 25.9% 1 0
Sebastopol, CA 7,521 21.7% 6 0
County Total 488,863 40.6% 99 13
Source: All FDIC-related data derived from: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 2022 https://www7.fdic.gov/idasp/advSearch_warp_download_all.asp?intTab=1.
Future housing needs depend in part on the trajectory of the local workforce. Changes in the types and pay levels of jobs available in Cotati and the surrounding region will impact the type and cost of housing that current and future residents can afford.
Employment trends indicate a need for a range of housing types that support Cotati residents who are employed in various industries. There is a particular need for more moderate- and lower-income housing units to support workers in the retail, manufacturing, and other lower-wage industries.
“Projections 2040” is the most recent in the Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG) series of data on demographic, economic, and land use changes in coming decades, the current version covering the period between 2010 and 2040. The projections in Table 37 illustrates how Cotati will grow economically both in terms of the number of jobs and employed residents. Excluding past years, the period of largest job growth and employed resident in Cotati is expected in 2030.
Table 37: Projected Change in Jobs and Employed Residents in Cotati between 2010 and 2040
Year Jobs % Change Employed
Residents % Change
2010 2,705 4,120
2015 2,830 1.0% 4,535 10.1%
2020 2,905 4.8% 4,620 1.9%
2025 2,930 6.9% 4,825 4.4%
2030 2,900 11.5% 5,245 8.7%
2035 2,905 2.3% 5,250 0.1%
2040 2,955 10.8% 5,650 7.6%
Source: ABAG/MTC, Plan Bay Area 2040 Projections, 2017
Employment inflow/outflow analyses highlight the movement of workers commuting into and out of Cotati (Figure 35) and are useful in understanding the ratio between residents who are employed within the City and those who are employed outside of the City as well as how many workers are commuting to work from outside of the City.
As shown in Figure 35, Cotati is a net exporter of workers which means most employed people in Cotati commute outside of the City for work. Of the 6,843 workers who live and/or work in Cotati, 161 (2.4%) are employed and live in Cotati, 3,742 (54.7%) live in but are employed outside of Cotati, and 2,940 (43.0%) live outside but are employed in Cotati. Further analysis of worker flow is
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 103
needed to determine if there is a housing need for non-resident employees (i.e., average length of commutes, city-wide VMT analysis, etc.).
Figure 35: Inflow and Outflow of Workers in Cotati
*Note: Arrows do not indicate directionality of worker flow Source: OntheMap.ces.census.gov, 2019
Figure 36 ranks jurisdictions in Sonoma County based on its respective jobs-tohousing ratio. The higher the ranking, the stronger the jobs-to-housing ratio which means that the City more adequately provides housings according to the number of jobs and vice-versa. Sonoma and Sebastopol top the list with jobs-to-housing ratios above 1.4 (i.e., 1.4 jobs produced for every home built). Not significantly far behind, Cotati produces 1.3 jobs for every home built. All Sonoma County jurisdictions rank well below the average Bay Area jurisdiction given that cities like San Francisco and San Jose produce more than three jobs for every permitted home according to the State of Housing in Sonoma County 2022 report.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 104
Figure 36: Ratio of All Jobs to Homes in Sonoma County Jurisdictions Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, Annual Progress Reports, Generation Housing Disparities in Access to Opportunity: Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors
Cotati residents have access to a high-quality healthy environment, and there are no notable disparities in access to transportation, jobs, or education by protected class.
4.5.5 Disproportionate Housing Needs, Including Displacem ent Disproportionate housing needs generally refer to significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing needs when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. For purposes of this definition, categories of housing need are based on such factors as cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions. This section analyzes these four housing needs categories as they apply to the City of Cotati.
Cost Burden and Severe Cost Burden
Housing cost burden is commonly measured as the percentage of gross income spent on housing, with 30% threshold for 'cost burden' and 50% the threshold for 'severe cost burden.' A lower-income household spending the same percent of income on housing as a higher-income household is therefore more likely to experience a ‘cost burden.' Some of the implications of high-cost burden can include housing-induced poverty, where overspending on housing leaves households little financial resources for other expenditures, and reduced savings which can impact asset accumulation. The typical contract rent for an apartment in Cotati was $1,470 in 2019. Rental prices increased by 41.3% from 2009 to 2019.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 105
To rent a typical apartment without cost burden, a household would need to make $59,120 per year. 18
Home prices have skyrocketed in the last decade; however, most homeowners have mortgages with fixed rates or own outright and are therefore less likely to be impacted by market increases. Renters on the other hand are subject to rent increases based on market rates and tend to experience a greater cost burden. This is the case in Cotati where 47% of renters are either cost-burdened or severely costburdened while only 27% of homeowners are either cost burdened or severely costburdened (Figure 37).
Figure 37: Cost Burden by Tenure in Cotati, 2019
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019) Rates of cost burden also vary across income categories. Over half of extremely lowincome households in Cotati are severely cost-burdened. The proportion of severely cost-burdened households becomes exponentially smaller as income increases (Figure 38). This indicates that the lowest income households are in the greatest need of affordable housing in Cotati.
18 Housing Needs Data Report: Cotati, ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning, 2021-04-02
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 106
Figure 38: Cost Burden by Income Level in Cotati
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Compared to Sonoma County and the State, Cotati has comparable rates of housing cost burden. In both Cotati and the Bay Area, 36.1% of households experience cost burden while in Sonoma County that number is slightly higher at 38.9% (Table 38).
Table 38: Cost Burden Severity in Cotati, County, State Geography
0%-30% of
Income Used for
Housing
30%-50% of
Income Used for
Housing
50%+ of Income
Used for Housing
Cotati 62.4% 22.4% 13.7%
Sonoma County 58.7% 21.5% 17.4%
Bay Area 61.7% 19.7% 16.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B25091 Overcrowding
Households having more than 1.01 to 1.5 persons per room are considered overcrowded and those having more than 1.51 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. The person per room analysis excludes bathrooms, porches foyers, halls, and half-rooms. Residential overcrowding reflects demographic and socioeconomic conditions as it has been correlated with increased risks of contracting communicable diseases, higher rates of respiratory illness, and greater vulnerability to being homeless.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 107
Older-adult immigrant and recent immigrant communities, families with low incomes and renter-occupied households are more likely to experience household crowding.
A form of residential overcrowding known as "doubling up" is co-residing with family members or friends for economic reasons. Doubling up is the most reported living situation for families and individuals before the onset of homelessness.19 In Cotati, rates of overcrowding are highest for Hispanic households followed by Other Race or Multiple. Non-Hispanic White households experience the lowest rates of overcrowding followed by Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White households (Figure 39).
Hispanic and Asian households both experience higher rates of overcrowding than the city average. As with the data discussed for disability status above, age may play a factor in racial and ethnic disparities in overcrowding. Younger adults are more likely to have minor children in their households, which, in turn, increases the likelihood of overcrowding. Conversely, older adults are more likely to reside in oneor two-person households.
Figure 39: Occupants Per Room for Households by Race and Ethnicity Source: 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Cotati has 3% more households that experience both cost burden and severe cost burden than in Sonoma County and the Bay Area. This may be partially attributed to the number of Sonoma Stata University students who rent locally rather than living on campus in dormitories.
19 California Department of Health and Human Services
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 108
Figure 40: Overcrowding Severity in Cotati, Sonoma County and the Bay Area Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Substandard Housing
As defined by the U.S. Census, there are two types of substandard housing problems:
(1) Households without hot and cold piped water, a flush toilet and a bathtub or shower; and (2) Households with kitchen facilities that lack a sink with piped water, a range or stove, or a refrigerator. In Cotati, less than 1.2% of both owners and renters experience either of these two types of substandard housing problems (Table 39).
Table 39: Substandard Housing Issues
Building Amenity Owner Renter
Kitchen 1.2% 0.8%
Plumbing 1.2% 0.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25053, Table B25043, Table B25049
Homelessness
Those experiencing homelessness include individuals or families who lack or are perceived to lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, or who have a
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 109
primary nighttime residence in a shelter, on the street, in a vehicle, or in an enclosure or structure that is not authorized or fit for human habitation. People experiencing homelessness have the most immediate housing needs of any population group and are most vulnerable to violence and criminalization due to their unhoused status.
California accounts for almost half (47%) of the U.S. homeless population and Sonoma County has the fourth highest number of homeless individuals for large suburban areas in the country. The 2020 Sonoma County Point-In-Time Count reported 2,745 individuals experiencing homelessness, a seven percent decrease in homeless persons since 2019. Of those experiencing homelessness in the County, the majority (63%) are white men. Between 2019 and 2020, the number of sheltered populations increased by five percent.20
The 2020 Point-In-Time Count totaled 37 individuals experiencing homelessness in Cotati which was down from 44 individuals in 2014. All 37 of these individuals were counted as unsheltered (Table 40).
Table 40: Homeless Persons in Cotati by Shelter Status
Shelter Status 2018 2019 2020
Unsheltered 1 44 37
Sheltered 0 0 0
Total 1 44 37
Source: 2020 Sonoma County Homeless Census Comprehensive Report Displacement
Shifts in neighborhood composition are framed and perpetuated by established patterns of racial inequity and segregation. Neighborhood change occurs as a result of three processes: movement of people, public policies, and investments, such as capital improvements and planned transit stops, and flows of private capital.21 These processes can disproportionally impact people of color, as well as lower income households, persons with disabilities, large households, and persons at-risk or experiencing homelessness. They can also displace people to the extent of homelessness.
For the purposes of this assessment, displacement is used to describe any involuntary household move caused by property owner action or market changes.
Displacement is fueled by a combination of rising housing costs, rising income inequality, stagnant wages, and insufficient market-rate housing production.22 Decades of disinvestment in low-income communities, couples with investor 20 County of Sonoma Community Development Commission “Project Homekey” page 21 Zuk, M., et al. (2015). Gentrification, Displacement, and the Role of Public Investment. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 32.
22 Been, V., Ingrid, E., & O’Regan, K. (2019). Supply Skepticism: Housing Supply and Affordability.
Housing Policy Debate, 29(1), 25-40.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 110
speculation, can result in a rent gap or a disparity between current rental income and the land, and potentially achievable rental income if the property is converted to its most profitable use.
The University of California, Berkeley (UCB)’s Urban Displacement Project Bay Area Model 2020 identifies most census tracts in Cotati as Low-Income/Susceptible to Displacement. A smaller tract in the most southeastern part of the city is Stable Moderate/Mixed Income.
Figure 41: Urban Displacement Project Bay Area Model 2020 - Cotati Source: Chapple, K., & Thomas, T., and Zuk, M. (2021). Urban Displacement Project website. Berkeley, CA:
Urban Displacement Project.
Figure 42 identifies areas that at risk of flooding and/or disaster-driven displacement. The Special Flood Hazard Areas in Cotati exist along the northeastern border of the City where there are 0.2% (light purple) and 1% (dark purple) Annual Chance Flood Hazard areas and a Regulatory Floodway. The northwestern part of the City also has a wide area that has 0.2% annual chance of flooding.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 111
Figure 42: Special Flood Hazard Areas (FEMA, 2020) in Cotati Source: Flood Hazard Areas from the Flood Insurance Rate Map created by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Disproportionate Housing Needs and Displacement: Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors
The risk of displacement due to economic pressures was ranked and the most important factor contributing to fair housing issues in Cotati. The rising cost of housing in Cotati, Sonoma County, and across the Bay Area region is driving displacement of the most vulnerable populations. This is not only disruptive and, in some cases, traumatic for displaced households, but is also a primary driver of segregation at the regional scale. Factors that contribute to disproportionate housing needs in the City of Cotati include economic pressures and community opposition.
Programs described in the table below, including Program 4-3: Nondiscrimination and Fair Housing Information and Program 2-2 Streamlining Housing Development, will help to ensure that residents, tenants and property owners are aware of their rights and obligations under the law, including tenant protection measures, and will reduce discretionary reviews and permitting levels for affordable housing projects.
4.5.6 Sum m ary of Fair Housing Goals and Priorities Based on Iden tified Con tributin g Factors
Table 41: Prioritization of Contributing Factors
Prioritized Contributing
Factors
Meaningful Actions
Displacement of residents
due to economic pressures
Priority: High
Program 4-1 Antidisplacement Actions
• Pursue grant opportunities to create a residential
rehabilitation program for lower income residents.
• Explore a Condominium Conversion ordinance to limit the loss of rental housing stock, as applicable.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 112
• Continue to promote programs for housing stability and eviction prevention.
• Prepare a directory of trusted community partners willing to promote these programs. Utilize these partnerships to share resources in a culturally sensitive manner and
incorporate place-based outreach.
Program 1-5 Preservation of Affordable Housing
• Provide committed assistance to protect 28 at-risk units Program 3-4 Housing Choice Vouchers
• Monitor the status of the Section 8 waiting list on a quarterly basis and issue a citywide notification via the City’s mailing list upon periodic opening of the waiting list Community Opposition
Priority: Moderate
Program 2-2 Streamlining Housing Development
• Develop a written streamlined application process in
accordance with SB 35 and SB 330, including the preapplication and the procedure. • Develop Objective Design and Development Standards for multi-family, single-family and mixed-use projects.
Program 1-3 Non-Profit and Agency Coordination
• Convene an annual discussion on Housing Fair between
housing developers, decisionmakers, advocates, and other interested parties and continue working with and develop new relationships with local agencies, nonprofit housing providers, and local organizations.
Lack of affordable units
appropriately sized for
large families
Priority: Moderate
Program 3-2 Funding for Affordable and Special Needs Housing • Continue to seek funding for affordable and special needs housing, including affordable housing for large households • Use the Housing Fund to make housing available to very low to moderate-income Cotati residents, with an
emphasis on very low and low income units for individuals and large families, affordable senior housing, and
transitional/supportive housing.
Lack of awareness of and
funding for fair housing
outreach and enforcement
Priority: Low
Program 1-3 Non-Profit and Agency Coordination
• Convene an annual discussion on Housing Fair between
housing developers, decisionmakers, advocates, and other interested parties and continue working with and develop new relationships with local agencies, nonprofit housing providers, and local organizations.
Program 4-3 Nondiscrimination and Fair Housing Information • Require bilingual (English/Spanish) availability of rental agreements by 2025.
• Continue to maintain an inventory of existing affordable rental housing and affordable ownership opportunities and programs on the City website.
• Continue to provide information regarding equal housing opportunity laws and the City's equal housing
opportunities procedures to the public at City Hall, the Police Department and the City’s website. Include
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 113
information about Fair Housing of Sonoma County to
ensure residents with grievances can connect to the
appropriate agencies and services.
Lack of public investment in
neighborhoods, including
services & amenities
Priority: Low
Program 1-4: Capital Improvement Program
• Maintain infrastructure in Lower Resource Areas
Program 2-6: Santero Way Specific Plan
• Increase capacity for transit-oriented development in the Moderate Resource Area
Program 3-6: Prohousing Designation
• Review policies and programs within one year of Housing Element Adoption. If eligible, apply to receive the
Prohousing Designation and receive an advantage in
applications for competitive funding sources, including funding for infrastructure and transit.
4.5.7 H ousin g Sites an d AFFH Con sider ation s
Housing sites identified to meet Cotati’s RHNA are distributed throughout the community in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing. While Cotati only contains areas designated as Low Resource and Moderate Resource, sites are distributed throughout these two areas, not concentrated by income, and supported by fair housing programs.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 114
Figure 43: Housing Sites and Resource Areas
Source: HCD/TCAC Opportunity Maps, 2022
Segregation and Integration
The Assessment of Fair Housing found no identifiable clusters of segregation by race, ethnicity, income, or protected classes. Cotati is generally more integrated than most nearby jurisdictions. Housing sites are dispersed throughout the community and promote integration.
Table 42: Housing Sites and Segregation Indicators
Census
Tract
Block
Group
Housing
Sites
Housing
Units
LowerIncome
Housing
Units
Population
with a
disability,
Tract
% Households in
renter-occupied
housing units,
Tract
% Hispanic
Population,
Block Group
% Non-White
Population,
Block Group
151201 5 4 498 49 849 36% 35% 44%
151203 1 2 104 11 555 41% 23% 35%
151203 2 0 51 0 555 41% 15% 20%
151203 4 3 19 0 555 41% 22% 35%
151204 1 2 42 3 350 42% 17% 27%
151204 2 1 27 2 350 42% 25% 37%
151301 1 0 0 0 442 48% 30% 40%
Source: American Community Survey 2019, 5-Year Estimates
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 115
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
There are no racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty or racially concentrated areas of affluence within Cotati. The location of housing sites does not affect these conditions.
Disparities in Access to Opportunity
There are minimal disparities in access to opportunity by protected class and income throughout Cotati. Sites on the western side of the City are located in a Lower Resource area. Particularly, sites west of the freeway have less access to transportation and are further from amenities and resources. A program is included to address this need.
Table 43: Housing Sites and Access to Opportunity
Census
Tract
Block
Group Sites Units
LowerIncome
Housing
Units
2022
TCAC/HCD
Resource
Level
2022
TCAC/HCD
Educational
Score
2022
TCAC/HCD
Environmental
Score
2022
TCAC/HCD
Economic
Score
Job
Proximity
Index
Score
151201 5 4 498 49 Low 0.33 0.43 0.1 82
151203 1 2 104 11 Moderate 0.43 0.97 0.22 2
151203 2 0 51 0 Moderate 0.43 0.97 0.22 5
151203 4 3 19 0 Moderate 0.43 0.97 0.22 3
151204 1 2 42 3 Low 0.26 0.77 0.26 10
151204 2 1 27 2 Low 0.26 0.77 0.26 17
151301 1 0 0 0 Low 0.26 0.95 0.11 5
Sources: HCD/TCAC Opportunity Area Maps, 2022; HUD Job Proximity Index, 2014-2017 Disproportionate Housing Needs Including Displacement
Risk of displacement and cost burden are highest amongst low-income renter households. The location of housing sites will not exacerbate these conditions, and programs are included to address this need.
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) 116
Census
Tract
Block
Group
Housing
Sites
Housing
Units
LowerIncome
Housing
Units
% LMI
Population,
Block Group
Median
Income,
block group
151201 5 4 498 49 70% 47120
151203 1 2 104 11 48% 65417
151203 2 0 51 0 20% 126983
151203 4 3 19 0 43% 65469
151204 1 2 42 3 32% 75542
151204 2 1 27 2 36% 71250
151301 1 0 0 0 38% 77143
Source: HUD, Low to Moderate Income Population, 2015; American Community Survey, Median Income, 2019 5-Year Estimates
12.A.b
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Cotati Public Review Draft Technical Background Report (09-26-2022) (Draft Housing Element Public Review Period) Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: COVID-19 Update
Date: October 11, 2022
Written by: Damien O'Bid, City Manager
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council review current COVID health orders, adopt a motion directing staff to align city COVID policies with state and local health orders, and discuss timing to resume in-person public meetings.
Background
City Council Meetings
Due to the rapidly spreading COVID-19 virus and eventual pandemic, in April 2020, all City Council and Planning Commission meetings began to be held virtually for the safety all attendees, in accordance with the Governor’s executive order and subsequent legislation (AB 361). Fully virtual meetings continue today in accordance with AB 361.
On September 13, Governor Newsom signed AB 2449 into law, again amending the Brown Act procedures for meetings, effective January 1, 2023 (see attached summary). The City currently follows the virtual meeting provisions of AB 361, which expires on January 1, 2024. AB 361 authorizes a local agency to use teleconferencing without complying with specified teleconferencing requirements in certain circumstances when a declared state of emergency is in effect, or in other situations related to public health.
AB 2449 revises those teleconferencing provisions and, until January 1, 2026, authorizes a local agency to use teleconferencing without complying with the teleconferencing requirements that each teleconference location be identified in the notice and agenda and that each teleconference location be accessible to the public, if at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body participates in person from a singular physical location clearly identified on the agenda that is open to the public and situated within the local agency’s jurisdiction. Under this exception, AB 2449 authorizes the council member to participate remotely under specified circumstances, including participating remotely for just cause or due to emergency circumstances. The emergency circumstances basis for remote participation would be contingent on a request to, and action by, the City Council.
12.B
Packet Pg. 360
AB 2449's teleconference procedures may not be used by a member of the legislative body to teleconference for a period of more than three consecutive months or 20% of the regular meetings within a calendar year, or more than two meetings if the legislative body meets fewer than 10 times per calendar year. Members participating remotely must do so through both audio and visual technology and must publicly disclose whether any individual over the age of 18 is present at the remote location with the member.
Health Orders
On August 24, 2021, due to a series of County health orders, the City Council directed staff to expand weekly testing to any unvaccinated employees (in addition to public safety, under Health Order C19-26). Additionally, unvaccinated employees are required to wear facemasks indoors.
These policies continue to be in effect today.
In 2020 CalOSHA adopted Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS) for the workplace to control the spread of COVID. The ETS requires all employers to adhere to certain protocols for communication/employee safety/testing/isolation. As COVID risks changed, the ETS was revised numerous times. Notably, on May 3, 2022, CalOSHA updated the ETS to remove the requirement that unvaccinated persons needed to wear face coverings indoors, except in certain high-risk environments. Unless extended again, the ETS will expire on December 31, 2022.
On September 17, 2022, the County Health Department, in alignment with the State Department of Public Health, dropped weekly testing and masking requirements in most settings. Today, only medical, skilled nursing and similar high-risk settings with vulnerable populations still require face masks and vaccination/booster requirements for employees (see attached table). The County Health Department still recommends masking in indoor settings.
Out of the legislative session that recently ended, Governor Newsom signed AB 152, which extended the supplemental COVID sick leave benefits to December 31, 2022 (originally scheduled to expire on September 30, 2022).
Analysis/Discussion
City Council Meetings
Below is a summary of the format of cities in Sonoma County, as of September 30, 2022:
City/Town
City Council Public Participation
In-person Virtual In-person Virtual
Cloverdale X Allowed X X
Cotati X X
Healdsburg X Allowed X X
Petaluma X X X
Rohnert Park X X
Petaluma X X X
Santa Rosa X Allowed X X
Sebastopol X X
Sonoma X X X
12.B
Packet Pg. 361
Windsor X Allowed X
At this time, the majority of the cities are holding in person Council meetings, with some also keeping the virtual option available. Except for Rohnert Park, all allow for virtual or in-person public participation. Rohnert Park only allows in-person participation. Sebastopol remains fully virtual because they hold their City Council meetings in a recreation center that has been regularly rented by private parties through COVID. In Petaluma only the City Council meetings allow for hybrid public participation. All other commission and committee meetings are fully virtual due to technology limitations.
If desired by the City Council, the City Council Chambers could be ready in November to host hybrid meetings. The City has had the technology ready for several years, but will need to modify some furniture to meet current accessibility standards. In any case, with the provisions of AB 2449 taking effect on January 1, 2023, it appears that a quorum will be required to be inperson no later than the first January meeting.
In-person options can include the full city council in-person, or just some city council members in person. Public participation can remain fully virtual, both in-person or virtual, or only inperson. Staff recommends that public participation be both in-person or virtual with at least a quorum of City Council members in-person with the virtual option available, as permitted under the Brown Act.
Health Orders
Given the current state of the ETS and the various health orders and guidelines, it is recommended that the City update its employee policies to align with current health guidance moving forward. This would result in ceasing weekly testing and indoor mask requirements for unvaccinated employees but would still require disclosure of vaccination status by all employees.
Financial Considerations
The proposed change to COVID measures will reduce City expenditures by removing the weekly testing requirement.
Environmental Issues
This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378.
Attachments:
Updates to State Public Health Orders (DOCX)
AB 2449 Summary (PDF)
12.B
Packet Pg. 362
CHART OUTLINING ALL CHANGES BY SECTOR:
*Note – Updates rescinding all general screening testing requirements for workers do not supersede any CalOSHA requirements for testing when exposed or during an outbreak SETTING UPDATED EFFECTIVE SEPT 17TH:
General Screening Testing of
asymptomatic, unvaccinated
or exempt staff *
UPDATED EFFECTIVE SEPT. 17TH:
Vaccine/booster requirements of
covered workers
REQUIREMENTS BEFORE
September 17TH
Schools None None Covered workers had to show
proof of vaccination or
undergo weekly screening
testing
Homeless Shelters, Dental offices,
and Adult Day Programs Licensed
by the California Department of
Social Services
None None Covered workers had to show
proof of vaccination or
undergo weekly screening
testing
Non-medical State and Local
Correctional Facilities
None None Covered workers had to show
proof of vaccination or
undergo weekly screening
testing
Skilled Nursing Facilities Still required for staff based on CMS federal requirements
Covered Workers must be vaccinated and
boosted according to Table A in the
Order.
- No specific requirement as to “type” of
booster
- Booster timing must be “at least 2
months but no more than 6 months” after
completing primary series
Covered workers had to be
vaccinated and boosted.
(Unvaccinated) exempt
workers had to undergo
weekly screening testing.
12.B.a
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Updates to State Public Health Orders (COVID Testing Requirement for Unvaccinated SETTING UPDATED EFFECTIVE SEPT 17TH:
General Screening Testing of
asymptomatic, unvaccinated
or exempt staff *
UPDATED EFFECTIVE SEPT. 17TH:
Vaccine/booster requirements of
covered workers
REQUIREMENTS BEFORE
September 17TH
HealthCare:
1. General Acute Care
Hospitals
2. Intermediate Care Facilities
3. Acute Psychiatric Hospitals
4. Adult Day Health Care
Centers
5. Program of All-Inclusive
Care for the Elderly (PACE)
and PACE Centers
6. Ambulatory Surgery
Centers
7. Chemical Dependency
Recovery Hospitals
8. Clinics & Doctor Offices
(including behavioral
health, surgical)
9. Congregate Living Health
Facilities
10. Dialysis Centers
11. Hospice Facilities
12. Pediatric Day Health and
Respite Care Facilities
13. Residential Substance Use
Treatment and Mental
Health Treatment Facilities
None Covered Workers must be vaccinated and
boosted according to Table A in the
Order.
- No specific requirement as to “type” of
booster
- Booster timing must be “at least 2
months but no more than 6 months” after
completing primary series
Covered workers had to be
vaccinated and boosted.
(Unvaccinated) exempt
workers had to undergo
weekly screening testing.
12.B.a
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Updates to State Public Health Orders (COVID Testing Requirement for Unvaccinated SETTING UPDATED EFFECTIVE SEPT 17TH:
General Screening Testing of
asymptomatic, unvaccinated
or exempt staff *
UPDATED EFFECTIVE SEPT. 17TH:
Vaccine/booster requirements of
covered workers
REQUIREMENTS BEFORE
September 17TH
Order of the State Public Health
Officer Health Care Worker Vaccine
Requirement
Adult Care Facilities and Direct Care
Workers:
1. Adult and Senior Care
Facilities licensed by the
California Department of
Social Services
2. In-home direct care
services workers
3. All regional center
employees, as well as
service provider workers,
who provide services to a
consumer through the
network of Regional
Centers
Order of the State Public Health
Officer Adult Care Facilities and
Direct Care Worker Vaccine
Requirement
None Covered Workers must be vaccinated and
boosted according to Table A in the
Order.
- No specific requirement as to “type” of
booster
- Booster timing must be “at least 2
months but no more than 6 months” after
completing primary series
Covered workers had to be
vaccinated and boosted.
(Unvaccinated) exempt
workers had to undergo
weekly screening testing.
12.B.a
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Updates to State Public Health Orders (COVID Testing Requirement for Unvaccinated SETTING UPDATED EFFECTIVE SEPT 17TH:
General Screening Testing of
asymptomatic, unvaccinated
or exempt staff *
UPDATED EFFECTIVE SEPT. 17TH:
Vaccine/booster requirements of
covered workers
REQUIREMENTS BEFORE
September 17TH
Medical State and Local
Correctional Facilities:
1. Those regularly assigned to
provide health care or
health care services to
inmates, prisoners, or
detainees.
2. Integrated skilled nursing
facilities, intermediate care
facilities, or the equivalent
in the correctional facility
or detention center
Order of the State Public Health
Officer Correctional Facilities and
Detention Centers Health Care
Worker Vaccination Order
None except those for integrated
SNFs
Covered Workers must be vaccinated and
boosted according to Table A in the
Order.
- No specific requirement as to “type” of
booster
- Booster timing must be “at least 2
months by no longer than 6 months”
after completing primary series
Covered workers had to be
vaccinated and boosted.
(Unvaccinated) exempt
workers had to undergo
weekly screening testing.
12.B.a
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Updates to State Public Health Orders (COVID Testing Requirement for Unvaccinated SEPTEMBER 16, 2022 | HANSON BRIDGETT GOVERNMENT PRACTICE GROUP Governor Signs AB
2449: The Latest
Development to
the Brown Act in a
Post-Pandemic
World
by Allison C. Schutte & Julian A.
Viksman & Julie A. Sherman &
Steven D. Miller
Key Points
• AB 2449 provides complex and restrictive alternative
teleconference procedures:
❍ At least a quorum of the members of the legislative body must participate in person from a singular physical
location identified on the agenda, which location will be open to the public and within the boundaries of the local agency;
❍ A member may only teleconference for publicly disclosed "just cause" or in "emergency circumstances" approved
by the legislative body; and
❍ A member may only teleconference for a limited number of meetings.
• The new provisions are in addition to those allowed by AB 361 (so long as there is a state of emergency) and those allowed by traditional teleconferencing rules.
• The new provisions are likely so onerous that they may not be a practical alternative for most local agency officials or for agencies that would like to meet virtually as a matter of practice.
On September 13, 2022, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill (AB) 2449 (Rubio), marking the latest development of the Brown Act in a post-pandemic world.
The new amendments to the Brown Act go into effect on January 1, 2023. AB 2449 provides complex alternative teleconference procedures to allow members of a legislative body to participate remotely, the application of which turns on individual facts and circumstances. Notably, the bill sets rules for a Board member's remote participation, but agencies may continue to hold zoom meetings at which the public participates remotely.
AB 2449 allows the legislative body of a local agency to use teleconferencing without complying with the traditional Brown Act teleconferencing rules or the modified AB 361 rules in certain circumstances. To do so, however, at least a quorum of the members of the legislative body must participate in person from a singular physical location identified on the agenda, which location will be open to the public and within the boundaries of the local agency. The legislative body must also provide either a two-way audiovisual platform or two-way telephonic service and a live
12.B.b
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: AB 2449 Summary (COVID Testing Requirement for Unvaccinated Employees + Virtual Meetings) PG 2
webcasting of the meeting to allow the public to remotely hear and visually observe the meeting, and remotely address the legislative body. The agenda must identify and include an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option, internet-based service option, and at the in-person location of the meeting.
In addition to the above prerequisites, AB 2449 also contains a number of provisions that may make the ability to participate remotely difficult for many public officials. The new provisions only allow a member of the legislative body to participate remotely if one of the following are met:
1. the member notifies the legislative body at the earliest opportunity possible, including at the start of a regular meeting, of their need to participate remotely for "just cause" (as defined by AB 2449), including a general description of the circumstances relating to their need to appear remotely at the given meeting; or
2. the member requests the legislative body to allow them to participate in the meeting remotely due to "emergency circumstances" and the legislative body takes action to approve the request. The legislative body must request a general description (generally not exceeding 20 words) of the circumstances relating to their need to appear remotely at the given meeting.
The bill defines "just cause" and "emergency circumstances" for the purposes of teleconferencing. "Just cause" is limited to one or more of the following: (i) a childcare or caregiving need of a child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner that requires them to participate remotely; (ii) a contagious illness that prevents a member from attending in person; (iii) a need related to a physical or mental disability as defined by statute; or (iv) travel while on official business of the legislative body or another state or local agency. "Emergency circumstances" means a physical or family medical emergency that prevents a member from attending in person.
In practice, the similarities between "just cause" and "emergency circumstances" makes it difficult to determine when each category should be used and which facts lead to one or the other. These practical implications are further obscured by AB 2449's limitations on how frequently a member can teleconference under the statute.
AB 2449's teleconference procedures may not be used by a member of the legislative body to teleconference for a period of more than three consecutive months or 20% of the regular meetings within a calendar year, or more than two meetings if the legislative body meets fewer than 10 times per calendar year. Members participating remotely must do so through both audio and visual technology and must publicly disclose whether any individual over the age of 18 is present at the remote location with the member.
AB 2449 also adds new requirements for legislative bodies. Legislative bodies must implement procedures for receiving and swiftly resolving requests for reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities, consistent with applicable civil rights and nondiscrimination laws. Further, no action can be taken if a disruption event prevents the legislative body from broadcasting the meeting. Lastly, a legislative body may take action on items of business not appearing on the posted agenda if the request to consider action was for a member to participate in a meeting remotely due to emergency circumstances and the request does not allow sufficient time to place the proposed action on the posted agenda for the meeting for which the request is made. The legislative body may approve such a request by a majority vote.
AB 2449 does not amend the Brown Act's emergency teleconference procedures under AB 361. Rather, it offers an alternative teleconferencing option that allows a legislative body to use teleconferencing procedures without complying with the traditional teleconference agenda requirements in certain
12.B.b
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: AB 2449 Summary (COVID Testing Requirement for Unvaccinated Employees + Virtual Meetings) PG 3
circumstances. However, the complexity of AB 2449's teleconference scheme will make it difficult to administer.
The remote meeting rules enacted in AB 361 will expire on January 1, 2024. AB 2449's rules remain in effect through 2025. After January 1, 2026, unless further legislation is adopted, only the pre-pandemic, traditional Brown Act rules will remain in effect.
For more information, please contact:
Allison C. Schutte, Partner
415-995-5823
[email protected]
Julian A. Viksman, Associate
(213) 395-7645
[email protected]
Julie A. Sherman, Partner
415-995-5185
[email protected]
Steven D. Miller, Partner
415-995-5831
[email protected]
12.B.b
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: AB 2449 Summary (COVID Testing Requirement for Unvaccinated Employees + Virtual Meetings) Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: INFORMATION RECEIVED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS POSTED To: City Council
Subject: Information received after the agenda was posted.
Date: October 11, 2022
Written by: Kevin Patterson, Deputy City Clerk
Recommendation
Information or written comments pertaining to this meeting, and which was received after the agenda was posted, is attached below.
Pursuant to City Council Policy 2021-01: City Council Rules section IV A., written Communications, interested persons or their authorized representative may address the Council by written communication on any matters concerning the City’s business, or any matters over which the Council has control.
1. To be considered for inclusion in the agenda packet, such written communication shall be delivered to the Deputy City Clerk no later than 11:00 a.m. of the Wednesday the week preceding the regular Council meeting for which such written communication is intended.
2. If received after the above date and time, but no later than noon the day before the meeting, written communications received by the Deputy City Clerk shall be posted on the website by the end of that day and notification provided to the electronic Agenda mailing list by the end of the day. All written communications received by the Deputy City Clerk by 5 pm on the City Council meeting day shall be made available to the City Council and public at the City Council meeting.
City Council Policy 2021-01 is available at the online meeting portal at www.cotaticity.org or by request from the Deputy City Clerk at 707-665-3622 or [email protected].
16.A
Packet Pg. 370