Agenda packet — Cotati City Council, March 28, 2023 (part 3 of 4)

Table 26: Timelines for Permit Procedures and Decision-Making Authority Type of Approval or Permit Typical Processing
Time
Approval Authority Appeal Authority
Conditional Use Permit 3-6 months Planning Commission City Council Development Agreement 4-6 months City Council -
Design Review 3-8 months Planning Commission City Council Variance 3-8 months Planning Commission City Council
Zoning Clearance 10 days CD Director Planning
Commission
Major Subdivision 8-12 months City Council -
Source: Cotati Community Development Department Staff September, 2022 Residential development requires zoning clearance, design review, and issuance of building permits. Depending on the type and location of development, other permits and approvals may be required, such as a conditional use permit. Conditional use permits are not required for multifamily development in any zoning district except Low Density Residential.

The City has not received any requests for lesser densities in recent history, and would not approve such requests due to minimum densities in a variety of zones.

Design Review

10.c
Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 58 All projects must obtain design review approval for approval of a planning permit or building permit for new construction. Single-family dwellings can receive design review approval from the Community Development Director, with all other residential projects requiring design review from the design review administration and the Planning Commission. An application for design review is submitted along with the application for a planning permit. Each project must demonstrate that it does the following:

1. Complies with this section;

2. Provides architectural design, building massing and scale appropriate to and compatible with the site surroundings and the community;

3. Provides attractive and desirable site layout and design, including building arrangement, exterior appearance and setbacks, drainage, fences and walls, grading, landscaping, lighting, signs, etc.;

4. Provides efficient, safe, and visually attractive public access, circulation and parking;

5. Provides appropriate open space and landscaping, including the use of water-efficient landscaping, and native plants where appropriate;

6. Addresses site planning design considerations related to city services, traffic flows and patterns, and environmental conditions in a manner that ensures maximum aesthetic cohesiveness;

7. Is consistent with the general plan and applicable specific plans; and

8. Complies with any applicable city design guidelines, design standards, and/or design review policies.

There are existing objectives design standards in place for projects eligible for SB 35 streamlined ministerial approval. Under Program 2-2, the City will expand existing objective design and development standards for SB 35 projects to apply to multi-family, single-family, and mixed-use projects.

Historic Preservation
The State of California recognizes the historical significance or potential significance of two resources in Cotati: the Cotati Downtown Plaza and the Cotati Women’s Improvement Club, both of which are located within the DSP area. There has been no systematic historic architectural survey of Cotati; however, 24 parcels, most situated on the Plaza, were listed in the 1991 La Plaza Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report as containing possible historic buildings. Separate from CEQA, the City does not have a historic review process, or any designated historic districts.

10.c
Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 59 4.4.3 Environmental and Infrastructure Constraints
Environmental Constraints
Housing development and sites considerations necessitate an evaluation of environmental constraints, and an understanding of the cost and feasibility of potential mitigations. Early identification and assessment of potential environmental impacts, usually conducted during the land acquisition and site design stage, limit the waste of time and financial resources for development projects. Multiple Federal and state laws, including the California Environmental Protection Act, the Federal Clean Water Act, the Federal Endangered Species Act, and the California Endangered Species Act, require developers and local governments to identify and address impacts on special-status species and protected habitats.

Government Code § 65302.1 requires local governments to adopt policies and programs for protecting the community from wildfire, flooding, seismic, geologic, and human-caused hazards in the Safety Element of the General Plan. Some of the policies addressed in Cotati’s General Plan in relevance to mitigating hazard risks applicable to future development include, but are not limited to:
• Policy SA 2.1: Require new land development proposals to avoid unreasonable exposure to geologic hazards, including Earthquake damage, subsidence, liquefaction, and expansive soils.
• Policy SA 2.2: Ensure that all development and construction proposals are reviewed by the City to ensure conformance with applicable building standards. • Policy SA 2.4: Development in areas subject to liquefaction, such as along East and West Cotati Avenues and Gravenstein Highway shall be reviewed by qualified soils engineers and geologists prior to development in order to ensure the safety and stability of all construction.
• Policy SA 2.5: Ensure that development on slopes over 10% grade complies with special building and grading restrictions
• Policy SA 2.6: Development and grading on slopes greater than 15% shall be prohibited
• Policy SA 2.11: Prior to the development of any new structures and any addition greater than 500 square feet in areas of moderate to high potential for expansive soils, a site-specific soil study shall be prepared.

Flooding, earthquakes, wildfire, and landslides are primary hazards that have the potential to affect future development in Cotati. The Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) Area, and the Santero Way Specific Plan Area, designated by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) as Priority Development Areas or Production Areas, are targeted for major redevelopments in the next five years. The DSP area is the only area that experienced localized flood hazards in the past. Between 2015 to 2019,

10.c
Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 60 permits for new construction have been issued to 59 single-family and 18 mixed-use, commercial development projects.

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).
• 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

10.c
Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 61 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.

Figure 1: Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation
Source: California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation

10.c
Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 62 Figure 2: Deep-Seated Landslide Susceptibility
Source: California Geologic Survey Data Viewer, CGS Map Sheet 58

10.c
Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 63 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 64 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 65 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

10.c
Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 66 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

10.c
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 67 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

10.c
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 68 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 Summary 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 69 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 45.
• 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 45.
• 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

10.c
Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 70 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 Housing Enforcement 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 71 • 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 deedrestricted affordable housing. There are some exceptions for housing that is 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

10.c
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 72 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

10.c
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 73 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 27: 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

10.c
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 74 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,

10.c
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 75 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.

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 housing enforcement are primarily due to a lack of funding and staff capacity – 14 AFH Data Viewer: FHEO Inquiries by City (HUD, 2013-2021)

10.c
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 76 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. The 2022 State of Housing in Sonoma County report commissioned by Generation Housing indicated that Cotati had the lowest amount of share of single-family zoning among jurisdictions in Sonoma County.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 in southern and western portions of the City is zoned for Rural Residential (RR), 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

10.c
Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 77 homes and duplexes with a maximum allowable density of six dwelling units per acre. 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 78 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 of Asians/API 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).

10.c
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 79 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

10.c
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 80 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 81 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 28 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

10.c
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 82 example, Table 28 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 28: 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 29 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 29: 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 83 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 30: 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 84 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

10.c
Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 85 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 31 breaks down the proportion of reported disability types.

Table 31: 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 32). 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 86 Table 32: 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 People with disabilities are distributed citywide, with no area exhibiting a disproportionate population with disabilities.

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

10.c
Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 87 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).

10.c
Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 88 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 89 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 33 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 moderate10.c Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 90 income residents and a significantly higher share of above moderate-income residents.

Table 33: 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).

10.c
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 91 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 34 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 34 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 92 Table 34: 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 35 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 35 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 35 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 35: 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:

10.c
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 93 • 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 94 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 36).

Table 36: 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).

10.c
Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 95 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 96 Table 37: 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).

10.c
Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 97 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 Disparities in Access to Opportunities
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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 98 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; the westerly tract includes portions of the Cities of Rohnert Park, Petaluma, and the community of Penngrove in unincorporated Sonoma County. Education and economic scores fall into the same quartile citywide, but the environmental score of the sprawling westerly tract is notably lower than easterly tracts containing portions of Cotati east of US-101.

The resource designations of both Census tracts in Cotati are influenced by activity outside City limits. The Low Resource westerly tract is influenced by residents from the northern boundary at Wilfred Avenue including the entirety of western Rohnert Park and wrapping around Cotati to the unincorporated community of Penngrove.

The Moderate Resource easterly tract is influenced by the L Section of Rohnert Park.

Local factors do contribute to these distinctions, however, including the presence of older housing stock (pre-1940) in the westerly tract along Old Redwood Highway, and the City’s mobile home parks concentrated along West Sierra Avenue.

Figure 23: TCAC Opportunity Maps (2022) – Composite Score Source: 2022 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas/Resource Areas

10.c
Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 99 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).

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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 100
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 38). 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%.

10.c
Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 101
Table 38: 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

10.c
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 102
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

10.c
Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 103
As shown in Figure 29, Cotati has similar environmental conditions to most similarly sized jurisdictions in the region.

Figure 29: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentiles by Census Tracts in the Region 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 104
Figure 30: 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

10.c
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 105
service will be extended to Windsor, Healdsburg, and Cloverdale, and provide over 70 miles of passenger rail service. The eastern portion of Cotati has closer proximity to SMART access, and Program 1-4 is included in the Housing Element to prioritize citywide bicycle and pedestrian circulation in capital improvement for greater connection with regional transportation systems.

Figure 31: 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 106
• 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.
• 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 32: Sonoma County Transit System Map
Source: Sonoma County Transit, 2022
Golden Gate Transit Routes 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 onehour intervals between 4:00 and 9:00 AM and 6:00 and 10:00 PM, with stops in

10.c
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 107
various communities along the US 101 corridor including Santa Rosa to the north and various cities in Marin County to the south. Weekend service 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 108
Figure 33: 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 109
Figure 34: 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

10.c
Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 110
• 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 35: 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 39).

Table 39: FDIC-Regulated Bank Branches by Sonoma County Municipality Municipality Population5 % Minority
Population
FDIC-Regulated
Full-Service
Brick and
Mortar
Branches
FDICRegulated NonBrick 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

10.c
Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 111
Cloverdale, CA 8,996 42.2% 2 0
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 40 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 40: 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 36) 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 36, 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

10.c
Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 112
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 36: Inflow and Outflow of Workers in Cotati
*Note: Arrows do not indicate directionality of worker flow Source: OntheMap.ces.census.gov, 2019
Figure 37 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 113
Figure 37: 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 Displacement 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 114
To rent a typical apartment without cost burden, a household would need to make $59,120 per year. 18
Additionally, rental costs for listed market rate units are higher than the typical contract rent for established leases, with a median monthly rental cost of $2,800 (Table 41).

Table 41: Current Market Rate Rental Costs
# Bedrooms 1 2 3 4 5 All Units
Median Rent $1,913 $2,550 $3,000 $3,575 $4,725 $28,00
Source: Zillow.com, Accessed 1/19/22
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 38).

Figure 38: Cost Burden by Tenure in Cotati, 2019
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019) 18 Housing Needs Data Report: Cotati, ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning, 2021-04-02

10.c
Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 115
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 39). This indicates that the lowest income households are in the greatest need of affordable housing in Cotati.

Figure 39: 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 42). Overpayment rates for renters were in the same quintile citywide, whereas homeowners in the sprawling westerly census tract exhibited higher rates of cost burden.

Table 42: 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

10.c
Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 116
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.

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 40).

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.

Census tracts across the City exhibit similar rates of overcrowding at around 2-3%. 19 California Department of Health and Human Services

10.c
Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 117
Figure 40: 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 overcrowding and severe overcrowding 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 118
Figure 41: 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 43). Cotati has more substandard housing issues among homeowners than renters, while Sonoma County has more substandard housing issues among renters than owners. Data indicate a similar rate of substandard housing issues across the City, and lower rates than the neighboring cities of Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, and Sebastopol.

Table 43: Substandard Housing Issues
Cotati Sonoma County
Building Amenity Owner Renter Owner Renter
Lacking Complete Kitchen 1.2% 0.8% 0.4% 1.7%
Lacking Plumbing 1.2% 0.0% 0.4% 0.6%

10.c
Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 119
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 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 44). Of all Cotati’s residents, 0.04% are unhoused, compared to 0.5% for Sonoma County as a whole.

Table 44: 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.
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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 120
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 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. As shown in Figure 43, Cotati has a similar or lower displacement risk compared to most jurisdictions in the region.

Figure 42: 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.
22 Been, V., Ingrid, E., & O’Regan, K. (2019). Supply Skepticism: Housing Supply and Affordability. Housing Policy Debate, 29(1), 25-40.

10.c
Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 121
Figure 43: Urban Displacement Project Bay Area Model 2020 – North Bay Region
Source: Chapple, K., & Thomas, T., and Zuk, M. (2021). Urban Displacement Project website. Berkeley, CA:

Urban Displacement Project.

Figure 44 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.

10.c
Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 122
Figure 44: 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. Despite some risk of displacement due to natural disasters, the displacement identified by the contributing factors analysis was exclusively focused on economic displacement, deemed a larger risk. 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 Summary of Fair Housing Goals and Priorities Based on Identified Contributing Factors
Table 45: Prioritization of Contributing Factors
Prioritized Contributing
Factors
Meaningful Actions
Displacement of residents
due to economic pressures
Program 4-1 Antidisplacement Actions
• Pursue grant opportunities to create a residential
rehabilitation program for lower income residents.

10.c
Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 123
Priority: High • Explore a Condominium Conversion ordinance to limit the loss of rental housing stock, as applicable.
• 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
Monitor developments at risk of converting from deed-restricted affordable housingProgram 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

10.c
Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 124
opportunities procedures to the public at City Hall, the Police Department and the City’s website. Include
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 Rezoning
• 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 Housing Sites and AFFH Considerations
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.

The resource designations of both Census tracts are influenced by activity outside City limits. The Low Resource westerly tract is influenced by residents from the northern boundary at Wilfred Avenue including the entirety of western Rohnert Park and wrapping around Cotati to the unincorporated community of Penngrove. The Moderate Resource easterly tract is influenced by the L Section of Rohnert Park.

10.c
Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 125
Figure 45: Housing Sites and Resource Areas

10.c
Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 126
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 46: 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 4 512 49 849 36% 35% 44%
151203 1 3 104 11 555 41% 23% 35%
151204 1 2 42 3 350 42% 17% 27%
151204 2 2 61 45 350 42% 25% 37%
151204 3 1 61 30 442 42% 21% 33%
Source: American Community Survey 2019, 5-Year Estimates

10.c
Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 127
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. Program 1-4: Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is included to address this need. The block group with the most lower-income capacity is located in the area with the highest job proximity index score, improving access to opportunity. Most sites identified are located within Low Resource areas. Under Program 2-6, the City will rezone land within its Moderate Resource area to allow higher density housing and improve access to opportunity.

Table 47: 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 4 512 49 Low 0.33 0.43 0.1 82
151203 1 3 104 11 Moderate 0.43 0.97 0.22 2
151204 1 2 42 3 Low 0.26 0.77 0.26 10
151204 2 2 61 45 Low 0.26 0.77 0.26 17
151204 3 1 61 30 Low 0.26 0.95 0.11 10
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, including Program 4-1:

Antidisplacement Actions.

10.c
Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution) 128
Table 48: Housing Sites and Housing Needs Indicators
Census Tract Block
Group
Housing
Sites
Housing
Units
LowerIncome
Housing
Units
% LMI
Population,
Block Group
Median
Income,
block group
151201 5 4 512 49 70% $47,120
151203 1 3 104 11 48% $65,417
151204 1 2 42 3 32% $75,542
151204 2 2 61 45 36% $71,250
151204 3 1 61 30 75% $57,202
Source: HUD, Low to Moderate Income Population, 2015; American Community Survey, Median Income, 2019 5-Year Estimates

10.c
Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: Attachment 1, Exhibit B2 - Cotati Adoption Draft Technical Background Report (Housing Element CC Resolution)

10.d
Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) APPENDIX A: 5TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM

IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS
Cotati identified a broad range of programs in its previous Housing Element, most of which were achieved successfully and many of which are ongoing because they remain useful tools in helping Cotati meet its housing production objectives. An evaluation of the City’s progress toward achieving its 5th Cycle programs, including lessons learned, informed the identification of new (or modified) policies and programs for this Housing Element.

The 2023 Housing Element update is not a comprehensive "new" Housing Element, but rather an update of the 2015 Housing Element. The focus of the update process has been to keep the programs that are working, adding new policies and programs where community needs have changed or where necessary to comply with new State laws. New or revised goals, objectives, policies, and programs are included to meet changing needs and to incorporate community and stakeholder input. Ongoing policies and programs that have been successful are continued in the Housing Element update; limited-term programs that have already been accomplished have not been carried forward.

Table A1 provides an evaluation of the programs from the 5th Cycle Housing Element and the City’s level of success in achieving them.

Table A1: 2015-2013 Housing Element Program Implementation Status Program Timeframe Progress Status
Program 1-1: Housing
Rehabilitation and Home
Ownership
Improve neighborhoods
and housing by providing
opportunities for
homeownership and
housing rehabilitation.

Annually Partially Successful.

Opportunities for
homeownership have been
provided through the
inclusionary program. While a
source of funding for
rehabilitation has not been
identified, the City is working with
the Sonoma County CDC to
access their rehabilitation
program for mobilehomes and
low-income owners.

Program will be
continued, with
increased reliance
on the existing
CDC Programs for
funding and with
the addition of
annual reporting
within the APR.

Program 1-2: Non-Profit
and Agency Coordination
– Existing Housing
Needs
Continue working with
and develop new
relationships with local
agencies, nonprofits and
Ongoing Successful. The City has greatly
expanded its relationships with
NPOs and service providers, both
through the CDC and through
direct outreach. Efforts have
resulted in rental and utility bill
assistance for lower-income
residents, expanded access to
Program will be
modified and
continued.

10.d
Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) others to identify funds
and provide rehabilitation
assistance.

ADU resources and financing
through the Napa-Sonoma ADU
Center, and a formalized
relationship with the Housing
Land Trust (HLT) to provide
expertise and resale assistance
for BMR units.

Program 1-3: Capital
Improvement Program
As part of the annual
review of the Capital
Improvement Program
(CIP), determine what
special priorities are
needed for capital
improvement projects
required to maintain the
community's older
residential
neighborhoods.

Annually Successful. To serve existingand new residential development areas, the City completed a major
sewer upgrade in 2019 and
repaving projects in fiscal years
19/20 and 20/21. The City has
performed video inspections of
most older sewer lines, and has
begun repair and replacement
efforts, including on William/Olof
and West Sierra Avenue.

Program will be
continued with
the addition of
annual reporting
of progress within
the APR.

Program 1-4: Housing
Inspection and Code
Enforcement
Inspect housing units
upon receiving
complaints regarding
health and safety
problems and require
compliance with
applicable building and
housing codes.

Ongoing Successful. Since 2015, the City
has contracted with a code
compliance professional and has
resolved several un-permitted
construction and substandard
housing conditions, while
working to improve substandard
properties within established
residential neighborhoods. The
City has implemented a Code
Enforcement webpage to
educate residents and enforce
regulations.

Program should
be continued with
the addition of
annual reporting
of progress within
the APR.

Program 1-5 (sic):

Condominium
Conversions
Revise Section 17.74.030
of the Land Use Code to
regulate conversion of
rental housing to
condominiums.

Ongoing Successful. The City adopted a
condominium conversion (see
City Code 17.74.030).

Program is
complete and will
not be carried
forward.

Program 1-5 (sic): Mobile
Home Park Conversion to
Ownership
Work with residents and
owners to facilitate
resident purchase of
Ongoing Partially Successful. No MHPs
were converted to resident
ownership as there was no
interest. However, the City has
prioritized maintenance of MHPs
as a component of the SB 2
Program should
be continued on
an as-needed
basis, with the
addition of annual

10.d
Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) mobile home parks,
including identifying
funding sources such as
HCD’s Mobilehome Park
Resident Ownership
Program (MPROP).
grant-funded work to expand and
streamline residential
development, and will continue
to make residents aware of the
mobile home park ownership
options as needed or as interest
arises.
reporting within
the APR.

Program 1-6: Inventory
Affordable Housing and
Mobile Home Parks
Maintain an updated
inventory of affordable
housing units, including
rental and ownership
units, that identifies the
number of units by
bedroom size and
affordability level,
funding/affordability
source, and expiration
date of affordability. The
list shall also identify all
mobile home parks in the
City.

Ongoing Successful. The inventory has
been completed for all
conventionally built units with
restrictions, and the State HCD
provides a listing of all
mobilehome parks within the
City.

Program is
complete and will
not be carried
forward.

Program 1-7:

Preservation of
Affordable Units
Conserve affordable units
by monitoring “at risk”
developments, assisting
the owners in acquisition,
and educate tenants.

Ongoing Successful. Units were
monitored, and in 2021
Windwood Apartments came up
for sale with 10 years left on
deed-restriction. City committed
$250,000 from Housing Fund to
assist non-profit developer
Burbank Housing in acquisition,
rehabilitation, and 55-year lowincome deed renewal.

Program will
continued as New
Program 1-5.

Program 2-1: Adequate
Housing Sites
Continue to maintain an
inventory of vacant and
underdeveloped
residentially designated
land.

Ongoing Successful. Sites identified in the
5th Cycle developed as housing or
remained sufficiently available for
development throughout the
planning period.

Program will be
continued and
modified to meet
new No Net Loss
requirements.

Program 2-2: Affordable
Housing Requirement
Continue to implement
Chapter 17.31, Affordable
Ongoing Successful. The City has
continued to implement its
Code.

Program was
already adopted
into Code and will
not be carried
forward.

10.d
Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) Housing Requirement, to
encourage development
of affordable units in
conjunction with market
rate development.

Program 2-3: Second
Dwelling Units
Periodically review, and
update, as needed, the
Second Unit Ordinance to
determine what revisions
may be required facilitate
the construction of
second dwelling units
while maintaining the
character of residential
neighborhoods.

Biannually Successful. The City adopted a
local ADU/JADU ordinance in
2020 to address changes in State
law. The City has further
established partnerships with
local nonprofits, the Napa
Sonoma ADU Center and Homes
for Sonoma. Further, City staff
worked internally to develop an
ADU specific webpage, which
provides information to residents
on construction of ADUs.

Program will be
carried forward
and revised to
remove
discretionary
language and to
specify tracking of
ADU permits
issued every 2
years.

Program 2-4: Emergency
Shelters, Transitional
Housing, and Supportive
Housing
The City will continue to
seek sources of funding,
including Emergency
Housing Assistance
Program and Emergency
Shelter Grant funds
through the County, in
order to support provision
of emergency shelters,
transitional housing, and
supportive housing by
interested
developers/operators to
provide housing for
homeless persons and
households at-‐risk of
homelessness.

Ongoing Successful. Code changes
completed in 2015 to allow
development of shelters and
transitional/supportive housing.

The City has partnered with
Catholic Charities on their Safe
Parking program in 2015. The
County CDC purchased a threeunit property in Cotati in 2019 to provide transitional housing.

Program will be
carried forward.

Program 2-5: Priority
Water and Sewer
Following adoption,
provide the Housing
2015 Successful. Providers were
promptly notified of the 5th Cycle
Housing Element, and continued
coordination resulted in
prioritization of a sewer project
The notification of
providers is
required by State
law and a
Program is not

10.d
Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) Element Update to the
City’s water and sewer
providers (e.g., the water
and sewer division of the
Public Works
Department).
completed in 2019 to facilitate
new development.
needed. This
practice will
continue as
reflected in Policy
H-2.4.

Program 2-6: Barrier
Removals for Multi-Family
Development
The Land Use Code will
be amended to remove
two potential barriers to
the provision of multi-‐
family housing.

Ongoing Partially Successful. In 2021, the
City of Cotati increased the
allowable share of housing in
mixed-use developments from
25% to 75%. Further code
changes are included within this
Housing Element to allow byright approval of certain use types in certain zones.

Program will be
carried forward
and amended to
address changes
in State law (see
New Programs
2-2 and 3-1).

Program 3-1: Affordable
and Special Needs
Housing Incentives
As part of development
project review and
processing, provide
incentives for affordable
housing particularly
housing affordable to
extremely low income
households, and special
needs housing.

Ongoing Partially Successful. Standards
were set, but eligible projects
failed to move forward due to
lack of financing.

Program will be
carried forward
and amended to
address State
requirements set
forth in AB 2345.

Program 3-2: Planning for
Affordable and Special
Needs Housing
Develop a housing
stakeholders group that
includes affordable
housing developers and
special needs group
stakeholders, that will
meet annually to identify
potential housing projects
and priorities
Ongoing Partially Successful. The City's
Land Use Code requires 10% of
all units in new subdivisions to be
single story and universally
accessible to allow for full
conversions in the future. A
formal stakeholders group for the
City was not formed, but input is
received from individuals and
county wide groups.

Program initiated
key code change
and will not be
carried forward in
this form. New
Program 3-3
focuses on
funding for
affordable and
special needs
housing, and New
Program 5-3
codifies actions
for more
meaningful
stakeholder
engagement.

10.d
Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) Program 3-3: Funding for
Affordable and Special
Needs Housing
Seek available funding for
lower income and special
needs housing and
ensure that local funds
(Housing Fund) are used
to provide affordable
housing and special
needs housing that
addresses the City’s
priorities.

Ongoing Partially Successful. Successes
include County purchase of three
units for supportive housing, and
City funding contribution for the
Windwood Apartment acquisition
by Burbank Housing. However,
the scale of funding leveraged
and obtained was not sufficient to
meet the City’s lower income
RHNA.

Program will be
carried forward
(New Program 3-
2) and amended
to address room
for improvement
in securing
affordable
housing financing.

New Program 3-6
further supports
pursuit of external
funding.

Program 3-4: Reasonable
Accommodation
Ensure that reasonable
accommodation is
provided for persons with
a disability, including
developmental
disabilities
Ongoing Successful. Requests for
accommodation have been
facilitated expediently with no
complaints from applicants.

Program will be
carried forward
(New Program 4-
4) and amended
to incorporate
review of City
Code, to ensure
accommodation
requests are
accessible and
Code deficiencies
are promptly
addressed.

Program 3-5: Senior
Shared Housing
Programs
Contact the Community
Development
Commission of Sonoma
County and non‐profit
housing organizations to
determine whether they
would be interested in
implementing a Senior
Shared Housing Program
in Cotati.

Ongoing Partially Successful. Code
amendment adopted, but no
program initiated. ADU/JADU
ordinance indirectly addresses
senior shared housing
opportunity.

Program will not
be carried
forward in its
present form, yet
the County CDC
continues to
implement a
shared senior
housing program
in conjunction
with SHARE
Sonoma County.

Housing for
special needs
populations,
including seniors,
are addressed
throughout the
Housing
Element.

10.d
Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) Program 3-6: Maintain
Adequate Staff
Continue to maintain
adequate staff in the
Planning Department to
process and review
housing development
applications in a timely
manner and to implement
the housing programs
contained in this Element.

Ongoing Partially Successful. Staffing has
been a challenge for the City due
to economic conditions, but
staffing has been expanded in
recent years. Additionally,
consulting services have been
used to fill in the gaps and to fasttrack housing development applications when needed.

Program will be
continued with
the addition of
annual reporting
of progress within
the APR.

Program 3-7: Tax-Exempt
Financing
Require developers
utilizing tax-‐exempt
financing to include
language in agreements
with the City permitting
persons and households
eligible for HUD Section 8
rental assistance or
Housing Voucher Folders
to apply for belowmarket-rate units
provided in the
development.

Ongoing Unsuccessful. No developers
utilized tax-exempt financing in
the 5th Cycle.

Program will be
carried forward
(New Program 3-
4: Housing Choice
Vouchers) and
amended to
expand outreach
and resources
available for
landlords and
tenants seeking to
utilize the Section
8 program.

Program 3-8: Review
Processing Fees
Explore opportunities to
provide reduced
processing fees and
discounts for staff time
spent during the
development review of
qualified affordable
housing projects.

Consider development of
a sliding scale for permit
processing fees that
rewards and incentivizes
projects with significant
affordable housing
components.

Ongoing Successful. The City has
proactively worked with
developers to waive impact fees
for affordable units, defer fees to
reduce carrying costs on units
under construction, and comply
with State law on impact fee
exemptions for accessory
dwelling units (ADUs).

Program will be
continued (New
Program 3-5) and
amended to
address new
requirements of
state legislation
including SB 330
and AB 602.

10.d
Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) Program 3-9: Monitor Use
Permit Requirements for
Affordable Housing
Monitor the requirement
for a Use Permit for multi‐
family projects larger than
4 units in the NU Zone to
ensure that affordable
housing projects are
being accommodated. If
the requirement for a Use
Permit is shown to be an
impediment to the
development of
affordable housing
projects in the NU Zone,
review the feasibility of
allowing multi‐family
projects larger than 4
units in the NU Zone as a
Permitted Use.

Ongoing Successful. The City has
removed conditional use permits
within the NU Zone to expedite
more housing approved on a
staff level.

The program has
been completed
and will not be
continued.

Program 4-1: Housing
Discrimination
Complaints
Continue to designate the
Community Development
Director as the City’s
Equal Housing
Opportunity Coordinator
and ensure that City
residents have access to
information regarding
their fair housing rights.

Continue to refer fair
housing complaints to
Fair Housing of Sonoma
County and continue to
provide information
regarding equal housing
opportunity laws.

Ongoing Successful. All housing
discrimination complaints were
met with positive resolution.

Program will be
continued.

Program 4-2:

Nondiscrimination
Clauses
Ongoing Successful. The City has
continued to assist affordable
housing developers in ensuring
agreements with
nondiscrimination provisions.

Program will be
continued.

10.d
Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) Include nondiscrimination
clauses in rental
agreements and deed
restrictions for housing
constructed with City
assistance.

Program 4-3:

Nondiscrimination
Coordination
Continue to address fair
housing issues through
participation, through the
Urban County or other
sources, in Fair Housing
Sonoma County and Fair
Housing of Marin
(organizations that
provide assistance in
response to housing
discrimination complaints
and well as
tenant/landlord
mediation).

Ongoing Successful. The City has
continued to work with the
County government and regional
fair housing organizations to
resolve disputes as they arise.

Program will be
continued.

Program 5-1: Energy
Conservation and
Efficiency
Promote energy efficiency
and conservation in
residential development.

Ongoing Successful. The City has focused
on infill, city-centered growth to
reduce sprawl and support a
compact, walkable community
utilizing existing infrastructure.

Residential solar is required by
State law and implemented by
the City’s Climate Action Plan.

Program will be
continued (New
Program 1-8) and
modified to
incorporate EV
charging and
water
conservation
measures in
response to
community input.

Program 6-1: Annual
Report
Prepare an Annual Report
to the City Council in the
format approved by HCD
which describes 1)
implementation of
Housing Element
programs to date, 2) the
amount and type of
housing activity as related
Annually Successful. The City continues to
submit a comprehensive Annual
Report to the State each year by
April 1.

Program will be
continued (New
Program 5-1).

10.d
Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) to the Housing Element’s
goals, policies, and
programs, and 3) an
updated summary of the
City's housing needs.

Submit this report to the
Department of Housing
and Community
Development by April 1 of
each year.

Program 6-2: Workshops
and Public Hearings
Hold workshops and
public hearings to provide
the public, housing
developers, and service
providers with an
opportunity to review and
discuss proposed
changes to the City’s
Housing Element.

Ongoing Successful. Within and beyond
the requirements of the Housing
Element process, the City has
taken an active role in engaging
the public on the issue of housing
through surveys and workshops.

Program will be
continued (New
Program 5-2).

10.d
Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) APPENDIX B: SITES INVENTORY
Address APN Site GPD Zone
Min
Density
Max
Density Acres Existing Use
Existing
Infrastructure
Publicly
Owned
Site
Status
Used in
Prior HE
Unit Capacity by
Income
units/acre LI MI AMI Total
NE Corner of Hwy 116
and Alder Ln 144-050-009 A GC CG 12 15 7.17 Vacant Yes No Pending Project 4 th and
5 th Cycle 18 0 159 177 NE Corner of Hwy 116
and Alder Ln 046-286-021 A GC CG 12 15 0.65 Vacant Yes No Pending Project 4 th and
5 th Cycle
902 E. Cotati Ave 144-302-030 MDR NM 8 10 0.32 Residential, 1 Yes No Pending Project No 0 6 0 6
8841 Old Redwood Hwy 046-223-018 LMDR NL 4 6 7.12 Residential, 1 Yes No Pending Project 4
th Cycle 3 3 30 36
Redwood Dr &
Gravenstein Hwy 046-286-017 B GC CG 12 15 0.7 Vacant Yes No Pending Project 4 th and
5 th Cycle
17 8 145 170
Redwood Dr &
Gravenstein Hwy 046-286-018 B GC CG 12 15 1.98 Vacant Yes No Pending Project No Redwood Dr &
Gravenstein Hwy 046-286-019 B GC CG 12 15 6.41 Vacant Yes No Pending Project 4 th and
5 th Cycle
Redwood Dr &
Gravenstein Hwy 046-286-020 B GC CG 12 15 1.32 Vacant Yes No Pending Project 5 th Cycle
7515 Alder Ave 144-040-011 C GC CG 12 15 2.17 Residential, 2 Yes No Pending Project No
14 0 112 126
7515 Alder Ave 144-040-021 C GC CG 12 15 3.13 Commercial Building Yes No Pending Project No
100 E Cotati Ave 144-274-002 D SP PD N/A N/A* 0.17 Vacant Yes No Pending Project
4 th and
5 th Cycle
100 E Cotati Ave 144-274-014 D SP PD N/A N/A* 0.4 Vacant Yes No 45 11 0 56 Pending Project
4 th and
5 th Cycle
100 E Cotati Ave 144-274-015 D SP PD N/A N/A* 0.28 Vacant Yes No Pending Project
4 th and
5 th Cycle
7734 Old Redwood Hwy 144-080-022 SP NG N/A N/A* 0.43 Vacant Yes No Available 4 th and
5 th Cycle 0 3 2 5
150 St Joseph Way 144-170-009 SP NG N/A N/A 10.07 Church, Parking Yes No Available 4
th and
5 th Cycle 30 16 15 61
7457 Alder Ave 144-040-017 E GC CG 12 15 1.98 Residential, 1 Yes No Available No 0 20 19 39 7455 Alder Ave 144-040-013 E GC CG 12 15 1.89 Vacant Yes No Available No * This area is regulated by a form-based code and does not have a maximum allowable density, but the City’s development standards allow for development at 20 units per acre (See discussion of Development Standards in Section 4.4.2)

10.d
Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT & INPUT
The City of Cotati values community input and has maintained a focus on offering various opportunities for residents and community stakeholders to provide input on housing and development needs during the preparation of this Housing Element.

Government Code 65583(c)(7) requires that “the local government shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort.” This appendix documents how public engagement was sought and gathered during the update process, and how the input received from residents and stakeholders was incorporated into the preparation and content of the Housing Element.

Community engagement has informed the Housing Element Update from day one. This Appendix provides an executive summary of outreach conducted prior to the launch of the Public Review Draft and incorporation of community input on the draft following the 30-day public review period and prior to submittal to the California Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD). Appendix D contains the results of the Housing Needs & Opportunities Survey and Sonoma State University Survey.1 Continued updates on the Housing Element Update process and opportunities to comment are found at https://www.cotaticity.org/215/Cotati-2023-Housing-Element-Update.

Timeline of Community Engagement & Outreach
 October 2021:
▫ City Council & Planning Commission Kick-Off Workshop (10/12/21), presented by the consultant team and the subregional Napa Sonoma Collaborative ▫ Publication of City Website & bilingual whiteboard animation video ▫ Cotati Halloween Carnival Tabling (10/30/22)
 November 2021:
▫ Community Housing Needs & Opportunities Survey Launched ▫ Survey Promotion in Cotati Connection Monthly Newsletter (see Figure C1)  February 2022:
▫ Stakeholder Workshop – Jointly Hosted with City of Rohnert Park (02/02/22) ▫ Joint City Council & Planning Commission Workshop – Initial Sites Assessment & Policy Options (02/22/22)
 April 2022:
▫ Sonoma State University Survey Launched (see Figure C6)  May 2022:
▫ Coffee With A Planner - Tabling at Cotati Coffee Company (05/17/22, 9:30-11:30 AM)
1 NOTE: Page numbers in Appendix D are truncated due to the omission of personal contact information in the Public Review Draft.

10.d
Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) ▫ Bilingual Housing Element Town Hall at the Cotati Room (05/18/22, 5:30-7:00 PM)
 June 2022:
▫ Cotati Community Farmers’ Market Tabling (06/01/22, 4:30-7:30 PM) ▫ Cotati Community Farmers’ Market Tabling (06/08/22, 4:30-7:30 PM) ▫ Joint City Council & Planning Commission Workshop – Draft Housing Strategy (06/16/22)
▫ City Council Workshop – Preliminary Sites Strategy (06/16/22)  September 2022:
▫ Release of Draft Housing Element for 30-Day Public Review (09/27/22)  October 2022:
▫ City Council Update on Public Review Draft Housing Element (10/11/22)  November 2022:
▫ Incorporation of public comment from 30-day public review into draft for submittal to California Housing & Community Development (HCD)  March 2023 [planned]:
▫ Planning Commission & City Council Adoption Hearings
Figure C1: Cotati Connection Newsletter, November 2021

10.d
Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) Figure C2: Bilingual Outreach Flyers
Public Workshops & Events
To gain public feedback on the Draft Housing Strategy, the City and Consultant team held a morning event at Cotati Coffee Company on May 17, 2022 and a bilingual evening Town Hall in the City’s Cotati Room on May 18, 2022 (Figure C5). This was promoted with a bilingual flyer (Figure C2) via the City’s social media along with a fact sheet addressing Housing Element FAQs. Targeted outreach for these events included a direct mailer sent to residents of mobile home parks in the City, and outreach to senior affordable housing management.

In addition to standalone events, the City engaged the community at existing events including the 2021 Halloween Carnival (Figure C3) and Cotati Farmers Market. Tabling events featured a 22” x 34” poster board with the City’s Zoning Map (Figure C4) as a visual aid for participants to contextualize and express input around Housing Opportunity Sites.

Members of the public have provided public comment at community workshops held with the Planning Commission and City Council. Perspectives offered have ranged from affordable housing residents to housing advocates.

10.d
Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) Figure C3: Cotati Halloween Carnival Engagement

10.d
Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) Figure C4: Cotati Zoning Map
Figure C5: Draft Housing Strategy Outreach Events, May 2022 Community Housing Needs & Opportunities Surveys
The bilingual (English/Spanish) Housing Needs & Opportunities Survey was promoted with a flyer sent as a utility bill insert to every household in the City of Cotati, supplemented by doorhangers in mobile home parks. The survey yielded 147 respondents. A majority of respondents provided contact information, utilized for distribution of the Public Review Draft along with the City’s Housing Interest List. Complete survey results are included in the following section, Appendix D.

10.d
Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) A majority of respondents (58%) chose to live in Cotati because they were able to find affordable housing. Housing affordability was ranked as the most important housing issue in Cotati by a wide margin, followed by housing availability and excessive development. Most respondents (64%) stated that smaller single-family homes would be most successful in Cotati today, followed by townhomes or duplexes.

The areas most supported for development were Downtown and along Old Redwood Highway, and undeveloped and under-developed parcels along East Cotati Avenue. The use of public funds for affordable housing garnered strong support, with 66% of respondents in support, and 62% would be comfortable with an affordable housing project being constructed in their neighborhood.

Most single-family homeowners expressed interest in constructing an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit on their property, and cited cost, government regulations, and loss of yard space as primary barriers.

The survey also yielded write-in responses expressing a range of sentiments of support and resistance to housing development, and points of admiration for the unique aspects of Cotati.

In addition to the survey targeted at Cotati residents, a second survey was promoted to receive feedback from Sonoma State University students. The university is located within unincorporated Sonoma County adjacent to the Cities of Cotati and Rohnert Park, and the results were considered in the Housing Element preparation process for both cities.

10.d
Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) Figure C6: Sonoma State Survey Promotional Flyer
Stakeholder Engagement
Outreach to housing developers, construction industry representatives, real estate professionals, community organizations, and nonprofit service providers helped to inform the Housing Element, and particularly the analysis of constraints to housing development within the Technical Background Report (Section 4).

In recognition of the close relationship and adjacency of the two cities with overlap in local stakeholder interests, a joint stakeholder workshop was held with the City of Rohnert Park on February 2, 2022.

Table C1: Cotati Stakeholder Workshop Participants
Cohort Organization Represented
Market-Rate Housing Developer
Brookfield Homes
City Ventures
Elliott Associates
Redwood Equities
Willow Glen

10.d
Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) Nonprofit Housing Developer
MidPen Housing*
Providence Supportive Housing*
Housing Land Trust of Sonoma County*
Housing Advocacy Napa Sonoma ADU Center*
Generation Housing*
Owner / Manager of Below Market
Rate Units
North Bay Industries*
Toor Enterprises, Inc.

Owner / Manager of Mobile Home
Park Property
Rancho Feliz*
Rancho Grande*
Las Casitas De Sonoma*
Education
Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District*
Sonoma State University
Sonoma State University Center for Community
Engagement*
Nonprofit and Community-Based
Organizations
Petaluma Health Center*
SAFE Team, Petaluma People Services Center*
* Organization representing and serving low-income and special needs populations Incorporation of Stakeholder Input
Stakeholder input was considered and incorporated during the development of the public review Draft Housing Element. Table C below outlines the incorporation of these comments.

Table C2: Integration of Cotati Stakeholder Input
Comment/Theme Incorporation into Housing Element
Housing Development
Support for better connections across all
development departments, streamlining,
Support for fast-tracking
Pre-vetted plans or plan checkers can expedite
review times
Interdepartmental coordination addressed
in Programs 1-1, 1-4, 2-2
Program 2-2: Streamlining Housing
Development
Program 2-3 addressed preapproved plans
for ADUs
Support for:
 Higher density development around SMART
Station*
 Downtown mixed-use development
 More missing middle and plex development
 Density bonuses
 Incorporated parking flexibility into land use
standards
 Redevelopment of underutilized commercial
areas
Program 2-6: Santero Way Rezoning
(Higher density near SMART Station)
Program 2-4: Cottage Housing Ordinance
(Missing Middle)
Program 1-8: Residential Building
Decarbonization (Action to encourage
mixed uses and higher densities on infill
and vacant sites in PDAs)
Program 3-1: Zoning for a Variety of
Housing Types (addresses density bonuses
and parking requirements
Need for more information/promotion of funding
opportunities, affordable housing resources, and
potential housing sites for developers.

Need for more transparency and clarity in fees and
requirements.

Program 3-2: Funding for Affordable and
Special Needs Housing (promote and assist
in funding applications)

10.d
Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) Program 5-3: Stakeholder Engagement
(provide information proactively to
developers and stakeholders)
Program 5-3: Accessible and Transparent
Information (addresses fees and inventory
sites)
City is responsive, approachable, and flexible. City
policies are beneficial to “smart growth” principles.

Discussed in Section 4.4.2 (Under Local
Processing and Permit Procedures)
Continued in Program 2-7: Support
Development of Proposed Projects
Changing prices of materials, labor shortages, and
environmental constraints can all decrease the
certainty of development
Discussed in Section 4.4.1 (Under
Construction Costs)
Housing Needs
Need homeownership opportunities for low-income
households*
Need for informational resources for prospective firsttime homebuyers, including resources in Spanish Households paying more in rent than the mortgage
cost for a comparable house, but aren’t able to
purchase (down payment, competition, availability)*
Program 1-2: Home Ownership (Assistance
Program)
Program 4-3: Nondiscrimination & Fair
Housing Information (resources in English
and Spanish)
Need for integration of affordable housing* Program 3-4: Housing Choice Vouchers (increases mobility and integration)
Ongoing displacement*
Concern about vacation homes
Program 4-1: Antidisplacement Actions
Increasing homelessness*
Barriers for obtaining/retaining housing include
criminal histories, eviction histories, and loss of
subsidies*
Landlord incentive programs to target people
moving out of homelessness*
Program 2-5: Continuum of Care and Crisis
Response (continue SAFE Program and
County coordination)
Program 3-2: Funding for Affordable and
Special Needs Housing (support housing
and funding applications for homeless
housing programs )
There is an overall lack of available and affordable
housing, and problems with overcrowding*
Programs to increase the supply of
affordable housing include Program 2-2, 2-
3, 2-4, 2-6, and 2-7
Need for housing for developmentally disabled
residents*
Program 3-2: Funding for Affordable and
Special Needs Housing (Support
applications for funding or development)
Need for housing for senior residents, especially near
amenities like grocery stores*
Senior mobile home communities unable to meet
demand*
Options to age in place*
Program 1-1: Housing Rehabilitation
(addresses renovations for accessibility to
age in place)
Program 3-2: Funding for Affordable and
Special Needs Housing (Support
applications for funding or development)
Program 4-4: Reasonable Accommodation
Landlord discrimination, harmful behavior from other
tenants, and homelessness stigma and contribute to
housing issues*
Program 3-4: Housing Choice Vouchers
(increases mobility and integration)

10.d
Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) Program 4-3: Nondiscrimination & Fair
Housing Information (provide and publicize
information)
Most housing being developed is not addressing real
housing needs*
Program 5-3: Stakeholder Engagement
(Participate in events to coordinate and
learn from stakeholders and advocates)
Need more ADUs/JADUs*
Need data on unpermitted ADUs
ADUs help homeowners financially*
Program 2-3: Accessory Dwelling Units
(facilitates development, provides
information, reduces penalties for
unpermitted units, provides path to bring
unpermitted units up to code)
Addressing Housing Needs
City successes include*
 Innovation
 Support for varied types of housing
Discussed in Section 4.4.2 (Under Local
Processing and Permit Procedures)
Continued in Program 2-7: Support
Development of Proposed Projects
Support for more permanent housing, Homekey
projects, transitional units and interim housing*
Program 3-2: Funding for Affordable and
Special Needs Housing (Support
applications for funding or development)
Use new State laws that facilitate housing* Program 2-2: Streamlining Housing Development (Develop processes to use
State streamlining provisions and develop
Objective Design Standards)
Need a variety of housing types, including tiny
homes, condos, townhouses, Missing Middle Housing
Program 2-4: Cottage Housing
Program 2-3: Accessory Dwelling Units
Program 1-8: Residential Building
Decarbonization (mixed use and infill
development)
Program 2-6: Santero Way Rezoning
* Comment from an organization representing or service low-income or special needs populations Fair Housing Contributing Factors
In addition to informing the development landscape, stakeholders were consulted to inform the City’s development of affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH). The Equity Ad Hoc Working Group provided input on a list of potential contributing factors to fair housing, with the City narrowing it down to 4-6 factors as recommended by HCD. The complete contributing factors analysis is featured in the Technical Background Report of this Housing Element (Section 4), with the contributing factors identified as follows:
 Displacement of residents due to economic pressures
 Community opposition
 Lack of affordable units appropriately sized for large families  Lack of awareness of and funding for fair housing outreach and enforcement  Lack of public investment in neighborhoods, including services & amenities

10.d
Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) Public review of the initial Housing Element draft yielded further recommendations from fair housing service providers and advocates.

Public Review Draft Housing Element Update
Pursuant to State law, the Public Review Draft Housing Element was circulated for 30 days on September 27, 2022. During the public review period, the City’s website was redesigned, creating a broken link. All parties involved in the Housing Element process were notified, and the public review period was extended to November 3, 2022, with 10 working days of reflection in the revised draft prior to HCD submittal (November 4 – November 18, 2022).

All community members previously involved in the Housing Element process were contacted to inform them of the Public Review Draft Housing Element and opportunities to comment.

The Community Development Director provided an update to the City Council on October 11, 2022. Further written comments were received in the remainder of the public review period, summarized in Table C3.

Table C3: Cotati Public Review Draft Housing Element Public Comments Commenter Date Submittal
Method
Comment Theme Resolution
Laurie Alderman
(5)
9/28/22
9/28/22
10/10/22
10/12/22
10/12/22
Email  Special Status Species –
California Tiger
Salamander
 Ladder trucks for multistory building fires
 Correction (TBR pg. 97) –
new bus routes
 Public outreach – new
public outreach period,
residents didn’t know
about sites
Considered.

Bus routes
information
corrected.

Renee Schomp,
Napa Sonoma
ADU Center
10/21/22 Email  ADUs Considered.

Chris Cone 10/23/22 Email  Mobile Home Parks Considered.

Marian Koglin (2) 10/27/22
11/07/22
City Hall  Mobile Home Parks
 Questions on affordable
housing & site designation
Considered.

Caroline Peattie &
Savannah Wheeler,
Fair Housing
10/28/22 Email  Strengthen Public
Outreach
Considered.

10.d
Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) Advocates of
Northern California
(FHANC)
Kirstyne Lange,
NAACP Santa Rosa
- Sonoma County
Margaret
DeMatteo, Legal
Aid of Sonoma
County
Valerie Feldman,
Public Interest Law
Project
Michael Titone,
Sonoma County
Tenant’s Union
 Strengthen Fair Housing
Goals and Programs
 Prioritize Specific Policies
and Programs to Protect
Tenants
 Fair Chance Ordinance
 Rent Stabilization
 Just Cause Eviction
Protection
 COPA/TOPA
 Tenant Bill of Rights
 Housing Local Community
Land Trust Program
Collin Thoma,
Disability Services
& Legal Center
(DSLC)
10/28/22 Email  Prioritize ELI - Policies 2.1-

2.3 (streamlining), Policy

4.5 (density bonus), Policy

4.7 (subsidies)
 Section 8 - landlord
education
 Homeless services - rental
assistance, security
deposit assistance, wrap
around services, more
homeless shelters and
transitional housing
 AB 2483 (incentives for
devt's with 100+ units for
homeless)
 Prohousing Designation -
pursue state/federal
funding & remove
constraints to
development
 Waive impact fees - make
top priority (Policy 2.8)
 Accessible housing for
people with
mobility/vision disabilities -
zero step entrances (>1:12
Considered.

10.d
Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) slope), 32-inch
paths/doorways,
bathroom grab bars, low
climate/light switches,
storage space in
ADUs/smaller homes for
medical/mobility devices.

Review Petaluma's
visitability ordinance
(exceeds 32 inch min, etc)
 Accessible infrastructure -
complete sidewalk
network, curb cuts, curb
extensions, signalized
crosswalks, protected bike
lanes
 Fire resistant housing
(landscaping, evacuation
routes)
Sonoma County
Housing Element
Working Group
11/01/22 Email  Public Outreach Considered.

Tom Most 11/03/22 Email  Program 1-8: Residential
Building Decarbonization –
prohibit new gas hookups,
adopt SolarAPP+, continue
to support Daily Acts
rainwater capture and
greywater education
 Program 2-2: Streamlining
Housing Development –
ministerial approval for all
projects
 Program 2-3: ADUs – treeremoval, reduce front
setbacks
 Program 3-4: HCVs –
consolidate regionally
 Program 3-6: Prohousing
Designation – support
 Program 4-1: AntiDisplacement Actions –
include info on IRA
Considered.

Program
revisions to
Program 5-1
to incorporate
public notice
of the Annual
Progress
Report (APR).

10.d
Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) incentives (heat pumps,
weatherization)
 Program 4-1 (sic):

Nondiscrimination and
Fair Housing Information –
consolidate regionally
 Program 5-1: Annual
Report – publicize report in
bi-monthly water bill/City
newsletter
 Vacant Sites – upzone St.

Joseph Way parcel to
allow 4 or 5 stories
 Move beyond specific sites
toward incremental
densification citywide
Kaitlyn Garfield,
Housing Land
Trust of Sonoma
County
11/03/22 Email  Program 1-5: Preservation
of Affordable Housing
 Program 3-6: Prohousing
Designation
 Inclusionary Housing
Policy
Considered.

Jen Klose,
Generation
Housing
11/04/22 Email  Strengthen Community
Outreach
 Development Trends and
Realistic Capacity
 Processing and Permit
Procedures
 Policies, Programs, and
Goals
 Definition of Missing
Middle Housing
 Cottage Housing – make
by-right
 Santero Way Specific Plan
– Quantified Objective
 MTC TOC Policy
 GMO Removal
 Workforce Housing & AB
602
Considered.

10.d
Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution)  Non-Profit and Agency
Coordination
Buffy McQuillen,
Federated Indians
of Graton
Rancheria
9/28/22 Tribal
Consult
 Inclusion of tribal
members in City’s local
preference policy
Considered.

Program 4-1:

AntiDisplacement
Actions
amended to
codify Local
Preference
Policy and
include
members of
local tribal
organizations.

10.d
Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution)

10.d
Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution)

10.d
Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) Question #3 Write-In Responses (Why did you choose to live in Cotati?)  Almost 30 years ago, when I moved here with my new family, it was the affordable cost of housing, the fantastic schools and community that formed our decision to move here
 Land and space
 I liked the small town feel.
 beauty of the land, values of the community
 I love the convenient location and the quirky small town feeling  halfway between work and family
 live in cohousing (frog song)
 housing prices (1999)
 magic
 cute downtown & central area
 sewer
 Bought house here
 Found a home good for retiring to

10.d
Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution)  cohousing community
 family moved here in the 60s
 I wanted a well-developed small town
 I grew up here
 horse property
 Came here to go to school
 found what I was looking for in housing
 Displaced by Coffey Park fires in 2017
 I found a home with plenty of space for my family.
 SSU proximity
 Small town/country feel
 accesibility to downtown businesses, quieter than Petaluma  Central to the rest of the county (family lives in SR and Petaluma) and commutable to SF via GGT
 Cohousing
 I love Cotati's funky small town flavor!
 Found a property and home I liked.

10.d
Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution)

10.d
Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution)

10.d
Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution)

10.d
Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution)

10.d
Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution)

10.d
Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution)

10.d
Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution)

10.d
Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution)

10.d
Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) Question #12 Write-In Responses (What types of new housing do you think would be most successful in Cotati today?)
 Manufactured homes in mobilehome parks owned by the City  Due to affordability
 No more low income housing
 Low income housing
 I don’t really know because I just moved here six months ago  affordable low income
 more multi-units on west side of Cotati
 stop building
 None
 None
 Community based and transitional housing units with
 Car-free dwelling arrangements, as vehicle requirements restrict the density that could be otherwise achieved.
 One or two co-housing deveopments, like frog song. While higher density multistory residences are increasingly necessary, attention needs to be given to those who cannot negotiate stairs. More outside the box thinking from an environmental perspective, as to type of housing

10.d
Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution)  No new housing until there is less traffic, and more water and electricity for everyone.  Farmland availability with housing for farmers and workers.  clustered housing with open space
 Mobile home rent control
 very small homes, under 600 sq. ft. on small very small lots  None
 I don’t know
 Houses that people who live here can afford on Sonoma County wages.  A mix of all kinds is best.

10.d
Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution)

10.d
Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution)

10.d
Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution)

10.d
Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) Question #18 Write-In Responses (What would you like people to know about housing in Cotati? Tell us the best part about living here, the biggest challenge you face in terms of housing, or anything else you’d like to share as we plan for the next eight years.)  Cotati is a good place to live because the community has a rich history, includes all income levels, and is located central to job opportunities. Affordable housing is key to preserving the Cotati's character. The three mobile-home parks provide affordable housing for young families and seniors, yet these neighborhoods are vulnerable to private-sector forces motivated by profit. Recent news articles show the trend is for corporations to buy parks and raise rents -- which casts a long shadow over the future of these parks as affordable housing. I urge the City to consider buying and managing the three parks to preserve their affordable housing status.  Ease of access to shop via bike or on foot.
 We would love to see the downtown and Oliver's shopping center upgraded/renovated. We need some restaurants, etc.
 I’m worried about development of very expensive houses that will eventually make the entire city unaffordable in the long term. I really hope cotati can be a leader in providing affordable housing and help house those who otherwise are housing insecure.
 Focus on creating better "area beside flood control channel " . I have enjoyed our "greenbelt " and so have the neighborhood pets and kids. I look forward to tree choices and trimming being a large part of the budget...so we don't end up like gravenstein way red oaks ..fertile and creating trees we won't be able to rid ourselves of....And they drink so much water our water table has lowered and sidewalks are being pushed up from roots. Cutting the concrete is not solution oriented.  Re housing alone, what's best is no 4 story buildings as are being built by our neighboring cities. "Affordable housing" is a misnomer i.e. the Kessing development. "affordable" surrounded by $1M homes? That's not what the public percieves as affordable.
 The rural areas need protection. That’s what makes it unique. Make it easier and have incentives for adding accessory dwellings.
 I moved here because it was a sweet small town. I fear that it is being over developed.

The new Cotati developments are too close together with no yards.  No more low income housing. Land trust vetted 8 recent home in Cotati and these homes have up to 9 cars in a drive way and excessive people in a small home. Rules aren’t followed and it’s difficult to trust the process as people state they’re single but have families and multiple incomes in one home.
 I do not want to see more and more homes built. Cotati's smaller "country" feeling is a large part of it's appeal for me. Continuing to build middle and high income housing will support city coffers but brings more commuters and less home town residents.  Small town character is an important identity of our community. Would like to have an ADU but septic regulations keep that from becoming a reality and cost of connecting to sewer would easily cost over 100K.

10.d
Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution)  Small town character is an important identity of our community. Would like to have an ADU but septic regulations keep that from becoming a reality and cost of connecting to sewer would easily cost over 100K.
 I wish the state was more helpful in getting projects that are already planned and ready to go over the hump of development financing. The site near SMART and the one downtown are ready to go - the state should help!!!  The best part of living in Cotati is being able to walk everywhere, and all over the city  Looking forward to improvements that make Cotati a SAFE, walkable city.  It’s crazy expensive to live here but I love it! Quirky and friendly and walkable, with wild turkeys everywhere!
 Cotati seems safer than RP and Pet. Downtown is nice and lots parks for kids  [email protected]
 very unique town
 I love the small town feel and love the fact I am no longer in a fire zone  I'd like to see housing plans balanced w/ keeping a rural component  I love that my place is affordable but I know most are not the cost of living is getting too high
 Quiet vibe is enjoyable but getting too overbuilt. Takes away the appeal  small town w/ good services
 -biggest challenge-affordability -love all the outdoor events -love downtown & centralized feel
 Old Redwood + E. Cotati Ave heavy traffic walkability is low, crossing streets feel stressful + dangerous. Roads get too much priority
 types of building allowed very sporadic generally favoring developers. Look at Valaraiso/Old Rewood Hwy homes
 best = walkability worst = cost of water/sewage Beware of fire = require fire-resistant bldg materials
 It's such a cute town! More affordable housing would be nice.  great town
 It's congested!
 just moved here 3 mos. ago
 comfortable
 more single-story homes like that it feels safe to walk here  Best: being close to downtown cafes & restaurants & Falletti farm Challenge: Noise from bars at night
 walkability and the small town feel was key for us
 Love the small town feel + great community
 uniqueness
 keep Cotati small
 Would like to see downtown develop a bit more with local business with is affordable to partake in.
 The community and accessibility to shopping/restaurants  Note: Traffic is bad in area of Old Red - Need to control traffic going thru neighborhood

10.d
Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution)  best = community, walkability challenges = govt. regs (permitting in Cotati is known to be a very long + difficult process.)
 Interesting political divide. Rohnert Park = "White Compton" We like some development but can't sacrifice charm. Old housing apartments are ugly  I love the atmosphere of a small community in Coatati. The biggest challenge would be affordable house, but that is not specific to Cotati  I enjoy the charming downtown and the parks. I also like the location within Sonoma County, being in between Petaluma and Santa Rosa is a good spot for those who drive all around the county. I appreciate the effort to help find solutions for residents find affordable housing. It is an important issue!
 Best: Compact nature of the town. Challenges: Increasing population density without increasing vehicle congestion and use. Solution: Combine downtown, small unit housing with work / business opportunity. Any planned additional residents should have ample opportunity to work with walk/ bike distance, otherwise we solve one problem (housing) while exacerbating another (traffic)
 I need to know more about the Master Plan and the Urban growth boundary. I love Petaluma, but I like Cotati because I can walk or bike downtown within minutes, and at the same time, there is still open space and nature. Cotati needs to work now with So Co Land trust to preserve parklands and the Laguna headwaters. Our raptors, other animals, not to mention apex predators are increasingly being pushed out of their former habitats. We need to think outside the box, as to type of housing. Do we want another strip mall-type, ticky-tacky houses in a row, on a long skinny parcel, emptying out onto ORH, as is proposed for the parcel south of Clothier Lane? Let's design developments that are walk and bike friendly, connected to other developments, take advantage of passive solar by positioning of the houses, green roofs and/ or Highreflectivity roofs, ample greenspace within community for recreation and gardens, fire safe and green materials, highly insulating to save energy costs, landscaping that is conducive to saving water, and many other features. And speaking of water, we know that the projections for California and the West are continued drought and diminished water supply. We cant keep building when we are already facing severe shortages next summer, unless we have massive snow pack in the sierra this winter, and honestly, that is just a temporary fix. Whatever developments do take place in Cotati, FIRST, we need more effective speed control on many of our streets, one of them being southbound ORH after the Valparaiso/Myrtle intersection, where vehicles routinely speed at 50-60 mph, often overtaking other vehicles. Another major intersection, that is a hazard, is ORH and Railroad Ave. The road bed is raised, with a slight bend, reducing sight distance, and this should be fixed before the city considers more housing. We have to find a way to provide the housing, looking at infill first, while maintaining the feel of " Keep Cotati weird" Do we really want to look like the suburban sprawl of Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park and many other communities around the state? And affordable housing should be synonymous with quality. I don't remember the formula for "affordable", but it seems we should aim for < /= 25% of family income - and in a place that doesn't fall apart in 10 years. My comments are a little scattered here - which usually happens when I type in a text box, but I feel there are many

10.d
Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) positive features that could be incorporated in the planning process to provide housing and maintain quality of life.
 the community is vibrant. The challenge is affordable building with the older environment, utilities. The challenge for housing on the NW side is to have safe walkable/cyclable access to the rest of Cotati.
 Keep the development close in to downtown; avoid sprawling out into the rural areas.

I live downtown and love being able to walk to amenities, including Oliver's, as well as the historic downtown stores/restaurants. I would like to see more retail downtown, and better quality restaurants. Fewer bars! I am very fortunate to live at the FrogSong cohousing community, which affords me a very connected sense of community in a central location.
 To help with issues related to climate change, I believe we need to focus on more dense, smaller size housing.
 Housing is harder to get, but worth it when you find it.  Cost of housing. And availability. Pay vs cost in Sonoma. County.  Moved here in 2012 bc I'm originally from Petaluma and was then working in SF. I'm now a disabled SAHM with two kids, living in the same apt with my postal worker husband, terrified to lose this place bc we can't afford anything else in the county and would have to leave family, work, and school. We're on E Cotati and adore the walkability to downtown, parks, restaurants, Oliver's, etc. Putting affordable housing in the parts of the town where things are walkable, versus off 116 or Redwood Hwy, would mean so much. Most of the other residents in our complex are low income (and Latinx, though we aren't), and there's a real sense of community here, not people who need to be sequestered outside city limits.
 Biggest challenge is living in cohousing: predatory leaders. A few nice people, but many who aren’t.
 There is too much traffic already, a drought, power outages etc. Cotati is great because it is NOT yet over crowded with more houses, which will then create more traffic, more drought, more negative environmental impacts etc.  Let's be different than the Bay Area and Petaluma in how we manage affordable housing and keeping residents here. It's important Cotati maintains its charming draw, stays affordable especially for students, prioritizes farmland needs (urban and periurban) to keep food local and accessible, and keeps the homeless in mind every step of the way instead of when things get terrible. Cotati is a tight city with so many little nooks and crannies that keep surprising me. I fear unwieldy development that will find this out and blow through with thoughtless, huge housing developments. Knowing this is a college-based town, it's that much more important to keep housing affordable especially while students struggle to afford schooling. I would like to live here permanently and call this home finally, but I feel a huge rush to try and buy ASAP and it's financially debilitating to consider.
 The small town vibe of Cotati is the best part of living here.  Best:Downtown is walkable and parks , carless lanes and open spaces are accessible by foot and bike Worst: lack of small (under 600 sq ft affordable units for senior and students, too many sirens (not housing but you asked)
 Quite neighborhood

10.d
Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution)  The best part is the small town charm. The difficult part is the affordability. Our neighborhood is filled with elderly people. Will there be a place here for the next generation?
 Neighbors
 Nice quaint community. Really don’t want to see it grow too much and become a large noisy polluted city.
 Rent control mobile homes must be supported & pulling out houses to increase rents destroy affordable housing! Support our mobile home parks!  Center of the earth. Housing cost, availability
 Our location and our charm. Not just a sprawl of big mcmansions like our neighbors.  The city needs to start by expanding public sewer and water services so that barriers to building due to septic system restrictions can be eliminated. Tiger Salamander protection are another rediculous barrier to affordable housing. Human lives should be prioritized over lizards.
 Hard to downsize to Cotati.
 Small town
 Love this cute and friendly Cotati it just feels safe to live here.  Que agan más casas accesibles para bajos ingresos me encanta la ciudad de Cotati  We lived 20+ years in SR but now and after 4 years living in Cotati we decided to stay here. We look forward to buy a house here this 2022, hopefully we will overcome this challenging market.
 Talking about housing is one thing but it cannot be done without also talking about infrastructure and water. What are you going to do about the increased traffic on small rural roads not designed for it? It needs to be considered and improved in tandem with the building of homes. Nothing has been changed with the hundreds of new homes built in our area in the last two years. Nothing has been done to improve the roads in the county surrounding the city which the city residents use regularly to rush to their destinations at our peril. We live on a road in which a quarter was repaved where the city line ended leaving the rest to continue crumbling although it doesn’t stop the city drivers from “shortcutting” at high speeds down our roads. With each new development we have seen an increase in traffic.
 The housing here is amazing. Cotati is a great city and is extremely calm.  El aumento excessivo de las rentas
 Safety, proximity to conveniences
 Cotati has a nice small-town feeling that should remain as long as possible. There are also many wonderful shops, restaurants, and Cotati is located in an ideal location for commuting. However, there seems to be too much "industrial" looking buildings in certain areas and it would be nice to limit the amount of new businesses in order to keep traffic down. Perhaps instead of building new homes and/or affordable housing, rent control should be looked at first. It is the prices of homes and apartments that are driving people out of the county and state, not the lack of housing.  Love the feel, the spirit and open space of Cotati. Do NOT support the kind of housing that Cotati decided to approve and allow to build on Valparaiso and Old Redwood.

This is not Rohnert Park!

10.d
Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution)  Walkability of the town good Turning small single family house into 3 units like my neighbor did with no extra parking not good
 Almost impossible to be a first time home owner. Most people now are buying homes and renting them out.
 I love this city, but cannot find a house affordable and large enough for my growing family. Currently I rent a room from a family member. I don't want to leave Cotati, but I'm not sure what my other options would be.
 City is small enough to get around to all needed services/resources. Bus system needs to improve with more scheduled routes and between cities.  Cute town. Nice programs and central location to SF, oceans and mountains  Water and sewer rates are excessive. My water bill is over $200 and the cost of my bill that is water is only $25. Something needs to be addressed. Also sales tax is too high in Cotati. At this rate is isn’t desirable to live here.  Wherever new housing is built, the city will need to improve roads to accommodate more traffic.
 I would like the people of Cotati to fight back against the stereotypes of "low income" families. We are a working, average family of 4 who just want an affordable place to live. We have already resigned ourselves to the fact that we may never own our own home, due to "house flipping" & out of state/country "investors" out bidding average families. We love the small town feel of Cotati & we appreciate the diversity, & the fact that we're close to everything we need. I would love for my 4 & 6 year old girls to grow up here. I have personally lived in Sonoma County for most of my life. Housing is becoming more & more out of reach for average people & it's extremely challenging & sad to live paycheck to paycheck hoping you can make rent.  We love living in small town Cotati! We are concerned about the housing overdevelopment of our beloved little city. That being said, we do need more restaurants and shops downtown which is critical to the overall happiness of the community.
 Grey water and solar systems should be a must for new buildings. The city has a very friendly community now changing to a lower age group. I think city should consider to develop a recreational center, as residents can only use RP facilities (for swimming for example).
 We need to focus a little less on housing, and a little more on creating a more robust and exciting downtown where small businesses can thrive and flourish. Cotati has been so over developed that we have all these homes, and nothing to do. I leave cotati on the weekends. There is no charm, there is no quaintness, there is no life.

Cotati sucks, and its so sad because there is SO much potential.  Cotati is beautiful and amazing! I need to be more involved in this great community. I love how we have more bars than chain stores! I love that we have so many delicious local spots to eat and shop. I appreciate our walking and biking paths. I love our feral chickens and our parties at La Plaza park. Ps your survey has a mistake on question 13.  Community activities are a plus. Families do out door actives together. Biking.

Walking etc. love the walking/ bike paths
 Keep Cotati just the way it is, We don't need the likes of Santa Rosa with the filth and degradation which it invites, Be carful what you ask for...

10.d
Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution)  My rent here has doubled. My wages have not kept up. My hope of owning a house is remote especially since the new housing in our area is priced so far outside my income level. Affordable housing is a necessity for us to stay here.  Cotati has a nice and casual atmosphere ! The homes are varied nicely and they are more affordable than say Petaluma and Rohnert park
 expanded road infrastructure to accommodate the population growth  Love the small-town feel of Cotati, able to walk to run most errands. But concerned that, if not done thoughtfully, future housing expansion will burden infrastructure and community resources
 This a quiet friendly city. Family and kids from different ages feel safe but it’s hard to afford or qualify for a place to live here.
 I love the country feel and the fact that backyard chickens are allowed. Biggest challenge is the cost of upgrading our older home. Electricity, heating and kitchen need updating but most of our income goes towards mortgage payment.  Cotati is a unique small town with a lively and engaged community. We feel lucky to live here! The housing challenge specific to Cotati relates directly to it being a small town with few areas left to develop without becoming another Rohnert Park.  Cotati is a great little town every thing is very close to my home so I can walk . It’s dog friendly witch is a plus . The biggest problem is it’s not pedestrian friendly do you have to be able to look six ways at a time so you won’t get run over !! Speed limits and racing through our neighborhood is an ongoing problem and you need to address that before you start building more homes and adding more traffic.it’s dangerous out there and now you’re fixing old Redwood between Myrtle and page for coming in and out of town Will be doing 70 what are you gonna do about that? We need to address that. Other than that it’s a great town.

10.d
Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 1 HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: COTATI
ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning
2021-04-02

10.d
Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 2 0.1 Table of content

0.1 Table of content.................................................................................................... 2

0.2 List of figures ....................................................................................................... 3

0.3 List of tables ........................................................................................................ 3 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 5 2 Summary of Key Facts .................................................................................................. 6 3 Looking to the Future: Regional Housing Needs .................................................................. 9

3.1 Regional Housing Needs Determination......................................................................... 9

3.2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation .............................................................................. 9 4 Population, Employment and Household Characteristics ..................................................... 11

4.1 Population ..........................................................................................................11

4.2 Age...................................................................................................................12

4.3 Race and Ethnicity ................................................................................................14

4.4 Employment Trends ...............................................................................................15

4.4.1 Balance of Jobs and Workers...............................................................................15

4.4.2 Sector Composition ..........................................................................................19

4.4.3 Unemployment ...............................................................................................20

4.5 Extremely Low-Income Households.............................................................................21

4.6 Tenure...............................................................................................................25

4.7 Displacement .......................................................................................................29 5 Housing Stock Characteristics ...................................................................................... 31

5.1 Housing Types, Year Built, Vacancy, and Permits............................................................31

5.2 Assisted Housing Developments At-Risk of Conversion......................................................34

5.3 Substandard Housing..............................................................................................35

5.4 Home and Rent Values............................................................................................36

5.5 Overpayment and Overcrowding ................................................................................39 6 Special Housing Needs................................................................................................ 48

6.1 Large Households ..................................................................................................48

6.2 Female-Headed Households......................................................................................49

6.3 Seniors...............................................................................................................51

6.4 People with Disabilities ..........................................................................................52

6.5 Homelessness.......................................................................................................54

6.6 Farmworkers .......................................................................................................59

6.7 Non-English Speakers .............................................................................................60

10.d
Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 3 0.2 List of figures
Figure 1: Population Growth Trends .......................................................................................12 Figure 2: Population by Age, 2000-2019...................................................................................13 Figure 3: Senior and Youth Population by Race ..........................................................................14 Figure 4: Population by Race, 2000-2019 .................................................................................15 Figure 5: Jobs in a Jurisdiction .............................................................................................16 Figure 6: Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence.........................17 Figure 7: Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group ...........................................................................18 Figure 8: Jobs-Household Ratio .............................................................................................19 Figure 9: Resident Employment by Industry ..............................................................................20 Figure 10: Unemployment Rate.............................................................................................21 Figure 11: Households by Household Income Level......................................................................23 Figure 12: Household Income Level by Tenure ...........................................................................24 Figure 13: Poverty Status by Race..........................................................................................25 Figure 14: Housing Tenure...................................................................................................26 Figure 15: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder .....................................................................27 Figure 16: Housing Tenure by Age..........................................................................................28 Figure 17: Housing Tenure by Housing Type ..............................................................................29 Figure 18: Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure...............................................................30 Figure 19: Housing Type Trends ............................................................................................31 Figure 20: Housing Units by Year Structure Built ........................................................................32 Figure 21: Vacant Units by Type............................................................................................33 Figure 22: Substandard Housing Issues.....................................................................................36 Figure 23: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units.......................................................................37 Figure 24: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)...............................................................................37 Figure 25: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units...................................................................38 Figure 26: Median Contract Rent ...........................................................................................39 Figure 27: Cost Burden by Tenure ..........................................................................................40 Figure 28: Cost Burden by Income Level ..................................................................................41 Figure 29: Cost Burden by Race.............................................................................................42 Figure 30: Cost Burden by Household Size ................................................................................43 Figure 31: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level ........................................................44 Figure 32: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity ........................................................................45 Figure 33: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity ................................................................46 Figure 34: Overcrowding by Race...........................................................................................47 Figure 35: Household Size by Tenure ......................................................................................48 Figure 36: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms .......................................................................49 Figure 37: Household Type ..................................................................................................50 Figure 38: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status ..............................................................51 Figure 39: Senior Households by Income and Tenure....................................................................52 Figure 40: Disability by Type ................................................................................................53 Figure 41: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Sonoma County .................................55 Figure 42: Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations, Sonoma County............................56 Figure 43: Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, Sonoma County....................................57 Figure 44: Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Sonoma County......................58 Figure 45: Farm Operations and Farm Labor by County, Sonoma County ............................................60 Figure 46: Population with Limited English Proficiency.................................................................61

0.3 List of tables

10.d
Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 4 Table 1: Illustrative Regional Housing Needs Allocation from Draft Methodology ..................................10 Table 2: Population Growth Trends ........................................................................................11 Table 3: Housing Permitting.................................................................................................33 Table 4: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion.............................................................................34 Table 5: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age ..........................................................54 Table 6: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence...................................................54 Table 7: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness ...............................................59 Table 8: Migrant Worker Student Population .............................................................................59

10.d
Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 5 1 INTRODUCTION
The Bay Area continues to see growth in both population and jobs, which means more housing of various types and sizes is needed to ensure that residents across all income levels, ages, and abilities have a place to call home. While the number of people drawn to the region over the past 30 years has steadily increased, housing production has stalled, contributing to the housing shortage that communities are experiencing today. In many cities, this has resulted in residents being priced out, increased traffic congestion caused by longer commutes, and fewer people across incomes being able to purchase homes or meet surging rents.

The 2023-2031 Housing Element Update provides a roadmap for how to meet our growth and housing challenges. Required by the state, the Housing Element identifies what the existing housing conditions and community needs are, reiterates goals, and creates a plan for more housing. The Housing Element is an integral part of the General Plan, which guides the policies of Cotati.

10.d
Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 6 2 SUMMARY OF KEY FACTS
• Population – Generally, the population of the Bay Area continues to grow because of natural growth and because the strong economy draws new residents to the region. The population of Cotati increased by 16.4% from 2000 to 2020, which is above the growth rate of the Bay Area. • Age – In 2019, Cotati’s youth population under the age of 18 was 1,691 and senior population 65 and older was 977. These age groups represent 22.7% and 13.1%, respectively, of Cotati’s population.
• Race/Ethnicity – In 2020, 74.5% of Cotati’s population was White while 0.6% was African American, 2.0% was Asian, and 18.4% was Latinx. People of color in Cotati comprise a proportion below the overall proportion in the Bay Area as a whole.1 • Employment – Cotati residents most commonly work in the Health & Educational Services industry. From January 2010 to January 2021, the unemployment rate in Cotati decreased by

8.8 percentage points. Since 2010, the number of jobs located in the jurisdiction increased by 1,020 (43.4%). Additionally, the jobs-household ratio in Cotati has increased from 0.84 in 2002 to 1.14 jobs per household in 2018.
• Number of Homes – The number of new homes built in the Bay Area has not kept pace with the demand, resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness. The number of homes in Cotati increased, 2.2% from 2010 to 2020, which is above the growth rate for Sonoma County and below the growth rate of the region’s housing stock during this time period.
• Home Prices – A diversity of homes at all income levels creates opportunities for all Cotati residents to live and thrive in the community.
– Ownership The largest proportion of homes had a value in the range of $500k-$750k in 2019. Home prices increased by 84.7% from 2010 to 2020. – Rental Prices – The typical contract rent for an apartment in Cotati was $1,470 in 2019. Rental prices increased by 41.3% from 2009 to 2019. To rent a typical apartment without cost burden, a household would need to make $59,120 per year.2 • Housing Type – It is important to have a variety of housing types to meet the needs of a community today and in the future. In 2020, 45.6% of homes in Cotati were single family detached, 19.1% were single family attached, 14.1% were small multifamily (2-4 units), and

17.3% were medium or large multifamily (5+ units). Between 2010 and 2020, the number of single-family units increased more than multi-family units. Generally, in Cotati, the share of

1 The Census Bureau’s American Community Survey accounts for ethnic origin separate from racial identity. The numbers reported here use an accounting of both such that the racial categories are shown exclusive of Latinx status, to allow for an accounting of the Latinx population regardless of racial identity. The term Hispanic has historically been used to describe people from numerous Central American, South American, and Caribbean countries. In recent years, the term Latino or Latinx has become preferred. This report generally uses Latinx, but occasionally when discussing US Census data, we use Hispanic or Non-Hispanic, to clearly link to the data source. 2 Note that contract rents may differ significantly from, and often being lower than, current listing prices.

10.d
Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 7 the housing stock that is detached single family homes is below that of other jurisdictions in the region.
• Cost Burden – The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development considers housing to be affordable for a household if the household spends less than 30% of its income on housing costs.

A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30% of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” In Cotati, 24.6% of households spend 30%-50% of their income on housing, while 14.5% of households are severely cost burden and use the majority of their income for housing.
• Displacement/Gentrification – According to research from The University of California, Berkeley, 54.2% of households in Cotati live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement, and 0.0% live in areas at risk of or undergoing gentrification. 2.9% of households in Cotati live in neighborhoods where low-income households are likely excluded due to prohibitive housing costs. There are various ways to address displacement including ensuring new housing at all income levels is built.
• Neighborhood – 0.0% of residents in Cotati live in neighborhoods identified as “Highest Resource” or “High Resource” areas by State-commissioned research, while 55.9% of residents live in areas identified by this research as “Low Resource” or “High Segregation and Poverty” areas. These neighborhood designations are based on a range of indicators covering areas such as education, poverty, proximity to jobs and economic opportunities, low pollution levels, and other factors.3
• Special Housing Needs – Some population groups may have special housing needs that require specific program responses, and these groups may experience barriers to accessing stable housing due to their specific housing circumstances. In Cotati, 10.3% of residents have a disability of any kind and may require accessible housing. Additionally, 12.2% of Cotati households are larger households with five or more people, who likely need larger housing units with three bedrooms or more. 14.3% of households are female-headed families, which are often at greater risk of housing insecurity.

Note on Data
Many of the tables in this report are sourced from data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey or U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, both of which are samples and as such, are subject to sampling variability. This means that data is an estimate, and that other estimates could be possible if another set of respondents had been reached. We use the five-year release to get a

3 For more information on the “opportunity area” categories developed by HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, see this website: https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp. The degree to which different jurisdictions and neighborhoods have access to opportunity will likely need to be analyzed as part of new Housing Element requirements related to affirmatively furthering fair housing. ABAG/MTC will be providing jurisdictions with technical assistance on this topic this summer, following the release of additional guidance from HCD.

10.d
Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 8 larger data pool to minimize this “margin of error” but particularly for the smaller cities, the data will be based on fewer responses, and the information should be interpreted accordingly.

Additionally, there may be instances where there is no data available for a jurisdiction for particular data point, or where a value is 0 and the automatically generated text cannot perform a calculation. In these cases, the automatically generated text is “NODATA.” Staff should reword these sentences before using them in the context of the Housing Element or other documents.

Note on Figures
Any figure that does not specify geography in the figure name represents data for Cotati.

10.d
Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 9 3 LOOKING TO THE FUTURE: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS

3.1 Regional Housing Needs Determination
The Plan Bay Area 20504 Final Blueprint forecasts that the nine-county Bay Area will add 1.4 million new households between 2015 and 2050. For the eight-year time frame covered by this Housing Element Update, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has identified the region’s housing need as 441,176 units. The total number of housing units assigned by HCD is separated into four income categories that cover housing types for all income levels, from very low-income households to market rate housing.5 This calculation, known as the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND), is based on population projections produced by the California Department of Finance as well as adjustments that incorporate the region’s existing housing need. The adjustments result from recent legislation requiring HCD to apply additional adjustment factors to the baseline growth projection from California Department of Finance, in order for the regions to get closer to healthy housing markets. To this end, adjustments focus on the region’s vacancy rate, level of overcrowding and the share of cost burdened households, and seek to bring the region more in line with comparable ones.6 These new laws governing the methodology for how HCD calculates the RHND resulted in a significantly higher number of housing units for which the Bay Area must plan compared to previous RHNA cycles.

3.2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation
A starting point for the Housing Element Update process for every California jurisdiction is the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or RHNA – the share of the RHND assigned to each jurisdiction by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). State Housing Element Law requires ABAG to develop a methodology that calculates the number of housing units assigned to each city and county and distributes each jurisdiction’s housing unit allocation among four affordability levels. For this RHNA cycle, the RHND increased by 135%, from 187,990 to 441,776. For more information on the RHNA process this cycle, see ABAG’s website: https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/housing/rhna-regional-housing-needsallocation Almost all jurisdictions in the Bay Area are likely to receive a larger RHNA this cycle compared to the last cycle, primarily due to changes in state law that led to a considerably higher RHND compared to previous cycles.

In January 2021, ABAG adopted a Draft RHNA Methodology, which is currently being reviewed by HCD.

For Cotati, the proposed RHNA to be planned for this cycle is 234 units, a slated increase from the last cycle. Please note that the previously stated figures are merely illustrative, as ABAG has yet to issue Final RHNA allocations. The Final RHNA allocations that local jurisdictions will use for their

4 Plan Bay Area 2050 is a long-range plan charting the course for the future of the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. It covers four key issues: the economy, the environment, housing and transportation 5 HCD divides the RHND into the following four income categories:

Very Low-income: 0-50% of Area Median Income
Low-income: 50-80% of Area Median Income
Moderate-income: 80-120% of Area Median Income
Above Moderate-income: 120% or more of Area Median Income 6 For more information on HCD’s RHND calculation for the Bay Area, see this letter sent to ABAG from HCD on June 9, 2020: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/abagrhna-final060920(r).pdf

10.d
Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 10 Housing Elements will be released at the end of 2021. The potential allocation that Cotati would receive from the Draft RHNA Methodology is broken down by income category as follows:

Table 1: Illustrative Regional Housing Needs Allocation from Draft Methodology Income Group Cotati
Units
Sonoma
County Units
Bay Area
Units
Cotati
Percent
Sonoma
County
Percent
Bay Area
Percent
Very Low Income
(<50% of AMI) 60 3999 114442 25.6% 27.5% 25.9%
Low Income (50%-80%
of AMI) 34 2302 65892 14.5% 15.8% 14.9%
Moderate Income
(80%-120% of AMI) 39 2302 72712 16.7% 15.8% 16.5%
Above Moderate
Income (>120% of
AMI)
101 5959 188130 43.2% 40.9% 42.6%
Total 234 14562 441176 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments Methodology and tentative numbers were approved by ABAG’s Executive board on January 21, 2021 (Resolution No. 02-2021). The numbers were submitted for review to California Housing and Community Development in February 2021, after which an appeals process will take place during the Summer and Fall of 2021.

THESE NUMBERS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER HCD REVIEW

10.d
Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 11 4 POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSEHOLD

CHARACTERISTICS

4.1 Population
The Bay Area is the fifth-largest metropolitan area in the nation and has seen a steady increase in population since 1990, except for a dip during the Great Recession. Many cities in the region have experienced significant growth in jobs and population. While these trends have led to a corresponding increase in demand for housing across the region, the regional production of housing has largely not kept pace with job and population growth. Since 2000, Cotati’s population has increased by 16.4%; this rate is above that of the region as a whole, at 14.8%. In Cotati, roughly 11.8% of its population moved during the past year, a number 1.6 percentage points smaller than the regional rate of 13.4%.

Table 2: Population Growth Trends
Geography 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Cotati 5714 6471 6471 7185 7265 7367 7533
Sonoma County 388222 416776 458614 475703 483878 500640 492980 Bay Area 6020147 6381961 6784348 7073912 7150739 7595694 7790537 Universe: Total population
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
For more years of data, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-01.

In 2020, the population of Cotati was estimated to be 7,533 (see Table 2). From 1990 to 2000, the population increased by 13.2%, while it increased by 12.3% during the first decade of the 2000s. In the most recent decade, the population increased by 3.7%. The population of Cotati makes up 1.5% of Sonoma County.7

7 To compare the rate of growth across various geographic scales, Figure 1 shows population for the jurisdiction, county, and region indexed to the population in the year 1990. This means that the data points represent the population growth (i.e. percent change) in each of these geographies relative to their populations in 1990.

10.d
Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 12 Figure 1: Population Growth Trends
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series Note: The data shown on the graph represents population for the jurisdiction, county, and region indexed to the population in the first year shown. The data points represent the relative population growth in each of these geographies relative to their populations in that year.

For some jurisdictions, a break may appear at the end of each decade (1999, 2009) as estimates are compared to census counts.

DOF uses the decennial census to benchmark subsequent population estimates.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-01.

4.2 Age
The distribution of age groups in a city shapes what types of housing the community may need in the near future. An increase in the older population may mean there is a developing need for more senior housing options, while higher numbers of children and young families can point to the need for more family housing options and related services. There has also been a move by many to age-in-place or downsize to stay within their communities, which can mean more multifamily and accessible units are also needed.

In Cotati, the median age in 2000 was 33; by 2019, this figure had increased, landing at around 36 years. More specifically, the population of those under 14 has increased since 2010, while the 65-andover population has increased (see Figure 2).

10.d
Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 13 Figure 2: Population by Age, 2000-2019
Universe: Total population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-04.

Looking at the senior and youth population by race can add an additional layer of understanding, as families and seniors of color are even more likely to experience challenges finding affordable housing.

People of color8 make up 11.5% of seniors and 21.8% of youth under 18 (see Figure 3).

8 Here, we count all non-white racial groups

10.d
Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 14 Figure 3: Senior and Youth Population by Race
Universe: Total population
Notes: In the sources for this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity, and an overlapping category of Hispanic / non-Hispanic groups has not been shown to avoid double counting in the stacked bar chart.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-G) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table SEN-02.

4.3 Race and Ethnicity
Understanding the racial makeup of a city and region is important for designing and implementing effective housing policies and programs. These patterns are shaped by both market factors and government actions, such as exclusionary zoning, discriminatory lending practices and displacement that has occurred over time and continues to impact communities of color today9. Since 2000, the percentage of residents in Cotati identifying as White has decreased – and by the same token the percentage of residents of all other races and ethnicities has increased – by 5.2 percentage points, with the 2019 population standing at 5,555 (see Figure 4). In absolute terms, the White, Non-Hispanic population increased the most while the Black or African American, Non-Hispanic population decreased the most.

9 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law : a forgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing.

10.d
Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 15 Figure 4: Population by Race, 2000-2019
Universe: Total population
Notes: Data for 2019 represents 2015-2019 ACS estimates. The Census Bureau defines Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity separate from racial categories. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015- 2019), Table B03002
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-02.

4.4 Employment Trends

4.4.1 Balance of Jobs and Workers
A city houses employed residents who either work in the community where they live or work elsewhere in the region. Conversely, a city may have job sites that employ residents from the same city, but more often employ workers commuting from outside of it. Smaller cities typically will have more employed residents than jobs there and export workers, while larger cities tend to have a surplus of jobs and import workers. To some extent the regional transportation system is set up for this flow of workers to the region’s core job centers. At the same time, as the housing affordability crisis has illustrated, local imbalances may be severe, where local jobs and worker populations are out of sync at a sub-regional scale.

One measure of this is the relationship between workers and jobs. A city with a surplus of workers “exports” workers to other parts of the region, while a city with a surplus of jobs must conversely “import” them. Between 2002 and 2018, the number of jobs in Cotati increased by 53.5% (see Figure 5).

10.d
Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 16 Figure 5: Jobs in a Jurisdiction
Universe: Jobs from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment Notes: The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the census block level. These are crosswalked to jurisdictions and summarized.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files, 2002-2018 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-11.

There are 3,977 employed residents, and 3,126 jobs10 in Cotati - the ratio of jobs to resident workers is

0.79; Cotati is a net exporter of workers.

Figure 6 shows the balance when comparing jobs to workers, broken down by different wage groups, offering additional insight into local dynamics. A community may offer employment for relatively lowincome workers but have relatively few housing options for those workers - or conversely, it may house residents who are low wage workers but offer few employment opportunities for them. Such relationships may cast extra light on potentially pent-up demand for housing in particular price categories. A relative surplus of jobs relative to residents in a given wage category suggests the need to import those workers, while conversely, surpluses of workers in a wage group relative to jobs means the community will export those workers to other jurisdictions. Such flows are not inherently bad, though over time, sub-regional imbalances may appear. Cotati has more low-wage jobs than low-wage residents (where low-wage refers to jobs paying less than $25,000). At the other end of the wage

10 Employed residents in a jurisdiction is counted by place of residence (they may work elsewhere) while jobs in a jurisdiction are counted by place of work (they may live elsewhere). The jobs may differ from those reported in Figure 5 as the source for the time series is from administrative data, while the cross-sectional data is from a survey.

10.d
Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 17 spectrum, the city has more high-wage residents than high-wage jobs (where high-wage refers to jobs paying more than $75,000) (see Figure 6).
11 Figure 6: Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence
Universe: Workers 16 years and over with earnings
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data 2015-2019, B08119, B08519 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-10.

Figure 7 shows the balance of a jurisdiction’s resident workers to the jobs located there for different wage groups as a ratio instead - a value of 1 means that a city has the same number of jobs in a wage group as it has resident workers - in principle, a balance. Values above 1 indicate a jurisdiction will need to import workers for jobs in a given wage group. At the regional scale, this ratio is 1.04 jobs for each worker, implying a modest import of workers from outside the region (see Figure 7).

11 The source table is top-coded at $75,000, precluding more fine grained analysis at the higher end of the wage spectrum.

10.d
Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 18 Figure 7: Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group
Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment Notes: The ratio compares job counts by wage group from two tabulations of LEHD data: Counts by place of work relative to counts by place of residence. See text for details.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs); Residence Area Characteristics (RAC) files (Employed Residents), 2010-2018 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-14.

Such balances between jobs and workers may directly influence the housing demand in a community.

New jobs may draw new residents, and when there is high demand for housing relative to supply, many workers may be unable to afford to live where they work, particularly where job growth has been in relatively lower wage jobs. This dynamic not only means many workers will need to prepare for long commutes and time spent on the road, but in the aggregate it contributes to traffic congestion and time lost for all road users.

If there are more jobs than employed residents, it means a city is relatively jobs-rich, typically also with a high jobs to household ratio. Thus bringing housing into the measure, the jobs-household ratio in Cotati has increased from 0.84 in 2002, to 1.14 jobs per household in 2018 (see Figure 8).

10.d
Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 19 Figure 8: Jobs-Household Ratio
Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment; households in a jurisdiction Notes: The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the census block level. These are crosswalked to jurisdictions and summarized. The ratio compares place of work wage and salary jobs with households, or occupied housing units. A similar measure is the ratio of jobs to housing units. However, this jobs-household ratio serves to compare the number of jobs in a jurisdiction to the number of housing units that are actually occupied. The difference between a jurisdiction’s jobs-housing ratio and jobs-household ratio will be most pronounced in jurisdictions with high vacancy rates, a high rate of units used for seasonal use, or a high rate of units used as short-term rentals.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs), 2002-2018; California Department of Finance, E-5 (Households) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-13.

4.4.2 Sector Composition
In terms of sectoral composition, the largest industry in which Cotati residents work is Health & Educational Services, and the largest sector in which Sonoma residents work is Health & Educational Services (see Figure 9). For the Bay Area as a whole, the Health & Educational Services industry employs the most workers.

10.d
Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 20 Figure 9: Resident Employment by Industry
Universe: Civilian employed population age 16 years and over Notes: The data displayed shows the industries in which jurisdiction residents work, regardless of the location where those residents are employed (whether within the jurisdiction or not). Categories are derived from the following source tables:

Agriculture & Natural Resources: C24030_003E, C24030_030E; Construction: C24030_006E, C24030_033E; Manufacturing, Wholesale & Transportation: C24030_007E, C24030_034E, C24030_008E, C24030_035E, C24030_010E, C24030_037E; Retail:

C24030_009E, C24030_036E; Information: C24030_013E, C24030_040E; Financial & Professional Services: C24030_014E, C24030_041E, C24030_017E, C24030_044E; Health & Educational Services: C24030_021E, C24030_024E, C24030_048E, C24030_051E; Other: C24030_027E, C24030_054E, C24030_028E, C24030_055E Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C24030 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-06.

4.4.3 Unemployment
In Cotati, there was a 8.8 percentage point decrease in the unemployment rate between January 2010 and January 2021. Jurisdictions through the region experienced a sharp rise in unemployment in 2020 due to impacts related to the COVID-19 pandemic, though with a general improvement and recovery in the later months of 2020.

10.d
Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 21 Figure 10: Unemployment Rate
Universe: Civilian noninstitutional population ages 16 and older Notes: Unemployment rates for the jurisdiction level is derived from larger-geography estimates. This method assumes that the rates of change in employment and unemployment are exactly the same in each sub-county area as at the county level. If this assumption is not true for a specific sub-county area, then the estimates for that area may not be representative of the current economic conditions. Since this assumption is untested, caution should be employed when using these data. Only not seasonallyadjusted labor force (unemployment rates) data are developed for cities and CDPs.

Source: California Employment Development Department, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), Sub-county areas monthly updates, 2010-2021.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-15.

4.5 Extremely Low-Income Households
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 state12.

In Cotati, 55.9% of households make more than 100% of the Area Median Income (AMI)13, compared to

10.1% making less than 30% of AMI, which is considered extremely low-income (see Figure 11).

12 Bohn, S.et al. 2020. Income Inequality and Economic Opportunity in California. Public Policy Institute of California.
13 Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. Households making between 80 and 120 percent of the AMI are moderate-income, those making 50 to 80 percent are low-income, those making 30 to 50

10.d
Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 22 Regionally, more than half of all households make more than 100% AMI, while 15% make less than 30% AMI. In Sonoma County, 30% AMI is the equivalent to the annual income of $29,450 for a family of four.

Many 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 relatively stagnant wages in many industries.

Note on Estimating the Projected Number of Extremely Low-Income Households Local jurisdictions are required to provide an estimate for their projected extremely low-income households in their Housing Elements. HCD’s official Housing Element guidance notes that jurisdictions can use their RHNA for very low-income households (those making 0-50% AMI) to calculate their projected extremely low-income households. For more information, visit HCD’s Building Blocks page on Extremely Low-Income Housing Needs.

This document does not contain the required data point of projected extremely low-income households, as Bay Area jurisdictions have not yet received their final RHNA numbers. Once Cotati receives its 6th Cycle RHNA, staff can estimate the projected extremely low-income households using one of the following three methodologies:

Option A: Assume that 59.8% of Cotati’s very low-income RHNA is for extremely low-income households.

According to HCD’s Regional Housing Need Determination for the Bay Area, 15.5% of the region’s housing need is for 0-30% AMI households while 25.9% is for 0-50% AMI households. Therefore, extremely low-income housing need represents 59.8% of the region’s very low-income housing need, as 15.5 divided by 25.9 is 59.8%. This option aligns with HCD’s guidance to use U.S. Census data to calculate the percentage of very low-income RHNA that qualifies for extremely low-income households, as HCD uses U.S. Census data to calculate the Regional Housing Need Determination.

Option B: Assume that 45.7% of Cotati’s very low-income RHNA is for extremely low-income households.

According to the data shown below (Figure 11), 624 of Cotati’s households are 0-50% AMI while 285 are extremely low-income. Therefore, extremely low-income households represent 45.7% of households who are 0-50% AMI, as 285 divided by 624 is 45.7%. This option aligns with HCD’s guidance to use U.S. Census data to calculate the percentage of very low-income RHNA that qualifies for extremely low-income households, as the information in Figure 11 represents a tabulation of Census Bureau Data.

Option C: Assume that 50% of Cotati’s very low-income RHNA is for extremely low-income households.

HCD’s guidance notes that instead of using use U.S. Census data to calculate the percentage of very low-income RHNA that qualifies for extremely low-income households, local jurisdictions can presume that 50% of their RHNA for very low-income households qualifies for extremely low-income households.

percent are very low-income, and those making less than 30 percent are extremely low-income. This is then adjusted for household size.

10.d
Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 23 Figure 11: Households by Household Income Level
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. The data that is reported for the Bay Area is not based on a regional AMI but instead refers to the regional total of households in an income group relative to the AMI for the county where that household is located. Local jurisdictions are required to provide an estimate for their projected extremely low-income households (0-30% AMI) in their Housing Elements. HCD’s official Housing Element guidance notes that jurisdictions can use their RHNA for very low-income households (those making 0-50% AMI) to calculate their projected extremely low-income households. As Bay Area jurisdictions have not yet received their final RHNA numbers, this document does not contain the required data point of projected extremely low-income households. The report portion of the housing data needs packet contains more specific guidance for how local staff can calculate an estimate for projected extremely low-income households once jurisdictions receive their 6th cycle RHNA numbers.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table ELI-01.

Throughout the region, there are disparities between the incomes of homeowners and renters.

Typically, the number of low-income renters greatly outpaces the amount of housing available that is affordable for these households.

In Cotati, the largest proportion of renters falls in the Greater than 100% of AMI income group, while the largest proportion of homeowners are found in the Greater than 100% of AMI group (see Figure 12).

10.d
Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 24 Figure 12: Household Income Level by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents.14 These economic disparities also leave communities of color at higher risk for housing insecurity, displacement or homelessness. In Cotati, Black or African American (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents experience the highest rates of poverty, followed by Other Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents (see Figure 13).

14 Moore, E., Montojo, N. and Mauri, N., 2019. Roots, Race & Place: A History of Racially Exclusionary Housing the San Francisco Bay Area. Hass Institute.

10.d
Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 25 Figure 13: Poverty Status by Race
Universe: Population for whom poverty status is determined Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income. For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the population for whom poverty status is determined for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the population for whom poverty status is determined.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17001(A-I) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table ELI-03.

4.6 Tenure
The number of residents who own their homes compared to those who rent their homes can help identify the level of housing insecurity – ability for individuals to stay in their homes – in a city and region. Generally, renters may be displaced more quickly if prices increase. In Cotati there are a total of 2,758 housing units, and fewer residents rent than own their homes: 43.3% versus 56.7% (see Figure 14). By comparison, 38.5% of households in Sonoma County are renters, while 44% of Bay Area households rent their homes.

10.d
Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 26 Figure 14: Housing Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-16.

Homeownership rates often vary considerably across race/ethnicity in the Bay Area and throughout the country. These disparities not only reflect differences in income and wealth but also stem from federal, state, and local policies that limited access to homeownership for communities of color while facilitating homebuying for white residents. While many of these policies, such as redlining, have been formally disbanded, the impacts of race-based policy are still evident across Bay Area communities.15 In Cotati, 100.0% of Black households owned their homes, while homeownership rates were 85.1% for Asian households, 33.1% for Latinx households, and 56.4% for White households. Notably, recent changes to state law require local jurisdictions to examine these dynamics and other fair housing issues when updating their Housing Elements.

15 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law : a forgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing.

10.d
Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 27 Figure 15: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003(A-I) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-20.

The age of residents who rent or own their home can also signal the housing challenges a community is experiencing. Younger households tend to rent and may struggle to buy a first home in the Bay Area due to high housing costs. At the same time, senior homeowners seeking to downsize may have limited options in an expensive housing market.

In Cotati, 58.3% of householders between the ages of 25 and 44 are renters, while 20.9% of householders over 65 are (see Figure 16).

10.d
Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 28 Figure 16: Housing Tenure by Age
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25007 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-18.

In many cities, homeownership rates for households in single-family homes are substantially higher than the rates for households in multi-family housing. In Cotati, 74.6% of households in detached single-family homes are homeowners, while 11.6% of households in multi-family housing are homeowners (see Figure 17).

10.d
Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 29 Figure 17: Housing Tenure by Housing Type
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25032 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-22.

4.7 Displacement
Because of increasing housing prices, displacement is a major concern in the Bay Area. Displacement has the most severe impacts on low- and moderate-income residents. When individuals or families are forced to leave their homes and communities, they also lose their support network.

The University of California, Berkeley has mapped all neighborhoods in the Bay area, identifying their risk for gentrification. They find that in Cotati, 54.2% of households live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement and 0.0% live in neighborhoods at risk of or undergoing gentrification.

Equally important, some neighborhoods in the Bay Area do not have housing appropriate for a broad section of the workforce. UC Berkeley estimates that 2.9% of households in Cotati live in neighborhoods where low-income households are likely to be excluded due to prohibitive housing costs.16

16 More information about this gentrification and displacement data is available at the Urban Displacement Project’s webpage: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/. Specifically, one can learn more about the different gentrification/displacement typologies shown in Figure 18 at this link:
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/typology_sheet_2018_0.png. Additionally, one can view maps that show which typologies correspond to which parts of a jurisdiction here:
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/san-francisco/sf-bay-area-gentrification-and-displacement

10.d
Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 30 Figure 18: Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure Universe: Households
Notes: Displacement data is available at the census tract level. Staff aggregated tracts up to jurisdiction level using census 2010 population weights, assigning a tract to jurisdiction in proportion to block level population weights. Total household count may differ slightly from counts in other tables sourced from jurisdiction level sources. Categories are combined as follows for simplicity: At risk of or Experiencing Exclusion: At Risk of Becoming Exclusive; Becoming Exclusive; Stable/Advanced Exclusive At risk of or Experiencing Gentrification: At Risk of Gentrification; Early/Ongoing Gentrification; Advanced Gentrification Stable Moderate/Mixed Income: Stable Moderate/Mixed Income Susceptible to or Experiencing Displacement: LowIncome/Susceptible to Displacement; Ongoing Displacement Other: High Student Population; Unavailable or Unreliable Data Source: Urban Displacement Project for classification, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 for tenure.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-25.

10.d
Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 31 5 HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS

5.1 Housing Types, Year Built, Vacancy, and Permits
In recent years, most housing produced in the region and across the state consisted of single-family homes and larger multi-unit buildings. However, some households are increasingly interested in “missing middle housing” – including duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, cottage clusters and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). These housing types may open up more options across incomes and tenure, from young households seeking homeownership options to seniors looking to downsize and age-in-place.

The housing stock of Cotati in 2020 was made up of 45.6% single family detached homes, 19.1% single family attached homes, 14.1% multifamily homes with 2 to 4 units, 17.3% multifamily homes with 5 or more units, and 3.9% mobile homes (see Figure 19). In Cotati, the housing type that experienced the most growth between 2010 and 2020 was Single-Family Home: Attached.

Figure 19: Housing Type Trends
Universe: Housing units
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-01.

Production has not kept up with housing demand for several decades in the Bay Area, as the total number of units built and available has not yet come close to meeting the population and job growth experienced throughout the region. In Cotati, the largest proportion of the housing stock was built 1980 to 1999, with 1,199 units constructed during this period (see Figure 20). Since 2010, 3.2% of the current housing stock was built, which is 93 units.

10.d
Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 32 Figure 20: Housing Units by Year Structure Built
Universe: Housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-04.

Vacant units make up 5.3% of the overall housing stock in Cotati. The rental vacancy stands at 3.9%, while the ownership vacancy rate is 2.1%. Of the vacant units, the most common type of vacancy is Other Vacant (see Figure 21).17
Throughout the Bay Area, vacancies make up 2.6% of the total housing units, with homes listed for rent; units used for recreational or occasional use, and units not otherwise classified (other vacant) making up the majority of vacancies. The Census Bureau classifies a unit as vacant if no one is occupying it when census interviewers are conducting the American Community Survey or Decennial Census. Vacant units classified as “for recreational or occasional use” are those that are held for shortterm periods of use throughout the year. Accordingly, vacation rentals and short-term rentals like AirBnB are likely to fall in this category. The Census Bureau classifies units as “other vacant” if they are vacant due to foreclosure, personal/family reasons, legal proceedings, repairs/renovations, abandonment, preparation for being rented or sold, or vacant for an extended absence for reasons such as a work assignment, military duty, or incarceration.18 In a region with a thriving economy and housing market like the Bay Area, units being renovated/repaired and prepared for rental or sale are likely to represent a large portion of the “other vacant” category. Additionally, the need for seismic retrofitting

17 The vacancy rates by tenure is for a smaller universe than the total vacancy rate first reported, which in principle includes the full stock (5.3%). The vacancy by tenure counts are rates relative to the rental stock (occupied and vacant) and ownership stock (occupied and vacant) - but exclude a a significant number of vacancy categories, including the numerically significant other vacant. 18 For more information, see pages 3 through 6 of this list of definitions prepared by the Census Bureau:
https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/definitions.pdf.

10.d
Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 33 in older housing stock could also influence the proportion of “other vacant” units in some jurisdictions.19
Figure 21: Vacant Units by Type
Universe: Vacant housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25004 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-03.

Between 2015 and 2019, 80 housing units were issued permits in Cotati. 55.0% of permits issued in Cotati were for above moderate-income housing, 18.8% were for moderate-income housing, and 26.2% were for low- or very low-income housing (see Table 3).

Table 3: Housing Permitting
Income Group value
Above Moderate Income Permits 44
Low Income Permits 16
Moderate Income Permits 15
Very Low Income Permits 5
Universe: Housing permits issued between 2015 and 2019
Notes: HCD uses the following definitions for the four income categories: Very Low Income: units affordable to households making less than 50% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Low Income: units affordable to households making between 50% and 80% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Moderate Income: units affordable to households making between 80% and 120% of the Area Median Income for the

19 See Dow, P. (2018). Unpacking the Growth in San Francisco’s Vacant Housing Stock: Client Report for the San Francisco Planning Department. University of California, Berkeley.

10.d
Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 34 county in which the jurisdiction is located. Above Moderate Income: units affordable to households making above 120% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located.

Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 5th Cycle Annual Progress Report Permit Summary (2020)
This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table HSG-11.

5.2 Assisted Housing Developments At-Risk of Conversion While there is an immense need to produce new affordable housing units, ensuring that the existing affordable housing stock remains affordable is equally important. Additionally, it is typically faster and less expensive to preserve currently affordable units that are at risk of converting to market-rate than it is to build new affordable housing.

The data in the table below comes from the California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database, the state’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing. However, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the state, so there may be at-risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table. There are 147 assisted units in Cotati in the Preservation Database. Of these units, 0.0% are at High Risk or Very High Risk of conversion.20 Note on At-Risk Assisted Housing Developments
HCD requires that Housing Elements list the assisted housing developments at risk of converting to market-rate uses. For more information on the specific properties that are at Moderate Risk, High Risk, or Very High Risk of conversion, local jurisdiction staff should contact Danielle Mazzella, Preservation & Data Manager at the California Housing Partnership, at [email protected].

Table 4: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion
Income Cotati Sonoma County Bay Area
Low 147 7195 110177
Moderate 0 68 3375
High 0 267 1854
Very High 0 149 1053
Total Assisted Units in Database 147 7679 116459
Universe: HUD, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), USDA, and CalHFA projects. Subsidized or assisted developments that do not have one of the aforementioned financing sources may not be included.

20 California Housing Partnership uses the following categories for assisted housing developments in its database:

Very-High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate within the next year that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 1-5 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

Moderate Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 5-10 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

Low Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in 10+ years and/or are owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

10.d
Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 35 Notes: While California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database is the state’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the state. Consequently, there may be at-risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table. Per HCD guidance, local jurisdictions must also list the specific affordable housing developments at-risk of converting to market rate uses. This document provides aggregate numbers of at-risk units for each jurisdiction, but local planning staff should contact Danielle Mazzella with the California Housing Partnership at [email protected] to obtain a list of affordable properties that fall under this designation. California Housing Partnership uses the following categories for assisted housing developments in its database: Very-High Risk: affordable homes that are atrisk of converting to market rate within the next year that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 1-5 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. Moderate Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 5-10 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. Low Risk: affordable homes that are atrisk of converting to market rate in 10+ years and/or are owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.

Source: California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database (2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table RISK-01.

5.3 Substandard Housing
Housing costs in the region are among the highest in the country, which could result in households, particularly renters, needing to live in substandard conditions in order to afford housing. Generally, there is limited data on the extent of substandard housing issues in a community. However, the Census Bureau data included in the graph below gives a sense of some of the substandard conditions that may be present in Cotati. For example, 0.8% of renters in Cotati reported lacking a kitchen and 0.0% of renters lack plumbing, compared to 1.2% of owners who lack a kitchen and 1.2% of owners who lack plumbing.

Note on Substandard Housing
HCD requires Housing Elements to estimate the number of units in need of rehabilitation and replacement. As a data source for housing units in need of rehabilitation and replacement is not available for all jurisdictions in the region, ABAG was not able to provide this required data point in this document. To produce an estimate of housing needs in need of rehabilitation and replacement, staff can supplement the data below on substandard housing issues with additional local information from code enforcement, recent windshield surveys of properties, building department data, knowledgeable builders/developers in the community, or nonprofit housing developers or organizations. For more information, visit HCD’s Building Blocks page on Housing Stock Characteristics.

10.d
Packet Pg. 717 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 36 Figure 22: Substandard Housing Issues
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Per HCD guidance, this data should be supplemented by local estimates of units needing to be rehabilitated or replaced based on recent windshield surveys, local building department data, knowledgeable builders/developers in the community, or nonprofit housing developers or organizations.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25053, Table B25043, Table B25049 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-06.

5.4 Home and Rent Values
Home prices reflect a complex mix of supply and demand factors, including an area’s demographic profile, labor market, prevailing wages and job outlook, coupled with land and construction costs. In the Bay Area, the costs of housing have long been among the highest in the nation. The typical home value in Cotati was estimated at $629,580 by December of 2020, per data from Zillow. The largest proportion of homes were valued between $500k-$750k (see Figure 23). By comparison, the typical home value is $691,580 in Sonoma County and $1,077,230 the Bay Area, with the largest share of units valued $500k-$750k.

The region’s home values have increased steadily since 2000, besides a decrease during the Great Recession. The rise in home prices has been especially steep since 2012, with the median home value in the Bay Area nearly doubling during this time. Since 2001, the typical home value has increased

70.9% in Cotati from $368,280 to $629,580. This change is above the change in Sonoma County, and below the change for the region (see Figure 24).

10.d
Packet Pg. 718 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 37 Figure 23: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units
Universe: Owner-occupied units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25075 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-07.

Figure 24: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)
Universe: Owner-occupied housing units
Notes: Zillow describes the ZHVI as a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given region and housing type. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. The

10.d
Packet Pg. 719 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 38 ZHVI includes all owner-occupied housing units, including both single-family homes and condominiums. More information on the ZHVI is available from Zillow. The regional estimate is a household-weighted average of county-level ZHVI files, where household counts are yearly estimates from DOF’s E-5 series For unincorporated areas, the value is a population weighted average of unincorporated communities in the county matched to census-designated population counts.

Source: Zillow, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-08.

Similar to home values, rents have also increased dramatically across the Bay Area in recent years.

Many renters have been priced out, evicted or displaced, particularly communities of color. Residents finding themselves in one of these situations may have had to choose between commuting long distances to their jobs and schools or moving out of the region, and sometimes, out of the state.

In Cotati, the largest proportion of rental units rented in the Rent $1000-$1500 category, totaling

30.7%, followed by 24.8% of units renting in the Rent $1500-$2000 category (see Figure 25). Looking beyond the city, the largest share of units is in the $1000-$1500 category (county) compared to the $1500-$2000 category for the region as a whole.

Figure 25: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units
Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25056 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-09.

Since 2009, the median rent has increased by 41.3% in Cotati, from $1,140 to $1,470 per month (see Figure 26). In Sonoma County, the median rent has increased 22.7%, from $1,200 to $1,470. The median rent in the region has increased significantly during this time from $1,200 to $1,850, a 54% increase.21

21 While the data on home values shown in Figure 24 comes from Zillow, Zillow does not have data on rent prices available for most Bay Area jurisdictions. To have a more comprehensive dataset on rental data for the region, the

10.d
Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 39 Figure 26: Median Contract Rent
Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Notes: For unincorporated areas, median is calculated using distribution in B25056.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data releases, starting with 2005-2009 through 2015-2019, B25058, B25056 (for unincorporated areas). County and regional counts are weighted averages of jurisdiction median using B25003 rental unit counts from the relevant year.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-10.

5.5 Overpayment and Overcrowding
A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30% of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” Low-income residents are the most impacted by high housing costs and experience the highest rates of cost burden. Spending such large portions of their income on housing puts low-income households at higher risk of displacement, eviction, or homelessness.

rent data in this document comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, which may not fully reflect current rents. Local jurisdiction staff may want to supplement the data on rents with local realtor data or other sources for rent data that are more current than Census Bureau data.

10.d
Packet Pg. 721 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 40 Figure 27: Cost Burden by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B25091 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-06.

Renters are often more cost-burdened than owners. While the housing market has resulted in home prices increasing dramatically, homeowners often have mortgages with fixed rates, whereas renters are more likely to be impacted by market increases. When looking at the cost burden across tenure in Cotati, 29.3% of renters spend 30% to 50% of their income on housing compared to 17.2% of those that own (see Figure 27). Additionally, 18.2% of renters spend 50% or more of their income on housing, while 10.3% of owners are severely cost-burdened.

In Cotati, 14.5% of households spend 50% or more of their income on housing, while 24.6% spend 30% to 50%. However, these rates vary greatly across income categories (see Figure 28). For example, 58.4% of Cotati households making less than 30% of AMI spend the majority of their income on housing. For Cotati residents making more than 100% of AMI, just 2.5% are severely cost-burdened, and 85.0% of those making more than 100% of AMI spend less than 30% of their income on housing.

10.d
Packet Pg. 722 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 41 Figure 28: Cost Burden by Income Level
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents. As a result, they often pay a greater percentage of their income on housing, and in turn, are at a greater risk of housing insecurity.

Hispanic or Latinx residents are the most cost burdened with 35.4% spending 30% to 50% of their income on housing, and Asian / API, Non-Hispanic residents are the most severely cost burdened with

50.0% spending more than 50% of their income on housing (see Figure 29).

10.d
Packet Pg. 723 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 42 Figure 29: Cost Burden by Race
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.

Large family households often have special housing needs due to a lack of adequately sized affordable housing available. The higher costs required for homes with multiple bedrooms can result in larger families experiencing a disproportionate cost burden than the rest of the population and can increase the risk of housing insecurity.

In Cotati, 14.3% of large family households experience a cost burden of 30%-50%, while 5.9% of households spend more than half of their income on housing. Some 25.5% of all other households have a cost burden of 30%-50%, with 15.2% of households spending more than 50% of their income on housing (see Figure 30).

10.d
Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 43 Figure 30: Cost Burden by Household Size
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.

When cost-burdened seniors are no longer able to make house payments or pay rents, displacement from their homes can occur, putting further stress on the local rental market or forcing residents out of the community they call home. Understanding how seniors might be cost-burdened is of particular importance due to their special housing needs, particularly for low-income seniors. 33.7% of seniors making less than 30% of AMI are spending the majority of their income on housing. For seniors making more than 100% of AMI, 75.0% are not cost-burdened and spend less than 30% of their income on housing (see Figure 31).

10.d
Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 44 Figure 31: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level Universe: Senior households
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San JoseSunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Overcrowding occurs when the number of people living in a household is greater than the home was designed to hold. There are several different standards for defining overcrowding, but this report uses the Census Bureau definition, which is more than one occupant per room (not including bathrooms or kitchens). Additionally, the Census Bureau considers units with more than 1.5 occupants per room to be severely overcrowded.

Overcrowding is often related to the cost of housing and can occur when demand in a city or region is high. In many cities, overcrowding is seen more amongst those that are renting, with multiple households sharing a unit to make it possible to stay in their communities. In Cotati, 3.1% of households that rent are severely overcrowded (more than 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 0.0% of households that own (see Figure 32). In Cotati, 14.6% of renters experience moderate overcrowding (1 to 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 1.3% for those own.

10.d
Packet Pg. 726 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 45 Figure 32: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded.

Overcrowding often disproportionately impacts low-income households. 0.0% of very low-income households (below 50% AMI) experience severe overcrowding, while 0.0% of households above 100% experience this level of overcrowding (see Figure 33).

10.d
Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 46 Figure 33: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Communities of color are more likely to experience overcrowding similar to how they are more likely to experience poverty, financial instability, and housing insecurity. People of color tend to experience overcrowding at higher rates than White residents. In Cotati, the racial group with the largest overcrowding rate is Hispanic or Latinx (see Figure 34)

10.d
Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 47 Figure 34: Overcrowding by Race
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and nonHispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25014 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table OVER-03.

10.d
Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 48 6 SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS

6.1 Large Households
Large households often have different housing needs than smaller households. If a city’s rental housing stock does not include larger apartments, large households who rent could end up living in overcrowded conditions. In Cotati, for large households with 5 or more persons, most units (51.5%) are renter occupied (see Figure 35). In 2017, 8.4% of large households were very low-income, earning less than 50% of the area median income (AMI).

Figure 35: Household Size by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25009 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table LGFEM-01.

The unit sizes available in a community affect the household sizes that can access that community.

Large families are generally served by housing units with 3 or more bedrooms, of which there are 1,565 units in Cotati. Among these large units with 3 or more bedrooms, 25.6% are owner-occupied and 74.4% are renter occupied (see Figure 36).

10.d
Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 49 Figure 36: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms
Universe: Housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25042 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HSG-05.

6.2 Female-Headed Households
Households headed by one person are often at greater risk of housing insecurity, particularly femaleheaded households, who may be supporting children or a family with only one income. In Cotati, the largest proportion of households is Married-couple Family Households at 45.6% of total, while FemaleHeaded Households make up 14.3% of all households.

10.d
Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 50 Figure 37: Household Type
Universe: Households
Notes: For data from the Census Bureau, a “family household” is a household where two or more people are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. “Non-family households” are households of one person living alone, as well as households where none of the people are related to each other.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11001 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table POPEMP-23.

Female-headed households with children may face particular housing challenges, with pervasive gender inequality resulting in lower wages for women. Moreover, the added need for childcare can make finding a home that is affordable more challenging.

In Cotati, 20.1% of female-headed households with children fall below the Federal Poverty Line, while

14.8% of female-headed households without children live in poverty (see Figure 38).

10.d
Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 51 Figure 38: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status Universe: Female Households
Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17012 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table LGFEM-05.

6.3 Seniors
Senior households often experience a combination of factors that can make accessing or keeping affordable housing a challenge. They often live on fixed incomes and are more likely to have disabilities, chronic health conditions and/or reduced mobility.

Seniors who rent may be at even greater risk for housing challenges than those who own, due to income differences between these groups. The largest proportion of senior households who rent make 0%-30% of AMI, while the largest proportion of senior households who are homeowners falls in the income group Greater than 100% of AMI (see Figure 39).

10.d
Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 52 Figure 39: Senior Households by Income and Tenure
Universe: Senior households
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San JoseSunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

6.4 People with Disabilities
People with disabilities face additional housing challenges. Encompassing a broad group of individuals living with a variety of physical, cognitive and sensory impairments, many people with disabilities live on fixed incomes and are in need of specialized care, yet often rely on family members for assistance due to the high cost of care.

When it comes to housing, people with disabilities are not only in need of affordable housing but accessibly designed housing, which offers greater mobility and opportunity for independence.

Unfortunately, the need typically outweighs what is available, particularly in a housing market with such high demand. People with disabilities are at a high risk for housing insecurity, homelessness and institutionalization, particularly when they lose aging caregivers. Figure 40 shows the rates at which different disabilities are present among residents of Cotati. Overall, 10.3% of people in Cotati have a disability of any kind.22

22 These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed.

10.d
Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 53 Figure 40: Disability by Type
Universe: Civilian noninstitutionalized population 18 years and over Notes: These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed. The Census Bureau provides the following definitions for these disability types:

Hearing difficulty: deaf or has serious difficulty hearing. Vision difficulty: blind or has serious difficulty seeing even with glasses. Cognitive difficulty: has serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions. Ambulatory difficulty: has serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs. Self-care difficulty: has difficulty dressing or bathing. Independent living difficulty:
has difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18102, Table B18103, Table B18104, Table B18105, Table B18106, Table B18107.

For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table DISAB-01.

State law also requires Housing Elements to examine the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities. Developmental disabilities are defined as severe, chronic, and attributed to a mental or physical impairment that begins before a person turns 18 years old. This can include Down’s Syndrome, autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and mild to severe mental retardation. Some people with developmental disabilities are unable to work, rely on Supplemental Security Income, and live with family members. In addition to their specific housing needs, they are at increased risk of housing insecurity after an aging parent or family member is no longer able to care for them.23 In Cotati, of the population with a developmental disability, children under the age of 18 make up

39.3%, while adults account for 60.7%.

23 For more information or data on developmental disabilities in your jurisdiction, contact the Golden Gate Regional Center for Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties; the North Bay Regional Center for Napa, Solano and Sonoma Counties; the Regional Center for the East Bay for Alameda and Contra Costa Counties; or the San Andreas Regional Center for Santa Clara County.

10.d
Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 54 Table 5: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age Age Group value
Age 18+ 34
Age Under 18 22
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services is responsible for overseeing the coordination and delivery of services to more than 330,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction-level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction.

Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Age Group (2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table DISAB-04.

The most common living arrangement for individuals with disabilities in Cotati is the home of parent /family /guardian.

Table 6: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence Residence Type value
Home of Parent /Family /Guardian 40
Independent /Supported Living 15
Foster /Family Home 4
Other 0
Intermediate Care Facility 0
Community Care Facility 0
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services is responsible for overseeing the coordination and delivery of services to more than 330,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction-level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction.

Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type (2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table DISAB-05.

6.5 Homelessness
Homelessness remains an urgent challenge in many communities across the state, reflecting a range of social, economic, and psychological factors. Rising housing costs result in increased risks of community members experiencing homelessness. Far too many residents who have found themselves housing insecure have ended up unhoused or homeless in recent years, either temporarily or longer term.

Addressing the specific housing needs for the unhoused population remains a priority throughout the region, particularly since homelessness is disproportionately experienced by people of color, people with disabilities, those struggling with addiction and those dealing with traumatic life circumstances. In Sonoma County, the most common type of household experiencing homelessness is those without children in their care. Among households experiencing homelessness that do not have children, 71.2% are unsheltered. Of homeless households with children, most are sheltered in emergency shelter (see Figure 41).

10.d
Packet Pg. 736 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 55 Figure 41: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Sonoma County Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019)
For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-01.

People of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents. Consequently, people of color are often disproportionately impacted by homelessness, particularly Black residents of the Bay Area. In Sonoma County, White (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents represent the largest proportion of residents experiencing homelessness and account for

64.7% of the homeless population, while making up 74.8% of the overall population (see Figure 42).

10.d
Packet Pg. 737 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 56 Figure 42: Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations, Sonoma County
Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. HUD does not disaggregate racial demographic data by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness. Instead, HUD reports data on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness in a separate table.

Accordingly, the racial group data listed here includes both Hispanic/Latinx and non-Hispanic/Latinx individuals.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I) For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table HOMELS-02.

In Sonoma, Latinx residents represent 28.2% of the population experiencing homelessness, while Latinx residents comprise 26.5% of the general population (see Figure 43).

10.d
Packet Pg. 738 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 57 Figure 43: Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, Sonoma County Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. The data from HUD on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for individuals experiencing homelessness does not specify racial group identity. Accordingly, individuals in either ethnic group identity category (Hispanic/Latinx or non-Hispanic/Latinx) could be of any racial background.

Many of those experiencing homelessness are dealing with severe issues – including mental illness, substance abuse and domestic violence – that are potentially life threatening and require additional assistance. In Sonoma County, homeless individuals are commonly challenged by chronic substance abuse, with 1,015 reporting this condition (see Figure 12). Of those, some 80.5% are unsheltered, further adding to the challenge of handling the issue.

Note on Homelessness Data
Notably all the data on homelessness provided above is for the entire county. This data comes from the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Point in Time count, which is the most comprehensive publicly available data source on people experiencing homelessness. HUD only provides this data at the countylevel and not for specific jurisdictions. However, Housing Element law requires local jurisdictions to estimate or count of the daily average number of people lacking shelter. Therefore, staff will need to supplement the data in this document with additional local data on the number of people experiencing homelessness. If staff do not have estimates of people experiencing homelessness in their jurisdiction readily available, HCD recommends contacting local service providers such as continuum-of-care providers, local homeless shelter and service providers, food

10.d
Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 58 programs, operators of transitional housing programs, local drug and alcohol program service providers, and county mental health and social service departments.24
Figure 44: Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Sonoma County
Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. These challenges/characteristics are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one challenge/characteristic. These counts should not be summed.

In Cotati, there were no reported students experiencing homeless in the 2019-20 school year. By comparison, Sonoma County has seen a 12.9% decrease in the population of students experiencing homelessness since the 2016-17 school year, and the Bay Area population of students experiencing homelessness decreased by 8.5%. During the 2019-2020 school year, there were still some 13,718 students experiencing homelessness throughout the region, adding undue burdens on learning and thriving, with the potential for longer term negative effects.

24 For more information, see HCD’s Building Blocks webpage for People Experiencing Homelessness:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/housing-needs/people-experiencinghomelessness.shtml

10.d
Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 59 Table 7: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness AcademicYear Cotati Sonoma County Bay Area
2016-17 0 690 14990
2017-18 0 1445 15142
2018-19 0 345 15427
2019-20 0 601 13718
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public schools
Notes: The California Department of Education considers students to be homeless if they are unsheltered, living in temporary shelters for people experiencing homelessness, living in hotels/motels, or temporarily doubled up and sharing the housing of other persons due to the loss of housing or economic hardship. The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography.

Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table HOMELS-05.

6.6 Farmworkers
Across the state, housing for farmworkers has been recognized as an important and unique concern.

Farmworkers generally receive wages that are considerably lower than other jobs and may have temporary housing needs. Finding decent and affordable housing can be challenging, particularly in the current housing market.

In Cotati, there were no reported students of migrant workers in the 2019-20 school year. The trend for the region for the past few years has been a decline of 2.4% in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year. The change at the county level is a 3.5% increase in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year.

Table 8: Migrant Worker Student Population
AcademicYear Cotati Sonoma County Bay Area
2016-17 0 825 4630
2017-18 0 789 4607
2018-19 0 738 4075
2019-20 0 854 3976
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public schools
Notes: The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Census of Farmworkers, the number of permanent farm workers in Sonoma County has increased since 2002, totaling 6,715 in 2017, while the number of seasonal farm workers has decreased, totaling 7,664 in 2017 (see Figure 45).

10.d
Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 60 Figure 45: Farm Operations and Farm Labor by County, Sonoma County Universe: Hired farm workers (including direct hires and agricultural service workers who are often hired through labor contractors)
Notes: Farm workers are considered seasonal if they work on a farm less than 150 days in a year, while farm workers who work on a farm more than 150 days are considered to be permanent workers for that farm.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers (2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table FARM-02.

6.7 Non-English Speakers
California has long been an immigration gateway to the United States, which means that many languages are spoken throughout the Bay Area. Since learning a new language is universally challenging, it is not uncommon for residents who have immigrated to the United States to have limited English proficiency. This limit can lead to additional disparities if there is a disruption in housing, such as an eviction, because residents might not be aware of their rights or they might be wary to engage due to immigration status concerns. In Cotati, 4.6% of residents 5 years and older identify as speaking English not well or not at all, which is below the proportion for Sonoma County.

Throughout the region the proportion of residents 5 years and older with limited English proficiency is 8%.

10.d
Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 61 Figure 46: Population with Limited English Proficiency Universe: Population 5 years and over
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B16005 For the data table behind this figure, please refer to the Data Packet Workbook, Table AFFH-03.

10.d
Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 1 AFFH SEGREGATION REPORT: COTATI
UC Merced Urban Policy Lab and ABAG/MTC Staff
Version of Record: March 06, 16:02:09

10.d
Packet Pg. 744 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 2 0.1 Table of content

0.1 Table of content .................................................................................................... 2

0.2 List of figures ....................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Purpose of this Report............................................................................................. 4

1.2 Defining Segregation............................................................................................... 5

1.3 Segregation Patterns in the Bay Area ........................................................................... 5

1.4 Segregation and Land Use......................................................................................... 6 2 Racial Segregation in City of Cotati.................................................................................. 8

2.1 Neighborhood Level Racial Segregation (within City of Cotati) ............................................ 8

2.2 Regional Racial Segregation (between Cotati and other jurisdictions) ..................................16 3 Income Segregation in City of Cotati .............................................................................. 21

3.1 Neighborhood Level Income Segregation (within Cotati)...................................................21

3.2 Regional Income Segregation (between Cotati and other jurisdictions) .................................27 4 Appendix 1: Summary of Findings ................................................................................. 31

4.1 Segregation in City of Cotati ....................................................................................31

4.2 Segregation Between City of Cotati and Other jurisdictions in the Bay Area Region..................31 5 Appendix 2: Segregation Data ...................................................................................... 33 6 References.............................................................................................................. 37

10.d
Packet Pg. 745 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 3 0.2 List of figures
Figure 1: Racial Dot Map of Cotati (2020).................................................................................. 9 Figure 2: Racial Isolation Index Values for Cotati Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) ...........11 Figure 3: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Cotati Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) ......14 Figure 4: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation in Cotati Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) ...........................................................................................................................15 Figure 5: Racial Dot Map of Cotati and Surrounding Areas (2020).....................................................16 Figure 6: Racial Demographics of Cotati Compared to All Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) .........................18 Figure 7: Comparing the Share of People of Color in Cotati and Vicinity to the Bay Area (2020)................19 Figure 8: Income Dot Map of Cotati (2015) ...............................................................................22 Figure 9: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Cotati Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) .24 Figure 10: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Cotati Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ...........................................................................................................................26 Figure 11: Income Group Theil’s H Index Values for Cotati Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)27 Figure 12: Income Dot Map of Cotati and Surrounding Areas (2015)..................................................28 Figure 13: Income Demographics of Cotati Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)...................29

0.3 List of tables
Table 1: Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Cotati.................................................10 Table 2: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Cotati ............................................13 Table 3: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation within Cotati ................................................15 Table 4: Population by Racial Group, Cotati and the Region ..........................................................17 Table 5: Regional Racial Segregation Measures ..........................................................................20 Table 6: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Cotati .......................................23 Table 7: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Cotati...................................25 Table 8: Theil’s H Index Values for Income Segregation within Cotati...............................................26 Table 9: Population by Income Group, Cotati and the Region .........................................................28 Table 10: Regional Income Segregation Measures .......................................................................30 Table 11: Neighborhood Racial Segregation Levels in Cotati ..........................................................33 Table 12: Neighborhood Income Segregation Levels in Cotati .........................................................34 Table 13: Regional Racial Segregation Measures.........................................................................35 Table 14: Regional Income Segregation Measures .......................................................................35 Table 15: Population by Racial Group, Cotati and the Region .........................................................36 Table 16: Population by Income Group, Cotati and the Region .......................................................36

10.d
Packet Pg. 746 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 4 1 INTRODUCTION
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 was later amended to include familial status and disability.1 The 2015 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Rule to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing and California Assembly Bill 686 (2018) mandate that each jurisdiction takes meaningful action to address significant disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity.23 AB 686 requires that jurisdictions incorporate AFFH into their Housing Elements, which includes inclusive community participation, an assessment of fair housing, a site inventory reflective of AFFH, and the development of goals, policies, and programs to meaningfully address local fair housing issues. ABAG and UC Merced have prepared this report to assist Bay Area jurisdictions with the Assessment of Fair Housing section of the Housing Element.

Assessment of Fair Housing Components
The Assessment of Fair Housing includes five components, which are discussed in detail on pages 22-43 of HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo:

A: Summary of fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity B: Integration and segregation patterns, and trends related to people with protected characteristics
C: Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty D: Disparities in access to opportunity
E: Disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk

1.1 Purpose of this Report
This report describes racial and income segregation in Bay Area jurisdictions. Local jurisdiction staff can use the information in this report to help fulfill a portion of the second component of the Assessment of Fair Housing, which requires analysis of integration and segregation patterns and trends related to people with protected characteristics and lower incomes. Jurisdictions will still need to perform a similar analysis for familial status and populations with disability.

This report provides segregation measures for both the local jurisdiction and the region using several indices. For segregation between neighborhoods within a city (intra-city segregation), this report includes isolation indices, dissimilarity indices, and Theil’s-H index. The isolation index measures

1 https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-2
2 HCD AFFH Guidance Memo
3 The 2015 HUD rule was reversed in 2020 and partially reinstated in 2021.

10.d
Packet Pg. 747 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 5 segregation for a single group, while the dissimilarity index measures segregation between two groups.

The Theil’s H-Index can be used to measure segregation between all racial or income groups across the city at once. HCD’s AFFH guidelines require local jurisdictions to include isolation indices and dissimilarity indices in the Housing Element. Theil’s H index is provided in addition to these required measures. For segregation between cities within the Bay Area (inter-city segregation), this report includes dissimilarity indices at the regional level as required by HCD’s AFFH guidelines. HCD’s AFFH guidelines also require jurisdictions to compare conditions at the local level to the rest of the region; and this report presents the difference in the racial and income composition of a jurisdiction relative to the region as a whole to satisfy the comparison requirement.

1.2 Defining Segregation
Segregation is the separation of different demographic groups into different geographic locations or communities, meaning that groups are unevenly distributed across geographic space. This report examines two spatial forms of segregation: neighborhood level segregation within a local jurisdiction and city level segregation between jurisdictions in the Bay Area.

Neighborhood level segregation (within a jurisdiction, or intra-city): Segregation of race and income groups can occur from neighborhood to neighborhood within a city. For example, if a local jurisdiction has a population that is 20% Latinx, but some neighborhoods are 80% Latinx while others have nearly no Latinx residents, that jurisdiction would have segregated neighborhoods.

City level segregation (between jurisdictions in a region, or inter-city): Race and income divides also occur between jurisdictions in a region. A region could be very diverse with equal numbers of white, Asian, Black, and Latinx residents, but the region could also be highly segregated with each city comprised solely of one racial group.

There are many factors that have contributed to the generation and maintenance of segregation.

Historically, racial segregation stemmed from explicit discrimination against people of color, such as restrictive covenants, redlining, and discrimination in mortgage lending. This history includes many overtly discriminatory policies made by federal, state, and local governments (Rothstein 2017).

Segregation patterns are also affected by policies that appear race-neutral, such as land use decisions and the regulation of housing development.

Segregation has resulted in vastly unequal access to public goods such as quality schools, neighborhood services and amenities, parks and playgrounds, clean air and water, and public safety (Trounstine 2015). This generational lack of access for many communities, particularly 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 (Chetty and Hendren 2018, Ananat 2011, Burch 2014, Cutler and Glaeser 1997, Sampson 2012, Sharkey 2013).

1.3 Segregation Patterns in the Bay Area
Across the San Francisco Bay Area, white residents and above moderate-income residents are significantly more segregated from other racial and income groups (see Appendix 2). The highest levels of racial segregation occur between the Black and white populations. The analysis completed for this report indicates that the amount of racial segregation both within Bay Area cities and across jurisdictions in the region has decreased since the year 2000. This finding is consistent with recent research from the Othering and Belonging Institute at UC Berkeley, which concluded that “[a]lthough 7

10.d
Packet Pg. 748 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 6 of the 9 Bay Area counties were more segregated in 2020 than they were in either 1980 or 1990, racial residential segregation in the region appears to have peaked around the year 2000 and has generally declined since.”4 However, compared to cities in other parts of California, Bay Area jurisdictions have more neighborhood level segregation between residents from different racial groups. Additionally, there is also more racial segregation between Bay Area cities compared to other regions in the state.

1.4 Segregation and Land Use
It is difficult to address segregation patterns without an analysis of both historical and existing land use policies that impact segregation patterns. Land use regulations influence what kind of housing is built in a city or neighborhood (Lens and Monkkonen 2016, Pendall 2000). These land use regulations in turn impact demographics: they can be used to affect the number of houses in a community, the number of people who live in the community, the wealth of the people who live in the community, and where within the community they reside (Trounstine 2018). Given disparities in wealth by race and ethnicity, the ability to afford housing in different neighborhoods, as influenced by land use regulations, is highly differentiated across racial and ethnic groups (Bayer, McMillan, and Reuben 2004).5 ABAG/MTC plans to issue a separate report detailing the existing land use policies that influence segregation patterns in the Bay Area.

4 For more information, see https://belonging.berkeley.edu/most-segregated-cities-bay-area-2020. 5 Using a household-weighted median of Bay Area county median household incomes, regional values were $61,050 for Black residents, $122,174 for Asian/Pacific Islander residents, $121,794 for white residents, and $76,306 for Latinx residents. For the source data, see U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015- 2019), Table B19013B, Table B19013D, B19013H, and B19013I.

10.d
Packet Pg. 749 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 7 Definition of Terms - Geographies
Neighborhood: In this report, “neighborhoods” are approximated by tracts.6 Tracts are statistical geographic units defined by the U.S. Census Bureau for the purposes of disseminating data. In the Bay Area, tracts contain on average 4,500 residents. Nearly all Bay Area jurisdictions contain at least two census tracts, with larger jurisdictions containing dozens of tracts.

Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction is used to refer to the 109 cities, towns, and unincorporated county areas that are members of ABAG. Though not all ABAG jurisdictions are cities, this report also uses the term “city” interchangeably with “jurisdiction” in some places.

Region: The region is the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, which is comprised of Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Marin County, Napa County, San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Solano County, and Sonoma County.

6 Throughout this report, neighborhood level segregation measures are calculated using census tract data.

However, the racial dot maps in Figure 1 and Figure 5 use data from census blocks, while the income group dot maps in Figure 8 and Figure 12 use data from census block groups. These maps use data derived from a smaller geographic scale to better show spatial differences in where different groups live. Census block groups are subdivisions of census tracts, and census blocks are subdivisions of block groups. In the Bay Area, block groups contain on average 1,500 people, while census blocks contain on average 95 people.

10.d
Packet Pg. 750 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 8 2 RACIAL SEGREGATION IN CITY OF COTATI
Definition of Terms - Racial/Ethnic Groups
The U.S. Census Bureau classifies racial groups (e.g. white or Black/African American) separately from Hispanic/Latino ethnicity.7 This report combines U.S. Census Bureau definitions for race and ethnicity into the following racial groups:

White: Non-Hispanic white
Latinx: Hispanic or Latino of any race8
Black: Non-Hispanic Black/African American
Asian/Pacific Islander: Non-Hispanic Asian or Non-Hispanic Pacific Islander People of Color: All who are not non-Hispanic white (including people who identify as “some other race” or “two or more races”)9

2.1 Neighborhood Level Racial Segregation (within City of Cotati) Racial dot maps are useful for visualizing how multiple racial groups are distributed within a specific geography. The racial dot map of Cotati in Figure 1 below offers a visual representation of the spatial distribution of racial groups within the jurisdiction. Generally, when the distribution of dots does not suggest patterns or 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.

7 More information about the Census Bureau’s definitions of racial groups is available here:
https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html. 8 The term Hispanic has historically been used to describe people from numerous Central American, South American, and Caribbean countries. In recent years, the term Latino or Latinx has become preferred. This report generally uses Latinx to refer to this racial/ethnic group. 9 Given the uncertainty in the data for population size estimates for racial and ethnic groups not included in the Latinx, Black, or Asian/Pacific Islander categories, this report only analyzes these racial groups in the aggregate People of Color category.

10.d
Packet Pg. 751 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 9 Figure 1: Racial Dot Map of Cotati (2020)
Universe: Population. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.

Note: The plot shows the racial distribution at the census block level for City of Cotati and vicinity. Dots in each census block are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of people.

There are many ways to quantitatively measure segregation. Each measure captures a different aspect of the ways in which groups are divided within a community. One way to measure segregation is by using an isolation index:
• The isolation index compares each neighborhood’s composition to the jurisdiction’s demographics as a whole.
• This index ranges from 0 to 1. Higher values indicate that a particular group is more isolated from other groups.
• Isolation indices indicate the potential for contact between different groups. The index can be interpreted as the experience of the average member of that group. For example, if the isolation index is .65 for Latinx residents in a city, then the average Latinx resident in that city lives in a neighborhood that is 65% Latinx.

Within City of Cotati the most isolated racial group is white residents. 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.

Other racial groups are less isolated, meaning they may be 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 can be found in Table 1 below. Among all racial groups in this jurisdiction, the white population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020.

10.d
Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 10 The “Bay Area Average” column in this table provides the average isolation index value across Bay Area jurisdictions for different racial groups in 2020.10 The data in this column can be used as a comparison to provide context for the levels of segregation experienced by racial groups in this jurisdiction. For example, Table 1 indicates the average isolation index value for white residents across all Bay Area jurisdictions is 0.491, meaning that in the average Bay Area jurisdiction a white resident lives in a neighborhood that is 49.1% white.

Table 1: Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Cotati Cotati Bay Area
Average
Race 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
Latinx 0.127 0.189 0.234 0.251
White 0.772 0.714 0.644 0.491
Universe: Population.

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.

Figure 2 below shows how racial isolation index values in Cotati compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each racial group, the spread of dots represents the range of isolation index values among Bay Area jurisdictions.

Additionally, the black line within each racial group notes the isolation index value for that group in City of Cotati, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average for the isolation index for that group. Local staff can use this chart to contextualize how segregation levels for racial groups in their jurisdiction compare to other jurisdictions in the region.

10 This average only includes the 104 jurisdictions that have more than one census tract, which is true for all comparisons of Bay Area jurisdictions’ segregation measures in this report. The segregation measures in this report are calculated by comparing the demographics of a jurisdiction’s census tracts to the jurisdiction’s demographics, and such calculations cannot be made for the five jurisdictions with only one census tract (Brisbane, Calistoga, Portola Valley, Rio Vista, and Yountville).

10.d
Packet Pg. 753 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 11 Figure 2: Racial Isolation Index Values for Cotati Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Another way to measure segregation is by using a dissimilarity index:
• This index measures how evenly any two groups are distributed across neighborhoods relative to their representation in a city overall. The dissimilarity index at the jurisdiction level can be interpreted as the share of one group that would have to move neighborhoods to create perfect integration for these two groups.
• The dissimilarity index ranges from 0 to 1. Higher values indicate that groups are more unevenly distributed (e.g. they tend to live in different neighborhoods).

10.d
Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 12 Dissimilarity Index Guidance for Cities with Small Racial Group Populations The analysis conducted for this report suggests that dissimilarity index values are unreliable for a population group if that group represents approximately less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s total population.

HCD’s AFFH guidance requires the Housing Element to include the dissimilarity index values for racial groups, but also offers flexibility in emphasizing the importance of various measures. ABAG/MTC recommends that when cities have population groups that are less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s population (see Table 4), jurisdiction staff use the isolation index or Thiel’s H-Index to gain a more accurate understanding of their jurisdiction’s neighborhood-level segregation patterns (intra-city segregation).

If a jurisdiction has a very small population of a racial group, this indicates that segregation between the jurisdiction and the region (inter-city segregation) is likely to be an important feature of the jurisdiction’s segregation patterns.

In City of Cotati, the Asian/Pacific Islander group is 4.1 percent of the population, and the Black/African American group is 1.4 percent of the population - so staff should be aware of this small population size when evaluating dissimilarity index values involving these groups.

Table 2 below provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in Cotati between white residents and residents who are Black, Latinx, or Asian/Pacific Islander. The table also provides the dissimilarity index between white residents and all residents of color in the jurisdiction, and all dissimilarity index values are shown across three time periods (2000, 2010, and 2020).

In Cotati the highest segregation is between Black and white residents (see Table 2). Cotati’s Black /white dissimilarity index of 0.119 means that 11.9% of Black (or white) residents would need to move to a different neighborhood to create perfect integration between Black residents and white residents.

However, local jurisdiction staff should note that this dissimilarity index value is not a reliable data point due to small population size. See callout box above for more information.

The “Bay Area Average” column in this table provides the average dissimilarity index values for these racial group pairings across Bay Area jurisdictions in 2020. The data in this column can be used as a comparison to provide context for the levels of segregation between communities of color are from white residents in this jurisdiction.

10.d
Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 13 For example, Table 2 indicates that the average Latinx/white dissimilarity index for a Bay Area jurisdiction is 0.207, so on average 20.7% of Latinx (or white residents) in a Bay Area jurisdiction would need to move to a different neighborhood within the jurisdiction to create perfect integration between Latinx and white residents in that jurisdiction.

Table 2: 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 Latinx vs. White 0.050 0.018 0.101 0.207
People of Color vs. White 0.024 0.026 0.074 0.168
Universe: Population.

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.

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.

Figure 3 below shows how dissimilarity index values in City of Cotati compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each racial group pairing, the spread of dots represents the range of dissimilarity index values among Bay Area jurisdictions. Additionally, the black line within each racial group pairing notes the dissimilarity index value in Cotati, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average for the dissimilarity index for that pairing. Similar to Figure 2, local staff can use this chart to contextualize how segregation levels between white residents and communities of color in their jurisdiction compare to the rest of the region. However, staff should be mindful of whether a racial group in their jurisdiction has a small population (approximately less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s population), as the dissimilarity index value is less reliable for small populations.

10.d
Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 14 Figure 3: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Cotati Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Note: The analysis conducted for this report suggests that dissimilarity index values are unreliable for a population group if that group represents approximately less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s total population. ABAG/MTC recommends that when cities have population groups that are less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s population (see Table 4), jurisdiction staff could focus on the isolation index or Thiel’s H-Index to gain a more accurate understanding of neighborhood-level racial segregation in their jurisdiction.

The Theil’s H Index can be used to measure segregation between all groups within a jurisdiction:
• This 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 0 to 1. A Theil’s H Index value of 0 would mean all neighborhoods within a city have the same demographics as the whole city. A value of 1 would mean each group lives exclusively in their own, separate neighborhood.
• For jurisdictions with a high degree of diversity (multiple racial groups comprise more than 10% of the population), Theil’s H offers the clearest summary of overall segregation.

The Theil’s H Index values for neighborhood racial segregation in Cotati for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table 3 below. The “Bay Area Average” column in the table 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 is now more neighborhood level racial segregation within the jurisdiction. In 2020, the Theil’s H Index for racial segregation in Cotati was

10.d
Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 15 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 3: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation within Cotati Cotati Bay Area
Average
Index 2000 2010 2020 2020
Theil's H Multi-racial 0.003 0.002 0.010 0.042
Universe: Population.

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.

Figure 4 below shows how Theil’s H index values for racial segregation in Cotati compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions in 2020. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction.

Additionally, the black line notes the Theil’s H index value for neighborhood racial segregation in Cotati, and the dashed red line represents the average Theil’s H index value across Bay Area jurisdictions. Local staff can use this chart to compare how neighborhood racial segregation levels in their jurisdiction compare to other jurisdictions in the region.

Figure 4: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation in Cotati Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

10.d
Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 16 2.2 Regional Racial Segregation (between Cotati and other jurisdictions)
At the regional level, segregation is measured between cities instead of between neighborhoods. Racial dot maps are not only useful for examining neighborhood racial segregation within a jurisdiction, but these maps can also be used to explore the racial demographic differences between different jurisdictions in the region. Figure 5 below presents a racial dot map showing the spatial distribution of racial groups in Cotati as well as in nearby Bay Area cities.

Figure 5: Racial Dot Map of Cotati and Surrounding Areas (2020) Universe: Population.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.

To understand how each city contributes to the total segregation of the Bay Area, one can look at the difference in the racial composition of a jurisdiction compared to the racial composition of the region as a whole. The racial demographics in Cotati for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table 4 below. The table also provides the racial composition of the nine-county Bay Area. As of 2020, Cotati has a higher share of white residents than the Bay Area as a whole, a lower share of Latinx residents, a lower share of Black residents, and a lower share of Asian/Pacific Islander residents.

10.d
Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 17 Table 4: Population by Racial Group, Cotati and the Region Cotati Bay Area
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 3.6% 4.1% 4.1% 28.2%
Black/African American 2.3% 1.6% 1.4% 5.6%
Latinx 12.5% 17.3% 22.7% 24.4%
Other or Multiple Races 4.9% 4.6% 7.7% 5.9%
White 76.7% 72.5% 64.2% 35.8%
Universe: Population.

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.

Figure 6 below compares the racial demographics in Cotati to those of all 109 Bay Area jurisdictions.11 In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each racial group, the spread of dots represents the range of that group’s representation among Bay Area jurisdictions. Additionally, the black line within each racial group notes the percentage of the population of City of Cotati represented by that group and how that percentage ranks among all 109 jurisdictions. Local staff can use this chart to compare the representation of different racial groups in their jurisdiction to those groups’ representation in other jurisdictions in the region, which can indicate the extent of segregation between this jurisdiction and the region.

11 While comparisons of segregation measures are made only using the 104 jurisdictions with more than one census tract, this comparison of jurisdiction level demographic data can be made using all 109 jurisdictions.

10.d
Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 18 Figure 6: Racial Demographics of Cotati Compared to All Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Source U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.

The map in Figure 7 below also illustrates regional racial segregation between Cotati and other jurisdictions. This map demonstrates how the percentage of people of color in Cotati and surrounding jurisdictions compares to the Bay Area as a whole:
• Jurisdictions shaded orange have a share of people of color that is less than the Bay Area as a whole, and the degree of difference is greater than five percentage points. • Jurisdictions shaded white have a share of people of color comparable to the regional percentage of people of color (within five percentage points). • Jurisdictions shaded grey have a share of people of color that is more than five percentage points greater than the regional percentage of people of color.

10.d
Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 19 Figure 7: Comparing the Share of People of Color in Cotati and Vicinity to the Bay Area (2020)
Universe: Population.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.

Note: People of color refer to persons not identifying as non-Hispanic white. The nine-county Bay Area is the reference region for this map.

Segregation between jurisdictions in the region can also be analyzed by calculating regional values for the segregation indices discussed previously. Table 5 presents dissimilarity index, isolation index, and Theil’s H index values for racial segregation for the entire nine-county Bay Area in 2010 and 2020. In the previous section of this report focused on neighborhood level racial segregation, these indices were calculated by comparing the racial demographics of the census tracts within a jurisdiction to the demographics of the jurisdiction as a whole. In Table 5, these measures are calculated by comparing the racial demographics of local jurisdictions to the region’s racial makeup. For example, looking at the 2020 data, Table 5 shows the white isolation index value for the region is 0.429, meaning that on average white Bay Area residents live in a jurisdiction that is 42.9% white in 2020. An example of regional dissimilarity index values in Table 5 is the Black/white dissimilarity index value of 0.459, which means that across the region 45.9% of Black (or white) residents would need to move to a different jurisdiction to evenly distribute Black and white residents across Bay Area jurisdictions. The dissimilarity index values in Table 5 reflect recommendations made in HCD’s AFFH guidance for calculating dissimilarity at the region level.12 The regional value for the Theil’s H index measures how

12 For more information on HCD’s recommendations regarding data considerations for analyzing integration and segregation patterns, see page 31 of the AFFH Guidance Memo.

10.d
Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 20 diverse each Bay Area jurisdiction is compared to the racial diversity of the whole region. A Theil’s H Index value of 0 would mean all jurisdictions within the Bay Area have the same racial demographics as the entire region, while a value of 1 would mean each racial group lives exclusively in their own separate jurisdiction. The regional Theil’s H index value for racial segregation decreased slightly between 2010 and 2020, meaning that racial groups in the Bay Area are now slightly less separated by the borders between jurisdictions.

Table 5: Regional Racial Segregation Measures
Index Group 2010 2020
Isolation Index Regional Level
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.317 0.378
Black/African American 0.144 0.118
Latinx 0.283 0.291
White 0.496 0.429
People of Color 0.629 0.682
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.384 0.369
Black/African American vs. White 0.475 0.459
Latinx vs. White 0.301 0.297
People of Color vs. White 0.296 0.293
Theil's H Multi-racial All Racial Groups 0.103 0.097
Universe: Population.

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, 2010 Census of Population and Housing, Table P4.

10.d
Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 21 3 INCOME SEGREGATION IN CITY OF COTATI
Definition of Terms - Income Groups
When analyzing segregation by income, this report uses income group designations consistent with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation and the Housing Element:

Very low-income: individuals earning less than 50% of Area Median Income (AMI)
Low-income: individuals earning 50%-80% of AMI
Moderate-income: individuals earning 80%-120% of AMI
Above moderate-income: individuals earning 120% or more of AMI Additionally, this report uses the term “lower-income” to refer to all people who earn less than 80% of AMI, which includes both low-income and very low-income individuals.

The income groups described above are based on U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) calculations for AMI. HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and VallejoFairfield Metro Area (Solano County).

The income categories used in this report are based on the AMI for the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

3.1 Neighborhood Level Income Segregation (within Cotati) Income segregation can be measured using similar indices as racial segregation. Income dot maps, similar to the racial dot maps shown in Figures 1 and 5, are useful for visualizing segregation between multiple income groups at the same time. The income dot map of Cotati in Figure 8 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.

10.d
Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 22 Figure 8: Income Dot Map of Cotati (2015)
Universe: Population.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data.

Note: The plot shows the income group distribution at the census block group level for City of Cotati and vicinity. Dots in each block group are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of individuals.

The isolation index values for all income groups in Cotati for the years 2010 and 2015 can be found in Table 6 below.13 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 is 43.0% Above Moderate-income. Among all income groups, the Above Moderate-income population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming more segregated from other income groups between 2010 and 2015.

Similar to the tables presented earlier for neighborhood racial segregation, the “Bay Area Average” column in Table 6 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, Table 6 indicates the average isolation index value for very low-income residents across Bay Area jurisdictions is 0.269,

13 This report presents data for income segregation for the years 2010 and 2015, which is different than the time periods used for racial segregation. This deviation stems from the data source recommended for income segregation calculations in HCD’s AFFH Guidelines. This data source most recently updated with data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. For more information on HCD’s recommendations for calculating income segregation, see page 32 of HCD’s AFFH Guidelines.

10.d
Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 23 meaning that in the average Bay Area jurisdiction a very low-income resident lives in a neighborhood that is 26.9% very low-income.

Table 6: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Cotati 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
Universe: Population.

Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing 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.

Figure 9 below shows how income group isolation index values in Cotati compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each income group, the spread of dots represents the range of isolation index values among Bay Area jurisdictions.

Additionally, the black line within each income group notes the isolation index value for that group in Cotati, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average for the isolation index for that group.

Local staff can use this chart to contextualize how segregation levels for income groups in their jurisdiction compare to the rest of the region.

10.d
Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 24 Figure 9: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Cotati Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data.

Table 7 below 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 lowerincome (earning above 80% of AMI). This data aligns with the requirements described in HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo for identifying dissimilarity for lower-income households.14 Segregation in Cotati between lower-income residents and residents who are not lower-income decreased between 2010 and 2015. Additionally, Table 7 shows dissimilarity index values for the level of segregation in Albany 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.

Similar to other tables in this report, the “Bay Area Average” column shows the average dissimilarity index values for these income group pairings across Bay Area jurisdictions in 2015. For example, Table 7 indicates that the average 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.

14 For more information, see page 32 of HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo.

10.d
Packet Pg. 767 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 25 In 2015, the income segregation in Cotati between lower-income residents and other residents was lower than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions (See Table 7). This means that the lowerincome residents are less segregated from other residents within Cotati compared to other Jurisdictions in the region.

Table 7: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Cotati Cotati Bay Area
Average
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.066 0.045 0.198
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.038 0.068 0.253
Universe: Population.

Figure 10 below shows how dissimilarity index values for income segregation in Cotati compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each income group pairing, the spread of dots represents the range of dissimilarity index values among Bay Area jurisdictions. Additionally, the black line within each income group pairing notes the dissimilarity index value in Cotati, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average for the dissimilarity index for that pairing. Local staff can use this chart to contextualize how segregation levels between lower-income residents and wealthier residents in their jurisdiction compared to the rest of the region.

10.d
Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 26 Figure 10: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Cotati Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data.

The Theil’s H Index values for neighborhood income group segregation in Cotati for the years 2010 and 2015 can be found in Table 8 below. The “Bay Area Average” column in this table provides the average Theil’s H Index value across Bay Area jurisdictions for different income groups in 2015. By 2015, the Theil’s H Index value for income segregation in Cotati was about the same amount as it had been in 2010. In 2015, the Theil’s H Index value for income group segregation in Cotati was lower than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions, indicating there is less neighborhood level income segregation in Cotati than in the average Bay Area city.

Table 8: Theil’s H Index Values for Income Segregation within Cotati Cotati Bay Area
Average
Index 2010 2015 2015
Theil's H Multi-income 0.008 0.009 0.043
Universe: Population.

10.d
Packet Pg. 769 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 27 Figure 11 below shows how Theil’s H index values for income group segregation in Cotati compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions in 2015. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction.

Additionally, the black line notes the Theil’s H index value for income group segregation in Cotati, and the dashed red line represents the average Theil’s H index value across Bay Area jurisdictions. Local staff can use this chart to compare how neighborhood income group segregation levels in their jurisdiction compare to other jurisdictions in the region.

Figure 11: Income Group Theil’s H Index Values for Cotati Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data.

3.2 Regional Income Segregation (between Cotati and other jurisdictions)
At the regional level, segregation is measured between jurisdictions instead of between neighborhoods.

Income dot maps are not only useful for examining neighborhood income segregation within a jurisdiction, but these maps can also be used to explore income demographic differences between jurisdictions in the region. Figure 12 below presents an income dot map showing the spatial distribution of income groups in Cotati as well as in nearby Bay Area jurisdictions.

10.d
Packet Pg. 770 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 28 Figure 12: Income Dot Map of Cotati and Surrounding Areas (2015) Universe: Population.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data.

When looking at income segregation between jurisdictions in the Bay Area, one can examine how Cotati differs from the region. The income demographics in Cotati for the years 2010 and 2015 can be found in Table 9 below. The table 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 as a whole, a higher share of low-income residents, a lower share of moderate-income residents, and a higher share of above moderate-income residents.

Table 9: Population by Income Group, Cotati and the Region Cotati Bay Area
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%

10.d
Packet Pg. 771 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 29 Universe: Population.

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.

Figure 13 below compares the income demographics in Cotati to other Bay Area jurisdictions.15 Like the chart in Figure 3, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each income group, the spread of dots represents the range of that group’s representation among Bay Area jurisdictions. The smallest range is among jurisdictions’ moderate-income populations, while Bay Area jurisdictions vary the most in the share of their population that is above moderate-income. Additionally, the black lines within each income group note the percentage of Cotati population represented by that group and how that percentage ranks among other jurisdictions. Local staff can use this chart to compare the representation of different income groups in their jurisdiction to those groups’ representation in other jurisdictions in the region, which can indicate the extent of segregation between this jurisdiction and the region.

Figure 13: Income Demographics of Cotati Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data.

15 While comparisons of segregation measures are made only using the 104 jurisdictions with more than one census tract, this comparison of jurisdiction level demographic data can be made using all 109 jurisdictions.

10.d
Packet Pg. 772 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 30 Income segregation between jurisdictions in the region can also be analyzed by calculating regional values for the segregation indices discussed previously. Similar to the regional racial segregation measures shown in Table 5, Table 10 presents dissimilarity index, isolation index, and Theil’s H index values for income segregation for the entire nine-county Bay Area in 2010 and 2015. In the previous section of this report focused on neighborhood level income segregation, segregation indices were calculated by comparing the income demographics of the census tracts within a jurisdiction to the demographics of the jurisdiction as a whole. In Table 10, these measures are calculated by comparing the income demographics of local jurisdictions to the region’s income group makeup. For example, looking at 2015 data, Table 10 shows the regional isolation index value for very low-income residents is

0.315 for 2015, meaning that on average very low-income Bay Area residents live in a jurisdiction that is 31.5% very low-income. The regional dissimilarity index for lower-income residents and other residents is 0.194 in 2015, which means that across the region 19.4% of lower-income residents would need to move to a different jurisdiction to create perfect income group integration in the Bay Area as a whole. The regional value for the Theil’s H index measures how diverse each Bay Area jurisdiction is compared to the income group diversity of the whole region. A Theil’s H Index value of 0 would mean all jurisdictions within the Bay Area have the same income demographics as the entire region, while a value of 1 would mean each income group lives exclusively in their own separate jurisdiction. The regional Theil’s H index value for income segregation decreased slightly between 2010 and 2015, meaning that income groups in the Bay Area are now slightly less separated by the borders between jurisdictions.

Table 10: Regional Income Segregation Measures
Index Group 2010 2015
Isolation Index Regional Level
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.277 0.315
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.157 0.154
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.185 0.180
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.467 0.435
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.186 0.194
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.238 0.248
Theil's H Multi-income All Income Groups 0.034 0.032
Universe: Population.

10.d
Packet Pg. 773 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 31 4 APPENDIX 1: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

4.1 Segregation in City of Cotati
• The isolation index measures the segregation of a single group, and the dissimilarity index measures segregation between two different groups. The Theil’s H-Index can be used to measure segregation between all racial or income groups across the city at once. • As of 2020, white residents are the most segregated compared to other racial groups in Cotati, as measured by the isolation index. White residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to come into contact with other racial groups.
• Among all racial groups, the white population’s isolation index value has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020. • According to the dissimilarity index, within Cotati the highest level of racial segregation is between Black and white residents.16 However, local jurisdiction staff should note that this dissimilarity index value is not a reliable data point due to small population size. • According to the Theil’s H-Index, neighborhood racial segregation in Cotati increased between 2010 and 2020. Neighborhood income segregation 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 Above Moderate-income population’s segregation measure has changed the most over time, becoming more segregated from other income groups between 2010 and 2015.
• According to the dissimilarity index, 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 value for Bay Area jurisdictions.

4.2 Segregation Between City of Cotati and Other jurisdictions in the Bay Area Region
• Cotati has a higher share of white residents than other jurisdictions in the Bay Area as a whole, a lower share of Latinx residents, a lower share of Black residents, and a lower share of Asian/Pacific Islander residents.

16 The analysis conducted for this report suggests that dissimilarity index values are unreliable for a population group if that group represents approximately less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s total population. ABAG/MTC recommends that when cities have population groups that are less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s population (see Table 15 in Appendix 2), jurisdiction staff could focus on the isolation index or Thiel’s H-Index to gain a more accurate understanding of neighborhood-level racial segregation in their jurisdiction.

10.d
Packet Pg. 774 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 32 • Regarding income groups, Cotati has a lower share of very low-income residents than other jurisdictions in the Bay Area as a whole, a higher share of low-income residents, a lower share of moderate-income residents, and a higher share of above moderate-income residents.

10.d
Packet Pg. 775 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 33 5 APPENDIX 2: SEGREGATION DATA
Appendix 2 combines tabular data presented throughout this report into a more condensed format. This data compilation is intended to enable local jurisdiction staff and their consultants to easily reference this data and re-use the data in the Housing Element or other relevant documents/analyses.

Table 11 in this appendix combines data from Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 in the body of the report.

Table 12 in this appendix combines data from Table 6, Table 7, and Table 8 in the body of the report.

Table 13 represents a duplication of Table 5 in the body of the report; Table 14 represents a duplication of Table 10 in the body of the report; Table 15 in this appendix represents a duplication of Table 4 in the body of the report, while Table 16 represents a duplication of Table 9 in the body of the report.

Table 11: Neighborhood Racial Segregation Levels in Cotati Cotati Bay Area
Average
Index Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Isolation
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.041 0.042 0.044 0.245
Black/African American 0.020 0.015 0.019 0.053
Latinx 0.127 0.189 0.234 0.251
White 0.772 0.714 0.644 0.491
Dissimilarity
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 Latinx vs. White 0.050 0.018 0.101 0.207
People of Color vs. White 0.024 0.026 0.074 0.168
Theil's H Multi-racial All 0.003 0.002 0.010 0.042
Universe: Population.

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, 2010 Census of Population and Housing, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.

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.

10.d
Packet Pg. 776 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 34 Table 12: Neighborhood Income Segregation Levels in Cotati Cotati Bay Area
Average
Index Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Isolation
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
Dissimilarity
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.066 0.045 0.198
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.038 0.068 0.253
Theil's H Multi-racial All 0.008 0.009 0.043
Universe: Population.

Source: Income data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing 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.

10.d
Packet Pg. 777 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 35 Table 13: Regional Racial Segregation Measures
Index Group 2010 2020
Isolation Index Regional Level
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.317 0.378
Black/African American 0.144 0.118
Latinx 0.283 0.291
White 0.496 0.429
People of Color 0.629 0.682
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.384 0.369
Black/African American vs. White 0.475 0.459
Latinx vs. White 0.301 0.297
People of Color vs. White 0.296 0.293
Theil's H Multi-racial All Racial Groups 0.103 0.097
Universe: Population.

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, 2010 Census of Population and Housing, Table P4.

Table 14: Regional Income Segregation Measures
Index Group 2010 2015
Isolation Index Regional Level
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.277 0.315
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.157 0.154
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.185 0.180
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.467 0.435
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.186 0.194
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.238 0.248
Theil's H Multi-income All Income Groups 0.034 0.032
Universe: Population.

10.d
Packet Pg. 778 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 36 Table 15: Population by Racial Group, Cotati and the Region Cotati Bay Area
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 3.57% 4.07% 4.11% 35.8%
Black/African American 2.29% 1.6% 1.36% 5.6%
Latinx 12.52% 17.27% 22.68% 28.2%
Other or Multiple Races 4.95% 4.57% 7.69% 24.4%
White 76.68% 72.48% 64.16% 5.9%
Universe: Population.

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, 2010 Census of Population and Housing, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.

Table 16: Population by Income Group, Cotati and the Region Cotati Bay Area
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%
Universe: Population.

10.d
Packet Pg. 779 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 37 6 REFERENCES
Ananat, Elizabeth Oltmans. 2011. “The wrong side(s) of the tracks: The causal effects of racial segregation on urban poverty and inequality,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 3: 34-

66. Bayer, Patrick, Robert McMillan, and Kim S. Rueben. 2004. “What Drives Racial Segregation? New Evidence using Census Microdata,” Journal of Urban Economics 56(3): 514-535.

Burch, Traci. 2014. “The Old Jim Crow: Racial Residential Segregation and Imprisonment,” Law and Policy 36(3): 223-255.

Chetty, Raj and Nathanial Hendren. 2018. “The Impacts of Neighborhoods on Intergenerational Mobility I: Childhood Exposure Effects,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 133(3):1107-1162 Cutler, David M., and Edward L. Glaeser. 1997. “Are ghettos good or bad?,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(3): 827-72.

Lens, Michael and Paavo Monkkonen. 2016. “Do Strict Land Use Regulations Make Metropolitan Areas More Segregated by Income?,” Journal of the American Planning Association 82(1): 6–21.

Pendall, Rolf. 2000. “Local Land-Use Regulation and the Chain of Exclusion,” Journal of the American Planning Association 66(2): 125-142.

Rothstein, Richard. 2017. The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of how our Government Segregated America. New York: Liveright Publishing.

Sampson, Robert J. 2012. Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sharkey, Patrick. 2013. Stuck in place: Urban neighborhoods and the end of progress toward racial equality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Trounstine, Jessica. 2015. “Segregation and Inequality in Public Goods,” American Journal of Political Science 60(3): 709-725.

Trounstine, Jessica. 2018. Segregation by Design: Local Politics and Inequality in American Cities. New York: Cambridge University Press.

10.d
Packet Pg. 780 Attachment: Exhibit B3 - Cotati Adoption Draft Housing Element Appendices (2023-03-20) (Housing Element CC Resolution) 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
Addendum Evaluation
State Clearinghouse # 2013082037
prepared by
City of Cotati
Community Development Department
201 West Sierra Avenue
Cotati, California 94931
Contact: Noah Housh, Director of Community Development
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
March 2023

10.e
Packet Pg. 781 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
Addendum Evaluation
State Clearinghouse # 2013082037
prepared by
City of Cotati
Community Development Department
201 West Sierra Avenue
Cotati, California 94931
Contact: Noah Housh, Director of Community Development
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
March 2023

10.e
Packet Pg. 782 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) Table of Contents
Addendum Evaluation
State Clearinghouse # 2013082037 i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction and Project Summary ................................................................................................1

1.1 Project Title.........................................................................................................................1

1.2 Lead Agency/Project Sponsor Name and Address..............................................................1

1.3 Contact Person and Phone Number ...................................................................................1

1.4 Project Location ..................................................................................................................1

1.5 Project Description..............................................................................................................1

1.6 Discretionary Action............................................................................................................3

1.7 Prior Environmental Document(s) ......................................................................................3

1.8 Location of Prior Environmental Document(s) ...................................................................3 2 Project Context...............................................................................................................................4

2.1 Purpose of the Housing Element ........................................................................................4

2.2 Updates to the Housing Element........................................................................................4

2.3 Regional Housing Needs Allocation ....................................................................................5

2.4 Changes in State Law ..........................................................................................................5

2.5 City of Cotati General Plan..................................................................................................6

2.6 Cotati General Plan EIR .......................................................................................................6

2.7 Housing Element Update ....................................................................................................8 3 Overview of CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 and Section 15162 ................................................10 4 Environmental Effects and Determination...................................................................................12

4.1 Environmental Areas Determined to Have New or Substantially More Severe Significant Effects Compared to Those Identified in the Previous EIR..............................12

4.2 Determination...................................................................................................................12 5 Addendum Evaluation Methodology............................................................................................14

5.1 General Plan Consistency..................................................................................................14

5.2 Preliminary Environmental Constraints............................................................................16 6 Addendum Evaluation ..................................................................................................................17

6.1 Aesthetics..........................................................................................................................17

6.2 Agriculture and Forestry ...................................................................................................18

6.3 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................19

6.4 Biological Resources..........................................................................................................20

6.5 Cultural Resources............................................................................................................21

6.6 Energy ...............................................................................................................................22

6.7 Geology and Soils..............................................................................................................23

6.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions...............................................................................................24

6.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................25

6.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ...........................................................................................26

10.e
Packet Pg. 783 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) City of Cotati
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
ii

6.11 Land Use and Planning......................................................................................................27

6.12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................28

6.13 Noise .................................................................................................................................29

6.14 Population and Housing....................................................................................................30

6.15 Public Services...................................................................................................................31

6.16 Recreation.........................................................................................................................32

6.17 Transportation ..................................................................................................................33

6.18 Tribal Cultural Resources..................................................................................................35

6.19 Utilities..............................................................................................................................36

6.20 Wildfire..............................................................................................................................37 7 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................39 8 References....................................................................................................................................40

8.1 Bibliography ......................................................................................................................40

8.2 List of Preparers................................................................................................................40 Tables
Table 1 2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation..................................................................5 Table 2 Summary of Areas of Potential Impact under the General Plan EIR...................................7 Table 3 Housing Unit Yield per Site Category ................................................................................15 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Project Location ...................................................................................................2 Appendices
Appendix A Coast Miwok Ethnographic Context

10.e
Packet Pg. 784 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) Acronyms and Abbreviations
Addendum Evaluation
State Clearinghouse # 2013082037 iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ADU accessory dwelling unit
AMI Area Median Income
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
EIR Environmental Impact Report
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
GHG greenhouse gas
HCD California Department of Housing and Community Development LOS level of service
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
SB Senate Bill
SOI Sphere of Influence
SR State Route
TCAC Tax Credit Allocation Committee

10.e
Packet Pg. 785 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) City of Cotati
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
iv
This page intentionally left blank.

10.e
Packet Pg. 786 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) Introduction and Project Summary
Addendum Evaluation
State Clearinghouse # 2013082037 1
1 Introduction and Project Summary

1.1 Project Title
City of Cotati 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

1.2 Lead Agency/Project Sponsor Name and Address
City of Cotati
Community Development Department
201 West Sierra Avenue
Cotati, California 94931

1.3 Contact Person and Phone Number
Noah Housh, Director of Community Development
(707) 665-3635

1.4 Project Location
The City of Cotati (City) is located in Sonoma County, approximately 17 miles east of the Pacific Ocean, 40 miles north of San Francisco, and 7 miles south of Santa Rosa. The city is north of Petaluma, south of Rohnert Park, and west of the Sonoma Mountains. Much of the city is situated along U.S. Highway 101 (US 101), with State Route 116 (SR 116) entering the city from the northwest. The Housing Element Update’s planning boundaries include all land within the Cotati city limits, as shown in Figure 1.

1.5 Project Description
The project consists of a comprehensive update to the City of Cotati 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (herein referred to as “Housing Element update” or “project”). The City’s General Plan underwent extensive environmental review in the form of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which was certified in 2015. The EIR for the Cotati General Plan is a comprehensive document and includes discussion of alternatives and growth-inducing impacts associated with urban development in the city at the time it was developed.

State law requires that housing elements be updated every eight years (California Government Code Sections 65580 to 65589.8). The Housing Element update identifies residential sites adequate to accommodate a variety of housing types for all income levels and needs of special population groups, defined under State law (California Government Code Section 65583). It analyzes governmental constraints to housing maintenance, improvement, and development; addresses conservation and improvement of the condition of existing affordable housing stock; and outlines policies that promote housing opportunities for all persons. The City’s Housing Element is being updated as part of the State’s 6th cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). For Cotati, the planning period runs from 2023 through 2031.

10.e
Packet Pg. 787 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) City of Cotati
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2 Figure 1 Regional Project Location

10.e
Packet Pg. 788 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) Introduction and Project Summary
Addendum Evaluation
State Clearinghouse # 2013082037 3
The project would bring the City’s Housing Element into compliance with State legislation passed since the publication of the previous (5th cycle) Housing Element (adopted in 2015). The Housing Element update includes a housing sites inventory (Section 3 and Appendix D of the Housing Element) that demonstrates how the City plans to meet its 6th cycle RHNA. However, no formal land use changes, rezoning, or physical development are proposed as part of the Housing Element update.

The Housing Element update establishes objectives and policies designed to guide future development as the City works to achieve State-mandated housing goals. Future development will require project-specific developmental review as potential impacts are location-specific and cannot be assessed in a meaningful way until a project site and development proposal are identified. When a specific development proposal is considered for approval, that project would be subject to adopted development guidelines/standards and it must incorporate applicable mitigation measures developed in the General Plan EIR (in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[c][3]). If a subsequent activity (in this case a specific development proposal) would have effects not identified in the certified EIR (the General Plan EIR and this Addendum), the City must prepare additional environmental documentation to comply with CEQA.

This Addendum, therefore, analyzes the changes and potential impacts related to the adoption of Housing Element update. This Addendum is intended to demonstrate consistency of the Housing Element update with the existing General Plan EIR to comply with CEQA. In particular, and in line with Public Resources Code Section 21083.3, this Addendum assesses whether the Housing Element update, as a policy and programs document, includes impacts not addressed or previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

1.6 Discretionary Action
Implementation of the Housing Element would require the following discretionary actions by the City of Cotati Planning Commission and/or City Council:
▪ Adoption of the updated Housing Element and General Plan Amendment The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) reviews and determines whether the proposed Housing Element complies with State law. Aside from HCD, no other approvals by outside public agencies are required.

1.7 Prior Environmental Document(s)
City of Cotati, General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (General Plan Update EIR). State Clearinghouse Number 2013082037, certified March 2015.

1.8 Location of Prior Environmental Document(s)
City of Cotati, Planning Department Website: http://cotati.generalplan.org/content/environmentaldocuments/index.html

10.e
Packet Pg. 789 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) City of Cotati
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4 2 Project Context
The California Legislature has identified the attainment of a decent home and suitable living environment for every resident as the State’s major housing goal. Recognizing the important role of local planning programs in pursuing this goal, the legislature mandated that all cities and counties prepare a housing element as part of their comprehensive general plans. Government Code Sections 65580 to 65589.8 set forth the specific components to be contained in a community’s housing element.

2.1 Purpose of the Housing Element
The Housing Element of the General Plan is designed to provide the City with a coordinated and comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent, and affordable housing within the community. A priority of both State and local governments, Government Code Section 65580 states that “the availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farmworkers, is a priority of the highest order.”
Pursuant to State law, the Housing Element has two main purposes:

1. To provide an assessment of both current and future housing needs and constraints in meeting these needs

2. To provide a strategy that establishes housing goals, policies, and programs The Housing Element is one of the eight General Plan elements the State mandates in Government Code Section 65302. The Housing Element serves as an integrated part of the General Plan but is updated more frequently to ensure its relevancy and accuracy. The Housing Element identifies strategies and programs that focus on:

1. Conserving and improving existing affordable housing

2. Maximizing housing opportunities throughout the community

3. Assisting in the provision of affordable housing

4. Removing governmental and other constraints to housing investment

5. Promoting fair and equal housing opportunities
The residential character of Cotati is largely determined by the variety, location, and maintenance of its housing. The Housing Element is an official response to the need to provide housing for all economic segments of the population, establishing goals, policies, and programs that will guide City decision making and set forth an action plan to implement these housing programs through an established planning period.

2.2 Updates to the Housing Element
State law requires that housing elements be updated every eight years (California Government Code Section 65588). The Housing Element must identify residential sites adequate to accommodate a variety of housing types for all income levels and to meet the needs of special population groups as

10.e
Packet Pg. 790 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) Project Context
Addendum Evaluation
State Clearinghouse # 2013082037 5
defined under State law (California Government Code Section 65583). The Housing Element analyzes market and governmental constraints to housing maintenance, improvement, and development; addresses conservation and improvement of the condition of existing affordable housing stock; and outlines policies that promote housing opportunities for all persons.

2.3 Regional Housing Needs Allocation
The RHNA reflects the HCD’s determination of the projected housing needs in a region by household income level as a percent of the Area Median Income (AMI). The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) was tasked with allocating this regional housing need among the jurisdictions in the ABAG region, which includes Sonoma County. Table 1 shows the breakdown of the RHNA for the City of Cotati during the 2023-2031 planning period.

Table 1 2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Income Group
Cotati
Unit Needs
Percent of
Total Units
Regional
Unit Needs (ABAG)
Percent of
Regional Units
Very low ( 50% AMI) 60 25.6% 114,442 25.9%
Low (> 50-80% AMI) 34 14.5% 65,892 14.9%
Moderate (>80-120% AMI) 39 16.7% 72,712 16.5%
Above Moderate (>120% AMI) 101 43.2% 188,130 42.6%
Total 234 100.0% 441,176 100.0%
AMI = Area Median Income (established annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development) Source: ABAG 2022
The City had 3,215 households as of January 2022. Throughout the city, approximately 65 percent of housing units were single-family, including approximately 46 percent single-family detached units and approximately 19 percent single-family attached units; multi-family dwelling units comprised approximately 32 percent of the city’s housing stock; and the remaining approximately 4 percent were mobile homes (California Department of Finance 2022).

2.4 Changes in State Law
The following items represent substantive changes to State housing law since the City’s last Housing Element was adopted and certified in 2015. The Housing Element update has incorporated and addressed all pertinent housing law changes.
▪ Affordable Housing Streamlined Approval Process: Senate Bill 35 (2017) ▪ Additional Housing Element Sites Analysis Requirements: Assembly Bill 1397 (2017) ▪ Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Assembly Bill 686 (2017) ▪ No-Net-Loss Zoning: Senate Bill 166 (2017)
▪ By Right Transitional and Permanent Supportive Housing: Assembly Bill 2162 (2018) ▪ Housing Crisis Act of 2019: Senate Bill 330
▪ Standardization of Sites Inventory Analysis and Reporting: Senate Bill 6 (2019)

10.e
Packet Pg. 791 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) City of Cotati
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
6 ▪ California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act: Senate Bill 9 (2022) ▪ Senate Bill 10 (2022)

2.5 City of Cotati General Plan
State law mandates that each city and county in California adopt "a comprehensive, long-term general plan,” for the physical development of its planning area. The Cotati General Plan planning area includes all lands within the city limits and Sphere of Influence (SOI). The purpose of the General Plan is to plan for important community issues such as new growth, housing needs, and environmental protection. Furthermore, the General Plan is used to project future demand for services such as sewer, water, roadways, parks, and emergency services.

The Cotati General Plan, adopted in March 2015, is a long-term document which identifies the community’s vision for the future and provides a framework that will guide decisions on growth, development, and conservation of open space and resources in a manner that is consistent with the quality of life desired by the city's residents and businesses.

The General Plan policy document contains the goals and policies that will guide future decisions within the city and identifies action items (implementation measures) to ensure the vision and goals of the General Plan are carried out. The General Plan also contains a revised Land Use Map, which serves as a general guide to the distribution of land uses throughout the city.

State law requires that every General Plan, at a minimum, address certain subject categories (called "elements"), which include land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, safety, and environmental justice. A General Plan may also address other subjects that are of importance to the community future, such as sustainability, community design, and public art. Cotati’s General Plan includes the following elements:
▪ Circulation
▪ Community Health & Wellness
▪ Community Services & Facilities
▪ Conservation
▪ Economic Vitality
▪ Land Use
▪ Noise
▪ Open Space
▪ Safety

2.6 Cotati General Plan EIR
The City of Cotati General Plan Update EIR (herein called the General Plan EIR) addressed the potential environmental effects of the planned buildout of Cotati through the 20-year period and concluded that implementation of the General Plan would result in environmental impacts as detailed in Table 2. Actions and policies were incorporated into the General Plan EIR to reduce potential impacts from project development under the General Plan.

10.e
Packet Pg. 792 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) Project Context
Addendum Evaluation
State Clearinghouse # 2013082037 7
Table 2 Summary of Areas of Potential Impact under the General Plan EIR Issue Area
Level of Significance
after Mitigation
Mitigation Proposed
in the General Plan EIR
Aesthetics and Visual Resources Significant and
Unavoidable
Mitigated to the greatest extent feasible
through General Plan policies and actions.

No additional feasible mitigation is available.

Air Quality Less than Significant General Plan policies and actions mitigate this impact to a less than significant level
Biological Resources Less than Significant General Plan policies and actions mitigate this impact to a less than significant level
Cultural Resources Less than Significant General Plan policies and actions mitigate this impact to a less than significant level
Geology and Soils Less than Significant General Plan policies and actions mitigate this impact to a less than significant level
Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Less than Significant General Plan policies and actions mitigate this impact to a less than significant level
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less than Significant General Plan policies and actions mitigate this impact to a less than significant level
Hydrology and Water Quality Less than Significant General Plan policies and actions mitigate this impact to a less than significant level
Land Use, Agriculture, and Population Less than Significant General Plan policies and actions mitigate this impact to a less than significant level
Noise Significant and
Unavoidable
Mitigated to the greatest extent feasible
through General Plan policies and actions.

No additional feasible mitigation is available.

Public Services and Recreation Less than Significant General Plan policies and actions mitigate this impact to a less than significant level
Transportation and Circulation Significant and
Unavoidable
Mitigated to the greatest extent feasible
through General Plan policies and actions.

No additional feasible mitigation is available.

Utilities Significant and
Unavoidable
Mitigated to the greatest extent feasible
through General Plan policies and actions.

No additional feasible mitigation is available.

Cumulative/Other CEQA-Required Topics Significant and
Unavoidable
Mitigated to the greatest extent feasible
through General Plan policies and actions.

No additional feasible mitigation is available.

Source: City of Cotati 2014
General Plan Assumptions
The General Plan buildout analysis assumes a 20-year horizon to the year 2035. The General Plan will accommodate future growth in Cotati, including new businesses, expansion of existing businesses, and new residential uses.

The General Plan EIR addresses two buildout scenarios to evaluate the maximum projected development that could occur within city limits under the proposed general plan and the maximum projected development that could occur within the entire planning area. As shown in Table 2-3 on page 2.0-10 of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan could yield up to 1,541 new housing units within the city limits which would increase the population within city limits by approximately 3,775 units and result in approximately 6,766 employment opportunities. Full buildout conditions in the

10.e
Packet Pg. 793 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) City of Cotati
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
8 entire planning area, as shown in Table 2-4 on page 2.0-11, could yield 2,140 new housing units resulting in a population growth of approximately 5,243 residents and approximately 8,819 new employment opportunities in the city and SOI. It should be noted that the SOI is not included in the Housing Element update.

2.7 Housing Element Update
The 2023-2031 Housing Element has the following major components:
▪ Section I: Introduction and Summary: introduces the overall Housing Element update effort, a summary of housing needs and constraints, a Fair Housing summary, and a review of the effectiveness of the 2015 Housing Element and the City’s progress in its implementation. ▪ Section II: Housing Strategy: sets forth the City’s Housing Strategy, which is comprised of the Goals, Policies, and Programs that it intends to implement over the next 8-year planning cycle.

The City’s Quantified Objectives are also included in this section. ▪ Section III: Housing Sites: presents a detailed Housing Site Inventory, including a discussion of the availability of services, and compares this inventory to the City’s projected housing needs. ▪ Section IV: Technical Background Report: provides statutorily required data including an assessment of housing needs and programs, an analysis of nongovernmental and governmental constraints to affordable housing provision, a discussion of special needs populations, and an assessment of fair housing. Pre-certified housing and demographic data provided by ABAG is included here.

Goals, Policies, and Programs
The primary objective of the Housing Element is to encourage the production of new housing units to meet the RHNA and housing for special needs populations. This is done by adopting a series of policies and programs which aim to conserve and improve existing housing stock; expand affordable housing opportunities; provide adequate sites and funding to accommodate housing needs of all economic segments of the community; promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, gender, age, marital, status, ancestry, national origin, color, or sexual orientation; and ensure public participation in the development of the City’s housing policies. The Housing Element update goals, policies, and programs are summarized below and referenced throughout this Addendum as appropriate.

Goal H-1: Resilient & Safe Housing
The City’s goal to conserve and improve the existing housing supply to provide adequate, safe, and decent housing for all Cotati residents is supported by policies that encourage housing rehabilitation and preservation, assist with homeownership opportunities, enforce local building codes, encourage development of accessory dwelling units, expand energy and water efficiency, seek funding to support programs, and facilitate resident awareness of assistance programs.

Goal H-2: Housing Production
The City’s goal to provide adequate sites to accommodate the housing needs of all economic segments of the community is supported by policies that ensure adequate land designated for residential or mixed-use development is available to meet the RHNA, ensure that public infrastructure accommodates the City’s fair share of regional housing needs, encourage mixed use

10.e
Packet Pg. 794 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) Project Context
Addendum Evaluation
State Clearinghouse # 2013082037 9
development, facilitate and encourage the construction of accessory dwelling units, encourage housing development on infill sites, and assist in the development of affordable housing.

Goal H-3: Affordable, Attainable & Accessible Housing
The City’s goal to expand affordable housing opportunities for lower income households and persons with special housing needs, including seniors, disabled persons, developmentally disabled persons, and homeless persons and families is supported by policies that incentivize discretionary affordable housing development and lower income housing, provide density bonuses to eligible projects, encourage housing for large and intergenerational families, eliminate barriers to safe and accessible housing for people with disabilities, and facilitate linkages for at-risk individuals and families to organizations and service groups that provide support services.

Goal H-4: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
The City’s goal to promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, gender, age, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, or sexual orientation is supported by a policy that works to eliminate unlawful discrimination in housing.

Goal H-5: Community Engagement
The City’s goal to ensure public participation in the development of the city’s housing policies is supported by a policy that encourages and facilitates public participation in the formulation and review of the City’s housing and development policies.

10.e
Packet Pg. 795 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) City of Cotati
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
10 3 Overview of CEQA Guidelines Section
15164 and Section 15162
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 set forth the criteria for determining the appropriate additional environmental documentation, if any, to be completed when a project has a previously certified EIR.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 states that a lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) states that no Subsequent or Supplemental EIR shall be prepared for a project with a certified EIR unless the lead agency determines, based on substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following:

A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR.

B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR.

C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

D. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

The analysis pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 demonstrates whether the lead agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the existing certified EIR, that an addendum to the existing EIR would be appropriate, and no new environmental document, such as a new EIR, would be required. The addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the Final EIR, and the decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the Final EIR prior to deciding on the project.

The City has prepared this Addendum Evaluation, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, to evaluate whether the project’s environmental impacts are covered by and within the scope of the 2013 Cotati General Plan Update Final EIR (November 2014, State Clearinghouse Number 2013082037). The following Addendum Evaluation details any changes in the project,

10.e
Packet Pg. 796 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) Overview of CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 and Section 15162 Addendum Evaluation
State Clearinghouse # 2013082037 11
changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken, and/or "new information of substantial importance" that may cause one or more effects to environmental resources.

The responses herein substantiate and support the City’s determination that the Housing Element update policies and programs are within the scope of the General Plan EIR, do not require subsequent action under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and, in conjunction with the EIR, adequately analyze potential environmental impacts.

10.e
Packet Pg. 797 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) City of Cotati
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
12 4 Environmental Effects and Determination

4.1 Environmental Areas Determined to Have New or
Substantially More Severe Significant Effects
Compared to Those Identified in the Previous EIR
The subject areas checked below were determined to be new significant environmental effects or to be previously identified effects that have a substantial increase in severity either due to a change in project, change in circumstances, or new information of substantial importance, as indicated by the checklist and discussion on the following pages.
■ NONE
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
□ Air Quality
□ Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Energy
□ Geology/Soils □ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
□ Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
□ Hydrology/Water Quality □ Land Use/Planning □ Mineral Resources □ Noise □ Population/Housing □ Public Services
□ Recreation □ Transportation □ Tribal Cultural Resources □ Utilities/Service Systems □ Wildfire □ Mandatory Findings of Significance

4.2 Determination
Based on this analysis:
□ Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new information of substantial importance," as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT or SUPPLEMENTAL EIR is required.

10.e
Packet Pg. 798 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) Environmental Effects and Determination
Addendum Evaluation
State Clearinghouse # 2013082037 13
■ No substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

Also, there is no "new information of substantial importance" as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, the previously certified EIR is adequate and this evaluation serves as an ADDENDUM to the 2013 Cotati General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (General Plan FEIR). State Clearinghouse Number 2013082037 dated November 2014.

Signature Date
Printed Name Title

10.e
Packet Pg. 799 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) City of Cotati
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
14 5 Addendum Evaluation Methodology

5.1 General Plan Consistency
To promote a uniform and compatible vision for the development of the community, California law requires the General Plan be internally consistent in its goals and policies. The Housing Element is a component of the General Plan, and thus, the Housing Element update is consistent with the vision of the General Plan and is supported by goals and policies of the other General Plan elements.

General Plan elements and policies that affect housing are summarized below:
▪ The Circulation Element correlates closely with the Land Use Element, and identifies the general locations and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, and alternative transportation facilities necessary to support a multi-modal transportation system.

This element is intended to facilitate mobility of people and goods throughout Cotati by a variety of transportation modes, including bicycle, pedestrian, and rail. ▪ The Community Services and Facilities Element sets forth standards for public service and utility systems including water, wastewater, solid waste, schools, medical facilities, libraries, parks, recreation, and historic preservation.
▪ The Conservation Element addresses the conservation, development, and use of natural resources, riparian environments, native plant and animal species, soils, mineral deposits, cultural/historical resources, air quality, and alternative energy. It also details plans and measures for preserving open space for natural resources and the managed production of resources.
▪ The Economic Vitality Element is designed to support and enhance the City’s economy, through programs to retain existing and attract new business, create jobs, to help maintain existing jobs, and to improve overall opportunities for businesses in the City. ▪ The Land Use Element designates the general distribution and intensity of residential, commercial, industrial, open space, public/quasi-public, and other categories of public and private land uses. The Land Use Element includes the Land Use Map, which identifies land use designations for each parcel in the city limits and SOI. ▪ The Noise Element establishes standards and policies to protect the community from the harmful and annoying effects of exposure to excessive noise levels. This element includes strategies to reduce land use conflicts that may result in exposure to unacceptable noise levels. ▪ The Open Space Element addresses the preservation of open space for the conservation of natural resources, and public health and safety related to open space and recreational opportunities. This element also includes provisions for parks and recreational facilities throughout the City.
▪ The Safety Element establishes policies and programs to protect the community from risk associated with geologic, flood, and fire hazards, as well as setting standards for emergency preparedness.

New State law requires that the Safety Element be updated to address climate adaptation upon revision of the Housing Element. The City will ensure compliance with this requirement by updating and adopting its updated Safety Element to follow the 2023 Housing Element. Further, new

10.e
Packet Pg. 800 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) Addendum Evaluation Methodology
Addendum Evaluation
State Clearinghouse # 2013082037 15
statewide bills have been passed to address the inequitable distribution of pollution and associated health effects in low-income communities and communities of color. While the City of Cotati does not currently have any disadvantaged communities as defined by SB 535, neighborhoods within Cotati that are designated as Low Resource in the 2022 Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) Opportunity Areas will be analyzed and discussed as part of the Assessment of Fair Housing.

Accommodation of the RHNA
As described in Section 2.3, the City of Cotati’s RHNA for the current planning period is 234 units, including 60 very low-income housing units, 34 low-income housing units, 39 moderate income housing units, and 101 above moderate-income housing units. The City must demonstrate the availability of sites with appropriate zoning and development standards that can facilitate and encourage the development of such units. The Housing Element update includes a housing strategy that accommodates the RHNA plus a buffer of additional housing sites as recommended by HCD. As shown in Table 3, the City anticipates the development of 30 ADUs during the eight-year planning period and 689 units would be facilitated from planned and approved (pipeline) projects which can count towards the RHNA.

Table 3 Housing Unit Yield per Site Category
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
RHNA 30 34 39 101 234
ADUs 9 9 9 3 30
Pipeline 119 35 535 689
Housing Sites 30 39 36 105
Total Units After Programs 167 83 574 824
RHNA Surplus 73 44 473 590
Percent Buffer 78% 113% 438% 252%
Source: ABAG 2022
The 824 units that would be facilitated by the Housing Element update would not exceed the 1,541 units included in the buildout capacity estimated under the General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Furthermore, the Housing Element update would be consistent with State requirements for the RHNA to plan adequately to meet existing and projected housing needs for all economic segments of the community. In addition, the Housing Element update would first be submitted to the HCD for review and approval to ensure that it would adequately address the housing needs and demands of the City.

A detailed discussion of the Housing Element update development assumptions and housing plan is provided below.
▪ Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior ADUs. The City anticipates the upward trend in the development of ADUs and JADUs throughout the 6th Cycle will increase and is supporting that assumption with programs to facilitate and incentivize production. As shown in Table 3, the City anticipates the development of 30 ADUs during the eight-year planning period. ▪ Planned, Approved, and Pending Projects. The Housing Element Update provides a brief description of approved and under review pipeline projects anticipated to accommodate up to 689 total units.

10.e
Packet Pg. 801 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) City of Cotati
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
16 ▪ Housing Sites. Site 1 (vacant site) is within the Northern Gateway zone of the Downtown Specific Plan area. This site would accommodate 5 units. Sites 2 and 3 (non-vacant sites) would accommodate a total of 100 units.

5.2 Preliminary Environmental Constraints
State housing law requires the City to review both governmental and non-governmental constraints to the maintenance and production of housing for all income levels. Since local governmental actions can restrict the development and increase the cost of housing, State law requires the Housing Element to “address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing” (Government Code Section 65583[c][3]).

Several factors can constrain residential development. These include market constraints, such as development costs and interest rates, and governmental constraints, which include land use controls, fees, processing times, and development standards, among others. In addition, environmental and infrastructure constraints can also impede residential development. For purposes of the Addendum Evaluation, only the potential environmental constraints, as they relate to CEQA, were evaluated.

Environmental constraints to residential development typically relate to the presence of sensitive habitat, flooding, topography, and other natural and physical characteristics that can limit the amount of development in an area or increase the cost of development. The Housing Element update, in and of itself, does not propose specific development projects, but rather puts forth goals, policies, and programs that regulate or encourage new housing development in Cotati. Future housing development projects would be subject to developmental review to determine potential impacts specific to that project site.

10.e
Packet Pg. 802 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) Addendum Evaluation
Addendum Evaluation
State Clearinghouse # 2013082037 17
6 Addendum Evaluation

6.1 Aesthetics
General Plan EIR Findings
Aesthetics are discussed in Section 3.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, of the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR determined that while General Plan policies and actions are intended to maintain and enhance the overall visual character of the Planning Area, the potential for new development to interrupt scenic views, impact scenic resources, or degrade the quality of public views would remain significant and unavoidable.

The General Plan EIR stated that implementation of General Plan policies and actions would continue to require the review of all development proposals, planning projects and infrastructure projects to reduce lighting impacts on adjacent properties and to reduce lighting impacts to the night sky. Implementation of General Plan policies and actions related to the regulation and reduction of daytime glare and nighttime lighting would reduce such impacts to a less than significant level.

Addendum Analysis
Policies and actions in the General Plan that were referenced in the General Plan EIR would help reduce impacts to the greatest extent possible. These policies and actions would be required with implementation of the Housing Element update.

The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites located throughout the city designated for residential development, which were evaluated previously for potential environmental impacts in the General Plan EIR. The Housing Element update also identifies sites that can accommodate ADUs as well as vacant and nonvacant properties that could accommodate new or additional housing units. Since non-vacant sites already contain some type of development, housing that may be built on these sites would not create a substantial change from current conditions. Similarly, most vacant sites are urban infill sites where development and infrastructure is already present adjacent to such sites. The units facilitated by the Housing Element update would not exceed the buildout capacity estimated under the General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

The Housing Element update, in and of itself, does not propose specific projects but puts forth goals and policies that regulate various aspects of new housing development in Cotati. Because it is a policy document, the Housing Element update would not, in and of itself, result in impacts to scenic vistas, scenic resources, or visual character, and would not create new sources of substantial light or glare which adversely affects views.

Future development facilitated by the Housing Element update would undergo project-specific developmental review, including design review, and would be subject to adopted development guidelines, including standards that govern visual quality and community design.

10.e
Packet Pg. 803 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) City of Cotati
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
18 Conclusion
The adoption of the Housing Element update does not involve changes to the current adopted land uses and the housing units facilitated by the Housing Element update would not exceed the buildout capacity specified in the General Plan EIR. The Housing Element update would not result in impacts beyond those addressed or analyzed in the General Plan EIR nor present new information that shows impacts would be more significant than those described in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the General Plan EIR applies to the Housing Element update and no additional environmental assessment of aesthetics is required.

6.2 Agriculture and Forestry
General Plan EIR Findings
Agriculture and Forestry Resources are discussed in Section 3.9, Land Use, of the General Plan EIR.

The General Plan EIR found that impacts regarding the potential to conflict with existing farmlands, agricultural zoning or Williamson Act Contracts, and the conversion of farmlands, including prime farmland, unique farmland, and farmland of statewide importance would be less than significant.

There are no lands within or adjacent to the City that are currently zoned as forest land, timber, or timber production. The General Plan EIR found no impacts to forest land, timber, or timber production.

Addendum Analysis
The General Plan goals and policies protect rural (Agricultural and Rural Residential) and natural open space lands from urbanization. These goals and policies would remain in effect with implementation of the Housing Element update. None of the sites identified in the Housing Element update are designated as Agriculture.

Future development facilitated by the Housing Element update would undergo project-specific developmental review and be required to comply with any applicable requirements regarding agriculture and forestry including General Plan policies and actions.

10.e
Packet Pg. 804 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) Addendum Evaluation
Addendum Evaluation
State Clearinghouse # 2013082037 19
Conclusion
The adoption of the Housing Element update does not involve changes to the current adopted land uses and the housing units facilitated by the Housing Element update would not exceed the buildout capacity specified in the General Plan EIR. The Housing Element update would not result in impacts beyond those addressed or analyzed in the General Plan EIR nor present new information that shows impacts would be more significant than those described in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the General Plan EIR applies to the Housing Element update and no additional environmental assessment of agriculture or forestry is required.

6.3 Air Quality
General Plan EIR Findings
Air quality is discussed in Section 3.2, Air Quality, of the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR determined that impacts to air quality would be less than significant regarding the potential to conflict with applicable air quality plans, cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the region is in non-attainment, exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations, and the potential to create objectionable odors. The General Plan includes numerous goals and polices to reduce potential air quality impacts, and the City is required to enforce compliance with regional plans and programs that reduce air quality impacts.

Addendum Analysis
Policies and actions in the General Plan that were referenced in the General Plan EIR would help reduce impacts to less than significant levels. These policies and actions would be required with implementation of the Housing Element update.

Potential air quality-related impacts cannot be assessed in a meaningful way until the project site and development design is known, including the number of units, potential residents, and potential vehicle miles traveled. Short-term air quality impacts resulting from construction of the sites, such as dust generated by clearing and grading activities, exhaust emissions from gas- and dieselpowered construction equipment, and vehicular emissions associated with the commuting of construction workers will be subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District rules and regulations. The Housing Element update, in and of itself, does not propose specific projects but puts forth goals and policies that regulate various aspects of new housing development in Cotati.

Because it is a policy document, the Housing Element update would not, in and of itself, result in impacts to air quality.

10.e
Packet Pg. 805 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) City of Cotati
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
20 Future development facilitated by the Housing Element update would undergo project-specific developmental review and be required to comply with adopted General Plan policies and actions regarding air quality and any applicable State and regional air quality plans.

Conclusion
The adoption of the Housing Element update does not involve changes to the current adopted land uses and the housing units facilitated by the Housing Element update would not exceed the buildout capacity specified in the General Plan EIR. The Housing Element update would not result in impacts beyond those addressed or analyzed in the General Plan EIR nor present new information that shows impacts would be more significant than those described in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the General Plan EIR applies to the Housing Element update and no additional environmental assessment of air quality is required.

6.4 Biological Resources
General Plan EIR Findings
Biological resources are discussed in Section 3.3, Biological and Natural Resources, of the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR determined that while implementation of projects proposed under the General Plan may have the potential to result in impacts to special status species, riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, adherence to the policies and action measures listed in the General Plan EIR, as well as federal and state regulations, would reduce impacts to these resources to a less than significant level. It further stated that all projects proposed under General Plan implementation would be required to comply with the General Plan and adopted state, federal, and local regulations for the protection of special status plants and wildlife, including habitat.

Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

The General Plan EIR found that the General Plan would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

10.e
Packet Pg. 806 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) Addendum Evaluation
Addendum Evaluation
State Clearinghouse # 2013082037 21
The Housing Element update, in and of itself, does not propose specific projects but puts forth goals and policies that regulate various aspects of new housing development in Cotati. Because it is a policy document, the Housing Element update would not, in and of itself, result in impacts to biological resources.

Future development facilitated by the Housing Element update would undergo project-specific developmental review and be required to comply with the General Plan policies and actions regarding biological resources, and adopted state, federal, and local regulations for the protection of special status plants and wildlife, including habitat.

6.5 Cultural Resources
General Plan EIR Findings
Cultural resources are discussed in Section 3.4, Cultural Resources, of the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR determined that with implementation of General Plan policies and actions, and State law, impacts to historical resources, archaeological resources, and human remains would be less than significant.

The Housing Element update, in and of itself, does not propose specific projects but puts forth goals and policies that regulate various aspects of new housing development in Cotati. Because it is a policy document, the Housing Element update would not, in and of itself, result in impacts to cultural resources. Although known historic and prehistoric resource sites are located within Cotati’s SOI, and 36 cultural resources have been recorded within the General Plan Planning Area, future

10.e
Packet Pg. 807 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) City of Cotati
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
22 development facilitated by the Housing Element update would be evaluated for compliance with the City’s General Plan, Municipal Code, and any other applicable State and local regulations regarding cultural resources including California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

6.6 Energy
General Plan EIR Findings
The General Plan EIR does not include a separate section regarding energy since it was not required under the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist at the time the report was prepared; however, energy is discussed in Section 4.3, Significant Irreversible Effects, of the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR found that General Plan policies focus on energy efficiency in the design, materials, construction, and use of buildings, the use of alternative energy systems, and alternative transportation modes. A discussion of energy impacts is provided herein to supplement the General Plan EIR.

Future development facilitated by the Housing Element update would undergo project-specific developmental review and be required to adhere to applicable regulations and General Plan policies

10.e
Packet Pg. 808 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) Addendum Evaluation
Addendum Evaluation
State Clearinghouse # 2013082037 23
and actions related to energy resources and energy consumption with new residential construction, including California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 20, Division 2, Chapter 4, Energy Conservation; CCR Title 24, Part 6, California Energy Code; and CCR Title 24, Part 11, California Green Building Standards Code, Tier 1.

6.7 Geology and Soils
General Plan EIR Findings
Geology and soils are discussed in Section 3.5, Geology and Soils, of the General Plan EIR. General Plan policies and actions require geotechnical investigations to be completed for all construction in areas with potential geological hazards and require that recommendations from the geotechnical analysis are incorporated into the project’s design and engineering. The General Plan EIR determined that with implementation of General Plan policies and actions as well as applicable State and City regulations, impacts to geology and soils would be less than significant for adverse effects related to ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, unstable soils, expansive soils, landslide, and loss of topsoil or soil erosion.

The General Plan EIR determined that there would be no septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems utilized for new development as all new wastewater generated from General Plan land uses would be sent to the (regional) Laguna Treatment Plant for treatment. Impacts would be less than significant.

Paleontological resources are discussed in Section 3.4, Cultural Resources, of the General Plan EIR.

There are no known paleontological resources in the General Plan Planning Area and future development would be analyzed for potential environmental impacts pursuant to State and local regulations regarding paleontological resources. Impacts would be less than significant.

10.e
Packet Pg. 809 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) City of Cotati
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
24 where development and infrastructure is already present adjacent to such sites. The units facilitated by the Housing Element update would not exceed the buildout capacity estimated under the General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Future development facilitated by the Housing Element update would undergo project-specific developmental review to address potential impacts related to geology and soils, including adherence to State and City grading and building standards and requirements. Proponents of the individual projects may need to prepare geotechnical investigations prior to project design. Future development would be required to adhere to General Plan policies and actions related to paleontological resources.

6.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
General Plan EIR Findings
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are discussed in Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change, of the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR determined that the General Plan policies and actions are consistent with the policy guidance provided by California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) through the 2009 Model Policies for Greenhouse Gases in General Plans, which is consistent with the Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Scoping Plan, and GHG reduction measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Impacts related to the generation of GHG emissions were determined to be less than significant.

The General Plan EIR determined that compliance with the City’s Green Building Standards would reduce GHG emissions from future development to less than significant levels and ensure future development consistent with the General Plan would be consistent with all applicable plans and policies adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

10.e
Packet Pg. 810 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) Addendum Evaluation
Addendum Evaluation
State Clearinghouse # 2013082037 25
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites located throughout the city designated for residential development, which were evaluated previously for potential environmental impacts in the General Plan EIR. The Housing Element update also identifies sites that can accommodate ADUs as well as vacant and nonvacant properties that could accommodate new or additional housing units. Since non-vacant sites already contain some type of development, housing that may be built on these sites would not create a substantial change from current conditions. Similarly, most vacant sites are urban infill sites where development and infrastructure is already present adjacent to such sites. The units facilitated by the Housing Element update would not exceed the buildout capacity estimated under the General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Future development facilitated by the Housing Element update would undergo project-specific developmental review and would be required to adhere to State and City building standards and policies designed to reduce GHG emissions with new residential construction, such as CCR Title 20, Division 2, State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission; and CCR Title 24, Part 11, California Green Building Standards Code, Tier 1.

6.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
General Plan EIR Findings
Hazards and hazardous materials are discussed in Section 3.7, Hazards, of the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR determined that impacts for hazardous materials would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan policies and actions for impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; the emission of acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school; and development on or near sites listed as hazardous material sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

The City of Cotati does not have any airport facilities located within the city limits, SOI, of urban growth boundary. Impacts related to safety hazards from nearby airports would be less than significant.

The General Plan EIR determined that community safety facilities would be located outside of identified hazard areas to ensure these facilities are available in the event of a natural disaster and projects are not anticipated to remove or impede evacuation routes. It determined that the General

10.e
Packet Pg. 811 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) City of Cotati
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
26 Plan does not include land uses, policies, or other components that conflict with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. Impacts would be less than significant.

The General Plan EIR determined that with implementation of General Plan policies and actions, impacts regarding wildland fires would be less than significant.

Future development facilitated by the Housing Element update would undergo project-specific developmental review and would be required to comply with all applicable General Plan policies and actions as well as State and local regulations regarding hazards and hazardous materials.

6.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
General Plan EIR Findings
Hydrology and water quality impacts are discussed in Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR determined that with implementation of General Plan policies and actions, impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant relating to violating any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, substantially decreasing groundwater supplies or interfering substantially with groundwater recharge, creating or

10.e
Packet Pg. 812 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) Addendum Evaluation
Addendum Evaluation
State Clearinghouse # 2013082037 27
contributing to runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, degrading water quality, and exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding.

Future development facilitated by the Housing Element update would undergo project-specific developmental review and be required to comply with General Plan policies and actions and all applicable regulations regarding hydrology and water quality.

6.11 Land Use and Planning
General Plan EIR Findings
Land use and planning is discussed in Section 3.9, Land Use, of the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR determined that impacts to land use would be less than significant regarding conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations.

The General Plan does not include any new areas designated for urbanization or new roadways, infrastructure, or other features that would divide existing communities and impacts were determined to be less than significant.

10.e
Packet Pg. 813 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) City of Cotati
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
28 Addendum Analysis
Policies and actions in the General Plan that were referenced in the General Plan EIR would help reduce impacts to less than significant levels. These policies and actions would be required with implementation of the Housing Element update.

The Housing Element update, in and of itself, does not propose specific projects but puts forth goals and policies that regulate various aspects of new housing development in Cotati. Because it is a policy document, the Housing Element update would not, in and of itself, result in impacts to land use and planning. The Housing element update does not involve changes to the current adopted land uses.

6.12 Mineral Resources
General Plan EIR Findings
A background discussion of mineral resources is provided in Section 3.5, Geology and Soils, of the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR only provides background information regarding mineral resources. Therefore, a discussion of potential impacts to mineral resources is provided herein to supplement the General Plan EIR.

Addendum Analysis
The Planning Area does not contain land classified as Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2) known mineral resources (California Department Of Conservation Division Of Mines And Geology 1987).

10.e
Packet Pg. 814 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) Addendum Evaluation
Addendum Evaluation
State Clearinghouse # 2013082037 29
The Stony Point Rock Quarry, located approximately 2 miles south of Cotati, is the nearest mineral extraction site.

Future development facilitated by the Housing Element update would undergo project-specific developmental review and would be required to adhere to applicable regulations regarding mineral resources.

6.13 Noise
General Plan EIR Findings
Noise is discussed in Section 3.10, Noise, of the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts relative to noise from traffic noise sources and cumulative noise levels associated with traffic. Railroad, construction, and stationary source noise impacts were found to be less than significant with implementation of General Plan actions and policies.

The General Plan EIR found that the General Plan would not impact an airport compatibility plan or expose people residing or working in the project area because the project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport.

10.e
Packet Pg. 815 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) City of Cotati
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
30 Addendum Analysis
Policies and actions in the General Plan that were referenced in the General Plan EIR would help reduce impacts to the greatest extent possible. These policies and actions would be required with implementation of the Housing Element update.

Future development facilitated by the Housing Element update would undergo project-specific developmental review and would be required to adhere to General Plan policies and actions related to noise and applicable noise regulations.

6.14 Population and Housing
General Plan EIR Findings
Population and housing is discussed Section 3.9, Land Use, of the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR determined implementation of the General Plan would result in less than significant impacts relating to unplanned population growth and the displacement of substantial numbers of people or existing housing.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. As discussed in Section 2, Project Context, of this Addendum, the 824 units that would be facilitated by the Housing Element update would not exceed the 1,541 units included in the buildout capacity estimated under the General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The California Department of Finance estimates Cotati has an average household size of 2.4 residents per unit (California Department of

10.e
Packet Pg. 816 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) Addendum Evaluation
Addendum Evaluation
State Clearinghouse # 2013082037 31
Finance 2022). The potential increase of 1,978 residents that would result from implementation of the Housing Element update would not exceed the population growth anticipated under the General Plan of 3,775 new residents.

The Housing Element update, in and of itself, does not propose specific projects but puts forth goals and policies that regulate various aspects of new housing development in Cotati. Because it is a policy document, the Housing Element update would not, in and of itself, result in impacts to population and housing. The additional units facilitated by the Housing Element update would assist in meeting the identified housing needs of the City’s communities and City’s RHNA and would not exceed that previously evaluated under the General Plan EIR.

6.15 Public Services
General Plan EIR Findings
Public services are discussion in Section 3.11, Public Services and Recreation, of the General Plan EIR.

The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with new or physically altered public services facilities, including those related to fire, police, schools, parks, and libraries, and impacts would be less than significant.

Addendum Analysis
As discussed in Section 2, Project Context, and Section 6.14, Population and Housing, of this Addendum, the potential increase in residential units and population that would occur from implementation of the Housing Element update would not exceed growth anticipated under the General Plan. Therefore, the demand for public services and recreational facilities would not exceed that previously evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

10.e
Packet Pg. 817 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) City of Cotati
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
32 The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites located throughout the city designated for residential development, which were evaluated previously for potential environmental impacts in the General Plan EIR. The Housing Element update also identifies sites that can accommodate ADUs as well as vacant and nonvacant properties that could accommodate new or additional housing units. Since non-vacant sites already contain some type of development, housing that may be built on these sites would not create a substantial change from current conditions. Similarly, most vacant sites are urban infill sites where development and infrastructure is already present adjacent to such sites. The units facilitated by the Housing Element update would not exceed the buildout capacity estimated under the General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

The demand for public services would not exceed that previously evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Future development facilitated by the Housing Element update would undergo project-specific developmental review, and would be evaluated for conformance with the General Plan policies and actions, State law, City Municipal Code including the payment of fees, and other applicable regulations.

6.16 Recreation
General Plan EIR Findings
Recreation is discussed in Section 3.11, Public Services and Recreation, of the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the deterioration of existing parks and recreation facilities or the construction of new parks or recreation facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

Addendum Analysis
The City of Cotati General Plan requires a park standard of a minimum of one acre per 200 residents. Buildout of the General Plan would result in the need for approximately 17.5 acres of new parks and recreation facilities to serve projected buildout growth within the City limits, and 26 acres of new parks and recreation facilities to served projected buildout growth within the Planning Area.

As discussed in Section 2, Project Context, and Section 6.14, Population and Housing, of this Addendum, the potential increase in residential units and population that would occur from

10.e
Packet Pg. 818 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) Addendum Evaluation
Addendum Evaluation
State Clearinghouse # 2013082037 33
implementation of the Housing Element update would not exceed growth anticipated under the General Plan. Therefore, the demand for new parks and recreational facilities would not exceed that anticipated under the General Plan.

The demand for recreational facilities would not exceed that previously evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Future development facilitated by the Housing Element update would undergo projectspecific developmental review, and would be evaluated for conformance with the General Plan policies and actions, State law, City Municipal Code including the dedication of land or the payment of fees and other applicable regulations.

6.17 Transportation
General Plan EIR Findings
Transportation is evaluated in Section 3.12, Transportation and Circulation, of the General Plan EIR.

The General Plan EIR analyzed Level of Service (LOS) as the methodology to assess significance and found that implementation of the General Plan would result in acceptable operation of LOS D or better at all study intersections under Cotati’s jurisdiction. However, several segments on US 101 are projected to operate unacceptably at LOS F in the future (year 2040) due to regional growth including buildout of the General Plan. Therefore, the impact to US 101 was determined to be significant and unavoidable.

The General EIR determined that uncertainty exists as to whether funding will be available to achieve all General Plan policies and actions related to future circulation improvements including the widening of Gravenstein Highway (SR 116), a regional highway facility owned and operated by

10.e
Packet Pg. 819 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) City of Cotati
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
34 Caltrans that also serves local traffic within Cotati. Therefore, the potential for implementation of the General Plan to conflict with local policies would be significant and unavoidable.

The General Plan EIR determined that the General Plan does not contain provisions that would increase hazards due to design features of incompatible uses and roadway facilities in Cotati are not expected to impede emergency access. These impacts would be less than significant.

Since certification of the EIR and pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 743, transportation impacts are evaluated using vehicle miles traveled (VMT) instead of LOS.

Future development facilitated by the Housing Element update would undergo project-specific developmental review and be required to adhere to General Plan policies and all applicable regulations and requirements related to transportation.

10.e
Packet Pg. 820 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) Addendum Evaluation
Addendum Evaluation
State Clearinghouse # 2013082037 35

6.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
General Plan EIR Findings
Tribal Cultural Resources was added to the 2016 CEQA Guidelines as a separate environmental issue area. Thus, the General Plan EIR (published in September 2014) does not include a chapter or section dedicated to analysis of impacts to tribal cultural resources. However, it does analyze general impacts to historical and cultural resources (including archeological resources that may originate from Native American tribes) in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources. As the Notice of Preparation for the General Plan EIR was published before July 1, 2015, tribal consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 was not required.

In 2011 during the General Plan update process, the City sent letters to the Native American Heritage Commission, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, and the Cotati Historical Society to request information regarding the Planning Area. The Native American Heritage Commission responded indicating that they had no specific information regarding cultural resources within the Planning Area. The Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria responded indicating that because the General Plan Update falls under Senate Bill (SB) 18 they would initiate consultation directly with the City. The City met with the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria and the Cotati Historical Society.

Addendum Analysis
The ethnographic context of the Coast Miwok is provided as Appendix A to this document. This appendix provides supplementary background information.

On April 18, 2022 during the Housing Element update process, the City sent a letter to the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria to initiate AB 52 and SB 18 consultation. The tribe responded on May 3, 2022, requesting both AB 52 and SB 18 consultation. The City met with the tribe on September 28, 2022 and December 12, 2022, and consultation is ongoing. Additional AB 52 and SB 18 consultation letters were sent to the Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians, Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo Indians, Guidiville Indian Rancheria, Lytton Rancheria, Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians, Mishewal-Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley, Pinoleville Pomo Indians, and Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians on July 1, 2022. None of these tribes requested consultation. No previously unidentified tribal cultural resources within the city have been identified during consultation, and the Housing Element update would not result in increased impacts to potential

10.e
Packet Pg. 821 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) City of Cotati
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
36 tribal cultural resources. However, future development facilitated under the Housing Element update would undergo project-specific developmental review and be required to comply with General Plan policies and actions and all applicable regulations that help protect and conserve tribal cultural resources.

6.19 Utilities
General Plan EIR Findings
Utilities are discussed in Section 3.13, Utilities, of the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR determined that the potential to exceed wastewater treatment capacity or the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board would be cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable. The General Plan EIR further determined that impacts related to water supply, stormwater drainage, and solid waste would be less than significant.

Future development facilitated by the Housing Element update would undergo project-specific developmental review and be subject to adopted development guidelines and other regulatory requirements concerning water, wastewater, storm drains, solid waste, and other infrastructure; water supply; and wastewater treatment systems.

10.e
Packet Pg. 822 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) Addendum Evaluation
Addendum Evaluation
State Clearinghouse # 2013082037 37
Conclusion
The adoption of the Housing Element update does not involve changes to the current adopted land uses and the housing units facilitated by the Housing Element update would not exceed the buildout capacity specified in the General Plan EIR. The Housing Element update would not result in impacts beyond those addressed or analyzed in the General Plan EIR nor present new information that shows impacts would be more significant than those described in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the General Plan EIR applies to the Housing Element update and no additional environmental assessment of utilities is required.

6.20 Wildfire
General Plan EIR Findings
The General Plan EIR discusses wildfire in Section 3.7, Hazards, and determined that the City of Cotati is not categorized as a "Very High" Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. A portion of the SOI is in a State Responsibility Area and categorized as a "Moderate" FHSZ. The closest "Very High" FHSZ is located east of SR 12, over 10 miles from the eastern city limits. The General Plan EIR states that as future development and infrastructure projects are considered by the City, each project would be evaluated for potential impacts, specific to the project, associated with wildland fire hazards as required under CEQA.

Impacts regarding potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands would be less than significant.

Addendum Analysis
The City of Cotati is not in a State Responsibility Area or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Area (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2007). A portion of the Cotati SOI remains in a State Responsibility Area categorized as a “Moderate” FHSZ.

Policies and actions in the General Plan that were referenced in the General Plan EIR would help reduce impacts to the greatest extent possible. These policies and actions would be required with implementation of the Housing Element update.

10.e
Packet Pg. 823 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) City of Cotati
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
38 Future development facilitated by the Housing Element update would be required to adhere to General Plan and other State and local regulatory requirements concerning wildfire hazards and emergency response. Additionally, the Housing Element update would concentrate housing development as infill development in the city and in areas with existing adequate emergency response services.

10.e
Packet Pg. 824 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) Conclusion
Addendum Evaluation
State Clearinghouse # 2013082037 39
7 Conclusion
The City of Cotati, acting as the lead agency, determined that an addendum is the appropriate environmental document under CEQA because the proposed project would not require revisions to the certified General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of significant effects previously identified in the General Plan EIR.

There are no changed circumstances or new information that meets the standards for requiring further environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Thus, these circumstances and information would not result in new or more severe impacts beyond what were addressed in the General Plan EIR and would not meet any other standards under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). No additional analysis is required based on the discussions throughout this addendum.

The proposed Housing Element update would not involve development in areas not assumed for development in the General Plan EIR, nor would it result in population growth and density beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The project would not result in significant or substantially more severe impacts that were not discussed in the General Plan EIR. Also, there are no previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time of the previous environmental review, would be substantially more severe than discussed in the General Plan EIR. Accordingly, no additional CEQA review is required.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 states that “[t]he lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” An addendum is therefore appropriate because, as explained above, none of the conditions calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.

10.e
Packet Pg. 825 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) City of Cotati
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
40 8 References

8.1 Bibliography
Association of Bay Area Government Regional Housing Needs Allocation (ABAG). 2022. https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022- 04/Final_RHNA_Methodology_Report_2023-2031_March2022_Update.pdf California Department of Conservation Division of Mines And Geology. Aggregate Materials In The San Francisco-Monterey Bay Area - SPECIAL REPORT 146 Part III Classification of Aggregate Resource Areas NORTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY PRODUCTION-CONSUMPTION REGION. 1987.

California Department of Finance. 2022. https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E5/ California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007. FHSZ Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed November 2022).

California Geological Survey Department of Conservation. 2013. Update of Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials In the North San Francisco Bay Production-Consumption Region, Sonoma, Napa, Marin, And Southwestern Solano Counties, California.

Cotati, City of. 2014. Cotati General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. September 2014.
http://cotati.generalplan.org/sites/default/files/Public%20Draft%20EIR_Cotati%20GP.pdf _____. 2015. Cotati General Plan. Adopted March 24, 2015. http://cotati.generalplan.org/sites/default/files/Cotati%20General%20Plan_Adopted_Final_ 3-24-15_0.pdf

8.2 List of Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this Addendum under contract to the City of Cotati. Persons involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control are listed below.

RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Matt Maddox, AICP, Principal-in-Charge
Aileen Mahoney, Project Manager
Amber McEldowney, Environmental Planner
Leanna Flaherty, Cultural Resources Specialist
Debra Jane Seltzer, Production Specialist

10.e
Packet Pg. 826 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) Appendix
A
Coast Miwok Ethnographic Context

10.e
Packet Pg. 827 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) Ethnographic Context: Coast Miwok
The City of Cotati is located in the traditional tribal territory of the Coast Miwok. Coast Miwok territory is centered on Marin and Sonoma Counties, extending roughly from Duncan’s Point south to Point Bonita, with the inland boundary east of the Sonoma River (Kelly 1978:414; Kroeber 1925:443). The Miwok Language consists of two dialect groups: the southern, or Marin group, and the western, or Bodega group (Kelly 1978:414).

The pre-contact Coast Miwok inhabited villages made up of conical dwellings, semi-subterranean sweathouses, and dance houses (Kelly 1978:417). Each village had a chief to oversee village affairs and social and ceremonial life was organized around moieties, or dichotomous groups, classed as either Land or Water (Kelly 1978:419).

Coast Miwok subsistence was based on hunting, gathering, and fishing (Kelly 1978: 415-417). Dried acorns and kelp were primary food sources during the winter and early spring when food was scarce.

Coast Miwok relied heavily on nearshore fish and shellfish and on fish from rivers, marshes, and the bay.

Hunting focused on deer, elk, bear, and small game. The material culture of the Coast Miwok included clamshell disk beads as currency, and a variety of stone tools, shell ornaments, ceremonial artifacts, and baskets (Kelly 1978: 417-418).

The Coast Miwok were exploited for labor by Mission Dolores, established in 1800 in San Francisco, and later by the Mexican land grant holders. As a direct result of the establishment of the mission system, the Coast Miwok population dramatically declined. After the establishment of the United States, the Coast Miwok were legally prevented from owning land in their traditional territories. Despite this, the Coast Miwok continued to populate the Marin area, often working as farm workers or in the fishing industry (Milliken et al. 2009; Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria 2016).

In 1920, the Bureau of Indian Affairs purchased a 15.45-acre tract of land in Graton, CA which was put into a federal trust and thus, the Graton Rancheria was formed. The development of the Graton Rancheria effectively consolidated the Coast Miwok and Southern Pomo groups into one entity, establishing them as a federally recognized tribe (Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria 2016).

However, in 1958 Congress passed the California Rancheria Act of 1958 which led the termination of 41 California Rancherias, including the Graton Rancheria. Graton Rancheria was removed from federal trust and federal recognition of the tribe was terminated. Despite this setback, tribal members continued to protect their cultural identity, preserving important tribal and archaeological sites within their traditional and ancestral territory. Between 1990 and 1992 tribal members traveled to Washington, D.C., in effort to restore their federal status but it wasn’t until 2000 that President Clinton finally signed legislation restoring federal recognition to the tribe, which had been renamed the Federated Indians of Grafton Rancheria. The tribe was able to purchase 254 acres of land in 2005 for its reservation located near Rohnert Park, CA where they now operate the Graton Resort and Casino, and in doing so, the tribe is able to provide programs and services to Tribal Citizens (Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria 2016).

10.e
Packet Pg. 828 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) References Cited
Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria
2016 History. Electronic Resource. https://gratonrancheria.com/culture/history/. Accessed September 27, 2021.

Kroeber, Alfred L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bulletin 78, Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Reprinted 1976 by Dover Publications, Inc., New York.

Kelly, Isabel
1978 Coast Miwok. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8 (California), edited by William C. Sturtevant and Robert F. Heizer, pp. 414-425. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Milliken, Randall, Laurence Shoup, and Beverly Ortiz
2009 Ohlone/Costanoan Indians of the San Francisco Peninsula and Their Neighbors, Yesterday and Today. National Park Service, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, San Francisco, California.

10.e
Packet Pg. 829 Attachment: Exhibit C - Cotati HE_Final Addendum_March 2023 (Housing Element CC Resolution) FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
REPORT
FOR
THE
2013 COTATI GENERAL
PLAN
UPDATE
SCH# 2013082037

NOVEMBER
2014
Prepared
for:

City
of
Cotati
Community
Development
Department
201
West
Sierra
Avenue
Cotati,
CA
94931
Prepared
by:

De
Novo
Planning
Group
1020
Suncast
Lane,
Suite
106
El
Dorado
Hills,
CA
95762
www.denovoplanning.com
De
Novo
Planning
Group
A
Land
Use
Planning,
Design,
and
Environmental
Firm

10.f
Packet Pg. 830 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution) FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
REPORT
FOR
THE
2013 COTATI

GENERAL
PLAN
UPDATE
SCH# 2013082037

NOVEMBER
2014
Prepared
for:

City
of
Cotati
Community
Development
Department
201
West
Sierra
Avenue
Cotati,
CA
94931
Prepared
by:

De
Novo
Planning
Group
1020
Suncast
Lane,
Suite
106
El
Dorado
Hills,
CA
95762
www.denovoplanning.com

10.f
Packet Pg. 831 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution) TABLE
OF

CONTENTS TOC
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan TOC-‐1
FINAL
EIR
Chapter Page
Number
Executive
Summary .................................................................................................................... ES-‐1

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................1.0-‐1

1.1 Purpose
and
Intended
Uses
of
the
EIR ...................................................................1.0-‐1

1.2 Environmental
Review
Process ..............................................................................1.0-‐2

1.3 Organization
of
the
Final
EIR ..................................................................................1.0-‐4

2.0 Comments
on
Draft
EIR
and
Responses..............................................................................2.0-‐1

2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................2.0-‐1

2.2 List
of
Commenters ................................................................................................2.0-‐1

2.3 Comments
and
Responses .....................................................................................2.0-‐2

3.0 Errata...................................................................................................................................3.0-‐1

3.1 Revisions
to
the
Draft
EIR.......................................................................................3.0-‐1 Table Page
Number
Table
2-‐1:

List
of
Commenters
on
Draft
EIR ..............................................................................2.0-‐1

10.f
Packet Pg. 832 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

TOC TABLE
OF

CONTENTS
TOC-‐2 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.

10.f
Packet Pg. 833 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY ES
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan ES-‐1

INTRODUCTION
The
City
of
Cotati
(City)
has
determined
that
a
program-‐level
environmental
impact
report
(EIR)
is

required
for
the
proposed
2013
General
Plan
(Project)
pursuant
to
the
requirements
of
the

California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(CEQA).

CEQA
requires
the
preparation
of
an
EIR
prior
to

approving
any
project,
which
may
have
a
significant
impact
on
the
environment.

For
the
purposes

of
CEQA,
the
term
"Project"
refers
to
the
whole
of
an
action,
which
has
the
potential
for
resulting

in
a
direct
physical
change
or
a
reasonably
foreseeable
indirect
physical
change
in
the
environment

(CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15378[a]).

A
Program
EIR
is
an
EIR
which
examines
the
environmental
impacts
of
an
agency
plan,
policy,
or

regulatory
program,
such
as
a
general
plan
update.

Program
EIRs
analyze
broad
environmental

impacts
of
the
program,
with
the
acknowledgement
that
site-‐specific
environmental
review
may

be
required
for
particular
aspects
of
the
program,
or
particular
development
projects
that
may

occur
in
the
future.

Cotati
circulated
a
Notice
of
Preparation
(NOP)
of
an
EIR
for
the
proposed
project
on
August
12,

2013
to
trustee
and
responsible
agencies,
the
State
Clearinghouse,
and
the
public.

A
scoping

meeting
was
held
on
August
19,
2013
with
the
Cotati
Planning
Commission.

Subsequently,
Cotati

published
a
public
Notice
of
Availability
(NOA)
for
the
Draft
EIR
on
September
9,
2014,
inviting

comment
from
the
general
public,
agencies,
organizations,
and
other
interested
parties.

The
NOA

was
filed
with
the
State
Clearinghouse
(SCH#
2013082037)
and
was
published
in
the
Press

Democrat
pursuant
to
the
public
noticing
requirements
of
CEQA.

The
Draft
EIR
was
available
for

public
review
from
September
9,
2014
through
October
24,
2014.

The
Public
Draft
2013
General

Plan
was
also
available
for
public
review
and
comment
during
this
time
period.

This
Final
EIR
was
prepared
to
address
comments
received
in
response
to
the
Draft
EIR.

The
City

has
prepared
a
written
response
to
the
Draft
EIR
comments
and
made
textual
changes
to
the
Draft

EIR
where
warranted.

The
responses
to
the
comments
are
provided
in
this
Final
EIR
in
Section

2.0,

and
all
changes
to
the
text
of
the
Draft
EIR
are
summarized
in
Section

3.0. Responses
to
comments

received
during
the
comment
period
do
not
involve
any
new
significant
impacts
or
“significant
new

information”
that
would
require
recirculation
of
the
Draft
EIR
pursuant
to
CEQA
Guidelines
Section

15088.5.

PROJECT

DESCRIPTION
The
2013
Cotati
General
Plan
is
the
overarching
policy
document
that
guides
land
use,
housing,

transportation,
infrastructure,
community
services,
and
other
policy
decisions
throughout
Cotati.

The
General
Plan
includes
the
seven
elements
mandated
by
State
law,
to
the
extent
that
they
are

relevant
locally,
including:

Circulation,
Conservation,
Housing,
Land
Use,
Noise,
Open
Space,
and

Safety.

The
City
may
also
address
other
topics
of
interest;
this
General
Plan
includes
Community

Health
and
Wellness,
Community
Services
and
Facilities,
and
Economic
Vitality
Elements.

The

General
Plan
sets
out
the
goals,
policies,
and
programs
in
each
of
these
areas
and
serves
as
a

policy
guide
for
how
the
City
will
make
key
planning
decisions
in
the
future,
and
how
the
City
will

10.f
Packet Pg. 834 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

ES EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY
ES-‐2 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan
interact
with
the
Sonoma
County,
surrounding
cities,
and
other
local,
regional,
State,
and
Federal

agencies.

The
General
Plan
contains
the
goals
and
policies
that
will
guide
future
decisions
within
the
city.

also
identifies
actions
that
will
ensure
the
goals
and
policies
in
the
General
Plan
are
carried
out.

Refer
to
Section

2.0 (Project
Description)
of
the
Draft
EIR
for
a
more
comprehensive
description
of

the
details
of
the
proposed
project.

ALTERNATIVES
TO
THE

PROPOSED

PROJECT
Section
15126.6
of
the
CEQA
Guidelines
requires
an
EIR
to
describe
a
reasonable
range
of

alternatives
to
the
project
or
to
the
location
of
the
project
which
would
reduce
or
avoid
significant

impacts,
and
which
could
feasibly
accomplish
the
basic
objectives
of
the
proposed
project.

The

alternatives
analyzed
in
this
EIR
are
briefly
described
as
follows:
• Alternative
1:

No
Project
Alternative.

Under
Alternative
1,
the
City
would
not
adopt
the

General
Plan
Update.

The
1998
General
Plan
would
continue
to
be
implemented
and
no

changes
to
the
General
Plan,
including
the
Land
Use
Map
(see
Figure

3.9-‐3),
Circulation

Diagram,
goals,
policies,
or
actions
would
occur.

Subsequent
projects,
such
as
amending

the
Municipal
Code,
including
the
Land
Use
Code
and
zoning
map,
and
the
Design
Review

Criteria
would
not
occur.

• Alternative
2:

Open
Space
and
Parks/Reduced
Development
Alternative.

As
shown
on

Figure

5.0-‐1,
Alternative
2 would
revise
the
General
Plan
Update
to
increase
the
amount
of

open
space
and
parks
uses
and
reduce
development
associated
with
commercial,

industrial,
and
residential
uses.

General
Commercial,
Commercial
Industrial,
and
Low

Medium
Density
Residential
uses
would
be
decreased
in
the
City
and
SOI
and
would
be

replaced
with
less
intense
uses,
primarily
Open
Space/Parks.

This
alternative
was

developed
to
reduce
impacts
associated
with
scenic
resources,
traffic
noise,
traffic
impacts

to
US
101
and
SR
116,
and
to
reduce
cumulative
impacts
associated
with
development.

• Alternative
3:

Reduced
Land
Use
Intensity
Alternative.

Under
Alternative
3,
urban
and

industrial
development
under
the
General
Plan
Update
Land
Use
Map
would
be
focused

more
tightly
around
the
City
as
shown
on
Figure

5.0-‐2.

General
Commercial,
Commercial

Industrial,
and
Low
Medium
Density
Residential
uses
would
be
decreased
in
the
City
and

SOI
and
would
be
replaced
with
less
intense
uses,
such
as
agricultural
and
rural
residential.

This
alternative
was
developed
to
reduce
impacts
associated
with
scenic
resources,
traffic

noise,
traffic
impacts
to
US
101
and
SR
116,
and
to
reduce
cumulative
impacts
associated

with
development.

Alternatives
are
described
in
detail
in
Section

5.0 of
the
Draft
EIR.

As
summarized
in
Table
5-‐7
of

the
Draft
EIR,
Alternative
2 (Open
Space
and
Parks/Reduced
Development)
is
the
environmentally

superior
alternative
because
it
provides
the
greatest
reduction
of
potential
impacts
in
comparison

to
the
other
alternatives.

10.f
Packet Pg. 835 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY ES
ES-‐3 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan

COMMENTS

RECEIVED
The
Draft
EIR
addresses
environmental
impacts
associated
with
the
proposed
project
that
were

known
to
the
City,
raised
during
the
Notice
of
Preparation
(NOP)
process,
or
raised
during

preparation
of
the
Draft
EIR.

The
Draft
EIR
discusses
potentially
significant
impacts
associated
with

aesthetics/visual
resources,
air
quality,
biological/natural
resources,
cultural
resources,

geology/soils/minerals,
greenhouse
gases/climate
change,
hazards,
hydrology/water
quality,
land

use/agricultural
resources/population,
noise,
public
services/recreation,

transportation/circulation,
utilities,
and
cumulative
impacts.

NOP
Comments
During
the
NOP
process,
the
City
received
one
comment
letter
from
the
California
Public
Utilities

Commission.

Draft
EIR
Comments
During
the
Draft
EIR
review
process,
the
City
received
comments
from
the
following
public

agencies,
organizations,
or
individuals:
• Erik
Alm,
Caltrans
• Beth
Dadko,
Sonoma
County
• Jenny
Blaker,
Resident
• Bryant
R.

Moynihan,
Nexus
Realty
Group
• Robin
Miller,
Cotati
Vintners
Collective
• Robin
Miller,
Highway
116
Associated
Investors
• Robin
Miller,
Townsend
Capital
Partners
• Linell
Hardy,
Resident
Acting
as
lead
agency,
the
City
of
Cotati
has
prepared
a
response
to
the
Draft
EIR
comments.

The

responses
to
the
comments
are
provided
in
this
Final
EIR
in
Section

2.0 (Comments
on
Draft
EIR

and
Responses)
and
all
changes
to
the
text
of
the
Draft
EIR
are
summarized
in
Section

3.0 (Errata).

Responses
to
comments
received
during
the
comment
period
do
not
involve
any
new
significant

impacts
or
“significant
new
information”
that
would
require
recirculation
of
the
Draft
EIR
pursuant

to
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15088.5.

10.f
Packet Pg. 836 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

ES EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY
ES-‐4 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan
This
page
left
intentionally
blank.

10.f
Packet Pg. 837 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution) INTRODUCTION 1.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan 1.0-‐1
This
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
(FEIR)
was
prepared
in
accordance
with
the
California

Environmental
Quality
Act
(CEQA)
and
the
State
CEQA
Guidelines
(Section
15132).

The
City
of

Cotati
is
the
lead
agency
for
the
environmental
review
of
the
2013
Cotati
General
Plan
(General

Plan,
General
Plan
Update,
or
Project)
and
has
the
principal
responsibility
for
approving
the

project.

This
FEIR
assesses
the
expected
environmental
impacts
resulting
from
approval
and

adoption
of
the
2013
Cotati
General
Plan
and
responds
to
comments
received
on
the
Draft
EIR.

The
2013
Cotati
General
Plan
is
the
overarching
policy
document
that
guides
land
use,
housing,

transportation,
infrastructure,
community
services,
and
other
policy
decisions
throughout
Cotati.

The
General
Plan
includes
the
seven
elements
mandated
by
State
law,
to
the
extent
that
they
are

relevant
locally,
including:

Circulation,
Conservation,
Housing,
Land
Use,
Noise,
Open
Space,
and

Safety.

The
City
may
also
address
other
topics
of
interest;
this
General
Plan
includes
Community

Health
and
Wellness,
Community
Services
and
Facilities,
and
Economic
Vitality
Elements.

The

General
Plan
sets
out
the
goals,
policies,
and
programs
in
each
of
these
areas
and
serves
as
a

policy
guide
for
how
the
City
will
make
key
planning
decisions
in
the
future,
and
how
the
City
will

interact
with
the
Sonoma
County,
surrounding
cities,
and
other
local,
regional,
State,
and
Federal

agencies.

1.1 PURPOSE
AND

INTENDED
USES
OF
THE
EIR

CEQA REQUIREMENTS
FOR
A
FINAL
EIR
This
FEIR
for
the
2013
Cotati
General
Plan
has
been
prepared
in
accordance
with
the
California

Environmental
Quality
Act
(CEQA)
and
State
CEQA
Guidelines.

State
CEQA
Guidelines
Section

15132
requires
that
an
FEIR
consist
of
the
following:

• the
Draft
Environmental
Impact
Report
(Draft
EIR)
or
a
revision
of
the
draft;

• comments
and
recommendations
received
on
the
Draft
EIR,
either
verbatim
or
in

summary;

• a
list
of
persons,
organizations,
and
public
agencies
commenting
on
the
Draft
EIR;

• the
responses
of
the
lead
agency
to
significant
environmental
concerns
raised
in
the

review
and
consultation
process;
and

• any
other
information
added
by
the
lead
agency.

In
accordance
with
State
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15132(a),
the
Draft
EIR
is
incorporated
by

reference
into
this
Final
EIR.

An
EIR
must
disclose
the
expected
environmental
impacts,
including
impacts
that
cannot
be

avoided,
growth-‐inducing
effects,
impacts
found
not
to
be
significant,
and
significant
cumulative

impacts,
as
well
as
identify
mitigation
measures
and
alternatives
to
the
proposed
project
that

could
reduce
or
avoid
its
adverse
environmental
impacts.

CEQA
requires
government
agencies
to

consider
and,
where
feasible,
minimize
environmental
impacts
of
proposed
projects,
and
obligates

them
to
balance
a
variety
of
public
objectives,
including
economic,
environmental,
and
social

factors.

10.f
Packet Pg. 838 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-‐2 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan

PURPOSE
AND
USE
The
City
of
Cotati,
as
the
lead
agency,
has
prepared
this
Final
EIR
to
provide
the
public
and

responsible
and
trustee
agencies
with
an
objective
analysis
of
the
potential
environmental
impacts

resulting
from
approval
and
implementation
of
the
2013
General
Plan.

Responsible
and
trustee

agencies
that
may
use
the
EIR
are
identified
in
Chapter

1.0 of
the
Draft
EIR.

The
environmental
review
process
enables
interested
parties
to
evaluate
the
proposed
project
in

terms
of
its
environmental
consequences,
to
examine
and
recommend
methods
to
eliminate
or

reduce
potential
adverse
impacts,
and
to
consider
a
reasonable
range
of
alternatives
to
the

project.

While
CEQA
requires
that
consideration
be
given
to
avoiding
adverse
environmental

effects,
the
lead
agency
must
balance
adverse
environmental
effects
against
other
public

objectives,
including
the
economic
and
social
benefits
of
a
project,
in
determining
whether
a

project
should
be
approved.

This
EIR
will
be
used
as
the
primary
environmental
document
to
evaluate
all
subsequent
planning

and
permitting
actions
associated
with
the
proposed
project.

Subsequent
actions
that
may
be

associated
with
the
proposed
project
are
identified
in
Chapter

2.0 (Project
Description)
of
the

Draft
EIR.

This
EIR
may
also
be
used
by
other
agencies
within
Sonoma
County,
including
the

Sonoma
Local
Agency
Formation
Commission
(LAFCO),
which
may
use
this
EIR
during
the

preparation
of
environmental
documents
related
to
annexations,
Municipal
Service
Reviews,
and

Sphere
of
Influence
decisions
in
the
Cotati
Planning
Area.

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW

PROCESS
The
review
and
certification
process
for
the
EIR
has
involved,
or
will
involve,
the
following
general

procedural
steps:

NOTICE
OF

PREPARATION

The
City
of
Cotati
circulated
a
Notice
of
Preparation
(NOP)
of
an
EIR
for
the
proposed
project
on

August
12,
2013
to
trustee
and
responsible
agencies,
the
State
Clearinghouse,
and
the
public.

scoping
meeting
was
held
on
August
19,
2013
with
the
Cotati
Planning
Commission.

No
public
or

agency
comments
on
the
NOP
related
to
the
EIR
analysis
were
presented
or
submitted
during
the

scoping
meeting.

However,
during
the
30-‐day
public
review
period
for
the
NOP,
which
ended
on

September
12,
2013,
a
written
comment
letter
from
the
California
Public
Utilities
Commission

(CPUC)
was
received.

A
summary
of
the
CPUC
comment
is
provided
later
in
this
chapter.

The
NOP

and
all
comments
received
on
it
are
presented
in
Appendix
A
of
the
Draft
EIR.

NOTICE
OF

AVAILABILITY
AND
DRAFT
EIR
The
City
of
Cotati
published
a
public
Notice
of
Availability
(NOA)
for
the
Draft
EIR
on
September
9,

2014,
inviting
comment
from
the
general
public,
agencies,
organizations,
and
other
interested

parties.

The
NOA
was
filed
with
the
State
Clearinghouse
(SCH#
2013082037)
and
was
published
in

the
Press
Democrat
pursuant
to
the
public
noticing
requirements
of
CEQA.

The
Draft
EIR
was

10.f
Packet Pg. 839 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution) INTRODUCTION 1.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan 1.0-‐3
available
for
public
review
from
September
9,
2014
through
October
24,
2014.

The
Public
Draft

2013
General
Plan
was
also
available
for
public
review
and
comment
during
this
time
period.

The
Draft
EIR
contains
a
description
of
the
project,
description
of
the
environmental
setting,

identification
of
project
impacts,
and
mitigation
measures
for
impacts
found
to
be
significant,
as

well
as
an
analysis
of
project
alternatives,
identification
of
significant
irreversible
environmental

changes,
growth-‐inducing
impacts,
and
cumulative
impacts.

The
Draft
EIR
identifies
issues

determined
to
have
no
impact
or
a
less
than
significant
impact,
and
provides
detailed
analysis
of

potentially
significant
and
significant
impacts.

Comments
received
in
response
to
the
NOP
were

considered
in
preparing
the
analysis
in
the
Draft
EIR.

RESPONSE
TO

COMMENTS/FINAL
EIR
The
City
of
Cotati
received
eight
comment
letters
regarding
the
Draft
General
Plan
and
Draft
EIR

from
public
agencies,
organizations,
and
members
of
the
public
during
the
45-‐day
review
period.

In
accordance
with
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15088,
this
Final
EIR
responds
to
the
written

comments
received
on
the
Draft
EIR.

The
Final
EIR
also
contains
minor
edits
to
the
Draft
EIR,

which
are
included
in
Chapter

3.0 (Errata).

This
document
and
the
Draft
EIR,
as
amended
herein,

constitute
the
Final
EIR.

CERTIFICATION
OF
THE

EIR/PROJECT

CONSIDERATION

The
Cotati
City
Council
will
review
and
consider
the
Final
EIR.

If
the
City
Council
finds
that
the
Final

EIR
is
"adequate
and
complete,"
then
it
may
certify
it
in
accordance
with
CEQA.

The
rule
of

adequacy
generally
holds
that
an
EIR
can
be
certified
if:
1) The
EIR
shows
a
good
faith
effort
at
full
disclosure
of
environmental
information;
and

2) The
EIR
provides
sufficient
analysis
to
allow
decisions
to
be
made
regarding
the
proposed

project
in
contemplation
of
environmental
considerations.

Upon
review
and
consideration
of
the
Final
EIR,
the
Cotati
City
Council
may
take
action
to
approve,

revise,
or
reject
the
project.

A
decision
to
approve
the
2013
Cotati
General
Plan,
for
which
this
EIR

identifies
significant
environmental
effects,
must
be
accompanied
by
written
findings
in

accordance
with
State
CEQA
Guidelines
Sections
15091
and
15093.

Policies
and
actions
to
mitigate
potential
environmental
impacts
have
been
incorporated
into
the

project,
to
the
extent
feasible.

No
additional
mitigation
is
feasible
or
available,
as
described
in

Chapters

3.1 through

4.0 of
the
Draft
EIR.

The
annual
report
on
general
plan
status
required

pursuant
to
the
Government
Code
will
serve
as
the
monitoring
and
reporting
program
for
the

project.

10.f
Packet Pg. 840 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0-‐4 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan

1.3 ORGANIZATION
OF
THE
FINAL
EIR
This
Final
EIR
has
been
prepared
consistent
with
Section
15132
of
the
State
CEQA
Guidelines,

which
identifies
the
content
requirements
for
Final
EIRs.

This
Final
EIR
is
organized
in
the
following

manner:

CHAPTER

1.0 – INTRODUCTION
Chapter

1.0 briefly
describes
the
purpose
of
the
environmental
evaluation,
identifies
the
lead

agency,
summarizes
the
process
associated
with
preparation
and
certification
of
an
EIR,
and

identifies
the
content
requirements
and
organization
of
the
Final
EIR.

CHAPTER

2.0 – COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND

RESPONSES
Chapter

2.0 provides
a
list
of
commenters,
copies
of
written
comments
made
on
the
Draft
EIR

(coded
for
reference),
and
responses
to
those
written
comments.

CHAPTER

3.0 -‐ ERRATA
Chapter

3.0 consists
of
minor
revisions
to
the
Draft
EIR
in
response
to
comments
on
the
Draft
EIR.

The
revisions
to
the
Draft
EIR
do
not
change
the
intent
or
content
of
the
analysis
or
mitigation.

10.f
Packet Pg. 841 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES 2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
2013 Cotati
General
Plan 2.0-‐1

2.1 INTRODUCTION
No
new
significant
environmental
impacts
or
issues,
beyond
those
already
covered
in
the
Draft

Environmental
Impact
Report
(Draft
EIR)
for
the
2013
Cotati
General
Plan
Update,
were
raised
during

the
comment
period.

Responses
to
comments
received
during
the
comment
period
do
not
involve
any

new
significant
impacts
or
“significant
new
information”
that
would
require
recirculation
of
the
Draft

EIR
pursuant
to
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15088.5.

CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15088.5
states
that:

New
information
added
to
an
EIR
is
not
“significant”

unless
the
EIR
is
changed
in
a
way
that
deprives
the
public
of
a
meaningful
opportunity
to
comment

upon
a
substantial
adverse
environmental
effect
of
the
project
or
a
feasible
way
to
mitigate
or
avoid

such
an
effect
(including
a
feasible
project
alternative)
that
the
project’s
proponents
have
declined
to

implement.

Chapters

2.0 and

3.0 of
this
Final
EIR
include
information
that
has
been
added
to
the
EIR
since
the
close

of
the
public
review
period
in
the
form
of
responses
to
comments
and
errata.

2.2 LIST
OF

COMMENTERS
Table
2-‐1
lists
the
comments
on
the
Draft
EIR
that
were
submitted
to
the
City
during
the
45-‐day
public

review
period.

The
assigned
comment
letter
number,
letter
date,
letter
author,
and
affiliation,
if

presented
in
the
comment
letter
or
if
representing
a
public
agency,
are
also
listed.

TABLE
2-1:

LIST
OF

COMMENTERS

RESPONSE
LETTER

INDIVIDUAL
OR

SIGNATORY

AFFILIATION DATE
A Erik
Alm,
AICP Caltrans 10/24/14
B Beth
Dadko Sonoma
County 10/24/14
C Jenny
Blaker Resident 10/24/14
D Bryant
R.

Moynihan Nexus
Realty
Group 9/9/14
E Robin
Miller Cotati
Vintners
Collective 10/23/14
F Robin
Miller Highway
116
Associated
Investors 10/23/14
G Robin
Miller Townsend
Capital
Partners 10/23/14
H Linell
Hardy Resident 10/24/14

10.f
Packet Pg. 842 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

2.0 COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND

RESPONSES

2.0-‐2 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan

2.3 COMMENTS
AND

RESPONSES

REQUIREMENTS
FOR

RESPONDING
TO

COMMENTS
ON
A
DRAFT
EIR
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15088
requires
that
lead
agencies
evaluate
and
respond
to
all
comments
on

the
Draft
EIR
that
regard
an
environmental
issue.

The
written
response
must
address
the
significant

environmental
issue
raised
and
be
detailed,
especially
when
specific
comments
or
suggestions
(e.g.,

additional
mitigation
measures)
are
not
accepted.

In
addition,
the
written
response
must
be
a
good

faith
and
reasoned
analysis.

However,
lead
agencies
only
need
to
respond
to
significant
environmental

issues
associated
with
the
project
and
do
not
need
to
provide
all
of
the
information
requested
by
the

commenter,
as
long
as
a
good
faith
effort
at
full
disclosure
is
made
in
the
EIR
(CEQA
Guidelines
Section

15204(a)).

CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15204
recommends
that
commenters
provide
detailed
comments
that
focus

on
the
sufficiency
of
the
Draft
EIR
in
identifying
and
analyzing
the
possible
environmental
impacts
of
the
project
and
ways
to
avoid
or
mitigate
the
significant
effects
of
the
project,
and
that
commenters

provide
evidence
supporting
their
comments.

Pursuant
to
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15064,
an
effect

shall
not
be
considered
significant
in
the
absence
of
substantial
evidence.

CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15088
also
recommends
that
revisions
to
the
Draft
EIR
be
noted
as
a
revision

in
the
Draft
EIR
or
as
a
separate
section
of
the
Final
EIR.

Chapter

3.0 of
this
Final
EIR
identifies
all

revisions
to
the
2013
Cotati
General
Plan
Update
Draft
EIR.

RESPONSES
TO

COMMENT

LETTERS
Written
comments
on
the
Draft
EIR
are
reproduced
on
the
following
pages,
along
with
responses
to

those
comments.

To
assist
in
referencing
comments
and
responses,
the
following
coding
system
is

used:
• Each
comment
letter
is
lettered
(i.e.,
Letter
A),
each
comment
within
each
letter
is

numbered
(i.e.,
Comment
A-‐1,
Comment
A-‐2,
etc.),
and
each
response
is
numbered

correspondingly
(i.e.,
Response
A-‐1,
Response
A-‐2,
etc.).

Where
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
text
result
from
the
response
to
comments,
those
changes
are
included

in
the
response
and
identified
with
revisions
marks
(underline for
new
text, strike
out
for
deleted
text).

10.f
Packet Pg. 843 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES 2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
2013 Cotati
General
Plan

2.0-‐3

10.f
Packet Pg. 844 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

2.0 COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND

RESPONSES

2.0-‐4 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan

10.f
Packet Pg. 845 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES 2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
2013 Cotati
General
Plan

2.0-‐5
Response
to
Letter
A

Erik
Alm,
AICP,
Caltrans
Response
A-‐1: The
commenter
correctly
notes
that
traffic
volumes
at
intersections
4 and
5 are

higher
under
the
General
Plan
Buildout
to

SOI/UGB
alternative
than
they
are
for
the

General
Plan
Buildout
to
City
Limits
alternative,
and
asks
why
the
intersection
levels

of
service
are
not
correspondingly
worse.

The
reason
is
that
the
General
Plan

includes
additional
roadway
improvements
under
the
Buildout
to

SOI/UGB

alternative
beyond
those
assumed
in
the
City
Limits
alternative.

These
additional

improvements
are
identified
on
pages

3.12-‐21
through

3.12-‐23
of
the
DEIR
and

include
a
second
right-‐turn
pocket
on
the
southbound
off-‐ramp,
as
well
as

improvements
at
upstream
and
downstream
intersections
that
allow
the
Gravenstein

Highway
corridor
and
interchange-‐area
intersections
to
operate
more
efficiently
(and

at
better
LOS).

Response
A-‐2: The
commenter
notes
a
typo
regarding
traffic
volumes
on
Intersection
12 on
Figure

3.12-‐9.

The
commenter
is
correct.

The
figure
incorrectly
showed
216
southbound

AM
approach
trips,
rather
than
correctly
showing
21 trips.

This
typo
has
been

corrected.

The
revised
and
corrected
figure
is
included
in
Section

3.0 of
this
Final
EIR.

The
analysis
in
the
Draft
EIR
used
the
correct
trip
numbers.

The
error
was
simply
a

typo
on
the
figure.

As
such,
the
analysis
and
conclusions
in
the
Draft
EIR
were
not

affected
by
this
minor
figure
error.

Response
A-‐3: The
commenter
states
that
proposed
roadway
and
signal
improvements
on
State

Route
116
should
meet
necessary
warrants
and
should
be
coordinated
with
Caltrans.

This
comment
is
noted.

The
City
will
coordinate
with
Caltrans,
as
applicable
and

appropriate,
on
future
roadway
improvements
on
State
facilities.

Response
A-‐4: The
commenter
states
that
traffic
controls
within
the
State
Right
of
Way
must
meet

required
warrants
and
provides
a
web
link
to
guidance
documents
on
Caltrans

standards.

This
comment
is
noted.

The
City
will
coordinate
with
Caltrans,
as

applicable
and
appropriate,
on
future
roadway
improvements
within
the
State
Right

of
Way.

10.f
Packet Pg. 846 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

2.0 COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND

RESPONSES

2.0-‐6 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan

10.f
Packet Pg. 847 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES 2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
2013 Cotati
General
Plan

2.0-‐7
Response
to
Letter
B

Beth
Dadko,
Sonoma
County
Response
B-‐1: The
commenter
provides
a
range
of
suggested
language
related
to
community
health

and
wellness
policies
in
the
Draft
General
Plan.

The
City
appreciates
this
input,
and

these
comments
and
suggestions
have
been
forwarded
to
the
City
Council
for
their

review
and
consideration.

Given
that
these
comments
do
not
address
the
adequacy

of
the
Draft
EIR
and
would
have
no
bearing
on
the
environmental
analysis,
no

changes
to
the
EIR
are
warranted.

10.f
Packet Pg. 848 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

2.0 COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND

RESPONSES

2.0-‐8 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan

10.f
Packet Pg. 849 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES 2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
2013 Cotati
General
Plan

2.0-‐9

10.f
Packet Pg. 850 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

2.0 COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND

RESPONSES

2.0-‐10 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan

Response
to
Letter
C

Jenny
Blaker
Response
C-‐1: The
commenter
notes
that
the
California
tiger
salamander
(CTS)
population
in

Sonoma
County
is
actually
listed
as
Federally
Endangered,
not
Threatened.

The

commenter
also
indicates
that
she
believes
that
this
is
significant
because
of
the

different
level
of
protection
afforded
to
species
listed
as endangered
as
opposed
to

threatened.

The
commenter
is
correct;
the
Sonoma
County
population
of
CTS
is
federal

Endangered.

This
comment
warrants
revisions
on
Page

3.3-‐10
as
follows:

TABLE

3.3-‐3: SPECIAL
STATUS

ANIMALS

PRESENT
OR

POTENTIALLY

PRESENT
IN
COTATI

SPECIES STATUS

HABITAT

AMPHIBIANS
Ambystoma

californiense

California
tiger

salamander
FE
(Sonoma
County

DPS)/CT
FT/CT
Need
underground
refuges,
especially
ground

squirrel
burrows
and
vernal
pools
or
other
seasonal

water
sources
for
breeding.

The
error
originated
because
the
CNDDB
database
(May
2011
and
November
2014

queries)
provide
a
“Federal
Status”
of
Threatened
when
a
query
is
run
for
special

status
species
in
Sonoma
County.

The
CNDDB
notes
under
“General
Habitat”
indicate

that
the
Sonoma
County
Distinct
Population
Segment
(DPS)
is
federally
listed
as

endangered,
even
though
this
is
not
noted
under
“Federal
Status.”
Regardless,
the

correct
federal
status
is
“Endangered”
for
all
CTS
in
Sonoma
County’s
DPS,
including

those
in
and
around
the
City
of
Cotati.

The
California
status
is
“Threatened.”
The
commenter
is
correct
that
an
Endangered
listing
receives
a
different
level
of

protection
under
the
federal
Endangered
Species
Act;
however,
it
should
be
noted

that
under
CEQA
they
are
treated
equally
as
special
status
species. All
of
the

protections
of
the
federal
Endangered
Species
Act
are
provided
to
Endangered

species.

Many,
but
not
all,
of
the
protections
of
the
federal
Endangered
Species
Act

are
available
to
Threatened
species.

Under
CEQA,
however,
both
Endangered
and

Threatened
listings
warrant
a
species
to
fall
under
the
category
of
“Special
Status

Species,”
which
is
defined
on
page

3.3-‐1
and

3.3-‐2
of
the
Draft
EIR.

More
specifically,

the
term
“Special
Status
Species”
encompasses
those
species
that
are
“Federally

listed
or
proposed
for
listing
under
the
Federal
Endangered
Species
Act
(50
CFR

17.11-‐17.12).”
This
broad
definition
provides
an
equal
treatment
for
federally

Endangered,
Threatened,
and
even
those
species
that
are
a
Candidate
for
listing

when
they
are
not
currently
listed.

As
such,
the
City
of
Cotati
has
developed
policies

that
broadly
discuss
“Special
Status
Species”
regardless
of
whether
their
protective

status
is
federally
“Endangered”
or
“Threatened.”

10.f
Packet Pg. 851 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES 2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
2013 Cotati
General
Plan

2.0-‐11
The
commenter
has
also
noted
that
in
the
last
couple
of
years
information
about
a

newly
discovered
CTS
breeding
site
was
submitted
by
local
experts
to
the
California

Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
and
listed
in
the
CNDDB.

The
commenter
noted
that

the
most
recent
updates
to
the
CNDDB
added
this
information
and
that
the

information
should
be
taken
into
account.

This
comment
warranted
a
new
CNDDB
database
query
(November
2014).

The
new

CNDDB
query
shows
an
additional
CTS
occurrence
record
located
at
the
corner
of

McGinnis
Circle
and
Ross
Street.

The
occurrence
record
indicates
that
the
occurrence

is
from
a
constructed
mitigation
vernal
pool
on
an
approximately
two-‐acre

neighborhood
lot.

There
are
roads
on
two
sides
and
foot
paths
through
the
lot.

The

site
is
a
narrow
habitat
corridor
that
links
to
the
upper
Laguna
Channel.

The
upland

habitat
is
dense
non-‐native
grasses.

The
pool
habitat
had
emergent
vegetation
and
is

up
to
ten
inches
deep.

The
updated
CNDDB
query
does
not
warrant
text
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR;
however,

Figure

3.3-‐2
and

3.3-‐3
on
Pages

3.3-‐47
and

3.3-‐49
were
updated
to
reflect
a

November
2014
query.

These
revised
figures
are
included
in
Chapter

3.0 of
this
Final

EIR.

Response
C-‐2: The
commenter
provides
a
range
of
suggested
language
related
to
conservation

policies
in
the
Draft
General
Plan.

The
City
appreciates
this
input,
and
these

comments
and
suggestions
have
been
forwarded
to
the
City
Council
for
their
review

and
consideration.

Given
that
these
comments
do
not
address
the
adequacy
of
the

Draft
EIR
and
would
have
no
bearing
on
the
environmental
analysis,
no
changes
to

the
EIR
are
warranted.

Response
C-‐3: The
commenter
provides
a
range
of
suggested
language
related
to
community
health

and
wellness
policies
in
the
Draft
General
Plan.

The
City
appreciates
this
input,
and

these
comments
and
suggestions
have
been
forwarded
to
the
City
Council
for
their

review
and
consideration.

Given
that
these
comments
do
not
address
the
adequacy

of
the
Draft
EIR
and
would
have
no
bearing
on
the
environmental
analysis,
no

changes
to
the
EIR
are
warranted.

Response
C-‐4: The
commenter
provides
a
range
of
suggested
language
related
to
community

services
and
facilities
policies
in
the
Draft
General
Plan.

The
City
appreciates
this

input,
and
these
comments
and
suggestions
have
been
forwarded
to
the
City
Council

for
their
review
and
consideration.

Given
that
these
comments
do
not
address
the

adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR
and
would
have
no
bearing
on
the
environmental
analysis,

no
changes
to
the
EIR
are
warranted.

Response
C-‐5: The
commenter
provides
a
range
of
suggested
language
related
to
noise
policies
in

the
Draft
General
Plan.

The
City
appreciates
this
input,
and
these
comments
and

10.f
Packet Pg. 852 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

2.0 COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND

RESPONSES

2.0-‐12 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan

suggestions
have
been
forwarded
to
the
City
Council
for
their
review
and

consideration.

Given
that
these
comments
do
not
address
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft

EIR
and
would
have
no
bearing
on
the
environmental
analysis,
no
changes
to
the
EIR

are
warranted.

Response
C-‐6: The
commenter
states
that
Thomas
Page
School
is
no
longer
an
elementary
school,

but
an
academy
for
grades
K-‐8.

The
commenter
is
correct.

Revisions
to
the
General

Plan
have
been
made
in
order
to
reflect
the
minor
name
change
of
this
school
and

the
inclusion
of
grades
7 and
8 to
this
school.

This
minor
correction
has
no
bearing

on
the
analysis
or
conclusions
contained
in
the
Draft
EIR.

Response
C-‐7: The
commenter
states
that
many
of
the
maps
in
the
General
Plan
are
too
small,
but

notes
that
they
are
provided
in
full
size
in
the
EIR.

The
commenter
is
also
directed
to

the
General
Plan
Existing
Conditions
Report,
which
serves
as
a
companion
document

to
the
General
Plan
Policy
Document.

The
small
figures
contained
in
the
Policy

Document
are
provided
as
full
sized
figures
in
both
the
Draft
EIR
and
the
Existing

Conditions
Report.

Response
C-‐8: The
commenter notes
discrepancies
in
labeling
for
Open
Space
and
Parks.

The

General
Plan
has
been
updated
to
resolve
these
discrepancies.

10.f
Packet Pg. 853 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES 2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
2013 Cotati
General
Plan

2.0-‐13

10.f
Packet Pg. 854 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

2.0 COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND

RESPONSES

2.0-‐14 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan

Response
to
Letter
D
Bryant
R.

Moynihan,
Nexus
Realty
Group
Response
D-‐1: The
commenter
provides
a
list
of
questions
related
to
public
outreach
and

engagement
during
the
General
Plan
Update,
and
inquires
about
elimination
of

Specific
Plan
areas
and
zoning
of
properties
along
the
Old
Redwood
Highway.

The

commenter
is
referred
to
the
General
Plan
Update
website
(cotati.generalplan.org)

which
contains
extensive
information
about
past
meetings,
public
hearings,

community
outreach,
and
other
relevant
data
regarding
the
General
Plan
Update.

The
General
Plan
Update
process
is
also
summarized
on
pages

2.0-‐1
through

2.0-‐3
of

the
Draft
EIR.

With
respect
to
Specific
Plan
areas
and
zoning,
the
commenter
is

directed
to
the
Land
Use
Map
and
the
General
Plan
Land
Use
Element.

As
shown
in

the
General
Plan,
the
existing
Specific
Plans
in
Cotati
have
not
been
eliminated.

The

General
Plan
does
not
change
the
zoning
of
any
specific
parcels
within
the
Planning

Area.

Changes
to
General
Plan
land
use
designations
are
shown
on
the
General
Plan

Land
Use
Map.

No
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
warranted.

10.f
Packet Pg. 855 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES 2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
2013 Cotati
General
Plan

2.0-‐15

10.f
Packet Pg. 856 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

2.0 COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND

RESPONSES

2.0-‐16 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan

Response
to
Letter
E

Robin
Miller,
Cotati
Vintners
Collective
Response
E-‐1: The
commenter
states
that
the
Cotati
Vintner’s
Collective
is
working
to
annex

property
into
the
City
of
Cotati.

This
comment
is
noted.

Response
E-‐2: The
commenter
provides
a
brief
summary
of
past
communications
with
the
City

regarding
the
subject
property
and
indicates
an
intention
to
submit
an
application
for

annexation
in
the
near
future.

This
comment
is
noted.

Response
E-‐3: The
commenter
expresses
a
desire
to
be
involved
in
future
amendments
to
the
Land

Use
Code
that
may
affect
uses
on
the
subject
property.

This
comment
is
noted.

changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
warranted.

10.f
Packet Pg. 857 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES 2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
2013 Cotati
General
Plan

2.0-‐17

10.f
Packet Pg. 858 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

2.0 COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND

RESPONSES

2.0-‐18 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan

10.f
Packet Pg. 859 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES 2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
2013 Cotati
General
Plan

2.0-‐19
Response
to
Letter
F

Robin
Miller,
Highway
116
Associated
Investors
Response
F-‐1: The
commenter
states
that
Highway
116
Associated
Investors,
LLC
is
working
to

develop
a
205-‐unit
residential
multifamily
development
near
the
corner
of
Highway

116
and
Alder
Avenue.

This
comment
is
noted.

Response
F-‐2: The
commenter
provides
a
brief
summary
of
past
communications
with
the
City

regarding
the
subject
property
and
indicates
an
intention
to
submit
an
application
for

development
in
the
near
future.

This
comment
is
noted.

Response
F-‐3: The
commenter
provides
suggested
changes
to
the
General
Plan
to
help

accommodate
the
project
contemplated
by
the
commenter.

This
input
has
been

forwarded
to
the
City
Council
for
their
consideration.

The
commenter
has
not

addressed
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
to
the
EIR
are
warranted.

Response
F-‐4: The
commenter
expresses
a
willingness
to
work
with
the
City
to
accommodate

planned
circulation
improvements
in
the
vicinity
of
the
subject
property.

This

comment
is
noted,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
warranted.

Response
F-‐5: The
commenter
states
that
if
the
City
chooses
to
accommodate
the
commenter’s

request
for
modifications
to
the
General
Plan
to
accommodate
the
subject
project,

the
Draft
EIR
would
need
to
be
revised
accordingly.

This
comment
is
noted.

If
and/or

when
the
commenter
or
other
party
submits
a
formal
application
for
development
or

re-‐designation
of
the
subject
property,
the
City
will
conduct
a
review
of
the

application
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
CEQA
and
City
planning
procedures.

At
this
time,
the
City
is
proceeding
with
approval
of
the
General
Plan
as
written,
and

as
such,
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
warranted.

The
potential
environmental

effects
of
a
future
application
would
be
addressed
under
CEQA
at
the
project-‐level,
if

and
when
an
application
is
received
and
processed
by
the
City.

10.f
Packet Pg. 860 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

2.0 COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND

RESPONSES

2.0-‐20 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan

10.f
Packet Pg. 861 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES 2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
2013 Cotati
General
Plan

2.0-‐21

10.f
Packet Pg. 862 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

2.0 COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND

RESPONSES

2.0-‐22 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan

Response
to
Letter
G

Robin
Miller,
Townsend
Capital
Partners
Response
G-‐1: The
commenter
states
that
Townsend
Capital
Partners,
LLC
is
working
to
develop
a

110-‐unit
assisted
living
and
memory
care
facility
near
the
corner
of
Highway
116
and

Alder
Avenue.

This
comment
is
noted.

Response
G-‐2: The
commenter
provides
a
brief
summary
of
past
communications
with
the
City

regarding
the
subject
property
and
indicates
an
intention
to
submit
an
application
for

development
in
the
near
future.

This
comment
is
noted.

Response
G-‐3: The
commenter
provides
suggested
changes
to
the
General
Plan
to
help

accommodate
the
project
contemplated
by
the
commenter.

This
input
has
been

forwarded
to
the
City
Council
for
their
consideration.

The
commenter
has
not

addressed
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft
EIR,
and
no
changes
to
the
EIR
are
warranted.

Response
G-‐4: The
commenter
expresses
a
willingness
to
work
with
the
City
to
accommodate

planned
circulation
improvements
in
the
vicinity
of
the
subject
property.

This

comment
is
noted,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
warranted.

Response
G-‐5: The
commenter
states
that
if
the
City
chooses
to
accommodate
the
commenter’s

request
for
modifications
to
the
General
Plan
to
accommodate
the
subject
project,

the
Draft
EIR
would
need
to
be
revised
accordingly.

This
comment
is
noted.

If
and/or

when
the
commenter
or
other
party
submits
a
formal
application
for
development
or

re-‐designation
of
the
subject
property,
the
City
will
conduct
a
review
of
the

application
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
CEQA
and
City
planning
procedures.

At
this
time,
the
City
is
proceeding
with
approval
of
the
General
Plan
as
written,
and

as
such,
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
warranted.

The
potential
environmental

effects
of
a
future
application
would
be
addressed
under
CEQA
at
the
project-‐level,
if

and
when
an
application
is
received
and
processed
by
the
City.

10.f
Packet Pg. 863 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES 2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
2013 Cotati
General
Plan

2.0-‐23

10.f
Packet Pg. 864 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

2.0 COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND

RESPONSES

2.0-‐24 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan

10.f
Packet Pg. 865 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND
RESPONSES 2.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
–
2013 Cotati
General
Plan

2.0-‐25
Response
to
Letter
H

Linell
Hardy
Response
H-‐1: The
commenter
provides
a
range
of
suggested
language
related
to
land
use
policies

in
the
Draft
General
Plan.

The
City
appreciates
this
input,
and
these
comments
and

suggestions
have
been
forwarded
to
the
City
Council
for
their
review
and

consideration.

Given
that
these
comments
do
not
address
the
adequacy
of
the
Draft

EIR
and
would
have
no
bearing
on
the
environmental
analysis,
no
changes
to
the
EIR

are
warranted.

Response
H-‐2: The
commenter
questions
how
drought
conditions
may
impact
future
water
supplies

and
inquires
about
the
use
recycled
water
systems
to
reduce
demand.

The

commenter
is
referred
to
pages

3.13-‐1
through

3.13-‐5
of
the
Draft
EIR,
which
include

a
detailed
description
of
existing
and
future
groundwater
supplies
and
surface
water
supplies.

The
discussion
includes
a
description
of
recycled
water
supplies,
and
is

based
on
information
contained
in
the
2010
Cotati
Urban
Water
Management
Plan

(UWMP).

In
compliance
with
State
law,
the
UWMP
includes
an
analysis
of
future

water
supplies
following
single,
and
multiple
dry
years
(drought
conditions).

The

analysis
under
Impact

3.13-‐1
in
the
Draft
EIR
demonstrates
that
adequate
water

supplies
existing
to
meet
demand
associated
with
General
Plan
buildout.

The
policies

and
actions
included
in
the
General
Plan
related
to
water
supplies
outline
and
detail

the
City’s
comprehensive
approach
to
ensure
that
adequate
water
supplies
are

available
to
meet
existing
and
projected
demand.

The
City
appreciates
the

comments
provided,
and
no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
warranted.

Response
H-‐3: The
commenter
notes
that
some
of
the
General
Plan
policies
and
actions
listed
in
the

Draft
EIR
include
references
to
figures
that
are
not
contained
in
the
Draft
EIR.

This

comment
is
noted.

The
Draft
EIR
includes
numerous
policies
and
actions
from
the

General
Plan
that
are
included
in
the
EIR
verbatim.

Some
of
these
policies
and

actions
reference
figures
contained
in
the
General
Plan.

This
comment
is
noted,
and

no
changes
to
the
Draft
EIR
are
warranted.

10.f
Packet Pg. 866 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution)

2.0 COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
EIR
AND

RESPONSES

2.0-‐26 Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan

This
page
left
intentionally
blank.

10.f
Packet Pg. 867 Attachment: Exhibit C1 - Final_EIR_Cotati_GPU (Housing Element CC Resolution) ERRATA 3.0
Final
Environmental
Impact
Report
– 2013
Cotati
General
Plan 3.0-‐1
This
chapter
includes
minor
edits
to
the
EIR.

These
modifications
resulted
from
responses
to

comments
received
during
the
Draft
EIR
public
review
period.

Revisions
herein
do
not
result
in
new
significant
environmental
impacts,
do
not
constitute

significant
new
information,
and
do
not
alter
the
conclusions
of
the
environmental
analysis
that

would
warrant
recirculation
of
the
Draft
EIR
pursuant
to
State
CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15088.5.

Changes
are
provided
in
revision
marks
with
underline
for
new
text
and
strike
out
for
deleted
text.

3.1 REVISIONS
TO
THE
DRAFT
EIR

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY
No
changes
were
made
to
the
Executive
Summary
of
the
Draft
EIR
(DEIR).

1.0 INTRODUCTION
No
changes
were
made
to
Chapter

1.0 of
the
DEIR.

2.0 PROJECT

Cotati City CouncilMarch 28, 2023

Cotati City Council
March 28, 2023