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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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)
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.
▫ 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
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.
Figure C3: Cotati Halloween Carnival Engagement
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.
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.
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
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)
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)
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 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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 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
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!
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... 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.
1 HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT: COTATI
ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning
2021-04-02
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 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
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 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. 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. 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.
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.
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 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 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. 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). 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
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. 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).
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.
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.
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). 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.
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.
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 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.
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). 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.
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 POPEMP-21.
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.
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.
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. 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).
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).
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 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. 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.
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.
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. 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.
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. 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).
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 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 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. 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. 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.
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 OVER-05.
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). 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.
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 OVER-08.
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).
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.
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 OVER-09.
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).
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.
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 SEN-03.
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. 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.
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 OVER-01.
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).
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.
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 OVER-04.
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) 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. 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).
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. 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). 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).
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.
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 SEN-01.
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.
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.
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).
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). 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). 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.
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-03.
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 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.
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-04.
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 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.
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 FARM-01.
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). 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%.
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. 1 AFFH SEGREGATION REPORT: COTATI
UC Merced Urban Policy Lab and ABAG/MTC Staff
Version of Record: March 06, 16:02:09
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 .............................................................................................................. 4
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 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 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. 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 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. 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. 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.
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 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).
11 Figure 2: Racial Isolation Index Values for Cotati Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.
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.
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). 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.
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.
14 Figure 3: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Cotati Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.
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.
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 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.
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. 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.
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.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
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 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.
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.
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. 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. 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.
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.
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%
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. 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.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
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. 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.
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. 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.