CALIFORNIANS FOR YIMBY "HDF
HOMEOWNERSHIP
LAW
December 16, 2022
Damien O'Bid
City Manager, City of Cotati
Via Email: [email protected]
RE: Failure to Timely Engage in the Sixth Cycle Housing Element Process Dear Mr. O'Bid:
YIMBY Law, Californians for Homeownership, and California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund are 501(c)(3) organizations devoted to using impact litigation and other legal tools to address California's housing crisis. We are writing to express serious concerns about the City's failure to timely engage in the process of developing its revised housing element. Because the City cannot legally meet the deadline for adopting its sixth cycle housing element update, we may initiate litigation against the City on or shortly after February 1, 2023 to compel the City to comply with housing element law.
Because there has been some misinformation spread among local agencies in the Bay Area about the deadlines for housing element adoption, we want to ensure that the City understands its obligations under state law. The City is required to adopt its sixth cycle housing element update by January 31, 2023.! There is no extension or "grace period" that modifies this deadline.? Indeed, the state government official ordinarily empowered to provide extensions for general plan adoption deadlines is statutorily prohibited from providing extensions of the housing element adoption deadline. And the City is not legally permitted to adopt a housing element update until 90 days have passed from the submission of an initial draft to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).4 Thus, in order to timely adopt a sixth cycle housing element, the City was required to submit a draft housing element to HCD by November 2, 2022. It did not do so.
Because the City will not be able to lawfully adopt a sixth cycle housing element update by January 31, 2023, it will be immediately subject to litigation under Government Code Section 65750 et seq. Housing element litigation is given near-complete priority in the court system. If ' Gov. Code § 65588(e)(3)(A).
2 We do not believe that there has been any good-faith confusion among Bay Area jurisdictions about this deadline.
But there has been a concerted effort by some to spread misinformation about the effect of Government Code Section 65588(e)(4)(C). Section 65588(e)(4)(C) does not create a grace period. Instead, it merely sets out a deadline for one specific penalty associated with non-compliance—the penalty modifying the rezoning time limit.
There is no ambiguity in the text of the statute as to the remaining penalties for housing element non-compliance; they apply after failure to adopt by the January 31, 2023 deadline. But even if idea of a "grace period" was the result of genuine confusion, that confusion was long ago put to bed in Southern California, whose cities and counties confronted these deadlines a year ago and learned (quite publicly) that no grace period applied. 3 Gov. Code § 65587(a).
4 Gov. Code § 65585(b)(1).
5 Gov. Code § 65752.
we are forced to litigate, in addition to being ordered to adopt a housing element on a short timeline, the City could also face a number of serious penalties. For example, the court could suspend permitting in the City, and it could judicially approve housing development projects within the City. The court could impose these penalties while the litigation is pending, even before reaching a final decision? And a successful plaintiff can obtain attorneys' fees under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5.
Each of our organizations has a long track record of successful litigation against local agencies that violate state housing laws. Californians for Homeownership, in particular, has filed ten lawsuits in Southern California this year over violations of housing element law, including lawsuits against eight cities for failing to timely adopt housing elements. And all three organizations intend to seek strict enforcement of the deadlines for housing element adoption in the Bay Area, including through litigation if necessary. We assure you: this is not an empty threat.
But we are writing to offer the City an alternative to litigation. Our organizations will forego immediate litigation against the City if the City signs the acknowledgement provided below, without modification. If the City would like to take advantage of this compromise offer, please send the signed acknowledgement to [email protected] by December 31, 2022. Please do not respond with a summary of the reasons the City's housing element will be tardy; we are familiar with the full range of explanations, having engaged in this process for over a year in Southern California. If the City would like to avoid litigation, it can do so by providing a signed acknowledgement, not a letter explaining why its process has taken so long.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to us by sending an email to [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected].
Sincerely,
Keith Diggs Matthew Gelfand Dylan Casey
YIMBY Law Californians for California Renters Legal
Homeownership Advocacy & Educ. Fund
CC: Noah Housh, Comm. Dev. Dir. (by email to [email protected]) John D. Bakker, Esq., City Attorney (by email to [email protected]) City Council (by email to Kevin Patterson, Deputy Clerk, [email protected]) • Gov. Code § 65754.
7 Gov. Code § 65755(a)(1).
8 Gov. Code § 65755(a)(4).
9 Gov. Code § 65757.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The City of Cotati hereby acknowledges that it cannot timely adopt a sixth cycle revised housing element of its general plan within the deadline set forth in Government Code Section 65588, and that its housing element will therefore not be in substantial compliance with Article
10.6 of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, starting on February 1, 2023.
As a result, the City acknowledges that, starting February 1, 2023 and until such time as the City adopts a housing element that is substantially compliant with Article 10.6, it will be prohibited from rejecting any housing development project based on subdivision (d)(1) or (d)(5) of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Government Code Section 65589.5. The City acknowledges that this means that, unless another exception within subdivision (d) applies, the City is prohibited from using its general plan and zoning standards to reject an application that meets the affordability requirements described in subdivision (h)(3) of the HAA.
The public, including without limitation any applicant to develop any project involving residential units, may rely on this Acknowledgment as the City's binding commitment to comply with the provisions of state law described above. The City agrees that, should litigation arise regarding the City's decision on any such project that is the subject of an application or preliminary application submitted between February 1, 2023 and the City's adoption of a substantially compliant housing element, the City will be estopped from relying on subdivision (d)(1) or (d)(5) of the HAA.
DATED: , 2022 CITY OF COTATI
By:
[Signature]
[Name]
Its:
[Title]
YIMBY CALIFORNIA
DYIMBY
LAW
February 28, 2022
Policy Recommendations for 6th Cycle Housing Element
Dear Planning staff:
YIMBY Law submits this letter to share our policy goals and recommendations for the Policies and Programs section of your Housing Element. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the Housing Element process.
The Policies and Programs section of the city's Housing Element must respond to data, analysis and findings presented in the Housing Needs section. We repeatedly see findings that housing prices are high, segregation exists, and there is a lack of housing for special populations, but the Policies and Programs don't respond to these findings or try to change outcomes. The overview of the city's housing environment should set the scene, and the policies and programs should explain what the city is going to do to fix it.
Our policy goals are as follows:
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
1. Prioritize rezoning in high resource, historically exclusionary neighborhoods.
Many of the highest resource neighborhoods with the best access to jobs, good schools, and other amenities have histories of exclusion which are still reflected in their zoning. Cities should rezone to allow more housing opportunities in those neighborhoods, particularly those with low Vehicle Miles Traveled, as part of their 1 Housing Elements.
2. Establish a strong tenant protection ordinance so that new housing benefits everyone. Development should not permanently displace current residents.
Housing replacement programs, temporary housing vouchers, right of return, and demolition controls will create stability for renters while allowing new homes to be built for new households and to accommodate the growth associated with RHNA.
In your sites inventory and rezoning programs, you should prioritize development on sites with owner-occupied housing & commercial uses over those with existing rent-controlled apartments or other rental housing with lower income residents.
3. Support homeownership opportunities for historically excluded groups.
Homeownership continues to be a path to building financial security and inter-generational wealth, which has been systematically denied to many Americans. As a society, we need to make this right by intentionally offering opportunities to communities who have been excluded. The housing element should identify opportunities to create a variety of for-sale housing types and create programs to facilitate property ownership among excluded groups.
Site Capacity
4. Adequately plan for density. Ensure that a site's density will accommodate the number of homes that are projected to be built. In addition, make sure height limits, setback requirements, FAR, and other controls allow for adequate density and the ability to achieve a site's realistic capacity. Housing will not be feasible if you have a high density paired with low height limits. This density should be emphasized around jobs and transit and should go beyond the Mullin density in those areas.
Provide sufficient zoned capacity to accommodate all income levels, including a minimum No Net Loss buffer of 30%. Not every site will be developed at maximum density during the eight-year planning period. Identify an ample amount of opportunity sites and zone the sites to accommodate lower-income housing types (usually a statutory minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre) to give the city the best chance at meeting its RHNA.
6. Use data from the 5th Cycle to calculate the likelihood of development for your 6th Cycle site inventory. Likelihood of development is a measure of the probability of an inventory site being developed during the planning period. The median likelihood of development across the state is 25%, meaning only one of every four sites will likely be developed during the planning period for the median city. Incorporating the likelihood of development into the zoned capacity will set the city up to successfully achieve their RHNA, making the housing element less of a paper exercise and more of an actionable, functional document.
Accessory Dwelling Units
7. Commit to an automatic mid-cycle adjustment if ADU permitting activity is lower than estimated in the housing element. We highly recommend complying with HCD's standards of using one of its "safe harbor" methodologies to anticipate future ADU production. However, if the city is optimistic about ADU growth, then creating an automatic mid-cycle adjustment will automatically facilitate alternative housing options (i.e., a rezoning program, removing development constraints, ADU incentives, etc.) if the city falls behind the estimated ADU production.
8. Incentivize new ADUs, including those that are rent-restricted for moderate- or lower-income households or that are prioritized for households with housing choice vouchers. Consider offering low- or no-interest loans, forgivable loans, impact fee waivers for ADUs that are 750 square feet or larger, allowances to facilitate two-story and second-story ADU construction, etc.
Zoning
9. Allow residential to be built in areas that are zoned for commercial use.
There are a myriad of ways to do this, but a housing overlay is one common policy.
Additionally, consider eliminating new commercial space in mixed-use developments where there is not a strong demand or there is otherwise a glut of commercial space that is unused or frequently vacant.
10. Allow flexibility in inclusionary zoning. Cities should require different percentages for different AMI levels. Additionally, we urge cities to incentivize land dedication to affordable developers in order for market-rate developers to meet their inclusionary requirements. Avoid getting trapped into thinking that the affordable units must be "sprinkled throughout" the market-rate units, or require the market-rate units to look exactly the same as the affordable ones. This should be balanced against not locating all of the affordable units in one place and ghettoizing neighborhoods by creating or perpetuating racially concentrated areas of poverty.
Better Entitlement Process & Reducing Barriers to Development
11. Ensure that the city has a ministerial process for housing permitting, especially multi-family housing, and remove impact fees for deed-restricted housing. A discretionary process for housing development creates uncertainty and adds to the cost of construction. For example, multi-family housing should not require a conditional use permit or city council approval unless the builder is asking for unique and extraordinary concessions. Right-sizing governmental constraints, entitlement processes, and impact fees will help the city successfully meet its RHNA.
12. Reduce parking standards and eliminate parking minimums. Minimum parking requirements are a major constraint on housing, especially for lower cost housing types. They can cost in excess of $30,000 per spot and can raise rents by as much as 17%, and eliminating them is particularly important for smaller & other spatially constrained sites. Consider adopting a parking maximum.
13. Cap fees on all new housing. Most construction costs are outside the City's | control, but reducing impact fees can demonstrate that a city is serious about building new housing. At a minimum, cities should delay the collection of impact fees until the issuance of the certificate of occupancy to reduce financial impacts on new housing and make the units cheaper by not asking the developer to carry impact fee charges or debt throughout the construction phase.
14. Provide local funding. One of the largest barriers to building new affordable homes is the lack of city/county funds available to assemble sites, provide gap funding, and to pay for dedicated staff. Without new funding, especially at the local level, we will not be able to build more affordable homes. There are three new revenue streams that should be considered: 1) Transfer tax, a one-time payment levied by a jurisdiction on the sale of a home, may be utilized to raise much needed revenue to fund affordable homes; 2) Vacancy tax may be collected on vacant land to convince landowners to sell their underutilized properties and be used to fund the construction of affordable homes; 3) Commercial linkage fees should be adopted or revisited for increases on new commercial developments.
We urge you to include these policies in your 6th cycle Housing Element.
Best regards,
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
[email protected]
From: Mendoza, Kathyren@HCD on behalf of Housing Elements@HCD To: Lanza, Tristan@HCD
Subject: FW: Serious issue with City of Cotati Housing Element Date: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 2:01:32 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Kathyren Mendoza | Division of Housing Policy Development Office Technician|
California Department of Housing & Community Development 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 | Sacramento, CA 95833 Phone (916) 694-2607
From: Riley Hurd <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 2:00 PM
To: Housing Elements@HCD <[email protected]>
Subject: Serious issue with City of Cotati Housing Element Dear HCD housing element team,
I am writing to express grave concerns regarding the housing element proposed for adoption in the City of Cotati. The number one issue with the draft housing element is that 100% of the units proposed to meet the RHNA above moderate category, and a high percentage of the units proposed for other income categories, are through pipeline projects, but there is no commitment to rezone, approve, facilitate, or build these projects, many of which require general plan amendments and zoning changes, and other significant entitlements.
The City's draft element can be found here:
https://www.cotaticity.org/DocumentCenter/View/1046/Cotati-Draft-Housing-Element- Update-2022-11-18 (cotaticity.org]
Please refer to Table 8 on page 52. We are familiar with the actual status of two of these projects, because we are the applicants (Cotati Village and Red's Residential). As has been our experience in the past in Cotati, we have hit nothing but roadblocks in advancing these housing projects. Exorbitant and unfounded exactions; demands for rezoning; lengthy and unnecessary consultant reviews, etc. Despite our best efforts, we can never even get a hearing on these projects. Accordingly, merely listing these as pending is not enough for them to be counted towards the City's RHNA.
While there is a mechanism by which to count pipeline projects in a housing element, there are certain specific criteria that must be met in order to do so. The HCD "Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook," states that, "Jurisdictions may choose to credit sites with pending projects since the beginning of the RHNA projection period towards their RHNA based on affordability and unit count within the proposed project, but must demonstrate the units can be built within the remaining planning period."
HCD wrote a technical advisory letter to Culver City wherein HCD explained that a jurisdiction cannot conclude all pipeline projects are expected to be permitted in the 8-year planning period. HCD required that the housing element provide supporting information for any counted pipeline projects such as discussing:
1. consistency with the general plan and zoning;
2. all necessary approvals and likely completion dates;
3. anticipated construction schedule.
Here, there is no language in the Draft Housing Element that explains why the pipeline projects have a high likelihood of being built in the planning period, or what measures will be put in place to ensure said projects get approved. In the case of our 2 projects, we have struggled for years to get a hearing, and see no relief on the horizon. Projects of this scope would need to be approved early in the planning period in order to get built before the next cycle.
In light of the clear HCD guidance regarding pending projects, it seems critical that HCD instruct Cotati that language must be added to the Housing Element that demonstrates the units in the pending projects can be built within the remaining planning period.
Thank you for your attention to this serious issue, and please feel free to contact me directly with any questions.
Riley F. Hurd III, Esq.
RAGGHIANTI | FREITAS LLP
1101 5th Avenue, Suite 100
San Rafael, CA 94901
Tel: 415.453.9433 ext. 126
Fax: 415.453.8269
Email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.rflawllp.com/[nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] ~al
YIMBY LAW GREENBELT ALLIANCE
April 21, 2022
Dear Cotati City Council:
We are writing on behalf of YIMBY Law and Greenbelt Alliance regarding Cotati's 6th Cycle Housing Ele- ment Update. YIMBY Law is a legal nonprofit working to make housing in California more accessible and af- fordable through enforcement of state law. Greenbelt Alliance is an environmental nonprofit working to en- sure that the Bay Area's lands and communities are resilient to a changing climate.
We are writing to remind you of Cotati's obligation to include sufficient sites in your upcoming Housing Ele- ment to accommodate your Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 234 units.
In the Annual Progress Reports that Cotati submitted to HCD, we observe the following trend of housing units permitted in the last three years:
Year Housing units permitted
2018 2
2019
2020 20
Average, 2018-2020 10
To meet the 6th cycle RHNA target, the rate of new housing permits in Cotati would need to increase from 10 units per year in 2018-2020 to 29 units per year in the next 8 years. This is a 203% increase from recent years. If the current pace were to continue, Cotati would meet only 33% of its new housing target.
Based on these trends, it is unlikely that Cotati's existing realistic zoning capacity is sufficient to meet its 6th cycle RHNA target. According to HCD's Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook, housing elements must analyze the realistic capacity of their sites, which may include considerations of "Ilocal or regional track re- cords", "past production trends", and "the rate at which similar parcels were developed during the previous planning period". A housing element that does not include a significant rezoning component is therefore un- likely to be compliant with state law.
We urge Cotati to include a major rezoning component in its Housing Element—a rezoning large enough to close the gap between recent housing production trends and the RHNA target. The rezoning should be within existing communities and should comply with the city's obligation to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. We also urge Cotati to ease any other constraints, such as discretionary approval processes or impact fees, that may impede the rate of development on your city's housing sites.
Thank you,
Sid Kapur, East Bay YIMBY ([email protected])
Rafa Sonnenfeld, YIMBY Law ([email protected])
Zoe Siegel, Greenbelt Alliance ([email protected])
June 5, 2022
The Honorable Buffy Wicks
Chair, Assembly Housing Committee
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: SB 940 (Laird): Mobilehome parks: local ordinances - SUPPORT, as amended Dear Assembly Member Wicks:
We write in strong support of Senate Bill 940, which ensures mobilehomes remain affordable by eliminating an outdated, state- imposed loophole created over thirty years ago that denies the ability of local jurisdictions to protect mobilehome homeowners from excessive rent increases.
Currently, any new space created in a mobilehome park after January 1, 1990 is exempt from local rent protections. This applies not only to new parks, but also to older parks where spaces were created after 1990. This has led to an inequitable situation in those parks, where one mobilehome resident has rent protections, while their neighbor may not.
Under the bill, any new mobilehome spaces added to existing parks after 1990 will be entitled to the same protection from excessive rents as the other spaces within the park, thus correcting this inequity.
In addition, the Legislature has created new incentives to build new mobilehome parks (SB 35, Chaptered 2017) and statewide voters have approved funds for the purchase of new mobilehomes (Proposition 1, passed 2018). Those incentives are preserved under the bill. The bill provides that any newly constructed mobilehome park will enjoy a 10-year exemption so that investors can recoup their initial capital investment.
SB 940 ensures that affordability issues remain at the local government level so that regional factors such as cost of living, vacancy control, and fair return hearing standards and procedures can be appropriately considered. And, nothing in the proposed legislation would dictate the terms by which local governments make decisions.
For these reasons, among others, we strongly support SB 940.
Resperals, marian Koglin
Marian Koglin
Resident Sierra Mobile Home Park, 492 West Sierra Ave. Cotati JUN OU
FHANC LegalAid
OF SONOMA COUNTY
PUBLIC INTEREST
LAW PROJECT NAACP
1996-2021 CELEBRATING 25 YEARS OF ADVANCING JUSTICE Santa Rosa - Sonoma County Branch SENT VIA EMAIL ONLY: [email protected]
October 28, 2022
City of Cotati
Community Development Department
201 West Sierra Ave
Cotati, CA 94931
[email protected]
cc: [email protected]
RE: Cotati Draft Housing Element
Dear General Plan Updating Team:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Housing Element ("Draft"). We appreciate all the work that has gone into producing this document, and offer our comments for incorporation into the final document that moves Cotati in the direction of significant progress to achieve housing justice and meet current and future housing needs. We stand as partners committed to this goal.
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC) is a private nonprofit organization dedicated to assisting individuals experiencing housing discrimination and educating the community, including tenants, housing providers, and government employees, as to their rights and responsibilities under federal and state fair housing laws. The mission of FHANC is to ensure equal housing opportunity and to educate the community on the value of diversity in housing.
FHANC provides free comprehensive fair housing counseling services to individuals alleging housing discrimination in Sonoma County (except the incorporated city of Petaluma), Marin County, Solano County (except the incorporated city of Vacaville).
FHANC also provides other services, such as foreclosure prevention counseling and trainings to housing providers in other neighboring counties.
In addition to counseling and education services, FHANC recruits, trains, and employs fair housing testers in order to investigate claims of housing discrimination and to assist in conducting systemic investigations.
Legal Aid of Sonoma County (LASC) provides free legal representation to Sonoma County's most vulnerable residents facing eviction and related housing issues, primarily low-income renters, seniors, and persons with disabilities. They also advocate for housing policy that supports the needs of Sonoma County's most vulnerable, low-income residents.
The Santa Rosa - Sonoma County NAACP Branch was established in 1953 as a direct response to housing discrimination impacting Black residents. Many endured racial bias through the lending and realty process especially as it pertains to the redlining of many communities. NAACP leader, Jack Beavers' home was burned down in the 50's as a direct result of this type of discrimination. As a branch of the oldest civil rights organization, NAACP Sonoma is committed to seeing housing equity throughout Sonoma County.
The Public Interest Law Project (PILP) has provided crucial litigation and advocacy support to local legal services and public interest law programs throughout California since 1966.
Responding to the elimination of federal funding for state and national legal services support centers, PILP was established to ensure that local legal services programs could continue to participate in major litigation and advocacy on behalf of low-income persons. PILP spearheads major litigation for legal services programs throughout California to address these issues. Their seasoned attorneys have litigated over 200 high impact cases, drafted key legislation protecting lower income families and are recognized experts in the fields of public benefits and affordable housing.
The Sonoma County Tenant's Union (SCTU) builds tenant power through embedding anti- racist, anti-capitalist, and intersectional feminist principles in their work in solidarity with other movements for collective organizing. SCTU works within the community toward transformative change around housing rights, practices, and policies, while elevating the experiences, knowledge, and needs of those most affected by our current systems: low- income people of color, people with disabilities, trans and queer people, undocumented people, and unhoused people.
At the outset, we urge the City's planners and consultants to strengthen specificity throughout the plan to ensure it is clear, aligned, and impactful. State law requires all Housing Element programs to have beneficial impact within the planning period, including identification of specific actions, which agency or official is responsible for those actions, and a timeline.'
' Gov. Code § 65583(c).
Specifically, programs to affirmatively further fair housing must identify clear "metrics and milestones for determining what fair housing results will be achieved."2 Furthermore, a recent survey of HCD reviews of draft housing actions from Southern California jurisdictions emphasizes that time bound actions with "specific commitments [from local actors], metrics, and milestones" are required."
FHANC and LASC appreciate the analysis provided in the Assessment of Fair Housing (Section 4.5) and the commitments made to address the City's duty to AFFH, particularly Goal H-4: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. However, in order to make these commitments meaningful, the draft must be strengthened to include more detail and specificity, including the required metrics and milestones. Finally, we urge Cotati to commit to advancing policies that offer strong tenant protections as a key component of affirmatively furthering fair housing.
In order to meet the City's requirement to affirmatively further fair housing, we urge the planning team to incorporate the suggestions below into Cotati's revised housing element.
Strengthen Public Outreach
The Draft fails to indicate whether key community partners were included in public outreach efforts. Government Code 65583(c)(7) requires: "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." The Draft states that City staff used in-person and digital platforms to facilitate public input and that outreach activities included "door-to-door canvassing and tabling at events including the Halloween Carnival, Holiday Shop-and Stroll and Cotati Farmers Market." (p. 2). The Draft should indicate whether the City reached out to stakeholders that work directly with lower income residents as well as special needs groups. These include, for example, California Rural Legal Assistance, La Luz, Legal Aid of Sonoma County, Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California, Sonoma County Tenant's Union, Corazón Healdsburg, NAACP Sonoma Chapter, SHARE Sonoma County, Community Action Partnership of Sonoma County, and so many other community organizations that provide services for lower-income households and households with special needs in Cotati. During the HCD 90-day review period, we strongly encourage you to solicit input from these organizations and reflect their comments in the draft.
Strengthen Fair Housing Goals and Programs
Goal H-4 includes several very important goals and policies that are necessary to affirmatively further fair housing, including commitments to take anti-displacement actions, to adequately address housing discrimination complaints and reasonable accommodation requests, and provide fair housing information. However, the programs associated with these goals and policies are described in very general terms. The City should provide greater detail 2 Gov. Code § 65583(c)(10)(A) (iv).
3 ABAG, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Policy Tips Memo Learning from Southern California & Sacramento: Early Experiences in Complying with AB686.
on the specifics of these programs. Non-committal language such as "pursue," "explore," and "promote" should be replaced with specific commitments to action and indicate who exactly will carry out these activities.
Notably, the programs under Goal 4-H (as well as the other Goals in the Housing Strategy section) do not include metrics and milestones, which are required. All of the "Quantified Objectives" in the Draft are separated into Section 2.2, and this section does not include quantified objectives for the City's fair housing goals. The Draft should be revised to include quantified objectives and associated milestones and timelines for each fair housing goal, as required by Gov. Code § 65583(c)(10)(A)(iv).
Further, the Draft should be clear about which programs and policies throughout the Draft, outside of Goal H-4, serve to meet the City's duty to AFFH. The Draft acknowledges that part of the AFFH duty includes "identifying areas of racial/ethnic concentration across the socioeconomic spectrum" and to "analyze any area demonstrating racial or economic concentration to ensure that the community is not experiencing disparities in access to opportunities such as education, employment, and amenities." (p. 22-23). The Draft states that "Section 2" includes the policies, programs, and actions that will "address these areas of concentration and to affirmatively further fair housing." (p. 23). Section 2 contains the entire housing strategy, and only one goal, H-4, is specifically described as AFFH. The Draft should make explicit which specific policies, programs, and actions throughout the entire Draft, including Sections 2 and 3, serve to AFFH by addressing areas of concentration and related disparities. If policies or programs serve more than one housing goal, this should be made clear as well. It is not the responsibility of citizens and organizations to sift through the programs to check that each policy or goal is supported by a particular program. • Each AFFH action should be flagged in the body of the text alongside the requisite programs.
• Programs could be labeled with each policy/goal supported if there are more than one. • Hyperlinks could be used to indicate in the policy section which programs are related and allow readers to see them.
• A Table could be created to show them in a matrix.
Overall, there is a lack of sufficient specific commitments and required metrics in the goals, policies, and programs included in the Draft. We urge the City to comply with its AFFH requirements by revising the Element to include quantifiable and measurable metrics in its fair housing goals, policies, and programs, and indicate each program or policy that contributes to meeting the City's fair housing goals throughout the Draft.
Prioritize Specific Policies and Programs to Protect Tenants The Draft recognizes that displacement of residents due to economic pressures, such as rent increases, is a high-priority challenge to fair housing. Indeed, Cotati is legally required to develop concrete, measurable, and realistic actions to address disparities identified in the Assessment of Fair Housing, including displacement risk.4 Cotati is also required to analyze fair housing issues, including "disproportionate housing needs" and "displacement risk" of 4 Gov. Code § 65583(c)(10)(A)(ii).
members of protected groups, and identify and prioritize concrete actions to remedy these injustices.
Most Cotati households earning less than 100% of the AMI are renters, and the majority of households earning above 100% AMI own their homes. (Draft, p. 16-17). This suggests that renters are more likely to experience cost burden and be at risk of displacement.
One of the most stark and urgent housing disparities in Sonoma County is that Black, Latinx, Native American, and mixed-race households are far more likely to rent rather than own their homes. As a result of systemic racism in the areas of education, health, and employment as well as discriminatory practices resulting in disparities in intergenerational wealth, Black residents in Sonoma County have lower levels of well-being than Black residents in the state as a whole. Black residents of Sonoma County live over three years less, on average, than Black residents of California. Black children and young adults are enrolled in school at a rate 6 percentage points lower than Black children and young adults statewide. Sonoma County's Black residents have a lifespan ten years shorter than any other racial and ethnic group in the county and have lower educational attainment rates than the county average.
This means that Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) residents are disproportionately vulnerable to exploitation and displacement due to predatory rent hikes, arbitrary evictions, being forced to live in uninhabitable conditions, and landlord harassment and retaliation - a fact that the Housing Element must recognize and outline a plan to remedy. Unfortunately, the current draft fails to include meaningful actions to address this.
A legally adequate assessment of housing needs should identify that lower-income people, as well as many vulnerable populations, are disproportionately likely to rent rather than own their homes - and it should dig deeper into what causes those patterns and the specific needs of renters. For example, a legally adequate assessment of housing needs should examine how the dramatic increase in rents over the past ten years, combined with stagnating wages for lower-paid workers, have increased overpayment for housing, led to overcrowding, driven displacement, and made it more difficult for low-income people to find homes in the community.
We urge Cotati to revise the Element to include a commitment to advancing policies and programs that offer strong tenant protections as a crucial component of affirmatively furthering fair housing.
Cotati should commit to enacting the following policies/ordinances to maximize housing opportunity and protect the rights of all tenants, including those of protected classes:
Fair Chance Ordinance: The use of criminal history in obtaining housing should be eliminated, given the disparate impact on people of color, using Berkeley, Oakland, and Seattle as templates for such an ordinance.
5 A PORTRAIT OF CALIFORNIA 2021-2022
Anti-Displacement Measures
When considering and enacting measures to reduce tenant displacement, please extend the displacement risk analysis and subsequent protections to all residential settings, including single-family homes, mobilehome park residents, non-subsidized housing units, and ADUs.
We ask that any anti-displacement provisions also be designed to prevent the loss of lower- cost housing when properties are redeveloped and/or units are vacated.
Rent Stabilization: Further limiting the rent increase caps enacted by the state is crucial to address the displacement of Cotati's low-income renters. Many jurisdictions are stepping forward to address the surge in rents by enacting local rent stabilization limiting annual rent increases (frequently to no more than 3%) most recently Fairfax and Antioch. ' Cotati's Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance should be amended as part of this Housing Element, to reduce the annual allowable rent increase to 3% or 50% of the CPI change, whichever is lower (as other Sonoma Jurisdictions are considering). If a park can be designated 100% affordable housing, Cotati will be preserving existing and naturally occurring affordable housing, most likely for seniors and disabled persons.
Just Cause Eviction Protection: Cotati should commit to enacting a Just Cause Eviction Ordinance, which would offer tenants, especially those of protected classes, crucial protection. One of the leading causes of evictions and displacement under state law are no fault just causes - substantial remodels, owner move-ins, and withdrawal from the rental market. These no-fault just causes for eviction have loopholes that are often used and abused by owners to remove tenants so that rents can be increased to market rate, further eroding affordable housing stock. Strengthening no-fault just causes for evictions - through higher relocation payments, longer eviction notice periods, and a right for a tenant to return at the same rent at the time of displacement, apart from lawful, annual rent increases - are critical to a general plan that complies with state law and addressing the displacement of Cotati's BIPOC and senior renters. Additionally, an Ordinance which covers all types of rental housing, without the many exceptions of the Tenant Protection Act, would create a more equitable set of protections for Cotati renters. The majority of the thirty local just cause ordinances in California include subsidized housing and single family homes. A Just Cause Ordinance should include but is not limited to the following:
• Substantial Remodel - Repairs for health and safety concerns only and permits obtained before notice to vacate served; tenant has right to return under same terms/rent, subject to allowable rent increases
Withdrawal from the rental market - Clarify that a sale of the property is not "withdrawal" and is not a just cause for eviction; owner is required to file notice with the city/county; longer notice period, relocation assistance and right to return for displaced tenants.
• Owner/Relative Move in - Right to Return if owner/owner's family move out of the unit within 2 years, or if the owner/owner's family fail to move into the unit within 30 days of the tenant's removal.
6 How more rent control in Bay Area cities affects housing crisis (sfchronicle.com) " See Santa Rosa seniors fight for stricter rent control at mobile home parks, the city's last affordable housing (pressdemocrat.com)
Community or Tenant Right to Purchase ("COPA/TOPA"): As a key intervention against speculation, TOPA/COPA preserves currently affordable housing and generates new permanently affordable housing for future generations. TOPA/COPA expands stability and wealth-building opportunities for tenants by creating pathways to homeownership.
Tenant Bill of Rights: The purpose of a Tenant Bill of Rights (TBR) is to state unequivocally that all Cotati residents have the right to clean, safe, and secure housing, which includes but is not limited to:
• Clean, safe housing - Stronger protections for tenants from eviction if they deduct repairs from rent
• A rental registry - We suggest the City look into using a rental registry to help achieve its housing goals. A rental registry can store the data required to enact meaningful policies to accurately identify existing rental housing stock, identify trends with tenant displacement, collect data on evictions, identify a multitude of issues with rental housing, including rental rates and increases, facilitate a proactive rental inspection program to address maintenance and preservation of rental housing, and support eviction protections.
Tenant Commission- Seats reserved that represent low-income seniors, persons with disabilities, federally subsidized housing including LIHTC, and communities of color that provides information, referrals, and advice to tenants, and advises City leadership on programs and policies affecting Cotati tenants.
• Nonpayment notices - Require landlords to provide a 7-day warning letter before a 3- day notice to pay or quit.
• Protections for subletting - Subletting not a just cause for eviction IF landlord unreasonably withheld consent following written request by tenant, so long as maximum number of occupants does not exceed allowable limits.
Protections for families - Addition of family members not just cause for eviction, so long as the number of occupants does not exceed allowable limits. Protections for families - Addition of family members not just cause for eviction, so long as the number of occupants does not exceed allowable limits.
• Broad Eviction and Rent Increase Protections- Discussed above. • Anti-Harassment - A landlord may not undertake a pattern and practice of conduct intended to cause the tenant to vacate.
• Anti-retaliation - Rebuttable presumption if tenant asserted rights, including but not limited to, requesting a reasonable accommodation, reporting sexual harassment, and otherwise filing complaints against housing provider staff within 6 months.
Housing Local Community Land Trust Program
We appreciate the City's indication that it has formalized a relationship with the Housing Land Trust to provide expertise and resale assistance for BMR units. (Draft, p. 27). We strongly support the work of Housing Land Trust of Sonoma County ("HLTS) and would encourage the city to continue to build this relationship. Please integrate all comments and recommendations submitted by HLTSC into this document.
Conclusion
Our agencies are committed to housing justice and assisting the City to meet the current and future housing needs of Cotati citizens. There is a tremendous opportunity with this Housing Element to outline specific, aligned, and actionable plans that will have widespread impact for years and decades to come. Cotati must seize this opportunity to take the lead to outline and advance specific policies and practices to realize the goal of fair housing opportunity and housing justice for all who call Cotati home. We thank you again for the opportunity to comment on Cotati's Draft Housing Element and we look forward to reading your responses to the comments and recommendations made throughout this letter as part of your submission of the Draft Housing Element to HCD.
Sincerely,
Caroline Peattie Kirstyne Lange
Executive Director President
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California NAACP Santa Rosa - Sonoma County Savannah Wheeler Margaret DeMatteo
Staff Attorney/Housing Counselor Housing Policy Attorney Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California Legal Aid of Sonoma County Valerie Feldman Michael Titone
Staff Attorney Board Member
Public Interest Law Project Sonoma County Tenant's Union