The alleged mishandling of how an Idaho-based property management company filled a Sebastopol apartment complex has pitted two of Sonoma County’s most vulnerable populations against each other, with several people in one of those groups being asked to leave.
Sonoma County farmworkers and low-income residents, both desperate for affordable housing, viewed the Woodmark Apartments as a godsend when city officials approved them in 2022. For people who make between 30% and 60% of area median income, Woodmark was a potential lifeline amid a nationwide housing crunch.
But there was a catch: Woodmark’s 48 apartments, funded by federal loans and California tax credits, were always meant for farmworkers … and only farmworkers. But when The Pacific Companies said it couldn’t find local farmworkers to fill the apartments, the developer allowed all low-income residents to apply to live there, too.
“They were very clear that it was for farmworkers,” said Trinnell, a Woodmark resident who asked to be identified by her first name only. “But then two months later they’re like, ‘Oh we’re opening up applications to everybody.’”
Now, those non-farmworker residents — most of whom moved into Woodmark by January of this year — have been told to leave. Those notifications, which came via phone calls from property manager Ana Mendoza to each affected tenant last week, came as a shock.
“She said ‘You’re going to have to leave. It has got to be for farmworkers,’” Woodmark resident Galina Leslie said, recalling her conversation with Mendoza.
Virtually the entire complex is filled with non-farmworkers. Occupants of 43 apartments have been told to leave.
It is unclear what advertising or outreach efforts Woodmark’s developer and property management company underwent to find farm laborers. Phone calls and e-mails to the Chris Roope, CEO of The Pacific Companies and to Danyel Higgins, Regional Manager at Aperto Property Management, were not returned.
At least one farmworker advocate said she didn’t even know the complex existed. Loreno Sotelo, senior case manager with California Human Development, said her organization had never heard of Woodmark Apartments until being contacted by a Press Democrat reporter on Tuesday.
“I have a lot of farmworkers that are looking for a place to live,” Sotelo said. “I mean, everyone that calls me is in need of housing, except the people who are at Ortiz Plaza,” an apartment complex in Santa Rosa that houses farm laborers.
Sotelo said that apartment complexes that offer housing to farm laborers in Sonoma County typically connect with her organization, citing Burbank Housing’s Petaluma River Place Apartments, which currently has a waiting list for farm laborers. “I do have people that reach out to me,” she said. “If they needed farmworkers, I probably would have been involved.”
A $1 million U.S. Department of Agriculture loan stipulated Woodmark must house farm laborers. That loan also made the $25 million project eligible for $15 million in tax credits through the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee grant process.
So when the apartments opened up for low-income folks who didn’t work on farms, the opportunity was a holiday miracle, many said.
“We wanted to branch out,” said Woodmark resident Gabriella, who asked that her last name not be used. “We have our life and we found it here. We call this a home.”
But nine months later — just a year after the project was complete — Mendoza called each resident, informing them of what they view as a precursor to being evicted. Each was offered $10,000 to move out by Oct. 31, or $5,000 to leave by the end of November.
But the so-called “cash for keys” deal is anything but, said Alyssa Aguirre, another Woodmark resident. Accepting large amounts of money could cause affected residents to lose future housing or medical benefits. “An extra $10,000 or $5,000 would put us over the tax bracket,” she said. “It would make it so much worse in the long run.”
Like many in the Woodmark community, she’s not sure what to do.
“I can’t believe I’m in this situation again, where I don’t know where my next home is going to be,” she said. “I can’t stay here. And there’s a rush to this situation. It’s not easy to find housing, let alone within just two months.”
Pat McDonell, a housing attorney with Sonoma County Legal Aid, said that residents don’t have to leave until they’ve been served with eviction papers. No such papers have been served to residents or filed with the county, which is required within three days after eviction notices are handed out.
“All the residents in the Woodmark should have the right to stay through the end of lease terms,” McDonell said. “The Woodmark is trying to get these tenant families, who would have the right to stay through the end of their lease terms out, so they are back in compliance” with the USDA rules.
To allow non-farmworkers to move into the property, The Pacific Companies had to apply for a USDA waiver. The application had to include records of all advertising efforts showing there was a “diligent but unsuccessful effort to rent any vacant units to an eligible tenant.”
The Pacific Companies’ record of advertising is unclear, but The Press Democrat has filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the USDA for these records.
The application for a waiver must also show a “diminished need” for farm labor housing — meaning, there simply aren’t enough laborers in the area to fill the empty apartments.
Sonoma County estimates the agricultural sector employs 8,500 agricultural laborers; it is unclear how many hold Green Cards, which is one of the requirements for being eligible for housing under the USDA loan.
A FOIA request made by Sonoma County Legal Aid on Feb. 20, 2025, for The Pacific Companies’ “diminished need” waiver showed that “no records existed,” suggesting that The Pacific Companies failed to file a waiver.
Phone calls to Becki Meyer, the USDA Regional Housing Manager, were not returned.
The Pacific Companies faces potential financial penalties over the situation. The state of California, for example, could impose an initial $250 fine for the company’s failure to “maximize utilization of accessible units” for farmworkers. That fee compounds $100 per month until remedied. The state could also impost an initial $500 for a “change in unit mix without CTCAC approval,” plus an additional $500 per month until remedied. Federal penalties also are possible.
While some tenants are seeking legal advice, McDonell said they might not have any legal recourse, noting that Woodmark has no obligation to renew leases. “At the end of the day, our position is that it is tragic and unacceptable that you have two groups of vulnerable people being made to pay for Woodmark’s developers’ and planner’s issues,” he said.
That said, the situation is drawing the attention of elected officials.
“We have connected with Congressman [Jared] Huffman and our state officials,” Fifth District Supervisor Lynda Hopkins said. “While the county doesn’t have director oversight, I think there’s a role in shame. This is shameful and everyone needs to speak up. We all need to stand and be unified and say, ‘You can’t kick families out without any solutions. They need real solutions and not empty promises.’”
Sonoma County Legal Aid is hosting a town hall for Woodmark residents on Monday evening to connect them with various Sonoma County agencies who might be able to help them find other places to live. Representatives from Huffman’s and Hopkins’ offices are slated to attend.
Meanwhile, the developer is still seeking to build an additional 36 apartments on the Woodmark site. Unlike the farmworker section of the development, these units would be available to all low-income residents.
As a result, Woodmark residents are pressuring the Sebastopol City Council to intervene on their behalf. But council members say they bear no responsibility for the project.
“The city has neither the authority nor a formal role in how the units are filled. State and Federal Housing law set the criteria for those decisions,” the city’s website reads. “The fact that the Woodmark project was proposed as farmworker housing was not relevant for the purposes of City review of the project.”
Originally Published:
