HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/1/2020 Item 7, Escoto
Wilbanks, Megan
From:Vincent Escoto <
To:E-mail Council Website; Harmon, Heidi; Gomez, Aaron; Christianson, Carlyn; Pease,
Andy; Stewart, Erica A
Cc:Cohen, Rachel; Shawn.Danino@hcd.ca.gov; Luz Buitrago; Ilene Jacobs; Frank Kopcinski
Subject:CRLA's Comments on Item #7 s 9/1/2020 Meeting Agenda--Review of
the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update and Negative Declaration of Env. Impact
Attachments:CRLA's Comments RE Item #7 of City Council's 9-1-2020 Meeting.pdf
Dear Mayor Harmon and Council Members,
Please see the attached letter from California Rural Legal Assistance regarding Item #7 of the City Council’s September 1,
2020 meeting agenda—Review of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update and Negative Declaration of Env. Impact. Thank
you for your time, and I look forward to tonight’s meeting.
Much appreciated,
Vince
Vincent D. Escoto
Staff Attorney
Fighting for justice and changing lives
175 Santa Rosa Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
www.crla.org
Email: vescoto@crla.org
Tel: (805)544-7994 x1501 Fax: (805)544-3904
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION: The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient
specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without
a written consent of the sender. If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow
with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.
1
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES
VIA EMAIL ONLY
September 1, 2020
City of San Luis Obispo: emailcouncil@slocity.org
Attn: Mayor and City Council
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Item 7, Review of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update and a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact
Dear Mayor Harmon and Council Members:
California Rural Legal Assistance Inc. (CRLA) hereby provides
comments on San Luis Obispo’s (the City’s) Revised Housing Element
scheduled for action at your September 1, 2020 meeting. We request that the
City correct the deficiencies discussed below before it adopts the Revised
Housing Element. CRLA provides legal assistance to low income families and
individuals throughout California, including in San Luis Obispo County, on a
wide variety of issues, including land use policies intended to facilitate the
production and preservation of affordable housing for very low and low-income
income families and individuals and special needs populations. As noted in the
Community Development Department’s (the Department) report for Agenda
Item 7, the City is required to adopt, by December 31, 2020, a housing element
that substantially complies with California's Housing Element Law (Gov.
Code§ 65580 et seq.). However, not only must City comply with California’s
housing element laws, but more importantly, it should take this opportunity for
the City to develop a viable action plan to address the affordable housing crisis
that has existed for too long in the City of San Luis Obispo.
By way of background, on August 14, 2020, our office submitted
comments to California’s Housing and Community Development Department
(HCD) detailing the many serious deficiencies of the prior “Draft Housing
Element” that the Department submitted to HCD on July 7, 2020 and that the
Planning Commission considered on July 22, 2020. We also sent copies of our
San Luis Obispo
175 Santa Rosa Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Tel: (805) 544-7994
Fax: (805) 544-3904
Frank Kopcinski
Directing Attorney
Vince Escoto
Staff Attorney
Gamelyn Oduardo-Sierra
Law Graduate
Sylvia Torres
Foreclosure Intervention
Coordinator
Johnny Beltran
Community Worker
Myrna Alvarez
Administrative Legal
Secretary
Karina Castro-Martinez
Census Receptionist
Central Office
1430 Franklin St., Suite 103
Oakland, California 94612
(415) 777-2752 (telephone)
(415) 543-2752 (fax)
www.crla.org
José R. Padilla
Executive Director
Michael Meuter
Deputy Director
Ralph Santiago Abascal
General Counsel (1934-1997)
Regional Offices
Arvin Oxnard
Central Salinas
Coachella San Luis Obispo
Delano Santa Barbara
El Centro Santa Cruz
F StMi
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES
2
comments to Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner, with the hope that the Department would address
the deficiencies before submitting its Revised Housing Element to you. Although the
Department’s report to City Council does not mention our comments, the Revised Housing
Element appears to make some modifications to address some of our comments, and as we
understand, telephonic comments provided by HCD on August 6, 2020 (see Report at Page 46).
While we are glad to see that the Department made some modifications, these modifications still
fall short of addressing the deficiencies and do not bring the Revised Housing Element in
compliance with California’s housing element law.
Contrary to the Department’s statement (Report at Page 50), the “core” of the housing
element is not the programs that it develops and submits to HCD. While adequate programs are
a key element of an adequate housing element, there are other equally important building blocks
on which programs must be based. For example, adequately analyzing the housing needs of all
segments of the population, and in particular of very-low and low-income families and
individuals and special needs populations such as the unhoused and farmworkers are crucial.
Without an adequate analysis of current and future needs, adequate programs targeted to meet
the needs of these populations cannot be appropriately developed. Similarly, the changes needed
to comply with the requirement that the City demonstrate it has sufficient inventory to meet its
RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Assessment) are not “technical” in nature as stated in the
Report (Report at Page 56) but are in fact key to ensuring that the City is adequately planning to
meet crucial housing needs. Your review of the Revised Housing Element should not focus only
on programs, but also consider each of the required provisions of California’s housing element
law—which are meant to ensure that housing element plans are not just window dressing, but are
in fact viable plans that will provide beneficial outcomes to addressing the housing crisis and
needs of the community within the planning period.
The Revised Housing Element is not properly before you as the Planning Commission’s
resolution was based on the Draft Housing Element that the Planning Commission considered on
July 22, 2020 and not the current Revised Housing Element that is before you. Further,
approving the Revised Housing Element seems premature as HCD will not be issuing its review
letter until September 4, 2020. Their concerns are likely to be more than “technical.” Finally, as
described in more detail in our comments, while providing a long list of purported community
participation events in the development of the Revised Housing Element, the City failed to
provide actual meaningful community participation.
Given all the continuing deficiencies with the Revised Housing Element outlined below, we
urge that you direct the Department to continue to work on the 6th Cycle Housing Element to
ensure that the City substantially complies with California’s housing element laws. We look
forward to working with the City to develop a final housing element that will adequately plan to
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES
3
meet the housing needs of all the segments of its communities—particularly, its most vulnerable
residents.
I. Failure to Make Diligent Effort to Obtain Public Participation Per Cal. Gov. Code §
65583(c)(9)
The City did not make a diligent effort to provide adequate public participation on the Draft
Housing Element nor the Revised Draft Housing Element and has failed to provide an adequate
description of efforts as detailed below. The City should be required to establish a new process
for allowing full public to comment on draft housing elements and participate in the planning
process.
In our Preliminary Comments, we noted that:
The Draft Housing Element listed workshops that took place late last year, but those
workshops seem to be tailored to educating the public on generic housing element
requirements and did not provide a draft of the housing element.
As stated in the Draft Housing Element, the City only seemed to have collected emails
from participants at one event from April 2, 2019. The Draft Housing Element was
unclear about whether the City continued to collect and update its email list to keep
the public updated on future opportunities for participation.
The Draft Housing Element did not describe which public stakeholders, non-profits,
and locals were contacted. The only contacts specifically listed were presentations to
the Association of Realtors, Economic Vitality Corporation, Home Builders
Corporation, Chamber of Commerce, and those on the email list from April 2, 2019.
The Draft Housing Element did not describe outreach efforts such as physically
posting or making available notices of events, providing email notices of events
through the April 2, 2019 email list, or public announcements through media such as
internet or radio.
The agendas from the Planning Commission hearings that were held on April 24, 2020
and June 10, 2020 did not include a full draft of the housing element for the Planning
Commission nor the public to review. Those agendas only provided for discussion on
suggested goals, quantified objectives, and policies. Since the City did not submit, to
the Planning Commission nor the public, documents nor information regarding
analyses of population and employment trends, special housing needs, housing or
household characteristics, analyses of governmental and non-governmental, nor any
other analyses required by the housing element laws, the City could not have solicited
meaningful comment at those hearings.
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES
4
The City did not provide proper notice of the July 22, 2020 Planning Commission
hearing—the only hearing at which the complete Draft Housing Element was
presented to the Planning Commission. The City’s housing element website
(https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-
development/affordable-housing/housing-element) is the only source of notice known
to our office around the time of that hearing. The website stated that an “Advisory
Body Review” would occur on July 22, 2020 but did not specify which “Advisory
Body” would be holding the hearing. In fact, the website still lists more information
and the draft housing element as “coming soon.” This notice was never updated and
never specified that the Planning Commission would be reviewing the housing
element. More specifically, the housing element webpage was not updated
continuously, nor was it specific enough to inform the public of upcoming events. See
the attached screenshots of the City’s webpage. The Draft Housing Element did not
even seem to have been posted on that webpage until June 18, 2020. See attached
screen shots revealing that the last time the website was updated was June 18, 2020
from in the Hypertext Transport Protocol headers. An average citizen would have had
no idea of how and where to comment on the draft housing element.
The notices regarding opportunity for participation in the housing element planning
process should have been translated into Spanish, or at a minimum, the City should
have provided an offer to provide translations as required by Government Code
Section 11135.
In the Revised Housing Element, the City modified its Public Outreach description section by
adding Appendix G that provided a stakeholder list that identified various local agencies who
were “notified” of the housing element update. However, the Department does not describe
whether it shared crucial building blocks of housing element requirements such as: providing the
site inventories analysis describing how the City planned to meet its Regional Housing Needs
Allocation; providing an analysis of its population and employment trends, special housing
needs, and of housing or household characteristics; and providing an analysis of governmental
and non-governmental constraints. Without such analyses, the public could not meaningfully
participate in the housing element process.
The addition of “Appendix G” does not remedy the lack of actual opportunity for community
members to engage in “meaningful” participation in the development of City’s housing element
and does not bring the City into substantial compliance with the Housing Element law.
II. Inadequate Review of Progress Under Prior Housing Element Per Cal. Gov. Code
Section 65588(a)
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES
5
In our Preliminary Comments, we noted that:
The City’s Draft Housing Element failed to describe and evaluate the effectiveness of the
housing element in meeting many of the 5th Cycle Housing Element goals and the Revised
Housing Element has not addressed the previously raised deficiencies. For example, in its review
of Goal 1.4, the City’s Draft Housing Element did not explain whether it met its goal of
awarding state, federal and local funds, including Community Block Development Grant funds
to rehabilitate “30 single-family, 75 multi-family, 10 historic, and 20 mobile homes for
extremely low, very low, low and moderate income homeowners and renters during the planning
period,” nor did it explain whether there was a reason for any deficiency in meeting that goal.
Furthermore, the Draft Housing Element did not explain why it removed its quantified goal of
rehabilitating “30 single-family, 75 multi-family, 10 historic, and 20 mobile homes for extremely
low, very low, low and moderate income homeowners and renters during the planning period”
and did not include a new quantified goal.
We also noted that the City did not analyze whether the 5th Cycle Housing Element was
effective in attaining the following goals, policies, and quantified objectives: 3.9, 6.24, 8.13,
8.23.
In Revised Housing Element the City still failed to provide an adequate review of the
effectiveness of the 5th Cycle Housing Element in attaining ANY of its quantified goals, policies,
and quantified as required by California Government Code Section 65588(a)(2), (4). The City
also failed to evaluate the appropriateness of ANY of its quantified goals, policies, and
quantified objectives in attainment of state housing goals per California Government Code
Section 65588(a)(1). In turn, the City failed to review goals/policies 1.1-1.4; 2.1-2.4; 3.1-3.7;
4.1-4.4; 5.1-5.4; 6.1-6.10; 7.1-7.8; 8.1-8.12; 9.1-9.6; 10.1-10.2; and 11.1-11.2. The City also
made numerous changes to policies from the 5th Cycle Housing Element such as policies 1.3;
2.1-2.4; 5.1; and 6.1 and removed multiple policies such as policies 3.3, 3.6, and 5.3 without any
explanation as to why.
Instead, in its report to City Council, the Department provides a cursory review of its
implementation of its 5th Cycle Housing Element by focusing in a limited manner on programs.
Furthermore, the Revised Housing Element seems to conflate goals and quantified objectives
with programs as evidenced by the fact that the Revised Housing Element includes NO goals nor
quantified objectives in its Goals, Policies, and Programs Section (Chapter 3) and instead
includes some statements quantifying objectives within each statement of proposed programs.
Therefore, the Revised Housing Element is still not in substantial compliance with California
Government Code Section 65588(a).
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES
6
III. Inadequate Assessment of Employment Trends and Housing Needs Per Cal. Gov. Code
§ 65583(a)(1)
In our Preliminary Comments we noted that:
The City’s Draft Housing Element did not sufficiently analyze employment trends in
the City because it did not sufficiently quantify each occupation in San Luis Obispo.
For example, the category with the greatest number of employees in the City of San
Luis Obispo according to the Draft Housing Element is “educational services, and
health care, and social assistance,” which accounts for a little over 25% of the
population. Occupations such as those should be analyzed separately to understand the
financial barriers for each.
According to the Draft Housing Element, 500 of 25,500 people in the City were
unemployed in 2019. The City only used California Employment Development
Department data to reflect its estimated unemployment numbers. That statistic cannot
adequately represent the unemployed population considering that the homeless
population was stated to be 482, and there were about 46,802 people in the City in
2019.
The City also failed to adequately analyze the population and employment trends
because it did not analyze the demographics and characteristics of those participating
in public housing programs, such as Section 8, public benefits programs such as SSI,
nor public services programs such as IHSS.
More data should have been collected to get a meaningful projection of existing and
future employment trends resulting housing needs.
The Revised Housing Element does not include any revisions to its employment trends and
housing needs section. We therefore renew our Preliminary Comments on the Draft Housing
Element as bulleted above to the Revised Housing Element and conclude once again that the
City failed to adequately assess employment trends and housing needs per California
Government Code Section 65583(a)(1).
IV. Inadequate Analysis and Documentation of Household and Housing Characteristics
Per Cal. Gov. Code § 65583(a)(2).
In our Preliminary Comments we noted that:
The data cited by the City in its Draft Housing Element reflected a low vacancy rate,
high rate of overpayment (income vs. rental or selling price) for all household sizes,
and a relatively low per capita income level, but the City only attributed some of
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES
7
these problems to the student population and failed to provide an analysis of other
factors that surely affected those data points.
The City failed to adequately analyze the condition of the housing stock by failing to
analyze the extent of substandard housing in the City. The City cited only one
statistic—380 or so households lacking adequate plumbing or kitchens of about
20,000 dwellings. There was no data or analysis of mold, architectural problems,
rodents, etc., despite the fact that over 70% of homes in SLO City were built before
1990.
The City failed to adequately analyze the housing stock condition. More data should
have been collected and analyzed to get a meaningful projection of housing stock
condition.
The Revised Housing Element does not include revisions to its household and housing
characteristics section. However, it did include, elsewhere in the Revised Housing Element that
there were no active rental code enforcement cases between January 1, 2020 and June 30, 2020.
Considering that our organization sees many cases a week involving habitability problems and
landlord’s failures to address those problems, the City should do more to either educate the
public on or enforce habitability problems in the City, especially considering the City and
County do not have adequate resources to address mold and vector (bed bug) problems.
Therefore, we renew our Preliminary Comments on the Draft Housing Element as bulleted above
to the Revised Housing Element. The City still fails to adequately assess household and housing
characteristics per California Government Code Section 65583(a)(2).
V. Inadequate Analysis of Special Housing Needs Cal. Gov. Code § 65583(a)(7).
In our Preliminary Comments we noted that in general, the city failed to adequately analyze
the housing needs of all special needs demographics because it did not collect nor analyze
enough data for each special housing needs category listed in the housing element. The City
should have analyzed each special housing need category in terms of income category, ethnicity,
race, and household characteristics to get a meaningful projection of the housing needs of these
demographics. For each of the following categories of persons, the City should have also
quantified the number of units needed for that category with due consideration to the special
financial burdens, such as construction standards for ADA compliant units. Furthermore, the
City should have quantified the number of persons in each special housing needs category who
are also categorized as lower income to specify which proportion of the sites made available per
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES
8
the RHNA are available to each special housing needs category. We further commented on the
special housing needs categories as follows:
Inadequate Analysis of the needs of People with Developmental Disabilities: The
City failed to adequately analyze the housing needs of persons with developmental
disabilities because it did not analyze this subset of the population by income category.
Furthermore, the City did not adequately analyze the availability of housing for this
subset of the population based on the capacity/vacancy of existing facilities nor
appropriateness of the cited assisted housing facilities for different disabilities. More
specifically, the City should have analyzed the types of disabilities each facility
accommodates and the rates of vacancy for each facility compared to the population of
those with developmental disability, preferably by income category, to analyze the
appropriate need. Generally, more data should have been collected, such as data from
local organizations providing supportive and medical services and analyzed to obtain a
meaningful projection of the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities.
Inadequate Assessment of the Needs of Emergency Shelters and Homeless
Population:
o The City relied solely on the County Point of Contact data to analyze the needs of
people without housing. The City failed to adequately analyze the housing needs
of the homeless population by subsets such as: 1) people with mental and physical
disability to determine the proportion of this population that requires supportive
or assistive services, 2) unhoused families or families at risk of homelessness, 3)
veterans, 4) victims of domestic violence, and 5) unhoused people with substance
abuse problems. Furthermore, the City failed to adequately analyze the number of
households who fall into homelessness a year, and the number of homeless who
transition into permanent housing a year per Cal. Gov. Code § 65583(a)(7) and
the factors contributing to their plight.
o The listed facilities for emergency shelters and supportive housing did not provide
an analysis regarding eligibility and management rules. The City states that 40
Prado, which has only 100 beds available for 482 stated homeless, has limitations
on entrance, and the other facilities listed have special limitations such as those
for abused adults, open mental health cases, and those with disabilities.
o The City failed to adequately analyze the funding sources available and eligible
for supportive and assistive housing and programs. Furthermore, it failed to
adequately analyze the effectiveness of the funding provided to the Continuum of
Care in the last housing element period as it appeared to improperly count
services that funded hygienic supplies and meals.
Inadequate Assessment of Farmworker Housing Need:
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES
9
o The City failed to sufficiently quantify the farmworker population. The City only
relied on 2017 ACS data quantifying, aggregately, the agriculture, forestry,
fishing, hunting, and mining industries to conclude that there is less than 1.1% of
the City’s population who are farmworkers. The City likely undercounted the
farmworker population by using only the ACS data as it is not a sufficient data
point to adequately estimate the population of farmworkers. The City should have
utilized additional data from resources as suggested in HCD’s Building Blocks
(https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/housing-
needs/farmworkers.shtml). Further, there was no discussion regarding the
differences in need in the migrant and seasonal farmworker population. The City
did not collect and analyze enough data to adequately analyze the financial burden
and subsequent housing needs of this subset of the population.
o Even if the 1.1% estimate was correct, the City did not even attempt to identify
nor discuss how the housing needs of this population would be met. The City
should not have overlooked the needs of farmworkers in the City, even assuming,
arguendo, that there is a small percentage of farmworkers in the City. Such an
approach passes the housing needs of these populations to the surrounding areas
and would perpetuate any existing financial hardships for this population to reside
in the city, especially considering the historically lower earning capacity of this
population.
Inadequate Assessment of the needs of the Elderly: The City failed to adequately
analyze the housing needs of the elderly population because it did not:
o Consider data such as Section 8 availability and general vacancy rates for elderly
housing;
o Collect sufficient data to analyze the housing needs of this subset of the
population;
o Adequately analyze the funding sources available and eligible for subsidized
housing nor public services; nor
o Analyze the elderly population’s financial ability to afford housing in the City,
including costs of services like in-home support, and what could be done to
ameliorate those barriers.
The Revised Housing Element revisions to these sections still fail to comply with housing
element law:
Assessment of the Needs of Emergency Shelters and Homeless Population: While the
revision added a statement that, in 2014, the City updated its Zoning Regulations to allow
Homeless Shelters by right without a conditional use permit within the Public Facility
(PF) zone where there are approximately 16 acres within the PF zone that could
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES
10
accommodate a Homeless Shelter, its assessment of the population is still inadequate.
Further, our other comments where not addressed.
Assessment of Farmworker Housing Need: The Revised Housing Element adds a
statement that “it is likely that farmworkers may be housed on site at agricultural
operations outside San Luis Obispo” since the City is surrounded by agricultural land.
The Revised Housing Element also included statements regarding implementation of a
program to 1) allow single-unit dwellings without a CUP within the Open Space and
Conservation (C/OS) zone and allow employee housing consisting of no more than 36
beds in a group quarters, or 12 units or separate rooms or spaces designed for use by a
single-family or household within the C/OS and AG zones, and 2) revise Chapter 17.148
-High-Occupancy Residential Use Regulations – to allow for six or fewer persons within
a single family dwelling without a CUP in order to comply with the Employee Housing
Act. Although this addition is helpful, it does nothing to ensure that farmworkers can
afford to live in the City of San Luis Obispo. Housing element law requires jurisdictions
to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the
community. Cal. Gov. Code § 65583.
We therefore renew our Preliminary Comments on the Draft Housing Element as bulleted
above to the Revised Housing Element and conclude once again that the City failed to
adequately analyze special housing needs per California Government Code § 65583(a)(7).
VI. Failure to Adequately Analyze Housing Sites Eligible for Conversion Per Cal. Gov.
Code § 65583(a)(9)
In our Preliminary Comments we noted that the City failed to adequately analyze housing
that is eligible for conversion because:
It failed to analyze whether deed-restricted agreements executed pursuant to San
Luis Obispo’s inclusionary zoning laws are eligible for conversion in the next 10
years. The City identified 246 units in San Luis Obispo that are affordable units
by virtue of deed-restricted agreements pursuant to San Luis Obispo’s
inclusionary zoning laws. None of those units include an analysis of whether they
are eligible for conversion.
It failed to include the analyses required by Cal. Gov. Code § 65583(a)(9)(A),
(B), (C), and (D) in its description of the three sites identified—Adriance Court,
Anderson Hotel, and Poinsettia apartments—as eligible for conversion to market
rate in the next 10 years. More specifically, the City failed to analyze:
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES
11
o the total number of elderly and nonelderly units that could be lost from the
locality’s low-income housing stock in each year during the 10-year period
per Cal. Gov. Code § 65583(a)(9)(A);
o the total cost of producing new rental housing that is comparable in size and
rent levels, to replace the units that could change from low-income use, and
an estimated cost of preserving the assisted housing developments per Cal.
Gov. Code § 65583(a)(9)(B);
o local private nonprofit corporations known to the local government that have
the legal and managerial capacity to acquire and manage these housing
developments per Cal. Gov. Code § 65583(a)(9)(C); and
o all federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs which can be used
to preserve, for lower income households, the assisted housing developments
and further considering the amounts of funds under each available program
which have not been legally obligated for other purposes and which could be
available for use in preserving assisted housing developments per Cal. Gov.
Code § 65583(a)(9)(D).
In the Revised Housing Element, the City included an analysis of the cost of replacing the
Anderson Hotel units and the Poinsettia Street units using only one other project by The Housing
Authority of San Luis Obispo, The Bishop Street Studio Apartments, as a baseline for the cost of
replacement per unit. The City did not include any analysis on whether the Bishop Street Studio
apartments were comparable in size or rent levels to the Anderson nor Poinsettia as required per
California Government code § 65583(a)(9)(B). The City also included HCD’s list of Qualified
Entities as entities who could assist in preservation, but it did not identify whether any of those
entities have the legal and managerial capacity to acquire and/or manage the City’s at-risk
developments, let-alone which entities are local, as required by California Government Code §
65583(a)(9)(C).
Furthermore, the City’s Revised Housing Element still fails to analyze the “total number of
elderly and nonelderly units that could be lost from the locality’s low-income housing stock in
each year during the 10-year period” per California Government Code § 65583(a)(9)(A) nor the
amount of funds available from the listed federal, state, and local financing and subsidy
programs which have not been legally obligated for other purposes and which could be available
for use in preserving those assisted housing developments per California Government Code
Section 65583(a)(9)(D).
Therefore, the City has still failed to adequately analyze housing sites eligible for conversion
per California Government Code Section 65583(a)(9).
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES
12
VII. Analysis of Land and Resources for Affordable Housing Development Per Cal. Gov.
Code § 65583(a)(3):
In our Preliminary Comments we noted that:
Failure to Provide Inventory for the Extremely Low-Income Category. The Draft
Housing Element failed to create an inventory of land suitable and available for
residential development, including vacant sites and sites having a realistic and
demonstrated potential for redevelopment during this planning period to meet the
locality’s need for persons with extremely low income.
Inadequacy of Sites: The Draft Housing Element included seven hundred thirty-nine
(739) units calculated in thirty-six (36) sites below 0.5 acres or above 10 acres
identified by the City for lower income households which could not be counted to meet
its RHNA numbers, because the City did not comply with the requirements of Section
65583(c)(2)(a) which apply to small and large sites. The table below indicates a
breakdown of those inadequate seven hundred thirty-nine (739) units by lot size.
Type of Site Number of Units Identified
Inadequate Small Sites (smaller than 0.5 acres) 256
Inadequate Large Sites (larger than 10 acres) 483
Total Inadequate Units 739
Failure to Demonstrate Development Potential of Nonvacant Sites: The Draft
Housing Element seemed to rely on non-vacant sites to accommodate more than 50
percent or more of its lower-income RHNA without site-specific “findings based on
substantial evidence that those [uses were] likely to be discontinued during the planning
period.” Cal. Gov. Code § 65583(g)(2). Examples of existing uses included single-family
residences, parking lots, car dealerships, a drive-in movie theater, and lots with
commercial structures on them as available for lower income housing, and the housing
element did not include any analysis demonstrating their development potential as
required by § 65583(g)(2). Therefore, those sites, which seemed to reflect over 50% of
the units counted toward lower-income RHNA, did not have the development potential to
meet the lower-income RHNA numbers. The Draft Housing Element also misclassified at
least three non-vacant sites as vacant—003-748-016, 004-921-010, and 053-231-044.
Overstatement of Realistic Number of Units Per Site and Inappropriateness for
Low-Income Households: The Draft Housing Element assumed that vacant sites or
parts of sites would be developed at 75% of the maximum density allowable per acre.
Jurisdictions are only allowed to assume development at a minimum density for sites
identified for lower income housing needs per California Civil Code Section
65583.2(c)(1),(3). For any number of units greater than that minimum density,
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES
13
jurisdictions must demonstrate that that number of units is realistic, and that the site can
accommodate that number of units per California Civil Code Section 65583.2(c)(2),(3).
Therefore, the City’s estimates not only seemed to overstate the realistic number of units
each site could accommodate, but it also failed to consider factors required by California
Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(A) such as “land use controls and site
improvement requirements from governmental constraints, realistic development
capacity, typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar
affordability level[s] in that jurisdiction, and the current or planned availability and
accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities” for sites identified for lower
income levels.
In the Revised Housing Element, the City made some changes to the sites inventory. First for
sites smaller than 0.5 acres that were classified as available for lower-income housing needs, the
City either re-classified that site as available for moderate or above housing needs instead or
removed that site form the site inventory altogether. Secondly, the City removed two sites with
existing uses from the inventory of sites available for lower-income housing needs, a car
dealership and the Sunset Drive-In, which was also greater than 10 acres.
In order to meet its RHNA numbers for lower-income housing needs, and the roughly 400
units that were removed from that inventory as described above, the City attempted to use
adequate site alternatives pursuant to California Government Code Section 65583.1. However, as
described below, the City’s efforts to meet its lower-income housing RHNA numbers is still non-
compliant.
Failure to Identify Adequate Sites for Accessory Dwelling Units: California Government
Code Section 65583.1(a) allows jurisdictions to identify sites for accessory dwelling units in
order to meet its RHNA allocation. The Revised Housing Element states that it anticipates 270
accessory dwelling units (ADUs) will be developed in the 2020-2028 planning period but does
not identify sites for those 270 ADUs because “there are too many available sites within the City
that can accommodate an ADU.” It is unclear whether those 270 ADUs are counted toward the
City’s RHNA allocation since there are conflicting statements in the Revised Housing Element,
but those 270 ADUs cannot be counted toward the City’s RHNA allocation per California
Government Code Section 65583.1(a) without identifying available sites for each one.
Failure to Demonstrate Potential for Accessory Dwelling Units: California Government Code
Section 65583.1(a) also requires housing elements to consider the “number of accessory
dwelling units developed in the prior housing element planning period whether or not the units
are permitted by right, the need for these units in the community, the resources or incentives
available for their development, and any other relevant factors, as determined by the department”
in determining the number of sites available for ADUs. The Revised Housing Element
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES
14
anticipates 30 ADUs would be developed per year based on an average of the number of ADUs
built in San Luis Obispo from 2017-2019 instead of the average number of ADUs built over the
prior planning period (2014-2019) as required by Section 65583.1(a). Since it is possible the
number of ADUs built from 2014-2019 is less than the number built from 2017-2019, it’s
possible the City’s estimate of ADUs is inflated. The Revised Housing Element also fails to
consider any other factors required by Section 65583.1(a). Furthermore, the City’s assumption
that roughly 50% of those 270 ADUs could be used to meet the City’s lower-income RHNA
allocation is also without likely merit because it is likely based on improper statistics as stated
above. Therefore, the Revised Housing Element’s estimates that 270 ADUs will be built during
this planning period and 135 ADUs will be built for lower-income housing needs during the
planning period are without merit because they are not based on proper statistics and violate
California Government Code Section 65583.1(a). Finally, the City should consider whether
ADUs can actually meet the needs of very-low or low-income residents as owners of ADUs are
not required to rent to this segment of the community.
Therefore, the City has still not identified adequate sites to meet its lower-income
housing needs.
VIII. Inadequate Statement of Goals, Quantified Objectives, & Policies Cal. Gov. Code §
65583(b)(1),(2):
In our Preliminary Comments we stated that the Draft Housing Element’s programs did
not address many of the needs identified in the housing element. The Draft Housing Element’s
analysis of need seemed to be a regurgitation of needs identified in the 5th Cycle and a were not
modified sufficiently to reflect current and future needs. Further, the Draft Housing Element did
not and could provide adequate programs for needs that were not adequately analyzed. The
below highlights the other deficiencies we noted in our preliminary comments:
Inadequate Programs for Housing Conditions:
o The Draft Housing Element failed to establish any meaningful goals, policies,
nor programs to identify nor correct specific habitability problems throughout
the City. The Draft Housing Element only proposed to address at least one
unsafe, unsanitary, or illegal housing condition, barrier to accessibility, energy
efficiency, or unsafe neighborhood annually using federal, state, and local
housing funds. Instead, the Draft Housing Element could have suggested
programs such as: adding virtual inspections or online complaint functionality
to submit electronic photos of habitability problems; re-implementing a list of
substandard housing addresses and/or landlords in SLO City; and
implementing an administrative process to prosecute landlords for relocation
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES
15
benefits and provide public education on the Health and Safety Codes
applicable to rentals.
o The Draft Housing Element also failed to establish any meaningful goals,
policies, nor programs to educate the public on their rights and remedies for
substandard dwellings, despite the fact that multiple local news outlets
identified fear and lack of knowledge as one of the main reasons renters do
not complain about substandard conditions, and therefore a main reason
housing does not get improved nor repaired.
Inadequate Programs for Affordability
o The Draft Housing Element stated that the City aspired to use public and
private funds to make affordable housing, but it did not state goals for which
funding sources the City aspired to use nor how much. Furthermore, the Draft
Housing Element should have implemented programs to provide education
about funding sources to either developers and/or the public.
o The Draft Housing Element also failed to engage in any meaningful analysis
of why housing in San Luis Obispo is not affordable despite having stated and
graphically representing that a substantial portion of its population overpays
for housing.
o The Draft Housing Element failed to establish enough meaningful goals,
policies, and programs to make sites affordable for lower income populations,
especially the extremely low-income populations, which were not sufficiently
identified. Accordingly, there were no findings of need, despite the fact that
the data reported regarding the workforce, homeless populations, and other
special needs groups show that those populations cannot afford to rent in San
Luis Obispo City. Findings from the 2020 Affordable Nexus Study were not
even analyzed.
The Revised Housing Element did not include any new goals, policies, quantified
objectives, nor programs to address the deficiencies in creating a beneficial and meaningful
impact in the community. The Revised Housing Element should also include programs to
address mold and vector (bed bug) issues in the City, considering there are currently no resources
in the County nor City for residents to utilize. Therefore, the Revised Housing Element is still
not compliant with the Government Code’s mandate that there be programs for to address
housing conditions that will have any beneficial impact during the planning period.
Although the Revised Housing Element did incorporate some meaningfully quantified
goals to address affordability in San Luis Obispo, the City should still engage in a better analysis
of housing affordability in the City to truly incorporate meaningful goals, policies, quantified
objectives and programs to address this problem.
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES
16
IX. Inadequate Programs for Special Needs Housing
In our preliminary comments, we noted the following comments regarding the following
special housing needs groups in the City:
People with Disabilities
o The Draft Housing Element failed to establish enough meaningful goals,
policies, and programs to make sites affordable and establish more assistive
housing for people with disabilities. The demographics were not analyzed
closely enough, and there were no findings of need, despite the fact that the
data reported shows that people with disabilities would have trouble renting in
the City with its extraordinarily high rental costs
o The Draft Housing Element failed to create goals, policies, and programs, to
identify the needs of the subset of its population with disabilities, identify
funding sources for housing affordable and assistive to that subset, nor
provide public education about the needs of that subset.
o Since the Draft Housing Element failed to quantify the total housing needs of
people with disabilities, it cannot, and does not, provide any meaningfully
quantified goals, policies, and programs.
Inadequate Programs for Homeless Populations
o The Draft Housing Element failed to establish enough meaningful goals,
policies, and programs for people experiencing homelessness and those at risk
of homelessness. These demographics were not analyzed closely enough, and
there were no findings of need, despite the fact that the data reported shows
there are not enough adequate housing opportunities, supportive services,
transitional housing programs, nor emergency shelters or housing programs.
o The Draft Housing Element failed to establish a meaningful of analyzing
vacant motels and hotels for conversion to affordable and/or transitional
housing.
o The Draft Housing Element failed to establish a meaningful goal to identify
the extent of the homeless population, the subset of the population which is at-
risk of homelessness, and the extent of the remaining need, even though the
City discussed, extensively, identifying homeless and those at-risk of
homelessness as a major part of its 10-year Plan to End Homelessness.
o The Draft Housing Element should have also considered the viability of
utilizing recreational vehicles and tiny houses as an alternative means of
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES
17
addressing the housing needs of the homeless and at-risk of homeless
populations.
o The Draft Housing Element failed to quantify the total housing needs of the
homeless population, which should include the needs of the subset of the
population which is at-risk of homelessness, and thus it cannot, and does not
provide any meaningfully quantified goals, policies, and programs.
Inadequate Programs for Farmworkers: Considering that The Draft Housing
Element stated that the farmworker population was hard to quantify, it should have at
least established a program and/or goal of further quantifying the farmworker
population and their financial needs and their housing needs based on that
assessment. The Draft Housing Element also failed to establish ANY meaningful
goals, policies, and programs for the purportedly small farmworker population. The
Cost of housing in the City of San Luis Obispo warrants a goal or program
identifying and utilizing private and public funding sources and identifying and
removing governmental and/or non-governmental constraints to create housing for
this population.
The Revised Housing Element incorporated only one new program for farmworkers out
of the above-mentioned special housing needs groups. As previously mentioned, that program
aims to rezone certain agricultural and open space and conservation zones for employee housing.
However, that program does not seem to meaningfully provide any beneficial impact for the
farmworker community because it does nothing to ensure affordability nor ensure employee
housing would be used for the farmworker community in general. The Revised Housing Element
should require the City to “provide for sufficient sites to meet the need with zoning that permits
farmworker housing use by right, including density and development standards that could
accommodate and facilitate the feasibility of the development of farmworker housing for low-
and very low income households” per California Government Code § 65583(c)(1)(C).
Since the City also did not provide any new programs for people with disabilities nor the
homeless population, the City has still failed to include enough goals, policies, quantified
objectives, nor programs to meet the needs of the above-mentioned special housing needs
groups.
X. Failure to Establish Program to Address Inadequacy of Sites: Since the Revised
Housing Element did not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for low and
very low incomes the City should “rezon[e] sites, including adoption of minimum density
and development standards. Cal. Gov. Code § 65583(c)(1)(A). We reiterate our
Preliminary Comments to the Draft Housing Element the City revisit its site inventory to
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES
18
identify adequate sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period by
income level. Cal. Gov. Code § 65583(c)(1)(B).
XI. Failure to Implement Actions to Promote Equal Housing Opportunities: In our
Preliminary Comments, we noted that the City failed to implement actions that promote
equal housing opportunities per Cal. Gov. Code § 65583(c)(5), which is separate and
distinct from the requirements of AB 686 to affirmatively further fair housing. We noted
that failure was striking given that the City acknowledges that the its population does not
reflect the diversity that exists in other parts of the state. The Draft Housing Element did
not implement any programs or plans of action to promote housing throughout the
community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status,
ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, source of income nor other
characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The Draft
Housing Element also failed to engage in any meaningful analysis that would drive
implementation of such programs by:
Failing to analyze the its population by demographic characteristics such as the
protected classes mentioned above as a function of income category. Formulating the
data as such would give useful insight into the financial barriers of the different
protected classes.
Failing to include any data on complaints in the City based on discrimination in the
sale and rental of housing, in land use laws, nor policies and actions of the local
government.
Failing to include any description or analysis of local efforts to investigate and
resolve discrimination complaints within the City involving property owners and
local shelters in the City.
Failing to analyze zoning and land use regulations for discriminatory impact on
protected classes.
Since the Revised Draft Housing Element did not include any additions or revisions to
address the above-mentioned comments, the Revised Draft Housing Element does not comply
with California Government Code Section 65583(c)(5).
XII. Failure to Analyze Constraints to Housing Development Per Cal. Gov. Code §
65583(a)
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES
19
In our preliminary comments, we noted the following failures to address constraints to
housing development:
Failure to Analyze Governmental Constraints: The City failed to fully analyze
governmental constraints to maintenance, improvement, or development of housing
for all income levels, special needs categories, including persons with disabilities
such as:
o Land use controls implemented by the City and whether and how those land
use controls and zoning regulations present constraints;
o Parking requirements for new developments, especially in the small sites
identified as available for low-income housing where those developments
already have little development potential;
o The relationship between heightened informational requirements for
applications for public and non-profit funding and the planning commission
review process;
o The goals outlined in Goal 7 of page 17 of the Draft Housing Element
pertaining to preserving neighborhood character and quality and its effect on
multi-family housing developments;
o The City’s Growth Management Regulation and its effect on housing
development;
o The City’s code enforcement and building codes and their resulting barriers to
housing.
Failure to Analyze Non-Governmental Constraints: The Draft Housing Element
failed to analyze at least some governmental constraints to maintenance,
improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including persons
with disabilities such as:
o The availability of public transportation to lower income sites identified in
areas such as those marked as subareas 11, 17, 18, 20, 22, and 23 in Figure E-
1 of Page E3 of the draft housing element;
o Market factors which drive housing costs in San Luis Obispo; and
o Costs of managing subsidized housing developments and its impact on overall
cost and investment.
Since the Revised Draft Housing Element did not include any additions or revisions to
address the above-mentioned comments, the Revised Draft Housing Element also does not
comply with California Government Code Section 65583(a).
XIII. Eight Year Implementation Plan: Cal Gov. Code § 65583(c): The continued
deficiencies in the Revised Draft Housing Element’s analysis of its prior housing element,
community profile, housing needs, and constraints to the development of housing make it
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES
20
is difficult to assess whether the proposed action plan is reasonably calculated to address
the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, particularly households in
lower income tiers and/or with other special needs. The Action Plan must be based on
such an analysis. Moreover, the Revised Draft Housing Element still fails to establish
CONCRETE timelines for the implementation of its programs. The Revised Draft
Housing Element instead, still takes § 65583(c)’s mandates to mean it can state the
programs are “on-going.”
Best Regards,
Vincent Escoto
CRLA—Staff Attorney
Email: vescoto@crla.org
Tel: (805)544-7994
Cell: (805)540-4375
CC:
Heidi Harmon
Mayor of the City of San Luis Obispo
Email: hharmon@slocity.org
Aaron Gomez
Vice Mayor of the City of San Luis Obispo
Email: agomez@slocity.org
Carlyn Christianson
Council Member of the City of San Luis Obispo
Email: cchristianson@slocity.org
Andy Pease
Council Member of the City of San Luis Obispo
Email: apease@slocity.org
Erica A. Stewart
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES
21
Council Member of the City of San Luis Obispo
Email: estewart@slocity.org
Rachel Cohen
City of San Luis Obispo—Associate Planner
Email: rcohen@slocity.org
Shawn Danino
HCD Land Use & Planning
Email: Shawn.Danino@hcd.ca.gov
Luz Buitrago
CRLA—Regional Director of Advocacy
Email: lbuitrago@crla.org
Ilene Jacobs
CRLA—Director of Litigation, Advocacy, & Training
Email: ijacobs@crla.org
Frank Kopcinski
CRLA—Directing Attorney
Email: fkopcinski@crla.org
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES
22
Attachments
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES
23
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES
24
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES
25