Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/2020 Item 16, Escoto CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES San Luis Obispo VIA EMAIL ONLY 175 Santa Rosa Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Tel: (805) 544-7994 Fax: (805) 544-3904 November 16, 2020 Frank Kopcinski City of San Luis Obispo: emailcouncil@slocity.org Directing Attorney Attn: Mayor and City Council 990 Palm Street Vince Escoto Staff Attorney San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Gamelyn Oduardo-Sierra Law Graduate Re: Item 16, Review of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Sylvia Torres Foreclosure Intervention Coordinator Dear Mayor Harmon and Council Members: Johnny Beltran Community Worker California Rural Legal Assistance Inc. (CRLA) hereby provides additional comments on San Luis Obispo’s (the City’s) Housing Element Myrna Alvarez Update (“Housing Element”) scheduled for action at your November 17, 2020 Administrative Legal meeting. We appreciate the Planning Department’s (“Department”) willingness Secretary to consider our comments and meet with us to discuss them. However, we Karina Castro-Martinez believe that the housing element still requires substantial revisions before it can Census Receptionist be considered to be in substantial compliance with housing element laws (Gov. Code Section 65580 et seq.) We write to request that the remaining deficiencies be remedied before the City Council adopts the Housing Element Central Office Update. 1430 Franklin St., Suite 103 Oakland, California 94612 (415) 777-2752 (telephone) By way of background, our office submitted written comments (copy (415) 543-2752 (fax) attached) to you at your September 1, 2020 council meeting detailing the many www.crla.org serious deficiencies of the prior “Draft Housing Element” that the Department José R. Padilla submitted for your consideration. The Department has made some revisions in Executive Director response to our September 1, 2020 comments and a phone call we had on Michael Meuter October 15, 2020 with Rachel Cohen, Michael Codron, and Tyler Corey. Deputy Director Although we appreciate the Department’s revisions, the Housing Element Ralph Santiago Abascal continues to fall short of meeting the requirements of housing element law. General Counsel (1934-1997) Although the Plan is due on December 31, 2020, Government Section 65588(e)(4) provides for a 120-calendar day safe harbor that would still Regional Offices Arvin Oxnard maintain San Luis Obispo County in good standing to remain in eight-year Central Salinas Coachella San Luis Obispo Delano Santa Barbara El Centro Santa Cruz FStMi CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES planning cycle. We request that the Board make use of this safe harbor and request that the Department make changes to address the remaining deficiencies We briefly highlight a few of the areas where we believe the Housing Element continues to fall short of complying with housing element law and urge the City Council to consider our more complete comments as discussed below. To facilitate the review, we cross-reference these issues by the outline number in the comments below. These areas include the programs and analyses for the special housing needs of the homeless and farmworker populations (Subsections V and VIII below ), the programs and analyses for fair housing issues in the city (Subsection X below) the programs and analyses for housing conditions and code enforcement (Subsections IV and VIII below), the overcounting of ADUs to meet the housing needs of low and very-low income families and individuals (Subsection VII below), the analysis of housing sites eligible for conversion (Subsection VI below), and analyses of governmental and non-governmental constraints to housing development (Subsection XI below). I.Failure to Make Diligent Effort to Obtain Public Participation Per Cal. Gov. Code § 65583(c)(9) In its Response Letter the Department implies that we misrepresented the status of public comment process as it existed when we submitted our comments on August 14, 2020 and September 1, 2020. However, this comment ignores that we provided supporting screenshots of the Draft Housing Element as it appeared at the time that we made our comments. Our comments were based on our actual navigation of the website at that time. Further, the reply misses the thrust of our comments that the outreach that the Department engaged in was primarily geared to real estate and other similar business groups, but not to low-income, very- low income, farmworkers and other special groups. For example, we did not see that the Department had done outreach to Latino and other minority groups such as the Promotoras and The Latino Outreach Council Although the Department updated its description of public outreach in Appendix G for the September 1, 2020 City Council meeting, the description still did not address whether meetings and documents related to the housing element were translated, and whether the department would improve efforts to ensure the housing element website was adequately updated during the public comment period. The Response Letter also misses another of our basic comments that the solicitation for comments could not provide an opportunity for meaningful public comment, since at that time the Draft Housing Element posted on the website did not include the proposed site inventory, site alternatives, housing and special housing needs analyses, goals, policies, quantified objectives, and programs. Without providing these statutorily required elements, we 2 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES have serious doubts that these efforts can be deemed to provide a “diligent effort” to provide adequate public participation per California Government Code Section 65583(c)(9). The Planning Commission and City Council hearings are necessary for the adoption of the housing element, but do not represent the type of community engagement envisioned by the housing element law. In the Response Letter, the Department indicates that translation services are offered upon request on the City’s general website, but we did not see any such notice in the early version of the housing element website. Further, we have not seen this offer of free translation services on the notices for Planning Commission and City Council meetings. We do appreciate that notice of the housing element was released in the New Times in English and Spanish on October 29, 2020. We would be glad to work with the City in the future to improve communications with minority- language communities who reside in the City. II.Inadequate Review of Progress Under Prior Housing Element Per Cal. Gov. Code Section 65588(a) The Response Letter, contrary to Government Code Section 65588(a) and HCD guidance, maintains that the California Government Code does not require housing elements to include a description of a review of past goals, policies, and quantified objectives. This requirement is the beginning component of the development of a housing element for a new cycle. The annual reports that the City may provide to HCD do meet the requirements of this section. Throughout its Response Letter, the City attempts to use HCD guidance multiple times to support its arguments, but ignores the HCD’s building blocks and guidance which states the “requisite analysis” under California Government Code Section 65588(a) includes: 1.Effectiveness of the element — A description of the actual results or outcomes of the prior housing-element’s goals (what happened), objectives, policies, and programs. The results should be quantified where possible (e.g., number of units rehabilitated) and may be qualitative where necessary (e.g., mitigation of governmental constraints). 2.Progress in implementation — For each program, the analysis should compare significant differences between what was projected or planned in the earlier housing element and what was achieved. Analyze the differences to determine where the previous housing element met, exceeded, or fell short of what was anticipated. 3.Appropriateness of goals, objectives, policies, and programs — A description of what has been learned based on the analysis of progress and effectiveness of the previous housing element. A description of how the goals, objectives, policies, and programs in the 3 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES updated housing element are being changed or adjusted to incorporate what has been learned from the results of the previous element. III.Inadequate Assessment of Employment Trends and Housing Needs Per Cal. Gov. Code § 65583(a)(1) We respectfully disagree with the Department that the Housing Element “sufficiently analyze\[s\] employment trends in the City” and reiterate our comments in our September 1, 2020 letter to City Council Revised Housing Element is still non-compliant with California Government Code Section 65583(a)(1). We agree with the Response Letter that HCD guidance does not require an analysis of demographics and characteristics of those participating in public benefits programs under Section 65583(c)(1) nor a more thorough breakdown of employment sectors. However, we submit that an analysis of the effectiveness of public benefits programs can reveal useful trends in employment and resulting housing needs. The City is not precluded from including a potentially best practice that could improve the analysis simply because HCD does not require it to include a potential best practice. IV.Inadequate Analysis and Documentation of Household and Housing Characteristics PerCal. Gov. Code § 65583(a)(2). We respectfully disagree with the Department’s contention that it sufficiently assessed household characteristics as required by Cal. Gov. Code § 65583(a)(2) and reiterate our comments in our September 1, 2020 letter to City Council. The mandate of California Government Code Section 65583(a)(2) is to analyze housing stock conditions based on local conditions. It is well known that our coastal zone is susceptible to mold, and many local news outlets have reported on substandard housing crises is the county, such as the following article in the New Times: https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article245111540.html. Our office has come across numerous cases where the code enforcement department do not assist with mold and vectors nor assessing relocation benefits for displaced tenants. The Department should include programs to ensure the county code enforcement programs adequately assist in conserving and improving affordable housing stock per housing element mandates. The Department could even take advantage of reimbursement programs offered in the California Health and Safety Code and through the Franchise Tax Board to recoup the cost of enforcement and inspection and should consider other programs described in HCD’s Building Blocks at https://hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/program-requirements/improve- conserve-existing-housing.shtml. 4 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES In our previous comments, we suggested that the County consider surveys to identify substandard housing conditions such as plumbing, mold, rodents, pests, and vectors. The Revised Draft Housing Element includes a description of a windshield survey, but that survey does not address mold, rodents, pests, nor vectors. A program should be included that commits the City to explore programs to further identify housing conditions and possible remedies. V.Inadequate Analysis of Special Housing Needs Cal. Gov. Code § 65583(a)(7). We thank the Department for revising the analysis of the special needs of the homeless population by adding a description of the public facility zones available for development of emergency shelters and for revising the analysis of the farmworker population to include a description of the plans to amend the zoning ordinances for compliance with the Employee Housing Act. The Response Letter states that the analysis of the homeless population is compliant with HCD guidance and state law. However, the description still fails to analyze key 1 statistics which are also included in HCD guidance 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. The Response Letter also states that the housing element adequately analyzes the needs of the farmworker population and is compliant with HCD guidance and state law. However, the description still fails to analyze 2 key statistics which are also included in HCD guidance such as 1) an estimate of the number of permanent and seasonal farmworkers within the community and 2) a description of different housing types (e.g. single-family, multifamily, group quarters) appropriate to accommodate the housing needs of permanent and seasonal farmworkers. While HCD does not prohibit the City from using the 2017 ACS to help assess farmworker needs, it does not limit the City to using the ACS as its primary data point for assessing the needs of farmworkers. VI.Failure to Adequately Analyze Housing Sites Eligible for Conversion Per Cal. Gov. Code § 65583(a)(9) We thank the Department for committing to adding detail to its description of units eligible for conversion by adding a description of potential units for the elderly that may be converted and updating its description of the Anderson, but this description seems to be missing from the Housing Element Update that will considered by City Council on November 17, 2020. Our 1 https://hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/housing-needs/people-experiencing- homelessness.shtml 2 https://hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/housing-needs/farmworkers.shtml 5 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES previous comments also indicated that the projected costs of replacement were based off of one other project which may not adequately project the cost of replacing the units with units of comparable size and rent levels to the Anderson per California Government Code Section 65583(a)(9)(B). The Department argues that this section “does not require the project used as a baseline for the cost of the replacement unit to be comparable in size and rent levels to the projected replacement units, but rather that the replacement units be comparable in size and rent levels to the existing units to be replaced.” While that statement may be technically correct, it fails to recognize that if the project used as a baseline is not of comparable size and rent levels then the resulting estimate must at least be adjusted to ensure the final estimate is for the cost of replacement of units of comparable size and rent levels to comply with California Government Code Section 65583(a)(9)(B)’s mandate to “estimate 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.” We also previously commented that the analysis of units eligible for conversion does not include a description of “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).” The Response Letter indicates that the nature of the County’s funding distribution processes makes it impossible to determine the amount of funds that will be used for preservation of at-risk units. It seems this response misunderstands the requirements of California Government Code Seciton 65583(a)(9)(D). That section requires a description of the funds that “have not been legally obligated for other sources.” We interpret this to mean that the housing element must indicate which funds have already been allocated and reporting the remaining portions of funding which are otherwise eligible for use to preserve at-risk units. VII.Analysis of Land and Resources for Affordable Housing DevelopmentPerCal. Gov. Code § 65583(a)(3): We thank the Department for considering our comments and removing the small sites from the low-income sites inventory, including descriptions demonstrating development potential of small sites and sites with existing uses, and a program to allow approval of certain affordable developments by right. However, there are a couple of remaining issues of concern. 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 6 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES allocation but to count ADUs to meet the RHNA needs of low and very low income households, the City must identify the parcels on which the ADUs could be built and demonstrate their affordability. The Housing Element Update anticipates 270 accessory dwelling units (ADUs) will be approved, under construction, or developed in the 2020- 2028 planning period, and that 135 of those will be affordable to lower-income households. The Department contends that the January 2020 Accessory Dwelling Unit and Mobilehome/Manufactured Home Market Study demonstrates that the 135 ADUs will be affordable to low-income and very low-income households. However, there are several problems with this study which render it unacceptable to meet the requirements of the HCD guidance. The study indicates that identifying the rental values of ADUs throughout the entire county, let-alone the city, was limited to online searches on platforms such as Craigslist and Zillow and whether a unit was classified as an ADU was up to the discretion of the researcher. The study only seems to have identified 4 ADUs in the city of San Luis Obispo to study the rental values. The study also only reports the square footage of the ADUs and not the number of bedrooms, which makes it difficult, if not impossible to determine affordability for various family sizes. Lastly, of those 4 ADUs identified in the city, the highest price reported was $2,100 per month for an ADU with 1200 square feet, and the lowest price reported was $800 per month for an ADU with 225 square feet, which seems to cast doubt on whether 135 ADUs will be affordable throughout the planning period. The referenced portions of the study are copied below in Figure 1. HCDs building blocks require an analysis of Furthermore, the county’s market study does not seem to adhere to HCD’s guidance. Furthermore, we still feel that there is a strong argument that sites must be identified for each ADU the county uses to reduce its RHNA numbers because the plain language of California Government Code states that HCD may allow a “city or county to identify sites for accessory dwelling units.” 7 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES VIII.Inadequate Statement of Goals, Quantified Objectives, & Policies Cal. Gov. Code § 65583(b)(1),(2): Inadequate Programs in General: Although we greatly appreciate the Department’s efforts to provide an abundance of programs, these programs do not sufficiently address the specific housing need of very-low and low-income households, homeless people, and farmworkers. Many of the programs the City has included are not required by HCD. We are therefore baffled by statements throughout the Response Letter that the City should not provide more programs for these special populations because HCD has not required the City to provide more programs. Further, we still believe many of the programs require more specific action steps, as suggested by HCD guidance, to drive implementation. For example, Program 2.9 states that the City’s Housing Coordinator and the Finance Department will “\[a\]ssist with the issuance of tax-exempt bonds, tax credit financing, loan underwriting or other financial tools to help develop or preserve at least 20 affordable units annually through various programs.” Several steps are missing from the ultimate unveiling of this program such as identifying resources and workers to process applications for participants, developing the actual applications, and identifying eligibility requirements. Furthermore, the timeline for that program is “on-going annually.” A program such as Program 2.9 and other programs could benefit from having a more specific timeline. Inadequate Programs for Housing Conditions: While we thank the Department for adding a program to provide education about substandard housing conditions, as 8 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES indicated in Section II above, the Revised Draft Housing Element should include programs to address substandard housing conditions such as mold and comply with its mandates and HCD guidance to improve affordable housing stock. It should also include programs to determine whether and how the building codes and substandard conditions affect affordability in general. IX.Inadequate Programs for Special Needs Housing Inadequate Programs for Homeless Populations: The Response Letter states that the City is “not a social services provider.” While analyzing and reporting on the needs of the homeless population and creating programs to address those needs are, to some, a social service, they are activities that the legislature has decided cities need to engage in housing element development to address the housing needs of this population. We thank the City for stating a commitment to continuing to work with CRLA to discuss ways of meeting the needs of the homeless population but encourage City to start by including a program as requested in Subsection V above. The Response Letter also states that our comments about tiny homes are addressed in the City’s ordinances that allow tiny homes as an accessory use to a single unit residential dwelling per Zoning Regulations Ch. 17.86.210(E). That program relies on the willingness of individuals to provide accessory units, but we have suggested that the City implement a “Tiny Home” program that is sponsored and supported by the City as has been done in several other jurisdictions. If the City cannot add a specific “Tiny Home” program as requested, we request that the City, at a minimum, create a program committing the City to analyze the costs, barriers, and feasibility of adopting this type of Tiny Home” communities. Inadequate Programs for Farmworkers: We thank the Department for including a program to update its zoning ordinances to accommodate certain farmworker housing developments. As noted in our previous comments and in HCD guidance, the City should also include a description of the local government’s role in working cooperatively with local growers, ag-related businesses (such as packing and distribution facilities), the farm bureau, and advocates for farmworkers such as our organization in order to determine available resources and shortfalls. The City should also include more programs like one that commits the local government to collaborating with agricultural employers in identifying sites and pursuing funding sources available through HCD and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s rural development programs. X.Failure to Implement Actions to Promote Equal Housing Opportunities: We thank the Department for adding programs 4.7 and 4.8 to address affirmatively furthering fair 9 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES housing by including education and translation services, but reiterate the comments from our September 1, 2020 letter to City Council 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. As we previously commented, and HCD building blocks advise, the Revised Draft Housing Element still fails to engage in any meaningful analysis that would identify other fair housing issues and potential 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. 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. 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. analyze zoning and land use regulations and other City policies for discriminatory impact on protected classes. XI.Failure to Analyze Constraints to Housing Development Per Cal. Gov. Code § 65583(a) While we appreciate programs 4.7 and 4.8 , Appendix B and discussion of Policies 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3, we reiterate our prior comments from our September 1, 2020 letter to City Council that the Housing Element Update fails 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 The relationship between heightened informational requirements for applications for public and non-profit funding and the planning commission review process; o The City’s code enforcement and building codes and their resulting barriers to housing. 10 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES o The City’s Management Growth Ordinance, regardless of the applicability of Government Code Section 663300. 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. The Response Letter states that Government Code Section 66300(b)(1)(E) exempts the City’s Growth Management Ordinance because it was “approved by voters prior to January 1, 2005, and the affected county or affected city is located in a predominantly agricultural county.” We did not have time to trace the full history of the City’s Growth Management Ordinance, but it appears to have been approved by the City Council and not voters as required by Section 66300(b)(1)(E). Therefore, the City’s Growth Management Ordinance validity under this section is questionable. Thank you for your continued attention to this matter, and we look forward to the November 17, 2020 meeting. Best Regards, Vincent Escoto CRLA—Staff Attorney Email: vescoto@crla.org Tel: (805)544-7994 Cell: (805)540-4375 11 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES 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 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 Michael Codron City of San Luis Obispo—Director of Community Development Email: mcodron@slocity.org Markie Jorgensen Assistant City Attorney mjorgense@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 12 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES Ilene Jacobs CRLA—Director of Litigation, Advocacy, & Training Email: ijacobs@crla.org Frank Kopcinski CRLA—Directing Attorney Email: fkopcinski@crla.org 13 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES Attachments “September 1, 2020 letter to City Council” 14 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES San Luis Obispo VIA EMAIL ONLY 175 Santa Rosa Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Tel: (805) 544-7994 Fax: (805) 544-3904 September 1, 2020 Frank Kopcinski City of San Luis Obispo: emailcouncil@slocity.org Directing Attorney Attn: Mayor and City Council 990 Palm Street Vince Escoto Staff Attorney San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Gamelyn Oduardo-Sierra Law Graduate Re: Item 7, Review of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Sylvia Torres Foreclosure Intervention Coordinator Dear Mayor Harmon and Council Members: Johnny Beltran Community Worker California Rural Legal Assistance Inc. (CRLA) hereby provides comments on San Luis Obispo’s (the City’s) Revised Housing Element Myrna Alvarez scheduled for action at your September 1, 2020 meeting. We request that the Administrative Legal City correct the deficiencies discussed below before it adopts the Revised Secretary Housing Element. CRLA provides legal assistance to low income families and Karina Castro-Martinez individuals throughout California, including in San Luis Obispo County, on a Census Receptionist 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 Central Office Community Development Department’s (the Department) report for Agenda 1430 Franklin St., Suite 103 Item 7, the City is required to adopt, by December 31, 2020, a housing element Oakland, California 94612 (415) 777-2752 (telephone) that substantially complies with California's Housing Element Law (Gov. (415) 543-2752 (fax) Code§ 65580 et seq.). However, not only must City comply with California’s www.crla.org housing element laws, but more importantly, it should take this opportunity for José R. Padilla the City to develop a viable action plan to address the affordable housing crisis Executive Director that has existed for too long in the City of San Luis Obispo. Michael Meuter Deputy Director By way of background, on August 14, 2020, our office submitted Ralph Santiago Abascal comments to California’s Housing and Community Development Department General Counsel (1934-1997) (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 Regional Offices Arvin Oxnard Planning Commission considered on July 22, 2020. We also sent copies of our Central Salinas Coachella San Luis Obispo Delano Santa Barbara El Centro Santa Cruz FStMi CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES 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 2 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES 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. 3 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES 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) 4 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES In our Preliminary Comments, we noted that: The City’s Draft Housing Element failed to describe and evaluate the effectiveness of the th housing element in meeting many of the 5 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. th We also noted that the City did not analyze whether the 5 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 th effectiveness of the 5 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 th made numerous changes to policies from the 5 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 th implementation of its 5 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). 5 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES 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 PerCal. 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 6 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES 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 7 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES 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: 8 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES 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 9 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES 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: 10 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES 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). 11 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES VII.Analysis of Land and Resources for Affordable Housing DevelopmentPerCal. 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, 12 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES 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 13 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES 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 th Cycle and a were not analysis of need seemed to be a regurgitation of needs identified in the 5 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 14 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES 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. 15 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES 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 16 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES 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 17 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES 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) 18 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES 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 19 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES 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 20 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES 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 21 CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE, CHANGING LIVES Attachments 22 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