Arroyo Grande City Council
February 8, 2022

5. During this process we have continually highlighted grave shortcomings in the current vacation rental ordinances and processes, to the extent that the City Council requested from City Staff a review of the current processes and performance standards last October. This process has been extremely delayed and for the City to continue to approval vacation rentals at the vastly increased rate while this review continues to be deferred is negligent, continues to allow outdated code to cause conflicts in areas known to be questionable and is morally wrong. This application should not be approved based on the fact that the City is reviewing its current standards due to concern that they are outdated and do not afford neighborhoods proper protections.

Furthermore, we have been disappointed that at each meeting we addressed the City Council with our concerns the Mayor said that City staff would contact us after the meeting to personally address our concerns. On both occasions this did not happen. After our meeting on January 11 with City staff, which we instigated ourselves, again we were promised feedback and we never received this, and this would have been important to our preparation for our appeal direct to the City.

It is clear that on a number of issues our appeal for the vacation rental at 1562 Strawberry Avenue has not been adequately and fairly addressed. We trust it will be given fair and due consideration at the City Council meeting on February 8, 2022.

Sincerely
Francine and Stewart Errico

Response comments made to the below document in RED are from the appellants.

MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Brian Pedrotti, Community Development Director
BY: Patrick Holub, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE 21-004; APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-029 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VACATION RENTAL; LOCATION – 1562 STRAWBERRY AVENUE; APPELLANTS – STEW AND FRANCINE ERRICO, ET AL.

DATE: December 7, 2021
SUMMARY OF ACTION:

Adoption of the proposed Resolution would deny the appeal and approve the proposed project in accordance with the approval granted by the Community Development Director on September 28, 2021.

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

In accordance with Chapter 3.24 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC), vacation rentals are required to pay the City transient occupancy tax (TOT) in the amount of ten percent (10%) of the rent charged by the operator.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 21-004 and approving Plot Plan Review 21-029 (Attachment 1).

BACKGROUND:

Vacation Rental Permitting
On June 10, 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 663, establishing vacation rentals and homestays as permitted land uses in the City’s residential zoning districts, subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review (Attachment 2). During the development of Ordinance 663, both the Planning Commission and City Council had discussions about potential issues related to noise, parking, and other general nuisances, due to concerns expressed by some members of the public. The performance standards by which a vacation rental application is reviewed were generated from those discussions. For example, an applicant is required to provide a local contact to address noise and
Planning Commission CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE 21-004; APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-029 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VACATION RENTAL; LOCATION – 1562 STRAWBERRY AVENUE; APPELLANTS – STEW AND FRANCINE ERRICO, ET AL. December 7, 2021 Page 2

general disturbance issues that may arise from a short term rental. Question: how are general disturbances issues raised with the local contact, by whom and how are they recorded?? A 300-foot buffer between rentals on the same street is required to prevent the oversaturation of short term rentals in a neighborhood. This is based on the short-term license only. Others may do 1 monthly rentals unlicensed and rent them out as vacation rentals, others do not apply for a license at all, thus oversaturation can still occur. The City Council seems ill equipped to deal with oversaturation and the current performance standards due not address the current situation. The ’same street’ restriction also does not make sense for many circumstances including connecting properties on different streets. Ultimately, both bodies came to the conclusion that these concerns could be addressed by compliance with the performance standards and abiding by conditions of approval. This relies heavily on the effectiveness on the local contact, but does not give any requirements regarding their qualifications to address issues other than being a 15 minute drive away. It does however, rely heavily on neighbors to report and deal with such concerns.

Additionally, these issues were found to be similar to instances when long-term renters, homeowners, and even private guests of homeowners are the cause of these types of nuisances. This argument has been put into question by comments made by planning commissioners and by complaints made directly by neighbors of existing VR rentals. At the December 7 Planning Commission meeting one of the Planning Commissioners even stated that in his experience as a hotelier, tourists do not act the same as a permanent residents. In a long-term rental situation, a renter could be in violation of their lease if there are “issues”, and with homeowners and private guest’s relationships are often developed in order to live as peaceful and harmonious neighbors. Short term rental vacationers are NOT neighbors. With short term rentals, the visitors come, they party, they vacation and then they leave over the course of the weekend. By the time complaints are heard they have often vacated with no course of action or recourse, and then the same happens again the next weekend. It is unfair and disingenuous to say that vacation rental guests are the same as long-term renters, homeowners and private guests. The City even classes them as vacationers not neighborhood renters when they define vacation rentals as a lodging business (in effect a hotel) A vacation rental includes additional protections, whereby the local contact is available to address any complaints and a property owner is motivated to comply with the conditions of approval to avoid possible revocation of the permit. It is important to note that the additional protection of a local contact is not the same as an on-site hotel manager, which most lodging businesses have. This suggested protection is extremely limited in scope. While vacation rentals are considered a lodging business in one instance by the City, they are then considered a single family home with a neighbor on the other. In addition, the process in which to revoke such a permit can take months while problems persist and impacts to the local community continue, and the City will always side with the permit holder to ensure they make amends rather than revoke their license. We have already seen this happen at the December 7 Planning Commission Meeting where even though the applicants for a vacation rental at 263 Spruce Street had been renting without a permit and had numerous complaints, were still granted their license. The question begs also does the party seeking to revoke the permit then have to pay to do this? if they do, this is a major unfair deterrent. Under the requirements of the Ordinance, the new vacation rental is conditioned to meet performance standards to minimize (which means that some adverse effects are OK?) adverse impacts on adjacent properties, ensure appropriate conditions are implemented, and prohibit overconcentration of these uses in residential districts.

The Ordinance went into effect on July 10, 2014. Since that time, the City has permitted seventy-one (71) vacation rentals and forty-one (41) homestays, not including this application. This report deliberately misses out the fact that the City Council has voiced concern over the validity of the current ordinances and that City Staff are in the process of reviewing these and reporting back to the City. It seems to suggest that vacation rentals are a resounding success, which is not true and based on limited and faulty information. In addition to this application, staff is currently processing applications for four (4) vacation rentals. Since the adoption of Ordinance No. 663, seven (7) permits that were approved by the Community Development Director for the establishment of a

vacation rental have been appealed to the Planning Commission. All seven (7) of the appeals were denied by the Commission and the Community Development Director’s decision was upheld. Each of the previous appeals were denied due to the Planning Commission being able to make the required findings for the Plot Plan Review. This statement seems to predetermine the outcome and is unfairly biased towards to the applicant.

Property History
On September 28, 2021, the Community Development Director approved Plot Plan Review 21-029 for the establishment of a vacation rental at 1562 Strawberry Avenue. At the time of approval, notice of the Director’s approval were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. This boundary area was questioned in the appeal and should have been noted. The fact that there is even a question over where the 300ft starts and finishes is a major failing of the city and the ordinances. For those who are not notified when they are legitimately within the 300ft, the city is in effect denying their right to appeal and their right to have information about the proposal to have a vacation rental near their property. The notice included the name and phone number of the applicant’s local contact person in accordance with Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Subsection

16.52.230.C.5, appeal information, and information about how to contact Community Development staff should there be questions about the project. The approval letter is included as Attachment 3. This is incorrect, because in fact two people were named, one which does not comply with the Municipal Code Subsection 16.52.230.C.5. The other is a family member who was referenced after the applicant could not locate a suitable person within the 15- minute required drive time. This is substantiated through the email trail between the city and the applicant in their pursuit of trying to make their application compliant with the ordinances.

On October 11, 2021, the appellants submitted an appeal of this determination to the Planning Commission. On November 12, 2021, the appellants submitted additional documents outlining the grounds for their appeal. The appellants’ appeal documentation is included as Attachment 4. Planning Commission CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE 21-004; APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-029 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VACATION RENTAL; LOCATION – 1562 STRAWBERRY AVENUE; APPELLANTS – STEW AND FRANCINE ERRICO, ET AL.

December 7, 2021 Page 3
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

Basis of the Appeal
The subject appeal indicated concerns about the completeness of the application, the structure’s adherence to Building and other Code requirements, availability of parking and perceived impacts on circulation, noticing procedures and the ability of the listed emergency contact to perform the required functions.

Vacation Rental Performance Standards
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.52.230 outlines performance standards and conditions required for the operation of vacation rentals within the City. These performance standards and conditions are intended to ensure vacation rentals conform to the existing character of the neighborhood and do not create an adverse impact on adjacent properties. Applicable performance standards are included as conditions of approval to allow upfront understanding by the applicant of what the City requires for the operation of the vacation rental. Conditions include items such as having a structure consistent with the neighborhood, meeting applicable Codes, maintaining a local contact person, and limiting the number of guests allowed to occupy the rental. The standards defined in Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.52.230 state:

Purpose and Intent. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that vacation rentals located in the city conform to the existing character of the neighborhood in which they are located and do not create an adverse impact on

adjacent properties. According to Wikipedia the definition of character of neighborhood is: Neighborhood character refers to the 'look and feel of an area',[1] in particular a residential area. It also includes the activities that occur there. In everyday usage, it can often be synonymous with local character, residential character, urban character and place identity,
Adverse Effect is defined as the Merriam Webster Dictionary as 1) acting against or in a contrary direction, hostile or 2) unfavorable and harmful.

We argue that a vacation rental is indeed against the neighborhood character as specified in the original building plan and purpose for Berry Gardens (agreed on by the Arroyo City Council). It was never intended to be a tourism precinct and accommodate lodging businesses. And due to outdated ordinances (which are currently being reviewed by the Arroyo City Council due to concern over the applicability of their current standards), approval of a VR on Strawberry Ave leaves a high potential for adverse effects to over 500 residents within the 300ft buffer, without proper protections in place for these residents for whom the ordinances are supposed to protect. City Staff even conclude at the end of this document that adverse effects could occur and wrongly then justify their position to say that the current performance standards mitigate the likelihood of such adverse effects occurring.

Completeness of Application
The appellants have raised issue with the alleged incompleteness of the application for Plot Plan Review 21-029.

For example, the appellants contend that the plans submitted as part of the Plot Plan Review application are inadequate. The checklist referenced by the appellants is intended for projects that propose new construction, rather than permitting a new use in an existing, permitted structure. Staff believes that the information included on the application provides staff with the required information in order to make the necessary findings for approval of the application. Recognizing that the “Minor Project Application” form is used for a wide array of application types, staff has made adjustments to the application form in order to more clearly indicate which fields are required to be completed for different permit types. These changes include clearly indicating that Section III, found on page three of the application, is not required to be completed for short term rental applications, which include vacation rental and homestay applications. Staff’s ability to determine which parts to include and omit on the form is confusing, especially for those who are raising an appeal. Do your constituents have to continue to pay nearly $500 in order to find out that what they thought was incomplete was then overruled by staff’s determination at the time. In some instances, staff are telling us they are able to determine eligibility based on certain internal and logical criteria and the next they are saying they have to comply strictly with the ordinances as written.

Code Compliance
The appellants have alleged that due to the information provided on the application, staff would be unable to verify whether the existing structure meets provisions of the California Building Code (CBC). During the review of the application, information provided by the applicant was cross referenced with City documentation to confirm that the existing structure was permitted, constructed and inspected according to standard City procedures.

Further to confirmation with City staff, they do not actually visit the street and the property to concur such information before issuing a preliminary approval. It is noted that the applicant did not include the hot tub and fire pit in their backyard as part of their drawings. They noted a garage to be used for parking but did not inform the City or note on the drawings that this has been turned into a games room and that there is no intent for parking as provided on the drawings. Furthermore, after approval of the application and before the applicant is able to rent the unit, the Building Division of the Community Development Department will conduct a safety

inspection to confirm that the necessary life safety devices are installed and in working order. This inspection includes verification that the structure is in Planning Commission CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE 21-004; APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-029 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VACATION RENTAL; LOCATION – 1562 STRAWBERRY AVENUE; APPELLANTS – STEW AND FRANCINE ERRICO, ET AL. December 7, 2021 Page 4
conformance with the City’s records regarding the structure as well as verifies that smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors, and fire extinguishers are installed as required by the current version of the CBC. Should any deficiencies become known before or during the safety inspection, the applicant will be required to address those deficiencies prior to obtaining their Business License, and therefore, will be unable to rent the unit until such deficiencies are corrected.

Parking
The appellants’ submittal included concerns that guests of the rental parking on the street could have impacts on circulation within the cul-de-sac and that parked vehicles could have impacts on emergency response or trash collection for the street. Strawberry Avenue is classified as a local street, and as such, is designed to accommodate sidewalks, two lanes of traffic with driveway access, and on-street parking within the right-of-way. As a local road, the Strawberry Avenue was designed to provide emergency access with the presence of on-street parking. This relies only on what the street was designed to provide, but does not take into consideration what actually occurs and the traffic build up on the street already. This should be properly investigated by the City Staff to ensure that safety concerns are met. Many other cities, and if fact our county, does not allow VR related on street parking. Furthermore, the appeal documents allege that presence of game tables in the garage preclude the use of the garage for guest parking. The Municipal Code does not include a parking standard for vacation rentals, therefore the presence of any obstructions in the garage is not a basis for denial of a vacation rental application. However, because the game tables are not permanently installed in the garage, staff believes this to be a non-issue and parking vehicles within the garage is possible. Staff know that the likelihood of heavy games tables (which took over a day to construct) being put away to create parking is unlikely and this is disingenuous to circumvent the concern over parking and using a space that the applicant put on their application as parking availability when they had no inclination to do so. Lastly, the appellants have taken the presence of these games tables to constitute a “home occupation” of the garage. The section of the Business License application that the appellants have taken to prohibit this use of the garage is in reference to businesses that have obtained a Home Occupation Permit, which is not applicable in this situation. A Home Occupation Permit is meant to allow a business owner to conduct more typical business activities from their home. These activities include contractors who store vehicles on their property or home office related activities. The prohibition of utilizing a garage as a home occupation does not apply in the scenario of a vacation rental. Furthermore, the use of a garage as part of a vacation rental is to be expected based upon the fact that a vacation rental most closely imitates a residential use of the structure. This implies that the Vacation Rental is more like a residential home than a hotel. This is incorrect, and the City acknowledges that Vacation Rentals are lodging businesses by virtue that their Tourism Business Improvement District Board including Vacation Rentals as a lodging business and collects transient tax for the purpose of promoting tourism and the lodging industry. As such, by definition they are doing business in and at their home. In any case, it is interesting that heavier conditions apply for someone operating a business out of their home (such as parking, type of activities and even the use of the garage), but vacation rentals have little or no restrictions yet their potential for “adverse effects” on the neighborhood are far greater.

Occupancy Limitations
Condition of Approval No. 9 limits overnight occupants of vacation rentals to two (2) persons per bedroom, and an additional two (2) people. This is to ensure rentals are not over occupied and detrimental to surrounding residences. An applicant is required to submit a floorplan as part of the application so staff can verify the number of bedrooms in a dwelling unit. At 1562 Strawberry Avenue, the single family residence has three (3) bedrooms, therefore the permit was conditioned to have no more than eight (8) overnight occupants (Attachment 5). Planning Commission CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE 21-004; APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-029 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VACATION RENTAL; LOCATION – 1562 STRAWBERRY AVENUE; APPELLANTS – STEW AND FRANCINE ERRICO, ET AL.

December 7, 2021 Page 5

Noticing Requirements
The appellants’ submittal on November 11th makes the claim that noticing requirements were not followed for this project. Specifically, the appellants allege that properties within the required 300’ radius were not notified. After conducting a thorough analysis of the properties notified of the Community Development Director’s decision, staff has concluded that owner of all of properties within a 300’ radius of the subject property were sent a copy of the approval mailer previously mentioned. The County of San Luis Obispo’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS) information indicates that there are thirty (30) parcels within 300’ of the subject property (Attachment 6). Staff believes that the forty-five (45) parcels notified actually exceeded the noticing requirements of the AGMC. Furthermore, staff believes that the appellants arrived at the total of sixty-nine (69) parcels in error due to the fact that “property owner” and “resident” labels were included in their mailing list.

Only mailing labels for property owners within 300’ are required to be submitted with an application for a vacation rental, pursuant to AGMC Section 16.12.030. Please see the City Councils Plot Plan Review Checklist which clearly states that the 300ft radius is required to be from the “property boundary”. A property boundary runs to the edge of the legal property, which in Berry Gardens is to the edge of the street. Attachment 6, using the County of San Luis Obispo’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS), clearly has the starting point (center of the circle) in the middle of the street and not on the boundary of the property. This is therefore in error and does not correctly calculate the 300ft radius and does not include all properties. We are not sure how the staff believed the appeal’s data was in error and they did not contact the appellants to discuss or gather more information before making their erroneous judgement. This was also discussed directly with staff at a zoom meeting on January 11 where staff agreed that the GIS graphic was incorrect. We believe that the Planning Commission therefore made their approval based on false information provided by city staff. At that meeting it was also determined that the actual staring point for determining the buffer zone, ie. What actually determines the property boundary is also in dispute. It is our understanding that the property boundary starts at the curb to road, and that the sidewalk is an easement. As such we determine that a total of 43 properties (with over 500 residents) are within the 300ft notification buffer. This is important because if eligible owners are not notified of the application for a vacation rental, they are also denied their rights to appeal.

In relation to the issue of “owners” versus “residents” in the notification process, the ordinances omission of renters who may be affected by a vacation rental in affect treats them as “second class citizens” and not worthy of consideration. In the case of 1562 Strawberry Avenue, the 300ft buffer takes in numerous renters in single family homes, as well as 36 apartments at the Courland Street Apartments and 44 apartments at the Oak Park Village apartments (approximately 400 residents in the buffer zone who are renters). It is disappointing the Planning Commission did not consider the “unique” circumstances of approving a vacation rental in a high-density area, and making their conclusion knowing that most, if not all of these residents have no direct access to a complaints system of the contact details of the “local contact person”, should problems arise. The Planning Commission expressed concern over this issue placing the blame back on the City Council for not updating the ordinances for which they were bound to make decisions by.

Local Contact Person
Condition of Approval No. 6 requires the vacation rental operators to maintain a local contact person or entity, within a fifteen (15) minute drive of the property, to be available to resolve any issues resulting from the use of the residence as a vacation rental. This is meant to give neighboring property owners a primary means of addressing issues with the rental instead of relying solely on City services, such as Police, Neighborhood Services, and Community Development. If in the future the local contact changes, the applicants are required to notify the City of the new local contact and property owners within 300 feet would be mailed a postcard with the new contact information. As part of their application, the applicant identified two emergency contacts. The primary emergency

contact is Erika McCann and the secondary emergency contact is Kathy Kelly. The appellants expressed concerns regarding the listing of two emergency contacts, stating that Ms. McCann was listed in an attempt to circumvent the City’s vacation rental performance requirements. Staff has spoken with the applicant and is confident that Ms. McCann is able to perform the requirements of being listed as the primary emergency contact. Should community members have issues with the emergency contacts’ ability to abate concerns related to the rental unit, revocation of the permit could be a solution, subject to a public hearing before the Planning Commission. The AGMC does not prohibit an applicant from providing additional emergency contact persons that can assist in addressing concerns from neighbors. Staff later amended this to say that they were in error because Ms McCann was not mentioned, but if they contacted the applicant and determined that Ms McCann was able to perform this duty, why was it included and how did the error occur – this was not explained. Either they did contact the applicant and incorrect information was given, or they did not contact them. Which is true here?
While City staff included an additional local contact person stating that the AGMC does not prohibit an applicant from providing additional emergency contact persons, it is very specific that the emergency contact person needs to be within a 15-minute drive of the property. Even by definition it is a “local contact”, and anyone falling outside of a 15-minute drive cannot be considered because they are not “local”. At our meeting on January 11, staff advised us that they felt it was in the public’s best interest to have the second contact because the second point of contact was in fact the property manager and would have more knowledge and contact details for the “visitors” than the family person listed by the applicant. However, they acknowledged that because they were based in Templeton that they did not comply with the city ordinances and that this would be grounds for an appeal.

In this instance, staff are again making their own determination and not complying directly with the ordinances for which they say they must adhere to. The inclusion of the property manager on the notification postcard is both a disingenuous attempt by the applicant to circumvent the ordinances and causes confusion for anyone who received the notification with the contact numbers.

Concentration Limitations
During the Council’s consideration of Ordinance No. 663, concerns were raised regarding the possibility that an overconcentration of vacation rentals and homestays could negatively impact the residential character of neighborhoods. In order to address this issue, the Council included separation requirements in the regulations that prohibit the establishment of a vacation rental within 300 feet of an existing vacation rental on the
Planning Commission CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE 21- 004; APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-029 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VACATION RENTAL; LOCATION – 1562 STRAWBERRY AVENUE; APPELLANTS – STEW AND FRANCINE ERRICO, ET AL. December 7, 2021 Page 6

same street. The nearest permitted vacation rental is located at 1515 Elderberry Court, which is located approximately 175 feet northeast of the subject property (Attachment 7). Although this property is within 300 feet of the subject property, the previously approved vacation rental is on a different street than the current application. Therefore, the address at 1562 Strawberry Avenue is eligible to be entitled as a vacation rental. If you search on Beachbumrresevations.com for vacation rentals, both 1515 and 1510 Elderberry are listed as vacation rentals. This means that the City Council permit process fails in its assumption that you can only have vacation rentals 300 ft of each other on the same street. Oversaturation is happening and occurring without proper consideration by City staff nor updated ordinances in place to deal with such occurrences. It is also noteworthy that although on a different street, both of the above VR properties are within 300 feet of 1562 Strawberry Ave.

Megan’s Law
The appellant has reiterated concerns from a previous appeal that guests of the vacation rental could potentially be registered sex offenders and the proximity of the rental to school sites or locations where children congregate could cause safety issues. Staff would like to again state that while the safety of schoolchildren is of utmost concern, the transitory nature of vacation rental guests does not meet the reporting requirements of Megan’s Law. The law was intended to compel individuals to register their permanent (or semi-permanent) address with law enforcement so that they, and the public, would know where offenders are residing. Additionally, this gives law enforcement the opportunity to check up on registered individuals and allows residents to check if any registered offenders reside in their neighborhood.

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are presented for the Planning Commission’s consideration:

1. Adopt the attached Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 21-004 and approving Plot Plan Review Case No. 21-029;

2. Modify and adopt the attached Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 21-004 and approving Plot Plan Review Case No. 21-029;

3. Do not adopt the attached Resolution, take tentative action to approve Appeal Case No. 21-004, and provide direction for staff to return with an appropriate resolution including findings for denial of Plot Plan Review Case No. 21-029; or

4. Provide direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

Denial of the appeal and approval of the requested plot plan review would allow the applicants to establish a vacation rental in accordance with City regulations, and provide the applicants flexibility to use the home to generate supplemental income. The applicant would also collect and remit TOT from rentals which would be used to help maintain City streets and services. By stating a financial reason as an advantage in the consideration of approving a Vacation Rental the City is putting its financial interests above the concerns and livelihoods of its tax paying constituents.

DISADVANTAGES:

The establishment of a number of vacation rentals in an established neighborhood could impact the atmosphere developed in the neighborhood through time. The City Staff duly note that adverse effects could be experienced by the vacation rental. There should have been a valid risk assessment completed, as the City would do for any lodging business (hotel/bed and breakfast) application. Impacts to noise, Planning Commission CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE 21-004; APPEAL OF PLOT PLAN REVIEW 21-029 FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VACATION RENTAL; LOCATION – 1562 STRAWBERRY AVENUE; APPELLANTS – STEW AND FRANCINE ERRICO, ET AL. December 7, 2021 Page 7

traffic, property values, and neighborhood composition could be observed This is actually agreeing that it could result in having adverse effects on the neighborhood. However, concentration limitations and performance standards developed specifically for vacation rentals were intended to reduce this potential, including the designation of a local contact person to manage neighbor complaints and prevent overburdening City services. This relies on the current ordinances being relevant and effective, which is not the case and has been questioned by the current City Council in their call for a review of the ordinances. The staff should have included in this memo to the Planning Commission, but it is not mentioned. In opposition to this, staff continue to defend the ordinances saying that they prevent “adverse effects”. This is simply not true. It is worth noting at the December 7 Planning Commission meeting, when this appeal was heard, there was another appeal against another vacation rental application (who had been operating as a vacation rental for several months without a license) and another neighbor of a separate vacation rental, both who claimed anti-social behavior, disturbances, parking, traffic, and safety issues. While the Planning Commission requested that the public complain to the City so the complaints could be officially recorded, there is no known system at the City to record complaints and what to do with this information. Additionally, Citywide performance standards, including the Noise Ordinance, also apply to vacation rentals. If the vacation rental begins operating outside of any of these standards or the conditions of the permit, remedies are made available through the AGMC. Are we correct to assume that it is therefore up to the residents to compile data, complain and record any issues, for which they are not financially rewarded, are not given guidance on, or do not have set processes given by the City Council? ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Staff has reviewed the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and determined that it is categorically exempt per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines regarding existing facilities.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

A notice of public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site, published in the Tribune, and posted on the City’s website and at City Hall on Friday, November 22, 2021. The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. At the time of report publication, no comments have been received beyond what was contained in the appeal forms.

Attachments:

1. Draft Resolution

2. Ordinance No. 663

3. September 28, 2021 Approval letter

4. Appeal form

5. Floor plan

6. 300’ notification radius

7. Vacation Rental vicinity map

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jessica Matson, Legislative & Information Services Director/City Clerk SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
Agenda Item 9.a. – Appeal Case 21-007; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Minor Use Permit- Plot Plan Review 21-029 for the Establishment of a Vacation Rental; Location: 1562 Strawberry Ave; Appellant: Stew and Francine Errico, Et. Al.

DATE: February 7, 2022
Attached is correspondence received from the applicants for the above referenced item. cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director
Community Development Director
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website (or public review binder)

From: francine errico
To: Caren Ray Russom; Jimmy Paulding; Kristen Barneich; Keith Storton; Lan George; public comment Subject: Additional information regarding Appeal of Plot Plan Review 21-029 Date: Monday, February 7, 2022 2:34:35 PM
Attachments: Rebuttal to Memoradum to City Countil Feb8 2022R3.docx Dear City Councillors,
As we, the appellants, only received the City Memorandum on Friday afternoon February 5, and after we had submitted documents to your Council Meeting packet, we have taken time to add omitted information and comment on areas of the Memorandum which are relevant to our appeal. Given that we are only afforded 3 minutes to speak to our issues, we felt it necessary to put these in writing to you to ensure they are duly considered and entered into public record with the below attachment.

We would be more than happy to take questions on any of the points we have raised and trust you will afford the time and consideration this deserves given the extraordinary time and expense that has gone into bringing these matter directly to your personal attention.

Sincerely
Francine and Stewart Errico

Dear City Council,
As we the appellants have only been afforded 3 minutes to speak to our appeal and address all the points raised and add additional information to the Memorandum provided by City Staff on Friday February 5 (3 days before the City Council meeting), we request that our comments made in RED to this document (below) are carefully and duly considered by the City Council members and included in the public records.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Brian Pedrotti, Community Development Director
BY: Patrick Holub, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: Appeal Case 21-007; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Minor Use Permit- Plot Plan Review 21-029 for the Establishment of a Vacation Rental; Location: 1562 Strawberry Ave; Appellant: Stew and Francine Errico, Et. Al
.

DATE: February 8, 2022
SUMMARY OF ACTION:

Adoption of the proposed Resolution (Attachment 1) would deny the appeal and approve the proposed vacation rental project in accordance with the approval granted by the Community Development Director on September 28, 2021, and upheld on appeal by the Planning Commission on December 7, 2021.

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

In accordance with Chapter 3.24 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC), vacation rentals are required to pay the City transient occupancy tax (TOT) in the amount of ten percent (10%) of the rent charged by the operator. To cover the costs of staff’s time to prepare the appeal hearing documents, the appellant paid a fee of $491 to appeal the Community Development Director’s decision to the Planning Commission and a fee of$1,163 to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 21-007 and approving Plot Plan Review 21-029.

BACKGROUND:

Vacation Rental Ordinance
On June 10, 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 663, establishing vacation rentals and homestays as permitted land uses in the City’s residential zoning districts, subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review (Attachment 2). During

the development of Ordinance 663, both the Planning Commission and City Council considered potential issues associated with short term rentals, including noise, parking, and other general problems that could be associated with vacation rentals. Ultimately, both bodies concluded that these concerns could be addressed by compliance with the performance standards and abiding by conditions of approval. For example, an applicant is required to provide a local contact to address noise and general disturbance issues that may arise from operation of a short term rental. Additionally, a 300-foot buffer between short term rentals on the same street is required to prevent the overconcentration of short term rentals in a neighborhood.

The Ordinance went into effect on July 10, 2014. Since that time, the City has permitted seventy-one (71) vacation rentals and forty-one (41) homestays, not including the subject application. In addition to this application, staff is currently processing applications for two (2) vacation rentals and one (1) homestay. Since the adoption of Ordinance No. 663, nine (9) permits that were approved by the Community Development Director for the establishment of a vacation rental have been appealed to the Planning Commission and one (1) of these approvals have been appealed to the City Council. All nine (9) of the appeals were denied by the Commission and the Community Development Director’s decision was upheld. Each of the previous appeals were denied due to the Planning Commission affirming the required findings for the Plot Plan Review. Similarly, the single appeal to City Council was also denied and the Community Development Director’s decision was upheld.

Plot Plan Review 21-033
The applicants for Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review 21-029 submitted their application on August 2, 2021, for the establishment of a vacation rental at 1562 Strawberry Avenue. The subject property is a single family residence in the Berry Gardens neighborhood west of South Courtland Street and north of Blackberry Avenue.

Additional materials necessary to provide a complete application were received by the City on September 12, 2021. After reviewing the materials provided, the Community Development Director approved Minor Use Permit-Plot Plan Review 21-029 on September 28, 2021 (Attachment 3). This approval was given without going before a Planning Commission meeting that was open to the public. A Planning Commission meeting was originally scheduled for October 5, 2021 where this matter would have given the opportunity for FREE public comment, but that meeting was cancelled with further actions taking place behind closed doors therefore denying affected residents their right (by the Brown Act) to comment and ask questions in relation to this permit.

The only recourse to voice their concern would now be to mount an appeal at the personal cost of $491 if they even know about the approval. This continued practice ensures vacation rentals are being approved at an alarming rate, without oversight, and often residents do not have the funds or experience to mount such an appeal and therefore many vacation rentals are being approved without question.

Simply put This VR application was initially approved in violation of the Brown act via a planning commission action that was not open to the public. No member of the public was afforded the opportunity to be present, voice objections, comments or opinions without cost as required by law. Notice of the Director’s approval was sent to forty-five

(45) property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. City staff confirmed that the 45 properties mentioned included some properties outside the 300ft zone, and wrongly ascertained in their Memo to the Planning Commission that this was adequate to satisfy requirements for their application. City Staff failed to properly check the list against an accurate map detailing the actual properties within 300ft. Their mistake was only acknowledged last week as a follow up from a presentation the appellants provided at a meeting the appellants initiated with the City on January 11, a month after the Planning Commission hearing. The staff’s incorrect and falsely based argument in their memorandum to the City Planning Commission was inaccurate and negligent. What else might appropriate due diligence prove? At least 11 properties within 300’ of the unit were not notified of this action or of their right to appeal even though notification is a requirement. Any action they might have taken, including an appeal was suppressed.

The notice included the name and phone number of the applicant’s local contact person in accordance with Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Subsection 16.52.230.C.5, appeal information, and information about how to contact Community Development staff should there be questions about the project. The approval mailer also listed the name of a secondary emergency contact person which is a 45-minute drive away and does not quality under the current ordinances to be a contact person. City staff decided to include this even though it does not comply with code. Please see our emails to the City Manager and further details contained in the PC level appeal and other public record documents.

Planning Commission Review
An appeal of the Community Development Director’s approval of the Minor Use PermitPlot Plan Review was filed on October 11, 2021. The appellants submitted additional documents outlining the grounds justifying their appeal on November 12, 2021. The Planning Commission heard the appeal at its meeting on December 7, 2021 (Attachment4). Issues raised in the appeal included completeness of the application, impacts on availability of parking and circulation, noticing procedures and the ability of the listed emergency contact to perform the required functions. After hearing comments from the applicant, appellants and members of the public, the Planning Commission voted to deny the appeal due to the determination that they were unable to make sufficient findings to uphold the appeal. The appellants submitted a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision on December 20, 2021. The Planning Commission made their decision with incomplete and false information provided by City Staff. If the notification issue and 300ft buffer zone were properly and fairly addressed the Planning Commission may have granted the requested continuance so that this and other issues could be investigated. However, they relied heavily on the perceived accuracy and fairness of City Staff, and were misinformed. While we appreciate city staff are well meaning professionals doing the best job they can with the resources provided, their documented errors are proof they do not have the support required to be effective and accurate, which is not acceptable as what they are doing is critical, and where mistakes can cause grave damage and irreversible consequences to the City and its residents. It is also noted that staff are not consistently following or enforcing code, and are facilitating damages through application of known broken process. It is extremely likely that other serious violations are taking place, that other applications have contained

such errors in the past and present and that the Planning Commission casted their appeal votes with incorrect and incomplete information. Without updated code and proper application vetting the City Staff are postured for failure.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

Vacation Rental Performance Standards
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Section 16.52.230 sets forth performance standards and conditions required for the operation of vacation rentals within the City.

These performance standards and conditions are intended to ensure vacation rentals conform to the existing character of the neighborhood and do not create an adverse impact on adjacent properties. Applicable performance standards are included as conditions of approval to allow an upfront understanding by the applicant of what the City requires for the operation of the vacation rental. Conditions include items such as having a structure consistent with the neighborhood, meeting applicable Codes, maintaining a local contact person, and limiting the number of guests allowed to occupy the rental. This section omits reference to the open action by City Council to conduct a review of current standards and ordinances due to concerns that they are outdated and do not adequately reflect today’s landscape of vacation rentals and the issues they pose to the City and to its constituents. The City Council took the action last October after acknowledging existing VR codes and procedures may no longer be relevant and need updating to action a code review and revision. Knowing that, how can the City continue allowing these known errors to occur with known outdated code? Basis of the Appeal
The subject appeal indicated concerns about (1) due process, (2) the application not meeting the required performance standards, and (3) the Planning Commission not addressing material errors raised in that appeal (Attachment 5).

1. Due Process
The appeal raised concerns with the notification of adjacent property owners as required per Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Subsection 16.16.080.C.6. Notice of the Community Development Director’s approval of the application was provided to property owners within a 300’ radius on September 28, 2021. City staff omitted to mention that it was tabled as an agenda item for an October 5 meeting, but the meeting was cancelled so public were not afforded the opportunity to comment on the approval without having to launch an appeal. It was later determined, following the Planning Commission hearing, that eleven (11) property owners within the required radius were not notified included in the original mailing list and did not receive notice of the Community Development Director’s approval. However, each of these eleven property owners, as well as all of the other property owners within the required 300’ radius, were notified of the Planning Commission hearing. This is based on the assumption that the City Council has verified the accuracy and completeness of all the labels which did not occur. Several were addressed to the resident and several not by name since that information was not found at that time. Therefore, it is very likely that there are still property owners who have not been, but should have been, notified. In addition, if this

argument is held to be legitimate, then any applicant could simply notify one owner or a select few (picking and choosing who they want to notify) and rely on an appeal process (which may or may not happen) to give them compliance with due process. This simply does not make sense. Additionally, the notice of this hearing before the City Council was also mailed to all of the required property owners within 300 feet of the subject property, including the eleven properties missed with the original mailing.

Because the Community Development Director’s approval of the permit was eventually appealed to the Planning Commission, and because notices of the two hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council have been provided properly, the City Attorney has advised that no property owner has been deprived of their rights in this case. Government Code Section 65010(b) states:

No action, inaction, or recommendation by any public agency or its legislative body or any of its administrative agencies or officials on any matter subject to this title shall be held invalid or set aside by any court on the ground of the improper admission or rejection of evidence or by reason of any error, irregularity, informality, neglect, or omission (hereafter, error) as to any matter pertaining to petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals, or any matters of procedure subject to this title, unless the court finds that the error was prejudicial and that the party complaining or appealing suffered substantial injury from that error and that a different result would have been probable if the error had not occurred. There shall be no presumption that error is prejudicial or that injury was done if the error is shown.

The City Staff claim, that no rights were violated, contrary to our research and advice obtained which strongly suggests that rights were absolutely violated, injuries were and will be sustained and outcomes reasonably would have been different. We also request a copy of that legal opinion in writing and on letterhead, and believe that the City Attorney likely gave a statement under different context and may not have had all the information when providing this preliminary opinion. There most certainly has been “injury” or damages, in the fact that the only option for the appellant to question this application is to file an appeal at the cost of $491 and an additional $1163, these are now financial damages – the appellant has in effect paid to find and correct the City Staff’s mistakes. Injury does occur to those who have been denied their right to appeal.

As the 11 (or more) owners were only notified by the appeal process, they are not afforded due process – the deadline to make their own personal appeal would have been October 11, months before they receive their notification by the appellants. In determining, that even if these 11 omitted owners had the right to appeal that the decision would not have been changed the outcome is predetermination, as we will never know what additional evidence or issues they may have raised. In addition, if the VR application of 1562 Strawberry was denied there most certainly could be a number of different results – the owner might not pursue going through the process again of applying, the City Council may issue a moratorium on all existing and future applications

until the standards and ordinances have been re-visited therefore making it applicable under future ordinances, or other neighbors may decide to apply for a vacation rental, as it would now be their right to do so because the previous one had been denied.

As the error in the original notice of the Community Development Director’s approval of the permit was not discovered until after the Planning Commission hearing, staff did not notify the Commission that the original notice had inadvertently excluded 11 properties.

However, because all of the property owners who should have been originally notified were subsequently noticed properly for the appeals to the Planning Commission and to the City Council, no property owners were deprived of their rights, no prejudicial errors occurred, and a different result was not probable if the error had not occurred.

Therefore, staff does not recommend upholding this appeal issue. Again, we maintain that their rights have absolutely been denied, among other issues, there is no process for them to lodge an appeal after the appeal deadline. The possibility of giving a 3- minute public comment during someone else’s appeal hearing is completely different in almost all ways to lodging one’s own appeal. If we had not taken the time to discover this violation of property owners’ rights and file an appeal, this gross error would never have been realized and the VR application would have been approved in spite of rights having been violated. Ironically, as a result of our identifying and notifying the correct owners of our appeal, the City claim that we corrected the applicant’s error since everyone required to be notified was notified of our appeal, even though they were not part of the VR application process. We fail to see how they would have an opportunity to file a PC appeal in this instance (months after the appeal deadline) and hope this seems as absurd and unfair to others as we find it to be.

2. Performance Standards
The appeal contends that the application does not meet the required performance standards, specifically in regards to the listed emergency contact persons. The application originally included an emergency contact person that was beyond the required 15-minute drive time from the rental property. The applicants later provided an emergency contact person that was within the required distance and that person’s contact information was provided as the property’s primary emergency contact in the notices mailed to nearby property owners. Because the applicants had already contracted with a vacation rental management company, the applicants requested that the original emergency contact person included in the application be provided as a secondary contact person. It is evidenced that the applicants had already contracted with a vacation rental property before obtaining the license. Any financial implications were a result of the applicants poor planning and should not be a reason to make up new rules. The appeal contends that this person would not otherwise qualify as the primary contact person, and, therefore, should not be allowed to be listed as a contact person for this rental. Staff believes that the presence of a second emergency contact person will only serve to benefit the neighborhood should any issues arise. Because the applicants have provided an emergency contact person who meets all of the necessary performance standards, staff does not recommend upholding this appeal issue. If the City Council denies the appeal and upholds approval of the vacation rental permit,

notice of the approval listing the emergency contact persons will be mailed to all property owners within a 300’ radius of the property. This suggests that if the applicant provides a local contact number (even if they do not serve any purpose other than being a 15-minute drive) that a secondary contact (the property manager) can be located anywhere, even Alaska or New York City. This sets a dangerous precedent of circumventing the “intent” of the performance stands, in which the local contact within 15-minute drive is to be available to personally address noise and other issues and disturbances. In this instance, it will be the property manager who wants to deal with these issues directly not the intended contact person. Multiple points of contact continue to muddle responsibility and communications. These and other arguments have been made and are well documented in some of our previously filed documents, including an email to the city manager that is in public records, and through this multiple appeals process. Please be certain to review them in detail.

3. Planning Commission Hearing
The appeal states that the Planning Commission did not address some of the errors that were raised during that hearing. These errors mentioned include the notification error with the original Community Development Director approval of the permit and that a secondary contact person should not have been provided due to the fact that the secondary emergency contact person does not reside within a fifteen (15) minute drive of the property. The appeal further states that the Planning Commission should have continued the item to a later date to allow these errors to be corrected. The appellants has very little time to attempt to respond to the city memo that was published and zero time to prepare for changes that they made to that document which were only disclosed at the appeal’s hearing, the appellants were only given a few minutes to speak about their entire appeal, of which the incorrect data was not the only issue. Furthermore, they were not permitted to speak again during the hearing even though they made a request to. It took about ½ hour to explain with drawings and diagrams the mistake to the City staff on a zoom meeting January 11. This could not be covered in detail at the City Planning Commission meeting and we requested a continuance so this and many other shortcomings could be accurately and fairly described. The staff memo to the City Planning Commission blatantly said we were in error, even though they had not conducted due diligence and properly checked their claimed facts.

During the hearing before the Planning Commission on December 7, 2021, the Commissioners in attendance had the opportunity to review the materials provided by City staff, the applicant and the appellants and concluded that sufficient materials were provided to make a determination on the appeal. Ultimately, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the appeal and to approve the vacation rental as submitted.

Because the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing and heard input from all parties, staff does not recommend upholding this appeal issue. Effectively we have spent a great deal of our own time and money to do the City’s job of correcting their negligence. Something about that situation does not seem fair. This has all resulted following a great deal of needless personal cost in both time and dollars. This City admission proves our original VR appeal at the Planning Commission level was NOT fairly considered and contained incorrect City provided recommendations and should

not have left us with an only recourse of filing this further appeal at the City level to be heard.

See above comments.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 21-007 and approving Plot Plan Review Case No. 21-029. In order for the City Council to uphold the appeal and deny the vacation rental permit, a majority of the quorum would need to identify substantial evidence supporting findings that the requirements of the Ordinance for approval of a vacation rental have not been met, as follows:

1. The proposed project is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and programs of the Arroyo Grande general plan

2. The proposed project conforms to applicable performance standards and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. We have demonstrated that by approving a vacation rental at 1562 Strawberry Avenue that over 500 residents could be adversely effected, with over 400 being renters who will not have access to emergency contact numbers should there ever be any problems. We have questioned the safety of children and senior citizens on our street due to increased traffic, parking and strangers on the street, and we have demonstrated that the application does not meet the performance standards due to errors by the applicant and the city staff. Additionally existing code is knowingly no longer relevant or appropriate. The incomplete City action of a code and procedures review with updates needs to be completed before any further VR approval related activities occur.

3. The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Again, the location of this vacation rental would be in a high-density area with over 500 residents within the 300ft buffer zone. It is therefore not compatible with surrounding neighborhood. It could also be argued that a lodging business (hotel), is not compatible with the existing neighborhood as specified in the original purpose of building Berry Gardens prescribed in the Berry Garden Specific Plan and approved by the AG City Council.

In accordance with finding #2, the vacation rental must conform to the following performance standards and conditions listed in the Municipal Code:

1. Operators of vacation rentals are required to obtain a minor use permit-plot plan review (Section 16.16.080) and a business license. The minor use permitplot plan review was invalid and incomplete, qualifying owners were denied their right to notification and appeal, staff were making their own determination in relation to code and setting precedent, and the Brown Act was violated by approving the permit without a free public hearing.

2. Any proposed vacation rental shall be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located in terms of landscaping, scale and architectural character. The

use shall be harmonious and compatible with the existing uses with the neighborhood. A daily turnover lodging business with no on-site management is not harmonious or compatible with the existing use of the neighborhood. This is evidenced in the appeal documentation.

3. All Building Code and Fire Code requirements for the level of occupancy of the vacation rental shall be met.

4. All environmental health regulations shall be met.

5. The operator of the vacation rental shall, at all times while the property is being used as a vacation rental, maintain a contact person/entity within a fifteen-minute drive of the property. The contact person or entity must be available via telephone twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven days a week, to respond to complaints regarding the use of the vacation rental. The contact person or entity shall respond, either in person or by return telephone call, with a proposed resolution to the complaint within three hours between seven a.m. and nine p.m., and within thirty (30) minutes between nine p.m. and seven a.m. The applicants have circumvented this requirement by including their additional point of contact that is a property manager who does not qualify to be listed as an emergency contact. See above references.

6. The operator of the vacation rental shall annually, at the time of renewal of the business license, notify the community development department of the name, address and telephone number of the contact person required in subsection (C)(6).

7. A written notice shall be conspicuously posted inside each vacation rental unit setting forth the name, address and telephone number of the contact person required in subsection (C)(6). The notice shall also set forth the address of the vacation rental, the maximum number of occupants permitted to stay overnight in the unit, the maximum number of vehicles allowed to be parked on-site, and the day(s) established for garbage collection. The notice shall also provide the nonemergency number of the Arroyo Grande Police Department.

8. On-site advertising of the vacation rental is prohibited.

9. The number of overnight occupants shall be limited to two persons per bedroom and two additional persons. A bedroom shall meet the minimum size requirements as defined in the Building Code.

10. All refuse shall be stored in appropriate containers and placed at the curb for collection every week.

11. The operator of the vacation rental shall pay transient occupancy tax as required
by Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 3.24.030.

12. Establishment of a vacation rental within three hundred (300) feet of an existing vacation rental on the same street shall not be permitted.

13.Violations. Violation of these requirements shall constitute grounds for revocation of the minor use permit pursuant to Section 16.16.220. Although City Staff are happy to cite the number of approved permits and how many appeals have failed, they omit here to mention how many permits have ever been revoked, how long the process would take, what the cost is and who covers the cost?

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:

1. Adopt the attached Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 21-007 and approving Plot Plan Review Case No. 21-029;

2. Modify and adopt the attached Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 21-007 and approving Plot Plan Review Case No. 21-029;

3. Do not adopt the attached Resolution, take tentative action to uphold Appeal Case No. 21-007, and provide direction for staff to return with an appropriate supporting resolution including findings for denial of Plot Plan Review Case No. 21-029; or

4. Provide other direction to staff.

5. Adopt a resolution for a moratorium on all existing and future vacation rental applications so that these grave shortcomings in the processes and systems are rectified and ordinances are updated to address many issues surrounding the current landscape of vacation rentals and greater protections are afforded to the constituents of Arroyo Grande. If this were to be enacted, and the appeal successful, the applicant might apply again, but under new updated legitimate ordinances.

ADVANTAGES:

Denial of the appeal and approval of the Minor Use Permit - Plot Plan Review would allow the applicants to establish a vacation rental in accordance with City regulations and provide the applicants flexibility to use the home to generate supplemental income.

The applicant would also collect and remit TOT from rentals, which would be used to help maintain City services and infrastructure.

DISADVANTAGES:

The establishment of a number of vacation rentals in a residential neighborhood could impact the atmosphere developed in the neighborhood through time. Impacts to noise, traffic, property values, and neighborhood composition could be observed. However, concentration limitations and performance standards developed specifically for vacation rentals were intended to reduce this potential, including the designation of a local contact person to address negative impacts to neighbors and prevent overburdening City services. Additionally, Citywide performance standards, including the Noise Ordinance, also apply to vacation rentals. If the vacation rental begins operating outside of any of these standards or the conditions of the permit, remedies are made available through the AGMC. Staff have omitted to state that this could be a lengthy and costly venture and how many permits have been revoked to date. They have omitted that they do not have a process in which to collect or research current issues with vacation rentals and complaints and do not advertise to residents the ability and the need to collect such data. One major disadvantage given the evidence in the appeal is that due process was not followed, rights were denied and fair hearings not held, and as such

the residents of Berry Gardens and other AG communities will lose faith in the Arroyo Grande City Council who is supposed to act morally, ethically and legally to protect and maintain the communities it serves. This is incredibly serious. Neighborhoods and residents’ lives are being severely and negatively impacted by what is occurring here.

Wrongful activity is taking place, and it is unreasonable, unethical and probably illegal for applications, including this one, to continue to be processed in the current environment and under the known outdated code.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Staff has reviewed the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and determined that it is categorically exempt per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines regarding existing facilities.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

A notice of public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site, published in the Tribune, and posted on the City’s website and at City Hall on Friday, January 28, 2022. The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. At the time of report publication, no comments have been received.

Attachments:

1. Proposed Resolution

2. Ordinance 663

3. Approval Letter dated September 28, 2021

4. Minutes and Staff Report from the December 7, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting

5. Appeal Document

From: Cheryl Schweitzerhof
To: public comment
Subject: Consideration of Appeal to City Council Case 21-007 Date: Friday, February 4, 2022 5:34:31 AM
My name is Cheryl Schweitzerhof. I reside on Strawberry Ave, Arroyo Grande.

I am not in favor of a mini hotel (vacation rental) as a next door neighbor.

I live in a residential family oriented neighborhood. If I had wanted to live in a mini hotel environment with vacationers/visitors coming to town, I would have bought a residence in downtown Pismo Beach.

I am appealing to the City Council not to allow approval to proceed for the establishment of a vacation rental at 1562 Strawberry Ave, Arroyo Grande.

Your consideration is appreciated
Cheryl Schweitzerhof
Sent from my iPad

From: Linda Drummy
To: public comment
Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Case 21-007 1562 Strawberry Ave Date: Wednesday, February 2, 2022 7:13:42 PM
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to you about my concerns for the short term vacation rental slated for 1562 Strawberry Ave, Arroyo Grande. There are many red flags about this property. Please do NOT allow this property to have "short term" rentals. There are many red flags about this property. Please do NOT allow this property to have "short term" rentals.

1. The City mishandled the original mailing to some affected residences, including myself, as they never got the original notice, denying their right to appeal .

2. The residence has no usable parking in the garage as it was converted to an entertainment "play" room. There is no option to remove the items in the garage to even allow cars to park there. So parking will be on the driveway and street, where there is already limited space.

With short term vacationers, brings fifth wheelers, trucks with trailers for their off road vehicles and multiple other vehicles and "toys". This street and surrounding ones can not handle this increase in traffic, parking, noise and garbage that is created by short term rentals.

Th

3. This is a "conflict of interest" for council members to vote on, as some have their own vacation rentals.

4. The main "emergency contact" is well outside the 15 minute drive from this property (Templeton). Homeowner listed "two" emergency contacts which is also against the city ordinance. The other listed party does not meet the required performance criteria.

5. If a neighbor has an urgent problem with the vacationers, It can take up to 3 hours for someone to respond. This also is unacceptable!!
This is a "residential" neighborhood, not a "commercial" neighborhood. Our entire neighborhood already has limited parking with the cars that are already here.

This short term rental will be detrimental to our neighborhood as it will reduce our property values, increase parking issues, increase traffic issues, cause trash issues, cause noise disturbances and safety issues. Without proper screening, as is used in long term rentals, the short termers can cause quite a number of problems in this quiet neighborhood. There is no accountability for their actions as they just pick up and leave behind the mess they created.

There is no recourse in managing them.

A long term rental would be the better option for this home and neighborhood. Do NOT allow this to be approved.

Regards,
Linda Drummy
Arroyo Grande

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jessica Matson, Legislative & Information Services Director/City Clerk SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
Agenda Item 9.a. – Appeal Case 21-007; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Minor Use Permit- Plot Plan Review 21-029 for the Establishment of a Vacation Rental; Location: 1562 Strawberry Ave; Appellant: Stew and Francine Errico, Et. Al.

DATE: February 8, 2022
Attached is correspondence received by 4 p.m. for the above referenced item. cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director
Community Development Director
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website (or public review binder)

From: Michelle Chariton (MC)
To: public comment
Cc: Jaime Fordyce; s
Subject: Appeal Case 21-007; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Minor Use Permit- Plot Plan Review 21-029 for the Establishment of a Vacation Rental; Location: 1562 Strawberry Ave; Appellant: Stew and Francine Errico, Et.

Al. - Chariton Public comment
Date: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 3:35:03 PM
Attachments: Appeal Case 21007 1562 Strawberry Ave Public Comment.pdf Please see attachment for your review in public comment. - pdf provide details.

City Counsel Please take time to PAUSE and reflect that the current systems and process surrounding the Vacation Rental is truly broken. As a professional in this field I personally would like to bring to your attention the unrepresented voice and non-bias representation of the municipal code. Title 16 has not been enforced by Arroyo Grande Community Development Staff or at the Planning Commission level. The Vacation rental 16.52.230 Performance Standards and Conditions have not been meet. Attached document describes in detail 16.16.080 - Minor use permits application was incomplete. Plot Plan Review Table 16.12.030-A Mailing Label Requirements - not accurate and incomplete. The permit needs to be denied and the votes unanimously in favor of the appellant.

Michelle Chariton

City Counsel Please take time to PAUSE and reflect that the current systems and process surrounding the Vacation Rental is truly broken. As a professional in this field I personally would like to bring to your attention the unrepresented voice and non-bias representation of the municipal code.

Below are the facts. It is really this simple. The applicant either performs the actions laid out in Title 16 or they did not.

The burden of proof is not on the appellant or the city it is on the applicant.

First point: The Application for this Minor Use Permit is incomplete in the eye of the code aka Title 16. Let’s follow the bouncing ball of Municipal Code.

1. 16.52.230 Performance Standards and Conditions for Vacation Rentals. a. 16.16.080 - Minor use permits 1.Operators of vacation rentals are required to obtain a minor use permit- via plot plan review (Section 16.16.080)
b. 16.16.080 - Minor use permits—Plot plan review section C. Submittal and Review Requirements: 1.Minor use permit—plot plan review applications shall contain the following:
a. Completed planning application form and required fee and attachments (see also Section 16.12.030) c. ***Important note why the application is incomplete lies in 16.12.030 – Application submittal two things can happen: in section 6&7

1. In section 6: Community development director shall determine in writing the completeness. If deemed complete, the application shall then be processed pursuant to the provisions of this Title.

2. In section 7: If the community development director fails to make a determination as to completeness of an application or resubmitted application within the time period specified by state law, the application shall be automatically deemed complete and processed pursuant to the provisions of this title. d. The Minor Project application PPR21-000029 was submitted on August 8th 2021 and was deem complete by staff on September 28 2021. This permits timeline exceeds the allot time mandated by the permit streamline act Government Code § 65921 - The agency has 30 days after an application is submitted in which to inform the applicant of whether the application is complete. Staffers took 51 days. This permit was “automatically deemed complete.” – comfirming all this items below why they are incomplete. e. ***When a permit is “automatically deemed complete per state statue” the documents have to stand alone. No changes to document can be made as it makes it way through from the Community Development notice of administrative decision. Then to planning commission consent agenda for a vote by the Planning Commission meeting minutes. Which for applicant opens the permit up for audit and security under the code per the appeals process 16.12.150. Which has occurred and has merit!

f. Below is the appellant specific reasons for the basis of the appeal and have 100% merit under Title 16 and the Ordnance 663 – Minor Use Permit Application items:
• Project Description II – incomplete
• Section III. For plot plans - incomplete and completely blank • Section of V. COMPLETE THIS SECTION FOR PROJECTS ALL – incomplete and no signatures provided – technically grounds for incomplete application for any public agency per the Political Reform act of 1974, the City needs to be aware of all entities (i.e. corporations, lending institutions, etc. or individuals that may have a financial interest in the proposed project. --- Due to recent interpretation and legal amendments to the All LLCs shall provide relevant Articles of Incorporation in order to disclose all financially interested entities.

Please complete the following certification and provide your signature g. Moreover, Title 16 and the Ordnance 663 Under 16.16.080 - Minor use permits—Plot plan review: C.

Submittal and Review Requirements: 6. For Plot Plan Reviews establishing the use of property for vacation rental purposes, the decision of the community development director shall also be mailed to all property owners of parcels within three hundred (300) feet of the property for which the plot plan review has been requested, in addition to the requirements of subsection (C)(5). The notice shall indicate the appeal provisions of Section 16.12.150 and Table 16.12.030-A Mailing Label Requirements • Out of the only 45 addresses on the mailing list used by the applicant, including themselves, properties beyond the 300 feet which are not addresses for property owners within 300 feet are included in this total, and incorrect names are listed against addresses.

A cursory analysis indicates that a minimum of 69 properties fall within the 300 foot area. This number does not include the large number of individual units at the complexes at Oak Park Village apartments and Courtland Street Apartments.
h. The operator of the vacation rental shall, at all times while the property is being used as a vacation rental, maintain a contact person/entity within a fifteen-minute drive of the property - One is not associated with the “deemed complete application” is (Erika McCann), and the other (Kathy Kelly) is further than 15 minutes from the property - Emergency contacts listed are not valid – application is incomplete. • **Note an emergency contact is one not two this deviation by “community director” interpretation is confusing for all and not supported by the Code, this interpretation needs to stop immediately.

In closing Title 16 has not been enforced by Arroyo Grande Community Development Staff or at the Planning Commission level. The Vacation rental 16.52.230 Performance Standards and Conditions have not been meet. Above describes

16.16.080 - Minor use permits application was incomplete. Plot Plan Review Table 16.12.030-A Mailing Label Requirements – not accurate and incomplete. The permit needs to be denied and the votes unanimously in favor of the appellant.

Thank you for your time and pause
Michelle Chariton

From: Linda Drummy
To: Whitney McDonald
Subject: Fwd: 2nd Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Case 21-007 1562 Strawberry Ave Date: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 1:51:53 PM
From: Linda Drummy >
Date: February 6, 2022 at 7:56:44 PM PST
To: [email protected]
Subject: 2nd Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Case 21-007 1562 Strawberry Ave
Dear Council Members:

This should be added to my previous email of Feb 2, 2022.

I am very disheartened by the Council's response that my appeal is not going to be heard on this properly even though you DID NOT send me the original notification about my right to appeal.

1. I was finally notified about the appeal because the neighbors did appeal this short term rental. The city did not send me the required flier about this.

2. My right to appeal was taken away from me.

3. The CITY must take ownership of their error and not just slough it off. My input means nothing to you.

4. Last week, the Management company for this property...which is illegally more than 15 minutes away (more like an hour away), was at the said Strawberry property. They sheepishly smiled when asked if the homeowner got permission for this rental. In other words, it appears that this appeal is all futile. As I would have to guess that they already received approval for the short term rental, and, the City has predetermined the approval for the short term rental.

REALLY???????

5. As history has proven, nearby property values will fall. (of course no Council member would allow this in their neighborhood such as The Cherry Lane neighborhood.)

6. There is NO parking allowed in said home's garage, as it is filled with very large and heavy "Toys" such as a non foldable ping pong table and foosball table.

No place to move these to and too heavy to move.

7. Homeowners LIED to their neighbors saying this was going to be a "long term" rental. Yet, they deceived everyone and will still get this short term rental approved

8. Parking is at a premium in this neighborhood which means the vehicles and 5th wheelers and trailers carrying off road vehicles, will spill over onto other

already congested streets.

9. There is a conflict of interest for some council members voting on this, as they have rentals of their own.

This entire process is a FARCE. As the City of AG wants any monies they can get their hands on, and this short term rental will benefit the City. It will NOT benefit the neighborhood that I live in. We have been left out of the equation.

The City has given the green light to this, even BEFORE hearing valid appeals.

And, this appeal process has previously been sidelined numerous times, I would assume to benefit the homeowner.

How can you justify your actions????? And, how can you allow a management company that is an hour away, manage this property??? If there are complaints, they are too far away to be present to assist with the issues in a timely manner.

The City and Council just doesn't care, and the real taxpayers are being rolled over on, once again. THIS IS ALL SO WRONG!!!!!! But you don't care.

Regards,
A very disgruntled homeowner
Linda Drummy
Blackberry Ave, AG

Item 9.b.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Brian Pedrotti, Community Development Director
BY: Andrew Perez, Acting Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Discuss and Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and Tiny Homes On Wheels; Development Code Amendment 20-001
DATE: February 8, 2022
SUMMARY OF ACTION:

Introduction of the proposed Ordinance amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code regarding accessory dwelling units (Attachment 1), including provisions addressing tiny homes on wheels (THOW), will allow for adoption at a future City Council meeting and submittal to the State for final review consistent with applicable legislation.

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

SB 2 grant funding in the amount of $20,000 was obtained to offset costs associated with the amendments to the ADU regulations, including staffing hours, website development, and marketing materials.

RECOMMENDATION:

Introduce the Ordinance amending the accessory dwelling unit regulations and establishing regulations for tiny homes on wheels.

BACKGROUND:

The State legislature has identified production of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as an important strategy to increase housing statewide. In 2017, the State made significant changes to the manner by which local governments can regulate ADUs, primarily with respect to parking, types and sizes of ADUs, approval process and timelines, and utility fees. In response, the City adopted Ordinance 688 in October 2017, making local regulations consistent with State law at that time.

While State legislators acknowledged that the ADU permitting process was significantly streamlined as a result of the 2017 legislation, some were concerned that local jurisdictions’ regulations, such as unit size maximums and impact fees, continued to impede property owners from constructing ADUs. As a result, in October 2019, Governor

Item 9.b.

City Council
Discuss and Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and Tiny Homes On Wheels; Development Code Amendment 20-001
February 8, 2022

Newsom signed a package of new State housing bills that further amended Government Code §65852.2 and §65852.22 related to regulations for development of ADUs. As a result of this legislation, the City’s Development Code, Title 16, must be amended again for consistency with State law. This update is being funded by grant money obtained through the State’s SB 2 Planning Grants Program. In addition to updating the ADU regulations, the City will create a dedicated webpage for ADU development and handouts to assist homeowners in navigating the development process. The webpage will also include information about the pre-approved ADU plan program the City is participating in with the cities of Atascadero, Grover Beach, and Morro Bay. This project is funded entirely by a Regional Early Action Planning grant and will make pre-approved plans available to residents to encourage ADU development by reducing costs associated with design and review time.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

State Legislation
The passage of Assembly Bills 68, 881, 587, 670, and 671, and Senate Bill 13 impacted the City’s regulatory authority over the construction of ADUs. A total of six amendments to State law for ADUs were included in the 2019 legislation, made effective on January 1, 2020. Table 1 summarizes each of the six (6) amendments and how each is implemented.

Table 1: 2019 State Law Amendments Affecting ADU Development Bill Code Section Summary Status
AB 881
AB 68
SB 13
Government
Code §65852.2
Accessory
Dwelling Units
&
§65852.22
Junior
Accessory
Dwelling Units
 Allows ADUs up to 850 square feet or
1,000 square feet on any residential or
mixed-use lot.
 Prohibits owner-occupancy requirement.
 Requires ministerial approval within 60
days of application.
 Prohibits impact fees on ADUs under 750
square feet.
 Prohibits minimum lot size requirements
for ADUs.
 Reduces parking requirements.
 Allows one ADU plus one junior ADU.

Amendments
proposed to Title 16
to comply.

AB 587 New
Government
Code
§65852.22
Option for local agencies to adopt by
ordinance a provision that allows an ADU
to be sold or conveyed separate from the
primary residence if the property was built
or developed by a qualified nonprofit
corporation.

Not proposed in the
draft Ordinance.

Item 9.b.

City Council
Discuss and Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and Tiny Homes On Wheels; Development Code Amendment 20-001
February 8, 2022

The proposed draft Ordinance would amend existing development standards for ADUs to address the changes required under the 2019 legislation, including allowed locations, setbacks, size limitations, parking, and owner occupancy (Exhibit A of Attachment 1), as discussed in more detail below.

Development Standards
Several existing property development standards are required to be amended in response to the changes to State legislation. The existing ADU regulations prohibit ADU development on mixed-use zoned parcels and requires a minimum lot size requirement of 6,750 square feet. Amendments to State law allow ADUs on any parcel that allows a residential use, including mixed-use zones, regardless of lot size. An ADU may be established within an existing or proposed primary dwelling, conversion of an existing accessory structure, reconstruction of an existing structure proposed to be converted to an ADU, or construction of a new detached structure.

Perhaps the most significant change mandated by State law allows a parcel developed with a primary dwelling unit and an ADU to also establish a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) within the space of an existing primary dwelling unit, for a total of three (3) allowed units on a single property. A JADU, as defined in Government Code Section 65852.22, is a dwelling unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within an existing or proposed single-family structure. A JADU shall include an efficiency kitchen, and may include separate sanitation facilities or shared sanitation facilities with the existing dwelling.

The proposed Ordinance includes provisions addressing each of these required changes to the City’s existing development standards.

Size Limits & Setbacks
State legislation includes a “By-Right Provision” which allows the development of an attached or detached ADU with a maximum size of 850 square-feet for studio or onebedroom units, or 1,000 square-feet for a unit with more than one bedroom, in any circumstance. ADUs permitted through this provision are subject to a maximum height of 16 feet, four-foot side and rear setbacks, and compliance with all building codes. No AB 670 Civil Code
§4751
Removes covenants, conditions, and
restrictions (CC&Rs) in a planned
development that either effectively prohibit
or unreasonably restrict the construction
or use of an ADU or JADU.

Not required to be
incorporated in the
AGMC.

AB 671 Government
Code
§65583(c)(7)
Amends housing element law and requires
the City to incentivize and promote ADUs
that can be offered at an affordable rent.

Addressed in
Housing Element
update Programs
A.2-1 & A.2-2.

Item 9.b.

City Council
Discuss and Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and Tiny Homes On Wheels; Development Code Amendment 20-001
February 8, 2022

minimum lot size or lot coverage requirement shall apply to units permitted by this provision. The proposed ordinance acknowledges these By-Right Provisions consistent with State law.

In addition, the proposed Ordinance would amend the development standards for ADUs to limit the maximum size of attached ADUs to fifty percent (50%) of the total living area of the existing or proposed living area of the primary dwelling unit, whichever is less. While newly enacted State laws do not require cities to establish maximum size limitations for ADUs, any ordinance that does establish maximum sizes may not be less than the proposed limits included in the proposed ordinance. Under the proposed Ordinance, detached ADUs are limited to a maximum of 1,200 square feet. The maximum size limits proposed in the draft Ordinance meet the minimum sizes required by State law. This is a change from the existing regulations, which restrict the maximum size of both attached and detached ADUs to the lesser of:
 The maximum unit size allowed in the zone in which the ADU is proposed, which ranged from 850 square feet in the Single Family and Village Residential zones, to 1,200 square feet in all others, or
 Fifty percent (50%) of the primary unit.

ADUs proposed to exceed the sizes permitted by the By-Right Provision would remain subject to the setbacks, height limit, lot coverage, and floor-area ratio limitations of the zoning district in which they are located.

Parking
The City’s existing ADU regulations require one parking space per ADU bedroom, with a maximum of two parking spaces per unit. Amendments to State legislation establish a maximum of one parking space per ADU. Parking spaces for ADUs do not need to be covered and may be located in the driveway or setbacks, a provision that remains the same. The proposed Ordinance establishes areas in the front yard where parking is prohibited and clarifies that ADU parking spaces must be on fully paved surfaces, consistent with AGMC Section 16.56.070. The existing ADU regulations do not require additional parking when an ADU meets any of the following five (5) exemptions:

1. If the accessory dwelling unit is located within one-half mile by travelled distance of an existing transit stop;

2. The accessory dwelling unit is located in the D-2.4 Historic Character Overlay District;

3. The accessory dwelling unit is located in a neighborhood where on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the accessory dwelling unit;

4. A car share vehicle is located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit; or

5. The accessory dwelling unit is part of the existing primary residence or an existing accessory structure.

Item 9.b.

City Council
Discuss and Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and Tiny Homes On Wheels; Development Code Amendment 20-001
February 8, 2022

Existing parking exemptions will remain applicable, and State law creates two additional exemptions, which are included in the proposed Ordinance:

1. Parking spaces are not required when an ADU is created within an existing or proposed primary structure.

2. Parking spaces for a primary dwelling are not required to be replaced when a garage, carport, or other covered parking structure is demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction of an ADU.

The proposed Ordinance retains a parking requirement for ADUs when applicable.

However, given the existing ADU parking space exemptions in the State law, particularly the exemption for ADUs within a half mile of a bus stop, a significant portion of parcels within the City will not be required to provide parking spaces for ADUs. The existing ADU regulations also require parking spaces in a garage or carport to be replaced when converted to an ADU, but that is no longer allowed to be required under State law. As a result, a property that chooses to convert a garage to an ADU is not required to provide parking for either the primary dwelling unit or ADU.

Impact Fees
Building permits for both residential and non-residential projects are assessed impact fees to offset the costs associated with additional public facilities and infrastructure required for those new structures. Examples of impact fees include fire protection, police facilities, traffic signalization, park facilities, and water facilities. ADUs less than 750 square feet are exempt from impact fees pursuant to newly enacted State law. Units that exceed 750 square feet are assessed impact fees proportionately in relation to the square footage of the ADU to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. For example, a 2,000 square foot primary dwelling with a proposed 1,000 square foot ADU would result in fifty percent (50%) of the impact fees imposed on the primary dwelling. The proposed Ordinance includes provisions addressing impact fees consistent with this newly enacted State law.

Tiny Homes on Wheels
The proposed Ordinance includes a new Development Code Section to allow Tiny Homes on Wheels (THOW) on all residentially zoned parcels in the City to help address housing supply shortages and affordability (Exhibit B of Attachment 1). THOW will be an alternative to permanent ADU structures and have been identified as a means to increase housing supply, choices, and affordability.

Definition of THOW
A THOW is considered a type of ADU, and more narrowly defined as a structure intended for separate, independent living quarters for one household that meets the following conditions:

Item 9.b.

City Council
Discuss and Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and Tiny Homes On Wheels; Development Code Amendment 20-001
February 8, 2022

1) Is a detached self-contained unit, designed and built to look like a conventional building structure, and which includes basic functional areas that support normal daily routines such as cooking, sleeping, toilet and bathing facilities; and 2) Is licensed and registered with the California Department of Motor Vehicles; and 3) Meets the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 119.5 requirements or the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1192 standards, and is certified for ANSI or NFPA compliance. Certification must be made by a qualified third-party inspector; and
4) A pre-fabricated or manufactured THOW shall bear the California Insignia of Approval issued by the State Department of Housing and Community Development to demonstrate compliance with electrical, heat producing, plumbing, and fire and life safety systems and equipment; and
5) Is towable by a bumper hitch, frame-towing hitch, or fifth-wheel connection, cannot move under its own power and is no larger than allowed by California State Law for movement on public highways; and
6) Has a minimum of 100 square feet and maximum of 400 square feet as measured within the exterior faces of the exterior walls.

A recreational vehicle, camper, trailer, or manufactured home, as defined in Section 18010 of the California Health and Safety Code would not be viable as a THOW.

Allowed Locations
THOW are proposed to be allowed on any residential lot with an existing single family dwelling. Both a THOW and ADU would not be allowed on a single lot, as currently proposed. The proposed Ordinance would require the THOW to be located on the rear portion of a lot, setback at least four feet (4’) from interior and rear property lines and ten feet (10’) from a street side property line where applicable. Additionally, the proposed Ordinance requires a THOW to be parked on a surface paved with concrete, asphalt, or an equivalent paving material.

Design Standards
A THOW would be subject to design criteria to maintain the scale and character of the existing residential development. For example, the undercarriage of the THOW shall be hidden from view by the installation of a skirt around its perimeter. The Ordinance would also limit the height of the structure to one-story and require that mechanical equipment is integrated into the structure. A THOW would be required to connect to electric, water, and sewer utilities.

Other Considerations
A THOW would not be eligible for use as a short-term rental as currently proposed.

Item 9.b.

City Council
Discuss and Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and Tiny Homes On Wheels; Development Code Amendment 20-001
February 8, 2022

PLANNING COMMISSION:

On August 3, 2021, the Planning Commission reviewed and commented on the proposed amendments to the ADU regulations as part of a study session (Attachment 2). The Commission was generally supportive of the changes and the inclusion of provisions to permit THOW. The Commission provided the following comments for staff to consider when revising the draft Ordinance:
 Modify architectural compatibility standards to be more permissive for prefabricated units as ADUs.  Clarify the phrase “no feasible alternative” with regard to lots that cannot accommodate an ADU in the backyard.
 Consider design standards that allow for flexibility in designs that provide light and air for THOW.

On August 17, 2021, staff presented the draft Ordinance to the Commission with revisions responding to feedback provided at the study session (Attachment 3). The second draft of the Ordinance for the Commission’s review included changes to the architectural compatibility provisions for both ADUs and THOW, eliminated use of the phrase “no feasible alternative,” and included additional design standards for THOW. The draft Ordinance also clarified rental terms for ADUs based on guidance from the City Attorney.

The first draft of the Ordinance presented to the Planning Commission was inadvertently restrictive of permitting pre-fabricated or manufactured units as ADUs due to architectural compatibility standards. Those standards required ADUs to use the same colors and materials as the primary dwelling, which is not always feasible for pre-fabricated units. In response to the comments received from the Commission, staff clarified that the architectural compatibility standards requiring matching colors and materials is only required of ADUs either attached to the primary dwelling or created through the conversion of existing space. For example, if a garage were proposed to be converted to an ADU, the materials and colors used for the wall area replacing the removed garage door would be required to match the primary dwelling. Detached ADUs are encouraged to use similar materials and colors, but are not required to use the same materials so as to not discourage the use of pre-fabricated units as ADUs. The Planning Commission was supportive of this revision and it was carried forward in the proposed Ordinance for the Council’s consideration.

The first draft Ordinance included a provision that encouraged ADUs to be located in the backyard, and only allowed the construction of an ADU in the front yard where “no feasible alternative” exists. Staff removed the phrase “no feasible alternative” from this standard and revised it to encourage ADU construction behind the primary dwelling. Front yard setbacks requirements are still applicable to ADU development; however, front setbacks may not preclude the addition of a by-right ADU and must not unduly constrain the creation of all types of ADUs.

Item 9.b.

City Council
Discuss and Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and Tiny Homes On Wheels; Development Code Amendment 20-001
February 8, 2022

In response to comments from the Commission and the public, staff has also revised the design standards for THOW. The Planning Commission recommended an increase to the amount of attached patio area allowed to be equal to the floor area of the THOW.

Additionally, the Commission recommended that THOW have a minimum roof pitch of 1:12 to be more permissive of a variety of designs. Language was added in Section

16.52.250.C of the Ordinance that states that THOW “shall resemble the appearance of a traditional home.” Provisions for the addition of decks, patios, landings, and other similar features to THOW were also added to the ordinance. Staff proposed limiting the area of these features to twenty-five percent (25%) of floor area of the living area. Standards for minimum roof pitch were also modified to allow for designs that contain features that provide increased natural light and airflow for the comfort of the occupants and reduce the reliance on electricity for ventilation and lighting. The standard prohibiting slide-out extensions or pop outs was removed from the Ordinance to be more permissive of a variety of designs.

Short Term Rentals
Staff’s first proposed Ordinance presented to the Planning Commission on August 3rd included a provision prohibiting short term rentals (term of less than 30 days) for all ADUs created after the adoption of the Ordinance updates. The City Attorney has since clarified that State legislation only prohibits short term rentals of units created under the By-Right provisions. Nonetheless, in its motion to recommend adoption of the amendments, the Planning Commission included a recommendation that Council prohibit short term rentals in all ADUs created after the adoption of the Ordinance. The proposed Ordinance presented for introduction by Council includes a provision, Section G, consistent with the Planning Commission’s recommendation.

Housing Element Direction
The sixth cycle Housing Element prioritizes development of ADUs as a strategy to meet housing needs and the Regional Housing Needs Allocation assigned to the City. Housing Element Program A-2.1 calls for an update of the ADU provisions in the Development Code and for the City to publicize the ADU program to increase public awareness. During the Housing Element Update, staff received comments from both the Planning Commission and City Council about the desire to update the ADU regulations to encourage the creation of more ADUs. The Housing Element relies heavily on the creation of ADUs to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

Specifically, it assumes that there is potential for the development of 236 ADUs, which equates to approximately thirty-four percent (34%) of the City’s total sixth cycle RHNA.

The proposed Ordinance, in addition to information included on the City’s webpage, will allow the City to promote the creation of ADUs.

The SLO County ADU Task Force, a volunteer group promoting development of ADUs in the region, has also identified obstacles in the planning and permitting process that this

Item 9.b.

City Council
Discuss and Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and Tiny Homes On Wheels; Development Code Amendment 20-001
February 8, 2022

update hopes to resolve. For example, the Ordinance will clarify requirements for maximum unit sizes, parking requirements, and utility connections. \ Next Steps
Introduction of the Ordinance is the first step towards enacting updates to the ADU regulations. Adoption of the ADU amendments is proposed to occur at the next Council meeting, scheduled for February 22, 2022, unless Council directs staff to make significant changes to the Ordinance. After adoption, staff will submit the Ordinance to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review. HCD will review the adopted Ordinance and notify the City if it complies with State ADU law. If the Ordinance is found to be out of compliance, HCD will provide findings detailing what changes are required to be compliant.

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:

1. Introduce the attached Ordinance approving Development Code Amendment 20- 001;

2. Modify as appropriate and introduce the attached Ordinance approving Development Code Amendment 20-001;

3. Do not introduce the Ordinance, and provide direction to staff on specific revisions to the Ordinance; or

4. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

Amending the City’s ADU regulations will bring them into compliance with State law, allow for a streamlined review process, and facilitate the development of new ADUs in the City consistent with the goals, policies, and programs identified in the City’s Housing Element.

Incorporating provisions to allow THOW will provide another option to increase housing production and housing options within the City.

DISADVANTAGES:

None identified.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Community Development Department has determined that the project is statutorily exempt per Section 15282(h) of the Guidelines regarding projects involving the adoption of an ordinance regarding second units in a single-family or multifamily residential zone by a city to implement provisions of Government Code Section 65852.2.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

A notice of public hearing was published in the Tribune and posted at City Hall and on the City’s website on January 28, 2022. The meeting Agenda was posted at City Hall and

Item 9.b.

City Council
Discuss and Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and Tiny Homes On Wheels; Development Code Amendment 20-001
February 8, 2022

on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. Notifications about the discussion were also sent to members of the public that have expressed interest in the ordinance update.

Attachments:

1. Proposed Ordinance

2. Staff Report and Minutes from the August 3, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting

3. Staff Report and Minutes from the August 17, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting

ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING
TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE
(AGMC) REGARDING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
AND TINY HOMES ON WHEELS; LOCATION- CITYWIDE
WHEREAS, Section 16.52.150 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) contains the City’s existing regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs); and WHEREAS, AGMC Section 16.52.150 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal was last amended in 2017, after the State legislature had amended Government Code §65852.2 and also added Government Code §65852.22 to provide an option for Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs), however, the 2017 amendment to AGMC 16.52.150 did not include an option for JADUs at that time; and
WHEREAS, in 2019, the California Legislature approved, and the Governor signed into law a number of bills ("New ADU Laws") that, among other things, amended Government Code Section 65852.2 and 65852.22 to impose new limits on local authority to regulate ADUs and JADUs; and
WHEREAS, the New ADU Laws mandate that cities with accessory dwelling unit ordinances that are inconsistent with the State laws apply the State standards for ADU and JADU approval; and
WHEREAS, according to the State Department of Housing and Community Development website the New ADU Laws were adopted to promote the development of ADUs and JADUs, and include allowing ADUs and JADUs to be built concurrently with a single-family dwelling, opening areas where ADUs can be created to include all zoning districts that allow single-family and multifamily uses, modifying fees from utilities such as special districts and water corporations, limited exemptions or reductions in impact fees, and reduced parking requirements; and WHEREAS, the New ADU Laws took effect January 1, 2020, and because the City's ADU ordinance did not comply with the New ADU Laws, the City's ordinance became null and void on that date as a matter of law; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to amend its local regulatory scheme for the construction of ADUs and provide for JADUs to comply with the amended provisions of Government Code sections 65852.2 and 65852.22; and
WHEREAS, the approval of ADUs and JADUs based solely on the default statutory standards, without local regulations governing height, setback, landscape, architectural review, among other things, would threaten the character of existing neighborhoods, and negatively impact property values and personal privacy; and

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 2
WHEREAS, alternative housing models, such as tiny houses on wheels, can provide flexible housing options for a variety of households living at different income levels; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance adds Tiny Homes on Wheels as a separately regulated residential use to encourage housing supply, choices, and affordability; and WHEREAS, Tiny Homes on Wheels will allow for in-fill development that maintains the scale and character of existing development; and
WHEREAS, Tiny Homes on Wheels will contribute to the equitable distribution of housing opportunities that are cost accessible to all residents; therefore, reducing regulatory and procedural barriers to increasing housing production and capacity in appropriate locations; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to preserve its cultural, historical, and architectural heritage and resources as living parts of community life that benefit and enrich the lives of its present and future residents; and
WHEREAS, the City has duly initiated this amendment to the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code to amend Section 16.52.150, and add Section 16.52.250 to Title 16, Chapter 52 in order to provide regulations relating to Tiny Homes on Wheels; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande, after giving notices thereof as required by law, held a public hearing on August 17, 2021 concerning this code amendment and carefully considered all pertinent testimony, the staff report, its attachments and all supporting materials referenced therein or offered in the matter as presented; and
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2021, the Planning Commission of the Arroyo Grande recommended to the City Council amending Section 16.52.150 and adding Section

16.52.250 to the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has, after giving notice thereof as required by law, held a public hearing on December 14, 2021, concerning proposed amendments to AGMC Section 16.52.150 and adding AGMC Section

16.52.250; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande, at its regularly scheduled public meeting on December 14, 2021 introduced this Ordinance to amend Section

16.52.150 and add Section 16.52.250 to Title 16, Chapter 52 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered all pertinent testimony and the staff report, its attachments and all supporting materials referenced therein or offered in

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 3
the matter as presented at the public hearing.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The above recitals and findings are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. Section 16.52.150 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

A. Definitions/Prohibited Units.

1. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU): An attached or detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation and shall be located on the same parcel as the primary dwelling or multi-family development. An ADU also includes an efficiency unit and manufactured home as provided in Government Code Section 65852.2(j). An ADU may serve as a rental unit for more than 30 days or be occupied by a person or persons including, but not limited to family members, guests, or caretakers.

2. Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU): A residential dwelling unit, as defined in Government Code Section 65852.22, that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within an existing or proposed single-family structure. A JADU shall include an efficiency kitchen, and may include separate sanitation facilities or share sanitation facilities with the existing dwelling. A JADU may serve as a rental unit for more than 30 days.

Owner-occupancy of either primary dwelling or JADU is required by state law.

3. Prohibited Units: Mobile homes, as defined in Section 18008 of the Health and Safety Code, recreational vehicles, trailers, or similar units, shall not be allowed as ADUs. Tiny Homes on Wheels are allowed as an ADU and are separately defined in Section 16.52.250.

B. Where Permitted/Establishment.

1. ADUs are permitted in all zoning districts allowing single-family or multifamily use on lots developed with existing or proposed dwellings.

2. An ADU may be established by the following methods:
a. Attached to, or located within, an existing or proposed primary dwelling.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 4
b. A new detached structure, or located within or attached to an accessory structure, including detached garages or similar structures. c. Conversion of permitted existing attached or detached accessory structures, including garages, storage areas, or similar structures. d. Reconstruction of a permitted existing structure or living area that is proposed to be converted to an ADU, or a portion thereof, in the same location and to the same dimensions and setbacks as the existing structure.

3. A Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) may be established within the space of the primary dwelling, including an attached garage or attached accessory structure.

4. A JADU may be established within the space of the primary dwelling in combination with the construction of one detached, new construction ADU not exceeding 850 square-feet and a height of 16 feet with four-foot side and rear setbacks.

5. The existing unit may be considered the ADU, in conjunction with the construction of a new primary dwelling unit built, if all applicable zoning requirements are met.

6. ADUs shall be permitted on lots developed with existing multi-family dwellings subject to the following provisions:
a. The property shall be developed with an existing multi-family structure(s).
b. A minimum of one ADU may be constructed, or up to 25 percent of the existing unit count, within non-livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or closets. c. The construction of two detached ADUs with a maximum size of 850 square feet, or 1,000 square feet with more than one bedroom, shall be permitted in addition to ADUs created within non-livable space, subject to a maximum height of 16 feet, and four-foot side and rear setbacks.
d. Existing livable space of multi-family dwelling units shall not be converted to ADUs.

C. Permit Requirements:

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 5

1. The City shall ministerially review and act on a building permit application for an ADU or JADU within 60 days after receiving the application. An ADU or JADU proposed with a permit application for a new primary dwelling shall not be approved until the primary dwelling receives approval. A certificate of occupancy for an ADU or JADU shall not be issued before occupancy is granted for the primary dwelling.

2. Unless otherwise preempted by state law, the design and construction of all newly constructed ADUs and JADUs shall comply with all applicable building, housing, zoning and site development standards of the Arroyo Grande Development Code, including but not limited to standards regarding setbacks, floor area ratio standards, height, lot coverage, and in the surrounding neighborhood that are listed in the California Register of Historic Places. Applicants shall also comply with all applicable fee and charge requirements, and other applicable zoning requirements.

3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.2(e) (2), the City shall not require the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions as a condition for ministerial approval.

D. Development Standards.

1. ADU Type, Location & Size.
a. Attached Unit: An ADU attached to an existing primary dwelling shall have a minimum size of 150 square feet and shall not exceed 50 percent of the total existing or proposed living area of the primary dwelling, except as provided by the By-Right Provision below. b. Detached Unit: An ADU structurally independent and detached from the existing primary dwelling shall have a minimum size of 150 square feet and shall not exceed 1,200 square feet.
c. Conversion of Existing Structure: An ADU constructed within the footprint of an existing dwelling or attached or detached structure shall not be subject to a maximum square-footage of living area. d. By-Right Provision: An attached or detached ADU with a maximum size of 850 square-feet or 1,000 square-foot with more than one bedroom shall be permitted in any circumstance subject to a maximum height of 16 feet, four-foot side and rear setbacks, and compliance with all building codes. No minimum lot size or lot coverage requirement shall apply.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 6
e. ADUs shall have independent exterior access from the primary dwelling. No passageway to the primary dwelling shall be required. f. Maximum Slope. The building site upon which the accessory dwelling unit will be constructed shall not have an average slope in excess of twenty (20) percent. A topographic map and slope analysis, as recommended by the community development director, shall be stamped and signed by either a registered civil engineer, registered architect, or registered landscape architect. Average slope is defined as follows:

S = I x L x 100
A x 43,560
Where
S = average natural slope, in percent.

I = interval, in feet, of the contour lines.

L = the sum, in feet, of the length of the contour lines, at selected contour interval "I".

A = the total area, in acres, of the site.
g. ADUs shall not be required to provide fire sprinklers if they are not required for the primary residence.

2. JADU Location and Size.
a. A JADU shall be constructed entirely within an existing or proposed primary dwelling and shall not exceed 500 square-feet.
b. JADUs shall have an independent exterior entrance from the primary dwelling, but may also include shared access between the two units.

3. Required Setbacks.
a. An attached or detached ADU not exceeding 850 square feet or 1,000 square feet with more than one bedroom, and a height no greater than 16 feet shall provide a minimum setback of four feet from the side and rear property lines. ADUs exceeding the maximum square footage or height specified in this provision shall be subject to compliance with setbacks of the underlying zoning district.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 7
b. Cornices and eaves may project into the required yards by no more than one foot.
c. ADUs shall comply with the front yard setback and be located on the rear portion of a parcel whenever possible.
d. When an ADU is created within an existing structure, the side and rear setbacks must be sufficient for fire safety as determined by the Fire Department.
e. No setback shall be required for an existing garage or accessory structure converted, or portion thereof, to an ADU and no setback shall be required for a new structure constructed in the same location and same dimensions as an existing structure.
f. An ADU constructed above an existing garage or dwelling unit, exceeding 16-feet in height, shall meet the side and rear setbacks of the underlying zoning district.
g. Roof top decks shall be permitted subject to the provisions of Section

16.48.180.
h. Staircases serving an ADU shall provide a minimum setback of four feet from the side and rear property lines subject to approval by the Fire Department.

4. Height and Maximum Lot Coverage.

ADUs exceeding 850 square feet or 1,000 square feet with more than one bedroom, and/or a height of 16 feet shall comply with the height, floor-area ratio, and maximum lot coverage of the underlying zoning district.

5. Parking.
a. One additional off-street parking space shall be required per unit; with exceptions per subsection g, below.
b. No parking space shall be required for an ADU or JADU established within an existing structure.
c. Parking spaces shall be a minimum dimension of 9 foot by 18 foot except as specified below.
d. Parking spaces may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the ADU, including, but not limited to, as covered spaces, uncovered spaces, tandem spaces, or by the use of mechanical automobile parking lifts.
e. Required off-street parking shall be permitted in front, side, and rear setback areas subject to the following:

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 8
i. Parking may be located on an existing driveway but shall not block sidewalk access or encroach into the public right-of-way. ii. Parking spaces within a side yard must have a minimum clear space width of 10-feet. Vehicles shall not block exterior windows or doors of a dwelling or access to utility boxes or meters. iii. Vehicles must be parked on an acceptable surface of concrete, asphalt, gravel, brick, permeable paver or other stable, dust-free surface.
iv. No more than 50% of a front yard shall be dedicated to vehicle parking.
v. No parking shall be allowed in front yard landscaping areas. vi. Access to on-site parking spaces shall be provided via an approved driveway location only.
f. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure that provides the required spaces for the primary dwelling is demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction of an ADU, no replacement parking shall be required.
g. Parking Exemption: As required by Government Code Section 65852.2(d), parking space for an ADU shall not be required in any of the following instances:
i. The ADU is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit.
ii. The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district.
iii. The ADU is part of the existing or proposed primary residence or an existing accessory structure.
iv. When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the ADU.
v. When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the ADU.

6. Architectural Compatibility.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 9
a. An ADU created through the conversion of an existing structure shall incorporate the same colors, materials, and architectural features as the primary residence.

7. Impact Fees & Utilities.
a. An ADU under 750 square feet shall not be charged development impact fees. An ADU equal to or greater than 750 square feet may be charged development impact fees. These development impact fees shall be proportional to the square footage of the main dwelling and calculated using the ADU square footage.
b. ADUs and JADUs shall comply with water and sewer requirements as determined by the Public Works Department.
c. The City shall not require a new or separate utility connection or impose a related connection fee or capacity charge for ADUs or JADUs that are contained within an existing residence or accessory structure. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.2(f)(5) an ADU not built within the existing space of a single family house or accessory structure may be required to obtain a new or separate utility connection as determined by the Public Works Department and may be subject to a connection fee or capacity charge based on its square footage or the number of its drainage fixtures unit values.

E. Conditions.

1. An ADU/JADU shall not be sold or otherwise conveyed separate from the primary residence.

2. An ADU/JADU may serve as a rental unit or be occupied by family members, guests, or in-home health care providers, and others at no cost.

3. Neither the ADU/JADU nor the primary dwelling unit shall be rented for a term of less than 31 days. ADUs on multi-family properties shall be subject to this provision, except the restriction shall not apply to existing multifamily units

4. Owner-occupancy shall be required for a property developed with a JADU.

The owner may reside in either the primary dwelling or the JADU.

5. The property owner shall record a covenant, approved as to form by the City Attorney, declaring compliance with each and every condition referenced in this section.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 10
SECTION 3. Section 16.52.250 is hereby added in its entirety to Title 16, Chapter 52 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code to read as follows:

16.52.250 – Tiny Homes on Wheels (THOW)
A. Purpose. Tiny Homes on Wheels shall be considered an additional type of Accessory Dwelling Unit, allowed as an accessory use to a single-family residential dwelling, consistent with Government Code, Section 65852.2, subdivision (g) which allows cities to adopt less restrictive requirements than the State-mandated minimums for Accessory Dwelling Units. A Tiny Home on Wheels that meets the definition in this Section may be built and occupied as a new detached Accessory Dwelling Unit, subject to the ministerial review and approval of an application if it complies with the standards of this Section.

B. Definition. A Tiny Home on Wheels (THOW) is a structure intended for separate, independent living quarters for one household that meets all of the following conditions:

1. Is a detached self-contained unit, designed and built to look like a conventional building structure, and which includes basic functional areas that support normal daily routines such as cooking, sleeping, toilet and bathing facilities; and

2. Is licensed and registered with the California Department of Motor Vehicles; and

3. Meets the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 119.5 requirements or the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1192 standards, and is certified for ANSI or NFPA compliance. Certification must be made by a qualified third-party inspector; and

4. A pre-fabricated or manufactured THOW shall bear the California Insignia of Approval issued by the State Department of Housing and Community Development to demonstrate compliance with electrical, heat producing, plumbing, and fire and life safety systems and equipment; and

5. Is towable by a bumper hitch, frame-towing hitch, or fifth-wheel connection, cannot move under its own power and is no larger than allowed by California State Law for movement on public highways; and

6. Has a minimum living area of 100 square feet and maximum of 400 square feet as measured within the exterior faces of the exterior walls.

Tiny Homes on Wheels do not include an RV, camper, trailer, or manufactured

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 11
home as defined in Section 18010 of the California Health and Safety Code.

C. Criteria. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code to the contrary, a Tiny Home on Wheels (THOW) shall be allowed as a type of detached Accessory Dwelling Unit on a lot consisting of a single-family dwelling. A THOW shall cannot be attached to or located within a primary residence, or created through the conversion of an existing structure, as shall be subject to all of the following criteria:

1. Number. One THOW shall be allowed in all residential zones with an existing single-family dwelling. No THOW shall be allowed if there is a permitted Accessory Dwelling Unit. A THOW shall be removed prior to granting final occupancy for an Accessory Dwelling Unit.

2. Limitation on Use. A THOW shall not be utilized as a short-term rental of less than 30 days.

3. Location. A THOW shall be located behind the primary residence unless there is no feasible alternative with a minimum setback of four (4) feet from any interior side or rear property line, and ten (10) feet from a street side lot line.

4. Skirting. The THOW undercarriage (wheels, axles, tongue and hitch) shall be skirted and hidden from view. The THOW shall not have its wheels removed.

5. Parking and surface. The THOW shall be parked on a paved or alternate pad that includes bumper guards, curbs, or other installations adequate to prevent movement of the THOW. The wheels and leveling or support jacks must sit on a paving surface that meet either of the following criteria:
a. A parking area for a moveable THOW shall be paved with hard, durable asphaltic paving that is at least two inches thick after compaction, or with cement paving at least three inches thick; or b. Alternative paving materials may consist of porous asphalt, porous concrete, permeable interlocking concrete pavers, permeable pavers, decomposed granite, crushed rock or gravel, plastic or concrete grid system confined on all sides and filled with gravel or grass in the voids, or other similar materials that meet the following requirements:
i. Permeable interlocking concrete pavers and permeable pavers shall have a minimum thickness of 80 mm (3.14 inches); and

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 12
ii. Products and underlying drainage material shall be installed to meet manufacturers’ specifications. Sub-grade soils shall be compacted as required to meet the product installation
specifications;
iii. No additional parking shall be required for the THOW, and displaced parking resulting from the placement of THOW is not required to be replaced.

6. Utilities. The THOW shall be connected to electric, water, and sewer utilities.

7. Design. The THOW shall resemble the general appearance of a traditional home and incorporate all of the following design elements:
a. Cladding and trim: Materials used on the exterior of THOW shall exclude single piece composite laminates, or interlocked metal sheathing;
b. Windows and doors: Windows shall be at least double pane glass, and include exterior trim. Windows and doors shall not have rounded corners;
c. Roofing: Roofs shall have a minimum of a 1:12 pitch for greater than 50 percent of the roof area. Exceptions to this provision may be made for designs that incorporate openings to provide light and air flow for the occupants.
d. Mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into the structure and not be located on the roof.
e. Decks: Attached patios, decks, landings, or similar architectural features, whether covered or uncovered, shall be open on at least two sides and are limited to 100 percent of the floor area of the THOW.

8. Height. A THOW shall not exceed one story.

SECTION 4. This Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance State CEQA Guidelines, Article 18: Statutory Exemptions, Section 15282(h).This section of CEQA provides a statutory exemption for “the adoption of an ordinance regarding second units [accessory dwelling units] in a single-family or multifamily residential zone by a city or county to implement the provisions of Sections 65852.1 and 65852.2 of Government Code as set forth in Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code.” The City Clerk shall file a Notice of Exemption from CEQA review in accordance with CEQA Guidelines.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 13
SECTION 5. A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days prior to the City Council meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full text of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the Ordinance, the summary with the names of those City Council members voting for and against the Ordinance shall be published again, and the City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance.

SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage.

SECTION 7. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

On motion by Council Member ______, seconded by Council Member _______, and by the following roll call vote to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this ____ day of _______, 2022.

ORDINANCE NO.

PAGE 14
___________________________________

CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________________

JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
________________________________
WHITNEY McDONALD, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY

MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: BRIAN PEDROTTI, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
BY: ANDREW PEREZ, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO REVIEW,

RECEIVE COMMENT AND PROVIDE DIRECTION ON AMENDMENTS
TO TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE (AGMC)

REGARDING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND TINY HOMES ON
WHEELS; DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 20-001; LOCATION
– CITYWIDE;
DATE: AUGUST 3, 2021
SUMMARY OF ACTION:

The purpose of this hearing is to give the Planning Commission an opportunity to review amendments and provide direction for updates to the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) ordinance, including tiny homes on wheels (THOW).

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

Review and feedback on the ordinance update will not impact financial or personnel resources.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed amendments, take public comment, and direct staff to return to the Commission for a recommendation hearing.

BACKGROUND:

The state legislature has identified production of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as an important strategy to increase housing statewide. In 2017, the state made significant changes to the manner by which local governments can regulate ADUs, primarily with respect to parking, types and sizes of ADUs, approval process and timelines, and utility fees. In response, the City adopted Ordinance 688 in October 2017, bringing local regulations consistent with 2017 state law at that time.

While state legislators acknowledged that the ADU permitting process was significantly streamlined as a result of the 2017 legislation, some were concerned that local jurisdictions’ regulations, such as unit size maximums and impact fees, continued to ATTACHMENT 2

PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 20-001
AUGUST 3, 2021
PAGE 2
impede property owners from constructing ADUs. As a result, in October 2019, Governor Newsom signed new state housing bills that further amended Government Code §65852.2 and §65852.22 related to regulations for development of ADUs.

Therefore, Title 16 must be amended again for consistency with state law.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

State Legislation
The passage of Assembly Bills 68, 881, 587,670, and 671, and Senate Bill 13 impacted the City’s regulatory authority over the construction of ADUs. A total of six amendments to state law for ADUs were included in the 2019 legislation and made effective on January 1, 2020. Table 1 summarizes each of the six (6) and how each is implemented.

Table 1: 2019 State Law Amendments Affecting ADU Development Bill Code Section Summary Status
AB 881
AB 68
SB 13
Government
Code §65852.2
Accessory
Dwelling Units
&
§65852.22
Junior
Accessory
Dwelling Units
• Allows ADUs up to 850 square feet or
1,000 square feet on any residential or
mixed-use lot
• Prohibits owner-occupancy
requirement.
• Requires ministerial approval within 60
days of application.
• Prohibits impact fees on ADUs under
750 square feet.
• Prohibits minimum lot size requirements
for ADU
• Reduces parking requirements
• Allows one ADU plus one junior ADU
Amendments
proposed to
Title 16 to
comply
AB 587 New
Government
Code
§65852.22
Option for local agencies to adopt by
ordinance a provision that allows an ADU
to be sold or conveyed separate from the
primary residence if the property was built
or developed by a qualified nonprofit
corporation
Not proposed in
the draft
ordinance.

AB 670 Civil Code
§4751
Removes covenants, conditions, and
restrictions (CC&Rs) in a planned
development that either effectively
prohibit or unreasonably restrict the
construction or use of an ADU or JADU.

Not required to
be incorporated
in the AGMC
AB 671 Government
Code
§65583(c)(7)
Amends housing element law and
requires the City to incentivize and
promote ADUs that can be offered at an
affordable rent.

Addressed in
Housing
Element update
Programs A.2-1
& A.2-2

PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 20-001
AUGUST 3, 2021
PAGE 3
The proposed draft ordinance amends existing the development standards for ADUs, including allowed locations, setbacks, size limitations, parking, and owner occupancy (Attachment 1).

Development Standards
Several existing property development standards are required to be amended in response to the changes to state legislation. The existing ordinance prohibits ADU development on mixed-use zoned parcels and requires a minimum lot size requirement of 6,750 square feet. Amendments to state law allow ADUs on any parcel that allows a residential use, including mixed-use zones, regardless of lot size. An ADU may be established within an existing or proposed primary dwelling, conversion of an existing accessory structure, reconstruction of an existing structure proposed to be converted to an ADU, or construction of a new detached structure.

Perhaps the most significant change mandated by state law allows a parcel developed with a primary dwelling unit and an ADU to also establish a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) within the space of an existing primary dwelling unit, for a total of three (3) units on a single property. A JADU, as defined in Government Code Section 65852.22, is a dwelling unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within an existing or proposed single-family structure. A JADU shall include an efficiency kitchen, and may include separate sanitation facilities or share sanitation facilities with the existing dwelling.

Size Limits & Setbacks
State legislation includes a “By-Right Provision” which allows an attached or detached ADU with a maximum size of 850 square-feet for studio or one-bedroom units, or 1,000 square-foot for a unit with more than one bedroom, in any circumstance. ADUs permitted through this provision are subject to a maximum height of 16 feet, four-foot side and rear setbacks, and compliance with all building codes. No minimum lot size or lot coverage requirement shall apply to units permitted by this provision.

The standards proposed in the amended ordinance would limit the maximum size of attached ADUs to 1,200 square feet, or fifty percent (50%) of the total living area of the existing or proposed living area of the primary dwelling unit, whichever is less. This is a change from the existing regulations, which restrict the maximum size of both attached and detached ADUs to the lesser of:
• The maximum unit size allowed in the zone in which the ADU is proposed, which ranged from 850 square feet the Single Family and Village Residential zones, to 1,200 square feet in all others, or
• Fifty percent (50%) of the primary unit.

ADUs proposed to exceed the sizes permitted by the By-Right Provision would remain subject to the setbacks, height limit, lot coverage and floor-area limitations of the zoning district in which they are located.

PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 20-001
AUGUST 3, 2021
PAGE 4
Parking
The existing ordinance requires one parking space per bedroom in the ADU, with a maximum of two parking spaces per unit. Amendments to state legislation establish a maximum of one parking space per ADU. Parking spaces for ADUs do not need to be covered and may be located in the driveway or setbacks, a provision that remains the same as the existing ordinance. The proposed ordinance establishes areas in the front yard where parking is prohibited and clarifies that ADU parking spaces must be on fully paved surfaces, consistent with AGMC Section 16.56.070. The five (5) existing parking exemptions in the Municipal Code remain applicable, and the following two exemptions are newly added by state law:

1. Parking spaces are not required when an ADU is created within an existing or proposed structure.

2. Parking spaces for a primary dwelling are not required to be replaced when a garage, carport, or other covered parking structure is demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction of an ADU.

The proposed ordinance retains a parking requirement for ADUs when applicable.

However, given the ADU parking space exemptions in the state law, particularly the exemption for ADUs within a half mile of a bus stop, a significant portion of parcels within the City will not be required to provide parking spaces for ADUs.

The existing ordinance also requires parking spaces in a garage or carport to be replaced when converted to an ADU, but that is no longer required under state law. As a result, a property that chooses to convert their garage to an ADU is not required to provide parking for either the primary dwelling unit or ADU.

Owner Occupancy, Rental, and Sales
Owner occupancy is not required for ADUs whose permits were issued after January 1, 2020 and on or before January 1, 2025. ADUs constructed during this time period may be rented separately from the primary dwelling unit, but may not be sold separately.

State law allows local ordinance to require owner occupancy for properties developed with a JADU, and the proposed ordinance includes that requirement. The owner may reside in either the primary unit or JADU to satisfy this requirement. Neither ADUs nor JADUs permitted under the amended Code will be eligible to be permitted for use as a short term rental. For purposes of compliance with this standard, a short term rental is defined as any rental of less than 31 days. Properties developed with ADUs at the time of the revisions discussed herein will remain eligible for use as short term rentals.

Tiny Homes on Wheels
City Council authorized staff to develop an ordinance to allow Tiny Homes on Wheels (THOW) on all residentially zoned parcels in the City to address housing supply shortages and affordability (Attachment 2). THOW will be an alternative to permanent ADU structures and have been identified as a means to increase housing supply, choices, and affordability.

PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 20-001
AUGUST 3, 2021
PAGE 5
A THOW is considered a type of ADU, and more narrowly defined as a structure intended for separate, independent living quarters for one household that meets the following conditions:
1) Is a detached self-contained unit, designed and built to look like a conventional building structure, and which includes basic functional areas that support normal daily routines such as cooking, sleeping, toilet and bathing facilities; and 2) Is licensed and registered with the California Department of Motor Vehicles; and 3) Meets the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 119.5 requirements or the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1192 standards, and is certified for ANSI or NFPA compliance. Certification must be made by a qualified thirdparty inspector; and 4) Is towable by a bumper hitch, frame-towing hitch, or fifth-wheel connection, cannot move under its own power and is no larger than allowed by California State Law for movement on public highways; and
5) Has a minimum of 100 square feet and maximum of 400 square feet as measured within the exterior faces of the exterior walls A recreational vehicle, camper, trailer, or manufactured home, as defined in Section 18010 of the California Health and Safety Code would not be viable as a THOW.

Allowed Locations
THOW are proposed to be allowed on any residential lot with an existing single family dwelling. Both a THOW and ADU would not be allowed on a single lot, as currently proposed. The proposed Ordinance would require the THOW to be located on the rear portion of a lot, and setback at least four feet (4’) from an interior or rear property line and ten feet (10’) from a street side property line. Additionally, the proposed ordinance requires a THOW to be parked on a surface paved with concrete, asphalt, or an equivalent paving material.

Design Standards
A THOW would be subject to design criteria to maintain the scale and character of the existing residential development. For example, the undercarriage of the THOW shall be hidden from view by the installation of a skirt around its perimeter. The ordinance would also limit the height of the structure to one-story, require that mechanical equipment is integrated into the structure, and prohibits any form of room area extensions, such as slide-outs. The THOW would be required to connect to electric, water, and sewer utilities.

Other Considerations
A THOW would not be eligible for use as a short term rental.

Stakeholder and Community Outreach and Involvement
The sixth cycle Housing Element prioritizes development of ADUs as a strategy to meet housing needs and the Regional Housing Needs Allocation assigned to the City.

Housing Element Program A-2.1 calls for an update of the ADU ordinance and publicize

PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 20-001
AUGUST 3, 2021
PAGE 6
the ADU program to increase public awareness. During the Housing Element Update, staff received comments from both the Planning Commission and City Council about the desire to update the ADU ordinance to encourage the creation of more ADUs. The SLO County ADU Task Force, a volunteer group promoting development of ADUs, has also identified obstacles in the planning and permitting process that this update hopes to resolve. For example, the ordinance will clarify requirements for maximum unit sizes, parking requirements, and utility connections. Additionally, after adopting the new ordinance, the City’s website will be updated to include information about ADU development.

Next Steps
The Planning Commission is being asked to review and comment on the draft ADU ordinance. Revisions to the draft ordinance, as directed by the Commission, will be incorporated by staff before returning for a recommendation to Council for adoption.

Staff may also seek input from the SLO County ADU Task Force before returning to the Commission for a recommendation.

ADVANTAGES:

Amending the ADU ordinance will bring it into compliance with state law and allow for a streamlined review process. Incorporating provisions to allow THOW will provide an another option to increase housing production and housing options.

DISADVANTAGES:

None identified.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Community Development Department has determined that the project is statutorily exempt per Section 15282(h) of the Guidelines regarding projects involving the adoption of an ordinance regarding second units in a single-family or multifamily residential zone by a city to implement provisions of Government Code Section 65852.2.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. Notifications about the discussion were also sent to members of the public that have expressed interest in the ordinance update.

Attachment:

1. Draft Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance

2. Draft Tiny Home on Wheels Ordinance

MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: BRIAN PEDROTTI, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
BY: ANDREW PEREZ, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO

GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE (AGMC) REGARDING ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS AND TINY HOMES ON WHEELS; DEVELOPMENT
CODE AMENDMENT 20-001; LOCATION – CITYWIDE
DATE: AUGUST 17, 2021
SUMMARY OF ACTION:

A recommendation to City Council to adopt amendments to the accessory dwelling unit ordinance, including tiny homes on wheels (THOW), will allow for submittal to the State for final review and certification.

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

Adoption of a recommendation will not impact financial or personnel resources.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council adopt amendments to the accessory dwelling unit ordinance (Attachment 1).

BACKGROUND:

The state legislature has identified production of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as an important strategy to increase housing statewide. In 2017, the state made significant changes to the manner by which local governments can regulate ADUs, primarily with respect to parking, types and sizes of ADUs, approval process and timelines, and utility fees. In response, the City adopted Ordinance 688 in October 2017, bringing local regulations consistent with 2017 state law at that time.

While state legislators acknowledged that the ADU permitting process was significantly streamlined as a result of the 2017 legislation, some were concerned that local jurisdictions’ regulations, such as unit size maximums and impact fees, continued to impede property owners from constructing ADUs. As a result, in October 2019, Governor Newsom signed new state housing bills that further amended Government Code §65852.2 and §65852.22 related to regulations for development of ADUs.

Therefore, Title 16 must be amended again for consistency with state law.

ATTACHMENT 3

PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 20-001
AUGUST 17, 2021
PAGE 2
Planning Commission Study Session
On August 3, 2021, the Planning Commission reviewed and commented on the proposed amendments to the city’s ADU ordinance (Attachment 2). The Commission was supportive of the changes to the ordinance made to comply with state law, and the inclusion of provisions to permit tiny homes on wheels (THOW). The Commission provided the following comments to staff to consider when revising the draft ordinance:
• Modify architectural compatibility standards to be more permissive for prefabricated units as ADUs • Clarify the phrase “no feasible alternative” with regards to lots that cannot accommodate an ADU in the backyard.
• Consider design standards that allow for flexibility in designs that provide light and air for THOW.

The draft ordinance for the Commission’s review includes changes to the architectural compatibility provisions for both ADUs and THOW, defines the phrase “no feasible alternative” and private entries, and includes additional design standards for THOW.

The draft ordinance also includes revisions to the rental terms for ADUs based on a recent clarification from the City Attorney.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

Revisions to the ADU Ordinance
The draft ordinance presented to the Commission was inadvertently restrictive for permitting pre-fabricated or manufactured units as ADUs due to architectural compatibility standards. Those standards required ADUs to use the same colors and materials as the primary dwelling, which is not always feasible for pre-fabricated units.

In response to the comments received from the Commission, staff clarified that the architectural compatibility standards requiring matching colors and materials is only required of ADUs either attached to the primary dwelling or created through the conversion of existing space. For example, if a garage were proposed to be converted to an ADU, the materials and colors used for the wall area replacing the removed garage door would be required to match the primary dwelling. Detached ADUs are encouraged to use similar materials and colors, but are not required to use the same materials as to not discourage the use of pre-fabricated units as ADUs.

The previously reviewed draft ordinance included a provision that encouraged ADUs to be located in the backyard, and only allowed the construction of an ADU in the front yard where “no feasible alternative” exists. Staff removed the phrase “no feasible alternative” from this standard and revised it to encourage ADU construction behind the primary dwelling. Front yard setbacks requirements are still applicable to ADU development, however front setbacks may not preclude a statewide exemption ADU and must not unduly constrain the creation of all types of ADUs.

PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 20-001
AUGUST 17, 2021
PAGE 3
Short Term Rentals
Staff proposed prohibiting short term rentals (term of less than 30 days) for all ADUs created after the adoption of ordinance updates. The City Attorney clarified that state legislation only prohibits short term rentals of units created under the by-right provisions.

City leadership may choose to prohibit short term rentals of all ADUs, but the draft ordinance for the Commission’s consideration at this time only mirrors state legislation.

For the benefit of the Commission, there are currently eighteen (18) permitted short term rentals that identify the ADU, either wholly or in part, as the rental space.

Tiny Homes on Wheels
In response to comments from the Commission and the public, staff has also revised the design standards for THOW. Language was added to Section 7 that states that THOW “shall resemble the appearance of a traditional home”. Provisions for the addition of decks, patios, landings, and other similar features to THOW were added to the ordinance. Staff proposes limiting the area of these features to twenty-five percent (25%) of floor area of the living area. Standards for minimum roof pitch were also modified to allow for designs that contain features that provide increased natural light and airflow for the comfort of the occupants and reduce the reliance on electricity for ventilation and lighting. The standard prohibiting slide-out extensions or pop outs was removed from the ordinance to be more permissive of a variety of designs.

ADVANTAGES:

Amending the City’s ADU ordinance will bring it into compliance with state law and allow for a streamlined review process. Incorporating provisions to allow THOW will provide an another option to increase housing production and housing options.

DISADVANTAGES:

None identified.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Community Development Department has determined that the project is statutorily exempt per Section 15282(h) of the Guidelines regarding projects involving the adoption of an ordinance regarding second units in a single-family or multifamily residential zone by a city to implement provisions of Government Code Section 65852.2.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

A notice of public hearing was published in the Tribune and posted at City Hall and on the City’s website on August 6, 2021. The meeting Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2.

Notifications about the discussion were also sent to members of the public that have expressed interest in the ordinance update.

Attachments:

1. Draft Resolution

PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 20-001
AUGUST 17, 2021
PAGE 4

2. Minutes from the August 3, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting

3. Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance

4. Draft Tiny Home on Wheels Ordinance

Item 9.c.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Brian Pedrotti, Community Development Director
BY: Andrew Perez, Acting Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Discuss and Consider a Resolution Approving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Projects for Year 2022 DATE: February 8, 2022
SUMMARY OF ACTION:

Conduct a public hearing to finalize funding recommendations for the City’s allocation of 2022 CDBG funds, which will assist the County of San Luis Obispo with its 2022 Action Plan process. The recommended City proposed project funding allocations (see Table 1 below for more detail) are:
- Five Cities Homeless Coalition: Fifteen percent (15%) of the City’s allocation.

Estimated to be $13,000
- Curb Ramp and Sidewalk Improvement Project: $56,333
- City Planning and Capacity Building – ADA Transition Plan: $6,067 IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

The County has estimated that $86,666 in CDBG funds will be available to the City in the Fall of 2022. Overall, the amount of CDBG funding the City has received over the last sixteen (16) years has consistently decreased due to Federal budget cutbacks to the CDBG program. Similar to last year, the County will help administer the CDBG program for the City, which will reduce City staff time involved. County staff will be paid through the CDBG program funds allocated to the City. Per the Cooperation Agreement between the County and the City entered into on July 7, 2020 (Attachment 1), 65% of the total available administration funds, or $11,266, will be deducted by the County to meet its obligations under the terms of the agreement for administrative costs. The remaining 35% of the total available administration funds, or $6,067 is recommended to be allocated for City administration to support preparation of an ADA Transition Plan for the City.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution approving projects to be funded with the City’s allocation of CDBG funds for the Year 2022 as shown in Exhibit A to the Resolution.

Item 9.c.

City Council
Public Hearing to Discuss and Consider a Resolution Approving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Projects for Year 2022
February 8, 2022

Table 1: Final Recommended 2022 CDBG Funding Allocations Project and Category
2021
Allocation
2022
Requested
Proposed
2022
Allocation
Public Services (15% Cap - $13,000)
Five Cities Homeless Coalition (5CHC) $0 $13,000 $13,000 Subtotal $0 $13,000 $13,000
Public Facilities (No Cap)
City of Arroyo Grande – Phase IV Soto Sports
Complex Barrier Removal Project at Ikeda Field $31,981 $0 $0 City of Arroyo Grande – City Hall Front
Entrance Barrier Removal Project $40,000 $0 $0
Curb Ramp and Sidewalk Improvement Project $56,333
Subtotal $71,981 $ $56,333
Economic Development (No Cap)
Subtotal $0 $0 $0
Area Benefit (30% Cap - $26,000)
Subtotal $0 $0 $0
Housing Rehabilitation (No Cap)
$0 $0 $0
Administration/Planning and Capacity
Building (20% Cap - $17,333)
City Planning and Capacity Building – ADA
Transition Plan $6,298 $6,067 $6,067
County Administration $11,697 $11,266 $11,266
Subtotal $17,995 $17,333 $17,333
Total $89,976 $86,666
BACKGROUND:

City Council approved a Cooperation Agreement with the County in July 2020 for the joint participation in the CDBG Program for fiscal years 2021 through 2023. The City, as a participant in the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) designated Urban County program, receives an annual formula-based allocation of CDBG funds. These funds are

Item 9.c.

City Council
Public Hearing to Discuss and Consider a Resolution Approving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Projects for Year 2022
February 8, 2022

available for a variety of Community Development activities as long as the activities meet at least one of three national objectives. The objectives are:

1. Benefit low- and moderate-income persons;

2. Aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; or

3. Address urgent community development needs that pose a serious or immediate threat to public health or welfare.

The County released a Notice of Funding Availability on September 27, 2021, and notified the public that the County and participating cities would accept applications for funding until November 1, 2021. The 5 Cities Homeless Coalition (5CHC) submitted the only application for funding from the City’s allocation of CDBG funds. That request is described in greater detail below.

On December 14, 2021, Council considered preliminary funding recommendations for the 2022 projects. Council supported the recommendation to fully fund the request from 5CHC from the public services category. Funding for public service projects is capped at fifteen percent (15%) of the total allocation, which for this project year is estimated to be $13,000. The funding is proposed to support 5CHC’s services that directly assist homeless individuals in the Arroyo Grande community. Council also preliminarily approved staff’s other funding recommendations. Staff proposed that Public Facility funding be used to address sidewalk infrastructure deficiencies near Harloe Elementary, and that Planning and Capacity Building funds be used for the development of an ADA Transition Plan.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

The following criteria set forth by the County are used to make CDBG funding recommendations:

1. Consistency with Federal regulations and laws;

2. Community support (for example, approval of the project by a City Council);

3. Seriousness of community development need proposed to be addressed by project;

4. Degree to which project benefits low-income and very low-income families or persons;

5. Feasibility of the project to be completed as budgeted and by December 31, 2022;

6. Cost effectiveness of funds requested and leveraging of other funds; and

7. Organization's experience or knowledge regarding CDBG or HOME requirements.

The Cooperation Agreement between the County and the City provides the City with discretion regarding allocation of funds. Unless the City’s recommendation to the County for funding is clearly in conflict with CDBG regulations, the County will approve the recommendation. The County Board of Supervisors will make its final decision for funding priority in the spring of 2022.

Item 9.c.

City Council
Public Hearing to Discuss and Consider a Resolution Approving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Projects for Year 2022
February 8, 2022

Public Services
The competitiveness for public service funds, which is capped at 15% of the City’s CDBG allocation, has historically been strong with requests far exceeding available funds. As discussed in recent years regarding CDBG allocations, HUD has significantly increased its monitoring efforts of jurisdictions participating in the CDBG program, which means that local jurisdictions must increase their monitoring efforts of recipients as well. As stated in the Cooperative Agreement, only activities that can either individually or cumulatively receive more than $8,000 in CDBG funding will be considered due to the staff cost of processing such awards in compliance with federal requirements.

Because public service organizations are more aware of the stricter CDBG regulations, because of the funding opportunity provided to non-profit organizations serving the Arroyo Grande community through the City’s Community Service Grant Program (CSGP), and because the City Council had previously directed staff to apply CDBG funds toward Public Facility projects, the City has received very few applications over the past several years for CDBG funding. The lone application submitted by a public service organization for this funding cycle came from 5CHC.
5CHC’s application seeks funding to bolster its Shelter and Outreach Services and its Housing Program. Together, these programs provide financial assistance to low income households and individuals facing homelessness. Financial assistance includes rental assistance, deposit assistance, and case management. The total amount of CDBG funds requested by 5CHC from local agencies is provided in Table 2.

Table 2.

Agency Amount Requested
City of Arroyo Grande $13,000
City of Atascadero $2,100
City of Morro Bay $900
City of Paso Robles $3,500
City of Pismo Beach $5,245
City of San Luis Obispo $7,500
County of San Luis Obispo $57,655
Total: $89,900
During the City Council’s consideration of the City’s 2021 CDBG allocations, Council directed staff to prioritize the City’s available public service allocation of CDBG funding for homeless services in future years. Consistent with this direction, staff is recommending approval of 5CHC’s request for $13,000 to support its services for individuals facing homelessness. CDBG allocations are only estimates at this time, so in the event that the City’s total funding amount increases, the amount of funding directed to 5CHC’s request would also increase.

Item 9.c.

City Council
Public Hearing to Discuss and Consider a Resolution Approving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Projects for Year 2022
February 8, 2022

Public Facilities
One of the City’s highest priorities is addressing Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility deficiencies. During the last several years (with the exception of Year 2018), Council has allocated the majority of CDBG funds to help pay for disabled access barrier removal projects throughout the City. These projects include Hoosegow Park ADA improvements, mid-block crosswalk ADA improvements, the Arroyo Grande Woman’s Club building barrier removal project, and various barrier removal projects at the Soto Sports Complex.

Last year, Council approved $71,981 in CDBG funds to be used for barrier removal projects under the Public Facilities category. Funding from 2019, 2020, and 2021 was allocated to Phase IV of the Soto Sports Complex Barrier Removal Project at Ikeda Field, which was completed this year. $40,000 from last year’s funding was also allocated to be used for barrier removal at the front entrance of City Hall.

Curb Ramp and Sidewalk Improvement Project
Staff proposes $56,333 of the 2022 CDBG funds be allocated to improving curb ramp and sidewalk improvement infrastructure to aid in the accessibility for residents with disabilities. There are hundreds of locations throughout the City in need of ADA compliant curb ramps. Public Works and Engineering staff identified locations near Harloe Elementary as priorities for curb ramp replacement and sidewalk infill. Specifically, the northeast and southeast curb ramps at the intersection of Alder Street and Farroll Avenue would be replaced with ADA compliant curb returns. Additionally, the project proposes to replace the northeast and southeast curb ramps at the intersection of Alder Street and Sandalwood Avenue. The final piece of the project is approximately forty lineal feet of sidewalk infill that would begin at the new curb ramp at the southeast corner of Alder Street and Sandalwood Avenue and terminate into the first existing driveway approach to the south on Alder Street. Upon completion of the work described, the route to Harloe Elementary via Alder Street, south from Ash Street and north from Cameron Court will have ADA compliant curb ramps at each corner.

Housing Rehabilitation
The City did not receive any requests for housing rehabilitation projects.

Economic Development
The City did not receive any requests for economic development projects.

Area Benefit
The City did not receive any funding requests for this category.

Administration/Planning and Capacity Building
Planning and capacity building funds are limited to a 20% cap. Pursuant to the Cooperation Agreement between the County and the City, 65% of the 20% of available

Item 9.c.

City Council
Public Hearing to Discuss and Consider a Resolution Approving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Projects for Year 2022
February 8, 2022

funds for planning and capacity building/administration, or $11,266, will be deducted by the County to meet its obligations under the terms of the agreement for administrative costs. The remaining 35% of the total available 2022 funds, or $6,067 is recommended to be allocated for planning and capacity building for development of an ADA Transition Plan.

Under Title II of the ADA, the City is required to have a current Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan. In order to complete this plan, the City will need a comprehensive inspection and evaluation identifying potential barriers in all City owned facilities (including buildings, parks, parking lots, public rights-of-way, and bike paths). Once the inspections and evaluation are completed, a final report will be prepared identifying priority projects.

Staff has coordinated with CJPIA and their sub-consultants, Disability Access Consultants (DAC), to obtain a project proposal, scope of work, and estimated budget. The total estimated cost to the City for this project is $88,225. Funding from the 2021 CDBG program provided $6,298 towards this project. The combined funding from both the 2021 and 2022 CDBG program years, $6,298 and $6,067 respectively, would decrease the total cost of an ADA Transition Plan to $75,860. Additionally, staff has identified a financing program for ADA projects through CJPIA that may be of assistance in this project.

ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY SERVICE GRANT PROGRAM (AGCSGP)
In response to CDBG funding limitations and restrictions, the City established the Arroyo Grande Community Service Grant Program in 2014, separate and apart from the CDBG program. This program typically provides $20,000 to eligible non-profit organizations that offer specialized social service, educational, cultural, beautification and recreational programs and projects benefitting Arroyo Grande citizens. The budget for the AGCSGP for fiscal year 2021-22 is $82,065, with the additional funding coming from American Rescue Plan Act funding allocated to the City. Twenty-two (22) applications were submitted requesting a total of $169,178 for this year’s program. The grant review panel is anticipated to convene in the coming weeks and funding recommendations will be presented to Council for consideration shortly thereafter.

For reference, the City has funded 5CHC in the past through the AGCSGP for support services and related activities as provided in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Past AGCSGP Allocations to 5CHC
Program Year
5CHC Amount Allocated
2015 $1,500
2016 $2,000
2017 $2,500
2018 $2,500
2019 NA

Item 9.c.

City Council
Public Hearing to Discuss and Consider a Resolution Approving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Projects for Year 2022
February 8, 2022

2020 $5,500
2021 $16,500
Total: $30,500
ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:

1. Conduct a public hearing and adopt the Resolution approving final funding recommendations for the CDBG projects for the Year 2022, as proposed in Table 1 on page 2 of this staff report;

2. Conduct a public hearing, modify, and adopt the Resolution approving final funding recommendations for the CDBG programs for the Year 2022; or

3. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

The recommended 2022 CDBG allocations fund important City priorities, align with Council’s direction to support homeless services, and are consistent with the Cooperation Agreement between the County and City. The City’s AGCSGP provides an additional funding opportunity, separate from CDBG, for local public service programs that address unmet needs in the community.

DISADVANTAGES:

There are no disadvantages identified at this time.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

No environmental review is required for this item.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

A public hearing notice was published in The Tribune on Friday, January 28, 2022. The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2.

Attachments:

1. Proposed Resolution

2. Cooperation Agreement between the County of San Luis Obispo and the City of Arroyo Grande for the joint participation in the CDBG program, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, and the Emergency Solutions Grant Program for Fiscal Years 2021 through 2023

3. 5CHC 2022 CDBG Application

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROJECTS FOR
YEAR 2022
WHEREAS, via a Cooperative Agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo (hereinafter referred to as “County”) executed by the City of Arroyo Grande (“City”) on July 7, 2020, the City agreed to become a participant for a period of three years with the County and other cities therein as an “Urban County” under the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (hereinafter referred to as “HUD”) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program; and
WHEREAS, under the Cooperative Agreement, the City retains the authority to determine which projects are to be funded with its allotment of CDBG funds; and WHEREAS, the City expects to receive $86,666 in CDBG funds in 2022; and WHEREAS, on September 27, 2021 the County released a “Notice of Funding Availability” for projects to be funded by the 2022 CDBG programs, which provided that proposals, including proposals for the City’s allocation of 2022 funds, were to be submitted by November 1, 2021; and
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2021, the County held The 2022 Action Plan Needs Workshop to identify needs that can be addressed by CDBG funding programs; and WHEREAS, on December 14, 2021, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and preliminarily approved funding recommendations for CDBG projects for the Program Year 2022; and
WHEREAS, on February 8, 2022, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to further consider the City’s 2022 CDBG projects.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby recommends that the Board of Supervisors for the County of San Luis Obispo adopt the 2022 Action Plan, including the programs listed in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, to be funded with the City’s allocation of 2022 CDBG funds.

On motion of Council Member ______________, seconded by Council Member ___________, and on the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 8
th day of February, 2022.

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 2

CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:

JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
_____________________________________

WHITNEY MCDONALD, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY

RESOLUTION NO.

PAGE 3
EXHIBIT “A”
ALLOCATION OF PROGRAM YEAR 2022 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK

GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS
Project and Category
2021
Allocation
2022
Requested
Proposed
2022
Allocation
Public Services (15% Cap - $13,000)
Five Cities Homeless Coalition (5CHC) $0 $13,000 $13,000 Subtotal $0 $13,000 $13,000
Public Facilities (No Cap)
City of Arroyo Grande – Phase IV Soto Sports
Complex Barrier Removal Project at Ikeda
Field $31,981 $0 $0
City of Arroyo Grande – City Hall Front
Entrance Barrier Removal Project $40,000 $0 $0
Curb Ramp and Sidewalk Improvement Project $56,333
Subtotal $71,981 $ $56,333
Economic Development (No Cap)
Subtotal $0 $0 $0
Area Benefit (30% Cap - $26,000)
Subtotal $0 $0 $0
Housing Rehabilitation (No Cap)
$0 $0 $0
Administration/Planning and Capacity
Building (20% Cap - $17,333)
City Planning and Capacity Building – ADA
Transition Plan $6,298 $6,067 $6,067
County Administration $11,697 $11,266 $11,266
Subtotal $17,995 $17,333 $17,333
Total $89,976 $86,666

ATTACHMENT 2

10th September

Powered by ZoomGrants™
Email This Preview Save as PDF Print Close Window A▲▼
County of San Luis Obispo
2022 Public Services and Economic Development (CDBG, ESG, HOME, General Fund, PLHA) Deadline: 11/1/2021
5CITIES HOMELESS COALITION
22-23 Homeless Services: Shelter, Outreach, RRH and HP Services, Jump to: Eligibility Application Questions Budget Tables Documents $ 229,000.00 Requested
Submitted: 11/1/2021 3:07:44 PM (Pacific)
Project Contact
Janna Nichols
[email protected]
Tel: 805-574-1638
Additional Contacts
none entered
5CITIES HOMELESS COALITION
P.O. Box 558
GROVER BEACH, CA 93483
United States
Executive Director
Janna Nichols
[email protected]
Telephone805-574-1638
Fax 805-668-2380
Web 5chc.org
Eligibility top

1. Please identify all funding sources being requested:

This question will be used to branch only those questions related to the funding sources requested in this application, so don't worry if your application has skipped question numbers.

National Objectives

2. CDBG ONLY - Please select the national objective that best applies to the proposed project Please refer to "Basically CDBG" or the "CDBG Guide to National Objectives and Eligible Activities" in the Library for more Some answers will not be presented because they are not part of the selected group of questions based on the answer to #1.
gfedc CDBG only
gfedc ESG only
gfedc ESG-CV only
gfedc HOME only
gfedc General Funds only
gfedc PLHA only
✔ Select this for any combination of grant funding requests(CDBG, ESG/ESG-CV, HOME, PLHA, and General Funds) ATTACHMENT 3

information regarding CDBG national objectives.

3. CDBG ONLY - IF LOW/MODERATE INCOME WAS SELECTED: Select which criteria the proposed project intends to qualify under to meet the Low/Moderate Income objective Please refer to "Basically CDBG" or the "CDBG Guide to National Objectives and Eligible Activities" in the Library for more information regarding the Low/Moderate Income national objective.

4. CDBG ONLY - IF SLUM OR BLIGHT WAS SELECTED: Select which criteria the proposed project intends to qualify under to meet the Slums or Blight objective
Please refer to "Basically CDBG" or the "CDBG Guide to National Objectives and Eligible Activities" in the Library tab for information regarding the Slums or Blight national objective.

5. CDBG ONLY - Please explain how the proposed project meets the selected National Objective.

Please refer to "Basically CDBG" or the "CDBG Guide to National Objectives and Eligible Activities" in the Library tab. 5CHC's Shelter and Outreach Services will be provided to benefit a clientele who are generally presumed by HUD to be principally L/M income persons - those who are homeless. This population is among those who are currently presumed by HUD to be made up principally of L/M income persons: Reference: §570.208(a)(2)(i)(A). 5CHC's Housing Program targets financial assistance and services to individuals and families based on income and anticipated need, following a coordinated entry assessment and progressive engagement model. Those who receive emergency grants for subsistence payments (rental assistance, 05Q) or for deposit assistance (05T Assistance will be provided to benefit a clientele who are generally presumed by HUD to be principally L/M income persons - those who are homeless. This population is among those who are currently presumed by HUD to be made up principally of L/M income persons: Reference: §570.208(a)(2)(i)(A). Additionally, as some assistance will be provided to those of imminent threat of homelessness, 5CHC's program additionally requires information on family size and income so that it is evident that at least 51% of the clientele are persons whose family income does not exceed the L/M income limit. Reference: §570.208(a)(2)(i)(B) and (C)

6. ESG/ESG-CV ONLY - Please select all objectives applicable to the proposed project, as established in “Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness” or the CARE Act.

7. ESG/ESG-CV ONLY - Please explain how the proposed project supports the selected objective(s).

The Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness focuses on collaboration and strategic action; education and service improvements; utilization of affordable housing; targeting the needs of families and children; recognizing that health is a determinant of housing stability; and the role of other supportive services.

Collaboration/Strategic Action: 5CHC Homeless Services program is integrated in the local Continuum of Care, focusing on collaboration and strategic action. 5CHC is a key participant in the Coordinated Entry System receiving referrals community partners throughout the compendium of services. Additionally, 5CHC staff participate in HSOC at all levels, with the Executive Director currently serving as chair of Data and Finance; a member of the Executive Committee; and on the ad-hoc Ten-Year Plan update.
✔ Low/Moderate Income
gfedc Slums or Blight
gfedc Urgent Need
gfedc Area Benefit
✔ Clientele
gfedc Housing
gfedc Jobs
gfedc N/A - Low/Moderate Income NOT selected
gfedc Area Basis
gfedc Spot Basis
gfedc N/A - Slums or Blight NOT selected
gfedc Finish the job of ending chronic homelessness in five years ✔ Prevent and end homelessness among veterans in five years ✔ Prevent and end homelessness for families, youth, and children in ten years ✔ Set a path to ending all types of homelessness
✔ Prevent, prepare for, and respond to COVID-19 outbreak among individuals and families who are homeless or receiving homeless assistance
✔ Support additional homeless assistance and homelessness prevention activities to mitigate the impacts of COVID-19

Service Improvements: 5CHC staff participate in HSOC’s Services Coordinating Committee, which is focused on improving the integration of services and regularly participate in evidence-based trainings (Mental Health First Aid, etc.) 5CHC also has a program of providing staff trainings monthly with other service professionals and partner agencies.

Access and Utilization of Affordable Housing: 5CHC’s Housing Program couples short-term financial assistance with housing stabilization services which have been documented to be cost-effective in both preventing the occurrence of homelessness, and ensuring that homelessness is brief and a one-time occurrence. With our partnership with the SSVF program we are able to serve Veterans, including those who may not qualify for the SSVF program. We also maximize use of affordable housing and supports with People’s Self-Help Housing and HASLO. 5CHC has aggressively works with current and existing clients to complete applications and offer needed financial assistance.

Families and Children: 5CHC provides housing services working with family programs such as SAFE, FIT, and the Family Resource Centers. 5CHC also has a program specifically targeted to Transitional Age Youth experiencing homelessness.

Health and Supportive Services: Through our work with Dignity Health, 5CHC’s outreach case managers and benefits acquisition advocate work to connect clients to health resources, as well as provide assistance post-hospitalization. 5CHC’s coordinated entry and outreach staff are regularly offering support for services needed such as one-time financial assistance, family reunification, acquisition of public benefits, identification, health-care navigation and the role that other supportive services can play. 5CHC regularly offers vaccination options and provides needed ppe to those experiencing homelessness.

Beneficiary Documentation

8. How will you document and maintain income status or presumed benefit status for CDBG? Please provide a sample of your Client Intake Form under the Documents Requested section below. Income verification for CDBG beneficiaries must be provided in accordance with 24 CFR Part 5; a link is provided in the Library.

Attached are our current policies regarding income verification. A household’s income is any money that goes to, or on behalf of, the head of household or spouse (even if temporarily absent) or to any other household member. When calculating income for eligibility, annual income includes the current gross income of all adult household members and unearned income attributable to a minor (e.g., child support, TANF payments, SSI payment, and other benefits paid on behalf of a minor). Gross income is the amount of income earned before any deductions (such as taxes and health premiums) are made. Current Gross Income is the income that the household is currently receiving at the time of application for assistance. Income recently terminated should not be included. The attached calculation form is used to determine the applicant's income eligibility.

9. How will you collect demographic data on the beneficiaries of the proposed project (i.e. racial/ethnic characteristics)? (General Fund requests are exempt from this requirement) Please provide a sample of your Client Intake Form under the Documents Requested section below. To qualify for an award of Fenderal and State funds, the agency must collect race and ethnicity information from all clients.

Utilizing the attached Enrollment Packet, including Coordinated Intake assessment, applicants are asked to self-disclose their demographic data, including race and ethnicity, age range and disability. This data is collected and entered into the County Homeless Management Information System.

Eligible Activities

10. CDBG ONLY - Identify all eligible activities that apply to the proposed project Please refer to "Basically CDBG" or the "CDBG Guide to National Objectives and Eligible Activities" in the Library tab for information regarding CDBG eligible activities.
✔ Public Services (General)
✔ Operating Costs of Homeless/AIDS patients programs
gfedc Senior Services
gfedc Handicapped Services
gfedc Legal Services
gfedc Youth Services
gfedc Transportation Services
gfedc Substance Abuse Services
gfedc Services for Battered and Abused Spouses
gfedc Crime Awareness or Neighborhood Cleanups
gfedc Fair Housing Activities
gfedc Tenant/Landlord/Housing Counseling

11. ESG ONLY - Identify all eligible activities that apply to the proposed project

12. GENERAL FUND ONLY - Identify all eligible activities that apply to the proposed project General Funds activities are limited to those regarding emergency/homeless shelters and warming centers

13. ESG-CV ONLY - Identify all eligible activities that apply to the proposed project

14. HOME ONLY - The only activity under the public service application for HOME is Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA)

15. PLHA ONLY - Identify all eligible activities that apply to the proposed project Eligible activities must assist persons who are experiencing or At risk of homelessness and can include, but are not limited providing rapid rehousing, rental assistance, supportive/case management services, and opperating costs. -no answergfedc Child Care Services
gfedc Health Services
gfedc Services for Abused and Neglected Children
gfedc Mental Health Services
✔ Subsistence Payments, Homeless Assistance, Rental Housing Subsidies or Security Deposits gfedc Job training and job placement services
gfedc Assistance to microenterprises (technical assistance, business support services, and other similar services to owners of microenterprises or persons developing microenterprises) ✔ Emergency Shelter
✔ Street Outreach
✔ Rapid Re-Housing
✔ Homelessness Prevention
✔ HMIS
✔ Operations (e.g. maintenance, repair, utilities)
✔ Services (e.g. case management, child care, education services, employment assistance, outpatient health services, legal services, life skills training, mental health services, and substance abuse treatment) gfedc Administration
✔ HMIS
gfedc Emergency Shelter
gfedc Street Outreach
gfedc Rapid Re-Housing
gfedc Homelessness Prevention
gfedc HMIS
gfedc TBRA
Documents Requested * Required? Attached Documents *
Client Intake Form(s) for Limited Clientele (if
applicable)
5chc Housing Packet
5CHC Intake
5chc Housing Packet Spanish
5chc Privacy Notice
5CHC ESG Policies and Procedures
Map for Area Benefit (if applicable)
CDBG Requirements and Acknowledgements
(Please download the template below and upload an
initialed document here)
download template
Subrecipient Acknowledgement
General Liability Insurance 5CHC General Liability Umbrella Policy Application Questions top

1. Please identify the funding sources being requested:

This question will be used to branch only those questions related to the funding sources requested in this application - so don't worry if your application has skipped question numbers.

Project Summary

2. Project Address(es):

If the proposed project has multiple addresses, please upload a map of the specific locations under the Documents tab 100 S. 4th Street, Grover Beach - Housing Navigation Center, Outreach Services, Admin. 800 W. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande - Warming Center
216 S. 16th Street, Grover Beach - Non-Congregate Shelter P.O. Box 558, Grover Beach, CA 93483 - Mailing
Services are provided county-wide (with the exception of Grover Beach for purposes of this CDBG/ESG application). As the City of Grover Beach is not a participating jurisdiction of the Urban County of San Luis Obispo, CDBG regulations do not allow the expenditure of CDBG funds to benefit residents of, nor expend these funds within, the City of Grover Beach. Therefore, the 5CHC shall not use CDBG or ESG funds to benefit clients from the City of Grover Beach nor use CDBG funds for subsistence payments within the City of Grover Beach.

3. Jurisdiction(s)/Area(s) Served:

Select all that apply

4. Brief Project Description:

You will have the chance to expand on your project description further in the application. Please upload any maps, photos, drawings or plans under the Documents tab
5CHC proposes both continued and expanded comprehensive homeless services including coordinated entry, street outreach, emergency shelter, and housing navigation services. With a focus on helping clients to secure and maintain stable housing, 5CHC will conduct outreach, sheltering, coordinated assessment, and case management to provide rapid re-housing and homeless prevention services to residents of San Luis Obispo County, utilizing Housing First principles of providing housing support coupled with supportive services.

With the support and guidance of case management, those who are experiencing homelessness will be supported with their immediate needs (including food and shelter) while also receive coaching, financial literacy, advice on credit repair, and life and job skill guidance coupled with short-term financial assistance for move-in expenses or homeless prevention rental assistance.

5. Please answer the following:

Please write N/A for any questions that are not applicable.

Some answers will not be presented because they are not part of the selected group of questions based on the answer to #1.
gfedc CDBG only
gfedc ESG only
gfedc HOME only
gfedc General Funds only
gfedc PLHA only
✔ Select this for any combination of grant funding requests (CDBG, ESG, HOME, General Funds, PLHA) ✔ Arroyo Grande
✔ Atascadero
✔ Morro Bay
✔ Paso Robles
✔ Pismo Beach
✔ City of San Luis Obispo
✔ County of San Luis Obispo
89000 CDBG funding requested
65000 ESG funding requested
HOME funding requested
75000 General Funds requested Page 328 of 350

6. Type of agency:

Agency Details, Capacity, and Experience

7. Is the organization faith-based?

8. Please answer the following:

If this is your first time applying to the County for funds, please upload your organizations’ incorporation documents in the Documents tab.

9. Agency Mission Statement:
5CHC’s Guiding Principles
I. Housing First
For 5Cities Homeless Coalition “Housing First” means that we seek to provide housing as a means to recovery, rather than a reward. Our overarching goal is to connect homeless people to permanent housing as quickly as possible. Meeting the client “where they’re at,” our work is focused on the development of a case plan that is oriented toward their success in obtaining or maintaining housing, which is predicated by consumer choice and self-determination. Our services support the client in identifying the barriers to stable housing that they are experiencing, and assisting them with services to address these fundamental challenges.

Through this Housing First lens, we progressively engage clients through engagement, assessment, diversion, and addressing immediate needs (such as food and sheltering) as we work with the client with housing stabilization planning, including financial management.
5Cities Homeless Coalition offers services as needed and requested on a voluntary basis and does not make housing contingent on participation in services. Within the Housing First framework, our approach with clients is based on the following principles: Trauma Informed; Housing Focused; Recovery Oriented; Person Centered; and Strengths Based.

II. Personal and Professional Integrity
All staff, board members, and volunteers of 5CHC and its partners act with honesty, integrity, and openness in all their dealings as representatives of the organization. The organization promotes a working environment that values Respect, Integrity, Teamwork, and Excellence through its RITE Values.

III. Mission
5Cities Homeless Coalition strengthens our community by mobilizing resources, fostering hope, and advocating for those who are homeless and facing homelessness. Through collaboration and leadership, the Coalition is building an engaged community that fully understands the complexities of homelessness and actively shares the responsibility of creating and implementing solutions to eliminate it.

IV. Governance
PLHA funding requested ''
229,000.00 SUBTOTAL
7/1/2022 Anticipated start date
6/30/2022 Anticipated end date
229,000.00 TOTAL
✔ 501(c)(3)
gfedc For Profit
gfedc Gov't/Public
gfedc Other:
gfedc Yes
✔ No
3/3/2009 Date of incorporation
1,300,000 Annual operating budget
16 Number of paid staff
75 Number of volunteers
1,300,091.00 TOTAL

5CHC has an active governing body, representative of our community, responsible for setting the mission and strategic direction; and oversight of the finances, operations, and policies of 5CHC.

VIII. Program Evaluation
5CHC regularly reviews program effectiveness and has mechanisms to incorporate lessons learned into future programs.The organization is committed to improving program and organizational effectiveness and develops mechanisms to promote learning from its activities and the field.5CHC is responsive to changes in its field of activity and is responsive to the needs of its constituencies.

IX. Inclusiveness and Diversity5CHC has a policy of promoting inclusiveness and its staff, board, and volunteers reflect diversity in order to enrich its programmatic effectiveness. 5CHC takes meaningful steps to promote inclusiveness in its hiring, retention, promotion, board recruitment, and constit

10. Please describe the services your organization is CURRENTLY providing (regardless of funding source). 5Cities Homeless Coalition provides wrap-around services including case management and direct financial assistance - with a special emphasis on our housing support program.
5CHC's housing support program serves clients throughout San Luis Obispo County who are either homeless or facing homelessness. These programs include Street Outreach; Emergency Shelter; Coordinated Entry; Immediate Needs Assistance; Housing Navigation and Stabilization (including the enrollment support for the California Covid Rental Relief Program); Transition Age Youth Targeted Services; Financial Literacy Training; Benefits Acquisition; HMIS data management; Special Projects (Census; Point In Time Count, etc.) and referral services to other appropriate community resources. 5CHC’s Programs align with 25 CCR § 8409 Core Practices and are targeted to individuals and families who “without” these programs will become or will remain homeless. These programs target area residents with the most urgent and severe needs including Families with Children; Chronically Homeless; Veterans; Unaccompanied Youth; Victims of Domestic Violence.

Following local coordinated entry protocols, we seek to identify and serve people who:
• Are unsheltered and living in places not designed for human habitation; • Have experienced the longest amount of time homeless; • Have multiple and severe service needs that inhibit their ability to secure housing on their own; and • Through homelessness prevention activities, are at greatest risk of becoming literally homeless without an intervention and are at greatest risk of experiencing a longer time in shelter or on the street should they become homeless.

With these activities we will work to ensure services are low-barrier and accessible; help participants identify and resolve barriers to housing; assist them to resolve their housing crisis before focusing on other non-housing related services; allow participants to choose the services and housing that meets their needs; connect participants to appropriate services and offer financial assistance initially at a minimum level and adding as needed through progressive engagement.

In 2020, 5CHC fielded over 4,500 calls for assistance in 2020 and provided direct assistance to 310 households countywide, including 76 single parents, 30 seniors, 117 who are disabled, and 65 transition age youth. 5CHC helped 65 households obtain housing and an additional 51 households avoid homelessness. 5CHC also provided basic needs assistance to 737 (utilities, relocation costs, gasoline, bus passes, auto repairs, clothing, employment readiness, detox/sober living, emergency food, rental and application fees) and offered an emergency shelter on cold and rainy nights through the winter.

11. Please describe the services your organization PROPOSES to provide (regardless of funding source). 5Cities Homeless Coalition proposes to continue to provide these same wrap-around services , with the addition of a noncongregate emergency shelter that is currently being developed on the County's health services campus in Grover Beach. 5CHC's will continue services for Street Outreach; Emergency Shelter (warming center and non-congregate emergency shelter); Coordinated Entry; Immediate Needs Assistance; Housing Navigation and Stabilization (including homeless prevention); Transition Age Youth Targeted Services; Financial Literacy Training; Benefits Acquisition; HMIS data management; and referral services to other appropriate community resources.

Information & Referral / Coordinated Entry:

Assistance begins with general information and referral to community services coupled with a comprehensive assessment of needs, identification of barriers and development of an immediate action plan. Access to computer, internet, phone, mailing address, food, clothing and hygiene supplies.

Rapid Re-Housing and Homeless Prevention Program:

Case management and financial assistance for deposit, rent and immediate needs for those who are homeless or facing homelessness. Services provided Countywide. Partnership with Good Samaritan includes Veteran Services.

Immediate Needs:
5CHC assists homeless and low-income families and individuals in South County with limited funds to address their immediate needs, and move them to self–sufficiency. Examples of assistance are utilities, gasoline, bus voucher, auto Page 330 of 350 repairs, clothing, employment readiness, detox/sober living, basic needs, emergency food etc.

Benefits Advocacy:
5CHC clients are offered additional guidance and advocacy for obtaining and retaining public benefits, including SSI, SSDI, Medicare, along with financial literacy and budgeting training.

Outreach
5CHC Street Outreach team works with those living on the street and in camps throughout southern San Luis Obispo County to connect them to services and resources including food, transportation, public benefits, identification and family relocation.

Additionally working to improve discharge planning with Arroyo Grande Community Hospital, and County Jail, the program serves those who are patients or inmates who are homeless by working to develop a post-release discharge plan.

Homeless Youth:

Outreach and case management targeting homeless youth age 16-24, providing support for immediate needs, education and job development, and housing assistance. 5CHC has master-leased several housing units, and is initiating a housing support Host Home program. It is anticipated that new housing units targeted to TAY will come online during this grant, in partnership with People's Self-Help Housing.

Emergency Shelter: 5CHC will continue to offer an emergency winter warming center for drop in shelter needs and will provide a non-congregate shelter including intensive case management targeted at securing housing for those who are chronically home

12. How does the project complement and collaborate with existing efforts? Does your organization partner with other organizations?
5CHC engages with a broad spectrum of community partners to assist those needing assistance. In particular 5CHC, ECHO and CAPSLO have, as part of the coordinated entry system, worked to geographically distribute responsibilities in order to provide enhanced services without duplication. These agencies have been meeting regularly to coordinate outreach activities countywide, and have recently been joined by Salvation Army. T-MHA (in partnership with Pubic Health) has also begun working with our outreach teams as we begin planning for COVID-19 vaccinations in the field. 5CHC is currently working in partnership with the City of Grover Beach and Integrated Waste Management to provide trash bags and regular dumpster service at one key camp in order to minimize trash and improve hygiene. 5CHC is also expanding its partnership with SLO Bangers to provide sharps containers, clean-up and wound care supplies to those living in camps in South County These are just a few examples of how 5CHC seeks out partners in addressing the needs of those chronically homeless in South County.
5CHC also works closely with grass-roots services providers and the faith community in South County. 5CHC staff regularly connect with Arroyo Grande Community Hospital, Community Health Centers of the Central Coast, Lucia Mar Unified School District Families In Transition Program; SAFE System of Care, Family Resource Centers, County Drug and Alcohol, County Jail, Dept. of Social Services, State Rangers, Law Enforcement, City Government, business and other community stakeholders.

As mentioned earlier, 5CHC endeavors to be a collaborative and strategic partner in service delivery and development throughout San Luis Obispo County. The agency dedicates substantial staffing resources to participation in HSOC and the evaluation and refinement of the area's services, from piloting new initiatives to evaluation and review of client outcomes.

Know for being "nimble," 5CHC has often times sought to pilot new services in the County such as its Youth Program and impending Non-Congregate Shelter Program. That said, when asked, 5CHC has also shared its expertise or offered to partner with others. Most recently 5CHC joined with Lumina Alliance in an effort to expand DV services in South County; has been asked to provide Housing Navigation training to Salvation Army staff; and worked to identify potential board volunteers and provide mentorship to Shower The People.

13. If the proposed project will serve homeless households, please describe how the project will coordinates with other homeless service providers to connect homeless individuals and families to resources.

If this question is not applicable, write N/A in the box below.

In 2016, CAPSLO, 5Cities Homeless Coalition (5CHC) and El Camino Homeless Organization (ECHO) partnered together to develop a Coordinated Entry System (CES) to provide screening, diversion, and case management services to homeless individuals and families throughout the county. Together with county staff, the partners developed an integrated system that avoids duplication of services and streamlines access to the most appropriate service providers to meet client needs.

Through the CES, each agency covers a different region of the county. 5CHC operates in South County and coastal areas south of Avila. This program provides a foundation for prioritizing services for those who are unsheltered, have experienced homelessness the longest amount of time, and who have multiple and severe services needs that inhibit their ability to quickly Page 331 of 350 identify and secure housing on their own. Individuals at risk of homelessness can also find resources to assist them in stabilizing their situation in order to remain in their housing. 5CHC's case managers regularly participate in county-wide case management meetings to assess client needs, review the County's service priority list. 5CHC participates in the SAFE system of care targeting children and youth and their families. As mentioned previously we are regularly meeting with clients in the Jail, and participate in the Jail to Community case plan meetings.

Recently a family of 14 adults and 20 children (from seven households) arrived in SLO County, fleeing targeted extreme violence in Mexico. 5CHC is working with more than 20 agencies, and government service providers to coordinate needed services for these families, including mental health, physical health, education, employment, legal services and more. 5CHC's role is in assisting with housing navigation services and providing financial assistance for immediate needs not covered by other services - for example telephone and email for each household.

14. Please describe your organization’s capacity to implement the proposed project. Who will be involved? List projects of similar size and type that your organization has completed. 5CHC has been provding these same services for several years. As mentioned in 2016 5CHC joined the Coordinated Entry collaborative with CAPSLO and ECHO. 5CHC has been the lead Rapid Re-Housing and Homeless Prevention provider in the County since 2017, providing these housing services countywide. Since 2015 the agency has operated a Winter Warming Center. In 2019 the agency initiated a targeted Youth program; and expanded its Street Outreach Efforts. 5CHC staff include those with lived experience homeless. 5CHC staff include 6 who are bilingual/bicultural speaking both English and Spanish; additionally the agency has access to support those who are mono-lingual Mixteco. 5CHC staff have extensive training and relationships with those in the LBTGQ community At present the agency is managing more than 50 grants for services similar to those requested here, from federal, state, local government, and private business. Of these current grants many are targeted to respond to the impacts of COVID, which will conclude within three months of the beginning of this grant period.

Current grants include:
• Emergency Solutions Grants, annual and CV restricted
• Community Development Block Grants - Urban County and Grover Beach, annual and CV restricted • County of San Luis Obispo General Fund
• County of San Luis Obispo CBO/Preventative Health
• Continuum of Care - Coordinated Entry services
• CESH – Coordinated Entry, Homeless Outreach Service
Several additional contracts are pending including HHAP 1. 5CHC employs a dedicated HMIS Data Manager to ensure quality compliance and track client outcomes. This position is supported with three finance employees, including one charged with Grants Management for accountability of expenses and fulfillment of grant commitments. The agency's Associate Director is responsible for authorizing all funding requests and reporting on program outcomes. With each program (Street Outreach, Shelter, Coordinated Entry, Housing Navigation) staff are dedicated to client outreach, engagement, and case management, with program supervision and oversight. The agency's Executive Director is directly engaged in initial program development, and efforts to address services on a regional basis.

15. Briefly describe your agency’s record keeping system with relevance to the proposed project.

Refer to Chapter 13 of "Basically CDBG" in the Library for more information on record keeping for CDBG.

Programmatically:

Clients initially are asked to complete a coordinated intake that is documented through ClientTrack. Referrals and client files are formatted in specific order to ensure all forms are completed and accounted for, detailing client housing stability plan, income verification, etc.

Lastly all enrolled clients are tracked through the County's Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), both at intake and program exit.

Administratively:

All funding requests are dual tracked through the agency's financial accounting process by class and grant and a programbased master assistance file. All expenditures for the program are verified for eligibility against program budget and HUD requirements and CDBG regulations with appropriate back-up documentation, copies of which are maintained separately for review and monitoring. Matching responsibilities are tracked concurrently against grant expenditures. 5CHC staff have received training in the requirements of Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR Part 200), Community Development Block Grants (24 CFR Part 570) and 24 CFR Part 576 - Emergency Solutions Grant Program. Page 332 of 350

16. CDBG/ESG ONLY - Will the services offered by your organization increase or expand as a result of CDBG/ESG assistance?
-answer not presented because of the answer to #1-

17. CDBG/ESG ONLY - IF YES TO ABOVE - What new programs or services will be provided? -answer not presented because of the answer to #1-

18. CDBG/ESG ONLY - IF YES TO QUESTION 16 - Describe how existing programs or services will be expanded and what percentage of an increase is expected.
-answer not presented because of the answer to #1-

19. Please describe the proposed project in detail (i.e. What activities are to be undertaken? What are the projects' goals?).

Please attach a timeline of the project milestones under the Documents tab.

Working through a model of progressive engagement, 5CHC services will be offered to "meet the client where they're at" and assist them to develop and execute a plan to housing stability.

Street Outreach - Daily outreach throughout South County, with special focus on known encampments, and coordination with local law enforcement and rangers.

Coordinated Entry - daily intake and assessment, estimated 1 hr per assessment Diversion - Reunification - helping people avoid homelessness or divert from use of SLO County resources by providing reunification services and transportation Immediate Needs - Providing assistance as needed for one-time support for immediate needs - especially targeted to homeless prevention and immediate needs to facilitate housing search and employment.

Housing Navigation & Case Management - On-going case management and housing search support for income-qualified clients (homeless prevention) and those experiencing homelessness.

Non-Congregate Shelter - schedule to open in early 2022 providing wrap-around intensive services (shelter, food, basic needs, benefits acquisition, housing search, and supportive services) for up to 40 residents in 90-180 program. Funding secured through Sept. 2022.

Warming Center - drop in shelter on cold and rainy nights Nov 22-March 23.

Client Training (i.e. Financial Literacy) - on-going part of case management for all interested clients.

HMIS - daily capturing of client touchpoints and demographic from intake to exit.

Grants Management - on-going management of expenditure documentation and reporting.

Project Details

20. Please estimate the number of unduplicated persons or households to benefit from the proposed project. Write "p" for persons or "hh" for households.

Please refer to the Library for HUD Income Limits and information on CDBG Presumed Low/Mod Income populations. Please enter any presumed benefit persons as low-income.

21. CDBG ONLY - If the project serves any of the presumed benefit populations under the Low/Moderate Income national objective, please describe how the project will directly benefit the populations identified. -answer not presented because of the answer to #1-

22. ESG ONLY - FOR EMERGENCY SHELTER ONLY: Please identify the following projected accomplishments and portion of funding requested to go towards each service type for the 12-month contract period. -answer not presented because of the answer to #1-

23. ESG ONLY - FOR STREET OUTREACH ONLY: Please identify the following projected accomplishments and portion of funding requested to go towards each service type for the 12-month contract period. -answer not presented because of the answer to #1-
400 p TOTAL number of persons (p) or households (hh) regardless of income 0 Of the total number of persons (p) or households (hh) entered above, how many will be LOW-INCOME (earning 51% - 80% or less of the County median-income)(HUD funding only) 400 Of the total number of persons (p) or households (hh) entered above, how many will be VERY LOWINCOME (earning 50% or less of the County median-income)(HUD funding only) Of the total number of persons (p) or households (hh) entered above, how many will be earning 60% or less of County median-income(PLHA only)
400.00 TOTAL

24. ESG ONLY - RAPID RE-HOUSING ONLY - Please identify the following projected accomplishments and portion of funding requested to go towards each service type for the 12-month contract period. -answer not presented because of the answer to #1-

25. ESG ONLY - FOR HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION ONLY: Please identify the following projected accomplishments and portion of funding requested to go towards each service type for the 12-month contract period.
-answer not presented because of the answer to #1-

26. ESG ONLY - FOR HMIS ONLY: Please identify the portion of funding requested to go towards each service type for the 12-month contract period.
-answer not presented because of the answer to #1-

27. GENERAL FUND ONLY - OVERNIGHT SHELTERS ONLY - Please answer the following:
-answer not presented because of the answer to #1-

28. GENERAL FUND ONLY - Please identify the following projected accomplishments:
-answer not presented because of the answer to #1-

29. Identify the projected target population(s) your proposed project and activities will serve (including age, race, residency, handicap status, income level or other unit characteristics or subgroup information) and how those populations will benefit
5CHC's programs are targeted to individuals and families who “without” these programs will become or will remain homeless.

These programs target area residents with the most urgent and severe needs including Families with Children; Chronically Homeless; Veterans; Unaccompanied Youth; Victims of Domestic Violence.

Following local coordinated entry protocols, we seek to identify and serve people who:
• Are unsheltered and living in places not designed for human habitation; • Have experienced the longest amount of time homeless; • Have multiple and severe service needs that inhibit their ability to secure housing on their own; and • Through homelessness prevention activities, are at greatest risk of becoming literally homeless without an intervention and are at greatest risk of experiencing a longer time in shelter or on the street should they become homeless. 5CHC's Coordinated Entry and Street Outreach services will be targeted to those experiencing homelessness or at-risk of homelessness living in South County, unless requested by other service partners - for example, due to COVID some partners were required to shut their facilities and 5CHC was asked to assist with added coordinated entries.

All other services will be provided County-wide, or be open to anyone living in the County (shelter services) and will meet the demographic breakdown of the County (including age, race, residency, handicap status, income level). All financial services provided through this grant will be provided based on income verification and homeless status as required. Utilizing the attached Coordinated Intake Form, applicants are asked to self-disclose their demographic data, including race and ethnicity.

Additionally 5CHC's website, facebook page, and outreach materials all provide logos for Fair Housing and Accessibility and are provided in both English and Spanish. 5CHC has added a translation tab to its website, and is working to expand bilingual communications through social media.

30. Has environmental review been completed (CEQA and/or NEPA)?

31. Please answer yes or no to the following:

If applicable, please upload a copy of the Phase I or II environmental assessment under the Documents tab. gfedc Yes - CEQA review completed
gfedc No - CEQA review not completed
✔ N/A - CEQA not required
gfedc Yes - NEPA review completed
gfedc No - NEPA review not completed
✔ N/A - NEPA not required
n/a Has a Phase I or Phase II environmental assessment been conducted for the property? n/a List and describe any known hazards (e.g. asbestos, storage tanks – underground, aboveground)

32. Identify all permits necessary for the project (local, state or federal). n/a

33. State whether or not the necessary permits have been issued. If a permit has not yet been issued, indicate when the permit(s) will be applied for or issued.

Please provide proof of permit issuance under the Documents tab. n/a

34. Briefly describe your agency’s auditing requirements, including those for the proposed project.

Please upload a copy of your most recent audit under the Documents tab. 5CHC engages an independent auditor annually to review the financial records of the organization. The last one completed, attached, represents calendar year ending Dec. 31, 2020. The level of federal grants currently administered by 5CHC does not require a "single audit;" however 5CHC has engaged an auditor to conduct such an audit for 2021, due to an increase in federal assistance in our current fiscal year.

Financial

35. How do you plan to fund the operation and maintenance costs (if any) associated with this project? Are these funds available now? If not, when will they be available? General maintenance and occupancy expenses are funded through other grants and direct donations. 5CHC's does not carry a debt for its Housing Navigation Center located at 100 S. 4th Street. Funding for the location of the 5CHC winter warming center is anticipated to be partially funded through a grant that has been awarded with the City of Grover Beach (GB- CDBG) and partially through this application. The location of the Non-Congregate Shelter Program at 216 16th Street is expected to be leased to 5CHC by the County at no cost. Funds for the operation of the shelter program has been partially secured through September 2022. Additional funds will be needed for continued operation, and 5CHC is working to solicit support through other grants (HHAP 2; HOME-ARP, ARPA and private donations).

36. Do you have any grant funds remaining from prior Fiscal Year allocations?

37. IF YES TO ABOVE, please answer the following:

If this question is not applicable, write N/A in the boxes below.

38. CDBG ONLY - Identify all jurisdictions you are applying to for CDBG funds by indicating the amount applied for at each jurisdiction.
-answer not presented because of the answer to #1-

39. GENERAL FUND ONLY - Please indicate the estimated portion of funding to go towards the following activities:
-answer not presented because of the answer to #1-

40. HOME Only - TBRA Only - Please indicate the amounts to be spent for rental assistance, deposit assistance, and project administration?
-answer not presented because of the answer to #1-
n/a Is the project on a property designated or been determined to be potentially eligible for designation as a local, state, or national historic site?
n/a Are the building(s)/structure(s) located on a Historic Site or within a Historic District? n/a Is the project located within a 100-year flood plain? n/a IF YES TO ABOVE, does your agency have flood insurance? n/a Will there be demolition required?

0.00 TOTAL
✔ Yes
gfedc No
2021-22 What fiscal year(s) did you receive the funding? ESG/CDBG/G What project did you receive the funding for? $109,013 How much is remaining?
109,013.00 TOTAL

Budget top
Funding Sources/Revenues Committed Conditional Proposed CDBG Funding (this request) $ 89,000.00
ESG Funding (this request) $ 65,000.00
General Funds (this request) $ 75,000.00
ESG-CV Funding (this request)
HOME Funds (this request):

PLHA Funds (this request):

Local/County (non-federal)(please specify): State ESG 22-23, $100,000, CoC Coordinated Entry $54,000, CESH 22-23 $91,000, CBO $30,000
$ 100,000.00 $ 175,000.00
Local/City (non-federal)(please specify):

In-kind (Private Contributions, Office Space) $ 150,000.00 $ 135,000.00 Other (please specify): GB CDBG Warming Center 22-23 -
$50,000, Serving GB Residents at Warming Center $ 50,000.00 Total $
300,000.00
$
310,000.00
$
229,000.00
Funding Uses/Expenses CDBG ESG & ESGCV
General
FundHOME PLHA
Personnel Costs $ 28,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 55,000.00
Operating Costs $ 20,000.00
Professional Services
Capital Outlay
Permits, Development Fees
Legal and Public Notices
Other (please specify):

CDBG Subsistence Rent 05Q $ 36,000.00
CDBG Deposit 05T $ 25,000.00
ESG Housing Stabilization (Deposits) $ 20,000.00
ESG Rent $ 10,000.00
Total $ 89,000.00 $ 65,000.00$ 75,000.00 $

0.00 $

0.00 Budget Narrative
CDBG:

Rental Assistance at $3,600 Avg/Household = $36,000
Deposits Assistance at $2,500 Avg/Household =$25,000
Client Intake Assessment $100/Household = $2,000 Case Manager @$27/hr x 35 hours/Household = $19,000 Primary Activity Delivery Cost (Grant Management Specialists) $23.50/hr X 298 Hours = $7,000 ESG:

Short and long-term rental assistance (avg $2,600/hh)
Case Manager, HMIS & Grant Admin @$27/hr x 85 hours/Household = $35,000 Deposits $2,250 per HH Avg.

General Fund:

Operating Costs - Maintenance, Utilities of Warming center, Insurance, Facility Rental Personnel Costs - .5 FTE Benefit Advocate, .1 FTE supervision, .25FTE Coordinated Entry, .15 HMIS, .2 FTE Outreach Tables top
ESG Matching Funds
Sources Amount
County CBO Page 336 of 350 $ 10,000
Application ID: 375816
Become a fan of ZoomGrants™ on Facebook
Problems? Contact us at [email protected]
©2002-2021 GrantAnalyst.com. All rights reserved.
"ZoomGrants" and the ZoomGrants logo are trademarks of GrantAnalyst.com, LLC.

Logout | Browser
* ZoomGrants™ is not responsible for the content of uploaded documents.

Local Cities (GB, PB, AG) $ 30,000
Private Donations $ 25,000
$
$
$
$
Total $ 65,000
Documents top
Documents Requested * Required? Attached Documents *
Incorporation Documents (if applicable) Article of Incorporation Timeline of Project Milestones ✔ Timeline and Milestones Proof of Permit Issuance (if applicable)
Map of Multiple Project Locations (if applicable)
Most Recent Audit ✔ 5CHC Audit 2020
Commitment Letters for funds (if available)
Timeline of Expenditures ✔ Expenditure Timeline

Item 10.a.

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Whitney McDonald, City Manager
SUBJECT: Receive an Update on Progress Toward Council Goals and Priorities for Fiscal Year 2021-22
DATE: February 8, 2022
SUMMARY OF ACTION:

Consider an update regarding the progress made toward meeting the City Council’s Goals and Priorities for Fiscal Year 2021-22.

IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:

There are no financial impacts associated with receipt of the update regarding progress toward meeting Council’s Fiscal Year 2021-22 Goals and Priorities.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive an update regarding progress toward the City Council’s Fiscal Year 2021-22 Goals and Priorities.

BACKGROUND:

On September 22, 2020, the City Council adopted a list of Top 10 Council Priorities for Fiscal Year 2020-21 to help prioritize and focus staff work efforts for the year. On March 23, 2021, Council received an update regarding the City’s progress toward completing the Top 10 Priorities and directed that a process be undertaken each year to establish the Council’s goals and priorities.

On April 27, 2021, Council considered and approved a list of Council Goals and Priorities for Fiscal Year 2021-22 (Goals and Priorities) (Attachment 1) to help direct the work of the Council and City staff during the applicable biennial budget cycle. The identified Goals and Priorities were grouped under three main categories: Investing in the Future, Investing in the City’s Infrastructure and Facilities, and Investing in People. A number of key considerations guided the development of the Goals and Priorities, including Top 10 Priorities not completed during Fiscal Year 2020-21, items identified as new priorities as a result of the work completed in Fiscal Year 2020-21, items required to support the ongoing operations of the City’s enterprises and infrastructure, and emergent needs continuing to result from the COVID-19 pandemic and turnover in City staff. The Goals

Item 10.a.

City Council
Receive an Update on Progress Toward Council Goals and Priorities for Fiscal Year 2021-22
February 8, 2022

and Priorities were updated as part of the Fiscal Year 2021-23 Biennial Budget presentation and adoption in June 2021 to include estimated time frames for completion.

While the Goals and Priorities were incorporated into the Biennial Budget, which spans two years, the identified work items focused on Fiscal Year 2021-22 with a stated intent to review and update the Council approved Goals and Priorities each year This report provides an update regarding the City’s progress on completing the identified Goals and Priorities for Fiscal Year 2021-22, with a focus on the first half of the Fiscal Year.

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:

Significant progress has been made toward accomplishing a number of Goals and Priorities for Fiscal Year 2021-22. Some items, however, have experienced delays and will take more time to complete or are ongoing in nature. Table 1 below identifies each Goal and Priority, the estimated timeframe for completion provided as part of the Biennial Budget, and a status report in the far-right column.

Table 1
Category Goal/Priority Estimated Timeline Status Update Investing
in the
Future
Begin
comprehensive
General Plan update
Scoping discussion to
occur by Fall 2021;
kick-off of update to
begin by Spring 2022.

Delayed due to staff
turnover, other priority
and emergent items.

New target date is
Spring 2022 for scoping
discussion with kick off
in Fall 2022.

Initiate and/or
complete housing
initiatives funded by
grant programs
 Regional preapproved ADU
plans
 Objective design
standards
 Regional preapproved ADU
plans currently
underway, to be
completed in 2022
 Consider
incorporating
objective design
standards into
comprehensive
General Plan
update with scoping
discussion in Fall
2021
 On target. Preapproved plans
reviewed by
Architectural Review
Committee &
Planning
Commission. Will be
presented to Council
in Spring 2022.
 Objective design
standards will be
discussed with
General Plan update
scoping item in
Spring 2022.

Item 10.a.

City Council
Receive an Update on Progress Toward Council Goals and Priorities for Fiscal Year 2021-22
February 8, 2022

Complete ADU
ordinance
amendments
Summer 2021 Delayed due to conflict
issues, scheduled for
introduction and
adoption in February
2022.

Evaluate water
resiliency options
available to the City
Part of Council’s
consideration of
Central Coast Blue
Project in Summer and
Fall 2021
Completed. Direction
provided to pursue:
 Short term
agreement with
OCSD
 Emergency
interconnect with
Golden State Water
 CCB
 Discuss potential
sale of water from
scalping plant with
nearby ag users
 Continue engaging
with County staff re
Nacimiento and State
Water if available in
the future
 Ballot measure to
allow purchase of
State Water outside
of emergency
Continue support for
existing and new
economic
development
initiatives
 COVID Relief
Program
 Determine
whether to
conduct baseline
analysis of
existing and
future business
needs
Incorporate into
comprehensive
General Plan update
process
 COVID Relief
Program to be
administered
through 2021
 Consideration of
baseline analysis to
occur with
discussion of
comprehensive
General Plan
To be included in
General Plan update
process
 COVID relief
programs expanded
through ARPA
allocations
 Baseline analysis to
be included in
General Plan scoping
discussion in Spring
2022.

Item 10.a.

City Council
Receive an Update on Progress Toward Council Goals and Priorities for Fiscal Year 2021-22
February 8, 2022

 Evaluate the
potential to
enable cannabis
businesses in
Arroyo Grande
update scope (Fall
2021)
 Consider potential
to enable cannabis
businesses in Fall
2021
 Delayed until 2023
Support regional
efforts to address
homelessness and
emergency shelter
needs
Ongoing Ongoing. Specific steps
completed this year
include:
 ARPA funding
allocated for the
purchase of property
and/or development
of a homeless shelter
by 5Cities Homeless
Coalition.
 Safe parking meeting
conducted in
December 2021 with
faith community to
discuss interest in
programs and
services.
 Facilitated locating
the warming shelter
at the South County
Regional Center this
winter, with certain
dates reserved at the
Women’s Club due to
scheduling conflicts
at the Regional
Center.

Review status of
Five Cities Fire
Authority 3rd
Amendment to the
Joint Powers
Agreement, and
consider cost
analysis of service
delivery models
Fall 2021 Completed.

Item 10.a.

City Council
Receive an Update on Progress Toward Council Goals and Priorities for Fiscal Year 2021-22
February 8, 2022

Evaluate options to
pay down CalPERS
unfunded accrued
liability
Summer/Fall 2021 Completed.

Investing
in City
Infrastruc
ture and
Facilities
Identify and pursue
short- and long-term
funding
mechanisms, such
as a sales tax
measure, for
pavement
maintenance and
other infrastructure
maintenance needs
 Discuss options for
short- and longterm infrastructure
financing in Fall
2021.
 Consider potential
sales tax measure
in Spring 2022.
 Delayed due to other
priority items, such
as water shortage
emergency, and the
need to completed
updated pavement
index evaluation.

Scheduled for
March/April 2022.
 On track to consider
tax measure in
Spring 2022.
 Excess reserves
allocated to
additional 2020/21
pavement repair
projects.

Complete design
and/or begin
construction of key
infrastructure
projects, including:
 Brisco
Interchange
Project
 Traffic Way
Bridge
Replacement
 Swinging Bridge
Rehabilitation
 Contract for design
services for Brisco
Interchange Project
expected Fall 2021
with design
expected to be
completed in Spring
2023
 Traffic Way Bridge
Replacement
design expected to
be complete in Fall
2022 and
construction
expected to begin
Summer 2023
 Swinging Bridge
Rehabilitation
construction
expected to begin
Spring 2022
 Delayed. RFP issued
in December 2021
with contract award
expected for
consideration April
2022.
 Delayed.

Replacement design
expected to be
complete in Summer
2023 and
construction
expected to begin
Summer 2024.
 Delayed. RFP for
construction issued.

Construction
expected to begin
Summer 2022.

Item 10.a.

City Council
Receive an Update on Progress Toward Council Goals and Priorities for Fiscal Year 2021-22
February 8, 2022

Evaluate and select
options for replacing
the Mark M. Millis
Community Center
Spring 2022 Estimated in
Spring/Summer 2022.

Complete a water
and sewer rate
study and consider
implementing a rate
adjustment
Complete rate study in
Summer 2021 and
propose adoption in
Fall 2021.

Delayed but partially
completed. Rate Study
approved January 11,
2022, rate hearing
scheduled for March 8,
2022, and new rates
anticipated to be
implemented in April
2022.

Complete a
comprehensive fee
study and consider
adjusting City fees,
including impact
fees
Begin in Winter 2021-
22 with proposed
adoption in Spring
2022
Delayed. Expected to
begin in Spring 2022
with consideration in Fall
2022.

Investing
in People
Adopt and
implement Diversity,
Equity, and Inclusion
initiatives
Proposed policy for
Council consideration
in Summer 2021.

Implementation and
preparation of
additional polices as
appropriate will be
ongoing.

Delayed but completed in
January 2022.

Implementation ongoing.

Maintain and
increase public
engagement with
the City
 Complete
process to create
voting districts in
2022
 Increase public
outreach through
surveys, social
media
engagement, and
events
 Evaluate
technology
Ongoing
 The process for
creating voting
districts will begin
with two public
hearings in Summer
2021 and conclude
with two public
hearings in Spring
2022. Districts will
be implemented in
Fall 2022.
 Public outreach
efforts will increase
Ongoing
 On track. Next
hearings scheduled
in February and
March with maps to
be adopted by April
2022. Several
outreach methods
employed to date.
 Completed.

Item 10.a.

City Council
Receive an Update on Progress Toward Council Goals and Priorities for Fiscal Year 2021-22
February 8, 2022

opportunities to
enhance public
participation in
meetings
with the hiring of a
new Deputy City
Clerk/Communicati
ons Coordinator
 Ongoing video- and
tele-conferencing
options for public
meetings will be
discussed with
Council in June
2021 and
implemented in July
2021, with ongoing
evaluation and
refinement
thereafter
 Completed. Hybrid
meeting option
implemented in July
and August 2021, but
Zoom only meetings
resumed due to delta
variant and increase
in local COVID cases
and mask
requirements.
 Survey completed
regarding parklets.

Modernize
technologies and
systems in key
areas, such as
public safety
cameras, human
resources
processes, and
accounting and
agenda
management
software systems
 Public safety
camera upgrades
are expected to be
completed by
Winter 2022.
 Human resources
software systems
will be implemented
by Winter 2021.
 Agenda
management
software will be
implemented in
Summer 2021.
 Accounting
management
software will be
procured in Winter
2021/22 and
implemented
through Fiscal Year
2022-23.
 Delayed, expected to
begin deployment in
Spring 2022.
 Summer 2022 more
likely due to staffing
constraints.
 Implemented.
 Delayed due to
staffing constraints,
Water Shortage
Emergency, COVID
impacts, other items.

Procurement
expected in Summer
2022.

Focus resources
and implement
efficiencies to
ensure optimized
Ongoing Ongoing

Item 10.a.

City Council
Receive an Update on Progress Toward Council Goals and Priorities for Fiscal Year 2021-22
February 8, 2022

service levels within
core City functions
Evaluate and
implement
employee retention,
attraction,
recruitment,
development, and
support strategies
Ongoing. A City-wide
salary survey will be
completed during
Fiscal Year 2021-22.

Ongoing. Salary survey
delayed, expected to be
completed during first
half of Fiscal Year 2022-

23. During the course of the Fiscal Year 2021-22, emerging issues in certain areas have created the need to readjust priorities. For instance, significant staff time and resources have been required to respond to the current drought and the need to declare and implement a Stage 1 Water Shortage Emergency. This work effort was not anticipated as part of the Goals and Priorities and resulted in the redirection of staff resources.

Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has continued to create operational constraints for the City, creating delays due to staff outages. Other emerging issues and Council-directed priorities, such as changes at the Integrated Waste Management Authority, implementation of State legislation (e.g. SB 1383 and SB 9), development of a permanent parklet program, etc., have also adjusted staff work efforts during Fiscal Year 2021-22.

These considerations have resulted in delays for some items identified in the Goals and Priorities.

Staff will continue making progress toward meeting the Goals and Priorities established for Fiscal Year 2021-22, as described above. A new goal-setting process will be undertaken in April 2022 to review and adjust the Goals and Priorities as needed and desired by Council for the upcoming Fiscal Year.

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for the Council’s consideration:

1. Receive an update regarding progress toward the City Council’s Fiscal Year 2021- 22 Goals and Priorities; or

2. Provide other direction to staff.

ADVANTAGES:

Receiving the status report on the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Goals and Priorities provides an update to the Council and the public on the City’s efforts toward completing and accomplishing a number of vital work efforts. This review may assist in the development of new goals and priorities for the upcoming Fiscal Year 2022-23.

DISADVANTAGES:

There are no disadvantages identified at this time.

Item 10.a.

City Council
Receive an Update on Progress Toward Council Goals and Priorities for Fiscal Year 2021-22
February 8, 2022

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

No environmental review is required for this item.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:

The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2.

Attachment:

1. Fiscal Years 2021-23 Goals and Priorities Included in Biennial Budget

ATTACHMENT 1
Council Goals and Priorities for Fiscal Years 2021-23
Investing in the Future
 Begin comprehensive general plan update
 Initiate and/or complete housing initiatives funded by grant programs o Regional pre-approved ADU plans
o Objective design standards
 Complete ADU ordinance amendments
 Evaluate water resiliency options available to the City  Continue support for existing and new economic development initiatives o COVID Relief Program
o Determine whether to conduct baseline analysis of existing and future business needs
o Evaluate the potential to enable cannabis businesses in Arroyo Grande  Support regional efforts to address homelessness and emergency shelter needs  Review status of Five Cities Fire Authority 3rd Amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement, and consider cost analysis of service delivery models  Evaluate options to pay down CalPERS unfunded accrued liability Investing in City Infrastructure and Facilities
 Identify and pursue short- and long-term funding mechanisms, such as a sales tax measure, for pavement maintenance and other infrastructure maintenance needs  Complete design and/or begin construction of key infrastructure projects, including:
o Brisco Interchange Project
o Traffic Way Bridge Replacement
o Swinging Bridge Rehabilitation
 Evaluate and select options for replacing the Mark M. Millis Community Center  Complete a water and sewer rate study and consider implementing a rate adjustment  Complete a comprehensive fee study and consider adjusting City fees, including impact fees
Investing in People
 Adopt and implement Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives  Maintain and increase public engagement with the City o Complete process to create voting districts in 2022
o Increase public outreach through surveys, social media engagement, and events o Evaluate technology opportunities to enhance public participation in meetings  Modernize technologies and systems in key areas, such as public safety cameras, human resources processes, and accounting and agenda management software systems  Focus resources and implement efficiencies to ensure optimized service levels within core City functions

 Evaluate and implement employee retention, attraction, recruitment, development, and support strategies
Anticipated Timeframes for Completion
of the Goals and Priorities Identified Above
for Fiscal Years 2021-23
Category Goal/Priority Anticipated Timeframe for
Completion
Investing in
the Future
Begin comprehensive General Plan
update
Scoping discussion to occur by Fall
2021; kick-off of update to begin by
Spring 2022.

Initiate and/or complete housing
initiatives funded by grant programs
 Regional pre-approved ADU
plans
 Objective design standards
 Regional pre-approved ADU
plans currently underway, to be
completed in 2022
 Consider incorporating objective
design standards into
comprehensive General Plan
update with scoping discussion
in Fall 2021
Complete ADU ordinance amendments Summer 2021
Evaluate water resiliency options
available to the City
Part of Council’s consideration of
Central Coast Blue Project in
Summer and Fall 2021
Continue support for existing and new
economic development initiatives
 COVID Relief Program
 Determine whether to conduct
baseline analysis of existing and
future business needs
 Evaluate the potential to enable
cannabis businesses in Arroyo
Grande
Incorporate into comprehensive
General Plan update process
 COVID Relief Program to be
administered through 2021
 Consideration of baseline
analysis to occur with discussion
of comprehensive General Plan
update scope (Fall 2021)
 Consider potential to enable
cannabis businesses in Fall 2021
Support regional efforts to address
homelessness and emergency shelter
needs
Ongoing
Review status of Five Cities Fire
Authority 3rd Amendment to the Joint
Powers Agreement, and consider cost
analysis of service delivery models
Fall 2021
Evaluate options to pay down CalPERS
unfunded accrued liability
Summer/Fall 2021

Investing in
City
Infrastructu
re and
Facilities
Identify and pursue short- and longterm funding mechanisms, such as a sales tax measure, for pavement
maintenance and other infrastructure
maintenance needs
Discuss options for short- and longterm infrastructure financing in Fall 2021.

Consider potential sales tax measure
in Spring 2022.

Complete design and/or begin
construction of key infrastructure
projects, including:
 Brisco Interchange Project
 Traffic Way Bridge Replacement
 Swinging Bridge Rehabilitation
 Contract for design services for
Brisco Interchange Project
expected Fall 2021 with design
expected to be completed in
Spring 2023
 Traffic Way Bridge Replacement
design expected to be complete in
Fall 2022 and construction
expected to begin Summer 2023
 Swinging Bridge Rehabilitation
construction expected to begin
Spring 2022
Evaluate and select options for replacing
the Mark M. Millis Community Center
Spring 2022
Complete a water and sewer rate study
and consider implementing a rate
adjustment
Complete rate study in Summer 2021
and propose adoption in Fall 2021.

Complete a comprehensive fee study
and consider adjusting City fees,
including impact fees
Begin in Winter 2021-22 with
proposed adoption in Spring 2022
Investing in
People
Adopt and implement Diversity, Equity,
and Inclusion initiatives
Proposed policy for Council
consideration in Summer 2021.

Implementation and preparation of
additional polices as appropriate will
be ongoing.

Maintain and increase public
engagement with the City
 Complete process to create
voting districts in 2022
 Increase public outreach through
surveys, social media
engagement, and events
 Evaluate technology
opportunities to enhance public
participation in meetings
 The process for creating voting
districts will begin with two
public hearings in Summer 2021
and conclude with two public
hearings in Spring 2022. Districts
will be implemented in Fall 2022.
 Public outreach efforts will
increase with the hiring of a new
Deputy City
Clerk/Communications
Coordinator
 Ongoing video- and teleconferencing options for public meetings will be discussed with
Council in June 2021 and
implemented in July 2021, with

ongoing evaluation and
refinement thereafter
Modernize technologies and systems in
key areas, such as public safety cameras,
human resources processes, and
accounting and agenda management
software systems
 Public safety camera upgrades
are expected to be completed by
Winter 2022.
 Human resources software
systems will be implemented by
Winter 2021.
 Agenda management software
will be implemented in Summer
2021.
 Accounting management
software will be procured in
Winter 2021/22 and implemented
through Fiscal Year 2022-23.

Focus resources and implement
efficiencies to ensure optimized service
levels within core City functions
Ongoing
Evaluate and implement employee
retention, attraction, recruitment,
development, and support strategies
Ongoing. A City-wide salary survey
will be completed during Fiscal Year
2021-22.