Agenda packet — Guadalupe City Council, January 11, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

January 11, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Agenda Page 1 of 5 City of Guadalupe
AGENDA
Regular Meeting of the Guadalupe City Council
Special Meeting of the Successor Agency to the Guadalupe Redevelopment Agency Board
Tuesday, January 11, 2022, at 6:00 pm
City Hall, 918 Obispo Street, Council Chambers
The City Council meeting will broadcast live on Charter Spectrum Cable Channel 20.

All persons attending the City Council meeting are required to wear nose and face masks regardless of vaccination status when indoors in public setting, with limited exceptions pursuant to County of Santa Barbara Health Officer Order No. 2021-10.8.

If you choose not to attend the City Council meeting but wish to make a comment during oral communications or on a specific agenda item, please submit via email to [email protected] no later than 1:00 pm on Tuesday, January 11, 2022.

Please be advised that, pursuant to State Law, any member of the public may address the City Council concerning any item on the Agenda, before or during Council consideration of that item. If you wish to speak on any item on the agenda, including any item on the Consent Calendar or the Ceremonial Calendar, please submit a speaker request form for that item. If you wish to speak on a matter that is not on the agenda, please do so during the Community Participation Forum.

The Agenda and related Staff reports are available on the City’s website: www.ci.guadalupe.ca.us Friday before Council meeting.

Any documents produced by the City and distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available the Friday before Council meetings at the Administration Office at City Hall 918 Obispo Street, Monday through Friday between 8:00 am and 4:30 pm, and also posted 72 hours prior to the meeting. The City may charge customary photocopying charges for copies of such documents. Any documents distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda less than 72 hours before the meeting will be made available for inspection at the meeting and will be posted on the City’s website and made available for inspection the day after the meeting at the Administrator Office at City Hall 918 Obispo Street, Monday through Friday between 8:00 am and 4:30 pm.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, including review of the Agenda and related documents, please contact the Administration Office at (805) 356.3891 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. This will allow time for the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting.

January 11, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Agenda Page 2 of 5

1. ROLL CALL:

Council Member Liliana Cardenas
Council Member Gilbert Robles
Council Member Eugene Costa Jr.

Mayor Pro Tempore Tony Ramirez
Mayor Ariston Julian

2. MOMENT OF SILENCE

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. AGENDA REVIEW
At this time the City Council will review the order of business to be conducted and receive requests for, or make announcements regarding, any change(s) in the order of business.

5. INTRODUCING HANNAH FUENTES, RECREATION SERVICES MANAGER

6. CEREMONIAL CALENDAR
• National School Choice Week Proclamation
• Masatani’s Market 100-Year Anniversary Proclamation

7. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION FORUM
Each person will be limited to a discussion of three (3) minutes or as directed by the Mayor.

Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on these matters unless they are listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. City Council may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future City Council meeting.

8. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following items are presented for City Council approval without discussion as a single agenda items in order to expedite the meeting. Should a Council Member wish to discuss or disapprove an item, it must be dropped from the blanket motion of approval and considered as a separate item.

A. Waive the reading in full of all Ordinances and Resolutions. Ordinances on the Consent Calendar will be adopted by the same vote cast as the first meeting, unless City Council indicates otherwise.

B. Approve payment of warrants for the period ending January 5, 2022 and ratify payment of warrants for the period ending December 22, 2021.

C. Approve the Minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting of December 14, 2021, to be ordered filed.

January 11, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Agenda Page 3 of 5 D. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-01 approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Guadalupe and Guadalupe Center for Visual and Performing Arts (“GCVPA”) for the Eventual Occupation and Operation of the Royal Theater.

E. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-02 approving the procurement of bus shelters through the CalACT/MTBA Vehicle Purchasing Cooperative, along with other minor bus stop improvements as needed.

F. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-03 approving the response to the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Report entitled “The Keys to Housing the Homeless”.

G. MONTHLY REPORTS FROM DEPARTMENT HEADS
a. Planning Department Report for December 2021
b. Public Works/Engineering Report for December 2021
c. Recreation & Parks Department Report for December 2021 d. Los Amigos de Guadalupe Update

9. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT: (Information Only)

10. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT: (Information Only)

11. MAYOR’S REPORT- UPDATES

REGULAR BUSINESS

12. Appeal of Rejection of Commercial Cannabis Business Permit Application.

Written Report: Philip Sinco, City Attorney
Recommendation: That the City Council consider the appeal filed by Mr. Nice Guy of the rejection of its application for a commercial cannabis business permit.

PUBLIC HEARING

13. Proposition 218 hearing and introduction of ordinances affirming, revising, and setting fees and rates for water and wastewater service.

Written Report: Shannon Sweeney, Public Works Director/City Engineer Recommendation: That the City Council:
a. Review staff report;
b. Conduct Proposition 218 protest hearing;
c. Introduce by title only (first reading) Ordinance No. 2022-498, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Guadalupe, California affirming, revising, and setting fees and rates for water service.
d. Introduce by title only (first reading) Ordinance No. 2022-499, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Guadalupe, California affirming, revising, and setting fees and rates for wastewater service.

January 11, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Agenda Page 4 of 5 e. Continue this matter to the Council’s regular meeting on January 25, 2022, for second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-498 and Ordinance No. 2022-499.

14. Short-Term Rentals Ordinance.

Written Staff Report: Philip F. Sinco, City Attorney
Recommendation: That the City Council introduce on the first reading, and continue to its meeting of January 25, 2022, for second reading and adoption, an ordinance regulating short-term rentals in the City of Guadalupe and amending various provisions of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Guadalupe Municipal Code.

15. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

16. ANNOUNCEMENTS – COUNCIL ACTIVITY/COMMITTEE REPORTS

17. ADJOURNMENT TO THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY BOARD MEETING

SUCCESSOR AGENCY

18. Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for the July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023, period.

Written Report: Cheryl Murase, Consultant to the Successor Agency Recommendation: That the Successor Agency adopt SA Resolution No. 2022-01 entitled “Resolution of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Guadalupe approving the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for the July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023, period”.

19. ADJOURNMENT
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted on the City Hall display case and website not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Dated this 7 th day of January 2022.
________________________________
Todd Bodem, City Administrator
Todd Bodem
January 11, 2022 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Agenda Page 5 of 5

PROPOSED FUTURE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS
Council Meeting: Date and Subject Department Agenda Category Tuesday, January 18, 2022, at 5:00 pm / Special Meeting Cannabis Business Applications – Interviews Regular Business Tuesday, January 25, 2022, at 6:00 pm / Regular Meeting Los Compas de Guadalupe – Talent TV Show Finalist
Proclamation
Ceremonial Calendar
Human Trafficking Awareness Month Ceremonial Calendar
Touch of Style Proclamation Ceremonial Calendar
Second Reading – Ordinance Proposed Water & Sewer
Rates
Public Works Dept. Consent Calendar
Second Reading – Ordinance Short-Term Rentals City Attorney Consent Calendar 2021 Pavement – Notice of Completion Public Works Dept. Consent Calendar Second Quarter Financial Report Finance Department Consent Calendar SEIU Side Letter Human Resources Consent Calendar
Benefits for Unrepresented Employees Human Resources Consent Calendar Lower Fees for rentals at the Vets Hall and funerals, etc. Facilities Coordinator/ Amelia Villegas
Consent Calendar
Park Play Structure Selection Public Works Dept. Consent Calendar Tuesday, February 8, 2022, at 6:00 pm / Regular Meeting Response to the Grand Jury “Pension in Santa Barbara
County Require Vigilance”
Consent Calendar
Other Unscheduled Items Proposed
Date of
Item
Department Agenda Category
Tree Ordinance Public Works New Business
Sidewalk Vending Ordinance Planning Department New Business Vacant Property Ordinance Administration Dept New Business Sign Ordinance Planning Dept New Business
Pasadera Public Infrastructure Dedication Public Works Dept New Business Food Truck and Special Event Ordinance Planning Dept New Business Gift Policy City Attorney New Business
Master Fee Schedule Update Finance Department Workshop
Pasquini Lease Agreement Public Works Dept. Consent Calendar Recognizing Food Distribution Volunteers Ceremonial Calendar Terry Bauer – Proclamation Ceremonial Calendar
Goal Setting FY 21-22 Approval Administration Regular Business Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Feb 2022 New Business
Rental Control
Agenda Item No. 6
/s/
/s/
Prepared by:

Agenda Item No. 8B (1)

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of January 11, 2022
Reviewed by: Approved by:

Veronica Fabian
Finance Account Clerk
Lorena Zarate
Finance Director
Todd Bodem
City Administrator
SUBJECT:

RECOMMENDATION:

Payment of warrants for the period ending January 07, 2022 to be Approved for payment by the City Council. Subject to having been certified as being in conformity with the budget by the Finance Department staff.

That the City Council review and approve the listing of hand checks and warrants to be paid on January 12, 2022.

BACKGROUND:

Submittal of the listing of warrants issued by the City to vendors for the period and explanations for disbursement of these warrants. An exception, such as an emergency hand check may be required to be issued and paid prior to submittal of the warrant listing, however, this warrant will be identified as "Ratify" on the warrant listing.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 Agenda Item No. 8B (2)

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of December 28, 2021
Reviewed by: Approved by:

Veronica Fabian
Finance Account Clerk
Lorena Zarate
Finance Director
Todd Bodem
City Administrator
SUBJECT:

RECOMMENDATION:

Payment of warrants for the period ending December 22, 2021 to be Approved for payment by the City Council. Subject to having been certified as being in conformity with the budget by the Finance Department staff.

That the City Council review and approve the listing of hand checks and warrants to be paid on December 29, 2021.

BACKGROUND:

MINUTES
Regular Meeting of the Guadalupe City Council
Tuesday, December 14, 2021, at 6:00 pm
City Hall, 918 Obispo Street, Council Chambers

1. ROLL CALL:

Council Member Liliana Cardenas
Council Member Gilbert Robles
Council Member Eugene Costa Jr.

Mayor Pro Tempore Tony Ramirez
Mayor Ariston Julian
Meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. All were present. (Note: The abbreviation “CM” will be used for “Council Member”.)

2. MOMENT OF SILENCE
To pay respect to those who most recently have left us, Mayor Julian mentioned the following: 1) the 800,000 individuals who died from Covid-19 in the United States; 2) the victims of the recent tornadoes in six states; 3) the family and friends of Vicente Fernandez, King of Rancheras; 4) the family and friends of Theodoro Gomez, Guadalupe resident; 5) the family of Robert Dole, former member of the United States Senate; 6) the families of the 54 migrants from Guatemala killed in a vehicle accident in Chiapas, Mexico, and 7) those family and friends each of us may wish to recognize in our moment of silence.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. AGENDA REVIEW
At this time the City Council will review the order of business to be conducted and receive requests for, or make announcements regarding, any change(s) in the order of business.

There were no requests to change the agenda.

5. CEREMONIAL CALENDAR
• Recognition to the Guadalupe Community Changers for the cleanup efforts.

Mayor Julian read the Certificate of Recognition in English with CM Cardenas then reading it in Spanish. Mireya Piña, Coordinator, and Maria Montonya were present to accept this recognition.

The certificate acknowledged the year-round clean-up efforts of the numerous volunteers of the Community Changers, and their focus on improving our community.

Agenda Item No. 8C
December 14, 2021 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 2 of 17

6. PRESENTATION
• Guadalupe Community Changers 2021 Clean-Up Report.

Mireya Piña gave the presentation showing some of the highlights: 12 community clean-ups; volunteer opportunities for Guadalupe residents; community education and collaboration with other organizations, such as Essence of Earth and the Dunes Center. Ms. Piña then went month-by-month showing the statistics of how much trash was collected, how many volunteers, and specific locations.

For the first three months of the year, they collected 43.5 bags with 37 volunteers at 6 locations. For the remaining months through November, they collected trash from 22+ locations with 98+ volunteers. As of April, they switched from counting “bags” to “pounds”. For the eight (8) months, they collected a total of 867.8 lbs. of trash. On average for this period: 2.5 locations, 108.5 lbs. with 12+ volunteers. Ms. Piña cited one interesting statistic: in November, there were “1,400 cigarette butts picked up which equals 70 packs of cigarettes”. The next clean-up date is scheduled for Saturday, 12/18. In addition, Essence of Earth collected 186+ lbs. for July and September.

Ms. Piña cited some other interesting facts: young people litter slightly more than older people; socio-economic factors are linked to littering behavior, and smoking-related items are littered more frequently than most other litter items. She also mentioned that there are only four (4) trash bins on Guadalupe Street. In Disneyland, Ms. Piña said, there are trash cans every 30 feet. Motivations and barriers also tie into littering, such as a sense of responsibility, feelings about the community, etc. Because these facts were important, Ms. Montonya repeated them in Spanish.

Ms. Piña spoke about street sweeping and showed a sketch of areas that are swept every Friday and other areas that are only swept once-a-month on the second Friday. She recommended that an additional day be added to the areas now receiving once-a-month sweeping. Other recommendations made to the City Council were: 1) add more trash/recycling/smoking receptables on Guadalupe Street and high trafficked areas; 2) establish a community clean up volunteer group; 3) provide education to the community around waste and environmentally conscious practices, and 4) require business owners on Guadalupe Street to remove trash from the front of their businesses.

Ms. Montonya also read these recommendations in Spanish.

Mayor Julian mentioned that Ms. Piña should connect with Ms. Sweeney, Public Works Director, and the City, in general. He said, “When the City was responsible for street sweeping, there was a requirement not to park on Guadalupe Street between the hours of 2:00am to 3:00am so the street could be swept. But that doesn’t happen anymore. Nobody can get in there because of all the cars.” The mayor then asked Ms. Sweeney how this street sweeping would fit with our agreement with Health Sanitation (HSS) and their schedule. Ms. Sweeney responded, “We’d have to have discussions with Waste Management (HSS) to see what it would take to adjust the schedules. One of the things you’ll see on the Consent Calendar is the agreement with the Department of Transportation, which is the Clean California Maintenance Agreement. It’s $70,000 we can use over the next 2.5 years.

That enables us to do graffiti and litter removal from state highways, specifically Hwy 166 and Hwy

1. It can only be used on those two (2) streets. I’ve had discussions with CalTrans about how that funding can be used. It’s a bit of a work-in-progress how the monies can be used but once we get approval on that agreement, then we can start working on the recommendations made here tonight.

This grant monies provides us with more opportunities we didn’t have previously.” December 14, 2021 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 3 of 17 Mayor Julian then addressed the suggestion of more trash cans on Guadalupe Street. He said, “If we provide more, they have to be emptied. Maybe this agreement with CalTrans, it will provide resources for that purpose.” Ms. Sweeney added, “We are allowed to use staff time and materials, trash bags, for that work emptying trash cans. That’s one of the tasks we can be reimbursed for.

There would be some recordkeeping involved here.” Mayor Julian then said, “When you do add City staff then you do add expenses. What about using the Community Changers, if they want, or another clean-up group that would take some responsibility?” Ms. Sweeney said that there are many questions asked of CalTrans and once the program is more fully defined, the City can then put together a more meaningful program. Mayor Julian added, “Who better than to partake in this than residents who walk the streets.”
CM Robles asked, “I’m not sure when Earth Week is but maybe we can collaborate with the school district and have an introduction, like a coloring book. Maybe something in the classroom showing picking up after yourself, and in your neighborhood showing ownership and pride in your community.” Ms. Piña responded, “Thank you for your comment, Gilbert. Actually, Christina is here tonight, and we are trying to coordinate something for Earth Day. What we’re hoping to do is pass on the baton. We’re trying to target so many different areas of need here in Guadalupe that need representation. We’re thinking of doing something for each of the four (4) seasons. We’re happy to work with anyone on this.” CM Robles again emphasized that it would be great to introduce this to a target group, like 2nd-4
th grade level students, maybe in an assembly environment.

Ms. Piña ended the presentation by saying, “I just want to give thanks to a few people. I want to thank our volunteers. All the organizations that supported us. I want to thank the City Council.

You’ve been really supportive, and we’ve really appreciated that. Lastly, I want to thank the Community Changers for holding themselves accountable for how we contribute to global warming.

Thank you.”

7. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION FORUM
Each person will be limited to a discussion of three (3) minutes or as directed by the Mayor.

There were no requests to speak.

8. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following items are presented for City Council approval without discussion as a single agenda item in order to expedite the meeting. Should a Council Member wish to discuss or disapprove an item, it must be dropped from the blanket motion of approval and considered as a separate item.

A. Waive the reading in full of all Ordinances and Resolutions. Ordinances on the Consent Calendar will be adopted by the same vote cast as the first meeting, unless City Council indicates otherwise.

December 14, 2021 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 4 of 17 B. Approve payment of warrants for the period ending December 9, 2021.

C. Approve the Minutes of the City Council Special Meeting of November 17, 2021, to be ordered filed.

D. Approve the Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the Guadalupe Union School District and City Council of November 17, 2021, to be ordered filed.

E. Approve the Minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting of November 23, 2021, to be ordered filed.

F. Accept cancellation of the December 28th City Council Meeting.

G. Accept the November 2021 Financial Report.

H. Adopt Resolution No. 2021-91 approving the modifications to the Master Fee Schedule Annual CPI Update.

I. Adopt Resolution No. 2021-92 approving a letter to Caltrans recommending improvements to Highway 1 as part of Project No. 05-1E030-0513000026 named the Guadalupe Street ADA Project.

J. Adopt Resolution No. 2021-93 approving a maintenance agreement with the California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for litter and graffiti removal in and around the state highways, associated with the “Clean California Beautification Program of 2021”.

K. Adopt Resolution No. 2021-94 approving the use of the Veterans Memorial Plaza for a Public Safety Holiday Display and Command Post Operations.

L. MONTHLY REPORTS FROM DEPARTMENT HEADS

1. Planning Department Report for November 2021

2. Building Department Report for November 2021

3. Public Works Department Report for November 2021

4. Recreation & Parks Department Report for November 2021 No items were pulled. Motion was made by Council Member Ramirez and seconded by Council Member Cardenas to approve the Consent Calendar. 5-0 Passed.

9. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT: (Information Only)
Mr. Bodem read the following:

This letter is from Deek Segovia: “I am responding to the commentary published 30 November 2021 in the Santa Maria Times regarding Veterans evicted from Guadalupe Veteran’s Memorial Building.

December 14, 2021 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 5 of 17 While the history of the building is accurate and informative, the allegation that the Veterans were ‘kicked out’ is totally false. While the building was originally dedicated for use of all veterans of Guadalupe, management of the building was negotiated between the City of Guadalupe and the American Legion Post 371, which included rental of the facility.

Unfortunately, the American Legion Post chose to put money ahead of the veterans, prohibiting access for regularly scheduled meetings to other veterans in the community. This caused quite a bit of contention between the American Legion and other Veteran groups, eventually resulting in the Guadalupe Vietnam Veterans Chapter 982 seeking a meeting place in several other locations as the Memorial Building was not made available for regular meetings due to the priority given to renting the facility. This had nothing to do with the City of Guadalupe! The Veterans Memorial Building was intended for use by all veterans, however that has not been the case due to the American Legion leadership. I am a Vietnam Veteran and a member of the American Legion as well. I have always felt supported by the City of Guadalupe, which has welcomed our Chapter and supported all our public events. The VVA chapter 982 considers Guadalupe our home and since the City of Guadalupe has resumed management of the Veterans Memorial Building, we have been able to use the building for our meetings and feel that we have been welcomed back home. The American Legion has the same opportunity to use the building. No veteran or veteran’s group has been ‘put out’ (of the building). All veterans are welcome in Guadalupe, and it makes me sad to read the commentary stating that veterans do not have a home and are allegedly not welcome in Guadalupe. This is absolutely not the case!
Sincerely,
Deek Segovia, Charter member Vietnam Veterans of America Chapter 982 and VVA Riders Group, Life Member VFW, Member of the American Legion.”
Mr. Bodem also read a brief written comment from Refugio Hernandez: “Re: Guadalupe Theatre Building - To Whom It May Concern: I am in support of the building’s preservation. Respectfully, Refugio Hernandez”

10. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT: (Information Only) Chief Cash said, “Personally, for Public Safety, thank you to the Community Changers. Let’s see how we can partner with you. I’ve seen you around town and it’s been a great help. So, thank you.”
Chief then continued saying that there were several things to report:

1. There was a sectional meeting last week with the Sheriff’s Office and Police Chiefs from San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara County and Ventura. This group met with California Attorney General, Rob Bonta. I happened to be seated next to his special assistant. Mr. Bonta’s background was read. He is the first Filipino-American Attorney General of the State of California. He has an agricultural background. I told his assistant that this guy is a mirror of Guadalupe due to his December 14, 2021 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 6 of 17 background and upbringing. We’re working together to try and bring Mr. Bonta here. I spoke with him, and he’s very interested. Now we’re trying to work on schedules. I had the opportunity to extend an invitation from the mayor to come here. I explained the cultural and historical aspect of Guadalupe, and he was really impressed.

2. Working with the school district re traffic. Thank you to Council Member Costa, Jr. who helped to steer things. We’re bringing more of the parents to be involved so this isn’t done behind closed doors.

3. Juvenile Justice Commission – we’re continuing working on that commission to provide resources for youth and families.

4. The Public Safety Department is doing a ‘free blanket giveaway’. There are about 20 blankets.

The Food Distribution did the same.

5. Graffiti Artist Vandal: we put out a ‘Crime Stopper’ flyer hoping for some tips. The costs are increasing for clean-up.

6. There was a printout that was sent to Facebook in 2018 that resurfaced and still holds true: “One of the reasons we live where we live…The overall crime rate in Guadalupe is 71% lower than the national average. For every 100,000 people, there are 2.2 daily crimes that occur in Guadalupe.

Guadalupe is safer than 79% of the cities in the United States. In Guadalupe you have a 1 in 125 chance of becoming a victim of any crime.”
Chief commented, “This touts our lower crime rate. It’s nice to see a resident sending these comments. There are comments from people who’ve moved away wishing they could come back. It’s encouraging to put those comments out. But it goes together with not only having lower stats and knowing that, but people also need to have a feeling of being safe. So those two things go together and something that we’ll continue.” That concluded the report.

Mayor Julian said, “CHC also donated blankets and large supply of diapers as well as five (5) $25 gift cards from Wal-Mart. The School District, Mary Buren and McKenzie Schools, had a food drive. They packed and distributed the food which was distributed at the December 2nd Food Bank distribution.

Thank you to the School District.” Chief Cash added, “A resident donated apples from their trees.

There are other citizens who give what they can. We have volunteers all around helping.” CM Cardenas asked Chief to talk a little about the launch of the program with the School District, ‘Handle with Care’. Chief explained, “Yes, the pilot program here in Guadalupe has started and we’re working with the Santa Barbara County DA’s office. If our first responders come across youth/children having issues at home, that information can be entered into a database. So, when they go to school, teachers can be aware that something is going on. Rather than disciplining the child, we can get resources to help. The website is up, and information is being built. The hope is that then the program will go Countywide.”

11. MAYOR’S REPORT- UPDATES:

Mayor Julian said that the report was self-explanatory. He did say that there’s a lot going on in the City and encouraged people to read the report on the City’s website.

December 14, 2021 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 7 of 17

PUBLIC HEARING

12. Royal Theater Expansion, 2021-100-DR to approve a remodeling/restoration of the original theater, a 5,221 square foot addition to the rear of the theater along with an 803 square foot addition to the original theater. The project site covers 26,600 square feet over three Assessor’s Parcels and is located at 848 Guadalupe Street, (APN 115-101-001, 115-101-011 and 115-113-001).

Written Report: Larry Appel, Contract Planner Director
Recommendation: That the City Council:
a. Receive a presentation from staff;
b. Conduct a public hearing, including 1) an opportunity for the architect to present the proposed project, and b) receive any comments from the public; and c. Adopt Resolution No. 2021-95 approving 2021-100-DR, including Finding and Conditions of Approval.

Mr. Appel gave a brief background on the Royal Theatre. It was first opened in 1939, and in 2011 it closed due to an electrical fire. An evaluation by the Historic Resource Inventory and Evaluation was conducted and in February 2021 and determined that the theatre qualified for both the California and National Historic Registry. The City is using former redevelopment agency bond funds to cover the costs of preparing plans to remodel the original theatre as well as design a three-story addition to the rear of the building. The design work is being done by Andrew Goodwin Designs of San Luis Obispo.

A grant application was submitted for the design phase for CDBG funds in the amount of $250,000.

This would reimburse some of the planning costs. The City is also preparing an application a grant from the federal Economic Development Administration (EDA). This grant, under the “2021 American Rescue Plan Act Travel, Tourism, and Outdoor Recreation” grant program, would cover the costs of restoration of the theatre and the new three-story addition.

After the brief explanation by Mr. Appel, the presentation was begun by Mr. Michael DeMartini of the design group. He said, “A team, which includes architectural, structural and civil engineering, landscaping, electrical, plumbing, fire, acoustics and historical expertise, has been working on this project for some months. Back in early 2020, we were asked to provide pro-bono design services for potential expansion of the Royal Theatre. We had a good development team and worked up some designs onsite and some imagery on how it could look. Fast forward, we’ve gone in and assessed the building from top to bottom. It’s wonderful that we can bring the historical nature back and enhance it with services to the community with the back building.” Mr. DeMartini continued saying, “We brought a drone to really see the building from top to bottom.

There’s a lot to be done inside to get it back to its safe state and current codes. This project consists of a renovation and 803 square foot addition to the original Royal Theatre and a 5,200 square foot three-story addition to the rear of the theatre, new parking lot with 12 regular spaces, two (2) ADA spaces and commercial loading dock, and new landscaping. There were multiple overheads showing the current state of the theatre and the projected design and refurbishment. There were internal pictures of the existing building condition as well as external shots from a variety of views that were taken in August. There are two street frontages, Olivera Street and Guadalupe Street.

December 14, 2021 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 8 of 17 Mr. DeMartini emphasized that the stage would be preserved but repaired for more flexibility of performances. The approximately 200-220 chairs would be removed and refurbished. The front entry lobby flooring would also be preserved with the façade restored. A new roof will be placed on the building. All restrooms, current and new, would follow ADA requirements.

The new first-floor plan would have a new commercial kitchen, new restrooms, secondary lobby, green room/backstage, lounge, concessions and new stair to the second story. The new second-floor plan involves a projector room, flex office and new classroom flex spaces, an outdoor deck, new restroom and the refurbished marquee. The new third-floor plan will consist of an interior flex space, mechanical roof deck, outdoor roof deck and an escape stairway. In addition, there are plans to have an amphitheater, public plaza that opens to the street side and new parking lot for the new addition in the back.

Currently, there is no current parking for the theatre. Staff believes there is adequate public parking in the downtown area which can be used for the theatre parking, both on-street and in City lots. The architect has designed a parking lot at the eastern end of the property that provides 12 standard parking spaces, two (2) ADA spaces and one commercial loading area for the new building.

Mr. DeMartini showed their new landscape plan. The theatre property is currently lacking any landscaping. He spoke about drought tolerant planting, flat turf area for outdoor eventsright behind the outside theatre, landscape plaza and stormwater management and street trees at the parking lot. He emphasized the drought tolerant and native plants are planned to be used. He then showed pictures of the proposed theatre with views from front entrance to the theatre, the outdoor amphitheater, which will have an enclosed fence, as well as the rear view from the parking lot from the back of the building exiting on to Olivera Street.

Mayor Julian asked Mr. DeMartini to explain the historical preservation site and keeping the existing building as it is, etc. as there may be questions on differences in architecture. Mr. DeMartini said, “The historic building in the front is an unreinforced masonry building with an art deco history to it.

We’re keeping all that the same. The marquee is being restored. The neon back to the historic nature of it. The colors, the stucco down to the texture is being preserved. On the outside, the brick is being left alone. Certain areas of the building were meant to be left alone. It’s ‘new and old’ coming together to bring entertainment to the town. The inside is preserved down to the lighting.

We maintained the historic nature of the lighting and acoustics down to the interior wall finishes.

We’re keeping the existing seating and the interior proscenium remains. The original painting on the wall is in good shape. We will have a modern acoustic material there, but it will be designed to stay the colors and texture what it was. Of course, there are modern amenities, like the restrooms, that we need to abide by code but again, would be designed in a way that would echo the art deco nature of the original. In the modern building we’ve also utilized some art deco features there. The design matches the original era. It’s an interesting combination of buildings.” Mr. Bodem asked, “Are you supposed to keep the contemporary part of it sort of different to allow for that difference, to keep what was there, to allow that separation of look or architectural style? Contemporary is different than the original. You’re supposed to do that, right, to have a separate architectural look?” Mr. DeMartini said, “Yes. We wouldn’t design a building that would be art deco that would be next to a historic art deco building.” CM Robles asked, “Isn’t there something December 14, 2021 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 9 of 17 about height, that it’s not the same?” Mr. DeMartini said, “Yes, it’s called ‘contrasting element’…a contrasting element to an historic element.”
CM Ramirez asked, “We’re going from one story to three. Are there any public safety issues with all of that, especially with Fire?” Fire Captain Schmitz said, “There are no complications with the thirdfloor issue.” CM Ramirez also asked, “Noise from the amphitheater. I know you said there’ll be fencing but will there be any kind of buffer?” Mr. DeMartini said, “There is. The exterior is not intended to be an amplified space, more of a public forum. But it does have a 6-foot-high fence element around it. And an open air. Nothing reflecting sound.” CM Cardenas asked, “Parking? How many parking spaces are being offered for this?” Mr. Martini said, “The rear building has two (2) ADA spaces and twelve parking spaces which meets the code requirements for that building. Along with public safety, there are two (2) exits in that building and fire sprinkler covered. It meets all the safety standards.” CM Cardenas added, “You need more than twelve.”
Mayor Julian said, “One of the things staff can respond to is because the building didn’t have parking to begin with, there’s no requirement to add parking because we have the ability to have reciprocal parking and street parking. You can look at the Dunes Center, Veterans Memorial Parking lot, there’ll be ample parking there.” Mr. DeMartini said, “It was anticipated that the City would come to an agreement on how to park based on several lots that were studied. You have quite a few lots that would accommodate events there.”
The mayor then said, “I think even Lupe Alvarez and family would allow parking, too. Because if you had 200 people there, you’re going to need parking spaces.” CM Cardenas added, “Right. 220 seats? We’re going to need more than twelve spots.”
Public Hearing opened at 7:04pm.

Mr. Chacho Ramirez spoke. He said, “One of the hopes Mira and I have is to bring more arts to the community. It’s a beautiful building. You can feel the history when you walk in there. It’s been a year and a half working towards getting here. We’ve met with so many artists and talked to them about coming here. We’re very excited. These plans are amazing and look forward to a path forward.”
Mr. Thomas Brandebury gave an update on the application for the Historical Preservation Registry for the Royal Theatre. He said, “We’re going to the Historical Registry on January 21, 2022 to determine if it will be federally recognized or not. We’re looking for support saying this should be an historical building. We have a template letter that can be used. It seems CalTrans may see things differently but I’m not sure if that will cause a problem on January 21st or not. For the EDA application, we’re currently surveying businesses and property owners in Guadalupe asking them what the value of the Royal Theatre will be in relation to their business. Would it save jobs? Create jobs? Create investments in the community? This survey is a critical part of the application as EDA would want to know how the potential grant funds would benefit the City. The application should be finished sometime in early January. EDA recommends getting the application in before the end of January. EDA requires that the environmental assessment be done, and we are working with a consultant on that. One thing that just came up is that phase 1 of the environmental be done December 14, 2021 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 10 of 17 because of the vacant site and an old building. EDA wants to make sure before the application is submitted that there are no potential issues with the building or the soil. I’m in the process of putting together a team to get quotes for the environmental assessment. All of those actions should get done and we should have enough business responses by the early part of January.” Mr. Bodem asked, “If something is found in phase 1 of the environmental assessment, it causes delays.” Mr. Brandebury said, “Yes, if something is found, it goes to phase 2 which is a much larger process and would slow the project down.”
Public Hearing closed at 7:10pm.

Motion was made by Council Member Ramirez and seconded by Council Member Robles to approve Resolution No. 2021-95. Roll Call. Ayes: Ramirez, Cardenas, Julian, Costa, Jr. and Robles.

Passed 5-0.

13. Short-Term Rentals Ordinance.

Written Report: Philip Sinco, City Attorney
Recommendation: That the City Council introduce on the first reading, and continue to its meeting on January 11, 2022, for second reading and adoption, an ordinance regulating short-term rentals in the City of Guadalupe and amending various provisions of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Guadalupe Municipal Code.

City Attorney Sinco gave some background on this ordinance. A presentation was made to the City Council at the October 13, 2020, meeting concerning the growth of these types of short-term rentals in general. The Council was presented with two (2) options: 1) completely ban them in the city, or 2) regulate them. The council was not opposed to allow some short-term rentals and directed staff to prepare an appropriate ordinance to bring back to Council at a future date.

He said, “This is the third time this ordinance is before you. A previous rendition of the ordinance was presented at the September 28, 2021, meeting. Because of the Council required additional provisions and Chief Cash’s comments on its impact on public safety and code compliance, the ordinance was not introduced at that time. In previous presentations of the ordinance, it was stated that all short-term rental owners must: 1) have a business license with the City; 2) apply to register the short-term rental with the City; 3) pay Transient Occupancy Tax for all rentals; 4) have no violations of the Municipal code concerning nuisances; 5) either be hosted or un-hosted; 6) have an Administrative Use Permit which must be obtained prior to the application for un-hosted short-term rentals, and 7) for un-hosted rentals a limit of 120 days per year. There was discussion but no consensus in previous meeting on the 120-day limit for un-hosted rentals. Mayor Julian had indicated support for 90 days. CM Cardenas supported 180 days. The 120-day limit can change if you reach consensus tonight on a new number.”
He continued explaining what had been discussed at previous September 28th meeting. He said, “The application for an un-hosted short-term rental must include a local contact person who must be available 24 hours a day, seven (7) days a week during the entire un-hosted short-term rental period.

This person would be responsible for responding to complaints during the rental period. Originally, December 14, 2021 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 11 of 17 it was proposed that the response time be 60 minutes. One of Chief Cash’s suggestions was to make the response time 30 minutes which seems reasonable.”
On page 3 of the staff report, Chief Cash’s suggestions were listed. City Attorney Sinco listed those out as follows: 1) Lease agreement must be on-site and available upon request; 2) Three (3) contacts with Public Safety personnel within a 20-day period where cost recovery process for public safety service can be initiated and would be retroactive; 3) Owner or Responsible party shall respond within 30 minutes by phone or in person to address any issues; 4) Owner shall sign and submit a ‘Trespass Enforcement Authorization Letter’ authorizing Public Safety personnel to act on their behalf and enter the property, if three (3) improper and/or illegal activities are not corrected, and 5) Copy of the Short-Term Rental Permit will be sent to Public Safety as soon as approvals and fees have been completed. These recommendations have been incorporated into the ordinance.

The City Council also gave direction at the September 28th meeting and those provisions have been added: 1) exterior surveillance cameras will be required for un-hosted rentals to record all persons coming on to the property and will be kept for minimum of 30 days; 2) parking shall be limited to ‘onsite’ which may require garage to be made available to the renters; 3) if un-hosted rental has outside space, the host should require the renters to cease using that space no later than 9:00pm, Sunday through Thursday, and no later than 10:00pm on Friday and Saturday, and 4) the reference in the previous ordinance to an amnesty period has been changed from one year to three (3) months.”
City Attorney Sinco then spoke about parking. He said, “The previous ordinance required that outside parking be made available but not required. The current version requires it. That’s something that the Council can change back if it’s not considered practical to require that all parking be onsite.

There could be a legal challenge with the preemption of the Vehicle Code that people have a right to park on the street. The short-term renter could argue that they be allowed to park on the street.

This could be something that could be legally challenged though I don’t see a high risk of being successful. Something to keep in mind. Also, Jack Owen, the Administrative Hearing Officer, felt there could be some code enforcement issues and suggested additional language be added to the ordinance in Section 18.55.04, Sub-Section E which currently reads: ’Parking shall be limited to onsite which may require a garage to be made available to renters.’ His suggested additional language reads: ‘All renters’ vehicles shall be required to display a sign on the dashboard of the vehicle indicating that it is permitted to be there by permission of the property owner with the dates of the rental period listed.”
He then said, “If the Council wanted to change the wording from ‘parking shall be limited to onsite’ to ‘parking may be limited to onsite’, an Administrative Use Permit would go along with that. The language would then be applicable for vehicles parked on the street. We’d know how many vehicles were associated with the rental property, if they complied. This could be controlled by the use permit. We could likely limit the number of vehicles based on the size of the house.” Mayor Julian said, “I’ve done a lot of thinking on this. What we’re doing is allowing people to come in and make money on their purchase of a home, like in Pasadera. There’s someone who bought a December 14, 2021 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 12 of 17 home in Pasadera to rent for $3,200. If it doesn’t rent, it will be turned into an Airbnb. We have two major options here: to allow or not allow it. What happens if all that we’ve approved here, we don’t like. What tools do we have to revoke this ordinance?”
City Attorney Sinco replied, “Same tools you’d have to revoke any ordinance. However, if there’s an Administrative Use Permit granted, I’d recommend a sentence in the ordinance that says, ‘the Council reserves the right to revoke, and no vested rights would be granted’. Or if the ordinance that revokes this ordinance, it could include an amortization or a period of time to allow for the existing property to operate for a year or so before it has to cease operations. I don’t want to delay this anymore, but If that’s the will of the Council, I’d then recommend bringing this back to the January 11th meeting based on your direction to include that. I’d rather not try to just put something in here quickly, particularly when dealing with reserving rights. I need time to research to make sure this is possible. The Council would have the power to revoke, but I just don’t know to what extent someone who has an Administrative Use Permit would have the right to continue. My guess is that we’d have to allow some time or provide notice that that right could be taken away.” Mayor Julian said, “I wouldn’t want to delay it any further. I think we have more teeth in it (ordinance) than we had before. What happens if someone calls, second or third time, and no one shows up in 30 minutes?” City Attorney Sinco replied, “The second or third time is a police issue. If no one shows up, we’d treat that as a violation of the Administrative Use Permit and start process to revoke the permit. Use discretion if a person is 20 minutes late or an hour late. In that case, a citation or some penalty might be in order. But if it’s an actual no-show, then that would be grounds to revoke the permit. A hearing would be set up as stated in the ordinance and the City could prevent the property from being a short-term rental.”
The mayor continued asking, “I don’t know if we can do like hotels where if someone doesn’t abide by the rules/provisions, they can be asked, if not, told to leave the premises for non-compliance. I’m not sure if we want to go that far since it would add another duty for our police officers.” City Attorney Sinco responded, “That would be something I’d want to study further. I would say we could cite the people for disturbing the peace as well as the property owner which would be standard code enforcement technique.”
Mayor Julian said, “I have a note here that says ‘opportunities for citizen complaints’. Is there anything in here, any details, that allows a citizen to actually file a complaint?” City Attorney Sinco said, “No, not in this particular ordinance. Don’t forget that the ordinance is part of the larger Municipal Code where there’s a chapter on property nuisances which allows for a citizen to file a confidential complaint about any code violation which would include violation of this ordinance. The short answer is ‘yes’, but not part of this ordinance but elsewhere in the Municipal Code.” The mayor said, “Good, so long as neighbors of the rental property know that.” The discussion then turned to the number of days allowed for an un-hosted rental. The draft ordinance shows 120 days. CM Cardenas said, “I still say 180 days.” The mayor said, “That’s still a lot of days. That’s every weekend; every Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Mr. Appel commented, “At December 14, 2021 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 13 of 17 every single weekend, that’s 104 days with 80 more days to go. If you’re thinking that’s only half a year, most of the short-term rentals happen on weekends. That would be a lot of use to consider.” The mayor asked for a refresher on where things had been left regarding the number of days allowed for un-hosted short-term rentals. City Attorney Sinco said, “Initially, the staff report proposed 120 days. CM Cardenas recommended supporting up to 180 days. You, mayor, thought that was a lot and said you’d rather go with 90 days. So, we’re back at 120 days.” Mayor Julian then asked the Council for their thoughts. After the polling, here was consensus on 120 days. He said, “That’s a lot still but I think we can always go back and look at this again if it becomes an issue.” City Attorney Sinco then said, “There is one point I want to put out here. The issue of taking away the right to use the property as a short-term rental. If the second reading wasn’t going to be until January 11th, I’d say we’d be able to slow it down. But if we continue this until January 11th and the second reading would take place two (2) weeks later on January 25th, that provision would be included here. I checked the ordinance and there’s nothing in there that would allow you to just revoke it without some type of amortization period. So, that would be something you might wish to consider if that’s an important provision for you.” The mayor commented that he thought that wouldn’t create a delay. City Attorney Sinco said, “I wasn’t thinking about revoking this. I was thinking about getting it passed based on previous direction. So, it never occurred to me to say we’d reserve the right to ‘pull the plug’, but it seems like a good idea to me. If you want that changed and there’s support of the Council, I’d recommend that in a new ordinance to bring back again. Third time’s a charm. I’d feel more comfortable doing that and bringing it back to the Council as this is a pretty critical issue.” The mayor asked the Council if they were in agreement with that recommendation and all answered they were.

Mayor Julian asked, “If someone is renting, will they receive a plaque or something for display on their vehicle?” City Attorney Sinco said, “That would be up to the owner to figure out. The requirement would be to display some sort of sign. We can come up with the format. Could be just a piece of paper showing they have permission of the property owner with the specific dates of the rental period. So, if there’s a car on the driveway, a police officer could see that it belongs there during that period.” CM Robles commented that this procedure gives the host a ‘heads-up’ on how many parking passes will be needed. Say, for a 4-bedroom rental property, three (3) parking passes will be needed, etc.”
Chief Cash then said, “I’d suggest, to be uniform, those parking passes be issued through Public Safety. I’d also say that a fee should be charged. Like in a hotel, how many vehicles would be there, and that number would be listed in a permit. That way, when we drive by, we can see how many vehicles are there, and how many should be there. That would take some of the onus off the property owner. CM Ramirez concurred with Chief Cash’s suggestions. However, City Attorney Sinco said, “I would just qualify that. I would not charge a separate fee for that. But if you want to include the cost of the service, I would have that charge be included in the overall cost of the registration. I would just recommend just one fee.”
December 14, 2021 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 14 of 17 CM Cardenas continued the discussion of parking by asking, “So, your concern is that someone would contest the ability to park on the street?” City Attorney Sinco said, “If someone is renting a facility…and I specifically said ‘renter’, say there’s visitors or friends of the neighborhood and would park on the street. That shouldn’t be prohibited. I said that the existing parking should be made available to the renters. I’d like to give some flexibility depending on the circumstance and especially, depending on the location.”
CM Cardenas then said, “Okay, unless we just change that language what you indicated to ‘parking might be limited’ instead of ‘shall be limited’? City Attorney Sinco responded, “Yes, I would prefer that because it might not make sense in certain locations to require the parking to be onsite, depending on where it’s located. I hate ‘one size fits all’, personally.” There was further discussion on the parking issue and City Attorney Sinco indicated being less concerned but did request time to research further.

Mayor Julian gave an example of a short-term rental in his neighborhood where the owner doesn’t allow access to the garage. He said, “There could be two (2) cars in the driveway and multiple pickup trucks with dune buggies attached parked on the street in a cul-de-sac area.” City Attorney Sinco said, “Yes, what if someone has a big trailer and can’t park in the driveway, and we tell them they can’t park on the street. There may be an issue there. Maybe, it would solve the problem if we say that ‘parking may be limited to onsite subject to the terms of the Administrative Use Permit’. There’s some flexibility saying it that way. Or just leave it the way it is. I want you to tell me to leave the word ‘shall’ in there. That makes me feel better.” He turned the discussion back to the Council.

CM Cardenas said, “To me, there’s already a red flag when you tell me you’re already concerned. I don’t want that at all when you’re writing this and approving this.” City Attorney Sinco said, “I’m less concerned now. My concern may be unwarranted, but if I have the extra time, I’ll look into this.

So, my assignment is to look at two (2) things: 1) the parking sign/pass and limiting to onsite parking, and 2) the ability to revoke this without any Administrative Use Permits having any vesting rights.” (City Attorney Sinco had also previously mentioned checking further into whether a person can be told to leave if they don’t comply.)
CM Ramirez asked, “I remember one of the concerns we had was the number of short-term rentals someone could have. Was that addressed before?” City Attorney Sinco said, “Yes, that was addressed with previous direction. A property owner could only have one short-term rental. The mayor pointed out in the last meeting that if a husband and wife own two (2) pieces of property, that means they could have two short-term rentals. We won’t be able to get around that, depending on how title is shown. But it was basically intended to limit the number so someone couldn’t have half a dozen short-term rentals.”
Motion was made by Council Member Ramirez and seconded by Council Member Costa, Jr. to continue to the January 11, 2022 City Council meeting for first reading. 5-0 Passed.

14. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
December 14, 2021 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 15 of 17 CM Cardenas: TOT (Transient Occupancy Tax) – no specific date given; possibly February. City Attorney Sinco added, “We’re definitely going to have to do that. If you remember, we’ll start the process in March as the Council needs to approve no later than June. That goes to the County in July, so it gets on the ballot for the November election.” CM Ramirez: Rent Control – no specific date given. City Administrator added, “Yes, Philip and I have talked about this. We’re planning on having someone come in to give a presentation on both sides.

We’re in the process of searching for those groups now that can give a balanced approach to the subject.” CM Ramirez then said, “You can probably contact the City of Santa Barbara as they just went through this.” City Attorney Sinco commented, “My concern, council member, is that’s not an area of expertise for me. I don’t want to be charged with drafting an ordinance based on just the words ‘rent control’. I’d like to have a presentation where you receive information, make a considered opinion, and then give direction to me on what type of ordinance.” CM Ramirez then said, “No, I’m just talking about knowing both sides. They probably heard at every meeting for the last six (6) months.” City Attorney Sinco agreed that that’s what is needed.

Todd Bodem: For the January 11th meeting, an MOU Agreement re negotiations between the City of Guadalupe and Guadalupe Center for Visual and Performing Arts (“GCVPA”) for operation/management of the Royal Theatre. We will still go out with an RFP even though we have an interested group. It will help bolster our getting grant money having that done.

Mayor Julian asked for additional details and clarification on this issue. City Attorney Sinco said, “This group had sent to you, Mr. Mayor, an MOU saying that it would help the City’ grant prospects if someone has been identified to operate the theatre. I read the MOU, and it says that it’s nonbinding on both parties. There’s a period of time, like two (2) years, that it can be extended or maybe shorter, for the City to negotiate in good faith on the terms of a lease. It is very clear that the City has no obligation to enter into a lease with this group and the City can go a different way. I was very comfortable with the MOU and recommend that it be brought to you at the January 11th meeting. I was under the assumption that the grant application deadline was January 31st. It may not be necessary to bring this if the grant application deadline is before January 11th.” The mayor asked that the MOU be sent to all council members. He also said, “When I read it, it looked like it didn’t hold any water. (City Attorney Sinco said, “That’s what we want.”) It doesn’t say we have to do this or that…but for the purpose of getting the grant, it says that to the grant reviewers that there’s somebody in the wings, but not necessarily them.” City Attorney Sinco agreed saying, “And that’s why I was comfortable with how the MOU was written. It was exactly how we needed it, not committing us. We want to go through the RFP process. If no one comes forward, then we have them identified. But if someone else comes along with a better deal, then we’re free to go with them and not be bound to this group.”
CM Costa, Jr.: Bring back and review the ordinance on trailers and cars that are parked on streets and aren’t moved – no specific date given.

The mayor asked if there was a problem and CM Costa, Jr. said that there was. Mayor Julian thought that this issue then should go through Code Enforcement. CM Costa, Jr. said that people are playing December 14, 2021 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 16 of 17 games moving their cars/trailers slightly forward, then backwards, every three (3) days causing people to park their vehicles elsewhere. City Attorney Sinco added, “There’s very little, if anything, that can be done about the 72-hour rule. I’ve looked at it many times.” CM Costa, Jr. then asked, “Can we put in the ordinance that a trailer can’t be parked in the street and has to be parked in the driveway?” City Attorney Sinco responded, “I don’t think we can. It would be preempted under the Vehicle Code. We can’t prohibit parking on the streets. We can make sure the trailer/car is in good condition. We can only be vigilant in our enforcement. I’ve tried putting a distance requirement but it’s difficult to enforce. I’m happy to bring this item for a presentation and look at ways to address this issue. This is a tough one.” Mayor Julian then added, “It’s worth bringing the issue back to Council for further discussion.”

15. ANNOUNCEMENTS – COUNCIL ACTIVITY/COMMITTEE REPORTS
CM Ramirez: “It was already covered in the Mayor’s Report – Restorative Partners.” Mayor Julian said that property is being looked at over by Olivera and 10th Streets and property owned by the Buddhists. We haven’t heard back from them.”
CM Robles: I went to Atherton for the CIF State Championship game between Righetti High and Sacred Heart Prep. This is the first time in history that Righetti was going for the State Championship.

Although we came in runner-up for the State, Righetti is the CIF Sectional Champions. This was Sacred Heart’s third try at the State finals. Sacred Heart, established in 1898, has an annual tuition cost of $48,000 and $28,000 annual daycare cost. There were six (6) players on Righetti’s team that started out as Guadalupe Bulldogs. There were Guadalupe coaches on the squad, too.

Mayor Julian:
• Cal Vans Board meeting on 12/9. Lawsuits in closed session. • Online meeting with CA Natural Resources Agency, Secretary Crowfoot, Undersecretary Angela Barranco and CA Dept. of Parks & Recreation Director, Armando Quintero – request to participate in virtual meeting on 12/8 to discuss monies received re collective efforts to improve equitable outdoor access.
• 12/7 – 20 new member ceremony for the Guadalupe LEO Club. LEO Clubs are a youth organization of Lions Clubs International. ‘LEO’ stands for ‘L-Leadership; E-Experience; OOpportunity’. Youths are encouraged to develop leadership qualities by participating in social service activities.
• Food Bank Statistics: Year 2020= 12,900 families and over 50,000 individual family members within those families were served. For 2021=in July, distribution was cut back to one-amonth. 9,300 families and over 36,708 individual families served within those families. • 12/2 – Mary Buren and McKenzie School Food Drive: hundreds of pounds of non-perishable canned goods for Food Bank Distribution. “Thank you.”
• 12/16- SBCAG and APCD meetings.

CM Ramirez added, “The Redistricting Commission is finally done. I attended all the meetings held during the last 1.5 months. We are going with the Northwest side of Santa Maria – District 5.” The December 14, 2021 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting MINUTES Page 17 of 17 mayor said, “According to Supervisor Lavagnino, the cut-off is on the northside of Stowell Road which makes it District 5. They made a good decision with all the input from various groups.”

16. ADJOURNMENT
Motion was made by Council Member Costa, Jr. and seconded by Council Member Ramirez to adjourn meeting. 5-0 Passed. Meeting was adjourned at 7:57p.m.

Prepared by: Approved by:
________________________________ ______________________________________ Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk Ariston Julian, Mayor
Agenda Item No. 8D

REPORT TO THE GUADALUPE CITY COUNCIL
City Council Agenda of January 11, 2022
___________________________________
Prepared by:

Todd Bodem, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) Regarding Negotiations Between the City of Guadalupe (“City”) and Guadalupe Center for Visual and Performing Arts (“GCVPA”) for the Eventual Occupation and Operation of the Royal Theater.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-01 approving an MOU between the City and GCVPA for not-for-profit purposes to teach and showcase visual and performing arts in the community and to promote the Royal Theater as the communities’ center for the arts.

BACKGROUND:

The City owns the Royal Theater (“Theater”) located at 848 Guadalupe Street. The City has begun preparations for renovations to the Theater by hiring an architect to develop architectural design plans for the eventual renovation of the historic theater building and new addition. These plans will be submitted with the Economic Development Administration (EDA) grant application (one time Grant up to $10M) to fund the construction of this project that the City is planning on submitting soon. The City will be seeking a nonprofit entity to operate and manage the Theater after construction is completed to host classes, events, and performances that will enhance and highlight the diverse artistic talents of the community and attract unique and varied quests and performers to the Central Coast.

Once the Theater is fully operational, the City hopes it will create vibrancy to the downtown corridor and produce an economic multiplier effect in the community.

DISCUSSION:

The Guadalupe Center for Visual and Performing Arts (“GCVPA”) is a nonprofit entity that is interested in operating and managing the Theater in the future and has actively communicated its interest to the City. GCVPA has proposed entering into a non-binding memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) as a way of helping the City’s chances of obtaining the EDA grant. While it might be better for the City’s chances for the EDA grant to have an executed agreement with a nonprofit entity to operate and manage the Theater once construction has been completed; however, in order to be transparent and fair to all concerned the City needs to issue a Request for Proposals prior to selecting such a nonprofit entity to operate and manage the Theater. For this reason, the proposed MOU between the City and GCVPA is non-binding on both parties and specifically reserves to the City the right for the City not to enter into an with GCVPA and to be in control of all processes related to the Royal Theater. The MOU provides for a two-year period for the City and GCVPA to negotiate the terms of a lease for the Theater and also provides the term can be extended upon mutual agreement.

The MOU only requires the City and GCPVA to engage in good faith negotiations on what terms for a lease would be acceptable to both parties, and should the City ultimately decide to select some other organization to operate the Royal Theater, the City is free to do so.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Unknown currently. Operations have the potential to generate sales taxes or other revenue based on an increase in economic activity.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No. 2022-01 - Draft MOU between the City and GCVPA.

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-01

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING NEGOTIATION BETWEEN THE CITY OF GUADALUPE

AND GUADALUPE CENTER FOR VISUAL AND PERFORMING ARTS FOR THE EVENTUAL OCCUPATION AND

OPERATION OF THE ROYAL THEATER
WHEREAS, the City is the owner of the Royal Theater (“Theater”) at 848 Guadalupe Street and has begun preparations for renovations in order to operate as a non-profit center for the arts, culture and community for Guadalupe and the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the City understands the Theater is most likely to be successful as a center of arts and culture for the community and surrounding areas when occupied by a local and devoted tenant organization that will host classes, events, and performances that enhance and highlight the diverse artistic talents of the community and attract unique and varied guest artists and performers to the Central Coast; and WHEREAS, Guadalupe Center for Visual and Performing Arts (“GCVPA”) is a newly established not-for-profit, local organization whose purpose is to teach and showcase visual and performing arts in the community and to promote the Royal Theater as the community’s center for the arts, and whose initial Board of Directors is comprised of community leaders with demonstrated dedication to arts and the betterment of the City of Guadalupe; and
WHEREAS, a memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) between the City and the GCVPA to negotiate the terms for a possible lease for the eventual occupation and operation of the Royal Theater has been developed; and
WHEREAS, the MOU provides for up to a two year period for the City and GCVPA to negotiate the terms of a lease for the Theater (or sooner if a lease is signed) and the term can be extended upon mutual agreement; and
WHEREAS, the MOU is non-binding on both parties and specifically reserves to the City the right for the City not to enter into a lease with GCVPA and to be in control of all processes related to the Theater; and WHEREAS, the MOU only requires the City and GCPVA to engage in good faith negotiations on what terms for a lease would be acceptable to both parties, and should the City ultimately decide to select some other organization to operate the Royal Theater, the City is free to do so.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Guadalupe does approve the Memorandum of Understanding regarding negotiation between the City of Guadalupe and Guadalupe Center for Visual and Performing Arts for the eventual occupation and operation of the Royal Theater (“Exhibit 1”).

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 2 of 2 ends

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting on the 11th day of January 2022 by the following vote:

MOTION:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

I, Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk of the City of Guadalupe, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 2022-01 has been duly signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of the City Council, held January 11, 2022 and that same was approved and adopted.

ATTEST:
_____________________________ ________________________________ Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk Ariston Julian, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
Phillip Sinco, City Attorney
Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Negotiation Between the City of Guadalupe and Guadalupe Center for Visual and Performing Arts for the Eventual Occupation and Operation of the Royal Theater
This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING NEGOTIATION OF LEASE AGREEMENT AND OTHER NECESSARTY AGREEMENTS (the “MOU”) is made and entered into as of (the “Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF GUADALUPE, a municipal corporation in California (“City”), and GUADALUPE CENTER FOR VISUAL AND PERFORMING ARTS, a California nonprofit corporation (“GCVPA” or “the Center”). City and GCVPA may be individually referred to herein as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
WHEREAS, CITY is the owner of the Royal Theater at 848 Guadalupe Avenue, Guadalupe, California (the “Theater”);
WHEREAS, CITY has begun preparations for renovations to the Theater in earnest, approved and funded by the city, with the expectation the Theater, upon restoration, will be operated as a center of arts, culture and community for Guadalupe and surrounding areas; WHEREAS, CITY acknowledges the Theater is most likely to be successful as a center of arts and culture for the community and surrounding areas when occupied by a local and devoted tenant organization that will host classes, events, and performances that enhance and highlight the diverse artistic talents of the community and attract unique and varied guest artists and performers to the Central Coast;
WHEREAS, GCVPA is a newly established not-for-profit, local organization whose purpose is to teach and showcase visual and performing arts in the community and to promote the Royal Theater as the community’s center for the arts, and whose initial Board of Directors is comprised of community leaders with a demonstrated dedication to arts and the betterment of the City of Guadalupe;
WHEREAS, GCVPA currently has the desire, background, and community support to develop arts education and promotion programs within the community, and is committed to continue developing additional education programs, community volunteer and financial support, and organizational theater and arts center operations expertise prior to the execution of a formal lease agreement to better lead the Theater toward its full potential as a center for the arts and a new spark for Exhibit 1
community revitalization;
WHEREAS, CITY and GCVPA desire to negotiate a potential lease agreement and any other necessary agreements to ensure the mutual benefit of these agreements to the Parties and the community. Prior to finalizing the Lease Agreement and any other necessary agreements, the Parties intend to set forth in this non-binding Agreement the Parties’ understanding of the good faith negotiations.

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:

AGREEMENT

1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Agreement as though expressly set forth herein.

2. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and terminate on the earlier of (a) the date the Parties execute a formal agreement for the lease of theProperty and any necessary agreements for occupation and operation of the Theater; or (b) the date two years after the Effective Date. The term may be extended by mutual written agreement of the Parties.

3. Good Faith Negotiations. During the term of this Agreement, GCVPA and City shall negotiate in good faith the terms and conditions of the Lease Agreement, subject to the retained discretion described in Section 4 below. If the Lease Agreement is executed by the City and GCVPA, it shall thereafter govern the right and obligations of the Parties with respect to the Theater. The Lease Agreement is contemplated by GCVPA and the City to include,without limitation, terms regarding the lease of the Property. Other agreements necessary to ensure the mutually beneficial occupation and operation of the Theater may be negotiated separately, as agreed by the Parties.

4. Discretion of the Parties. This Agreement, including any extension, shall not obligate either City or GCVPA to enter into a Lease Agreement or to enter into a Lease Agreement containing any particular terms. By execution of this Agreement and any extension, City is not committing itself to, or agreeing to, undertake lease of the Property or any portion thereof and GCVPA is not committing itself to lease the Property or any portion thereof. Execution of this Agreement by City and GCVPA is merely a commitment by both Parties to conduct a period of negotiations in accordance with the terms hereof, reserving for subsequent City action the final discretion and approval regarding the execution of a Lease Agreement and all proceedings and decisions in connection therewith. Any Lease Agreement resulting from negotiations pursuant to this Agreement shall become effective only if and after such Lease Agreement has been considered and approved by the City Council, following conduct of all legally required procedures, and executed by duly authorized representatives of City and GCVPA. Until and unless a Lease Agreement is signed by GCVPA, approved by the City Council, and executed by City, no agreement drafts, actions, deliverables or communications arising from the performance of this Agreement shall impose any legally binding obligation on either Party to enter into or support entering into a Lease Agreement or be used as evidence of any oral or implied agreement by either Party to enter into any other legally binding agreement. This Agreement does not limit in any way the discretion of City in acting on any applications for permits or approvals for the renovation of the Theater.

City shall retain the absolute discretion for the final results of renovations.

5. Indemnity. GCVPA shall indemnify, defend and hold the City and its elected officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents and contractors harmless from and against any and all actions, claims, damages, liabilities, liens, obligations, demands and judgments (includingattorney fees) arising from this Agreement.

6. Defaults and Remedies.
a. Default. Failure by either Party to negotiate in good faith as provided in this Agreement shall constitute an event of default hereunder. The non-defaulting Party shall give written notice of a default to the defaulting Party, specifying the nature of the default and the required action to cure the default. If a default remains uncured ten days after receipt by the defaulting Party of such notice, the non-defaulting Party may exercise the remedies set forth below.
b. Exclusive Remedies for Default. In the event of an uncured default by a Party, the other Party’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be to terminate this Agreement and neither Party shall have any further right, remedy or obligation under this Agreement; provided,however, any obligation under a specific provision of this Agreement for GCVPA to indemnify or defend the City shall survive such termination. c. No Damages. Neither Party shall have any liability to the other for damages or otherwise for any default, nor shall either Party have any other claims with respect toperformance or non-performance by the other Party under this Agreement. Each Party specifically waives and releases any such rights or claims they may otherwise have at law or in equity in the event of a default by the other Party, including the right to recover actual, consequential, special or punitive damages from the defaulting Party.

7. Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is intended solely for the benefit of the Parties and shall not be construed to create any rights in any person or entity other than the Parties.

8. Notices. All notices and communications in connection with this Agreement shall bein writing and shall be deemed given when delivered by personal service, or three (3) business days after placement in the U.S. Mail, certified, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, and addressed to the addresses for City and GCVPA set forth below, or such other addresses as either party may designate by written notice to the other in accordance with this Section 8.

City: City of Guadalupe
Attn: City Administrator
918 Obispo Street
Guadalupe, CA 93434
With a copy to: City of Guadalupe
Attn: City Attorney
918 Obispo Street
Guadalupe, CA 93434
Club: Guadalupe Center for Visual and Performing Arts
Attn: President
731 Pomeroy Road
Nipomo, CA 43444

9. Non-Binding. This Agreement is non-binding and is entered into as an expression ofthe Parties’ good faith intent to draft, negotiate, and enter into an agreement regarding the lease of the Property.

10. Assignment. The qualifications and identity of GCVPA are of particular concern to City. It is because of those unique qualifications and identity that City has entered into this Agreement with GCVPA. Accordingly, GCVPA may not assign its right to negotiate with City to any other person or entity. Any purported voluntary or involuntary assignment of GCVPA’s negotiation rights without such City written approval shall be null and void.

11. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Litigation arising out of or connected with this Agreement shall be instituted and maintained in the courts of Santa Barbara County in the State of California, and the Parties consent to jurisdiction over their person and over the subject matter of any such litigation in such courts, and consent to service of process issued by such courts.

12. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect and shall in no way be impaired or invalidated, and the Parties agree to substitute for the invalid or unenforceable provision a valid and enforceable provision that most closely approximates the intent and economic effect of the invalid or unenforceable provision.

13. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes whatever oral or written understanding they may have had prior to the execution of this Agreement. This Agreement shall not be amended or modified except by a written agreement executed by each of the parties hereto.

14. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, including facsimile counterparts, each of which shall, for all purposes, be deemed an original and all such counterparts, taken together, shall constitute one and the same instrument.

15. Ambiguity. The Parties and their counsel have each carefully reviewed this Agreement, and the Parties have agreed to each term of the Agreement. No ambiguity shall be presumed tobe construed against either Party.

16. Waiver. Waiver by either Party of any default, breach or condition precedentshall not be construed as a waiver of any other default, breach or condition precedent or any other right hereunder.

17. Waiver of Lis Pendens. It is expressly understood and agreed by the Parties that no lis pendens shall be filed against any portion of the Property with respect to this Agreement or any dispute or act arising from this Agreement.

18. Headings. The section headings contained in this Agreement are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect in any way the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement.

19. Authority. The signatories to this Agreement hereby represent and warrant that they are fully authorized to sign this Agreement on behalf of the Party that they represent.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.

CITY OF GUADALUPE GUADALUPE CENTER FOR

VISUAL AND PERFORMING ARTS
__________________________ ___________________________
By: Ariston Julian By: Jorge R. Ramirez
Mayor GCVPA, President
ATTEST:
________________________________
Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Philip Sinco, City Attorney

Page 1 of 2 ends

Agenda Item No. 8E

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of January 11, 2022

_______________________________ _________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Shannon Sweeney Todd Bodem, City Administrator
Public Works Director/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Bus shelter procurement.

RECOMMENDATION:

That City Council approve the procurement of bus shelters and other bus stop improvements as needed.

DISCUSSION:

The fiscal year 21-22 capital improvement projects list included project 089-601, Transit Infrastructure Improvements. This project was originally to be funded with $60,000 in stimulus funds and $100,000 in other grant funds. The City was unsuccessful at receiving the grant funds. However, due to the very healthy cash balance in transit as a result of over $300,000 in stimulus funds as well as over $200,000 in unexpected STA fund reimbursement and an additional $1,496.66 in State of Good Repair funds earmarked for bus shelter improvements, staff is requesting permission to move forward with the purchase of new bus shelters along with other needed improvements at nine of ten bus stops and will be requesting an amendment to the budget for this project in the mid-cycle budget amendment request.

The City will be making wholesale changes to its transit operations per its Short Range Transit Plan, starting in July 2022. Since the City will be marketing its new transit schedule and stops, staff believes it is beneficial to complete bus stop improvements in advance of this July 2022 deadline to help showcase the new transit system.

City staff evaluated the condition of the existing bus stops and developed the attached matrix demonstrating what improvements are needed at each stop.

Staff spent $565 to join the California Association for coordinated transportation (CalACT). CalACT is the largest State transit assistance in the United States. One of the member benefits of CalACT is the ability to utilize the CalACT/MTBA vehicle purchasing cooperative, which includes the purchase of bus shelters.

The City of Guadalupe purchasing guidelines and Municipal Code 4.04.130 allows the City to make purchases under other agencies’ competitive bidding processes.

Shannon Sweeney

Page 2 of 2 ends

Bid number 21-01 through CalACT provides pricing for the purchase of bus shelters. All of the paperwork demonstrating the competitive bidding process are included on the CalACT website. City staff worked with the winning vendor, Tolar Manufacturing, to price bus shelters with desirable optional features.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
As of November 30, 2021, account 30, transit, had a cash balance of $600,817.85. Based on the bus stop evaluation matrix, bus stop improvements are estimated to cost $91,729, $31,729 over the originally budgeted $60,000 for this project. The City has sufficient cash on hand to complete the bus shelter improvements as recommended.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No. 2022-02

2. Bus stop improvement matrix

3. Tolar Manufacturing quote

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-02

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY GUADALUPE

APPROVING THE PROCUREMENT OF BUS SHELTERS THROUGH THE CALACT/MTBA VEHICLE

PURCHASING COOPERATIVE, ALONG WITH OTHER MINOR BUS STOP IMPROVEMENTS AS NEEDED WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 21– 22 capital improvement projects list included $60,000 for the transit infrastructure improvements project; and
WHEREAS, the City’s membership in the California Association for coordinated transportation (CalACT) provides the ability to utilize their vehicle purchasing cooperative, which includes bus shelters; and WHEREAS,. A bus stop evaluation identified necessary improvements at the City’s bus stops, including new bus shelters, totaling an estimated $91,729; and
WHEREAS, the City’s transit cash balance of $600,870.85 as of November 30, 2021, can easily accommodate the additional $31,729 in costs associated with bus stop improvements; and WHEREAS, City staff will be requesting a mid-year budget amendment of $31,729 to project 089-601, transit infrastructure improvements, to cover these additional costs.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Guadalupe as follows:

That City Council approve the procurement of bus shelters through the CalACT/MTBA vehicle purchasing cooperative, along with other minor bus stop improvements as needed, following approval of the MIDyear budget amendment to project 089-601, transit.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting on the 11th day of January 2022 by the following vote:

MOTION:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

I, Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk of the City of Guadalupe DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 2022-02, has been duly signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of the City Council, held January 11, 2022, and that same was approved and adopted.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 2 of 2 ends

ATTEST:
______________________________ ____________________________________ Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk Ariston Julian, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Philip Sinco, City Attorney
Sign Access Shelter Trash Schedule Lighting
W Main (move to w of
Julia needs ok needs needs needs ok
O'Connell Park needs ok needs needs needs needs
Bonita Park needs ok ok ok needs needs
Tognazzini needs pour new drive needs needs needs needs Amtrak needs ok needs needs needs needs
Guadalupe & Olivera needs ok needs ok needs ok
10th St., Senior Center needs ok needs needs new top needs needs 11th St. and Peralta needs ok needs needs needs needs
Obispo and 4th needs ok needs needs needs needs
Flower and Elm needs ok needs needs needs needs
Item Cost Each Number Needed Total Cost Shelters Perforated metal Signs $ 200.00 10 $ 2,000.00 Item Cost each total
Access $ 15,000.00 0 $ - Base 9' $ 6,081.00 $ 5,490.00
Pour new drive $ 12,000.00 1 $ 12,000.00 shipping $ 600.00 $ 600.00 Shelter $ 7,281.00 9 $ 65,529.00 taxes $ 453.00 $ 453.00 Trash $ 1,000.00 7 $ 7,000.00 Procurement Fee $ 138.00 $ 138.00 Schedule $ 200.00 10 $ 2,000.00 Miscellaneous $ 600.00 $ 600.00 Lighting $ 400.00 8 $ 3,200.00
Total $ 91,729.00 Total each $ 7,281.00
available $ 60,000.00
Remaining $ (31,729.00)
Bus Stop Evaluation
ATTACHMENT 2
Quote No:

Date:

Quote Expires: 30 Days
Sales Contact:

Phone:

Email:

Project:

Item: Qty: Unit Price: Ext. Price:
19 $ 49,410.00 5,490.00 $
$ 49,410.00
2 $ 1,935.00
$ 1,235.25
CA State Sales Tax 8.25% 4,076.33 $
$ 56,656.58
Pricing Notes:

Standard Terms and Conditions
These Terms and Conditions are attached to and incorporated by reference into the Proposal for products or services (“Proposal”) provided by Tolar Manufacturing Company, Inc. (“we”, “our” or “us”).

2. Vendor Status: Tolar Manufacturing Company, Inc. is a vendor supplier of manufactured products; is not a subcontractor or contractor; and is not subject to retainage or liquidated damages for any reason.

3. Payment Terms: Payment terms for services rendered or products manufactured by us shall be determined by us based on our determination of the credit worthiness of buyer and may require a deposit at time of order. Products are invoiced as shipped.

4. Late Payment Penalty: Buyer agrees to pay a charge equal to the lesser of (i) the highest rate allowable by law or (ii) 1.5% per month (18% per annum) on the unpaid balance with respect to any late payments. In addition, buyer will pay all our costs and expenses, including actual attorney’s fees, incurred in connection with enforcing the Proposal and/or collecting any past due payments. In the event buyer fails to make any payment when due, we have the right of setoff, the right to terminate the Proposal and/or to suspend further deliveries to buyer and the right to recover damages in addition to any other remedies available to us as a matter of law. Buyer has no right to setoff.

1. Drawings and Specifications: All drawings and specifications submitted to our clients or potential clients are proprietary in nature and remain our property. They may be viewed, printed and distributed, without alteration, as reference for sales or for the process of specifying products for use. Detailed shop and erection drawings are provided to allow for field installation or repair. Sealed and stamped engineering calculations and drawings from an engineer licensed in the state of installation, if required, can be made available for an additional charge. Customers that provide their own drawing packages will retain ownership and be covered under a separate agreement.

4. Freight cost is an ESTIMATE ONLY. Freight is invoiced at actual cost, without mark up, at time of shipment, unless specified above.

Print Name:

Date:

PO No:

6. Processing fee of 3% of total charge amount is additional and charged on all credit card payments.

5. Client provides unloading at destination, including forklift and labor as necessary.

2. If requested, structural engineering calculations from CA licensed engineer are provided at no additional cost.

3. Products are shipped knock down & unassembled in bulk packaging for unloading and installation by others. Hardware boxed by unit. Installation instructions are provided.

CalACT/MBTA Procurement Fee (2.5%)
Total:

QUOTE APPROVED FOR PURCHASE:

Signature:
[email protected]
Sub-Total:

CalACT/MBTA Freight Zone
Description:
9' Tolar Sierra Series Dome Roof Transit Shelters (4798-04) featuring Sierra series roof perimeter, bronze twinwall polycarbonate roof panels, perforated aluminum at the rear and 1/2 end walls, adjustable leveling shoes, 4' perforated metal bench, no back, one seat delineator (12092-111) durable baked powder coat finish color selected from the standard RAL color options, zinc anchors and all installation hardware (delete solar, delete tc)
Customer:

CalACT/MBTA FIRM Freight:

Shannon Sweeny
Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Guadalupe
918 Obispo St
Guadalupe, CA 93434

MBTA CALACT
Contract 21-01
Bus Shelters
Lead Time:
258 Mariah Circle
Corona, CA 92879
(951) 808-0081
www.tolarmfg.com
[email protected]
Patrick Merrick
21256PM
951-547-8230
12/27/21
16 Weeks
From receipt of signed written order, and all
required approvals.

Terms: Terms subject to change. Final terms to be
determined based on credit history & bonding.

Net 30 Days From Invoice

Page 1 of 2 ends

ATTACHMENT 3
Quote No:

Date:

Quote Expires: 30 Days
Sales Contact:

Phone:

Email:

Project:

Item: Qty: Unit Price: Ext. Price:
[email protected]
Description:

Customer:

Shannon Sweeny
Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Guadalupe
918 Obispo St
Guadalupe, CA 93434

Terms: Terms subject to change. Final terms to be
determined based on credit history & bonding.

Net 30 Days From Invoice

15. Amendment: No amendments to these Terms and Conditions can be made unless submitted in writing to us and signed and accepted by our President or his designee.

11. Returns: Due to the custom nature of our products, we cannot accept returns and we cannot permit cancellations once work has commenced.

12. Manufacturer’s Warranty: Our manufacturer’s warranty is set forth in a separate document.

13. Limitation of Liability: WE ARE NOT LIABLE TO BUYER OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY

DAMAGES OF ANY KIND ARISING FROM OR RELATING TO OUR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE PROPOSAL, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS, LOSS OR USE, LOSS OF REVENUE OR COST OF CAPITAL. EXCEPT FOR PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH DUE TO OUR MISCONDUCT, BUYER AGREES THAT THE TOTAL DAMAGES THAT CAN BE AWARDED

IN ANY CLAIM BY BUYER RELATING TO OUR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE PROPOSAL (WHETHER BASED IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, SHALL NOT EXCEED THE TOTAL PAID BY BUYER TO US UNDER THE PROPOSAL. BUYER AGREES THAT THE ABOVE LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY PROVISIONS SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT EVEN IF IT IS FOUND THAT BUYER’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FAILS OF ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE.

14. Governing Law, Jurisdiction and Venue: The Proposal shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California without reference to the choice of law principles thereof. Each party irrevocably submits to the jurisdiction of the Courts of the State of California and the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

9. Delayed Shipment: If buyer delays shipment, we may invoice for products when ready for shipment and, at our option, we may charge reasonable daily storage fees.

10. International Freight: We require the services of freight forwarder for all international shipments. Buyer may select the freight forwarder, subject to our approval. All fees, taxes and additional charges, in addition to the actual freight costs, are the responsibility of buyer.

5. Cancellation: If an order is cancelled by buyer after receipt of order authorization, and cancellation fee of 10% of order value may be assessed to the buyer, in addition to an the cost of materials purchased for the order, which may be invoiced to the buyer at time of cancellation.

6. Delivery, Title and Receipt: Unless otherwise provided in the proposal, all shelters are prefabricated and shipped knock-down and in bulk format (not packaged individually) for ease of handling and fast on-site installation. Neither buyer nor consignee shall have the right to direct or re-consign the goods to any other destination without our consent. All sales of products are F.O.B. our plant. Risk of loss of the products shall transfer to buyer upon delivery of the products to the common carrier.

7. Delivery Charges: Unless otherwise provided in the Proposal, buyer shall bear all the costs of transportation, including without limitation loading, unloading, storage, and freight charge. All delivery quotes allow for an approximate 2-hour unload window for a full truck. If this window is exceeded, additional charges may apply. All price quotes given for delivery are based on estimates obtained at the time the quote was requested. Actual freight charges may vary.

8. Delivery Dates: Any delivery date(s) or period of delivery provided for in the Proposal is approximate and does not guarantee a particular date(s) or period of delivery. Estimated lead times are provided in the quote. Under no circumstances will we be liable for delay in delivery occasioned in whole or in part, by fire, flood, explosion, casualty, riot, strike, embargo, transportation delay, breakdown, accident, act of God or the public enemy, government authority, by our inability to secure materials, fuel, supply power or shipping space or any other circumstances beyond our reasonable control.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Page 1 of 3 ends

Agenda Item No. 8F

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of January 11, 2022
_______________________________
Prepared by:

Todd Bodem, City Administrator
SUBJECT: City’s response to a Santa Barbara Grand Jury Report entitled “THE KEYS TO HOUSING THE HOMELESS” (in Santa Barbara County)
RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the City Council review staff’s recommendations for the City’s response to the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Report entitled “THE KEYS TO HOUSING THE HOMELESS” and make any changes the Council believes are necessary; and

2. That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-03 approving the attached final response (with any changes made by the Council) to the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Report entitled “THE KEYS TO HOUSING THE HOMELESS” with the signatures of each member of the City Council to Judge Gustavo Lavayen and the Santa Barbara Grand Jury.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Santa Barbara County Civil Grand Jury issued a report that requires a response from the City of Guadalupe. The report is titled “THE KEYS TO HOUSING THE HOMELESS,” which was issued on November 19, 2021. This report concerns six (6) findings and six (6) recommendations. The City Council of the City of Guadalupe is required to respond to findings (nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5) and recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 5.

Staff has prepared draft responses for the City Council’s review and consideration. If the Council believes any changes are required to these draft responses, staff will make these corrections pursuant to Council’s direction. Thereafter, Council should adopt a resolution to approve the final report.

BACKGROUND:

On November 19, 2021, the City received a report from the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury entitled “THE KEYS TO HOUSING THE HOMELESS.” This Grand Jury report included six (6) findings and six (6) recommendations. The City Council of the City of Guadalupe is required to respond to findings (nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5) and recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 5.

Page 2 of 3 ends

California Penal Code section 933(c) provides that: “[n]o later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body,…” Accordingly, the City has until February 15, 2022, to respond to the Grand Jury’s report.

DISCUSSION:

In 2020, the State of California (State) proposed two programs to help communities manage their homeless populations: Project Roomkey and Project Homekey (Projects). Both programs were an urgent response to the COVID-19 pandemic to prevent disastrous effects on the homeless. Roomkey secured short-term hotel rooms for chronically ill elderly homeless who were at risk of catching and spreading the virus. Homekey was intended to house some of that same population through conversion of available buildings and permanent housing. The State offered one-time funding for the communities able to meet specific time sensitive requirements. Santa Barbara County (County) took advantage of the State’s offers to provide temporary and permanent housing to some of the County’s homeless.

The 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) studied the two Projects as they were implemented in Santa Barbara County. The Roomkey funding ended September 30, 2021; the Homekey funding allocation ended December 31, 2020. These time constraints motivated Santa Barbara County agencies to work together quickly to accomplish the housing goals.

The County has found it difficult to duplicate its successes with Project Roomkey and Homekey. There is a discouraging lack of available property in the County, and property owners are reluctant to turn over what they have for the purpose of housing the homeless. Nor are there identified local funds to sustain the two programs without additional State and Federal grant allocations. The 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury investigated barriers that limit the success of the two homeless programs.

There is not a large population of Homeless people living in the City of Guadalupe. There are no hotels and motels available to house homeless people nor are there any municipal resources for supportive services. However, if there is future interest by a property owner to convert a building to permanent and supportive housing, the City will review the proposal for general plan, zoning, building, and fire code compliance.

In total, the Grand Jury report sets forth six (6) findings and six (6) recommendations. The City of Guadalupe is required to respond to Finding (Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5) and recommendations 1, 2, 3, and

5. The City’s response includes agreement with the Grand Jury’s findings, and with respect to the recommendations, the City has determined that they will not be implemented.

FISCAL IMPACT:

With the recommendation to implement the recommendations, there is no fiscal impact.

Page 3 of 3 ends

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-03 (Attachment 3) and after it reviews the draft responses prepared by staff to the Grand Jury report and make any changes it determines to be necessary, if any.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Grand Jury Report entitled “THE KEYS TO HOUSING THE HOMELESS” dated November 19, 2021

2. City’s draft response to Grand Jury Report entitled “THE KEYS TO HOUSING THE HOMELESS.”

3. Resolution No. 2022-03 “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Guadalupe adopting a response to the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Report entitled “THE KEYS TO HOUSING THE HOMELESS.”
2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 1

THE KEYS TO HOUSING THE HOMELESS
Two State Programs Offer Rooms and Homes

SUMMARY
In 2020, the State of California (State) proposed two programs to help communities manage their homeless populations: Project Roomkey and Project Homekey. Both programs were also an urgent response to the COVID-19 pandemic to prevent disastrous effects on the homeless.

Roomkey secured short-term hotel rooms for chronically ill elderly homeless who were at risk of catching and spreading the virus. Homekey was intended to house some of that same population through conversion of available buildings to permanent housing. The State offered one-time funding for the communities able to meet specific time sensitive requirements. Santa Barbara County (County) took advantage of the State’s offers to provide temporary and permanent housing to some of the County’s homeless.

The 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury (Jury) studied the two new Projects as they were implemented in Santa Barbara County. The Roomkey funding ended September 30, 2021; the Homekey funding allocation ended December 31, 2020. These time constraints motivated Santa Barbara County agencies to work together quickly to accomplish the housing goals.

The County has found it difficult to duplicate its successes with Projects Roomkey and Homekey. There is a discouraging lack of available property in the County, and property owners are reluctant to turn over what they have for the purpose of housing the homeless. Nor are there identified local funds to sustain the two programs without additional State and Federal grant allocations. The 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury looked into the barriers that limit the success of the two homeless programs.

INTRODUCTION
The COVID-19 virus increased the need for homeless services, highlighting the dire conditions for a subset of the unhoused population who were especially at risk of contracting the virus – the elderly and those with underlying medical conditions. In the spring of 2020, hospitals were filling up at a time when people were exposed to the virus. At the same time, homeless shelters were required to implement social distancing, which forced them to reduce their population (at one shelter by more than 60 percent and at another by 13 percent) because of COVID and send some individuals back into the streets. The County needed to determine the best way to protect the homeless.

Confronting this challenge, the State of California initiated a plan with generous funding for the counties struggling with how to protect the homeless from the virus. Using Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES) funding, the State offered two programs, Project Roomkey and Project Homekey, to stimulate community participation in these innovative housing programs for the homeless.

In April 2020, Governor Newsom announced Project Roomkey, which would get people experiencing homelessness and at risk of getting COVID into participating hotels or motels on an emergency basis. Roomkey was intended to open underused hotel or motel rooms for the DocuSign Envelope ID: 8CC2563D-7B06-4503-98EC-474D31EB62CF ATTACHMENT 1
2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 2
homeless who needed to isolate or quarantine from exposure to COVID-19. The State’s goal was to find up to 15,000 rooms to temporarily shelter these homeless in supervised programs with case management. Jurisdictions who participated also agreed to then re-house them into permanent housing, supported by services.

As a first response to the pandemic, Roomkey was considered an interim response to a public health crisis that had already strained the health care system. The original program termination date was June 30, 2021; it was later extended to September 30, 2021. Statewide, a total of $150 million was dedicated to the initial Project Roomkey in June 2020. The Governor added another $62 million in November 2020 in order to avoid evictions of those homeless in rooms when the program was set to end in December 2020.

Project Homekey was intended to be the next step in the longer term crisis of homelessness by converting hotels and other similar buildings to permanent housing. On June 30, 2020, the State introduced Homekey for homeless housing using $600 million of coronavirus relief funds for the program statewide, and $300 million to help efforts to reduce homelessness. Similar to Roomkey, Homekey was conceived as a State partnership with cities and counties applying for grants, this time to purchase hotels, motels and other appropriate but underused buildings for conversion. The rehabilitated units would provide permanent housing for the homeless. By the end of 2020, more than $846 million had been awarded to 48 jurisdictions for 94 projects across the State.

In the process of tackling homeless vulnerability during the pandemic, Santa Barbara County and its cities made promising steps to address homelessness with the one-time State funding. The County leased rooms in a hotel in South County for Project Roomkey for a limited time and converted an office building in North County for permanent housing using Project Homekey funding. A great deal of collaboration among County agencies went into the accomplishment of these two projects, establishing important groundwork for any future homeless projects. Yet even with outside funding either ending or being time-restricted, the long-term future of Projects Roomkey and Homekey, including property acquisition and conversion, in Santa Barbara County is uncertain.

METHODOLOGY
The 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury interviewed representatives from homeless assistance programs across the County, Santa Barbara County Housing and Community Development Division, and the City of Santa Barbara Community Development Department.

The Jury also interviewed representatives from the Santa Barbara County Public Health and Santa Barbara County Behavioral Wellness Departments, as well as the Santa Barbara City and County Housing Authorities. The Jury met with an affordable housing contractor, a homeless shelter case manager, and a homeless shelter executive director. Additionally, numerous news articles, local city and County agenda letters, and State public information posts were reviewed.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8CC2563D-7B06-4503-98EC-474D31EB62CF 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 3

OBSERVATIONS
Project Roomkey
In February 2020, the Santa Barbara County Housing and Community Development Division reported a total of 1,897 homeless county wide, of which 1,223 were unsheltered, 674 in emergency shelters or transitional housing. One month later, the Board of Supervisors declared a local emergency for the pandemic. County officials quickly formed a COVID-19 Homeless Task Force Response Team and devised emergency solutions to strategic problems hitting the homeless population. With shelters needing to minimize occupancy and various agencies closing down, the homeless lost access to beds and to such services as showers and meals. The Santa Barbara County Task Force devised alternative sites for beds and services. One first step was the opening of the gym at Santa Maria High School; it was converted to a shelter for 71 homeless individuals for two months. Concurrently, the Public Health Department began by securing a limited number of rooms as emergency shelters in hotels in North and South County in order to protect those at risk of contracting COVID-19.

The Task Force also initiated steps that led to participation with the State in Project Roomkey.

By the end of April 2020, the County was able to open rooms at a hotel in South County. The City of Santa Barbara and People Assisting the Homeless (PATH) helped organize this novel response to the pandemic. Roomkey in the County began with 40 homeless individuals. In Santa Barbara County, county officials prioritized individuals over age 65 with a serious health condition, then those under 65 with a serious health condition, and lastly those over 65. The age qualification was later lowered to 55. FEMA later made these criteria for Roomkey housing official for all the chronically homeless in the State.

Santa Barbara County Public Health did a medical review to establish adherence to Center for Disease Control guidelines for those who were invited to join the program. The homeless came from the hospital emergency rooms and shelters, but mostly from the streets. Originally, they were invited to stay 90 days, but extensions were allowed. At its peak, there were 70 occupants participating in Project Roomkey. By October 2021, the Project had sheltered over 190 individuals.

While not all seniors with chronic illnesses chose to take advantage of the Roomkey housing continuum due to program restrictions (curfew, and no noise, smoking, visitors, alcohol, or drugs, etc.), the Jury learned the target population is more likely to move into a hotel room rather than into congregate shelters.

Locally, it was difficult to find hotels to participate in Project Roomkey. Hotel owners were hesitant to house a high-risk population. The County was unable to find a willing participant in North County, and only one hotel in South County agreed to rent one wing for a limited period of time. Even the drop in hotel occupancy during the pandemic was not enough to entice hotel owners to turn over their rooms to a county-run program for the homeless. The original Roomkey hotel returned to tourism at the beginning of 2021. Fortunately, the County was able to lease another hotel in South County with rooms for 80 individuals and rent as many as ten hotel rooms in Santa Maria.

One intention of the Roomkey program was to house individuals until they could transition into permanent housing, a process estimated to take 90 days. Successfully staying in a hotel room was considered a stepping-stone to independent living. By the end of September 2021, eightyDocuSign Envelope ID: 8CC2563D-7B06-4503-98EC-474D31EB62CF 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 4
eight individuals were able to make the transition. The most vulnerable were the first to be rehoused with services.1 With the fortunate timing of units becoming available in newly opened apartment complexes with the Housing Authority of the City of Santa Barbara, nine formerly homeless moved into existing available units. Others “voluntarily or involuntarily exited” the program, according to the County. At the one-year mark, program administrators within the County reported to the Jury that 56 percent of Roomkey participants had left the streets and moved into housing. The rate dropped slightly by the program’s end in September due to a lack of available units, reducing the ability to re-house clients.2 It has been estimated that the cost of housing one person in a hotel room with provided services is $180 per night. Services include security, staff, meals, transportation, and supplies. FEMA will reimburse the County only up to $90 per night, and the County must make up the difference.

FEMA reimbursement is expected to end in December 2021. Behavioral Wellness and Public Health continue to provide wraparound services, which include case management and medical and mental health care. To date, the County has been able to tap into CARES funds and homeless program funds from the Department of Social Services to pay the extra room and service costs. With Roomkey, local hospitals, County, and municipal public services were spared some heavy recurring costs and services related to caring for this dependent population.

The first Project Roomkey in Santa Barbara County received more than $1 million in State funding. Project Roomkey is dependent on funding from the State and Federal government, and the program cannot continue unless the County identifies another revenue source. The 2021-22 California State budget is maintaining $150 million in funding for a modified Project Roomkey and Rehousing Strategy, with the intention of allowing residents of Roomkey to stay until they can find permanent housing. From that, Santa Barbara County will receive a baseline allocation of $772,384 for the work of transitioning the formerly homeless. That money will be used to rehouse at least 40 of those remaining in the Roomkey motel.

Project Roomkey has been a model for other programs in the County. City Net in the City of Santa Barbara has been inviting homeless individuals to stay in 15 different motels located around the city for six months. City Net’s program, known as the scattered model, is being considered for future hotel/motel leasing in the County because of its reduced impact on surrounding businesses and neighborhoods. City Net also established a temporary Roomkey-type program in Santa Barbara. After the Loma Fire within city limits in May 2021, the Santa Barbara City Council voted to pay for a program to shelter those living in encampments through the fourmonth fire season. Full-service motel rooms are expensive,3 but the City of Santa Barbara felt it
had to do something to reduce the threat of fires from homeless encampments in fire-prone areas.

Roomkey has served as a stimulus for thinking creatively about homeless issues and for opening doors to homeless housing. Overall, Project Roomkey motivated the County to find a quick and easily accomplished solution for the most vulnerable homeless at a critical time. 1 This follows the National Alliance to End Homelessness, Housing First protocol of housing the most vulnerable first.
2 The Housing Authorities of Santa Barbara County and the City of Santa Barbara have several affordable housing projects in progress now. Each development includes some units for formerly homeless clients. There should be a greater movement through the housing continuum again once the Housing Authority units are available, which will increase the re-housing rate percentage again.
3 The daily cost of the room was estimated at $109/day, plus $157/day for services. (Nick Welsh. “Upper State Street Motel May Rent All Rooms to Homeless.” Santa Barbara Independent. June 26, 2021.) DocuSign Envelope ID: 8CC2563D-7B06-4503-98EC-474D31EB62CF 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 5
Project Homekey
Project Homekey is California’s evolutionary next step after Project Roomkey. The State hoped that some of the Roomkey hotels would become part of Homekey’s permanent housing program.

While none of the hotels were willing to sell to the County, the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara (HASBARCO) applied for and received one grant award of $3.12 million to acquire an office building in Lompoc and repurpose it to permanent housing with supportive services for its residents. The County added $1.5 million. The building had originally been an apartment building and then was converted to an office building used by the County’s Behavioral Wellness Department. Some remodeling was needed to create apartments again.

The State not only challenged jurisdictions to find buildings to rehabilitate for the homeless, but it also imposed tight time restrictions in the application process. Project Homekey was announced June 30, 2020. Local governments had to identify properties, have remodeling plans, partners, and a proposal in place by August 13, five weeks after the announcement of funding.

They then needed to purchase the properties, revitalize them, and, finally, occupy them by the end of the year. In Lompoc, 14 residents and one manager moved into their new homes just before and just after the deadline of December 31, 2020. All in all, this was a five-and-a-halfmonth process.

With news of the Homekey grant program, the director of HASBARCO called emergency meetings with the County and its agencies. The County assembled a task force from all involved agencies to break down bureaucratic walls and speed up the process.4 One advantage that the County had was that the office building to be converted was already owned by the County. The Planning and Development Department was able to self-permit and do its own inspections, and regulations such as land use, zoning, and building codes could be streamlined. HASBARCO engaged a developer who was familiar with the most efficient ways to get things done and who worked up to seven days a week. The City of Lompoc contributed to the teamwork. The State also cooperated in easing certain deadlines, understanding the imposition of the short timeline.

Construction projects in this County typically take three to four years. The spirit of collaboration moved this project forward in less than six months, an unparalleled accomplishment in recent Santa Barbara County building history.

The Homekey Project is meant to be an economical way to house the homeless. State officials have estimated that the state average for the cost of purchase and rehabilitation of existing buildings in Project Homekey came to $147,974 per unit (including an average local match of $23,987), while the cost of building from the ground up comes to $400,000 per unit.5 In an
expensive county such as Santa Barbara, the Jury was told the per unit cost is considered to be around $200,000-$250,000 to convert and a minimum of $450,000 per unit to build from the ground up.

Clients moving in to the Homekey units were vetted by the County’s Coordinated Entry System (CES), which assesses clients and matches them with services. Still being a time of a pandemic, clients were selected with the first criteria of protecting them from COVID-19. They also had to 4 Expediency minimizes costs during construction. That way, more money can be spent on the purchase of buildings.
5 Office of Governor Gavin Newsom. “Governor Newsom Announces Major Homekey Milestone: All 94 Sites Closing Escrow Ahead of Deadline.” December 29, 2020. In another estimate made on April 5, 2021, Lou Hirsh of Co-Star News quoted the conversion estimate to be $138,513, and the building average was $400,000 per unit.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8CC2563D-7B06-4503-98EC-474D31EB62CF 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 6
be able to live responsibly and independently. Homeless officials have told the Jury that many homeless no longer want to live in a congregate setting; they want their own space, and this often helps their stability. All supportive housing includes services (e.g., health care, mental health, and case management), which are considered essential for their success in independent living.

As permanent residents, the clients have to pay rent. Typically, the formerly homeless are issued a Section 8 voucher.6 This Federal program allows clients to pay only 30 percent of their income (often Social Security or Disability Benefits) toward rent. The Federal government pays the rest.

VA Supportive Housing (VASH) is available to take care of rent payments for veterans.

While the COVID-19 pandemic depressed hotel demand from tourism, no owners were willing to sell their properties for the purpose of being transformed to homeless housing. Acquiring hotels will only be more difficult when tourism is flourishing again. The Jury was told that local officials have “scoured the universe” looking for available properties that were willing to sell to the County, yet could find only one pre-owned possibility in North or South County for the Homekey project. In the end, the site selected for Homekey was offered by a County department, Behavioral Wellness.

For Project Homekey, there are local impediments inherent in buying hotels in local communities: limited available real estate, high property values, expensive rents, a steady and recovering tourism business for hotels, and neighborhood resistance. Often in planning housing for the homeless, there is a need for negotiations with neighborhoods. The Jury heard that the onset of the pandemic temporarily fostered a more tolerant view of housing the homeless. There were no protests against the Homekey project. HASBARCO’s goal is to be a good neighbor. In addition to hosting neighborhood forums, both Housing Authorities address community concerns in all its housing projects. Their housing developments are landscaped, maintained well, and have onsite supervision for the security of neighbors, as well as its clients. Moreover, the Department of Behavioral Wellness provides case management services for every resident.

The County hopes to create Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with cities, which could consolidate funding and foster regional cooperation. Santa Barbara City and County Housing Authorities have worked with corporations and banks to gain their investment in community housing, mostly through tax credits. Local leaders have approached church organizations and school districts for support. More housing alliances could be forged with hospitals and service organizations to apply for Homekey funds, for example. County departments such as Behavioral Wellness, Public Health, and Social Services could band together to apply for funding for projects. While these concepts can help, funding for housing for the homeless continues to be dependent upon State and Federal money.

Homekey funding comes at a time when the State is contributing extraordinary amounts of money to solve homelessness. The 2021-22 State budget earmarked $1.45 billion for Homekey, Round 2, and an additional $1.3 billion the following year. The State is allowing more flexibility in the criteria in the types of buildings to convert and the amount of time to convert them.

Jurisdictions have between the end of September 2021 and the beginning of May 2022 (or until all funds are exhausted) to submit an application. Once funding is awarded, jurisdictions have eight months to expend the funding and 12 months to complete construction. The building must 6 The County estimates 80% of those transitioning into permanent housing require a subsidy. The County’s Phase II Community Action Plan to Address Homelessness calculated a need for a total of 531 long-term subsidies and 835 permanent supportive housing units for the County.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8CC2563D-7B06-4503-98EC-474D31EB62CF 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 7
be fully occupied within 90 days after completion. However, there is no guarantee of receiving an award from the State. Santa Barbara County must apply and compete with other California counties and jurisdictions for these limited-time funds.

As of September 2021, no sites had been identified for homeless projects. There is no line item in the budget for acquisition of property to house the homeless at the County level or within city jurisdictions. To qualify for more state Homekey funding, the County must be ready with a site, partners, and its own complementary funding.7 Given the temporary nature of the State funding, agencies need to apply the lessons from the first Homekey success in terms of quick acquisition of a site, ready funding, and inter-departmental cooperation. The County has created a “strike team,” but other jurisdictions could also help prepare plans to take advantage of funding opportunities. Identifying possible sites and opening negotiations with the owners ahead of funding announcements remains a critical component to success. Above all, to secure the legacy of the Homekey program, the County and its cities and agencies need to work together to put plans in place.

CONCLUSION
The confluence of a pandemic and a State budget surplus created an exceptional opportunity for those that work with the homeless population. The cost and magnitude of the homeless issues must be addressed with the cooperation of the Federal, State, and local governments. For 2021- 22, there is $150 million in State funding available for Roomkey and $1.45 billion for Homekey.

The County and cities would not be able to consider leasing or purchasing buildings for these homeless programs and providing services without this funding.

The 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury concluded that the County, cities, and Housing Authorities would do well to make every effort to secure more housing for the homeless at this time when State and Federal money is available. Incentives that the County offers community partners now could produce more positive outcomes than at any other time. In the long run, extra funds spent on homeless housing now can reduce the millions of dollars being absorbed as collateral homeless expenses by county or city agencies such as fire, police, ambulance, public and environmental health, hospitals, jails, parks, libraries, mental health clinics, public works, street maintenance, and more. In the future, savings from these respective departments could be combined for homeless projects.

While Roomkey and Homekey have only helped a fraction of the total homeless in the County, the two projects have set a precedent and illuminated the way for similar projects to house the homeless. County agencies can work together to accomplish rapid results. It took a global emergency to bring community partners to the table with a true sense of collaboration. Now that those alliances are established, these agencies can more effectively coordinate the work to purchase and convert buildings for formerly homeless residents. Santa Barbara County and its cities must continue to work together and devise incentives and methods of funding to further the successes of Projects Roomkey and Homekey.

7 In the meantime, County, state, and Federal funds are being allocated to other forms of homeless housing:
$1,935,000 over three years for an encampment response program, and $4,935,560 over three years for a new shelter, pallet homes, and a tiny home project. The County hopes to add 100 available beds with these three programs. It also hopes that Project Homekey will add the same number of beds for the homeless. Only the first year is considered for funding now. Without state funding and Federal grants, these programs would have to be curtailed also.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8CC2563D-7B06-4503-98EC-474D31EB62CF 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 8

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding 1
During the COVID-19 pandemic Project Roomkey demonstrated the value of providing rooms, with appropriate services, for the vulnerable elderly homeless with underlying health conditions.

Recommendation 1
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and all city councils within the County establish programs similar to Roomkey in both North and South County to continue to provide rooms, with appropriate services, for vulnerable elderly homeless with underlying health conditions.

Finding 2
Few hotels and motels throughout Santa Barbara County were willing to participate in Project Roomkey.

Recommendation 2
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors instruct the Santa Barbara County Community Services Department to form an alliance with all city councils within the County to develop a roster of hotels and motels willing to participate in a Roomkey-type program.

Finding 3
Buildings for Homekey conversion have been difficult to locate and acquire.

Recommendation 3
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and all city councils within the County identify possible Homekey sites including government owned properties in each jurisdiction.

Finding 4
Project Homekey called upon various Santa Barbara County departments to work together creatively, quickly, and economically to transform a County owned office building into housing for the homeless.

Recommendation 4
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors instruct the Santa Barbara County Community Services Department to solidify a team to replicate the successful efforts in converting buildings efficiently into housing for the homeless.

Finding 5
Both Project Roomkey and Project Homekey are reliant on short-term or one-time funding from the State and Federal governments.

Recommendation 5
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and all city councils within the County develop and implement a plan for funding Roomkey and Homekey-type programs.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8CC2563D-7B06-4503-98EC-474D31EB62CF 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 9
Finding 6
The Roomkey and Homekey programs require funding to provide wraparound services for the homeless.

Recommendation 6
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors direct the Santa Barbara County Public Health, Behavioral Wellness, and Social Services Departments, along with the Santa Barbara County Community Services Department, to explore options for funding for wraparound services.

REQUEST FOR RESPONSE
Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury requests each entity or individual named below to respond to the enumerated findings and recommendations within the specified statutory time limit:

Responses to Findings shall be either:
 Agree
 Disagree wholly
 Disagree partially with an explanation
Responses to Recommendations shall be one of the following:
 Has been implemented, with brief summary of implementation actions taken  Will be implemented, with an implementation schedule
 Requires further analysis, with analysis completion date of no more than six months after the issuance of the report
 Will not be implemented, with an explanation of why
Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors – 90 Days
Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Recommendation 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
City of Buellton – 90 Days
Findings 1, 2, 3, 5
Recommendation 1, 2, 3, 5
City of Carpinteria – 90 Days
Findings 1, 2, 3, 5
Recommendation 1, 2, 3, 5
City of Goleta – 90 Days
Findings 1, 2, 3, 5
Recommendation 1, 2, 3, 5
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8CC2563D-7B06-4503-98EC-474D31EB62CF 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury Page 10
City of Guadalupe – 90 Days
Findings 1, 2, 3, 5
Recommendation 1, 2, 3, 5
City of Lompoc – 90 Days
Findings 1, 2, 3, 5
Recommendation 1, 2, 3, 5
City of Santa Barbara – 90 Days
Findings 1, 2, 3, 5
Recommendation 1, 2, 3, 5
City of Santa Maria – 90 Days
Findings 1, 2, 3, 5
Recommendation 1, 2, 3, 5
City of Solvang – 90 Days
Findings 1, 2, 3, 5
Recommendation 1, 2, 3, 5
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8CC2563D-7B06-4503-98EC-474D31EB62CF Administration Department:

Tel (805) 356.3891 Fax (805) 343.5512 918 Obispo Street P.O. Box 908, Guadalupe CA 93434 January 11, 2022
Presiding Judge Gustavo Lavayen
312 East Cook Street
Santa Maria, CA 93454
SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO 2021 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT – KEYS TO HOUSING THE HOMELESS DATED NOVEMBER 19, 2020
Dear Honorable Judge Lavayen,
The City of Guadalupe is pleased to provide the following requested responses to the abovereferenced report for Findings and Recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 5, within 90 days of report issuance. Please note the following responses:

Finding 1
During the COVID-19 pandemic Project Roomkey demonstrated the value of providing rooms, with appropriate services, for the vulnerable elderly homeless with underlying health conditions.

Response: Agree
Recommendation 1
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and all city councils within the County establish programs similar to Roomkey in both North and South County to continue to provide rooms, with appropriate services, for vulnerable elderly homeless with underlying health conditions.

Response: Will not be implemented. There are no hotels and motels in Guadalupe. Resources for supportive services in Guadalupe are also limited. However, if there is future interest by a property owner to convert an apartment or building into permanent and supportive housing, the City will review the proposal for general plan, zoning, building, and fire code compliance.

Finding 2
Few hotels and motels throughout Santa Barbara County were willing to participate in Project Roomkey.

ATTACHMENT 2
Administration Department:

Tel (805) 356.3891 Fax (805) 343.5512 918 Obispo Street P.O. Box 908, Guadalupe CA 93434 Response: Agree
Recommendation 2
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors instruct the Santa Barbara County Community Services Department to form an alliance with all city councils within the County to develop a roster of hotels and motels willing to participate in a Roomkey-type program.

Response: Will not be implemented. See response to Recommendation 1. Also, City staff already provides information and participates collaboratively in the County’s COVID-19 homeless task force meetings, Continuum of Care, Santa Barbara County Fire Chief’s Initiative on Combatting Homelessness Encampments, and other County-driven committees.

Finding 3
Buildings for Homekey conversion have been difficult to locate and acquire.

Response: Agree
Recommendation 3
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and all city councils within the County identify possible Homekey sites including government owned properties in each jurisdiction.

Response: Will not be implemented. See responses to Recommendations 1 and 2. In addition, there are no Government owned properties that would be suitable as Homekey sites.

Finding 5
Both Project Roomkey and Project Homekey are reliant on short-term or one-time funding from the State and Federal governments.

Response: Agree
Recommendation 5
That the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and all city councils within the County develop and implement a plan for funding Roomkey and Homekey-type programs.

Response: Will not be implemented. See responses to Recommendations 1 and 2. There are no locations currently in the City of Guadalupe that would be suitable for Roomkey or Homekey sites.

Administration Department:

Tel (805) 356.3891 Fax (805) 343.5512 918 Obispo Street P.O. Box 908, Guadalupe CA 93434 Sincerely,
______________________________ _______________________________ Ariston D. Julian, Mayor Tony Ramirez, Mayor pro tem
______________________________ ________________________________ Gilbert Robles, Council member Eugene Costa Jr., Council member __________________________________
Liliana Cardenas, Council member
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-03

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE ADOPTING A RESPONSE TO THE SANTA BARBARA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT ENTITLED “THE KEYS TO HOUSING THE HOMELESS” WHEREAS, the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury released a report on November 19, 2021 titled “THE KEYS TO HOUSING THE HOMELESS” with six (6) findings and six (6) recommendations; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Guadalupe is required to respond to findings (nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5) and recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 5.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has 90 days to respond to this report, each finding, and each recommendation; and
WHEREAS, City staff prepared responses on behalf of the City Council and submitted them to the City Council for adoption at the City Council meeting on January 11, 2022.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Guadalupe as follows:

SECTION 1. City staff’s responses are approved and adopted by the City Council as the official response of the City Council to the above-mentioned Santa Barbara County Grand Jury.

SECTION 2. The City Council authorizes staff to submit the City’sfinal response (Exhibit 1) with the signature of each member of the City Council to Judge Gustavo Lavayen and the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury.

SECTION 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance of the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the City Clerk shall consult with the City Administrator and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Guadalupe on the 11th day of January 2022 by the following vote:

MOTION:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

I, Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk of the City of Guadalupe, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 2022-03 has been duly signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of the City Council, held January 11, 2022 and that same was approved and adopted.

Page 1 of 2 ends

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2 of 2 ends

Tel (805) 356.3903 Fax (805) 343.6905 918 Obispo Street P.O. Box 908, Guadalupe CA 93434

PLANNING DEPARTMENT
City of Guadalupe
918 Obispo Street
P.O. Box 908
Guadalupe, CA 93434
Tel (805) 356-3903
To: Mr. Mayor and City Councilmembers
From: Larry Appel, Contract Planning Director
Date: January 3, 2022 Planning Report Covering December 2021

MINISTERIAL PROJECTS
Zoning Clearances Approved 1
Zoning Clearances Denied 0
Zoning Verification Letters 1
Business Licenses Approved 5
Business Licenses Denied 0
ADUs approved 1

DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS
The following projects are in for Planning Department review and have been worked on during August:
 Sign Ordinance – Comments from GBA being reviewed by City Attorney who will provide comments and edits to the draft ordinance prior to redistribution to GBA and public.  General Plan Update – CEQA Initial Study is being prepared by EMC along with Noise and Traffic studies by subconsultants.
 2021-151-CUP Quiroga Boardinghouse CUP, submitted 12-23-21.  2020-003-GPZ/2020-101-LLA Almaguer GPZ/LLA heard by Council 8-24. Application for County Surveyor submitted on Oct 16th, with LAFCo submittal in November.  2021-100-DR Royal Theater approved by City Council on December 14th.  2021-098-TTM/2021-099-TTM DJ South tract maps being processed If any Councilmember is interested in a particular project or would like to know its status, please let me know and I would be happy to provide the information.

Agenda Item No. 8G a.

Ministerial Permit Report– December 2021
(Reported 1-3-2022)
Zoning Clearance Approvals
2021-147-ZC Deras ADU 4555 Del Mar Drive
2021-148-ZC Pasadera SFD 4574 Castillo Drive
2021-149-CZVL Zoning Verification 151 Obispo Street
Letter
Zoning Clearances Denied
none
Business License Approvals
Ron Green Taxes office 157 Pt. Sal Dunes
SLO Skate Collective instructor 4450 Jalama Drive
Mayo Lights light toys 4637 10th Street
Natasha Quintero LMFT therapist 334 Fuente Drive
Harmony PC and Services computer 4377 Jalama Drive
services
Business License Denials
None
Guadalupe City Planning Department
Planning Processing Summary for December 2021
(1-3-22 update)
Case No.

Name Submittal
Date
Comp. Date Status OK for Bldg.

Permit Issuance
2021-098-TTM $$ DJ Farms South
Tract map
Sept 2021 Incomplete10-01-21First tract map for development south of RxR.

NO
2021-099-TTP $$ DJ Farms South
Tract map
Sept 2021 Incomplete10-01-21First tract map for development south of RxR.

NO
2020-101-LLA $$ Almaguer

LLA/GPZ
Oct 2020 INC/COMP
determination
by 1-15-21
LLA sent to County Surveyor on Oct 16.

LAFCo submittal planned for November
NO
2021-150-CUP $$ Quiroga
boardinghouse
December
2021
INC First thirty day review of application NO
N/A
$$ thru SB2 grant
General Plan
Update
2019 City
Council
authorization
N/A CEQA Initial Study being prepared by
EMC with assistance from subcontractors
for Noise and Traffic
N/A
N/A Snowy Plover 6-21-21 N/A Council initiated the project on 3-23.

Meeting with staff on 6-21 and Pre-Ap
held on 7-2-21. No plans submitted in
five months.

N/A
2018-133-OA
No$
Round 3 Zoning
Ordinance
Updates
8/12/19 N/A Preparing new zoning ordinance Chapter
55 for Home Occupations and Cottage
Food Industries (ongoing)
N/A
2018 -133 OA
No$
Sign Ordinance 2/24/20 N/A City Attorney reviewing comments and suggested edits by GBA before releasing
the latest version to the public.

N/A
2021-100-DR $$ Royal Theater 9/8/21 COMP 12-2-
21 Design Review application approved by
City Council on Dec 14th
NO
No$ = unreimbursed planning work
$ = projects where a fixed fee has been paid
$$ = projects where a variable fee / deposit is made and the applicant is billed for time beyond the initial deposit // 1-3-22
.

Public Works/Engineering Report
December 2021
Development
Pasadera
On December 1, the City sent a bond release to the bondholder for Lot 9 on behalf of Pasadera.

Encroachment permits
The City reviewed two encroachment permits for the month of December.

Development Review
Public Works provided draft conditions of approval to Planning for the development application at 823 Guadalupe St. on December 30.

Facilities
City Hall
Plumbing work to accommodate the Public Works conference room was completed on December

14. Public Works staff submitted an application for new PG&E service to the Police Department on December 21. PG&E responded on December 23 with a request for additional information. They indicated that this project will take 9 to 12 months to complete. This new service is needed in order to address the existing and anticipated increased electrical load at this location.

Senior Center
Public Works staff is working with Los Amigos de Guadalupe to transfer the health permit for food services at the Senior Center into the City of Guadalupe’s name. This involved submitting a plan review application and finding and copying the original drawings showing the site layout, the plumbing plan, the mechanical plan, and equipment specifications. All the necessary paperwork was submitted to the Santa Barbara County Environmental Health Department on December 29.

Agenda Item No. 8G b.
.

General
Special projects
Public Works staff worked on several special projects requested by others along with normal tasks of daily restroom cleaning at O’Connell Park, emptying public trash cans twice a week, daily Street inspection and bulky trash pickup, janitorial service at City Hall, landscape maintenance for all City sites except City Hall and Jack O’Connel Park, and weekly cleaning of the pedestrian bridge in the month of December including:
• December 1: reset breaker on electrical vehicle charger at City parking lot. • December 3: updated Royal Theater marquee information regarding sports. • December 6: forwarded a street light outage report on Fir Street to PG&E. • December 6: forwarded a photo of the electrical box on the north side of Main Street between Olivera and Guadalupe streets for PG&E to address graffiti. • December 8: repaired chains on swings at O’Connell Park. • December 9: delivered sand bags to City parking lot at request of Kiwanis. • December 10: provided input to electrical fire at Police Department. • December 10: met with contractor at O’Connell Park installation of new drinking fountain.
• December 13: reset breaker for Council chambers.
• December 14: moved a downed tree at seventh and Campodonico to clear street.

Coordinated plumbing work at City Hall.
• December 15: reset thermostat at the Senior Center. Evaluated asphalt at Pelican and Surfbird in response to resident request. Asphalt deemed acceptable. • December 20: replaced breaker on one electrical vehicle charger at the Veterans Memorial Plaza. Reset the breaker on administrations building, replaced the lock on the kitchen door on south side of City Hall.
• December 21: assisted in completion of the fence about horseshoe pit. • December 27: coordinated inspection of fire safety features at the City Hall kitchen and Senior Center as part of the required semi-annual inspection of these facilities. • December 29: coordinated installation of the drinking fountain at O’Connell Park. Filled potholes created by recent rains.

December
The Public Works Director participated in the following meetings in December:
• December 1: 2021 Trunk Main Improvement Project weekly tailgate meeting.

Demonstration of Tyler planning module with San Mateo. Guadalupe Business Association discussion of Guadalupe Street improvements. • December 2: technical advisory committee for Santa Barbara County Association of Governments. Meeting with Tom Brandeberry to discuss the Cal fire trees grant. .
• December 3: bus tour with SMOOTH staff to evaluate details of new bus stops and verify timing of new route to be implemented July 1, 2022.
• City Hall ad hoc City Hall Auditorium meeting.
• December 8: 2021 Trunk Main Improvement Project weekly tailgate meeting. • December 14: Local Road Safety Plan stakeholders meeting. Resource management/climate subcommittee meeting.
• December 15: Leroy Park biweekly coronation meeting. 2021 Trunk Main Improvement Project weekly tailgate meeting. Police Department wiring coordination meeting.

O’Connell Park play structure Request for Proposal deadline. Tree trimming Request for Quote deadline.
• December 16: ad hoc Jack O’Connell play structure meeting. • December 17: broadband discussion.
• December 20: general transit feed system (GTFS) discussion with Trillium. Leroy Park site visit.
• December 22: State of Good Repair project status and expense report discussion with state staff.
• December 23: discussion with Meg Henry from Caltrans to discuss findings of Local Road Safety Plan.
• December 29: 2021 Trunk Main Improvement Project weekly tailgate meeting.

Cal Fire Tree Grant
On December 8, public works staff completed the environmental checklist necessary for the CalFires tree grant application due December 10.

Tree Trimming
The City received one quote for the trimming of over 80 city trees by the Request for Quotes deadline of December 15. The contractor submitted adequate insurance for the project by the end of December. Once the written agreement is signed and returned, the contractor will be able to begin this work.

Parks
LeRoy Park Community Center
City staff met with the contractor, inspector, and consultant for biweekly coordination site meetings on December 15 and 29. On December 19, staff approved the purchase of a network rack to maintain forward progress on installation of communications equipment. On December 20, met with project inspector on site to review progress and discuss project timeline. On December 29, a Boy Scout taking on the planting of trees in Leroy Park as his Eagle Scout project met with the contractor and project manager to ask questions and coordinate his project. His tree planting schedule is currently mid-February. In December, PG&E informed the contractor .
that the installation of the new electrical service would be delayed due to the need for redesign because the guy wire supporting their electrical pole would interfere with the driveway into the park. The consultant is working with PG&E to resolve this issue.

On December 29, water staff fixed a leaking backflow device that the contractor requested a change order for complete replacement. Water staff was able to replace a gasket to address the leakage, eliminating the need for complete replacement.

O’Connell Park
The new drinking fountain was installed on December 30.

The horseshoe pit fence was finished on December 21 as an Eagle Scout project.

Nine proposals for the play structure at O’Connell Park were received by the Request for Proposals deadline of December 15. The ad hoc committee met on December 16 and selected the top four proposals. These four options will be presented to the community for their input in January. Community members will have until January 11 to vote for their preference. Results of the community input will be presented to the Recreation Commission on January 12. Community input and Recreation Commission recommendation will be presented to City Council on January

25. Solid waste
SB 1383
City staff developed a flyer to inform residents of the new requirements of SB 1383 starting January 1, 2022. State regulations now require food waste to be recycled in your green organics trash bin. The flyer will go out in the February water bill.

Stormwater
December Storms
The City of Guadalupe received almost 5 inches of rain in the month of December, including 2 inches of rain in 24 hours on December 13 and 14. City streets staff cleaned and checked storm drains in advance of the storms and checked for and addressed any flooding during storms. Staff responded to flooding at the western edge of town the evening of December 23.

Streets
Street Rehabilitation
The 2021 pavement rehabilitation project construction began on October 4 and is scheduled to be completed by mid-January. This project involves resurfacing Almaguer Avenue, Nelson Drive, .

Masatani Court, Montez Court, Julia Drive, Hernandez Drive, Mills Lane, Camp Lane, Sanchez Drive, Chapman Drive, and Obispo Street between 9th and 11th Streets. Several curb ramps have been installed or replaced. No field meetings were held in the month of December. Project activities for the month of December were limited due to the rain. Striping is scheduled to occur in early January.

Local Road Safety Plan
A stakeholders meeting was held on December 14. Invited parties included representatives of elected officials, Guadalupe Unified School District, public safety, Guadalupe Business Association, Pasadera, Curation, and Caltrans. Attendees of the meeting included Guadalupe Business Association, Pasadera, Curation, and elected officials. The consultant reviewed the contents of the draft plan and the requirements of the City once it is finalized. Staff will bring forward a final document for Council consideration at the end of February.

Transit
On December 3, City staff confirmed bus stop locations with contract public transit service. We mutually agreed to remove the bus stop at Flower and Birch from service on January 3, 2022 and physically remove the bus shelter on January 5, 2022. On December 8, City staff informed Trillium of this change so that our Internet information (GTFS feed) is updated accordingly.

On December 20, City staff signed service agreement for the upcoming calendar year with Trillium and discussed future GTFS needs for the City’s transit services.

The City received a formal quote from Tolar Manufacturing for purchase of nine new bus shelters.

As members of the California Association for coordinated transportation, the largest State transit assistance organization in the United States, the City is able to utilize its vehicle and bus shelter purchasing cooperative. Tolar Manufacturing’s bid is part of that purchasing cooperative.

On December 22, City staff worked with state staff on reporting requirements associated with State of Good Repair funding program. The City has just under $1,500 available from this program for transit improvements. Annual reporting is required to receive these funds.

Water
Water Management Study
CCWA contract with the consultant to prepare a water management study to maximize use of state water supplies. On December 23, 2021, staff reviewed the draft water management study and responded back to CCWA with no comments
State Water Supply
The allocation of state water remains at 0% for this upcoming year. City staff reserved 12 acrefeet of state water from last year to maintain sufficient supply to flush the State water supply line once a week to maintain a chlorine residual, ensure that this water supply stays viable in emergency situations, and eliminate the need for a weeklong process of disinfection of this 5- mile line to reinstate it.
.

Water Arrears
On December 17 staff received an email indicating that the City will be receiving $32,166.41 in 4 to 6 weeks from the federal government through the State Water Resources Control Board to help address late water bills. The City has 60 days from receipt of these funds to disburse them.

Wastewater
Process
The wastewater treatment plant experienced no violations the month of December. 2021 Trunk Main Improvement Project
This project involves upsizing 3,000 feet of sewer main and is vital for meeting current and future capacity issues, fixing broken pipe, and moving sewer trunk main from private property into the public right-of-way where practicable. This project will impact Snowy Plover, Mahoney, Carlin, Lindy, Wong, Pioneer, 5th, Campodonico, and 6th streets, as well as Paco Park. On December 6, the contractor hit a gas line. The gas company was called to repair this line. Water service was shut down temporarily to 25 homes that same day to protect water line from damage. The contractor continues to make slow but steady progress. In December they completed the sewer line through Paco Park and down Lindy Drive. Work in January is anticipated to include Wong Street, the northern end of Pioneer Street, and 5th Street east of Pioneer Street. Delays may be anticipated due to traffic control during construction on these streets, but roads are anticipated to remain open.

Effluent Pump Station
This project involves the rehabilitation of the effluent pump station at the wastewater treatment plant. It is partially funded through an Integrated Regional Water Management Program (IRWMP) grant. The contractor has already received a Notice to Proceed on this project. Due to the long lead time associated with PG&E review of the electrical installation and the time needed for pump manufacture, construction for this project is scheduled for February 2022. .

Project
Numbers
2021-22
Budgeted
2021-2021
Spent December 2021 Update
100 Buildings089-104 Financial Accounting Software 100,000 $ Installation in progress. 089-105 General Plan Update 130,738 $ Final draft review complete089 – 106 Public facilities master plan (include parks and library) 90,000 $ Not started 089 – 107 American Legion wood repair 70,000 $ Not started089 – 108 Building improvements (painting, roof repair, locks, utilities) 145,000 $ Roof repair quote received. Awaiting signed agreement. 200 Parks
089-201 Leroy Park (Community Center and Site) 2,000,000 $ Construction scheduled for completion February 2022. 089 – 203 Parks Improvements (BBQ, plumbing, play grounds) 45,000 $ Parks signs, drinking fountain, horseshoe pit fence & mutt mitt stations installed. Play structure proposals received. 300 Streets, Sidewalks, Bicycle Facilities
089-307 La Guardia and Gularte Lanes Pedestrian Improvements 179,537 $ Waiting for AHSC grant award. Notification expected January 22. 089 – 308 2021 Pavement rehabilitation 1,511,200 $ Construction nearly complete. Striping delayed to early January due to rain.089 – 309 Sidewalk repairs 41,800 $ 91,652 $ Completed. 089 – 310 11th St. safe routes to school 133,270 $ Waiting on AHSC grant award status. Notification anticipated January 2022. 089 – 311 Storm drain improvements 40,000 $ Research started. 400 Water
089-406 Elevated Tank Repairs/evaluate antenna revenue 295,000 $ Ladder fabrication drawings found 089-407 Advanced metering infrastructure phase 1 200,000 $ Two bids received 10/22. Bids not comparable. Project to be reconsidered.089-408 SCADA improvements 50,000 $ Programming completed to reduce electrical costs. 089 – 409 West Main Street water line 450,000 $ Caltrans encroachment permit extension requested and granted. 500 Wastewater
089-503 Effluent Irrigation Pump Station Rehabilitation (Construction) 522,821 $ Construction scheduled for 2/2022, delayed due to parts availability. 089-504 Hwy 1 Lift Station 1,000,000 $ Deferred to FY 22-23089-505 Sewer Main Improvements 1,600,000 $ Construction started November 5. Scheduled for completion March 2022 089-506 Grit system replacement $ 400,000 Not started089-507 WWTP equipment (tractor, maintenance boat, AIPS vault) 420,000 $ Maintenance boats purchased. Awaiting fabrication 600 Transit
089-601 Infrastructure improvements 60,000 $ Bus station locations confirmed by Council. Improvements identified.

Transfer to CIP fund 089: 9,484,366 $
Completed.

City of Guadalupe
Capital Improvement Projects Budget - Fiscal Year 21-22

PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS

RECREATION AND PARKS MONTHLY REPORT
December 2021
Summary of Rentals/Usage for City Facilities & Parks

FACILITY THIS MONTH THIS MONTH

LAST YEAR
THIS YEARTO-DATE
(FY 21/22)
LAST YEARTO-DATE
(FY 20/21)
Auditorium/Gym 1 15 36 65
O’Connell Park 2 0 9 5
LeRoy Park 0 0 0 1
Senior Center 9 4 51 33
Veterans Memorial
Plaza 2 0 5 4
Council Chambers 14 8 60 57
Central Park 0 2 0 2
Veterans Hall 2 n/a 10 n/a
Recreation and Parks
918 Obispo Street
P.O. Box 908
Guadalupe, CA 93434
Ph: 805.356.3894
Fax: 805.343.5512
Email: [email protected]
Agenda Item No. 8G c.

Los Amigos de Guadalupe Report
January 2022
Staffing Updates:

MariaElena Garcia, has resigned from LADG to allow her to enroll in the City’s Microenterprise Technical Assistance Program.

Stephanie Krouse was hired to replace MariaElena, as the Coronavirus Services Coordinator. She works at the Senior Center 4 afternoons a week at 20 hours per week. The position's title has changed to Senior Services Coordinator, in keeping with the CV 2&3 contract activity.

Nicole Segovia started working for LADG as of this morning (Council Meeting date) and was hired to fill Sonia’s position. She will work full time and her office will be at the Guadalupe Senior Center.

Tom Brandeberry will be directly training Nicole in person and remotely.

Roxana Niz is scheduled to begin work January 17, 2022. She will be LADG’s full time Senior Meals Coordinator. She will be supervised by Tom Brandeberry.

Slavic Popovich will be hired as a part time, limited term with the sole responsibility to get the senior center kitchen and dining area ready for senior meals service. He is a qualified chef with all the needed certification to operate a permitted kitchen. He will develop the menu, supply chains, etc.

He will continue working part time to train Roxana on all aspects of operating a permitted kitchen and preparing meals for approximately 60 seniors.

Executive Director a recruitment process has begun. An interview panel consists of Alma Hernandez, President LADG, Belinda Popovich, LADG Secretary and City two City representatives: Ariston Julian and Todd Bodem. One interview was completed and Tom Brandeberry will be scheduling additional interviews, hopefully, for the week of January 10.

Corporate Address: Thanks to the City, LADG will operate out of one of the offices in the Guadalupe Senior Center. This allows LADG to continue work with the coronavirus delivery program, and the senior meals program but also allow all staff to be in the same location and support each other's work. This continues to work the nonprofit into a truly local organization.

Projects
17-CDBG-12099: LeRoy Park and Community Center
The City was awarded $4.5 million for the LeRoy Park renovation project and Resilience-Guadalupe Plan in October 2018. The LeRoy Park and Community Center renovation project started construction Agenda Item No. 8G d.
on August 14, 2020 and was set to end August 13, 2021. Due to unforeseen circumstances and increased funding allowing us to add more recreational features to the park, the project has been extended and has a current end date of January 28, 2021. The project will be “substantially complete by the end of January.

The primary date for the CDBG contract is that all funds are expended by February 28, 2022.

However, this only relates to the CDBG funds. The Pro 68 per capita funds and the donations received vai the Capital Campaign can all be expended after that date. LADG is working with the Finance Department to determine how much CDBG funds still need to be expended by the February 28, 2022 deadline.

The contractor is completing the final work on the center and has moved most of their work to the park feature and park infrastructure work.
17-CDBG-12099: Resilience-Guadalupe Plan
The Resilience-Guadalupe Plan is being written for draft review. We are consolidating all of our information collected during the leadership, stakeholder and focus groups meeting. We are also reviewing all demographic data publicly available to ensure any significant impediments or assets seen in the data are included in the final Plan. With the staff shortage, the draft is not ready to be presented to the leadership team. We are expecting that the draft will be ready by the end of February 2022. With a community outreach to come after the leadership review, we expect a final draft to be given to the City council by June, 2022.
20-CDBG-12089: Micro-Enterprise Assistance
The City was awarded $250,000 on March 16, 2021 to run a Micro-enterprise technical assistance and financial assistance program. This program was launched August 4th, 2021 and we have had 24 people express interest in the program and 18 applying and being eligible. Juliana, the Guadalupe EDC SBDC advisor, has met with some of these clients, and other EDC advisors, when appropriate, have been working with clients on 1 on 1 meetings. Some meetings are in person at the Guadalupe Senior Center, others have been via remote meetings. The plan is to start in person classes at the Senior Center to start in March 2022. r
Since the Council approved the Loan Advisory Committee (LAC) makeup, the committee has met once and agreed to meet every other Wednesday to develop all necessary requirements for clients to receive loans or grants or both. Once the LAC has completed all the requirements, and approved the Financial Assistance documents, LADG will bring those recommended requirement to the City Council in the form of Microenterprise Financial Assistance Guidelines revisions for Council approval.

This will then allow the City to begin making microenterprise loans and grants.

As of January 1, 2022 we have 18 eligible and enrolled clients. Another 6 are in process. 20-CDBG-CV1-00085: Foodbank Delivery Services
The City was awarded $84,676 on February 25, 2021 to start a food bank delivery service for those families who have COVID-19 high risk individuals in the home. Starting in June 2021, the City decided to reduce the weekly food bank distribution to once a month, because of this the weekly food bank delivery services also had to be reduced to once a month. In order to help our clients the rest of the month, the City and LADG partnered with the Santa Barbara County Foodbank and through outreach, encouraged and helped our clients apply for the Santa Barbara County Food Bank (SBCFB) Brown Bag delivery program. The brown bag delivery program takes place on the 2nd and 4th Wednesday of every month. We have been making food deliveries (including pet food) to about 54 families on the first Thursday of each month through our food delivery program and assist with the delivery for about 30 individuals on the 2nd and 4th Wednesday of each month through the SBCFB brown bag program.

This program will continue, and be incorporated into the senior meals program, where we continue the above and add in daily meals delivered (Monday to Friday) to seniors eligible to have meals delivered.

C9801636: Prop 68 Per Capita (LeRoy Playground)
The City was awarded $177,952.00 on February 25, 2021 to help pay for the playground change order ($218,715). These funds will be expended once the CDBG funds are fully expended, due to the CDBG funds having an earlier expenditure dead to this per capita grant expenditure deadline. 20-CDBG-CV2-3-00015: Senior Meals CV 2&3
The City will be awarded $308,127 to help pay for a Senior meals program. The Community Action Commission terminated their senior congregate meals service that was run out of the senior center effective July 1, 2021, although it got shut down starting March 2020 when COVID was declared a national emergency. The program was serving about 15 seniors a day with congregate meals. The funding source, Area Agency on Aging (AAA) was never able to fully fund this service and the gap (50%-75%) could no longer be filled. Their funding along with this CDBG grant will fund this program.

The City, with the implementation being completed by Los Amigos de Guadalupe (LADG), will take over both of the senior meals services (congregate and home deliveries). Meals will be cooked at the senior center and served to those seniors who can attend the congregate meals, and delivered to those that qualify for the delivery service.

LADG, on behalf of the City, will hire one full time manager of the program and one part-time member (CV1 Staff person). Between the two they will.
● Prepare healthy lunchtime meals for seniors Monday through Friday for both congregate meals and meals to be delivered. Ensure that seniors who attend the center are protected from Covid 19 and follow the CDC/County/State guidelines. ● Will manage/coordinate volunteers to support seniors in need of transportation to and from the senior center each day, Monday through Friday. And manage/coordinate volunteers to help staff deliver meals, Monday through Friday, to those eligible for delivery of daily meals. ● Continue to deliver food bank supplies to seniors, high risk individuals monthly.

LADG will also apply, on behalf of the City, for the Area Agency of Aging funding, which funded the program in the past. These funds supplement the CDBG funds to ensure any senior that wants a meal can have one.

The Area Agency of Aging told LADG that it was not able to do an agreement with LADG or the City without an RFP being issued. We were recently told that the RFP would be released January 2022.

LADG, on behalf of the City, will complete the proposal for funding.

The State CDBG program, due to internal issues, has still not given the City a contract (agreement), with monthly promises that it will be done soon. On January 2, 2022, the City did receive a letter from the State indicating it could incur cost while the contract is issued.

The City also has recently been told that they must complete a new permit to operate since the prior operator has not been providing meal service beyond a six month period. City staff have submitted the application, as of December 31, 2022, and are working with the County to set up a walk through date (the date will likely be set by the time of this Council Meeting).

Prop 68 Statewide Parks Program (Center Park)
LADG is so proud of this award. The City will receive $4.9 million to develop Center Park into a multiused, multi-generational park that greatly enhances the park, and the neighborhood. LADG will work with the Statewide Park Program staff to enhance that will follow their grant management guidelines. The first phase will be to complete the landscape architectural plan, which will include community involvement (we will ensure that the youth skateboarder, for example, are involved in the design of the skatepark inself) wherever feasible. Since the park design include significant funding for Art, LADG will work with the
2021-TREE-07: LADG LeRoy Tree Planting
LADG was awarded $30,508.00 on August 12, 2021 to buy and plant all 76 trees at LeRoy park. And to complete some education to the community on the benefits of trees. LADG has been working with the City Public Works Director and a local eagle scout to complete this planting project. The local eagles scout will recruit volunteers and procurement supplies for 56 trees. LADG will work with local volunteers to plant the remaining 20 trees which will be the park's windbreak trees.

Royal Theatre
The City, Stakeholders and the designed team have met once, to go over the basics of what we want the theatre to be. LADG will organize a second meeting that will be held in the near future. In that meeting we get an update from the design team and LADG will discuss possible funding sources that are available for the construction side of the project.

Next meeting: Friday, Oct 15, 2021at the Senior Center. The Design team will update the stakeholders on their progress and LADG will update the group on its work to find funding to complete the renovation.

Community Outreach/Community Support
LADG has supported a number of community initiatives from the 75th Anniversary to the air purifier give away by getting the word out via our social media and email lists. LADG is also working with the GUSD and the Dune Center to apply for a Statewide Park Program, Outdoor Equity Program.

Sonia Rios-Venturawill have her last day Oct 13, 2021. Sonia has been working as the LADG Community Development Manage for over two years and will be missed by all. Her accomplishments are many and a replacement will be hard to find.

LADG has started the recruitment process. As LADG has always done, the interview process will include the City, and no candidate will be hired without City approval.

January 11, 2021
Updates below:

1. Guadalupe Commercial Cannabis Applications
HdL anticipates its final review of all the retail applications by January 10. Due to the tight schedule, staff will advise all the applicants that they will be notified on January 11 if they will be moving onto phase III. However, each applicant should plan to be prepared to conduct a presentation on January 18 to the City Council. This may include a PowerPoint but should keep in mind that they will only be given a total of 20 minutes each (5-minute allowance for Q&A) for their presentation.

Incidentally, an application was submitted on Friday, January 23rd for a commercial micro enterprise business (not retail). More to come on it……

2. Food Distribution at Senior Center
On January 3rd, the volunteers diligently provided an array of food to a very receptive group of recipients.

3. Los Amigos de Guadalupe-Community Development Coordinator New Hires at Los Amigos de Guadalupe:

Sonia's replacement is Nicole Segovia and she will start January 11, 2022.

The Senior Meals person, Roxana Nil, will be starting January 17. I am hoping the contract for CV 2&3 will be signed by then!
Regarding the above, we will hire Slavic, part time and temporary, to set up the kitchen, design a menu, organize a supply chain, and train Rozana.

We currently are in the process of interviewing individuals to replace Tom Brandeberry who will be retiring in the next 6 months.

4. Recreation Services Manager
City staff has extended a conditional offer of employment as our new Recreation Services Manager Hannah Fuentes who is expected to start January 10th! The City Administrator and HR will meet with Hannah and introduce her to other department personnel. Hannah is Agenda Item No. 11.
expected to be present at the City Council meeting and Recreation and Parks Commission meeting for introductions.

5. Building Committee
With the advent of the new Recreation Services Manager, city staff/mayor talked about the various improvements needed for our municipal facilities. Staff will develop a Building Committee to focus on our facility deficiencies especially City Hall. City Hall has a leaky roof, need for increased electrical demand, and HVAC upgrades. We are looking to remodel the council chambers to include new communication systems and the City Auditorium Ad Hoc Committee it is working on a plan to make enhancements to the Auditorium. We feel it is necessary to have everyone on the ‘same page.’

6. Le Roy Park Community Center
The Le Roy Park Community Center is nearing an estimated substantial completion date toward the end of February. We are currently working on the lease agreement/MOU with the Boys & Girls Club and wanted to make sure that we are following the recommendations of others, to include two City Recreation and Parks Commission members in reviewing the draft agreements with the Club. Mr. Enrique Ortiz and Mr. Robert Salinas were chosen to represent the City for review and final approval of the agreements from the City Council.

The City Attorney has been working with staff/mayor and has submitted the latest draft lease agreement between the Club and City. Early 2022, the full committee will have met and had the opportunity to review the Draft. Committee included the Commission Members, Council Representatives (2), and City staff, to move this agreement forward.

Also, we are working with the Club and City's Internet/phone contractors in setting up the internet and phone services at Le Roy Park, as requested by the Club. Updates will be provided as this process moves along as well.

7. Central Park Statewide Parks Grant
The Statewide Parks program is saying there was a mandatory meeting January 20 from 1- 3pm. We don't get a contract for the project without attending. Staff and Los Amigos de Guadalupe will attend.

The training/meeting is basically to go over their Grant Administration Guide, which is liked below.
https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/1008/files/Grant_Administration_Guide_Competitive_Gra nt_Programs_Sept_2020_9.1.20.pdf

8. Restorative Partners
With the holidays, and some of the Restorative Partner team traveling, they had to slow things down. However, on 12-30-21, Restorative Partners connected with the doner on zoom and should have something to share soon.

9. Veterans Memorial Hall Update
According to the City Attorney a (very) rough draft of the MOU was sent the American Legion Attorney. Both attorneys want to wrap this agreement up before the end of the year. They feel confident that we can reach an agreement in early 2022, with an MOU coming to the City Council, probably on January 25th.

10. Royal Theater
As you know, the City is applying for a $10M EDA grant and needs to get businesses to complete a survey that will turn into a letter that they will then sign; the main focus of the survey is that the redevelopment of the Royal and its reopening as a performing art's center save jobs, create jobs and would in allow for investment (for both property owner and tenant as in improvements).

As of the end of December 2021, Tom Brandeberry reviewed the submission to date, and we have 12 responses, which is not bad. However, only one is a downtown restaurant, and is the only business in the downtown area, apart from one property owner.

Our main concern is the lack of downtown participation. The EDA will likely map those that have responded and see that only two represent the area around the theater

11. City/Squire Sculptures LADG’s
Los De Guadalupe are in the process of developing a silent auction for the Sculptures. Once they have the process down, they will develop outreach/promotional materials. The work requires a little bit of infrastructure, like creating a place on LADG's website to show the sculptures and creating a bid process (form for people to submit). The staff member who will take this over is learning her real job first. LADG suspects they can get this out before Christmas, but they are not sure that is the right time to release the promotional materials.

Unless someone see one of them as a gift certificate, it might be best to hold off until the new year.

END OF REPORT

Page 1 of 6 ends

Agenda Item No. 12

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of January 11, 2022

_______________________________ _________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Philip F. Sinco, City Attorney Todd Bodem, City Administrator SUBJECT: Appeal of Rejection of Commercial Cannabis Business Permit Application RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council consider the appeal filed by Mr. Nice Guy of the rejection of its application for a commercial cannabis business permit.

BACKGROUND:

Pursuant to the City of Guadalupe’s Applications Procedures and Guidelines for Commercial Cannabis Business Permits ("Guidelines"), all applications for commercial cannabis business permits were required to be submitted by November 15, 2021. The City received five commercial cannabis business permit applications for retail cannabis business on that date, but three of these applications were deemed by City staff and its consultant (HdL Companies) to be incomplete due to minor missing items such as signatures, consents, insurance requirements, etc. On November 29, 2021, letters advising these applicants that their applications were incomplete (“incomplete letters”) were sent out to them via email and, also by mail, informing them about the missing item(s) from their respective applications, and instructing them to submit them by Monday, December 6, 2021 (5 business days). This letter was sent pursuant to the Guidelines adopted by the City Council.

One of these applicants, Guadalupe Community Project, LLC dba Mr. Nice Guy (“Mr. Nice Guy”), did not submit the additional requested item by the December 6th deadline. Specifically, the item requested was “a revised insurance declaration document or letter of intent from the insurance agency identifying coverage for the proposed Guadalupe location and to include the minimum $1M per occurrence.” Mr.

Nice Guy’s application had included a letter from its insurance agency (Focus1 Insurance Group, Inc.) that stated it provides workers compensation, commercial general liability, and automobile liability insurance and that Mr. Nice Guy “is eligible to be quoted for all these insurance policies in accordance with the standards of the City of Guadalupe.”
On December 7, 2021, the day after the December 6th deadline for Mr. Nice Guy to submit the requested document, the City Administrator Todd Bodem contacted Christopher Glew, the designated contact person for Mr. Nice Guy, by telephone to inform him about the fact that the deadline had been missed.

Mr. Glew told Mr. Bodem that he had not received the letter nor the email the City had sent. Mr. Bodem asked him to confirm that the email and mailing addresses the City sent the incomplete letter to were Philip F. Sinco

Page 2 of 6 ends

correct, and Mr. Glew confirmed that these were the correct addresses. Mr. Nice Guy promptly submitted the missing proof of insurance document to the City the same day (i.e., on December 7th).

Mr. Bodem subsequently asked the City Attorney if the City could accept the missing item concerning insurance coverage even though it was provided one day late, or if Mr. Nice Guy's application needed to be rejected. The City Attorney provided him with a legal opinion that there was no authority granted to City staff in the Guidelines or Chapter 9.22 of the City’s Municipal Code (Commercial Cannabis Business) to accept a document required to complete an incomplete application if it was not submitted on the date required. The City Attorney advised that Mr. Nice Guy’s only recourse was to appeal this rejection to the City Council as permitted in Chapter 9.22.

DISCUSSION:

The City Attorney based his opinion on the Guidelines, which provide, in relevant part:

During Phase I, City staff and HdL Companies (“Consultant”) will conduct a preliminary evaluation of the applications for completeness and will reject any application that is missing a major component (for example, a Security Plan), notifying the applicant by email that they have been disqualified. In addition, the City will be notifying applicants by email if their applications are found to be missing minor requirements (for example, signatures/dates on forms, proof of payment receipts, scanned pages in one of the scoring criteria documents, or incorrect formatting or organization of files). If this is the case, the Applicant may be granted five days from the date of the email to submit the required supplemental information. Should you receive an email from the City we ask that you confirm receipt of it immediately. If the City does not get confirmation from your primary contact within two days, it may, but is not required to, make an attempt to notify the primary contact by phone in case the email went into the recipient’s spam folder unnoticed. However, please note should this be the case you will not be provided additional time to complete the curing process so make sure you monitor your incoming or spam email carefully. Furthermore, you may not submit any additional information other than what was requested to cure the minor requirements. Finally, an applicant will be notified if their application is incomplete or if there is any other reason for which they will not be moving forward in the application process.

The foregoing procedure permitted applicants whose applications were missing minor items to submit those missing items and still have their applications considered and scored (provided the missing items were provided within the five (5) day period). None of the applications filed were missing major components, so no applications were rejected based on failure to submit a qualifying application by November 15, 2021. As mentioned above, however, three of the five timely filed applications were deemed by City staff and its consultant to be missing minor items, and pursuant to the procedure set forth in the Guidelines, and (according to the City), an email was sent to these three (3) applicants to inform them of the item(s) missing from their applications. The incomplete letter addressed to Mr. Nice Guy advised that its application “contained a letter of intent from an insurance agency that did not include the minimum $1M per occurrence; nor did it identify the proposed location address,” and that the “application should provide a revised insurance declaration document or letter of intent from the insurance agency identifying coverage for the proposed Guadalupe location and to include the minimum $1M per occurrence.” A copy of the incomplete letter the City contends was emailed to Mr. Nice Guy

Page 3 of 6 ends

on November 29, 2021, is attached hereto as Attachment 1 along with a copy of the email that forwarded the letter).

The City did not contact Mr. Nice Guy (or the other two applicants with incomplete applications) to confirm receipt of the City's email within two days as provided in the Guidelines; however, the Guidelines make it clear that, while the City was permitted to do this, it was not required to.

The Guidelines do not provide any other exceptions for accepting incomplete applications other than what is quoted above. In addition, nothing in Chapter 9.22 of the Guadalupe Municipal Code (“GMC”) provides discretion to City staff to accept incomplete applications. For these reasons, the City Attorney informed City staff that it was unable to grant a waiver to Mr. Nice Guy concerning its failure to submit the missing item from its application by December 6, 2021, and that City staff needed to inform Mr. Nice Guy that its application had been rejected.

Even though City staff could not accept the late submission of the requested item, an appeal of the City’s decision to reject its application is available to Mr. Nice Guy. GMC section 9.22.220 provides for an appeal to the City Council if an application is rejected. Pursuant to GMC section 9.22.230, an applicant can file a written request for an appeal within 10 days of being notified of the rejection of its application.

On December 23, 2021, the City Administrator sent Mr. Nice Guy a Notice of Rejection letter by email that also forwarded an email that the City Attorney had sent to Mr. Bodem along with a document setting forth the relevant provisions from Chapter 9.22 of the GMC concerning appeals related to commercial cannabis business permits. (Attachment 2). Christopher Glew on behalf of Mr. Nice Guy submitted an appeal on December 29, 2021, within the 10-day period. (Attachment 3).

GMC section 9.22.240 provides the permissible grounds for an appeal from the initial permit decision, in part, as follows:

A. The City Council … will hear appeals concerning any deviation from the City’s published application procedures that adversely affected the applicant by altering the outcome of the City’s decision on the applicant’s application. Examples of appealable deviations include:

1. Failure on the part of the City to provide appropriate notification regarding changes to the application process via website postings and/or email to the applicant prior to the time the application was submitted;

2. Failure on the part of the City to provide an applicant an equal opportunity to modify an application where that opportunity was provided to other applicants; ...

B. Any appeal based upon subsection A must be supported by evidence that the applicant presented the relevant information with completeness and in the appropriate section of the application. Information presented in the application that is incomplete in nature or that is relevant to a question posed by the City on the application form but appears in the incorrect section, even if complete, may be grounds for the dismissal of the appeal.

The listed examples are not exclusive. In other words, Mr. Nice Guy may provide evidence of some other type of “deviation” from the published application procedures that adversely affected its application. As

Page 4 of 6 ends

discussed below, one of Mr. Nice Guy’s arguments is that the City erroneous deemed its application as incomplete, which in effect, constituted a “deviation” from the City’s published application procedures.

Because the City rejected Mr. Nice Guy’s application, it has not been reviewed or scored by staff at this time. If the City Council grants Mr. Nice Guy’s appeal, staff will promptly undertake a review of the application and score the application. If the application achieves at least the minimum 90% score (2,250 points), Mr. Nice Guy’s application will be included for City Council review at the special City Council meeting on January 18, 2022. If the City Council denies Mr. Nice Guy’s appeal, its application will not be reviewed and scored by staff, and the City Council will conduct interviews of the other applications that received the minimum score.

Procedure for Appeal
GMC section 9.22.250 provides, in pertinent part:

A. an appeal … filed by the applicant [shall set] forth the reason why the decision was not proper. For an initial permit application appeal, reasons shall be stated with specificity and shall address the issues outlined in Section 9.22.240(A). Date of service shall mean the date when a notice or written decision was personally delivered to the applicant or permittee or the date when the notice was caused to be delivered by certified, first class mail. In cases in which the City can verify delivery of a notice to an applicant or in which an applicant is documented as refusing delivery, lack of receipt of the notice cannot form the basis for an appeal.

B. The notice of appeal shall be in writing and signed by the person making the appeal (“appellant”), or their legal representative, and shall contain the following:

1. Name, address, and telephone number of the appellant.

2. Specify decisions, actions, or a particular part thereof, made that are the subject of the appeal.

3. Include a true and correct copy of the notice issued by the City Administrator of the City Administrator’s designee(s) for which the appellant is appealing.

4. State with specificity the reasons and grounds for making the appeal, including, but not limited to, a statement of facts upon which the appeal is based in sufficient detail to enable the City Council, … to understand the nature of the controversy, the basis of the appeal, and the relief requested.

5. All documents or other evidence pertinent to the appeal that the appellant requests the hearing officer or body to consider at the hearing.… GMC section 9.22.260 provides, in pertinent part:

B. At the date, time and location set forth in the notice of appeal hearing, the City Council … shall hear and consider the testimony of the appellant(s), City staff, and/or their witnesses, as well as any documentary evidence properly submitted for consideration.

C. The following rules shall apply at the appeal hearing:

1. Appeal hearings are informal, and formal rules of evidence and discovery do not apply. However, rules of privilege shall be applicable to the extent they are permitted by law, and irrelevant, collateral, undue, and repetitious testimony may be excluded.

Page 5 of 6 ends

2. … Appellant(s) bear the burden of proof regarding denial of an applicant’s application or related to the initial application process (Section 9.22.240).

3. The issuance of the City’s notice constitutes prima facie evidence of grounds for the denial, …

4. The City Council … may accept and consider late evidence not submitted initially with the notice of appeal upon a showing by the appellant of good cause. The City Council, … shall determine whether a particular fact or facts amount to good cause on a case-by-case basis.

E. Decision of the City Council, …—Final Decision. Following the conclusion of the administrative hearing, the City Council … shall issue a written decision within 20 days which: (1) determines if the action appealed from is affirmed or overturned; and (2) specifies the basis (grounds and reasons) for the decision.

F. The written decision of the City Council, or appointed hearing officer shall provide that it is final and conclusive and is subject to the time limits set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 for judicial review….

Staff recommends that the City Council accept a staff report from the City Attorney concerning the above-referenced hearing procedure, ask any questions it may have concerning the appeal process and the hearing (directed to attorney Wendy Stockton, who will be present to advise the City Council since the City Attorney is prohibited from advising the City Council concerning the appeal since he is representing City staff in the appeal), and then, request a presentation from the appellant. During or after appellant’s presentation, Council may ask questions of the appellant and/or City staff and representatives (including Ms. Stockton). Thereafter, the Council should allow City staff to respond and/or provide information in response to the appellant’s presentation. The appellant should be given an opportunity to respond to any information provided by City staff. Council should the ask any further questions it may have of appellant, City staff, and/or Ms. Stockton, and then conduct its deliberations.

In light of the need for an immediate decision, staff recommends that the City Council make its decision at the Council meeting and direct staff to prepare a resolution of appropriate findings to bring back to the Council for adoption at a future Council meeting.

Mr. Nice Guy’s Appeal
Mr. Nice Guy’s appeal consists of two main arguments to overturn City staff’s rejection of its application:
(1) lack of receipt of email forwarding incomplete letter (and lack of timely receipt of mailed letter since Mr. Nice Guy contends it was not received until December 7th, which was one day after it was required to submit the requesting item concerning insurance coverage); and (2) its application was erroneously deemed incomplete by City staff, and thus, it is irrelevant that it did not provide the additional requested item concerning insurance by December 6, 2021, since it should not have been required to provide additional documentation.

City’s Position
The City contends that it sent and mailed the incomplete letter to Mr. Nice Guy to the correct email and mail addresses on November 29, 2021. (See Attachment 1). Therefore, pursuant to the GMC, the burden of proof is on Mr. Nice Guy to prove it did not receive the email. Therefore, with respect to Mr. Nice Guy’s argument that the City Council should grant its appeal on the grounds that it did not actually receive the City’s email, the City respectfully submits that Mr. Nice Guy’s contention does not meet its

Page 6 of 6 ends

burden of proof under the circumstances, and also, that this is an impermissible basis for an appeal pursuant to GMC section 9.22.250.A.

However, with respect to Mr. Nice Guy’s other argument, namely that the City should have deemed its original application complete, the City concedes that this is a matter of interpretation to be decided by the City Council.

FISCAL IMPACT
None, except as indicated in Mr. Nice Guy’s appeal, there is a risk of litigation should the City Council deny its appeal. Should this lawsuit, if filed, be decided against the City, there could be significant, adverse, financial impacts to the City. There is also a risk of litigation from other applicants should the City grant Mr. Nice Guy’s appeal, but the legal and financial risks are less due to the lesser likelihood of success in court from lawsuits filed by other applicants.

ATTACHMENT:

1. Email from Juana M. Escobar sent on November 29, 2021, to Christopher Glew (on behalf of Mr. Nice Guy) forwarding incomplete letter (including copy of incomplete letter).

2. Email from Todd Bodem sent to Christopher Glew on December 23, 2021, forwarding notice of rejection letter and summary of provisions from GMC concerning appeals.

3. Mr. Nice Guy’s Appeal
Philip Sinco <[email protected]>
FW: Commercial Cannabis Business Permit Application - Missing Information 1 message
Todd Bodem <[email protected]> Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 4:09 PM To: Philip Sinco <[email protected]>
fyi
From: Juana Escobar <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2021 11:05 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Todd Bodem <[email protected]>
Subject: Commercial Cannabis Business Permit Application - Missing Information Good Mr. Mr. Glew,
Attached please find a letter from Todd Bodem, City Administrator regarding your Cannabis Business Permit Application.

Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at 805.356.3891 or via email to [email protected]
A hard copy will follow by regular mail.

Thank you
Juana M. Escobar
Administrative Assistant
City of Guadalupe
805.356.3891 office
805.343.5512 fax
ATTACHMENT 1
Letter- Christopher Glew.pdf
61K

From: Todd Bodem
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2021 9:49 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Juana Escobar <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Incomplete CCB Permit Application (Mr. Nice Guy) Dear Mr. Christopher Glew,
Attached please find my letter to you (Guadalupe Community Project, LLC dba Mr. Nice Guy) dated December 23, 2021, regarding a “notice of rejection of commercial cannabis business permit application.” I have also attached the application appeal provisions. Additionally, I will mail this letter to you VIA US Mail today. For your benefit, I have included the City Attorney’ email notes below.

As stated in the letter, please be advised that any appeal must be submitted in writing to the City within 10 calendar days from the date of this letter.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Yours truly,
Todd Bodem
City Administrator
From: Philip Sinco <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 3:49 PM
To: Todd Bodem <[email protected]>
Subject: Incomplete CCB Permit Application (Mr. Nice Guy) Mr. Bodem.

You informed me that three of the five timely filed commercial cannabis retail applications were deemed incomplete due to minor missing items such as signatures, consents, insurance requirements, etc. On November 29, 2021, letters were sent out via email and USPS to those applicants with incomplete applications with instructions to submit the missing item(s) by Monday, December 6, 2021 (5 business days). This letter was sent pursuant to the Applications Procedures and Guidelines for Commercial Cannabis Business Permits ("Guidelines") adopted by the City Council.

Unfortunately, one of these applicants, Mr. Nice Guy, missed the December 6th deadline. You advised me that you contacted Christopher Glew, Guadalupe Community Project, LLC dba Mr. Nice Guy to inform him about the fact that the deadline was missed. He indicated that he did not receive the letter nor the email the City had sent. You informed me that you confirmed his mailing and email addresses with him and he said that they were correct. Subsequently, Mr. Glew promptly submitted the insurance item he was missing on December 7 on a flash drive.

You asked me if the City could accept the missing insurance item even though it was a day late, or if Mr.

Nice Guy's application needed to be rejected. We both agreed that the missing item, proof of insurance coverage, was a very minor issue, but there was no getting around the fact that the application was not complete until one day after the (extended) deadline.

I researched the Guidelines as well as the relevant portions of the City's Municipal Code (Chapter 9.22) and have concluded that the City, at staff level, is unable to waive the defect in Mr. Nice Guy's application and must reject its application. However, Mr. Nice Guy may appeal this rejection to the City Council.

The Guidelines provide that "all completed applications are due on November 15, 2021, no later than 4 p.m." and that "late proposals will be rejected." The Guidelines also provide, in relevant part, as follows:

ATTACHMENT 2
To be considered for issuance of a Cannabis Business Permit, final applications must be submitted to the City Administration Department located at the address listed on these procedures by the deadline. There will be no exceptions....

However, please note should this be the case you will not be provided additional time to complete the curing process so make sure you monitor your incoming or spam email carefully. Furthermore, you may not submit any additional information other than what was requested to cure the minor requirements. Finally, an applicant will be notified if their application is incomplete or if there is any other reason for which they will not be moving forward in the application process.

The City complied with the procedure set forth in the Guidelines for incomplete applications (that were not missing any major components), and even went beyond the minimum requirement by sending a letter in addition to an email to the three applicants whose applications were incomplete (including Mr. Nice Guy). The City did not contact Mr. Nice Guy or the other two applicants with incomplete applications by phone as it was allowed to do if confirmation of receipt of the emails was not received within two days, but the Guidelines make it clear that the City was not required to do this.

The Guidelines do not provide any other exceptions for accepting incomplete applications other than what is quoted above. For that reason, staff is unable to grant a waiver of the failure of Mr. Nice Guy to provide a fully complete application within five business days of it being sent the notice of incomplete application letter and email.

Mr. Nice Guy is not without recourse. Section 9.22.220 of the Guadalupe Municipal Code (GMC) provides for an appeal to the City Council of the initial decision to reject an application. Pursuant to section 9.22.230 of the GMC, an applicant can file a written request for an appeal within 10 days of being notified of the rejection of its application. I have attached a copy of the relevant portions of Chapter 9.22 of the GMC (concerning appeals) for your reference. The attachment includes information on the grounds for appeals (Section 9.22.240) which is not an exclusive list of the permissible grounds, as well as information about the appeal process (Section 9.22.250) and the hearing procedure (Section

9.22.260).

To summarize, the application from Mr. Nice Guy was incomplete at the time of the (extended) deadline for incomplete applications and must be rejected pursuant to the City's Guidelines. Mr. Nice Guy may file an appeal of this decision which will be heard by the City Council. Fortunately, for Mr. Nice Guy, the City Council has not adopted a fee for the cost of the appeal hearing which it was supposed to do by resolution, so no fee will be charged for this appeal (in the event Mr. Nice Guy decides to file an appeal). Unfortunately, for Mr. Nice Guy, the hearing cannot be set until the City Council's next regular Council meeting on January 11, 2022, which is only seven (7) days before the date set for Council interviews of the CCB permit applicants (i.e., January 18, 2022) whose applications scored a minimum of 90% or higher (2,250 points).

Obviously, Mr. Nice Guy cannot be included on the list of applicants to be interviewed by the City Council on January 18, 2022, because its application is ineligible for the Phase I scoring process. This could change after City Council hears its appeal (and grants it), assuming Mr. Nice Guy timely files an appeal. If the Council denies the appeal, the interviews of the applicants with the minimum score will go forward. If the Council grants the appeal, City staff (and the Council) will need to be prepared to conduct a quick review of Mr. Nice Guy's application to determine if it meets the minimum score, and it may then be added to the list of applicants to be interviewed by the Council at its January 18, 2022, meeting. Mr.

Nice Guy's application cannot not be provided to the Council along with the applications of the successful applicants until after the Council hears the appeal.

Philip Sinco
The Law Office of Philip F. Sinco
519 S. Broadway
Santa Maria, CA 93454
(805) 598-7694
[email protected]

9.22.220 Appeals.

Appeals relating to denial of an initial application; denial of advancement to the interview or final determination process; to revoke or suspend a permit; to deny renewal of an application for a permit; or to add conditions to a permit shall be conducted as prescribed in this chapter. The City Council shall hold a hearing on any appeals, unless the City Council has delegated its authority to hold such appeals, by resolution, to a hearing officer. (Ord. 2021-494 §2)

9.22.230 Written request for appeal.

A. Within 10 calendar days after the date of a decision of the City Administrator or their designee(s) to revoke, suspend or deny an initial or renewed permit application or to add conditions to a permit, an applicant or permittee may appeal such action by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk setting forth the reasons why the decision was not proper.

B. At the time of filing the appellant shall pay the designated appeal fee, established by resolution of the City Council from time to time. (Ord. 2021-494 §2)

9.22.240 Grounds for appeal for an initial permit decision to advance to the interview or final decision process.

A. The City Council or an appointed hearing officer will hear appeals concerning any deviation from the City’s published application procedures that adversely affected the applicant by altering the outcome of the City’s decision on the applicant’s application. Examples of appealable deviations include:

2. Failure on the part of the City to provide an applicant an equal opportunity to modify an application where that opportunity was provided to other applicants;

3. The scoring of one or more portions of the applicant’s application was not justified based on the information presented in the application or due to a material error or omission on the part in scoring the application.

B. Any appeal based upon subsection A must be supported by evidence that the applicant presented the relevant information with completeness and in the appropriate section of the application.

Information presented in the application that is incomplete in nature or that is relevant to a question posed by the City on the application form but appears in the incorrect section, even if complete, may be grounds for the dismissal of the appeal. (Ord. 2021-494 §2)

9.22.250 Appeal hearing process.

A. Within 10 calendar days after service of the notice of the decision of the City Administrator or the City Administrator’s designee(s) to deny advancement to the interview or other final determination process, to revoke or suspend a permit, to deny a renewed application for a permit, or to add conditions to a permit, an appeal may be filed by the applicant or permittee affected by such action by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk setting forth the reason why the decision was not proper. For an initial permit application appeal, reasons shall be stated with specificity and shall address the issues outlined in Section

9.22.240(A). Date of service shall mean the date when a notice or written decision was personally delivered to the applicant or permittee or the date when the notice was caused to be delivered by certified, first class mail. In cases in which the City can verify delivery of a notice to an applicant or in which an applicant is documented as refusing delivery, lack of receipt of the notice cannot form the basis for an appeal.

B. The notice of appeal shall be in writing and signed by the person making the appeal (“appellant”), or their legal representative, and shall contain the following:

1. Name, address, and telephone number of the appellant.

2. Specify decisions, actions, or a particular part thereof, made that are the subject of the appeal.

3. Include a true and correct copy of the notice issued by the City Administrator of the City Administrator’s designee(s) for which the appellant is appealing.

4. State with specificity the reasons and grounds for making the appeal, including, but not limited to, a statement of facts upon which the appeal is based in sufficient detail to enable the City Council, or any appointed hearing officer, to understand the nature of the controversy, the basis of the appeal, and the relief requested.

5. All documents or other evidence pertinent to the appeal that the appellant requests the hearing officer or body to consider at the hearing.

6. An appeal fee, as established by resolution of the City Council.

C. Failure of the City Clerk to receive a timely appeal constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal the notice issued by the City Administrator or the City Administrator’s designee(s). In this event, notice of revocation, nonrenewal, or suspension of the City Administrator or the City Administrator’s designee shall be final.

D. In the event a written notice of appeal is timely filed, the nonrenewal, suspension, revocation shall not become effective until a final decision has been rendered and issued by the City Council or appointed hearing officer. Notices of appeal not served in a timely manner or served by non-operational business shall not serve to allow such business to operate pending appeal.

E. If no appeal is timely filed in the event of a decision of nonrenewal, the cannabis businesses permit shall expire at the conclusion of the term of the permit. If no appeal is timely filed in the event of a decision supporting suspension or revocation, the suspension or revocation shall become effective upon the expiration of the period for filing a written notice of appeal. (Ord. 2021-494 §2)

9.22.260 Administrative hearing and proceedings.

A. Review by City Council or Appointed Hearing Officer; Administrative Hearing and Proceedings.

1. Upon receipt by the City Clerk of a timely-filed notice of appeal pertaining to suspensions, revocations, or non-renewals the City Clerk shall schedule a hearing within 30 days before the City Council, unless a hearing officer has been appointed, in which case the City Clerk shall forward such appeal to the hearing officer who will schedule a hearing within 30 days. In the event such hearing cannot be heard within that time period or a mutually agreed upon time with the appellant then the City Clerk shall schedule the appeal to be heard by the City Council within 45 days or as reasonably possible at the next scheduled City Council meeting proceeding the deadline from receiving the appeal. If a hearing officer has been appointed, the hearing officer shall schedule the hearing to take place within 45 days.

2. The appellant(s) listed on the written notice of appeal shall be notified in writing of the date, time, and location of the hearing at least 10 days before the date of the hearing (“notice of appeal hearing”).

3. A request by an appellant or by the City to continue a hearing must be submitted to the City Clerk in writing no later than 3 business days before the date scheduled for the hearing. The City Council, or appointed hearing officer, may continue a hearing for good cause or on its own motion; however, in no event may the hearing be continued for more than 30 calendar days, unless there is a stipulation by all parties to do so.

B. At the date, time and location set forth in the notice of appeal hearing, the City Council or an appointed hearing officer shall hear and consider the testimony of the appellant(s), City staff, and/or their witnesses, as well as any documentary evidence properly submitted for consideration.

C. The following rules shall apply at the appeal hearing:

1. Appeal hearings are informal, and formal rules of evidence and discovery do not apply.

However, rules of privilege shall be applicable to the extent they are permitted by law, and irrelevant, collateral, undue, and repetitious testimony may be excluded.

2. The City bears the burden of proof to establish the grounds for nonrenewal, suspension or revocation by a preponderance of evidence. Appellant(s) bear the burden of proof regarding denial of an applicant’s application or related to the initial application process (Section 9.22.240).

3. The issuance of the City’s notice constitutes prima facie evidence of grounds for the denial, nonrenewal, suspension, or revocation, and City personnel who significantly took part in the investigation, which contributed to the notice of decision may participate in the administrative hearing.

4. The City Council or the appointed hearing officer may accept and consider late evidence not submitted initially with the notice of appeal upon a showing by the appellant of good cause. The City Council, or appointed hearing officer, shall determine whether a particular fact or facts amount to good cause on a case-by-case basis.

5. The appellant may bring a language interpreter to the hearing at their sole expense.

6. The City may, at its discretion, record the hearing by stenographer or court reporter, audio recording, or video recording. If the appellant requests from the City that a court reporter, stenographer, or videographer be used, the appellant shall bear the costs of same and shall deposit such fees prior to commencement of the administrative hearing.

D. If the appellant, or appellant’s legal representative, fails to appear at the appeal hearing, the City Council, or the appointed hearing officer, may cancel the appeal hearing and send a notice thereof to the appellant by certified, first class mail to the address(es) stated on the notice of appeal. A cancellation of a hearing due to non-appearance of the appellant shall constitute the appellant’s waiver of the right to appeal and a failure to exhaust all administrative remedies. In such instances, the City’s notice of decision is final and binding.

E. Decision of the City Council, or Appointed Hearing Officer—Final Decision. Following the conclusion of the administrative hearing, the City Council or appointed hearing officer shall issue a written decision within 20 days which: (1) determines if the action appealed from is affirmed or overturned; and (2) specifies the basis (grounds and reasons) for the decision.

G. A copy of the written decision shall be served by certified, first class mail on the appellant. If the appellant is not the owner of the real property in which the cannabis business is located, or proposed to be located, a copy of the final decision may also be served on the property owner by first class mail to the address shown on the last equalized assessment roll. Failure of a person to receive a properly addressed final decision shall not invalidate any action or proceeding by the City pursuant to this chapter. (Ord. 2021-494 §2)
ATTACHMENT 3

Page 1 of 2 ends

Agenda Item No. 13

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of January 11, 2022

_______________________________ _________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Shannon Sweeney Todd Bodem, City Administrator
Public Works Director/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Proposition 218 hearing and introduction of ordinances affirming, revising, and setting fees and rates for water and wastewater service.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Review staff report.

2. Conduct Proposition 218 protest hearing.

3. Introduce by title only (first reading) Ordinance No. 2022-498, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Guadalupe, California affirming, revising, and setting fees and rates for water service.

4. Introduce by title only (first reading) Ordinance No. 2022-499, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Guadalupe, California affirming, revising, and setting fees and rates for wastewater service.

5. Continue this matter to the Council’s regular meeting on January 25, 2022, for second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 2022-498 and No. 2022-499.

DISCUSSION:

The basic legal authority for the City to establish water and wastewater service rates is contained in Government Code §54344 which allows the City to prescribe, revise, and collect charges for the services, facilities, or water furnished by the City.

An ordinance setting or revising rates must be adopted in accordance with state law. Regular ordinances require a first and second reading. An ordinance setting or revising rates also requires a noticed public hearing. The City published its intent to adopt ordinances revising the current rate structure for water and wastewater services for this meeting in conformity with Proposition 218 and individual notices were sent to affected persons, a copy of which is provided with this staff report. (Attachment 1).

Shannon Sweeney

Page 2 of 2 ends

A Proposition 218 protest hearing is required to be held prior to the introduction of the ordinances. If written protests against the proposed water and wastewater rate increases are presented by a majority of affected property owners and ratepayers, the City shall not impose these increases. If there are an insufficient number of written protests, however, the Council may introduce the two ordinances by title only (first reading). Then on January 25, the Council may adopt the two ordinances (second reading). If adopted on January 25, the ordinances will become effective on February 25, 2022, and rate increases will take effect with invoices sent on or about May 1 because invoices reflect billing for past usage.

Invoices sent prior to May 1 would include utility usage prior to February 25, 2022. That is the reason for the delay in implementation.

As of December 30, 2021, one written protest has been received. Staff will provide Council an update at the Council meeting on the total number of written protests received, including any presented by property owners or ratepayers at the protest hearing.

FISCAL IMPACT
If the ordinance is adopted on January 25, the water and wastewater enterprise funds will have increased revenue in the amount to be determined by future usage.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Proposition 218 mailing

2. PowerPoint presentation.

3. Proposed Ordinance No. 2022-498 revising and setting fees and rates for water service

4. Proposed Ordinance No. 2022-499 revising and setting fees and rates for wastewater service ATTACHMENT 1

NOTICIA DE AUDENCIA PUBLICA PARA LOS DUEÑOS DE PROPIEDAD

SOBRE EL AUMENTO DE TARIFAS DE AGUA Y DRENAJE
Fecha hora de Audencia Publica: 11 de enero, 2022, a las 6:00 p.m.

Localización: Camara de concilio, Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad, 918 Obispo St. Guadalupe, CA 93434 Porque esta recibiendo esta noticia?
La Ciudad de Guadalupe le esta mandando esta noticia porque usted es cliente de agua y drenaje, o en nuestros archivos usted es el dueño de propriedad que recibe servicio de agua y drenaje. Esta noticia describe los cambios de tarifas de agua y drenaje y le da información acerca de la audiencia que se va llevar acabo en enero 11, 2022, en la cámara de concilio en el ayuntamiento de la ciudad, 918 Obispo St, Guadalupe, CA 93434 acerca de los cambio propuestos.

Para que se usan los fondos de agua y drenaje?
La Ciudad provee servicio de agua a aproximadamente 2478 clientes, y servicio de drenaje a aproximadamente 2406 clientes.

Tarifas mensuales facturadas a los clientes cada mes son la fuente principal de fondos para operar los sistemas de agua y drenaje, y son usadas solamente para esa razón. Fondos de tarifas proveen para la operación y mantenimiento de costos, incluyendo tratamiento de agua y drenaje, proyectos capitales para mejorar la infraestructura de agua y drenaje, obligaciones de costos de servicios, y fondos adecuados de reservas y planificación de refuerzos.

Las tarifas propuestas se basan en un estudio integral de tarifas de servicios públicos y un plan financiero desarrollado por un consultor.

Las estructuras de tarifas para cada servicios públicos se diseñaron de manera que los ingresos derivados de los cambios de tarifas propuestos no excedan la cantidad de ingresos requeridos para los servicios relacionados con la propiedad proporcionados por la Ciudad, los ingresos de las tarifas y los cargos a los que se hace referencia en este documento se utilizarán para cualquier otro propósito que no sea aquel para el que se imponen las tarifas correspondientes.

El monto de las tarifas propuestas impuestas a cualquier parcela o persona como un incidente de la propiedad no excederá el costo proporcional del servicio o servicios atribuibles a dicho paquete; y no se impondrá ninguna tarifa por un servicio a menos que el servicio es realmente utilizado por, o inmediatamente disponible para, el dueño de la propiedad o el cliente en cuestión.
¿Por qué se necesitan aumentos de tarifas?
Para desarrollar tarifas de agua y alcantarillado que generen ingresos suficientes para cumplir con los objetivos fiscales y de política de la Ciudad, se completó la determinación de la cantidad de ingresos anuales requeridos por las tarifas. El primer paso de este análisis resultó en la identificación de los requisitos de ingresos para los servicios públicos de agua y alcantarillado, incluida esta la operación y el costo de mantenimiento, gastos de capital, como el reemplazo de rutina de los componentes del sistema obsoletos y el reemplazo y/o actualizaciones de las líneas de agua y alcantarillado, los costos de pago de la deuda (incluida esta la cobertura de los servicios de la deuda) y el financiamiento de las reservas en niveles apropiados para mantener el servicio y prever costos inesperados.

Estos requisitos de ingresos se compararon con las fuentes totales de fondos durante cada año del período de pronóstico para determinar la adecuación de los ingresos proyectados para cumplir con esos requisitos. Los resultados del estudio demostraron que los ingresos durante los próximos cinco años, las tarifas actuales de agua y alcantarillado de la Ciudad no cubrirán por completo los costos identificados anteriormente, y como resultado, se calcularon una serie de aumentos en los ingresos por tarifas, que si se implementan, proporcionarán ingresos suficientes para satisfacer esas necesidades. El informe de estudio de tarifas que proporciona la metodología de desarrollo de tarifas está disponible en el Ayuntamiento y en el sitio web de la Ciudad en https://ci.guadalupe.ca.us .

Las tarifas propuestas se han calculado sobre la base del costo de la ciudad para proporcionar servicios de agua y alcantarillado a los usuarios. Servicios públicos de agua, a todos los clientes se les cobra una tarifa básica que incluye una asignación inicial de 600 pies cúbicos de flujo de agua, luego se les cobra una tarifa uniforme adicional por cada 100 pies cúbicos de agua utilizados sobre la asignación inicial. La asignación inicial sera reducienda de los actuales 600 pies cúbicos a 500 pies cúbicos, y se reducirád a 400 pies cúbicos, en el año calendario 2023.

Para los clientes residenciales, las tarifas de alcantarillado propuestas consisten en una tarifa mensual fija, independientemente del flujo. Para clientes comerciales, las tarifas de alcantarillado propuestas consisten en una tarifa básica mensual que incluye una asignación inicial de 500 pies cúbicos de flujo, con un cargo adicional por cada 100 pies cúbicos de flujo sobre la asignación básica. La tarifa básica mensual para clientes comerciales se reducirá de 500 pies cúbicos a 400 pies cúbicos a partir del Año Calendario 2023.

Nuevas tarifas
Con el fin de proporcionar los fondos necesarios para los sistemas de agua y alcantarillado, la Ciudad propone implementar nuevas tarifas en una serie de ajustes anuales a partir del 1 de febrero de 2022, con aumentos adicionales después de cada 1 de enero, hasta enero 2023. Las siguientes tablas resumen las tarifas propuestas de agua y alcantarillado. Los cargos fijos y por volumen se incluirán y permanecerán vigentes hasta que sean reemplazadas por una acción del Consejo.

Tarifas de agua propuestas
Años calendario 2021-22 hasta CY 2023-24
Descripción Tarifas Existentes Proyectado para el año calendario terminando el 31 de diciembre:
2022 2023 2024
Tasa básica (1)
Todos los clientes $31.07 $32.00 $32.96 $33.95
Tasas volumétricas por 100 pies cúbicos (2)
Todo Flujo $5.18 $5.34 $5.50 $5.67
Notas:
(1) La tarifa básica existente incluye 600 pies cúbicos de flujo. Basado en discusiones con el personal, la cantidad de flujo incluida en la tarifa básica se reducirá a 500 pies cúbicos de flujo para el año calendario 2022 y se reducirá aún más a 400 pies cúbicos de flujo para el año calendario 2023. (2) Todo el flujo se facturará a una tarifa uniforme por cada 100 pies cúbicos de flujo medido sobre la cantidad asignada de flujo incluida en el tasa básica Tarifas de alcantarillado propuestas
Años calendario 2021-22 hasta CY 2023-24
Descripción Tarifas Existentes Proyectado para el año calendario terminando el 31 de diciembre:
2022 2023 2024
Tasa básica (1)
Residencial (1) $52.72 $54.30 $55.93 $57.61
Comercial (2) $52.72 $54.30 $55.93 $57.61
Tasa volumétrica comercial por 100 pies cúbicos (3)
Todo Flujo $2.22 $2.29 $2.36 $2.43
Notas:
(1) A los clientes residenciales se les factura una tarifa mensual fija independientemente del uso. (2) La tarifa básica existente incluye 500 pies cúbicos de flujo. Basado en discusiones con el personal, la cantidad de flujo incluida en la tarifa básica permanecerá a 500 pies cúbicos de flujo para el año calendario 2022 y se reducirá a 400 pies cúbicos de flujo para el año calendario 2023. (3) Para los clientes comerciales, todo el flujo se facturará a una tarifa uniforme por cada 100 pies cúbicos de flujo de agua medido en la cantidad asignada de flujo incluido en la tarifa básica.

Impacto en su factura
Con las tarifas propuestas vigentes a partir del 1 de febrero de 2022, para una vivienda unifamiliar típica que usa 8 unidades de agua cada mes, la porción de agua de su factura aumentaría de $ 41.43 por ciclo de facturación (mensual) actualmente a $

48.02 por facturación ciclo. La porción de alcantarillado de la factura aumentaría de $ 52,72 a $ 54,30 por ciclo de facturación.

El gráfico adjunto proporciona un resumen de las facturas combinadas, existentes y propuestas, de agua y alcantarillado en tres escenarios de uso.
¿Cómo presentar una protesta o participar en la audiencia pública? La Ciudad considerará la nueva estructura de tarifas y el aumento de ingresos propuesto en una audiencia pública el martes 11 de enero de 2022 a las 6:00 p.m., en las Cámaras del Concejo Municipal, en el Ayuntamiento, 918 Obispo St, Guadalupe, CA 93434. Está invitado a presentar testimonio oral o escrito en la audiencia pública, o vía reunión virtual. Cualquier propietario o cliente registrado de un la parcela sujeta a las tarifas propuestas puede presentar una protesta por escrito contra las revisiones de tarifas propuestas. Si protestas escritas son presentadas por mayoría de las parcelas afectadas, las revisiones de tarifas propuestas no serán adoptadas.

Para que una protesta escrita sea contada, debe incluir lo siguiente: una declaración que indique que el dueño de la propiedad o el cliente registrado se opone a los cambios de tarifas propuestos; si la protesta es contra la tarifas de agua propuestas, tarifas de alcantarillado propuestas o ambas; la dirección postal o el número de parcela del tasador (APN) para la parcela(s) con respecto a la cual se hace la protesta; y el nombre y firma del propietario o cliente.

Las protestas pueden enviarse por correo o entregarse personalmente a 918 Obispo St, Guadalupe, CA 93434, o entregarse al secretario de la ciudad en la Audiencia pública. Para ser válido, el secretario de la ciudad debe recibir una protesta por escrito firmada antes de la conclusión de la sesión pública. No se aceptará ningunas protestas enviada por correo electrónico u otros medio electrónicos. Por favor identifíquese en el frente de el sobre para cualquier protesta por escrito, sea enviada por correo o entregada en persona al Secretario de la Ciudad, que la protesta adjuntada es para la audiencia pública sobre los cambios propuestos en las tarifas - tarifas del servicio de agua y alcantarillado.

El Concejo Municipal escuchará y considerará todas las protestas escritas y orales a los cambios de tarifas propuestos en la Audiencia Pública. Los comentarios orales en la audiencia pública no calificarán como protestas formales a menos que estén acompañados de una protesta por escrito. Al concluir la Audiencia Pública, no se aceptarán más protestas escritas ni se tomarán más testimonios, y el Concejo Municipal considerará la adopción de las tarifas propuestas para el servicio de agua y alcantarillado que se describen en este aviso. Si las protestas recibidas y escritas como se describio anteriormente y no son presentadas por mayoría de los propietarios o clientes registrados, el Ayuntamiento estarán autorizados a adoptar las tarifas propuestas. Los propietarios y los clientes registrados pueden presentar por escrito protestas pero solo se contará una protesta por cada parcela. Si se adoptan, las tarifas del servicio de agua y alcantarillado, las tarifas tomaran efecto a partir del 1 de febrero de 2022.

Factura Existente Factura Propuesta
Utility Rate
Public Hearing
JANUARY 11, 2022
ATTACHMENT 2
Rate Adjustment Process
Proposition 218 process:
Mail public notice to all property owners and utility rate payers in Guadalupe 45 days prior to public hearing.
Send mailing in English and Spanish.
Public hearing and first reading scheduled for January 11, 2022. Second reading tentatively scheduled for January 25, 2022 provided less than half of property owners or rate payers protest the rate increase on January 11, 2022 and City Council approves first reading.

Proposed Rate Adjustment
Cumulative 9% rate increase for each utility over three years, implemented as follows:
 May 1, 2022 = 3%
 January 1, 2023 = 3%
 January 1, 2024 = 3%
 Lowers number of units available under base rate from current 6 to 5 in 2022 and 4 in 2023 (water) and from current 5 to 4 in 2023 (wastewater commercial) Capital Projects
Current Rates vs Recommended Rates
Existing rates provide inadequate days cash on hand for water and negative days cash on hand for sewer.
Proposed rates meet target days cash on hand for water and temporary inadequate days cash on hand for sewer (2023 and 2024 due to lift station capital projects).
Consumer Price Index (inflation) has already been considered in evaluation.

How We Compare to our Neighbors

Page 1 of 4 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 2022-498

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE,

CALIFORNIA AFFIRMING, REVISING, AND SETTING FEES AND RATES FOR

WATER SERVICE
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Guadalupe has previously approved rates for water service provided to residents of Guadalupe and the others who use such services; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 54344 sets forth the legal authority for the City to establish water and wastewater service rates, which allows the City to prescribe, revise, and collect charges for the services, facilities, or water furnished by the City; and WHEREAS, Proposition 218, which has been incorporated into the California Constitution, Articles XIIIC and XIIID, requires that any public agency proposing a new or increased property-related fee or charge, including increases for water and/or wastewater services, provide written notice by mail to the owner of each parcel upon which the fee or charge will be imposed including information on the proposed amount of the fees or charges, the basis upon which the fees or charges were calculated, an explanation of the need for the new or increased fees or charges; and the date, time and location of the public hearing at which the agency will consider the new or increased fees; and WHEREAS, Proposition 218 also requires that a public hearing be held at least 45 calendar days after the mailing of the notice and that a property owner-related fee or charge may not be imposed or increased if a majority submit a written protest.

WHEREAS, Willdan Financial Services completed a Comprehensive Utility Rate Study which was provided to the City Council at its meeting on September 14, 2021, taking into consideration full cost recovery for operating costs, debt and other expenditure requirements, consistency with industry guidance, equity amongst customer classes, and administrative efficiency; and WHEREAS, although approving the rate study, the Council requested additional information that was provided by Willdan Financial Services to the Council at its meeting on October 26, 2021, as a result of which the initially proposed rate adjustments to occur over five (5) years was changed by eliminating the last two (2) years and proceeding with the proposed rate adjustments over three (3) years; and WHEREAS, based on this study and the additional information provided by Willdan Financial Services at the October 26, 2021, meeting, the City Council has determined that the proposed water rates set forth in the attached “Exhibit A” are appropriate and are needed to adequately reflect the cost of providing such services and to avoid a substantial shortfall revenue to the City for such services; and WHEREAS, all requirements of Proposition 218 have been met allowing the record owners of property receiving water service the ability to file a written protest vote against the proposed water rate increases, proper notice of a public hearing, and determination whether a majority protest exists; and ATTACHMENT 3

Page 2 of 4 ends

WHEREAS, after a final count of written protest votes by the City Clerk at the conclusion of the public hearing held on January 11, 2022, it is deemed that a majority protest to the proposed water rate increase does not exist.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Guadalupe does ordain as follows:

Section 1. Water Service Charges. On the effective date of this ordinance, water service rates charged by the City shall be increased three percent (3%) over the rates in effect on the prior day. Effective January 1, 2023, water service rates charged by the City shall be increased three percent (3%) over the rates in effect on December 31, 2022. Effective January 1, 2024, water service rates charged by the City will shall be increased 3% over the rates in effect on December 31, 2023. In addition, the number of units of water available under the base rate will decrease on the effective date of this ordinance 2022, from six (6) units per billing cycle to five (5) units per billing cycle, and the number of units of water available under the base rate will decrease on January 1, 2023, from five (5) units per billing cycle to four (4) units per billing cycle. Example water service rate increases are as set forth on Exhibit “A” attached to and made a part of this ordinance.

Section 2. Savings and interpretation Clause. This ordinance shall not be interpreted in any manner to conflict with controlling provisions of state law, including, without limitation, the Constitution of the State of California. If any section, subsection, or clause of this ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, and clauses shall not affected thereby. If this ordinance, or any section, subsection, or clause of this ordinance shall be deemed unconstitutional or invalid as applied to a particular appeal, the validity of this ordinance and is sections, subsections, and clauses in regards to other contracts shall not be affected.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting held this 11th day of January 2022 on motion of Councilmember ________________, seconded by Councilmember _______________ and on the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held this 25th day of January 2022 on motion of Councilmember ________________, seconded by Councilmember _______________ and on the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Page 3 of 4 ends

Page 4 of 4 ends

ORDINANCE 2022-498

EXHIBIT A
Monthly water
rates
Current
01/11/22
Proposed
Effective Date
Proposed
1/01/2023
Proposed
1/01/2024
Basic rate $31.07
(includes 6 CCF)
$32.00
(includes 5 CCF)
$32.96
(includes 4 CCF)
$33.95
(includes 4 CCF)
Each additional CCF $5.18 $5.34 $5.50 $5.67
1 unit = 100 cubic feet (CCF) = 748 gallons

Page 1 of 4 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 2022-499

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE,

CALIFORNIA AFFIRMING, REVISING, AND SETTING FEES AND RATES FOR

WASTEWATER SERVICE
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Guadalupe has previously approved rates for wastewater service provided to residents of Guadalupe and the others who use such services; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 54344 sets forth the legal authority for the City to establish water and wastewater service rates, which allows the City to prescribe, revise, and collect charges for the services, facilities, or water furnished by the City; and WHEREAS, Proposition 218, which has been incorporated into the California Constitution, Articles XIIIC and XIIID, requires that any public agency proposing a new or increased property-related fee or charge, including increases for water and/or wastewater services, provide written notice by mail to the owner of each parcel upon which the fee or charge will be imposed including information on the proposed amount of the fees or charges, the basis upon which the fees or charges were calculated, an explanation of the need for the new or increased fees or charges; and the date, time and location of the public hearing at which the agency will consider the new or increased fees; and WHEREAS, Proposition 218 also requires that a public hearing be held at least 45 calendar days after the mailing of the notice and that a property owner-related fee or charge may not be imposed or increased if a majority submit a written protest.

WHEREAS, Willdan Financial Services completed a Comprehensive Utility Rate Study which was provided to the City Council at its meeting on September 14, 2021, taking into consideration full cost recovery for operating costs, debt and other expenditure requirements, consistency with industry guidance, equity amongst customer classes, and administrative efficiency; and WHEREAS, although approving the rate study, the Council requested additional information that was provided by Willdan Financial Services to the Council at its meeting on October 26, 2021, as a result of which the initially proposed rate adjustments to occur over five (5) years was changed by eliminating the last two (2) years and proceeding with the proposed rate adjustments over three (3) years; and WHEREAS, based on this study and the additional information provided by Willdan Financial Services at the October 26, 2021, meeting, the City Council has determined that the proposed wastewater rates set forth in the attached “Exhibit A” are appropriate and are needed to adequately reflect the cost of providing such services and to avoid a substantial shortfall revenue to the City for such services; and WHEREAS, all requirements of Proposition 218 have been met allowing the record owners of property receiving water service the ability to file a written protest vote against the proposed water rate increases, proper notice of a public hearing, and determination whether a majority protest exists; and ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2 of 4 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Guadalupe does ordain as follows:

Section 1. Wastewater Service Charges. On the effective date of this ordinance, wastewater service rates charged by the City shall be increased three percent (3%) over the rates in effect on the prior day.

Effective January 1, 2023, wastewater service rates charged by the City shall be increased three percent (3%) over the rates in effect on December 31, 2022. Effective January 1, 2024, wastewater service rates charged by the City will shall be increased 3% over the rates in effect on December 31, 2023. In addition, the number of units of wastewater available under the base rate for commercial accounts will decrease on January 1, 2023, from five (5) units per billing cycle to four (4) units per billing cycle. Example wastewater service rate increases are as set forth on Exhibit “A” attached to and made a part of this ordinance.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting held this 11th day of January 2022 on motion of Councilmember ________________, seconded by Councilmember _______________ and on the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Page 3 of 4 ends

Page 4 of 4 ends

ORDINANCE 2022-499

EXHIBIT A
Monthly wastewater rates Current
01/11/22
Proposed
Effective Date
Proposed
1/01/2023
Proposed
1/01/2024
Basic rate -commercial $52.72
(includes 5 CCF)
$54.30
(includes 5 CCF)
$55.93
(includes 4 CCF)
$57.61
(includes 4 CCF)
Each additional CCF $2.22 $2.29 $2.36 $2.43
Basic rate -residential $52.72 $54.30 $55.93 $57.61
1 unit = 100 cubic feet (CCF) = 748 gallons

Page 1 of 4 ends

Agenda Item No. 14

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of January 11, 2022
_______________________________ _________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Philip F. Sinco, City Attorney Todd Bodem, City Administrator SUBJECT: Short-Term Rentals Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council introduce on the first reading, and continue to its meeting of January 25, 2022, for second reading and adoption, an ordinance regulating short-term rentals in the City of Guadalupe and amending various provisions of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Guadalupe Municipal Code.

BACKGROUND:

In response to concerns about short-term rentalsin the City, a presentation was made to the City Council on October 13, 2020, concerning available options including a complete ban and various ways of regulating them. Council’s direction at that meeting was to allow them but for staff to prepare an ordinance regulating them and require property owners who rent all or a portion of their properties to short-term renters to obtain a business license and pay transient occupancy tax on these short-term stays.

Staff presented a proposed ordinance generally complying with the Council’s previous direction at its meeting on September 14, 2021, for discussion only. Several alternatives/options were also identified, and the Council was asked to provide input and direction about them. The Council directed that one of these options, namely, limiting short-term rentals to only one per property owner, should be added to the proposed ordinance. One additional change was also discussed, which was whether to permit unhosted short-term rentals to 180 days per year, rather than the 120 days in the proposed ordinance.

There was no consensus of Council on that issue, and therefore, further discussion of this possible change was deferred the meeting of September 28, 2021.

At the September 28, 2021, meeting, the Council was again unable to reach consensus on the maximum number of days per year for unhosted short-term rentals but determined that additional provisions for the proposed ordinance were required, including that more conditions should be included in the actual ordinance rather than delegated to the discretion of the Planning Director, such as requiring security cameras (exterior only). Also, there was a consensus to reduce the amnesty period for currently operating short-term rentals to comply with the ordinance from one-year to three months. Other issues related to ability to enforce and prevent violations of the ordinance were discussed, and there was support for the ordinance to be reviewed by Chief Cash to obtain his suggestions since the Police Philip F. Sinco

Page 2 of 4 ends

Department would be impacted by the ordinance. Staff agreed to do so and incorporate his recommendations into a revised ordinance. Two issues of particular concern to the Council included: (1) problems associated with the possible failure of an unhosted short-term rental operator to respond to a complaint within the 60 minutes required by the ordinance.; and (2) support for including a condition that onsite parking be required, even if that meant that the garage had to be made available.

Thereafter, Chief Cash provided his recommendations on the proposed ordinance which were included in a revised ordinance along with the changes requested by the City Council at the September 28th meeting. The revised proposed ordinance with these changes was presented to the City Council at its December 14, 2021, meeting.

At this meeting, the Council was again unable to reach consensus on the maximum number per year that an unhosted short-term rental would be permitted to operate, and once again, following its deliberations, the Council directed that some additional changes to the ordinance be made.

One of these changes was to include a provision in the ordinance that would allow the City to ban shortterm rentals in the future if the ordinance did not adequately regulate them or for some other reason.

Mayor Julian had asked what would happen should the City Council pass an ordinance completely banning short-term rentals at a future date. The City Attorney advised that the ordinance as proposed did not include any provision that would permit the Council to rescind any administrative use permits granted for unhosted short-term rentals, and therefore, a future ordinance banning them would likely have to allow a reasonable period of time before requiring them to cease being used for short-term rentals. The City Attorney requested that the Council continue this matter to the Council meeting of January 11, 2022, if it wanted to add a provision providing that any administrative use permits granted for unhosted short-term rentals would be rescinded if short-term rentals were banned at a future date.

The City Attorney explained that he wanted to conduct legal research on whether the Council could add such a provision and/or if some period of time would be required to allow short-term rentals to continue in the event of a future ban, and that this was too important of an issue to draft at the meeting.

Another issue of concern that was discussed was the requirement that all guest parking at short-term rentals be onsite. The City Attorney had expressed some concern that this provision might be subject to legal challenge because state law preempts all local parking laws and limits to what extent local jurisdictions are permitted to regulate parking on public streets. The City Attorney advised that he also conduct legal research on whether the City could require all parking to be onsite and whether there was a risk that this could be successfully challenged in court and would inform that Council when the revised ordinance was brought back to the Council.

Finally, after the meeting, the City Attorney and the Director of Public Safety conferred about the requirement that the lease agreement for each short-term rental be available onsite. The City Attorney advised that such lease agreements are generally not available onsite since most short-term rentals are rented by using one of the available online platforms such as AirBnb or VRBO. The Director of Public Safety explained that the Police Department needed to know the names of all short-term renters who had permission from the owner(s) to be at the property to adequately enforce trespass and nuisance laws. The City Attorney agreed to revise the ordinance so that the Police Department would have access to this information without requiring that an actual lease agreement be onsite and available for inspection by the Police Department in the event of an incident.

Page 3 of 4 ends

DISCUSSION:

Since this is the third time a proposed short-term rentals ordinance has been before the City Council, a detailed discussion about the proposed ordinance will not be set forth here. Any Councilmember or member of the public interested in an overview of the ordinance is referred to the agenda materials from prior meetings (i.e., September 14 and 28, and December 14, 2021). The following discussion will be limited to the changes being proposed since the December 14, 2021, Council meeting.

First, with respect to whether any administrative use permits granted for unhosted short-term rentals could be rescinded if the City Council adopted an ordinance banning short-term rentals at some time in the future, the City Attorney was unable to find a definitive answer. In general, any land use, whether as matter of right (permitted use), or granted by issuing an administrative use permit or a conditional use permit (conditional use), is entitled to continue for a reasonable period after the use is banned. A land use that was permitted or conditionally permitted in the past but is banned becomes a legal nonconforming use. The same is true for buildings constructed under prior building or zoning codes in that these buildings are not required to comply with current codes. While both nonconforming buildings and uses can be required to be terminated if the law changes, the “reasonable” time period to bring a building up to the current codes or be demolished is much longer than for land uses. For example, while it may be “reasonable” to require the demolition of a nonconforming building within 30 years after the enactment of a law resulting in the building becoming nonconforming, it has been held that five (5) years is reasonable for a commercial business in a residential zone to cease operations (City of Los Angeles v Gage (1954) 127 Cal.App.2d 442, and that one (1) year was reasonable to require an adult business to comply with new regulations or terminate operations (Castner v City of Oakland (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 94). In addition, courts have upheld immediate termination of nonconforming uses when they constitute a public nuisance. If the short-term rentals resulted in wide-spread nuisances and the Council were able to make adequate findings to support this, a future ordinance banning nonconforming uses such as unhosted short-term rentals might be able to be required to immediately cease operations. All things considered, however, should the City Council pass an ordinance in the future banning short-term rentals, it would be best (to reduce legal risk) for the ordinance to grant a reasonable period of time for shortterm rentals to continue to operate before requiring them to cease operations.

To reduce possible legal risk, the proposed ordinance has been revised to include the following provision:

The City reserves the right to change the regulations provided in this Chapter at any time, including discontinuing the issuance of short-term rental registrations and/or administrative use permits for Unhosted short-term rentals, notwithstanding any impacts to existing or future short-term permit holders. Anyone using a residential property as a short-term rental pursuant to this Chapter acknowledges and accepts that possibility.

Staff intends to include similar language in any administrative use permits issued for any unhosted shortterm rentals. This further reduces potential legal risk to the City should it decide to ban short-term rentals in the future.

Second, with respect to the possible legal risks of requiring that guests at short-term rentals be required to park their vehicle only onsite, the City Attorney is of the opinion that such risk is minimal. The City Attorney’s legal research did not find any cases that discussed this issue; many California cities that regulate short-term rentals either require all guest to park onsite or require a minimum number of onsite

Page 4 of 4 ends

parking spaces (typically one space per bedroom). In light of the fact that many cities require guest to park onsite, and in the absence of any published cases rejecting such a requirement, the City believes that the risk of a successful legal challenge to requiring onsite parking is minimal. Given the minimal risk, both sections in the ordinance concerning parking now provide as follows:

Parking shall be limited to on-site which may require that a garage be required to be made available for renters. All renters’ vehicles shall be required to display a sign on the dashboard of the vehicle indicating that it is permitted to be there by permission of the property owner with the dates of the rental period listed.

Third, with respect to Chief Cash’ recommendation that the lease agreement for each unhosted shortterm rental be available onsite so that responding police officers can determine who has the property owner’s permission to be at the property (and who does not), the ordinance has been revised so that this information is available to police officers, although not from requiring a lease agreement to be onsite. Instead, the local contact person will be required to have this information for each short-term rental. In addition, and while not discussed at the December 14, 2021, meeting, the revised ordinance also requires the local contact person to have the license plate numbers for all vehicles that belong to the short-term renter(s). Specifically, the relevant language in the revised ordinance has been changed (in two places) as follows:

The local contact person shall be required to have the names of all persons who have the permission of the property owner(s) to be at the property for each short-term rental. In addition, the local contact person shall be required to have the license plate numbers for all vehicles permitted to park onsite during the time period of each short-term rental. The local contact person shall promptly provide this information any member of the Police Department upon request. A failure to comply with this provision shall be a misdemeanor violation subject to a criminal citation, or issuance of an administrative citation, at the discretion of Public Safety personnel.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There are about 10-12 short-term rentals in the City known at present, and assuming an average nightly rental of $175 (conservative estimate) and an estimated 120 rental days/nights (conservative estimate), there would be a modest increase to the general fund from transient occupancy taxes of approximately $12,00,000 to $15,000 annually. Staff costs to issue the registration certificates, business licenses, and administrative use permits for unhosted short-term rentals would be largely offset by associated City fees.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Ordinance No. 2021-497 entitled “An Ordinance of the City of Guadalupe Adding Chapter 18.55 to Title 18 and Amending Various Other Sections of Title 18 of the Guadalupe Municipal Code Regulating the Short-Term Rental of Residential Dwelling Units.” ORDINANCE NO. 2021-497
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE ADDING CHAPTER 18.55 TO TITLE 18 AND AMENDING VARIOUS OTHER SECTIONS OF TITLE 18 OF THE

GUADALUPE MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL OF

RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
WHEREAS, the City of Guadalupe has a number of existing, unpermitted, dwelling units being used as short-term rentals defined as any occupancy of less than thirty (30) consecutive days; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Guadalupe has determined not to completely ban shortterm rentals, although it reserves the right to discontinue permitting short-term rentals, instead choosing to regulate them;
WHEREAS, the City Council intends that short-term rental regulations that allow limited shortterm rentals should preserve residential character and establish operating standards to reduce potential noise, parking, traffic, property maintenance, safety, and other impacts on adjacent neighbors as well as provide a process to track and enforce all requirements and ensure appropriate collection of transient occupancy taxes; and WHEREAS, the City Council also intends that short-term rental regulations that allow limited short-term rentals not violate any private conditions, covenants, and restrictions or rules of a homeowners or community association applicable to the owner’s property that may prohibit the owner from using his or her property as a short-term rental unit; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered a proposed ordinance regulating short-term rentals and amending various provisions of the City of Guadalupe Zoning Ordinance Amendment on September 14, 2021; and
WHEREAS, on September 28, 2021, the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on the proposed short-term rental ordinance and Zoning Ordinance amendments; and WHEREAS, at the September 28, 2021, meeting, the City Council made some recommendations for the proposed ordinance and directed staff to incorporate these recommendations and bring the ordinance back to the City Council at a future meeting; and WHEREAS, after staff complied with the direction from the City Council, the City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on the proposed short-term rental ordinance and Zoning Ordinance amendments on December 14, 2021; and
ATTACHMENT 1
WHEREAS, at the public hearing the City Council considered the whole of the record including, but not limited to, any written and oral public comments, staff reports and staff presentations.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Guadalupe does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Chapter 18.55 is hereby added to Title 18 of the Guadalupe Municipal Code to read as follows:

18.55.01 Purpose.

The purpose of this section is to:

A. Allow limited short-term rental uses while preserving residential character and establish operating standards to reduce potential noise, parking, traffic, property maintenance, safety, and other impacts on adjacent neighbors; and
B. Provide a process to track and enforce these requirements as needed and ensure appropriate collection of transient occupancy taxes.

C. Prohibit all short-term rentals except as provided for in this Chapter.

D. The City reserves the right to change the regulations provided in this Chapter at any time, including discontinuing the issuance of short-term rental registrations and/or administrative use permits for Unhosted short-term rentals, notwithstanding any impacts to existing or future short-term permit holders. Anyone using a residential property as a short -term rental unit pursuant to this Chapter acknowledges and accepts that possibility.

18.55.02 Definitions.

For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

A. Neighboring properties. The dwelling units located on any properties within 100 feet of the property lines where the dwelling unit on which the short-term rental is located, measured in all directions from these property lines.

B. Host. Any person(s) who, or entity that, is the owner of record of residential real property on which a dwelling unit, or portion thereof, is offered for short-term rental either through a hosting platform or individually as an operator.

C. Hosting platform. A means through which a host may offer a dwelling unit, or portion thereof, for short-term rental. A hosting platform includes, but is not limited to, an internet-based platform that allows a host to advertise and potentially arrange for temporary occupation of the dwelling unit, or portion thereof, through a publicly searchable website, whether the short-term renter pays rent directly to the host or to the hosting platform.

D. Hosted short-term rental. A short-term rental for which the host resides and maintains a physical presence during the short-term rental period, including being present on the property between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. each day of the short-term rental period.

E. Short-term rental. The use or possession of or the right to use or possess any dwelling unit, or portions thereof in any dwelling unit, for residing, sleeping, or lodging purposes for less than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days, counting portions of days as full calendar days.

F. Short-term renter. A person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy by reason of concession, permit, right of access, license, or other agreement for a period of less than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full calendar days.

G. Unhosted short-term rental. A short-term rental where the Host does not occupy a portion of the dwelling unit that is offered for a short-term rental during the period of the short-term rental (or does not occupy another dwelling unit located on the same property where the short-term rental is located during the period of the short-term rental).

18.55.03 Permitted use - hosted short-term rentals
Hosted short-term rental uses shall be permitted in all residential zones in the City of Guadalupe subject to the requirements of this Chapter, including compliance with the operating standards, registration provisions, transient occupancy tax payments, and recordkeeping obligations, unless such short-term rentals are specifically prohibited by conditions, covenants, and restrictions and/or by any rules adopted by a homeowners or community association that apply to the property owner and prohibit the Host from using the property as a short-term rental.

18.55.04 Administrative use permit required for unhosted short-term rentals Unhosted short-term rental uses shall be allowed in all residential zones in the City of Guadalupe subject to obtaining an administrative use permit as provided in Chapter 18.72 in addition to compliance with the operating standards, registration requirements, transient occupancy tax payments, and recordkeeping obligations, unless such short-term rentals are specifically prohibited by conditions, covenants, and restrictions that apply to the property and/or by any rules adopted by a homeowners or community association that apply to the property owner and prohibit the Host from using the property as a short-term rental. In addition to any conditions imposed by the Planning Department, conditions imposed for all administrative use permits issued for Unhosted short-term rentals shall include the following conditions:

A. The local contact person shall be required to have the names of all persons who have the permission of the property owner(s) to be at the property for each short-term rental. In addition, the local contact person shall be required to have the license plate numbers for all vehicles permitted to park onsite during the time period of each short-term rental. The local contact person shall promptly provide this information any member of the Police Department upon request. A failure to comply with this provision shall be a misdemeanor violation subject to a criminal citation, or issuance of an administrative citation, at the discretion of Public Safety personnel.

B. Three (3) contacts by Public Safety personnel at an Unhosted short-term rental property within a 20- day period shall permit the City to initiate administrative cost recovery, including for Public Safety personnel’s time and expense, in addition to other administrative cost recovery and imposition of administrative citations and penalties as allowed by this Code.

C. The Host shall sign and submit a “Trespass Enforcement Authorization Letter” authorizing Public Safety personnel to act on behalf of Host and enter the property to correct improper and/or illegal activities if three (3) or more attempts to contact the Host, resident(s), designated local contact, or other responsible party have failed, or have not resulted in correction of the improper and/or illegal activities within a reasonable time after contact has been made.

D. Surveillance cameras shall be installed and positioned in such a way to be able to record all persons coming onto the property of any Unhosted short-term rental (exterior only) during the term of any shortterm rental of the property. All recordings shall be kept for a minimum of thirty (30) days and shall be made available to the City upon request.

E. Parking shall be limited to on-site which may require that a garage be required to be made available for renters. All renters’ vehicles shall be required to display a sign on the dashboard of the vehicle indicating that it is permitted to be there by permission of the property owner with the dates of the rental period listed.

F. If the Unhosted short-term rental has outdoor space such as a patio, balcony, courtyard, etc., the Host shall require renters to cease using such outdoor space no later than 9 p.m. on Sundays through Thursdays, and no later than 10 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays.

18.55.05 Registration Application and Annual Renewal.

A. Registration and Annual Renewal.

1. Application. Prior to advertising or making available any residence for short-term rents, Hosts shall register the residence as a short-term rental with the City. This registration shall be submitted on a form prepared by the City and shall include the name and contact information of the Host, the address of the dwelling unit(s) being used for short-term rental, the contact information for the local contact person, an acknowledgement of compliance with the requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Codes, applicable health and safety standards, and other information as requested. If the application is for an Unhosted short-term rental, an administrative use permit as provided in Chapter 18.72 must be obtained prior to submitting the application, or such application will be rejected or deemed incomplete.

2. Fee. The registration form shall be accompanied by a filing fee in an amount established by resolution of the City Council and updated from time to time.

3. Application Completeness. The submitted information shall be used to determine whether to register the short-term rental. The Host will be notified if an application is incomplete. If the Host fails to timely submit the required information or fees necessary to complete the application, the application shall be deemed withdrawn. An application will expire (90) days after submission unless extended by the City Administrator upon a showing of good cause. If an application is incomplete and fees have been submitted, they will only be refunded if City staff does not review the application.

4. Decision. The City Administrator or designee shall be responsible for deciding short-term rental registration applications. After an application is deemed complete, registration shall be approved where:
a. The Host demonstrates the ability to meet the requirements of this Chapter. b. The subject dwelling unit is not the subject of an active code compliance order or administrative citation from the City in the past twelve (12) months.
c. A short-term rental registration for the dwelling unit has not been denied or revoked in the prior twelve (12) month period.
d. An administrative use permit has been obtained if the short-term rental is an Unhosted short-term rental property.
e. The Department of Public Safety shall be provided with a copy of the approved registration upon issuance to Host.

5. Validity. An approved registration shall be valid and payable on a fiscal year basis. An approved registration shall be personal to the Host and shall automatically expire upon sale or transfer of the dwelling unit. No registration may be assigned, transferred, or loaned to any other person.

6. Annual Renewal. A registration may be renewed annually upon payment of registration renewal fees and all required transient occupancy tax remittance associated with the short-term rental. The Host shall submit such information concerning the short-term rental activity as may be required to verify the amount of tax paid. Failure to renew prior to the expiration date will result in expiration of the registration.

C. Requirements Not Exclusive. The issuance of a short-term rental registration shall not relieve any person of the obligation to comply with all other provisions of this Code applicable to the use and occupancy of the property.

18.55.06 Operating standards and requirements.

The following operating standards and requirements shall apply to short-term rentals:

A. Legal Dwelling. Short-term rentals may only occur within legal dwelling units with no open code compliance cases.

B. Business license: Any property used as a short-term rental requires approval of a City business license.

C. One Short-Term Rental Allowed Per Host: The same Host may only operate one short-term rental in the City of Guadalupe.

C. Annual Limit. A dwelling unit may be occupied as an Unhosted short-term rental for no more than one hundred twenty (120) days per calendar year. There is no limit on the number of days a primary residence may be occupied as a short-term rental where the Host is present. For purposes of this Chapter, a Host is considered present when they are on the premises at all times between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.

D. Local Contact Person. For Unhosted short-term rentals, Hosts shall identify to all guests and all occupants of neighboring properties a local contact person to be available twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week during the term of any unhosted stay. The designated local contact person shall:

1. Respond within thirty (30) minutes to complaints regarding the condition or operation of the dwelling unit or the conduct of guests; and

2. Take remedial action to resolve such complaints.

3. The local contact person shall be required to have the names of all persons who have the permission of the property owner(s) to be at the property for each short-term rental. In addition, the local contact person shall be required to have the license plate numbers for all vehicles permitted to park onsite during the time period of each short-term rental. The local contact person shall promptly provide this information any member of the Police Department upon request.

E. Parking. Parking shall be limited to on-site which may require that a garage be required to be made available for renters. All renters’ vehicles shall be required to display a sign on the dashboard of the vehicle indicating that it is permitted to be there by permission of the property owner with the dates of the rental period listed.

F. Special events. Weddings, corporate events, commercial functions, and any other similar events which have the potential to cause traffic, parking, noise, or other problems in the neighborhood are prohibited from occurring at the short-term rental property, as a component of short-term rental activities.

G. Administrative policy. The City Administrator or designee shall have the authority to develop administrative policies to implement the intent of this Section.

H. Transient occupancy tax (TOT). Transient occupancy taxes must be collected for short-term rentals and paid to the City pursuant to Chapter 3.20 of the Guadalupe Municipal Code. Collection of transient occupancy taxes for short-term rentals shall be the responsibility of the Host. The hosting platform shall collect TOT if the City and the hosting platform have entered into a voluntary collection agreement (or equivalent) with the City.

I. Records of compliance. The Host shall retain records documenting the compliance with these requirements for a period of three (3) years after each period of short-term rental, including but not limited to records showing payment of transient occupancy taxes by a hosting platform on behalf of a Host. Upon request and reasonable notice, the host shall provide any such documentation to City for the purpose of inspection or audit to the City Administrator or his/her designee.

J. Violations.

1. Notice of Violation. The City may issue a notice of violation to any occupant, owner(s) or operator, pursuant to this Chapter or this Code, if there is any violation of this Chapter committed, caused or maintained by any of the above parties.

2. Administrative Citation. The City may issue an administrative citation to the property owner(s) pursuant to Chapter 1.11 of this Code if there is any violation of this Chapter or this Code committed, caused, or maintained. Nothing in this section shall preclude the City from also issuing an infraction or misdemeanor citation upon the occurrence of the same offense on the same day to any occupant, owner(s) or the operator. Unless otherwise provided herein, any person issued an administrative citation shall for each separate violation be subject to an administrative fine in an amount not to exceed one thousand dollars.

3. Criminal Citation. The City may issue an infraction or misdemeanor citation to any occupant, owner(s) or operator, pursuant to the provisions set forth in Section 1.08.020 (Infractions) or Section

1.08.030 (Misdemeanors) for Municipal Code violations.

K. Revocation of registration. A short-term rental registration issued under the provisions of this Chapter may be revoked by the Planning Director after notice and hearing as provided for in this section, for any of the following reasons:
a. Fraud, misrepresentation, or false statements contained in the application; b. Fraud, misrepresentation, or false statements made in the course of carrying on a short-term rental as regulated by this Chapter;
c. Any violation of any provision of this Chapter or of any provision of this Code; or d. Any violation of any provision of federal, state or local laws.

2. Revocation hearing. Before revoking a short-term rental registration, the Planning Director or designee shall give the responsible Host notice in writing of the proposed revocation and of the grounds thereunder, and also, the time and place at which the Host will be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause why the registration should not be revoked. The notice may be served personally upon the Host or may be mailed to the host at the last known address or at any address shown upon the application at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing. Upon conclusion of the hearing the Planning Director or designee may, for the grounds set forth herein, revoke the registration.

3. Appeal from denial or revocation of registration. Any Host whose application has been denied or registration has been revoked by the Director or designee shall have the right to an administrative appeal before the City Council. An appeal shall be filed in writing on a form provided by the City stating the grounds therefor within ten (10) days of the decision. The City Council shall hold a hearing thereon within a reasonable time and the decision shall be final.

4. Waiting period. Any Host whose registration has been denied or revoked shall be ineligible from applying for a new registration for a twenty-four-month period.

L. Amnesty period for short-term rentals. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, short-term rentals operating on or before the enactment of this Chapter shall be considered existing, unpermitted uses.

An amnesty period of three (3) months after the effective date of the ordinance from which this Chapter is derived is being offered to allow these existing, unpermitted uses to be legalized by conforming to the requirements of this Chapter, including, but not limited to, compliance with operating standards and requirements, registration, and recordkeeping obligations, and obtaining of an administrative use permit for any Unhosted short-term rentals. Transient occupancy tax payments are required for short-term rentals and must be collected and paid during the amnesty period. Applications to bring an existing, unpermitted shortterm rental use into compliance shall be approved by the City on or before three (3) months after the effective date of the ordinance from which this Chapter is derived, or the short-term rental use must cease until the City has approved the application. Existing short-term rental uses that do not conform to the requirements of this Chapter shall cease operation within three (3) months of the effective date of the ordinance from which this Chapter is derived and shall be prohibited from resuming unless and until the use conforms to the requirements of this Chapter.

SECTION 2. Section 18.20.020 of Title 18, Chapter 18.20 of the Guadalupe Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.20.020 Permitted uses.

Permitted uses in the R-1 district include:

A. One single-family dwelling; the dwelling shall be of a permanent character, placed upon a permanent foundation, and shall not be a mobile home or other temporary or vehicular type of dwelling; B. Accessory buildings or uses, such as garages, patios, swimming pools or storage sheds, which are normally incidental to a single-family residence if constructed simultaneously with or subsequent to the main building on the same lot;
C. The storage of recreational (trailer) vehicles within the rear yard provided that said vehicle is located a minimum of 5 feet from all property lines and structures; D. The storage of recreational (trailer) vehicles within the side yard (or street side yard of corner lots) provided that all of the design standards contained in Municipal Code Section 18.60.035 can be met; E. Group dwellings with 6 or fewer residents, such as boardinghouses, family care homes, rest homes, convalescent homes, or other similar residential uses, provided that there shall not be more than one residing occupant for each 500 square feet of land within the lot or parcel on which the dwellings are located;
F. A minimum of 60% of the rear yard area shall be retained for landscaping. Storage of RVs, boats, trailers and other vehicles shall be stored on a paved surface for which zoning clearance is required; G. Small family daycares;
H. Large family daycares, provided that no large family daycare is closer than 300 feet from another; I. Home occupations;
J. Keeping household pets.;
K. Hosted short-term rentals as permitted by Section 18.55.03.

SECTION 3. Section 18.20.030 of Title 18, Chapter 18.20 of the Guadalupe Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.20.030 Conditional uses.

Uses permitted subject to obtaining a conditional use permit, or an administrative use permit when allowed, in the R-1 district include:

A. A church, public or private elementary school, park, playground, public utility building or public building, along with required parking;
B. Accessory buildings or uses normally incidental to a single-family residence, if constructed or installed prior to the main building on the same lot;
C. Employee housing as defined by Section 18.08.328 of this title, where accommodations are provided to 7 or more employees in a dwelling unit, or on a single parcel if there is also an accessory dwelling unit and/or a junior accessory dwelling unit in addition to the primary dwelling unit on the parcel.

D. Unhosted short-term rentals as permitted by Section 18.55.04.

SECTION 4. Section 18.21.020 of Title 18, Chapter 18.21 of the Guadalupe Municipal Code (regarding R-1 (SP) Residential Single Family – Low Density (Specific Plan)) is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.21.040 Permitted uses.

Permitted uses are limited to those outlined in the adopted specific plan, and short-term rentals as permitted by Sections 18.55.03 and 18.55.04. For the DJ Farms specific plan, schools and public parks are permitted.

SECTION 5. Section 18.24.030 of Title 18, Chapter 18.24 of the Guadalupe Municipal Code (R-1- M Single-Family (Medium-Density) Residential District) is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.24.030 Conditional uses.

Uses permitted subject to obtaining a conditional use permit, or an administrative use permit when allowed, in the R-1-M district shall be the same as those listed in Section 18.20.030 for the R-1 district.

SECTION 6. Section 18.28.020 of Title 18, Chapter 18.28 of the Guadalupe Municipal Code (R-2 Multiple Dwelling (Medium-Density) Residential District) is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.28.020 Permitted uses.

Uses permitted in the R-2 district include:

A. One or more single-family or multiple-family dwellings, including apartment houses or condominiums, provided that there shall be no more than one dwelling unit for each 3,000 square feet of land within the lot or parcel on which the dwelling is located. All dwellings shall be of a permanent character, placed upon a permanent foundation, and shall not be a mobile home or other temporary or vehicular type of dwelling;
B. All multiple units in R-2 medium-density residential zones placed on one lot must be attached; C. Group dwellings with 6 or fewer residents, such as boardinghouses, family care homes, rest homes, convalescent homes, or other similar residential uses, provided that there shall not be more than one residing occupant for each 500 square feet of land within the lot or parcel on which the dwellings are located; D. Accessory buildings or uses, only if constructed simultaneously with, or subsequent to, the main building on the same lot;
E. Public park or playground;
F. A minimum of 60% of the rear yard area shall be retained for landscaping. Storage of RVs, boats, trailers and other vehicles shall be stored on a paved surface for which zoning clearance is required; G. Hosted short-term rentals as permitted by Section 18.55.03.

SECTION 7. Section 18.28.030 of Title 18, Chapter 18.28 of the Guadalupe Municipal Code (R-2 Multiple Dwelling (Medium-Density) Residential District) is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.28.030 Conditional uses.

Uses permitted subject to obtaining a conditional use permit, or an administrative use permit when allowed, in the R-2 district include:

A. Group dwellings with more than 6 residents, such as boardinghouses, family care homes, rest homes, convalescent homes, or other similar residential uses, provided that such a group dwelling shall not be located within 300 feet of the boundaries of a parcel containing another group dwelling, unless a conditional use permit is issued on the basis that waiver of such separation requirement would not be materially detrimental or injurious to the property, improvements or uses in the immediate vicinity; B. A church, public or private elementary school, public utility building or public building, along with required parking;
C. Accessory buildings or uses normally incidental to a single-family residence, if constructed or installed prior to the main building on the same lot;
D. A home occupation;
E. Employee housing as defined by Section 18.08.328 of this title, where accommodations are provided to 7 or more employees in a dwelling unit, or on a single parcel if there is also an accessory dwelling unit and/or a junior accessory dwelling unit in addition to the primary dwelling unit on the parcel; F. Unhosted short-term rentals as permitted by Section 18.55.04.

SECTION 8. Section 18.32.020 of Title 18, Chapter 18.32 of the Guadalupe Municipal Code (R-3 Multiple Dwelling (High-Density) Residential District) is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.32.020 Permitted uses.

Uses permitted in the R-3 district include:

A. One or more single-family or multiple-family dwellings, including apartment houses or condominiums, providing there shall be no more than one dwelling unit for each 1,700 square feet of land in the lot or parcel on which the dwellings are located; B. Group dwellings with 6 or fewer residents, such as boardinghouses, family care homes, rest homes, convalescent homes, or other similar residential uses, provided that there shall not be more than one residing occupant for each 500 square feet of land within the lot or parcel on which the dwellings are located;
C. Offices, recreation facilities, dining rooms, laundry facilities and other incidental uses constructed simultaneously or subsequent to the main building on the same lot; D. A church, public or private school, public building, public utility building, park or playground; E. A minimum of 60% of the rear yard area shall be retained for landscaping. Storage of RVs, boats, trailers and other vehicles shall be stored on a paved surface for which zoning clearance is required.; F. Hosted short-term rentals as permitted by Section 18.55.03.

SECTION 9. Section 18.32.030 of Title 18, Chapter 18.32 of the Guadalupe Municipal Code (R-3 Multiple Dwelling (High-Density) Residential District) is hereby amended to read as follows:

18.32.030 Conditional uses.

Uses permitted subject to obtaining a conditional use permit, or an administrative use permit when allowed, in the R-3 district include:

A. Mobile home parks or recreational vehicle parks;
B. Mortuaries;
C. A home occupation;
D. Group dwellings with more than 6 occupants, such as hotels, motels, boardinghouses, family care homes, rest homes, convalescent homes or other similar residential uses, provided that such a group dwelling shall not be located within 300 feet of the boundaries of a parcel containing another group dwelling, unless a conditional use permit is issued on the basis that waiver of such separation requirement would not be materially detrimental or injurious to the property, improvements or uses in the immediate vicinity;
E. Accessory buildings or uses normally incidental to one of the uses permitted above, if constructed or installed prior to the main building on the same lot; F. Employee housing as defined by Section 18.08.328 of this title, where accommodations are provided to 7 or more employees in a dwelling unit, or on a single parcel if there is also an accessory dwelling unit and/or a junior accessory dwelling unit in addition to the primary dwelling unit on the parcel; G. Unhosted short-term rentals as permitted by Section 18.55.04.

SECTION 10. Sections 18.72.150 through 18.72.20 of Chapter 18.72 of Title 18 of the Guadalupe Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows:

18.72.150 Issuance conditions.

Administrative use permits (AUP) when required or allowed by this Code are limited to permit applications for an accessory dwelling unit and shall be issued only if the findings identified in Section

18.72.190 can be made. The Planning Director or designee shall impose such conditions as deemed necessary to serve the purposes of this title, and may require tangible guarantees or evidence that such conditions are being or will be complied with.

18.72.160 Application—Information RequiredProperty Owner(s).

Application for an AUP shall be made in writing by the majority property owner(s). A copy of the application for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) may be considered the official application for an AUP at the discretion of the Planning Director or designee.

18.72.170 Application fee.

No additional A fee shall be required to process an AUP once the ADU processing fee has been in an amount established by resolution of the City Council and updated from time to time.

18.72.180 Application—Director determination.

Upon receipt of the application for an administrative use permit and payment of the application deposit, the Planning Director or designee shall evaluate the request and determine if the findings listed in Section

18.72.090 can be made to approve the request.

18.72.190 Findings for approval.

A. In order to approve an administrative use permit, under Section 18.53.080 to waive any development standard or other requirement set forth in Section 18.53.050 the Planning Director or designee shall make specific findings that granting the waiver will meet the purposes of Chapter 18.53 (Accessory Dwelling Units) and this title and the administrative use permit will not be detrimental to public health and safety, introduce unreasonable adverse impacts to the immediate neighbors, and would not overburden sewer and water services, or overburden traffic flow or parking.

B. In order to deny an administrative use permit under Section 18.53.080, the Planning Director or designee shall find that the ADU would be detrimental to the public health and safety, would introduce unreasonable adverse impacts to the immediate neighbors, would overburden sewer and water services, or overburden traffic flow.

18.72.200 Administrative hearing.

Prior to issuing an administrative use permit under this cChapter, the Planning Director or designee shall cause an administrative hearing to be noticed and held in the following manner:

A. Notice of Hearing. Notice of a public hearing shall contain the information required by Government Code Section 65094 and any additional information the Director deems appropriate. In addition, the notice shall declare that the application for the administrative use permit will be acted on without a public hearing if no request for a hearing is made.

B. Method of Notice/Distribution. Notice of public hearings shall be given as provided by Government Code Section 65091.

C. Public Hearing. A public hearing on an administrative use permit shall occur only when a hearing is requested by the applicant or other interested person(s). This request shall be made in writing to the Planning Director or designee no later than seven (7) days after the date of the public notice. In the event a public hearing is requested, the hearing on the administrative use permit shall be held on the date and time as defined in the public notice. At the request of the project applicant and/or at the discretion of the Planning Director or designee, a public hearing may be continued from time to time, but notice of the further hearings may be required to be provided again in the same manner as provided by subsection A. All costs associated with noticing shall be borne by the property owner.

D. Conduct of Hearing. At the public hearing, interested persons may present information and testimony relevant to a decision on the proposed AUP.

E. Final Decision. Immediately after the conclusion of public testimony in the case of a public hearing, or no sooner than the date of the meeting specified in the public notice required by subsection A, the Planning Director or designee shall announce the final decision, continue the decision to a future date, or announce that the matter will be referred to the City Council for a final decision.

SECTION 6. This Ordinance has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the CEQA guidelines, and has been found to be exempt pursuant to §15306 of the CEQA Guidelines(Information Collection) because it does not have the potential to create a physical environmental effect.

SECTION 7. The City Council declares that each section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause, and phrase of this Ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause, and phrase of this Ordinance. If any section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is held invalid, the City Council declares it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this Ordinance irrespective of the portion held invalid, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this Ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated.

SECTION 8. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance of the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the City Clerk shall consult with the City Administrator and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 11 th day of January 2021, by the
following vote:

MOTION:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

PASSED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the City Council on the 25th day of January 2022, by the following roll call vote:

MOTION:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

ATTEST:
__________________________________ ______________________________ Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk Ariston Julian, Mayor
APPROVED AS IS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Philip F. Sinco, City Attorney

Page 1 of 2 ends

Guadalupe City CouncilJanuary 11, 2022

Guadalupe City Council
January 11, 2022