Agenda packet — Guadalupe City Council, July 11, 2023 (part 1 of 3)

July 11, 2023 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Agenda Page 1 of 5 City of Guadalupe
AGENDA
Regular Meeting of the Guadalupe City Council and
Tuesday, July 11, 2023, at 6:00 pm
City Hall, 918 Obispo Street, Council Chambers
The City Council meeting will broadcast live streamed on the City of Guadalupe’s Official YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaxeHWd9JkmvKnGFU8BAYQQ If you choose not to attend the City Council meeting but wish to make a comment during Community Participation Forum or on a specific agenda item, please submit via email to [email protected] no later than 2:00 pm on Tuesday, July 11, 2023.

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.

1. ROLL CALL:

Council Member Christina Hernandez
Council Member Gilbert Robles
Council Member Megan Lizalde
Mayor Pro Tempore Eugene Costa Jr.

Mayor Ariston Julian

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. MOMENT OF THANKS, APPRECIATION OR CONDOLENCES.

July 11, 2023 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Agenda Page 2 of 5

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

Pursuant to the 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.

6. 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.

B. Approve payment of warrants for the period ending July 3, 2023, and ratify payment of warrants for the period ending June 19, 2023.

C. Approve the Minutes of the City Council regular meeting of June 27, 2023.

D. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-56 authorizing the City to enter into an agreement with Chisam Utility Management LLC for professional Interim Public Works Director/City Engineering services.

E. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-57 designating Interim Public Works Director/City Engineer Dwayne Chisam, as the authorized agent and signatory for Guadalupe Transit grants, documents, and related periodic reports, effective July 12, 2023, with the departure of the current signatory, Shannon Sweeney.

F. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-58 establishing the revised appropriations limit from tax proceeds for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.

G. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-59 accepting a donation of $41,127.28 to the Guadalupe Police Department from the One805 Foundation towards the purchase of a generator for the public safety building.

H. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-60 authorizing the purchase and installation of a generator for the Guadalupe Police Department building utilizing grant monies from the One805 Foundation and ARPA funding (and from Proposition 172 funds, in necessary).

July 11, 2023 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Agenda Page 3 of 5 I. MONTHLY REPORTS FROM DEPARTMENT HEADS

1. Planning Department report for June 2023

2. Building Department report for June 2023

3. Recreation and Parks reports for April & May 2023

7. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT: (Information Only)

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

PUBLIC HEARING

9. Review and approval of Draft Housing Element for review by Housing and Community Development (HCD) and adopting of Resolution No. 2023-61.

Written report: Larry Appel, Contract Planning Director Recommendation: That the City Council:
a. Receive a presentation from staff and consultant; and b. Conduct a public hearing; and
c. Direct staff to transmit the Draft Housing Element to HCD for the required 90-day review; and d. Direct consultant to prepare and appropriate draft environmental document to address any impacts created by adopting of the Draft Housing Element.

10. Completion and Close-Out of CDBG FY 2017 Grant Project: Le Roy Park and Community Center and City of Guadalupe Community Resilience Plan.

Written report: Tiffany Gonzales, Community Development Director, LADG Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing seeking community input on the completion of the City’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) FY 2017 Grant Project: Le Roy Park and Community Center and City of Guadalupe Community Resilience Plan, adopt Resolution No. 2023-62 for the approval and acceptance of the City of Guadalupe Community Resilience Plan, and adopt Resolution No. 2023-63 for the approval and acceptance of the completion and closeout report of the City of Guadalupe’s CDBG FY 2017 project/contract prior to the close-out of the grant as required by the Community Development Block Grant close-out process.

REGULAR BUSINESS

11. Fiscal Year 2021-22 Audited Financial Statements, Single Audit Report, and GANN 2022 AgreedUpon Procedures.

Staff Report: Janice Davis, Finance Director
Presentation: Mitesh Desai, Badawi & Associates
Recommendation: That the City Council receive and accept the City of Guadalupe Financial Statements for the Year ended June 30, 2022, along with the Independent Auditor’s Report, as well as accept the Single Audit Report for 2022 and the GANN 2022 Agreed-Upon Procedures.

July 11, 2023 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Agenda Page 4 of 5

12. New job description and classification of Finance Clerk, regular, part-time (non-benefit) position in the Finance Department.

Written report: Tegnear Butler, Human Resources Manager Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-64 approving the classification and job description for the regular, part-time Finance Clerk position in the Finance Department and authorizing staff to initiate recruitment.

13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

14. ANNOUNCEMENTS – COUNCIL ACTIVITY/COMMITTEE REPORTS

15. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION MEETING

16. Conference with Labor Negotiators
(Subdivision (a) of Gov. Code Section 54957.6)
Agency designated representatives: City Administrator and Human Resources Manager Employee organizations: Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 620; Guadalupe Police Officers Association (POA)

17. ADJOURNMENT TO OPEN SESSION MEETING

18. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS

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 6th day of July 2023.
______________________________
Todd Bodem, City Administrator
Todd Bodem
July 11, 2023 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, July 25, 2023, at 6:00 pm / Regular Meeting
Central Coast Community Energy 3CE Presentation
FY 23-24 Budget Adoption Finance Department Regular Business Waste Management Contract Extension City Attorney Regular Business Tuesday, August 8, 2023, at 6:00 pm / Regular Meeting
Tuesday, August 22, 2023, at 6:00 pm / Regular
Meeting
Other Unscheduled Items Proposed
Date of Item
Department Agenda Category
Tree Ordinance Public Works New Business
Sidewalk Vending Ordinance Planning Department New Business Food Truck and Special Event Ordinance Planning Dept New Business Gift Policy City Attorney New Business
Benefit for Unrepresented Employees Human Resources New Business State of City Report Admin Department New Business
Agenda Item No. 6B

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of July 11, 2023
Prepi;/J;:,
Veronica Fabian
Finance Account Clerk Finance Director
Approved by:

Todd Bodem
City Administrator
SUBJECT:

RECOMMENDATION:

Payment of warrants for the period ending July 03, 2023, 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 approved the listing of hand checks and warrants to be paid on July 12, 2023.

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 Agenda Item No. 6B

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Prepa�Y.

Veronica Fabian
Finance Account Clerk
Agenda of July 11, 2023
Janice Davis
Finance Director
Approved by:

Todd Bodem
City Administrator
SUBJECT: Payment of warrants for the period ending June 19, 2023, to be ratified for payment by the City Council. Subject to having been certified as being in conformity with the budget by the Finance Department staff.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council review and ratified the listing of hand checks and warrants to be paid on June 28, 2023.

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.
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 June 27, 2023 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 7

MINUTES
City of Guadalupe
Regular Meeting of the Guadalupe City Council
Tuesday, June 27, 2023, at 6:00 pm
City Hall, 918 Obispo Street, Council Chambers

1. ROLL CALL:

Council Member Christina Hernandez
Council Member Gilbert Robles
Council Member Megan Lizalde
Mayor Pro Tempore Eugene Costa Jr.

Mayor Ariston Julian
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Julian.

All Present

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. MOMENT OF THANKS, APPRECIATION OR CONDOLENCES.

Mayor Julian shared his condolences to former Interim City Administrator Bob Perrault in the passing of his son.

The City Administrator said that Council Member Hernandez received an environmental award. He read from a flyer that stated Christina Hernandez is a Central Coast native and a Guadalupe City Councilmember who grew up in the small city of Guadalupe. She never thought she would work in community outreach and environmental activism, but she found a niche in the nonprofit world.

Working at a natural history museum, she has inspired others to participate in improving Guadalupe by putting her own boots on the ground. Since 2014, Christina has educated herself on the importance of environmental stewardship and has made it her goal to intertwine this mentality within her own community. After completing the California Naturalist and Climate Steward Program, Christina saw new connections with governmental bodies to bring resources to Guadalupe.

In Guadalupe, Christina is known to lead beach clean-ups in partnership with government agencies and other nonprofits. She knows that Guadalupe’s significance and splendor lies in its unique dune ecosystem. Her goal is to bridge the gap between her community and the activism that will enhance this small coastal town’s appreciation for its natural and historical integrity. She plans to continue the mission of educating the community and hopes to see her grassroots efforts spread beyond local levels.

4. AGENDA REVIEW
Agenda Item No. 6C
June 27, 2023 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 7 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 changes made to the agenda.

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

Pursuant to the 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. The City Council may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future City Council meeting.

Deek Segovia
Mr. Segovia mentioned that the newly installed Veterans Memorial flag and landscaping area was over planned that left extra area so there is a need to sell more infill bricks for $50 each. Segovia will share informational materials with various city departments on where to purchase these bricks.

Jerry Kaufman
Mr. Kaufman mentioned that the Vietnam Veterans of America Chapter 982 invites the City Council to a fundraising program to be held on November 11th from 12:00 noon to 3:00 p.m. at the Veterans Memorial building.

George Alvarez
Mr. Alvarez expressed the need to hire more police officers, especially considering the recent shooting. He also said that he will let homeless people know that they can camp behind city hall alongside the bicyclists.

Tiffany Gonzales
Ms. Gonzales said that on June 28th, a LADG fundraiser will be held from 11 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at the senior center, those over 60 year of age get in for free while all others must donate $15 to receive a plate of food.

Sam Duarte
Mr. Duarte was present to confirm the approval for the use of the Veterans Memorial Plaza Parking lot for the sale of fireworks.

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 June 19, 2023.

June 27, 2023 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 7 C. Approve the Minutes of the City Council regular meeting of June 13, 2023.

D. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-42 authorizing submission of corrections to a previously submitted application and conditionally approved grant for funding of wastewater collection system improvements from the State of California Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) and authorize the Mayor or designee to sign the corrected resolution, application, grant agreement, and supporting documents.

E. Approve the request by Sam Duarte, Director of The Little House by the Park, to use the Veteran’s Memorial Plaza (aka Downtown Parking Lot) for a “Safe and Sane” fireworks sale fundraiser.

F. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-51 approving the City of Guadalupe Water Shortage Contingency Plan.

G. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-52 identifying priorities for the use of Measure A circulation funds.

H. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-53 approving the Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) Control Program.

Mayor Julian pulled Items #6D and #6F. A motion was made by City Council Member Lizalde and seconded by Council Member Hernandez to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. 5-0. Motion passed.

Item #6D. Mayor Julian asked if the City will submit the CDBG application in its timeframe.

Administrator Bodem said, “yes”
Item #6F. Mayor Julian asked if there was public involvement in the Guadalupe Water Storage Contingency Plan. Administrator Bodem said, “yes” A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tempore Costa Jr. and seconded by Council Member Robles to approve Consent Calendar items #6D and #6F. 5-0. Motion passed.

I. MONTHLY REPORTS FROM DEPARTMENT HEADS

1. Public Safety Department:
a. Police Department report for May 2023
b. Fire Department report for May 2023
c. Code Compliance report for May 2023

2. Human Resources report for May 2023

3. City Treasurer’s report for March and April 2023

7. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT: (Information Only) No verbal provided, only written.

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

June 27, 2023 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 7 Public Safety Director Cash provided a brief update about the recent shooting. Council Member Lizalde asked if Everbridge could be used to notify the council when these events happen. Mr. Cash said Everbridge is used for disasters and ongoing emergencies, not for these matters. Council Member Hernandez asked if the city has a council communication policy. If not, she suggested that one be created.

PUBLIC HEARING

9. Pasadera Landscaping and Lighting District (FY 2023-24) – Public Hearing.

Written report: Shannon Sweeney, Public Works Director/City Engineer Recommendation: That the City Council conduct a public hearing to provide all present with the opportunity to speak regarding the assessment for the Pasadera Landscaping and Lighting District and adopt Resolution No. 2023-54 confirming the Engineer’s Report, Assessment Diagram, and assessments related thereto for fiscal year 2023/2024.

Council Member Lizalde recused herself from this agenda item.

Since Shannon Sweeney resigned on July 15, City Administrator Bodem provided an overview by presenting the material with the above recommendation to council.

A public hearing opened at 6:37 p.m. Public Hearing closed at 6:38 p.m.

Motion was made by Council Member Hernandez and seconded by Council Member Robles to approve the Pasadera Landscaping and Lighting District and adopted Resolution No. 2023-54 confirming the Engineer’s Report, Assessment Diagram, and assessments related thereto for fiscal year 2023/2024. 4-0. Motion Passed.

10. Guadalupe’s Food Bank COVID-19 Delivery Services Program close-out report.

Written report: Tiffany Gonzales, Community Development Director, LADG Recommendation: That the City Council hold a final public hearing seeking community input on the Guadalupe’s Food Bank COVID-19 Delivery Services Program prior to the close-out of the grant as required by Community Development Block Grant close-out process.

Tiffany Gonzales, Community Development Director, LADG provided an update and overview of Guadalupe’s Food Bank Covid-19 Delivery Services Close-Out Report with the above recommendation.

A public hearing opened at 6:43 p.m. Public Hearing closed at 6:47 p.m.

This final Public Hearing seeking community input will close out the grant as required by the Community Development Block Grant process.

June 27, 2023 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 7

REGULAR BUSINESS

11. Fiscal Year 2023-2024 proposed budget workshop.

Written report: Janice Davis, Finance Director
Recommendation: That the City Council review and interactively discuss the proposed budget for the fiscal year 2023-2024, along with the Capital Improvements Projects Budget, Capital Facilities Program of Projects, American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) allocation of funds.

Finance Director, Janice Davis detailed an overview of the proposed budget for fiscal year 2023-2024, along with the Capital Improvements Projects Budget, Capital Facilities Program of Projects, American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) allocation of funds.

The preliminary draft of the budget included general fund revenues of $6,979,313 and expenditures of $7,022,485 for a difference of $43,172. This information is illustrated from the June 27th written report along with the details attached to it.

Ms. Davis then proceeded to provide an overview of all other funds for which the City Council had little concerns with staff’s recommendations:
• Streets Special Funds
• Gas Tx Fund
• LTF Fund
• SB1 RMRA Fund
• SB1 SRTS Fund
• ASHC Pedestrian Fund
• Enterprise Fund: Water Operating, Water Capital, Wastewater Operating, Wastewater Capital, Solid Waste.
• Other funds: Transit, Misc. Special Funds, Lighting and Landscaping District Funds, Successor Agency Funds, Capital Improvement Projects, and ARPA Funds.

The City Council reviewed the ARPA budget and determined that it be reviewed and adjusted in the coming months. Council suggested that staff order laptops from this fund for official city council business.

Here is a summary of the points that were asked to be reviewed in further detail and come back to the July 11, 2023 City Council meeting for Council consideration. • the additional amount to add to expenditures for the library rent. • 20% increase in medical benefits
• analyze the $300,000 coming from the Lighting District to make sure we have it allocated properly to cover the CIP project.
• Cost for utilities for Leroy Park, and Vets center
• clarify that the $10,000 for the booster pump replacement is for O’Connell and not Central Park. • Provide the grant/expenditure balances year to date for CBDG Funds.

June 27, 2023 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 7 The City Attorney determined that since this is a preliminary budget, and this item is at the end of this fiscal year, it is necessary to provide continuing resolution tonight for the July 11, 2023, City Council meeting. He suggested that a resolution be adopted tonight.

A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tempore Costa Jr. and seconded by Council Member Lizalde to approve Resolution No. 2023-55 to read as follows. 5-0. Motion passed.

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-55

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE CONTINUING EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2022-23 CITY BUDGET IN LIEU OF TIMELY 2023-24

BUDGET ADOPTION

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Guadalupe previously adopted a budget for fiscal year 2022- 23, which authorizes expenditures through and including June 30, 2023, and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to continue the existing budget beyond the end of the 2022-23 fiscal year until such time as the 2023-24 budget is approved.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

SECTION 1. The City of Guadalupe hereby extends the 2022-2023 Budget until the earlier of July 31, 2023, or the adoption of the FY 2023-24 Budget and authorizes spending in accordance with the levels prescribed in 2022-23 budget.

SECTION 2. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting on the 27th day of June 2023 by the following vote:

Motion:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

I, Todd Bodem, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Guadalupe DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being C.C. Resolution No. 2023-55, has been duly signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of the City Council, held June 27, 2023, and that same was approved and adopted.

ATTEST:
_________________________ _________________________
Todd Bodem, Deputy City Clerk Ariston Julian, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

June 27, 2023 City of Guadalupe Council Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 7 _________________________________
Philip F. Sinco, City Attorney

12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Add Council Communication Policy to a future agenda.

13. ANNOUNCEMENTS – COUNCIL ACTIVITY/COMMITTEE REPORTS
N/A

14. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION MEETING
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tempore Costa Jr. and seconded by Council Member Lizalde to leave the regular session and enter closed session at 9:03 p.m. 5-0. Motion passed.

15. Conference with Labor Negotiators
(Subdivision (a) of Gov. Code Section 54957.6)
Agency designated representatives: City Administrator and Human Resources Manager Employee organizations: Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 620

16. ADJOURNMENT TO OPEN SESSION MEETING
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tempore Costa Jr. and seconded by Council Member Hernandez to enter regular session at 10:16 p.m. 5-0. Motion passed.

17. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS
No Reportable Action.

18. ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tempore Costa Jr. and seconded by Council Member Hernandez to adjourn the meeting at 10:17 p.m. 5-0. Motion passed.

Prepared by: Approved by:
___________________________________ ________________________________ Todd Bodem, Deputy City Clerk Ariston Julian, Mayor

Page 1 of 3 ends

Agenda Item No. 6D

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of July 11, 2023
_______________________________
Prepared by:

Todd Bodem, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Consider entering into an agreement with Chisam Utility Management LLC for professional Interim Public Works Director/City Engineering services RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended the Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-56 authorizing the City to enter into an agreement with Chisam Utility Management LLC for professional Interim Public Works Director/City Engineer services.

BACKGROUND/HISTORY:

From time-to-time in the City of Guadalupe’s history, the City utilized any combination of professional engineers, public works director and city administrators to manage the oversight of water wastewater and streets divisions of the public works. From 2003 through 2017, the City utilized outside consultants for professional engineering services while the City Administrator managed the Public Works Department.

On January 26, 2016, the Council approved water and wastewater rates which included an allowance for adding staff to Water and Wastewater departments. In May 2016, the new position of Public Works & Utilities Director, Water, Wastewater and Public Works was created, but the Council tabled the item for a later date.

On November 28, 2016, a reorganization with two (2) new positions was presented and approved by the Council. The City Administrator felt that rather than recruit at the level of Public Works & Utilities Director, a reorganization would better serve the City. The position of Maintenance & Field Operations Manager was approved with all public works and utilities functions reporting to it. A new lower-level position was also approved. At the time, for FY 16/17, the cost savings with this reorganization was significant.

Subsequently, a five-year review of engineering costs determined that there would be additional cost savings to bring the city engineer function in-house, coupled with the public works functions, at a director’s level. The position of Maintenance & Field Operations Manager would report to this position as would the “contracted services.”

Page 2 of 3 ends

In June 2017, a job description for the Public Works Director/City Engineer was approved.

The new job description was developed with a salary range, following the seven-step progression used in Guadalupe for all represented and unrepresented employed employees.

Salary and benefits for the Public Works Director/City Engineer position are split among Water, Wastewater, Streets and Building Department funds.

DISCUSSION:

On July 15, 2019, the City hired Ms. Shannon Sweeney as the new Public Works Director/City Engineer to manage the Public Works Department. Ms. Sweeney was amply qualified for the position with multiple degrees, classifications, and certifications, in addition to having extensive relevant work experience.

After four (4) years of service, In June 2023, Ms. Sweeney accepted a position with another city and delivered a letter of resignation to the City Administrator with an effective final day of June 15, 2023.

From the time of her resignation letter, the City posted for the recruitment of Ms. Sweeney’s replacement. Concurrently, the City Administrator canvassed for an Interim Public Works Director / City Engineer and discovered a well-qualified person who was willing to help the City out until a permanent replacement is hired.

Mr. Dwayne Chisam P.E., from Chisam Utility Management LLC, presented the City with a resume (Attachment 2) and proposal for Public Works Director/City Engineer on an interim basis. Mr. Chisam has approximately 40 years of professional civil engineering experience and even served as the Public Works Director for the City of Guadalupe from May 1989-February 1991.

The proposal/scope of work attached to the agreement would provide oversight of the water wastewater and street divisions of public works. City engineering services for capital and maintenance projects would also be managed within the city and include attending meetings as directed by the City Administrator and two (2) City Council meetings per month. The effort is anticipated to be approximately 20 hours per week, Monday Through Thursday from 1:00 to 6:00 p.m.

Attachment 3 for Council consideration is the proposed agreement with Chisam Utility Management LLC. The proposed agreement provides for a single-year term (or until a permanent person is hired) with an opportunity to extend the agreement based on the mutual written agreement of both parties. In the staff’s opinion, it is in the City’s best interest to approve an agreement with Mr. Chisam based on the essential need of an engineer and his experience and proven track record working for various agencies.

Until a permanent Public Works Director/ City Engineer is hired, city staff does not have the capacity to manage public works without outside assistance.

Options Available to the Council

1. The Council could approve the agreement as recommended; or

2. The Council could direct those changes to be made to the agreement; or

Page 3 of 3 ends

3. The Council could decide not to enter into the agreement.

If the City Council chooses the first option above, the new agreement will be effective retroactively as of June 27, 2023.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Mr. Chisam has agreed to provide interim Public Works Director / City Engineer services with a rate of $150.00 for 20 hours per week and will not negatively impact the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 budget. The proposed contract will be expensed from various departmental enterprises, measures, and grants with minimal coming out of the general fund. If approved, the city gets the benefit of an interim public works director and city engineer. If the city were to contract with an engineering firm, the cost for just the engineer is estimated to be between $230 and $260 per hour.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No. 2023-56.

2. Dwayne K. Chisam P.E. Resume

3. Agreement for Consultant Services between the City of Guadalupe and Chisam Utility Management LLC

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-56

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO ENTER

INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH CHISAM UTILITY MANAGEMENT LLC FOR PROFESSIONAL INTERIM PUBLIC

WORKS DIRECTOR/ CITY ENGINEERING SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City desires to utilize a professional consultant for Public Works Director and City Engineer services for the Public Works Department until a permanent professional is hired; and WHEREAS, City staff negotiated with Chisam Utility Management LLC (Mr. Dwayne Chisam) that incorporates a scope of work at an hourly rate of $150.00 for 20 hours per week or approximately $12,000 per month to serve as the Public Works Director and City Engineer for the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, Mr. Chisam has approximately 40 years of experience working for various agencies as a director and engineer and served as the Public Works Director for the City of Guadalupe from May 1989-February 1991; and
WHEREAS, said agreement requires that the City will reimburse Mr. Chisam for travel expenses following the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) standard mileage rates for the use of his vehicle; and WHEREAS, the City desires to retain Chisam Utility Management LLC to provide said services with an agreement retroactively commencing on June 27, 2023 through June 27, 2024, or until a permanent position is hired.

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

SECTION 1. The Agreement for Consulting Service between the City of Guadalupe and Chisam Utility Management LLC, attached to the staff report for this item and incorporated in this resolution, is hereby approved.

SECTION 2. The Mayor is authorized to sign the Agreement with Chisam Utility Management LLC on behalf of the City.

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 on the 11th day of July 2023 by the following vote:

MOTION:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 2 of 2 ends

I, Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk of the City of Guadalupe DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 2023-56, has been duly signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of the City Council, held July 11, 2023, and that same was approved and adopted.

ATTEST:
______________________________ ____________________________________ Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk Ariston Julian, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Philip F. Sinco, City Attorney
DWAYNE K. CHISAM P.E.

Home: (805) 264-5592
Work: (661) 943-3201
35629 Cheseboro Road
Palmdale, CA 93552
Cell: (805) 264-5592

PROFESSIONAL CIVIL ENGINEER
Mr. Chisam is a Public Works/Utilities professional with over twenty-five years of public works and utility management experience. He has extensive knowledge of the water, wastewater, and solid waste industries. He is a proven leader with exceptional communication skills and a commitment to excellent customer service. His reputation as an innovator, critical thinker, and problem solver is well documented, and he is respected by policy makers, his peers, and employees for his knowledge, fairness, and professionalism.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

ANTELOPE VALLEY-EAST KERN WATER AGENCY
6500 West Avenue N, Palmdale, CA, 93552
Assistant General Manager October 2012 to Present
AVEK is a wholesale water agency that imports State Project Water to the Antelope Valley for delivery to local retail water suppliers. The Agency has four water treatment plants and an expansive distribution system. In addition, the Agency operates two groundwater banking projects that provide increased reliability for imported State Water supplies. The Agency has a staff of approximately 48 employees with an operating budget and capital budget of approximately $70 million. Major accomplishments include:
• Preparation of first five year Strategic Plan
• Completed the acquisition of property to expand waterbank operations • Completed the first five year financial plan
• Established procedures for the annual water rate study • Completed the IRWMP, UWMP
• Developed the concepts of enterprise water banking
• Negotiated to acquire new non-state water supply for new development • Assisted in the negotiations for water transfers and exchanges • Assisted the litigation team in Antelope Valley groundwater adjudication • Developed a positive working relationship with local retail water suppliers • Developed comprehensive alternative energy plan for the Agency CITY of PISMO BEACH
760 Mattie Road, Pismo Beach, CA 93450
Director of Public Works / City Engineer October 2008 to October 2012 Pismo Beach is a tourist community with a population of 7,500 permanent residents. Pismo Beach is a full service community with a Public Works staff of 30 full-time employees, and an operating budget of $8 million. The capital budget averages between $3 and $5 million per year.

Public Works provides the following public services: water, wastewater, capital master planning, ATTACHMENT 2
engineering, pier and beach maintenance, public facilities maintenance, and fleet services. Major accomplishments include:
• Established the Northern Cities Technical Group for managing the regional groundwater basin
• Increased the reliability of the City’s State Water supply with purchase of additional Table A allocation
• Completed the Pismo Beach Promenade and Pier Plaza improvements • Completed the seismic study and maintenance plan for eight water reservoirs • Completed the Urban Water Management Plan, with inclusion of recycled water • Established operational and maintenance standards for Public Works • Organized a regional approach to address a threat of seawater intrusion • Created and implemented MS4 Stormwater Management Plan • Provided staff support and expertise to Lopez Advisory Board, WRAC CITY of LOS BANOS
520 J Street, Los Banos, CA 93635
Director of Public Works / City Engineer July 2006 – October 2008 The Public Works Department has 56 full-time employees and an annual budget of $30 million, including capital improvements. The Public Works Department is comprised of three divisions:

Engineering, Public Works Operations, and Parks and Recreation. Los Banos is a full-service city providing water, wastewater, storm drainage, engineering, street and facility maintenance, and fleet services. The department processes annexation and subdivision requests, prepares utility master plans and capital improvement programs. Major accomplishments include:
• Accelerated project timeline and funding for a major highway construction project • Completed master plans for wastewater, water, and storm drainage utilities • Reorganized two departments into a more efficient and responsive organization • Completed strategic plan for Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion • Completed a detailed traffic model for anticipated future growth • Developed comprehensive development plan for Community Center Project • Completed the Child Development Center
• Established a multi-year Capital Improvement Program
• Planned five annexations totaling over 1500 acres
CITY of SANTA MARIA
2065 E. Main Street, Santa Maria, CA 93454
Director of Utilities March 1991 - July 2006
The Utilities Department is responsible for the administration and management of the three City operated utilities with a combined operating budget of $50 million. The department contains 85 full-time employees and a capital improvement budget between $10 and $20 million per year. The department is organized into six divisions: water, wastewater, solid waste, flood control, regulatory compliance, and fleet services. The Director is the City’s representative on the Central Coast Water Authority Operating Committee and a member of the litigation team for the adjudication of the Santa Maria groundwater basin. Major accomplishments include:
• Securing groundwater, return flows, and surface water rights via the Santa Maria groundwater basin adjudication and physical solution
• Constructed major water infrastructure to import State Water • Constructed Blending and Disinfection Facility for State Water • Negotiated two water sales transactions with neighboring agencies • Expanded Wastewater Treatment Plant
• Increased sewer trunk line capacity
• Constructed an additional 7 MG water storage reservoir • Installed major water transmission mains
• Added flood control facilities
• Expanded existing regional sanitary landfill
• Purchased 2000 acres for regional park and new landfill • Created the Non-Hazardous Impacted Soil program
• Constructed waste to energy programs
• Established the hauled waste program at the Wastewater Treatment Plant • Established green waste and biosolids composting operations via public/private partnership
CITY of GUADALUPE
918 Obispo Street, Guadalupe, CA 93454
Director of Public Works May 1989 - February 1991
The City of Guadalupe is a small full-service City where the Director is responsible for all aspects of the public works operations including water, wastewater, solid waste, street and facility maintenance, long range planning, and creating capital improvement programs. Major accomplishments include:
• Development of a Wastewater Master Plan and expansion plan for the Wastewater Treatment Plant
• Completion of a utility rate and impact fee study
• Implemented the Source Reduction and Recycling Element • Created the first Building and Safety Department
CITY of ARROYO GRANDE
214 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Special Projects Engineer July 1985 - May 1989
Assisted the Director in all facets of the department's operations and also served as the Engineering Division Manager. Responsibilities included planning, public works design, administration of field inspections, review of development projects, plan checking, subdivision processing, preparing departmental budgets, written reports, cost estimates, and promoting a good working relationship with the building industry.

CITY of HAWTHORNE
4455 W. 126th Street, Hawthorne, CA 90250
Junior Civil Engineer March 1983 - July 1985
Provided a variety of professional engineering and administration services within the Engineering Department, including design and preparation of plans and specifications for Public Works projects such as water mains, street reconstruction, and a major airport master plan and rehabilitation project at Hawthorne Municipal Airport.

LICENSES
Professional Civil Engineer - License No. PE 43851
Grade lll Water Treatment Operator License - Certificate No. 14932 (inactive) Water Distribution Grade ll - Certificate No. 14932 (inactive)

EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science (BS) - California State University at Long Beach Associate of Arts (AA) - El Camino Community College
ATTACHMENT 3

Page 1 of 1 ends

Agenda Item No. 6E

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of July 11, 2023
________________________________
Prepared by:

Todd Bodem, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Designating Interim Public Works Director Dwayne Chisam, as the Authorized Agent and Signatory for Guadalupe Transit grants, documents, and related periodic reports, effective July 12, 2023, with the departure of the current signatory, Shannon Sweeney.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-57 authorizing Interim Public Works Director Dwayne Chisam, as the Authorized Agent and Signatory for Guadalupe Transit grants, documents, and related periodic reports, effective July 12, 2023.

BACKGROUND:

The administration of Guadalupe Transit business involves working with a variety of regional, state, and federal agencies. These agencies require that participating municipalities designate, by formal resolution, the individual authorized to act on behalf of that municipality. Specifically, these agencies or activities include, but not limited to:
* Transportation Development Act (TDA) & State Transit Assistance (STA) Claims, request for funds, and periodic reports.
* Annual Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 5311 Operating Grant Applications, request for funds, and periodic reports.
* Various Federal Transit Administration (FTA) operating and capital grants as needed, requests for funds, and periodic reports.
* Various State of California transit grant applications as needed, requests for funds and related reports. * State of California Department of Transportation (DOT) documents and periodic reports. * Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) documents and periodic reports.

DISCUSSION:

There are a number of eminent transit related items that will require the City’s attention and will require the signature of an authorized agent. The current transit signatory, Shannon Sweeney, vacated her position as Public Works Director on June 15, 2023. City staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution as presented to substitute Dwayne Chisam in place of Shannon Sweeney effective July 12, 2023, as the Authorized Agent and Signatory for Guadalupe Transit grants, documents, and related periodic reports.

City staff will follow by distributing copies of the executed resolution to the appropriate agencies.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No. 2023-57
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-57

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE AUTHORIZING THE DESIGNATION

OF AUTHORIZED AGENT AND SIGNATORY FOR GUADALUPE TRANSIT GRANTS, RELATED DOCUMENTATION, & PERIODIC REPORTS EFFECTIVE JULY 12, 2023 WHEREAS, the City of Guadalupe relies on a number of transit agencies and grants for operational and capital funding; and
WHEREAS, these programs require that the City designate and authorize by formal resolution, an individual to serve as the authorized agent and signatory on grant applications, claim forms, request for payments, and periodic reports; and
WHEREAS, with the departure of the individual currently designated as the authorized agent and signatory on grant applications, claim forms, request for payments, and periodic reports, Shannon Sweeney, who left City employment on June 16, 2023, there is no person who can serve in this capacity; and
WHEREAS, in order for the City and transit staff to continue the proper and timely administration of transit business, it is necessary to designate another individual to serve as the authorized agent and signatory on grant applications, claim forms, request for payments, and periodic reports.

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

SECTION 1. That effective July 12, 2023, Dwayne Chisam, Interim Public Works Director is authorized to execute, sign, and file related report documents on behalf of the City of Guadalupe related to the following, but not limited to, transit programs:
• Transportation Development Act (TDA) & State Transit Assistance (STA) Claims, request for funds, and periodic reports.
• Annual Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 5311 Operating Grant Applications, request for funds, and periodic reports.
• Various Federal Transit Administration (FTA) operating and capital grants as needed, requests for funds, and periodic reports.
• Various State of California transit grant applications as needed, requests for funds, and related reports.
• State of California Department of Transportation (DOT) documents and periodic reports. • Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) documents and periodic reports.

SECTION 2. A copy of this resolution be transmitted to each of the agencies identified above.

ATTACHMENT 1
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting on the 11th day of July 2023 by the following vote:

MOTION:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

I, Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk of the City of Guadalupe DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 2023-57, has been duly signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of the City Council, held July 11, 2023, and that same was approved and adopted.

Page 1 of 2 ends

Agenda Item No. 6F

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of July 11, 2023

_______________________________ _________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Janice Davis, Finance Director Todd Bodem, City Administrator SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2022-23 Appropriations Limit
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-58 establishing the revised appropriations limit from tax proceeds for Fiscal Year 2022-23
BACKGROUND:

Per Article XIII B of the California Constitution, the City is required to calculate annually the expenditure appropriations limit from tax proceeds to determine compliance with Propositions 4 (Gann Initiative) and 111 (Spending Limitations Act of 1990). This calculation is based on the previous year’s appropriations limit of $3,403,929.48 multiplied by the growth factor in the California Per Capita Personal Income percentage increase (1.0755) and multiplied again by the County population percentage change (1.0014) for an adjustment per factor of 1.0770. This calculation is demonstrated on Exhibit 1 to Resolution No. 2023-xx. The California Department of Finance provides both the population change and the per capita personal income change in May of each year, see Attachment 2.

DISCUSSION:

The City is responsible for dividing citywide revenues between appropriations subject to the Gann Limit (tax revenue) and non-tax revenue and then comparing the appropriations subject to the Gann Limit to the cumulative appropriation limit. For Fiscal Year 2022-23, the cumulative appropriation limit has been determined to be $3,666,051.45.

During any fiscal year, a government entity may not appropriate any proceeds of taxes received in excess of the appropriations limit. The estimated tax-based revenues for Fiscal Year 2022-23 have been calculated to be $3,613,967, per the approved FY22-23 budget, which is approximately $52,084.45 less than the appropriations limit. Therefore, the City is in compliance with Article XIIIB of the California Constitution. If the City Council adopts the resolution to establish the appropriation limit for Fiscal Year 2022-23, the City will be in compliance with Propositions 4 and 111.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None for FY2023.

Janice Davis

Page 2 of 2 ends

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No. 2023-58

2. Department of Finance Price and Population Information Letter RESOLUTION NO. 2023-58

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE CITY’S APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 WHEREAS, sections 7900 et seq. of the Government Code provide for the effective and efficient implementation of Article XIII B of the California Constitution; and WHEREAS, Government Code sections 7910, et seq. requires each local government to establish its appropriations limit each year pursuant to Article XIII B of the California Constitution; and WHEREAS, in 1990, the voters of California adopted Proposition 111 which amended Article XIII B of the California Constitution; and
WHEREAS, among the changes implemented by Proposition 111 are adjustments to the growth factors used to calculate the annual appropriations limit; and WHEREAS, Proposition 111 establishes Fiscal Year 1986-87 as the base year for calculating the annual appropriations limit and permits the City to re-establish the annual appropriations limit for all succeeding years based upon the new growth factors; and WHEREAS, a resolution establishing the annual appropriations limit is to be adopted at a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council.

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

1. The Council of the City of Guadalupe elects to use the change in California per capita income as the cost of living adjustment factor and the annual County population change as the population adjustment factor.

2. The appropriations limit for the fiscal year 2022-23 is hereby set at $3,666,051.45 as detailed in Exhibit 1, attached hereto, which is hereby made part of this resolution.

3. The City reserves the right to adjust or amend the appropriations limit based upon the use of alternative growth factors as authorized by Proposition 111 if such changes or revisions would result in a more advantageous appropriation limit, now or in the future.

4. Notice is hereby given that any judicial action or proceeding to attach, review, set aside, void or annul this action shall be commenced within 45 days of the effective date of this resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting on the 11th of July 2023 by the following vote:

MOTION:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

ATTACHMENT 1
I, Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk of the City of Guadalupe, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 2023-58 has been duly signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of the City Council, held July 11, 2023 and that same was approved and adopted.

ATTEST:
________________________________ ________________________________ Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk Ariston Julian, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
Phillip F. Sinco, City Attorney
EXHIBIT 1
3130 Sales And Use Taxes $ 549,435.00
3136 Local Sales Tax add-on $ 691,731.00
3140 Real Property Transfer Tax $ 30,000.00
3145 Tax Increments $ 1,620,801.00
3150 Utility User Tax $ 450,000.00
3210 Business License $ 272,000.00
3410 Motor Vehicle In Lieu Tax $ -
Total Appropriations subject to the Limit $ 3,613,967.00 Prior Year (FY 2022) Gann Limit Revised $ 3,403,929.48
A. California per Capita adj 1.0755
B. County Population adj 1.0014
Change Factor (A*B) 1.0770
Adjustment Factor 1.0770
Gann Limit for FY 2023 $ 3,666,051.45
Projected Appropriations are below the limit by: $ 52,084.45 *Source: FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget
FY2023 TAX APPROPRIATIONS SUBJECT TO THE GANN LIMIT
Appropriations Subject to the Gann Limit*
Calculation of the Gann Appropriations Limit
N:\01-Finance (Janice)\Budget\GANN Limits\23-24 Appropriation Limit 6/30/2023

!"#$%&'()$#*+$%,(+-.',/ 0+%),-1-2,(3+%),- 4//(,/()+%),-56)3)% 7

8

9

<
=

>
?@@

@

@

BCDEEFGHIJKEDLMNOPQJREHJGHFKSJPKTFUPVNMKPFWRLJMGFLPEFLJMRNKFU

Y
Z

Y
7

',/ 0+%),-'#($#-%[\+-]#2,(/#$)+0^)5%()$%5 _

`

8

9

Y
bcccZ@

de7f

A`
_

;
`A

Y
;

;

`

@

@
A

g

A

',/ 0+%),-[#(%)2)$+%),- 9

8

9

??hi

JREPIFEJEHFEJjGJJQREHJGkMMJKEGJMEPVPJQLNLkUFEPNKlPEHEHJmEFEJTNKEMNUUJMWRnVVPGJo*)-+-$# p)00$#(%)2q%\#\)]\#(#5%)3+%#%,%\#%+%#[,-%(,00#(!qr -#stuvuu '0#+5#w,%#9MPNMxJFMWRGPExLNLkUFEPNKJREPIFEJRIFxyJMJOPRJQo9

c

;

ed?ifCCB{ai |<<}~Y89cgZ
_}<8

Z <8c|Y}c
7

Y

ATTACHMENT 2

!"#$#%&'$("$$!)(* !#$$$+ &"# $ #$(+,-#)$$!"*$)((*,$'-." $$!)(*!#$ $)''" # # $(#($+ !" (#*
"#(*( # # $(#($+'/" (#*"#(*$, &'((*"!#-#0100203# $ #$(+ 45# #4$(#
($+
6#7#4(#*"#(*
8679$) $-#
0100203:;;

6$$<(*#(=#+ &(*#+ $ &#$("#(*#('""#(*( 5#!$(# # # $(#($+#*$<"!#$($+ &(*#0100203 # $ #$(+
>?@
45# #5$$!A)(*5"#(*B:;; (
4$ &#$(5"#(*B2131 (
45# #5$$!A)(*$()'$##$:;;CD11BD1:;; D11
4$ &#$($()'$##$2131CD11B1EE:
D11
5#&#$($!!#$!$670100203D1:;;=1EE:BD1:03

!
"#$"
"%
&'()*+*(&'()*+**,-
)&'()*+**

'

*+*(.*+**
...
!
"#$"
"...
(.(.*((.(.**
-

(.(.*+**
/012
3

24 150
6
701

85 1
84947
:5;75
/012
3

/01<

/5=0>
?005
75 1 9

@AB

@
C

@BD

@BB

@BE

@CA

@AF
FFD
AGBHA
BG
ED
GBA
HGE

FBGCEE
HHGFDC
BB
GCEC
AGHAH
B
GHEB
AG
AA
B
GCE

GACB
HGAFF
FBG
DC
HEGADB
B
CGCB

AGD
C
BEGDBB
AG
AA
B
GCE

GACB
HGAFF
FGHFA
HEGACB
B
CGCB

AGD
C
BCGCAE
65401IJ51
@BFFHGA

FCGBFFAGBEF
KLM450049
9 0150N 9
;1
I0115009>
547O4
1
9 01011 ; 01
0114150G11 09N 9
5

150011415009= 1
0P5; @

!"#!

!$
%&'()*)'
%&'()*))

&

)*)'+))
+++

'+'+)'

!"#!

!+++
'+'+))
,-. /0
1-0
20 3 4
506-37803

9 :

9 ;

<=:><

<

?<
=;

<=::<=
<

<>;
,-
-0
1-0
20 3 4
506-37803

9=@

9=@
;:@<
>@
;:@<
>@
;:
<>
@
;:
<>
@
,-A0B6-
1-0
20 3 4
506-37803

9>@
::
?C@<
=:
==;<
=

?

<@
=
=;C<?;;
,-D6EF20
1-0
20 3 4
506-37803

9@:

;
C>@<

=><?=C
C>=<=CC

=?<:C
,-G3 0
1-0
20 3 4
506-37803

9@C

9@

?;@<=?
=>C<:?:
?;<
@
=::<>>

,-3H
F

1-0
20 3 4
506-37803

C9=

C:

=<??C
:;<>

:@<C
,-35

1-0
20 3 4
506-37803

9?@

9?@
C<;

<;@:
C<@
?<;=@
C<;C
<
?
C<;@<==

,-35
6I
1-0
20 3 4
506-37803
9
=

C
<
?

??<>CC
C?<>;=

??<>

,J3
1-0
20 3 4
506-37803

9@>

9;

CC><
:C
C;C<;=
CC:<C>C
C;
<:=
KLM60--64
4 -30-N 4
O3
7-330--4/
062B6
3
4 -3-33 O -3
-33630-<33 -4N 4
0

30--33630--4P 3
-J0O 9

Page 1 of 1 ends

Agenda Item No. 6G.

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of July 11, 2023

________________________________ __________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Michael Cash, Director of Public Safety Todd Bodem, City Administrator SUBJECT: Donation of $41,127.28 to the Guadalupe Police Department from the One805 Foundation towards the purchase of a generator for the public safety building.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-59 accepting the donation of $41,127.28 to the Guadalupe Police Department from the One805 Foundation towards the purchase of a generator for the public safety building.

BACKGROUND:

On May 30, 2023, the One805 Foundation delivered a check in the amount of $41,127.28 to the Guadalupe Police Department towards the purchase of a generator for the public safety building. The group supports Santa Barbara County First Responder agencies to secure equipment and supplies these departments would normally not have funding to obtain.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impact of this donation is positive for the General Fund and will assist the police department with the purchase of a generator for the public safety building.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution 2023-59
Michael Cash
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-59

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE, CALIFORNIA ACCEPTING A DONATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $41, 127.28 FOR THE GUADALUPE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ASSIST

IN PURCHASING A GENERATOR FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING WHEREAS, On May 30, 2023, the One805 Foundation delivered a check in the amount of $41,127.28 as a donation to the Guadalupe Police Department towards the purchase of a generator for the public safety building; and
WHEREAS, Government Code 37354 provides that the City Council may accept or reject any gift, bequest, or devise made to or for the city, or to or for any of its officers in their official capacity or in trust for any public purpose.

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

SECTION 1. That the City Council accepts the $41,127.28 donation from the One805 Foundation on behalf of the Guadalupe Police Department and hereby directs the Director of Public Safety to prepare a letter of appreciation to the One805 Foundation for this grant awarded donation.

SECTION 2. 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 held on the 11th day of July 2023 by the following vote:

MOTION:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

I, Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk of the City of Guadalupe DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being C.C. Resolution No. 2023-59, has been duly signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of the City Council, held July 11, 2023, and that same was approved and adopted.

Page 1 of 2 ends

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 2 of 2 ends

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

Page 1 of 2 ends

Agenda Item No. 6H

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of July 11, 2023

________________________________ __________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Michael Cash, Director of Public Safety Todd Bodem, City Administrator SUBJECT: Authorization to purchase and install a generator for the Guadalupe Police Department building utilizing grant monies from the One805 Foundation award and ARPA funding.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Guadalupe Police Department requests authorization to purchase and install a generator for the Guadalupe Police Department building utilizing grant monies from the One805 Foundation award and ARPA funding (and from Proposition 172 funds, if necessary).

BACKGROUND:

The Guadalupe City Council approved $50,000 from the ARPA funds to be set aside towards the purchase and installation of a generator for the Guadalupe Police Department building.

DISCUSSION:

The estimated cost to purchase and install the generator is approximately $80,034.00. (Attachment 1).

The quote specifically excludes the costs of applying for and obtaining required permits such as from the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control Board. Staff does not currently know the cost for any required permit(s), but if the available funds left over from the One805 Foundation and APRA monies in the amount of approximately $11,090.28 are not sufficient to cover the cost of obtaining any required permit(s), Proposition 172 funds under the control of the Public Safety Department are available to cover any remaining cost.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impact of the generator purchase is covered by utilizing the One805 Foundation grant award of $41,127.28 and the City Council approved $50,000 ARPA funding. These monies will not impact the General Fund and assist the police department with the purchase of the generator. Any additional cost for permits or installation beyond this amount will utilize Proposition 172 Funding not to exceed $50,000 without City Council approval.

Michael Cash

Page 2 of 2 ends

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Royal Industrial Solutions Generator Contract Quote, 60 KW Generator and filter - $80,034.00.

2. Resolution No. 2023-60
ATTACHMENT 1

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-60

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

TO PURCHASE AND INSATLL A GENERATOR FOR THE GUADALUPE POLICE DEPARTMENT BUILDING UTILIZING GRANT MONIES FROM THE ONE805 FOUNDATION AWARD AND ARPA FUNDING NOT TO EXCEED $100,000 DOLLARS
WHEREAS, on May 30, 2023, the One805 Foundation delivered a check in the amount of $41,127.28 to the Guadalupe Police Department towards the purchase of a generator for the Police Department building. The group supports Santa Barbara County First Responder agencies to secure equipment and supplies these departments would normally not have funding to obtain; and WHEREAS, the Guadalupe City Council approved $50,000 from the ARPA funds to be set aside towards the purchase and installation of a generator for the Guadalupe Police Department building; and WHEREAS, the City has received a quote for the purchase and installation of the generator in the amount of approximately $80,034.00, which quote excludes the cost of obtaining any required permit(s); and
WHEREAS, the amount remaining from the One805 Foundation and ARPA funds (in the amount of $11,093.28) for the cost of purchasing and installing the generator are insufficient to cover the costs of obtaining any required permit(s), then Proposition 172 funds under the control of the Public Safety Department can be used (up to $50,000 without City Council approval).

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

SECTION 1. That City staff is authorized to purchase and install a generator for the Guadalupe Police Department building utilizing monies from the One805 Foundation award and ARPA funding, with any additional cost for permits or installation to be covered by using Proposition 172 Funding not to exceed $50,000 without City Council approval.

SECTION 2. 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 held on the 11th day of July 2023 by the following vote:

MOTION:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 2 of 2 ends

I, Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk of the City of Guadalupe DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being C.C. Resolution No. 2023-60, has been duly signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of the City Council, held July 11, 2023, and that same was approved and adopted.

ATTEST:
________________________________ ________________________ Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk Ariston Julian, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Philip F. Sinco, City Attorney

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: July 1, 2023 Planning Report Covering June 2023

MINISTERIAL PROJECTS
Zoning Clearances Approved 2
Zoning Clearances Denied 1
Zoning Verification Letters 0
Business Licenses Approved 12
Business Licenses Denied 0
ADUs approved 4
AUP for short-term rental 0

DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS
Please refer to the next page for specific projects and their current status.

If you have any questions regarding any projects listed in this report, please contact me at [email protected] or call (805) 598-8385.

Agenda Item No. 6I 1.

Ministerial Permit Report– June 2023
(Reported 7-1-2023)
Zoning Clearance Approvals
2023-030-ZC Martinez rear paving 844 Guadalupe Street
and wall/fence
2023-033-ZC Baez paving 4932 Pt. Sal Circle
Zoning Clearance Denials
2023-032-ZC Vidales RV storage 213 Pt. Sal Dune
ADU Approvals
2023-016-ZC Magana ADU 4845 Pagaling Drive
2023-025-ZC Gonzalez ADU 4406 Fir Street
2023-034-ZC Herrera ADU 4646 Seventh Street
2023-037-ZC Corral ADU 4443 Third Street
Business License Approvals
Panchi FS Clothing online sales 103 Las Flores
Business License Denials
None
Guadalupe City Planning Department
Planning Processing Summary for June 2023
(7-1-23 update)
Case No. Name Submittal
Date
Comp. Date Status OK for Bldg.

Permit Issuance
2022-088-LM -
Voluntary Lot
Merger $
Trudy Brands December 5,
2022
Under Review. NO
2022-093-LS -
Residential Lot
Split $
Lupe Alvarez December 19,
2022
Under state SB9 Code provisions at 246
Egret Lane. Under review
NO
2022-021-LLA
151 Obispo LLC
LLA for 151 Obispo Tentatively approved by planning staff on May 4th. Must now be finalized by County
Surveyor.

NO
2022-063-LM $ Mahoney Lot Merger August 11,
2022
INC 9-11-22 Incomplete Application Letter sent on
September 11, 2022.

NO
2022-065-LLA - La
Guardia $
La Guardia
Townhomes lot line
adjustment
August 22,
2022-
COMP. Changed from an LLA to Lot Merger per
Govt. Code and approved by City Engineer
December 2023.

NO
2022-016-GPZ
2022-017-DR
2022-018-VTTM $
Snowy Plover 3-10-22 Incomplete
4-09-22
Application resubmitted on February 24,
2023. Second Incomplete letter sent 3-24-23.

Owner/applicant attempting to contact
neighboring property for permission to
access.

NO
2023-031-CUP Root One retail
dispensary
June 1, 2023 INC
June 29, 2023
Staff has reviewed application and
determined that it is incomplete for
processing
NO
2023-013-LS
SB-9 Split
Reed Lot Split 3-7-23 Staff continues to review application to ensure that the project is consistent with the
Guadalupe Municipal Code
NO
2023-022-CUP Lopez H2A Housing 4-6-23 COMP 4-27-
23 Approved by Council on 5-23-23 NO
6th Cycle Housing
Element
Mandatory Update Fall 2022 n/a Draft Housing Element scheduled to City Council on July 11th.

No$ = unreimbursed planning work
$ = projects where a fixed fee has been paid
7-1-23
Agenda Item No. 6I 2.

BUILDING INSPECTIONS LOG - JUNE 2023

RECREATION AND PARKS MONTHLY REPORT
For April 2023
Summary of Rentals/Usage for City Facilities & Parks

FACILITY THIS MONTH THIS MONTH

LAST YEAR
THIS YEARTO-DATE
(FY 22/23)
LAST YEARTO-DATE
(FY 21/22)
Auditorium/Gym 11 0 177 48
O’Connell Park 0 1 56 24
LeRoy Park 16 0 59 1
Senior Center 24 9 229 38
Veterans Memorial
Plaza
0 0 5 8
Council Chambers 9 15 69 35
Central Park 0 0 0 0
Veterans Hall 5 0 36 2
Recreation and Parks
918 Obispo Street
P.O. Box 908
Guadalupe, CA 93434
Ph: 805.356.3906
Fax: 805.343.5512
Email: [email protected]
Agenda Item No. 6I 3.

Recreation & Parks Commission Meeting – 04.04.2023
• Central Park
o Presentation from Pacific Coast Land Design for 50% Design Development Plan for Central Park
▪ Design Team Requests of Rec & Park Commission by April 24 • Type of surface for dog park (pea gravel or decomposed granite)
• Whether to use the art sculptures owned by the city or hire an artist
o Renaming of Central Park
▪ Idea to name the park Las Mujeres Park as all parks are currently named after males
• Add a female Guadalupe resident of influence each year to a plaque
Auditorium
The auditorium floor was deep cleaned and rebuffed for use.

LeRoy Park
• FEMA
o The Recreation Services Manager is currently working with Public Safety and FEMA representatives to recover costs from damages/repairs of LeRoy Park.
• Boys and Girls Club
o Monthly Report for April
▪ Current
• Spring Break was held on the week of April 10-14, 2023. We averaged around 80 kids daily. All expenses were paid by GUSD.
o We had STEAM activities
o Mtiny Robot
o Drones
o Cooking
o Pottery
o Arts & Crafts
▪ Events
• Planning Summer, which will run for 6 weeks from June 12 to the end of July. We once again are partnering once again with GUSD for student registration.
▪ Facility Use
• McKenzie Wrestling Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday
from 6pm to 7:30pm
• Bulldog sign ups Saturday, May 20, June 3 & 10
• Woman & Infant Mobile Care last Tuesday of each month.

They use bathrooms and when it rains facility
• RERC will be meeting at the club on Wednesday, April 12, 2023, in the afternoon.
• GBA will be meeting on April 19, 2023 in the afternoon. • Next teen night will be Friday, April 14, 2023 5pm – 6pm. ▪ Building & Grounds
• Overall looking good.

Upcoming Programs & Events
Drop-in Sports for ages 16+
Free Drop-in volleyball and basketball for ages 16+ are currently taking place.

The location/day of drop-in basketball varies depending on the availability of the auditorium. Participants ages 16 & 17 must provide a permission slip/liability waiver signed by a parent/legal guardian in order to participate.

This form can be found on the Recreation Page of the city website. Go to https://ci.guadalupe.ca.us/recreation/
April & May Drop In Schedule
Drop In Volleyball
• Wednesdays: 6:00pm – 8:00pm
Drop In Basketball
• Friday, April 7
th – 6:00pm – 8:00pm
• Thursday, April 13th – 6:00pm – 8:00pm
• Friday, April 21st – 6:00pm – 8:00pm
• Thursday, April 27th – 6:00pm – 8:00pm
• Friday, May 5th – 6:00pm – 8:00pm
• Friday, May 12th – 6:00pm – 8:00pm
• Friday, May 19th – 6:00pm – 8:00pm
• Thursday, May 25th – 6:00pm – 8:00pm
2 nd Annual Rec & Parks Cinco de Mayo Celebration
While admission is free, we ask that those that plan on attending the Cinco de Mayo event reserve tickets through EventBrite. This will allow the department to compare/measure attendance.

Coed Adult Softball League
Games will be held on Thursdays at Jack O’Connell Park with a 5:00pm first game start time. Games after that are scheduled accordingly. The game schedule will be set at the Manager’s Meeting. Teams must provide their own equipment (team shirts, gloves, cleats, etc.). The referee fee will be $20 per team per game. Referee fees for championship games will be $30 per team per game. The rulebook is being adjusted. Adjustments will be discussed at the Manager’s Meeting. Two females are required to be on the field/batting line up for the entirety of the game. While the game may still be played without the two females, failure to follow this requirement will result in an automatic forfeit.

Guadalupe Color Run
Volunteers are needed to assist with running the event. If interested in helping with this event, please contact the Recreation Services Manager by phone at (805)356-3906 or by email at [email protected].

Viva el Arte

RECREATION AND PARKS MONTHLY REPORT
For May 2023
Summary of Rentals/Usage for City Facilities & Parks

FACILITY THIS MONTH THIS MONTH

LAST YEAR
THIS YEARTO-DATE
(FY 22/23)
LAST YEARTO-DATE
(FY 21/22)
Auditorium/Gym 13 4 190 48
O’Connell Park 1 21 57 24
LeRoy Park 16 0 75 1
Senior Center 27 12 256 38
Veterans Memorial
Plaza
0 1 5 8
Council Chambers 12 9 81 35
Central Park 0 0 0 0
Veterans Hall 5 1 41 2

Recreation and Parks
918 Obispo Street
P.O. Box 908
Guadalupe, CA 93434
Ph: 805.356.3906
Fax: 805.343.5512
Email: [email protected]
Recreation & Parks Commission Meeting – 05.02.2023
• Central Park
o Elevated Water Tank – Ms. Sweeney gave an update on the elevated water tank as it relates to the Central Park renovation. Per the grant, the water tower must include public art. This means that public works will be working with AP Wireless, TMobile, AT&T, and Verizon to arrange for their cell towers to be re-located to allow time for the water tower to be wrapped. Ms. Sweeney suggested that the wrap on the water tower be the same as the wrap that will be on the new electric bus. The design depicts the Guadalupe Dunes. The Recreation and Parks Commission agreed with this idea.
• O’Connell Park Field Grant
o Commissioner Emily Dreiling presented to the Commission and Recreation Services Manager background information on how neighboring cities have utilized grants to update their outdoor facilities. Ms. Dreiling believes that there is a grant that would be able to cover the installation of a stadium at Jack O’Connell Park that could possibly include a multi-use turf field, a track around the field, and seating.

Ms. Dreiling’s idea was to have Los Amigos de Guadalupe facilitate the grant administration for this project with city council’s approval. Ms. Dreiling and Ms.

Sanchez will be working together on retrieving more information about this potential project.

Central Park Renovation Meeting – 05.04.2023
• 100% Design Development
o Status Update
▪ Plans, cutsheets and estimates to be submitted to Shannon on 5/19/23. • Water Tower
o Shannon is sending a letter to the cell companies re: removing their equipment for the water tower maintenance.
o Brooke explored wrapping the tower in a similar design/wrap as the new city bus. o The wrap company declined to install a wrap and recommended painting the mural on it.
• Skatepark fencing
o Concern about the aesthetics/feel of having the entire southeastern portion of the park fenced off.
o Understand the desire to control access to the skatepark o Not currently in the budget
o From kick-off meeting discussion, we were under the impression that it was going to remain open:
o Fencing around the skatepark was discussed. There are concerns about the adjacent border with the railroad and the ability to close off the skatepark at night may ease neighbors’ apprehensions. However, staff is small and unable to be opening and locking gates at dawn and dusk.
o Jaxon stated that it’s more progressive to leave it open. o Michael stated that the SLO skatepark is open and had a Community Ambassador to help keep the skaters on board with park rules. o Public Art
o Is a public art committee to be assembled to select an artist for the mural art on the walls, art for the water tower and any sculptures?
o Water line from Water Tower
o Travis from ECG is reviewing options and costing for rerouting the waterline or sleeving it in place under the skatepark.
o Private Property ADU
o Are there approved plans for the ADU that we could review? 2nd Annual Cinco de Mayo Celebration
This event was held on Sunday, May 7th to allow those with a Saturday workday to still attend the event. Attendance was free but was tracked through EventBrite. EventBrite recorded that there were 48 people that attended the event, however, the rough guestimate was close to 60-70 people. The following groups attended in support of the event:

Guadalupe Business Association, Kiwanis Club of Guadalupe, CAPSLO, Allan Hancock College, Boys & Girls Club of Mid Central Coast, Nena’s Kitchen, Lobo Butcher Shop, Los Danzantes de Santa Maria, and Righetti High School Marimba & Ballet Folklorico.

Vendors were not charged this year to allow the community to recognize this as an annual event first, however, vendors were informed that next year there will be a cost associated with being a vendor at the event.

Upcoming Programs & Events
Drop-in Sports for ages 16+
Free Drop-in volleyball and basketball for ages 16+ are currently taking place.

This form can be found on the Recreation Page of the city website. Go to https://ci.guadalupe.ca.us/recreation/
June Drop In Schedule
Drop In Volleyball
• Wednesdays: 6:00pm – 8:00pm
Drop In Basketball
• Thursday, June 1
st – No Drop In
• Friday, June 9
th – 6:00pm – 8:00pm
• Friday, June 16th – 6:00pm – 8:00pm
• Thursday, June 22nd – 6:00pm – 8:00pm
• Friday, June 30th – 6:00pm – 8:00pm
Coed Adult Softball League
Games will be held on Thursdays at Jack O’Connell Park with a 5:00pm first game start time. Games after that are scheduled accordingly. The game schedule will be set at the Manager’s Meeting. Teams must provide their own equipment (team shirts, gloves, cleats, etc.). The referee fee will be $20 per team per game. Referee fees for championship games will be $30 per team per game. The rulebook is being adjusted. Adjustments will be discussed at the Manager’s Meeting. Two females are required to be on the field/batting line up for the entirety of the game. While the game may still be played without the two females, failure to follow this requirement will result in an automatic forfeit.

Viva el Arte
Respectfully,
Hannah Sanchez
Recreation Services Manager
CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT
July 11, 2023
(Information below may be subject to change)

1. Fiscal Year 23-24 Budget – More Time Needed
The Finance Director informed the City Administrator that she will need more time to reconcile the budget from comments made by the City Council during the June 27th City Council meeting.

Therefore, the proposed FY 23-24 budget will not be discussed at the July 11 meeting but rather at the July 25 CC meeting.

2. City Business
City staff has been working hard to divide up the various projects and tasks since Shannon Sweeney tenured her resignation on June 15. Please be patient, as the City Administrator and other city staff will have an increased workload to cover. The city staff is actively recruiting a replacement and will present an interim solution.

3. Project / Grants Management
The Mayor and City Administrator met to discuss possible ideas to develop a self-sustaining grant consultant to procure and manage grants about grant related projects on-going. The idea is that the grants will pay for the position/consultant to manage. It is felt that the city does not need to miss any opportunities and possible means to manage them.

4. Pending CDBG Contract for City of Guadalupe – Water Collection System CDBG Grant Extension
At the June 27, 2023, City Council meeting, Mayor Julian asked staff if the city has met the deadline on the CDBG grant. The City Administrator said, “yes.” For more clarification, according to Shannon Burge, CDBG representative at HCD who currently manages all the active and pending contracts for the City of Guadalupe, comply. Here is some clarification.

The State assures the city that even if the city were to go over that 30-days (considering at this moment they are well over that 30-days) the city will not be penalized. Once they were verbally notified of Shannon Sweeney’s upcoming departure, effective June 15th, she was verbally told by Ms. Burge that they would allow extra time for corrections. They had been meeting regularly since the corrections letter was sent on questions that she had and one of the biggest corrections was going to be the environmental (NEPA documents), which after discussions and meetings with their NEPA team, they knew that this would go over the 30- days.

Agenda Item No. 7
At this time, the City’s Engineer Technician Dayanira Cruz has been actively working with them and their NEPA team on the corrections that need to be made. They are confident that Dayanira will continue to have that open communication with all parties and get these corrections in on behalf of the City of Guadalupe as soon as possible.

5. Department of Cannabis Control Inquiry for CEQA Compliance in City of Guadalupe The city will be tasked with several local, regional, and state cannabis regulators now that the city has a cannabis program. So far, the city approved: 1) Central Coast Processing's processing and distribution facility; 2) Planning approved an associated lot line adjustment for 151 Obispo, LLC (it still must be recorded); and 3) Element 7 retail dispensary.

The City prepared CEQA Exemptions that the CC adopted for each.

Consulting City Planner, Bill Scott submitted the adopted CEQA documents.

Community Benefit Agreements:
• Central Coast Processing LLC: Approved by council
• Element 7 Retail, city staff in negotiations, July, or August council consideration
• Root One Retail, soon to be negotiated, July/August or September council consideration.

6. Central Coast Community (3ce) - Electric Bus Press Conference 3ce is planning a press conference regarding the arrival of the new electric bus. Dayanira Engineer Technician is continuing the efforts on this project with the City Administrator and is working with the funding agencies and company who will deliver the bus and would like to do a presentation of it. News, photos, etc. They would like leadership there. City staff does not have the date/time/details yet. Just giving you a heads-up to see if you are interested in being the face of the city.

7. Japanese American Citizens league Visit Guadalupe July 8th The Ventura County Japanese American Citizens League (JACL) & The Guadalupe Visual and Performing Arts Center (GVPAC) with the support of the City of Guadalupe are pleased to be hosting an event with author Naomi Hirahara (American Son) about the history of Japanese Americans in Guadalupe and take a tour of the Historic Royal Theater and downtown.

Tentative Details of the event are below:

Saturday, July 8th - Schedule
10:30 am Program: Welcome and Introduction by VC JACL by Janice M 10:35 am Introduction to Guadalupe by Mayor Ariston Julian 10:40 am Introduction to Naomi Hirahara by Janice M
10:45 pm Presentation by Naomi followed by Q & A
11:15 am Presentation on the Royal Theater & future programming by Tom Brandeberry
11:25 am Presentation by Local Business
11:45 am Lunch
12:30 pm Tour of Royal Theater & Downtown Guadalupe

8. Royal Theatre Update/History – June 2023
Tom Brandeberry is the Project Manager for the Royal Theater. Tom works hand-in-hand with the City Administrator and utilizes our City Attorney, Planners, other staff and even the Mayor. Staff documents its time on this project so the city will get reimbursed for its time and funds come out of the grant as a transfer in.

Funding Agencies Updates:

A. EDA—This City has a signed contract with the Federal Economic Development Administration. The award amount is $4,889,121. The initial award required a twophase project, with the EDA only funding the renovation of the theater. Since receiving the CAC funding, the city has been able to convince the EDA that the full scope of the project should be a one-phase project. To do this, a revised application was submitted, and the project will go back to an approval committee on April 19, 2023. It was approved and we recently received the approved Amendment 1 to the contract for the mayor to sign. It took this long as it required Legal Counsel approval. a) The city has several items that the EDA must review and approve before we can release the Bid Package, with some items requiring EDA Legal Counsel’s review, which can take 2-3 months to get to the front of the queue:
b)
1) Lien, mortgage needs to be recorded (hold up due to lot merger—with the City Attorney, Philip Sinco now. Once done, will require EDA Legal review and approval.
2) Evidence of Good Title (title is clear and without restrictions).

Held up due to lot merger—with AGD now, then to Philip and then to the mayor. Once done, will require EDA Legal review and approval.
3) Inspector RFQ (with city consultant now)
4) Bid Package. Tom is finishing the Front End with some suggested changes by EDA. AGD is also working on getting the plans and spec easy to “read” for the EDA. Tom expects the Bid Package will be uploaded for EDA review by the end of this week, at the time of this writing.
c) While the Lot Merger is approved, it will require another 30 days for the County to finalize the legal description and map, and to record and place it online.
c) While the city will be sending the bid package to the EDA for their review by the end of this week, it will need work to be “final” due to potential changes from the EDA, adding final dates, etc.

B. CAC—The California Arts Council was named in the State’s budget to be the passthrough agency for administering the $5M award. Per the CAC, there is nothing more needed until project completion.

The City received an $8M check from CAC, with $3M being funded for the Housing Authorities’ Escalante Meadows County Center. The city understands the check has not been issued at this time and Philip is working on a legal agreement to be signed by the HA and the city as the city on some level is “responsible for the full $8M.

C. RDA—These are the Successor Agency funds limited to use on the Royal Theatre. Some costs bill to this fund will be able to be reimbursed from one of the two other sources noted above. To correct the January Report, these funds are NOT limited to the Royal Theatre. Therefore, the city will work on a plan to ensure that, if possible, that all funds in A and B above are exhausted first and when appropriate, and feasible, the RDA funds will be reimbursed.

D. HTC—Historic Tax Credits. This process requires three applications, with the first being applying for the building to be federally recognized (completed) and the last being the completion of the project. The middle application is for the State and Federal agencies to review and approve the renovation plans and spec. The State has approved, and we made some changes to satisfy the federal agency (National Park Services). The National Park Services has approved verbally, and the city is waiting on an official notice. a) The city hired Brian Wishneff & Associates, a Tax Credit consultant firm, to manage the HTC process.
b) The city hired Robert Cowan of Bocarsly, Emden, Cowan, Esmail & Arndt to represent the city as their Tax Attorney.

E. California HTC. The State’s new tax credit program for historic preservation is still in rule making. There is a possible timing issue (when the program gets the green light to start and if the city’s project is ready to go, or too far along to be eligible).

F. NMTC—The Tax Credit team has been informed by the city the following is the preference of the city:
a) If the lowest, responsive bid comes in above the available funds (above RDA and HTC), the City will apply for NMTC-Construction. b) If the lowest, responsive comes in at budget, or with the comfortable amount, allowing some RDA/HTC to be used, the city will apply for NMTC-Operating. These funds will allow the City to support/supervise the nonprofit operators for the first 12 months of startup/operating.

G. Timeline for Construction:
a) July 31, 2023: RFQ/Inspector EDA Approve
b) August 31, 2023: EDA Approves Bid Package
c) September 30, 2023: Inspector hired.
d) October 31, 2023: Bid Package Released
e) December 1, 2023: EDA approve procurement of the Construction Company
f) December 31, 2023: Council Approves Construction Contract g) February 1, 2024: Notice to Proceed
h) December 1, 2024: Construction Complete
i) January 31, 2025: Occupancy
ATTACHMENT 1

Agenda Item No. 9

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of July 11, 2023
_________________________________ _________________________________ Prepared by Approved by
Larry Appel, Contract Planning Director Todd Bodem, City Administrator SUBJECT: Review and approval of Draft Housing Element for review by Housing and Community Development (HCD) and adopting of Resolution No. 2023-61.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The California legislature identifies the attainment of an acceptable home and suitable living environment for every citizen as California’s main goal for housing. Recognizing the important role local government planning plays to achieve this goal, the State mandates that all cities and counties prepare and adopt a housing element as part of their comprehensive General Plans. In the housing element, State law requires local governments to adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. Unlike the other mandatory elements, the housing element is subject to detailed statutory requirements regarding its content and must be updated every five or eight years, according to a schedule set by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The housing element is also subject to mandatory review and certification by HCD.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Receive a presentation from staff and consultant; and 2) Conduct a public hearing; and
3) Direct staff to transmit the Draft Housing Element to HCD for the required 90-day review; and 4) Direct consultant to prepare an appropriate draft environmental document to address any impacts created by adoption of the Draft Housing Element BACKGROUND:

The City Council entered into a contract with Dr. Cornelius Nuworsoo of De Lapide & Associates to prepare the 2023-2031 Housing Element. This followed the adoption of the 2042 General Plan in November 2022. On January 10, 2023, a public forum was held with the community and many interested agencies to learn what was going to be proposed for the new Housing Element. The meeting was well attended and many comments were presented to staff and the consultant. A short questionnaire was also given to the participants which were then used by the consultant to ensure that the draft document focused on issues important to the attendees. An administrative draft element was submitted to the City in April 2023 which was thoroughly reviewed by staff. Once the draft was prepared, staff made copies for Council, department heads, and distributed for public review. Notice was included on the City’s website along with a downloadable copy of the draft. The public comment period ran from May 30 – June 30. A subsequent public forum was held on June 22nd. At this time, we believe that the public has spoken and are satisfied with the draft document that is before you this evening
DISCUSSION:

The consultant will summarize the draft element using a PowerPoint presentation. There have been many new sections required through HCD and with the knowledge of the consultant, he has been able to address all the issues. Due to pre-scheduled travel plans, both Mr. Appel and Dr. Nuworsoo will be attending via Zoom.

One very time-consuming task was preparing the “Housing Element Completeness Checklist” which is a quick reference of statutory requirements for Housing Element Updates. This was a new requirement from HCD for the 6th cycle housing elements. In this 23-page section, the consultant was required to show what page(s) within the draft document that each of the mandated topics was covered. The checklist can be found within the draft document on pages xiv-xxv.

The draft element contains a number of statistics derived from many sources. One number that stands out is that from 2000 until 2020, the city has increased in population by 35% (5,653 to 7,654). This is significant for any community. To handle the increased population, housing agencies like People’s Selfhelp Housing and the Housing Authority of Santa Barbara County have produced many new housing units primarily for low income families and farmworkers. Private developers have also provided a large number of new homes, apartments, and condos for the residents.

The city has also seen a rise in the number of H-2A employee housing projects which are contracted out for out-of-country farmworkers for around nine months each year.

One other major area discussed in the draft document is the City’s ability to provide adequate land and density so as to allow developers to provide housing under various household income levels. The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is a program mandated by the state and implemented through regional planning agencies. Our program is implemented through Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG). In the 5th Cycle housing element, Guadalupe was required to provide land and densities that would ultimately allow for the development of 50 residential units.

These were divided into five categories: Extremely Low, Very Low, Low, Moderate, and Above Moderate. The PowerPoint slide below will provide a graphic that shows the City did extremely well as it provided 808% of what was required.
2023-2031 Draft Housing Element Page 3 of 4 July 11, 2023 RHNA Allocations Met and Unmet
This Table has additional details of the City of Guadalupe’s compliance with the current 2015-2023 housing need allocations.

The new RHNA numbers for the 6th Cycle now require the City to provide land and densities for 431 units. The recently adopted 2042 General Plan was able to increase densities in various parts of the City so that we could ensure that at least 431 units could be built during the eight-year housing cycle.

A graphic in the PowerPoint will show that it is projected that the City will exceed the new allocation by approximately fifty percent.

Effective January 1 2021, Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c)(10)(A) requires Housing Elements to include an assessment of fair housing to include discussion of four thematic areas:
a) Integration and segregation patterns and trends
b) Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty c) Disparities in access to opportunity
d) Disproportionate housing needs within the jurisdiction, including displacementrisk.

While there are no development proposals in the 2042 General Plan and this housing element that would cause disproportionate housing needs within the jurisdiction or create the risk of displacing segments of the population, the City has been typically below the recommended vacancy rate of 5 percent, which would indicate that Guadalupe residents have limited housing choice and mobility and could be susceptible to displacement risks that low vacancy rates could trigger. While such risks may be greater for households in the lower-income segments from price competition, the City has Income Category
Quantified
Objective Completed Progress Future
(Allocated 5th
Cycle
Dwelling
Units)
(Completed
2015 to
2019)
(Completed
2019 to
2022)
Total
Completed in
5th Cycle
Percent of 5th
Cycle RHNA
Completed
(Dwelling Units
Pending
Construction)
RHNA
Allocation
New Construction
Extremely low 5 2 4 6 120% 0
Very Low 7 1 26 27 386% 0
Low 8 1 7 8 100% 0
Moderate 13 23 131 154 1185% 40
Above Moderate 17 107 102 209 1229% 284
Total 50 134 270 404 808% 320
2023-2031 Draft Housing Element Page 4 of 4 July 11, 2023 steadfastly kept the production of lower-income housing at par with its allocations over the previous two cycles. And the incidence of homelessness is relatively low in the City. The analysis points to a favorable assessment of fair housing in Guadalupe.

CONCLUSION:

This draft housing element has been prepared by a consultant that has many years’ experience developing documents for agencies throughout the state. This 6th cycle document has been most challenging as the State HCD has required a number of new sections which in turn required much more research to be able to provide a document that is acceptable to the agency. If the Council agrees to direct staff to transmit the document, then we will be able to move forward with the required environmental document. Any requests for revision will be discussed between the contractor and Planning Director to decide how to best address them, then those changes will be made and the environmental document will be completed. Following that, the final document will be scheduled for hearing and we will request that the 2023-2031 Housing Element be adopted.

PUBLIC NOTICE:

Staff published the required Public Hearing Notice in a newspaper of general circulation for the draft Housing Element for comments. The Notice was also posted in three public locations in the city as required by Government Code section 65090 on June 30, 2023.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No. 2023-61 directing staff to transmit the Draft Housing Element to Housing and Community Development for 90-day review.

2. 2023-2031 Draft Housing Element
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-61

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE, CALIFORNIA, TRANSMITTING THE DRAFT 6TH CYCLE HOUSING TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR 90-DAY REVIEW
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65300, each city and county in California must adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan, including the Housing Element, addressing the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which in the agency’s judgment bears relation to its planning; and WHEREAS, the City of Guadalupe has prepared a 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element, conforming to all the requirements required of HCD; and
WHEREAS, on January 11, 2023, and June 22, 2023, public forums were conducted to provide information to residents and interested agencies of the changes that were planned for the draft document; and
WHEREAS, the draft Housing Element was out for public review from May 30 to June 30, 2023; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary, timely, and desirable to comprehensively update the 5th Cycle 2019 Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, through an extensive and lengthy public process, including workshops and hearings before the City Council, the City of Guadalupe has prepared a comprehensive update to the 2019 Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the 2023-2031 Draft Housing Element includes updated Goals, Policies, and Programs reflecting the community’s vision of Guadalupe; and
WHEREAS, on June 30, 2023, the City published a legal advertisement, pursuant to in the Santa Maria Times, a newspaper of local circulation in order to increase public awareness about the 6th Cycle Housing Element even though not legally required pursuant to Government Code § 65353(a) and § 65090, in addition to posting the public hearing notice in three public places in the City of Guadalupe at least ten (10) days before said public hearing; and WHEREAS, the notice of the City Council’s hearing on the 2023-2031 Draft Housing Element was posted to the City’s website on June 30, 2023, at least 72-hours prior to the Council hearing as part of the City Council’s meeting agenda as required by the Brown Act.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Guadalupe does hereby find and determine as follows:

ATTACHMENT 1
SECTION 1. The 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element is hereby approved, and staff is directed to transmitted it to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for its 90-day review.

SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.

SECTION 3. That 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 on the 11th day of July 2023 by the following vote:

MOTION:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

I, Amelia M. Villegas, City Clerk of the City of Guadalupe DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being CC Resolution No. 2023-61, has been duly signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of the City Council, held July 11, 2023, and that same was approved and adopted.

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

CITY OF GUADALUPE
2023 – 2031 Housing Element
Public Review Draft Update
Submitted by the City of Guadalupe
5/20/2023
Prepared by:

De Lapide & Associates, Inc.
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT 2
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the City Council, the City Staff, and stakeholders of the City of Guadalupe for their assistance in preparation of this Housing Element. We would like to acknowledge the following officials:

City Council
Ariston Julian, Mayor
Eugene Costa Jr., Mayor Pro Tem
Christina Hernandez, Council member
Gilbert Robles, Council member
Megan Lizalde, Council member
Anna Marie Santillan Michaud, City Treasurer (Elected Official) Amelia M Villegas, City Clerk (Elected Official)
Staff
Todd Bodem, City Administrator
Larry Appel, Planning Director
Chief Michael Cash, Public Safety Department
Shannon Sweeny, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Lorena Zarate, Finance Director
Juana Escobar, Administrative Assistant
Contents
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................................................ ii City Council............................................................................................................................................................................... ii Staff .......................................................................................................................................................................................... ii List of Tables............................................................................................................................................................................... vii List of Figures................................................................................................................................................................................ x City Council Resolution............................................................................................................................................................... xii Housing Element Update Guidance .......................................................................................................................................... xiv Attachment 2: Completeness Checklist................................................................................................................................. xiv

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Community Context ...........................................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Public Participation.............................................................................................................................................................2

1.2.1 Consolidated Outreach Activities................................................................................................................................2

1.2.2 Special 6th Cycle Outreach Findings.............................................................................................................................3

1.2.3 Inclusion of Outreach Findings in Housing Element....................................................................................................4

1.3 Consistency with Other Elements of the General Plan ......................................................................................................4

1.4 Organization of the Element ..............................................................................................................................................5

2.0 Housing Needs Assessment....................................................................................................................................................6

2.1. Population Characteristics.................................................................................................................................................6

2.1.1 Population Growth Trends..........................................................................................................................................6

2.1.2 Age...............................................................................................................................................................................6

2.1.3 Race and Ethnicity .......................................................................................................................................................7

2.1.4 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................................8

2.2 Employment Trends ...........................................................................................................................................................8

2.2.1 Current Employment...................................................................................................................................................8

2.2.2 Projected Job Growth................................................................................................................................................10

2.2.3 Jobs-Housing Balance ................................................................................................................................................10

2.2.4 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................11

2.3 Household Characteristics................................................................................................................................................12

2.3.1 Growth in Households...............................................................................................................................................12

2.3.2 Household Composition and Size..............................................................................................................................12

2.3.3 Household Income.....................................................................................................................................................13

2.3.4 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................15

2.4 Characteristics of the Housing Stock................................................................................................................................15

2.4.1 Housing Types and Growth .......................................................................................................................................15

2.4.2 Housing Age and Conditions .....................................................................................................................................17

2.4.3 Housing Tenure .........................................................................................................................................................18

2.4.4 Vacancy......................................................................................................................................................................19

2.4.5 Housing Cost..............................................................................................................................................................19

2.4.6 Affordability and Overpayment.................................................................................................................................21

2.4.7 Overcrowding ............................................................................................................................................................22

2.4.8 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................23

2.5 Special Housing Needs .....................................................................................................................................................23

2.5.1 Elderly........................................................................................................................................................................23

2.5.2 Large Households......................................................................................................................................................25

2.5.3 Female Headed Households......................................................................................................................................26

2.5.4 Persons with Disabilities............................................................................................................................................28

2.5.5 Farmworkers..............................................................................................................................................................29

2.5.6 Unhoused ..................................................................................................................................................................32

2.5.7 Extremely Low-Income Households..........................................................................................................................32

2.5.8 Persons with Developmental Disabilities..................................................................................................................33

2.6 Assisted Housing At-Risk of Conversion ...........................................................................................................................34

2.6.1 Inventory of Potential At-Risk Units..........................................................................................................................34

2.6.2 Risk of Conversion .....................................................................................................................................................35

2.7 Future Growth Needs.......................................................................................................................................................35

2.7.1 Overview of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation................................................................................................35

3.0 Resources for Residential Development ..............................................................................................................................38

3.1 Land Availability................................................................................................................................................................38

3.1.1 Vacant Residential Parcels.........................................................................................................................................39

3.1.2 Mixed Use Development...........................................................................................................................................40

3.1.3 DJ Farms Specific Plan Area.......................................................................................................................................41

3.2 Financial Resources..........................................................................................................................................................41

3.2.1 Federal and State Resources.....................................................................................................................................41

3.2.2 Local Resources.........................................................................................................................................................45

4.0 Constraints ...........................................................................................................................................................................47

4.1 Governmental Constraints ...............................................................................................................................................47

4.1.1 Land Use Controls......................................................................................................................................................47

4.1.2 Residential Development Processing Procedures.....................................................................................................57

4.1.3 Development Fees.....................................................................................................................................................59

4.1.4 Regional Constraints..................................................................................................................................................60

4.1.5 Accessory Dwelling Units...........................................................................................................................................61

4.2 Non-Governmental Constraints .......................................................................................................................................63

4.2.1 Fiscal Constraints.......................................................................................................................................................63

4.2.2 Citizen Behavior.........................................................................................................................................................65

4.2.3 Environmental Constraints........................................................................................................................................65

4.2.4 Infrastructure and Public Facilities............................................................................................................................68

5.0 Energy Conservation Opportunities.....................................................................................................................................71

5.1 Planning and land Use ......................................................................................................................................................71

5.2 Energy Efficient Practices and Technologies....................................................................................................................72

6.0 Housing Action Plan..............................................................................................................................................................74

6.1 Affordable Housing Supply ...............................................................................................................................................74

6.2 Conservation and Rehabilitation......................................................................................................................................77

6.3 At-Risk Units.....................................................................................................................................................................77

6.4 Special Needs....................................................................................................................................................................78

6.5 Energy Conservation.........................................................................................................................................................80

6.6 Equal Opportunity Housing ..............................................................................................................................................81

6.7 Quantified Objectives.......................................................................................................................................................83

7.0 Appendices...........................................................................................................................................................................84

7.1 Appendix A: Evaluation of 5th Cycle Housing Element .....................................................................................................84

7.1.1 Program Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................................84

7.1.2 Appropriateness of Goals and Policies......................................................................................................................84

7.1.3. Progress in Meeting Quantified Objectives..............................................................................................................84

7.1.4. Progress toward Special Needs Populations............................................................................................................85

7.1.5. Shortfall of Sites from the 5th Cycle Planning Period................................................................................................85

7.2 Appendix B: Residential Land Inventory.........................................................................................................................107

7.2.1 Vacant Land .............................................................................................................................................................107

7.2.2 Mixed-Use Development.........................................................................................................................................112

7.2.3 DJ Farms Specific Plan .............................................................................................................................................117

7.2.4 People’s Self-Help Housing Project .........................................................................................................................117

7.2.5 Santa Barbara County Housing Authority ...............................................................................................................117

7.2.6 Conclusions on Inventory of Residential Opportunities..........................................................................................118

7.3 Appendix C: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing ..................................................................................................119

7.3.0 Legislative Basis for Fair Housing ........................................................................................................................119

7.3.1 Fair Housing Outreach & Enforcement................................................................................................................119

7.3.2 Assessment of Fair Housing..................................................................................................................................124

7.3.3 Sites Inventory.......................................................................................................................................................163

7.3.4 Identification of Contributing Factors .................................................................................................................165

7.3.5 Goals and Actions...................................................................................................................................................167

7.4 Appendix D: Development Fees.....................................................................................................................................169

8.0 References..........................................................................................................................................................................178 List of Tables
Table 2-1: Population Growth Trends. Guadalupe City vs. Santa Barbara County, 2000 – 2020 ................................................6 Table 2-2: Age Distribution - Guadalupe City vs. Santa Barbara County, 2020............................................................................7 Table 2-3: Population by Race/Ethnicity - Guadalupe City vs. Santa Barbara County, 2020 .......................................................7 Table 2-4: Labor Force and Employment Rates - Guadalupe City vs. Santa Barbara County, 2020 ............................................8 Table 2-5: Distribution of Employment by Occupation and Median Earning – Guadalupe City, 2020........................................9 Table 2-6: Protected Job Growth by Occupation from 2018 to 2028 – Santa Maria & Santa Barbara Metropolitan Statistical Area .....................................................................................................................................................10 Table 2-7: Jobs to Housing Ratio - Guadalupe City vs. Santa Barbara County, 2020 .................................................................11 Table 2-8: Household Growth Trends - Guadalupe City, 2000 to 2020 .....................................................................................12 Table 2-9: Household Composition - Guadalupe City vs. Santa Barbara County, 2020.............................................................13 Table 2-10: Distribution of Household Sizes - Guadalupe City vs. Santa Barbara County, 2020 ...............................................13 Table 2-11: Household Income - Guadalupe City, 2020.............................................................................................................14 Table 2-12: Comparative Median Household Incomes - Santa Barbara County and Cities, 2020 .............................................14 Table 2-13: Median Income Distribution of Household Income Groups - Guadalupe City, 2020..............................................15 Table 2-14: Housing Unit Type- Guadalupe City vs. Santa Barbara County, 2020 .....................................................................16 Table 2-15: Age Distribution and Growth of Housing Stock - Guadalupe City, 2020.................................................................16 Table 2-16: Trends in Housing Conditions - Guadalupe 2008 to 2017.......................................................................................18 Table 2-17: Trends in Housing Tenure of Occupied Units - Guadalupe, 2000 to 2020..............................................................18 Table 2-18: Comparative Median Home Values - Santa Barbara County and Cities, 2000 to 2020 ..........................................20 Table 2-19: Distribution of Contract Rent Payments - Guadalupe City, 2020............................................................................21 Table 2-20: Percent of Household Income Spent on Housing – Guadalupe City, 2020 .............................................................21 Table 2-21: Overcrowding - Guadalupe City vs. Santa Barbara County, 2020 ...........................................................................22 Table 2-22: Households by Age of Householder - Guadalupe City, 2000 to 2020 .....................................................................23 Table 2-23: Householder by Tenure and Age - Guadalupe City, 2020 .......................................................................................24 Table 2-24: Number of Rooms per Occupied Housing Unit by Tenure – Guadalupe City, 2020 ...............................................26 Table 2-25: Number of Persons per Occupied Housing Unit by Tenure - Guadalupe City, 2020...............................................26 Table 2-26: Occupied Housing Units by Household Type by Tenure - Guadalupe City, 2020....................................................27 Table 2-27: Comparative Characteristics of Householders - Guadalupe City, 2020 ..................................................................28 Table 2-28: Population with Disability - Guadalupe City, 2020..................................................................................................28 Table 2-29: Top 10 Agriculture Products by Rank - Santa Barbara County, 2018 and 2020......................................................30 Table 2-30: Estimates of Farmworker Population - Guadalupe City vs. Santa Barbara County, 2020.......................................31 Table 2-31: Distribution of Persons with Developmental Disabilities - Guadalupe City, 2021 ..................................................33 Table 2-32: Inventory of Assisted Affordable Housing Developments - Guadalupe City, 2020.................................................34 Table 2-33: Shares of Households vs. RHNA Allocations by Income Groups - Guadalupe City, 2020 .......................................37 Table 3-1: Capacity of Vacant Residential Land Exclusive of DJ Farms Specific Plan Area.........................................................40 Table 3-2: Housing Capacity of DJ Farms Specific Plan Area......................................................................................................41 Table 3-3: Additional Federal, State, and Private Financial Resources......................................................................................42 Table 4-1: Guadalupe General Plan Residential Land Use Designations....................................................................................48 Table 4-2: Residential & Commercial Zoning in Guadalupe.......................................................................................................49 Table 4-3: Development Standards in Guadalupe Zoning Ordinance........................................................................................50 Table 4-4: Allowed Residential Development by Zone ..............................................................................................................50 Table 4-5: Parking Space & Street Width Standards..................................................................................................................54 Table 4-6: Typical Permit Processing Time Requirements.........................................................................................................58 Table 4-7: Fees that Affect Housing Production.........................................................................................................................60 Table 4-8: Sewer Capacity and Projected Sewer Demand .........................................................................................................69 Table 6-1: Comparison of RHNA Allocations Met and Unmet by Income Groups in Guadalupe...............................................83 Table A-1: Evaluation of Programs in 5th Cycle (2015 & 2019) Housing Element - City of Guadalupe ......................................86 Table A-2: Appropriateness of 2015 Guadalupe Housing Element Goals and Policies..............................................................95 Table A-3a. Progress in Achieving Quantified Objectives (All Incomes) ....................................................................................98 Table A-3b. Progress in Achieving Quantified Objectives (Lower Incomes) – Completed Apartments.....................................99 Table A-3c. Progress in Achieving Quantified Objectives (Lower Incomes) – Completed ADUs ...............................................99 Table A-4a: Residential Permit Activities - City of Guadalupe, 2015 through 2021...................................................................99 Table A-4b: Recent Residential Permit Activities by Income - City of Guadalupe, 2019-2021 ................................................101 Table A-5: Affordability of Residential Construction - City of Guadalupe, Late 2015 to Early 2019........................................102 Table B-1: Summary of 2014-2022 RHNA Allocations to Guadalupe.......................................................................................107 Table B-2: Inventory of Vacant Residential Infill Sites in Guadalupe from Land Use Inventory ..............................................108 Table B-3: Other Vacant Residential Land within Built-Up Area ..............................................................................................111 Table B-4. Mixed-Use Development Potential .........................................................................................................................113 Table B-5: Other Lots with Mixed-Use Potential......................................................................................................................116 Table B-6: Housing Capacity at DJ Farms Specific Plan Area....................................................................................................117 Table C-1: Number of Fair Housing Enforcement Cases in Counties near Guadalupe, 2010 and 2020...................................121 Table C-2: Population by Race/Ethnicity - Guadalupe City & Region, 2021.............................................................................125 Table C-3: Population by Race/Ethnicity - Guadalupe City & Region, 2010.............................................................................125 Table C-4: Incidence of Disability in the Guadalupe Region, 2019...........................................................................................130 Table C-5: Distribution of Household/Family Types in the Guadalupe Region, 2010..............................................................133 Table C-6: Distribution of Household/Family Types in the Guadalupe Region, 2019..............................................................134 Table C-7: 2010 and 2020 Median Incomes and Poverty Levels in the Guadalupe Region.....................................................135 Table C-8: Comparative opportunity Indices for School Proficiency in the Guadalupe Region, 2020.....................................153 Table C-9: HUD Opportunity Indicators in Santa Barbara County, 2010..................................................................................154 Table C-10: Labor Force and Employment Rates - Guadalupe City vs. Santa Barbara County, 2020 ......................................154 Table C-11: Distribution of Employment by Occupation (2021) and Median Earning (2020) .................................................156 Table C-12. Progress in Achieving Quantified Objectives (All Incomes) in 2015-2023 Housing Element................................162 Table D-1: Consolidated List of Fees in Guadalupe .................................................................................................................169 List of Figures
Figure 2-1: Age Distribution of Housing Stock - Guadalupe City, 2020......................................................................................17 Figure 2-2: Median Household Income vs. Median Home Value – Guadalupe City, 2000-2020...............................................20 Figure 4-1: Environmental Constraints Map–Prime Agricultural Lands under Williamson Act Contract ..................................66 Figure 4-2: Environmental Constraints Map–Floodable Areas ..................................................................................................67 Figure 4-3: Environmental Constraints Map–Wetlands and Habitat Areas...............................................................................67 Figure A-1 DJ Farms Site Map...................................................................................................................................................103 Figure A-2: Peoples’ Self-Help Housing Breaks Ground on New Affordable Housing in Guadalupe, CA.................................104 Figure A-3: Guadalupe Ranch Acres becomes Escalante Meadows Affordable Housing in Guadalupe, CA............................105 Figure B-1: Opportunities for Housing at Vacant Infill, Mix-Use, and DJ Farms Sites..............................................................110 Figure C-1: Distribution of Fair Housing Enforcement Cases in Guadalupe & Region, 2010 ...................................................122 Figure C-2: Distribution of Fair Housing Enforcement Cases in Guadalupe & Region, 2020 ...................................................123 Figure C-3: 2020 Neighborhood Designations within the City of Guadalupe ..........................................................................126 Figure C-4: 2010 Concentrations of Hispanic Population by Census Block in Guadalupe Neighborhoods..............................128 Figure C-5: 2020 Concentrations of Hispanic Population by Census Block in Guadalupe and its Region................................129 Figure C-6: 2014 Concentrations of Disability Populations in Guadalupe and its Region........................................................131 Figure C-7: 2019 Concentrations of Disability Populations in Guadalupe and its Region........................................................132 Figure C-8: Percent of Home Owners Paying >30% of Incomes on Housing, Guadalupe Region, 2014 ..................................136 Figure C-9: Percent of Home Owners Paying >30% of Incomes on Housing, Guadalupe Region, 2019 ..................................137 Figure C-10: Percent of Renters Paying >30% of Incomes on Housing, Guadalupe Region, 2014...........................................138 Figure C-11: Percent of Renters Paying >30% of Incomes on Housing, Guadalupe Region, 2019...........................................139 Figure C-12: Locations of Subsidized Housing Projects in the Guadalupe Region, 2021 .........................................................141 Figure C-13: Locations of Subsidized Housing Projects within Guadalupe and Vicinity, 2021 ................................................142 Figure C-14: Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty in Guadalupe & Region, 2000 .......................................144 Figure C-15: Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty in Guadalupe & Region, 2010 .......................................145 Figure C-16: Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty in Guadalupe & Region, 2013 .......................................146 Figure C-17: Composite Opportunity Areas in Guadalupe & Region, 2020 .............................................................................147 Figure C-18: Concentrations of Non-Hispanic Whites in Guadalupe Neighborhoods, 2010 ...................................................149 Figure C-19: Concentrations of Non-Hispanic Whites in Guadalupe Neighborhoods, 2020 ...................................................150 Figure C-20: Levels of Resource Availability in Guadalupe & Region, 2020.............................................................................152 Figure C-21: Levels of Displacement Risk in Guadalupe & Region, 2019 .................................................................................159 Figure C-22: 2010 to 2021 Trends in Housing Vacancy in Guadalupe and Santa Barbara County ..........................................161 Figure C-23: 2022 Incidence of Toxic Release by Census Tract in Guadalupe .........................................................................166 City Council Resolution
To be added . . . .

Housing Element Update Guidance
Attachment 2: Completeness Checklist

HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLETENESS

CHECKLIST
A Quick Reference of Statutory Requirements
for Housing Element Updates
Updated 1/2021
The purpose of this completeness checklist is to assist local governments in the preparation of their housing element. It includes the statutory requirements of Government Code section 65580 – 65588. Completion of this checklist is not an indication of statutory compliance but is intended to provide a check to ensure that relevant requirements are included in the housing element prior to submittal to the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Government Code section 65585(b). For purposes of the Checklist the term “analysis” is defined as a description and evaluation of specific needs, characteristics, and resources available to address identified needs.

For technical assistance on each section visit California Housing and Community Development Building Blocks Technical Assistance
(https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/building-blocks/index.shtml) xv
Public
Participation
Checklist
Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c)(8)
Description of Requirement Page
Number
Description of the diligent efforts the jurisdiction made to include all economic segments of the community and/or their representatives in the development and update of the housing element

1.2 2
Summary of the public input received and a description of how it will be considered and incorporated into the housing element. 3-4 Review and Revise
Government Code section 65588, subdivision (a)
Description of Requirement Page
Number
Progress in implementation – A description of the actual results or outcomes of the previous element’s goals, objectives, policies, and programs (e.g. what happened).

Tab A-1
84-94
Effectiveness of the element – For each program, include an analysis comparing the differences between what was projected or planned in the element and what was achieved.

Tab A-3
84, 98
Appropriateness of goals, objectives, policies, and programs –A description of how the goals, objectives, policies, and programs in the updated element are being changed or adjusted to incorporate what has been learned from the results of the previous element. (e.g. continued, modified, or deleted.) Tab A-2
84, 95-98
Special needs populations – Provide a description of how past programs were effective in addressing the housing needs of the special populations. This analysis can be done as part of describing the effectiveness of the program pursuant to (2) if the jurisdiction has multiple programs to specifically address housing needs of special needs populations or if specific programs were not included, provide a summary of the cumulative results of the programs in addressing the housing need terms of units or services by special need group.

7.1.4 85, 99
AB 1233 – Shortfall of sites from the 5th cycle planning period – Failure to implement rezoning required due to a shortfall of adequate sites to accommodate the 5th cycle planning period RHNA for lower-income households triggers the provisions of Government Code section 65584.09.

7.1.5 85
Comme
nts: Besides, the key pages indicated in this checklist, there are other descriptions and analyses of these topics throughout the document. xvi
Housing Needs Assessment – Quantification and Analysis
of Need Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(1)(2) and section 65583.1, subdivision (d)
For information on how to credit reductions to RHNA See “Housing Element Sites Inventory Guidebook” at HCD’s technical assistance memos (https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/housing-element/housingelement-memos.shtml) Description of Requirement Page
Number
Population (e.g., by age, size, ethnicity, households by tenure) and employment trends 6-11
Household characteristics including trends, tenure, overcrowdings and severe overcrowding 12-15
Overpayment by income and tenure 21
Existing housing need for extremely low-income households 32 Projected housing needs: Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) by income group, including projected extremely low-income households 35-37 Housing stock conditions, including housing type, housing costs, vacancy rate 15-23 Estimate of the number of units in need of replacement and rehabilitation 18 Identification and Analysis of the Housing Needs for Special Needs Populations
Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(7)
Description of Requirement Page
Number
Elderly 23
Persons with Disabilities, including Developmental Disabilities 28 Large Households 25
Farmworkers (seasonal and permanent) 29
Female Headed Households 26
Homeless (seasonal and annual based on the point in time count 32 Optional: Other (e.g. students, military) Extremely low-income 32 Comments:

Commensurate with Housing Needs assessments for Special Needs Populations, there are policies and programs directed at these groups. xvii
Affirmatively Further Fair Housing - An Assessment of Fair Housing – Required for Housing Element due after 1/1/2021.

Government Code section 65583, subdivision
(c)(10)(A) Part 1 Outreach
Description of Requirement Page
Number
Does the element describe and incorporate meaningful engagement that represents all segments of the community into the development of the housing element, including goals and actions?

7.3 2-4, 119
Part 2 Assessment of Fair Housing
Description of Requirement Page
Number
Does the element include a summary of fair housing enforcement and capacity in the jurisdiction?
119
The element must include an analysis of these four areas:

Integration and segregation patterns and trends
124
Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty 143 Disparities in access to opportunity 151
Disproportionate housing needs within the jurisdiction, including displacement risk
158
Each analysis should include these components:
■Local: Review and analysis of data at a local level
■ Regional impact; Analysis of local data as it compares on a regional level ■ Trends and patterns: Review of data to identify trends and patterns over time ■ Other relevant factors, including other local data and knowledge ■ Conclusion and findings with a summary of fair housing issues Part 3 Sites Inventory
Description of Requirement Page
Number
Did the element identify and evaluate (e.g., maps) the number of units, location and assumed affordability of identified sites throughout the community (i.e., lower, moderate, and above moderate income RHNA) relative to all components of the assessment of fair housing?
163
Did the element analyze and conclude whether the identified sites improve or exacerbate conditions for each of the fair housing areas (integration and segregation, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, areas of opportunity, disproportionate housing needs including displacement)? 164
Comments: Appendix B has additional details on residential land inventory. It includes table and maps of actual sites on pages 81 through 92
xviii
Part 4 Identification of Contributing Factors
Description of Requirement Page
Number
Did the element identify, evaluate, and prioritize the contributing factors to fair housing issues? 165
Part 5 Goals and Actions Page
Description of Requirement Page
Number
Did the element identify, goals and actions based on the identified and prioritized contributing factors? 81, 167
Do goals and actions address mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, place-based strategies for preservation and revitalization, displacement protection and other program areas? 81, 167
Programs must include the following components:

Actions must be significant, meaningful and sufficient to overcome identified patterns of segregation and affirmatively further fair housing.

Metrics and milestones for evaluating progress on programs/actions and fair housing results.

Affordable Housing Units At-Risk of Conversion to Market Rate Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(9)
See Preserving Existing Affordable Housing
(https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy- research/preserving-existingaffordable-housing.shtml) Description of Requirement Page
Number
Provide an inventory of units at-risk of conversion from affordable to market-rate rents within 10 years of the beginning of the planning period. The inventory must list each development by project name and address, the type of governmental assistance received, the earliest possible date of change from low-income use, and the total number of elderly and nonelderly units that could be lost from the locality’s low-income housing stock in each year. 34-35
Provide an estimate and comparison of replacement costs vs. preservation costs 34
Identify qualified entities to acquire and manage affordable housing 34 Identify potential funding sources to preserve affordable housing 41 Comments: According to the Santa Barbara County Housing Authority and City data, 7 percent or 18 of the 272 assisted units in the City could be at risk of converting to market rate in 2030, near the end of the 2023-2031 time period.
xix
Analysis of Actual and Potential Governmental Constraints Government Code section, 65583, subdivisions (a)(5), (a)(4), (c)(1), and section 65583.2, subdivision (c)
See “Accessory Dwelling Unit Handbook” at HCD’s Accessory Dwelling Unit Assistance page (https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policyresearch/accessorydwellingunits.shtml) Description of Requirement Page
Number
Land use controls (e.g. parking, lot coverage, heights, unit size requirements, open space requirements, Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) requirements, floor area ratios, growth controls (e.g., caps on units or population or voter approval requirements, conformance with the requirements of SB 330), inclusionary requirements, consistency with State Density Bonus Law and Housing Accountability Act, and consistency with zoning and development standard website publication and transparency requirements pursuant to Gov. Code § 65940.1 subd. (a)(1)(B)).
47 Local processing and permit procedures (e.g., typical processing times, permit types/requirements by housing type and zone, decision making criteria/findings, design/site/architectural review process and findings, description of standards [objective/subjective], planned development process). Element should also describe whether the jurisdiction has a process to accommodate SB 35 streamline applications and by-right applications for permanent supportive housing and navigation centers.
57 Building codes and their enforcement (e.g., current application of the California Building Code, any local amendments, and local code enforcement process and programs)
55 On and Off-Site improvement requirements (e.g., street widths, curbing requirements) 60
Fees and other exactions (e.g., list all fees regardless of entity collecting the fee, analyze all planning and impact fees for both single family and multifamily development, provided typical totals and proration to total development costs per square foot, and consistency with fee website publication and transparency requirements pursuant to Gov. Code § 65940.1 subd. (a)(1)(A)). 59 Housing for persons with disabilities (e.g. definition of family, concentrating/siting requirements for group homes, reasonable accommodation procedures, application of building codes and ADA requirements, zoning for group homes and community care facilities)
83, 133
Analysis of locally-adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of housing (e.g. inclusionary ordinance, short-term rental ordinance) 49 Comments:
xx
An Analysis of Potential and Actual Nongovernmental Constraints Government Code section, 65583, subdivision (a)(6)
Description of Requirement Page
Number
Availability of financing 63
Price of land 64
Cost of Construction 64
Requests to develop housing below identified densities in the sites inventory and analysis NA
Typical timeframes between approval for a housing development project and application for building permits 57, 58
Does the analysis demonstrate the jurisdiction’s action(s) to mitigate nongovernmental constraints that create a gap between planning for housing to accommodate all income levels and the construction of housing to accommodate all income levels?
Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types
Government Code section, 65583, subdivisions (a)(4), (c)(1), and subdivision 65583.2 subdivision (c)
Provide an analysis of zoning and availability of sites for a variety of housing types including the following:

Description of Requirement Page
Number
Multifamily Rental Housing 51
Housing for Agricultural Employees (permanent and seasonal) (compliance with Health and Safety Code sections 17021.5, 17021.6, and 17021.8 52 Emergency Shelters (including compliance with new development/parking standards pursuant to AB 139/Gov. Code § 65583 subd. (a)(4)(A)). 51 Low Barrier Navigation Centers 52
Transitional Housing 51
Supportive Housing (including compliance with AB 2162, statutes of 2019) 51 Single-Room Occupancy Units 53
Manufactured homes, including compliance with Gov. Code § 65852.3 53 Mobile Home Parks 53
Accessory Dwelling Units 61
Comments:
xxi
Site Inventory and Analysis
Government Code, section 65583, subdivision (a)(3), section 65583.1, subdivision
See “Housing Element Sites Inventory Guidebook” and “Default Density Standard Option” at HCD’s technical assistance memos (https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/housing-element/housing-element-memos.shtml) See Site Inventory Form (https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/housing- element/docs/Site_inventory_template09022020.xlsm) and Site Inventory Form Instructions (https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/housing- element/docs/Site_inventory_instructions.pdf) Site Inventory – The site inventory must be prepared using the form adopted by HCD. An electronic copy of the site inventory is due at the time the adopted housing element is submitted to HCD for review and can be sent to [email protected].

Site Inventory
Description of Requirement Page
Number
Sites Inventory Form Listing: Parcel listing by parcel number, size, general plan and zoning, existing uses on non-vacant sites, realistic capacity, level of affordability by income group, publicly owned sites (optional). 108
Prior Identified Sites: Address whether sites are adequate to accommodate lower income needs based on identification in the prior planning period for nonvacant sites or two or more for vacant sites.113 Map of sites 110
Did the jurisdiction use the sites inventory form adopted by HCD? Site Inventory Analysis and Methodology
Description of Requirement Page
Number
RHNA Progress: List the number of pending, approved or permitted units by income group based on actual or anticipated sales prices and rents since the beginning of the projection period
84, 100-
101
Environmental Constraints: Address any known environmental or other constraints, conditions or circumstances, including mitigation measures, which impede development in the planning period
65-67
Appropriate density: Identification of zoning to accommodate RHNA for lowerincome households:
• Identify zones meeting the “default” density (Gov. Code § 65583.2 subd. (c)(3)(B)) or;
• Identify and analyze zones with densities less than the “deemed appropriate” (default) density that are appropriate to accommodate lower RHNA.

Comments:
xxii
Description of Requirement Page
Number
Capacity: Describe the methodology used in quantifying the number of units that can be accommodated on each APN:
• If development is required to meet a minimum density, identify the minimum density, or;
• Describe the methodology used to determine realistic capacity accountingfor land use controls and site improvement requirements, typical density trends for projects of similar affordability, and current or planned infrastructure. • For sites with zones allowing non-residential uses, demonstrate the likelihood of residential development
108
Infrastructure: Existing or planned infrastructure to accommodate the regional housing need, including water, sewer and dry utilities 68 Small and large sites: Sites identified to accommodate lower RHNA that are less than one-half acre or larger than 10 acres require analysis to establishthey are adequate to accommodate the development of affordable units. 116
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Identified sites throughout the community that affirmatively furthers fair housing (see page 5 of checklist) 163 Nonvacant Sites Analysis: For nonvacant sites, demonstrate the potential and likelihood of additional development within the planning period based on extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development, past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development, current market demand for the existing use, any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, development trends, market conditions, and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites 163
If nonvacant sites accommodate 50 percent or more of the lower-income RHNA, demonstrate the existing use is not an impediment to additional development and will likely discontinue in the planning period, includingadopted findings based on substantial evidence.

NA
Nonvacant sites that include residential units (either existing or demolished) that are/were occupied by, or subject to, affordability agreements for lower-income households within 5 years are subject to a housing replacement program. (Gov.

Code § 65583.2 subd. (g)(3))
NA
Please note: This checklist does not include new requirements related to zoning for sites accommodating the moderate and above moderate income pursuant to AB 725, statutes of 2020 as this requirement is not enacted until 2022.

Comments:
xxiii
Alternative Methods to Accommodate the RHNA: Optional
Description of Requirement Page
Number
Accessory Dwelling Units: Analyze the number and affordability level of ADU units projected to be built within the planning period, including resources and incentives and other relevant factors such as potential constraints, and the likelihood of availability for rent
NA
Existing Residential Units: number and affordability level of units rehabilitated, converted or preserved that meet the provisions of alternative adequate sites. In addition, this includes units in a motel, hotel, or hostel that are converted to residential units and made available to persons experiencing homelessness as part of a COVID-19 response and acquisition of mobile home park. If using this option, the adequate site alternative checklist must be provided.

NA
Other: Jurisdictions are encouraged to consult with HCD regarding other alternative methods options including new manufactured housing park hookups, floating homes/live aboard berths, conversion of military housing, adaptive reuse of commercial uses, or other housing opportunities unique to the community to ensure their adequacy to accommodate RHNA.

NA
Other Miscellaneous Requirements
Also see Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at: New state legislation related to General Plans Appendix C (http://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_Appendix_C_final.pdf) and Fire Hazard Planning General Plan Technical Advice Series (http://opr.ca.gov/docs/Final_6.26.15.pdf) Description of Requirement Page
Number
Description of the means by which consistency with the general plan will be achieved and maintained. (Gov. Code § 65583 subd. (c)(8)) 4 Description of construction, demolition, and conversion of housing for lowerand moderate-income households within the Coastal Zone (if applicable). (Gov.

Code § 65588 subds. (c) and (d))
NA
Description of opportunities for energy conservation in residential development. (Gov. Code § 65583 subd. (a)(8))
72 Description of consistency with water and sewer priority requirements pursuant to SB 1087 (Gov. Code § 65589.7)
68 Other elements of the general plan triggered by housing element adoption:
• Disadvantaged Communities (Gov. Code § 65302.10)
• Flood Hazard and Management (Gov. Code § 65302 subds. (d)(3) and (g)(2)(B))
• Fire Hazard (Gov. Code § 65302 and 65302.5)
• Environmental Justice (Gov. Code § 65302 subd. (h))
• Climate Adaptation
4 Comments: Environmental Justice
xxiv
Schedule of Actions/Programs
Government Code, section 65583, subdivisions (c)(1 – 7), and (10) For adequate site programs See “Housing Element Sites Inventory Guidebook” at HCD’s technical assistance memos (https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/housing- element/housing-element-memos.shtml) Program Description Program numbers Page
number
Program(s) to provide adequate sites (large/small
sites, incentives for mixed use/nonvacant sites,
publicly owned sites, annexation, etc.)
Pol 1.1 74
If required: Program to accommodate a shortfall
of adequate sites to accommodate the lower
RHNA. This program must meet the specific
criteria identified in Gov. Code § 65583.2 subd.
(h) and (i).

NA
If required: Program to accommodate an
unaccommodated need from the previous
planning period pursuant to Gov code §
65584.09
Prg-1.3 75
If required: Program when vacant/nonvacant
sites to accommodate lower RHNA have been
identified in multiple housing elements, if
needed. (Gov. Code § 65583.2 subd. (c))
NA
If required: Program to provide replacement
units when occupied by, or deed restricted to
lower-income households within the last 5 years,
if needed. (Gov. Code § 65583.2 subd. (g)(3))
NA
Program(s) to assist in the development of housing to
accommodate extremely-low, very-low, low or
moderate-income households, including special
needs populations
Goal 1 74
Program to address governmental and
nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance,
improvement, and development of housing
Goal 2, Pol 2.1 – Pol 2.6 77
Program(s) to conserve and improve the condition of
the existing affordable housing stock Prg-3.1 78
Comments:
■
Program Description Program numbers Page
number
Program(s) to promote and affirmative further fair
housing opportunities Prg-6.1 - Prg-6.4 81
Program(s) to preserve units at-risk of conversion
from affordable to market-rate rents. Goal 3 77
Program(s) to incentivize and promote the creation of
accessory dwelling units that can be offered at an
affordable rent. Prg-1.3 75
Do programs specify specific clear commitment, meaningful actions, which will have beneficial impact within the planning period? Do programs identify timing, objectives (quantified where appropriate), and responsible parties, if appropriate for implementation? Quantified Objectives
Government Code, section 65583, subdivisions (b)
For an example table addressing this requirement visit California Housing and Community Development Building Blocks (https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/building- blocks/program-requirements/program-overview.shtml) Description of Requirement Page
Number
Estimate the number of units likely to be constructed, rehabilitated and conserved or preserved by income level, including extremely low-income, during the planning period
83 Comments:
1 1.0 Introduction
The California legislature identifies the attainment of an acceptable home and suitable living environment for every citizen as California's main goal for housing. Recognizing the important role local government planning plays to achieve this goal, the State mandates that all cities and counties prepare and adopt a housing element as part of their comprehensive General Plans. In the housing element, State law requires local governments to adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. Unlike the other mandatory elements, the housing element is subject to detailed statutory requirements regarding its content and must be updated every, five or eight years, according to a schedule set by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The housing element is also subject to mandatory review and certification by HCD.

The City of Guadalupe is on a 4-year review cycle.

This 2023-2031 update of Guadalupe’s Housing Element includes policies and programs to address the City’s housing needs through 2031. It serves as the short-term version of the long-term vision encapsulated in the Guadalupe 2042 General Plan which addresses comprehensive housing needs for residents of all income levels within the City through 2042 and serves as one of the bastions for allocation of land use in the future. This 2023-2031 update provides a comprehensive analysis of Guadalupe's demographic, economic, and housing characteristics as required by State law. The Element also contains an evaluation of the City's progress in implementing the 2019 Housing Element. Based on the City's housing needs, available resources, constraints and opportunities for housing production and preservation, and its past performance, the 2023-2031 update of the Housing Element establishes a strategy of goals, measurable objectives, and related policies and programs to address present and future housing needs of the City.

1.1 Community Context
The City of Guadalupe is located within the rich agricultural region of the Santa Maria Valley, in the northwest portion of Santa Barbara County. It was incorporated in 1946. Surrounded by farmlands, the City serves as an agricultural service center for processing and shipping of many of the crops from the productive farms in the valley. The predominant land use within City limits is residential as the City provides homes for persons employed in the production, processing, and shipping of agricultural products, among others. Compared to other cities in the County, Guadalupe has been a relatively stable community, experiencing modest population growth over the past three decades.

The City occupies approximately 1.31 square miles including the sphere of influence. According to the American Community Survey of the United States Census Bureau, Guadalupe had a population of 6,770 in 2010, 7,218 in 2015, and 7,654 in 2020. Between 2010 and 2020, the population of Guadalupe grew at a rate of 1.3 percent a year, while Santa Barbara County grew at 0.7 percent a year. Approximately 88 percent of the population claims Hispanic origin with the majority (79 percent) of Mexican descent. With much of the workforce involved in agriculture, median household income is below State and County medians triggering the need for affordable workforce housing. Household incomes are in general among 2 the lowest in Santa Barbara County and as a result, many Guadalupe residents fall in the income ranges that need affordable housing.

Between 2000 and 2009, Guadalupe's median home value more than doubled to $313,500, significantly outpacing the area's income growth; since then, however, Guadalupe's median home price decreased by 35 percent to a 2015 median home value of $203,100 and rebounded to $337,100 in 2021 (US Census, ACS, DP04, 2009, 2015, 2021). Historically, in part because of increases in housing prices, overcrowding has been a major issue in Guadalupe, putting emphasis on the need for more affordable housing.

The construction of projects identified as affordable housing in Guadalupe started in the 1980s.The first were Treasure Park and Bonita Pacifica, which helped with home ownership. People's Self-Help Housing, Habitat for Humanity, Santa Barbara County Housing Authority, and Community Development Block Grants have provided financing and administration of affordable housing programs in Guadalupe.

In 2021, Guadalupe's housing stock consisted of approximately 2,180 residential units. Of these, 77 percent were single-family houses or condominiums, 23 percent were multi-family units including 1 percent mobile homes and trailers (US Census, ACS, DP04, 2021). Most of the residential growth (85 percent) occurred over 30 years old, the age when most homes begin to require major repairs. Nearly two-thirds of the housing stock in Guadalupe was built before 1990 and another third was built between 1990 and 2010. The last decade saw the construction of 3.5 percent of the housing stock.

1.2 Public Participation

1.2.1 Consolidated Outreach Activities
During the General Plan process, cities and counties in California must provide opportunities to involve residents in the community planning process to ensure that policies reflect the aspirations of the community. This housing element is a product of broad community participation by residents and stakeholders of Guadalupe, including City Staff, the School District, and City Council jointly with the preparation of the Guadalupe General Plan. Input from all segments of the community is to help assure that appropriate housing strategies are more efficiently and effectively evaluated, developed, and implemented. During preparation of the update to the Housing Element, citizen and stakeholder participation was actively sought in the following ways:
• Four community workshops (10/12/2017, 11/7/2017, 3/7/2018, and 3/21/2018), a hearing held jointly with Council Meeting (10/23/2018), and a public meeting to kick off preparation of the 6th Cycle Housing Element (1/10/2023) to gather input on existing housing needs, housing conditions, opportunities and constraints, and other housing issues and concerns; • Public notices of the community workshops were posted on the City's website, in the local newspaper, and at City Hall.
• Notices were in both English and Spanish; they were also mailed out in addition to postings. • The following other activities are anticipated:
3 o Public Review of the draft and a public hearing with City Council prior to submittal to state for review
o The Draft Housing Element to be reviewed by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Comments provided by HCD would be addressed o A public hearing jointly with Council Meeting to discuss the Housing Element following revisions due to comments on this draft from HCD.

1.2.2 Special 6th Cycle Outreach Findings
The special outreach effort for the 6th Cycle Housing Element culminated in a workshop on January 10, 2023. The effort included both a survey and the workshop. The survey recapped the issues and aspirations the Guadalupe Community expressed in previous public meetings that related to housing, asked for confirmation of the issues and preferences and offered respondents an opportunity to update them or add new ones.

From previous meetings, participants identified several strengths of Guadalupe in terms of housing as:
the presence of strong residential neighborhoods; and the relatively affordable housing in the City when compared to other communities nearby. They also expressed such aspirations for the future of housing as: the development of affordable workforce housing; expanding the stock of low-income housing; and also expanding the availability of shelters.

Participants expressed similar levels of preference for three types of housing development that included small apartments in the lead followed by duplexes and single family detached homes. These preferences reflected an intrinsic aspiration for affordability.

When asked about preferences for types of affordable housing, participants expressed preference for secondary dwelling units in the lead followed by apartments. There was comparatively low aspiration for mobile homes.

When asked specifically about preferences for special needs housing, participants expressed preference for all types but at varying degrees as follows:
• Topping the list are farm worker housing and senior housing • Followed by single-parent and linguistically challenged (or new migrant worker) housing • With a comparatively lower desire for disability housing. • Four years ago, participants did not give much weight to homeless shelters.

The survey for the 6th Cycle Plan sought to find out whether priorities for housing have remained the same or have changed. The survey, which was in both English and Spanish, was disseminated widely to many stakeholders including residents, housing agencies, and providers about a week before the workshop and at the workshop. Returns were collected before, during, and after the workshop.

Approximately forty participants attended the workshop and engaged in the meeting. 4 Survey results largely confirmed the issues that were most important for members of the community and the priorities with preferences and aspirations of residents. Nevertheless, a few new issues have arisen and some items gained higher priority.

On issues with housing, The three top priorities in order of importance are cost and affordability, homelessness, and options or choices with housing. Notably, homelessness has become an issue of grave concern among respondents. The other new issues mentioned concern subletting in the new Pasadera development leading to crowding and shortage of parking as well as lack of trash receptacles and maintenance at the new parks in the development.

On priorities for general housing types, single family units and duplexes jumped ahead to first and second places respectively, followed closely by small apartment complexes. These confirm the aspirations for units that are large enough for families but remain affordable.

Specifically on affordable housing types, apartments and other multi-family units jumped ahead of accessory dwelling units. Mobile homes remained a distant third.

Respondents continue to recognize and express the importance of all forms of special needs housing.

Topping the list are farmworker and senior housing in first and second place, respectively. Single-parent housing is in a not-too-distant third place. Rounding off the list are housing to suit those with disability and recent migrants.

Finally, respondents are partial to the development of future new housing in the neighborhoods designated from the General Plan development process as future growth areas. With little difference in the numbers of respondents, the priorities are as follows:
a. The northeast residential area east of Mary Buren Elementary School (Gularte Tract). b. The downtown mixed-use corridor and surrounding residential neighborhood c. DJ Farms Specific Plan Area now popularly known as Pasadera.

1.2.3 Inclusion of Outreach Findings in Housing Element Discussions and findings from all public outreach efforts serve as the basis of space allocation for types of housing in the new Housing Element. Findings indicate that concerns related to housing for families, seniors, and farmworkers. Housing types include multi-family, single-family, and single-room occupancy units. Residents of Guadalupe also support infill development that is affordable by design in the downtown core of Guadalupe and other growth centers in the northeast (Gularte Tract), Obispo and Pasadera neighborhoods. This update of the Housing Element captures these community aspirations for housing.

1.3 Consistency with Other Elements of the General Plan State law requires that all portions of the General Plan be internally consistent. The City of Guadalupe’s adopted 2042 General Plan consists of thirteen subject areas consolidated into various elements. These include the original mandated subjects on land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. The Plan also covers Environmental Justice and Air Quality subjects as mandated by 5 Senate Bill 100 for disadvantaged communities. For further depth, the General Plan covers four optional subjects including economic development, public services and facilities, community design, and health.

This Housing Element builds upon the other elements and is consistent with the policies in the General Plan. For example, the Housing Element incorporates residential development capacities established in the land Use Element and discussion of infrastructure and public services based upon information from the land Use and Public Facilities Elements. As the Housing Element is updated through time, it should maintain internal consistency with the General Plan.

Senate Bill 1087 of 2005 requires cities to provide a copy of their Housing Elements to local water and sewer providers, and also requires that these agencies provide priority hookups for developments with lower-income housing. The City of Guadalupe is its own water and sewer provider; there is no separate water or sewer district. Staff members from the City Public Works Department were consulted during the preparation of the Housing Element, in compliance with this requirement, and key water and sewer service staff will be provided with a copy of the Housing Element upon adoption.

The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) set a due date of February 15, 2023 for this 2023-2031 revision of the Housing Element and required updates to the Safety and Conservation Elements (pursuant to GC Section 65302(g)), and an Environmental Justice Element (pursuant to GC Section 56430) of the General Plan on or before this update of the Housing Element. These elements have been appropriately updated during the development of the Guadalupe 2042 General Plan.

1.4 Organization of the Element
The Housing Element is organized into six chapters. This first chapter is introductory, touching on the statutory requirements of a Housing Element. Chapter 2 provides assessment of housing needs in terms of subject matters outlined by State law. It discusses characteristics of the population, employment, household, and housing stock; special housing needs; assisted housing at-risk of conversion; and future growth according to the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments. Chapter 3 describes the resources available in Guadalupe to achieve the City's allocation of regional housing needs, including land resources, financial and administrative resources, and energy conservation opportunities. Chapter 4 provides a discussion of both governmental and nongovernmental constraints. Chapter 5 discusses opportunities for conserving energy in residential development. Finally, Chapter 6 contains goals, measurable objectives, policies, and programs for housing in Guadalupe based on community input and background research. Appendices include additional details as follows:
• Appendix A provides a review of the 2015 and mid-cycle 2019 Housing Elements; • Appendix B has detailed analysis of sites suitable for residential development; • Appendix C covers the all new detailed discussion on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing; and • Appendix D includes a schedule of fees.
6 2.0 Housing Needs Assessment
State law requires local governments to adequately plan to meet their existing and projected housing needs, including their share of the regional housing needs. This chapter provides an assessment of housing needs based on analyses of general characteristics and trends in the population, employment, households, and housing stock. The chapter looks at characteristics of disadvantaged groups with special housing needs and whether any existing assisted housing units are at-risk of conversion to market rate housing. Finally, the chapter examines the City's projected housing needs based on the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments’ 2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

This Housing Needs Assessment relies on the most recent data from the US Census of Population and Housing, US Economic Census, California Department of Finance, California Employment Development Department (EDD), Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG), and other relevant sources. The discussion includes implications of findings for the City's housing policies and programs.

2.1. Population Characteristics

2.1.1 Population Growth Trends
Population growth is a primary determinant of housing need. The City of Guadalupe has experienced a steady population growth since 2000. Table 2-1 shows that between 2000 and 2020, the City's population increased by 35 percent to 7,654 people, which represents 1.7 percent of the total County population. Guadalupe’s growth equates to an annual increase of 1.8 percent. By comparison, Santa Barbara County’s total 2020 population of 444,895 represents an annual growth of 0.6 percent over the same period. Although a relatively small city, Guadalupe has been growing approximately three times as fast as the County over the last two decades.

Table 2-1: Population Growth Trends. Guadalupe City vs. Santa Barbara County, 2000 – 2020 Year Guadalupe City
Santa Barbara
County
2000 5,653 399,347
2010 6,770 416,051
2015 7,218 435,850
2020 7,654 444,895
Percent change 35% 11%
Annual percent change 1.8% 0.6%
Source: U.S Census Bureau, DEC SF4, Table DP1, 2000; U.S Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP05; U.S Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP05; U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP05.

2.1.2 Age
Age characteristics of the population influence housing needs as different age groups have different housing needs based on lifestyles, family types, income levels, and housing preferences. Table 2-2 compares the age distributions of the population in the City and the County in 2020. The table depicts a 7 more youthful population in Guadalupe than Santa Barbara County while the County has a higher share of the senior population. For instance, in 2020, 48 percent of City residents were under the age of 25 compared to 37 percent in the County. Consistent with this distribution the median age in the City was 28 compared to 34 years in the County in 2020.

Table 2-2: Age Distribution - Guadalupe City vs. Santa Barbara County, 2020 Age Group
Guadalupe City Santa Barbara County
Persons Percent Persons Percent
Under 18 years 2,802 37% 113,259 25%
18 to 24 years 854 11% 55,531 12%
25 to 44 years 1,919 25% 110,272 25%
45 to 64 years 1,464 19% 97,813 22%
65 to 74 years 323 4% 37,416 8%
75 to 84 years 225 3% 20,110 5%
85 years and over 67 1% 10,494 2%
Total Population 7,654 100% 444,895 100%
Median age (years) 28 34
Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP05.

2.1.3 Race and Ethnicity
Table 2-3 reveals that the City of Guadalupe depicts slightly more racial diversity than Santa Barbara County. While approximately two thirds (62 percent) of the City’s population is white, nearly three quarters (72 percent) of the County population is white. There are hardly any stark differences in the composition of other races between the City and the County. Where the difference is most noticeable is in Hispanic origin. While 46 percent of County residents claimed Hispanic origin in 2020, two times the share or 92 percent of City residents claimed Hispanic origin.

Table 2-3: Population by Race/Ethnicity - Guadalupe City vs. Santa Barbara County, 2020 [Table 2-3] Race and Ethnicity
Guadalupe City Santa Barbara County
Persons Percent Persons Percent
Racial Distribution
White alone 4,719 62% 319,547 72%
Black or African American alone 33 0% 8,474 2%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 141 2% 4,941 1% Asian alone 274 4% 24,678 6%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 79 1% 528 0% Some other race alone 1492 20% 43,441 10%
Two or more races 916 12% 43,286 10%
Total Population 7,654 100% 444,895 100%
8 [Table 2-3] Race and Ethnicity
Guadalupe City Santa Barbara County
Persons Percent Persons Percent
Hispanic Origin
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 7,035 92% 203,207 46%
Not Hispanic or Latino 619 8% 241,688 54%
All Origins 7,654 100% 444,895 100%
Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP05.

2.1.4 Conclusion
Population data indicates steady growth which would suggest the need for a steady supply of housing.

The youthful population could indicate either the need for housing to suit large families with youthful dependents or housing for households of young adults. A subsequent section of this chapter on household characteristics further explores these potential needs.

2.2 Employment Trends

2.2.1 Current Employment
Different types of employment opportunities determine household incomes which in turn determine the types and sizes of housing that households could afford. According to the American Community Survey, both Guadalupe and Santa Barbara County depicted similar levels of employment with approximately three out of five of those residents in the labor force employed in 2020. Approximately 5 percent of those in the labor force were unemployed in 2020, reflecting statewide and national trends.

The next subsection and the section on household characteristics further explore the distribution of incomes by employment type and households respectively and implications for housing affordability.

Table 2-4: Labor Force and Employment Rates - Guadalupe City vs. Santa Barbara County, 2020 Guadalupe City Santa Barbara County
Persons Percent Persons Percent
In Labor Force* 5,198 68% 356,699 64%
Employed - 65% - 60%
Unemployed - 4% - 6%
Not in Labor Force 2,841 32% 129,950 36%
All ages 16 and over

8,039

486,649
*Ages 16 and over in labor force.

Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S2301.

Table 2-5 shows the distribution of employment by occupation and median earnings. In 2020, the largest employment sector for Guadalupe residents was farming, fishing, forestry with approximately one out of every four employed residents. With a median earning of just over $23,000, agriculture provided nearly $15,000 more in annual salary than the lowest-paying sector (Building and Grounds 9 Cleaning and Maintenance), but it provided $45,000 lower annual salary than the highest-paying sector (Art, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media). Close examination of the distribution suggests that working residents of Guadalupe fall predominantly into occupations that pay low to mid-level salaries that are below $40,000 a year. Housing affordability would depend on the number of income earners in households and families.

Table 2-5: Distribution of Employment by Occupation and Median Earning – Guadalupe City, 2020 Industry Persons Percent
Median
Earning
Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 825 24% 23,171 Office and administrative support occupations 394 12% 52,237 Sales and related occupations 326 10% 23,750
Material moving occupations 311 9% 25,898
Healthcare support occupations 255 8% 18,450
Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations 191 6% 7,165 Construction and extraction occupations 162 5% 32,027
Management occupations 153 5% 32,014
Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations 142 4% 36,023 Production occupations 117 3% 26,902
Transportation occupations 91 3% 30,865
Personal care and service occupations 77 2% 15,709
Protective service occupations 76 2% 43,333
Food preparation and serving related occupations 71 2% 14,777 Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations 61 2% 67,882 Educational instruction, and library occupations 46 1% 30,278 Business and financial operations occupations 37 1% 45,795 Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations 36 1% 43,125 Life, physical, and social science occupations 11 0% -
Architecture and engineering occupations 8 0% -
Legal occupations 3 0% -
Community and social service occupations 0 0% -
Computer and mathematical occupations 0 0% -
All Employed 3,393 100% 26,646
Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S2401; U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B24011. 10 2.2.2 Projected Job Growth
The numbers and types of new future jobs affect future housing affordability. Table 2-6 shows projected job growth by occupation for the Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta Metropolitan Statistical Area (Santa Barbara MSA) over the decade from 2018 to 2028. Total employment is projected to grow by 9 percent during this period for an increase of 19,000 new jobs. This would bring the employment of Santa Barbara MSA to approximately 222,100 by 2028 (California Employment Development Department, 2020). Close examination reveals that economic sectors with the most growth are a mixture of typically well-paying occupations such as Information, as well as the typically low-paying occupations such as Construction, Leisure and Hospitality, and Educational Services. Table 2-6 shows, however, that low paying occupations would dominate in job growth. This would not bode well in terms of housing affordability for Guadalupe residents who are concentrated in the low-paying job sectors. Without multiple income-earning persons in households, difficulties with housing affordability could remain.

Table 2-6: Protected Job Growth by Occupation from 2018 to 2028 – Santa Maria & Santa Barbara Metropolitan Statistical Area
Occupation Title
Annual Average
Employment Employment Change
2018 2028 Jobs Percent
Information 4,000 4,700 700 18%
Educational Services (Private), Health Care, and
Social Assistance 27,400 31,600 4,200 15%
Construction 8,800 10,000 1,200 14%
Leisure and Hospitality 28,200 31,400 3,200 11%
Professional and Business Services 22,700 25,200 2,500 11% Self-Employment 14,400 15,700 1,300 9%
Total Farm 22,900 24,800 1,900 8%
Government 39,000 42,200 3,200 8%
Transportation, Warehousing, and Utilities 3,400 3,600 200 6% Wholesale Trade 5,100 5,400 300 6%
Manufacturing 12,900 13,600 700 5%
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 27,200 27,400 200 1% Retail Trade 18,700 18,300 -400 -2%
Financial Activities 6,700 6,500 -200 -3%
Mining and Logging 1,000 800 -200 -20%
Private Household Workers 700 500 -200 -29%
Total Employment 222,100 241,000 18,900 9%
Source: California Employment Development Department, 2022.

2.2.3 Jobs-Housing Balance
A regional balance of jobs to housing is necessary for housing demand to match with supply. When the number of jobs significantly exceeds the housing supply, the rental and for-sale housing markets may 11 become saturated, requiring households to pay much larger shares of their incomes for housing than would otherwise be necessary. A tight housing market can also result in overcrowding as households double up in available units or in longer commute times as workers seek more affordable housing outside the region. According to the Regional Growth Forecast 2050 (2019) for the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG), the relationship between jobs and housing keeps gaining increasing importance. The problem of jobs to housing imbalance intensified in recent years and workers have increasingly crowded into the limited available housing in Santa Barbara County or sought less-expensive housing outside of Santa Barbara County.

Conventional wisdom dictates that reasonable jobs to housing ratios should be within the range of 1.0 to 1.5 jobs to one housing unit (SBCAG, 2007). A ratio above 1.5 could indicate that there may be an insufficient supply of housing to meet the needs of the local workforce. A ratio below 1.0 could denote an insufficient supply of jobs to support the local population. Table 2-7 shows that the City of Guadalupe had jobs to housing ratio of approximately 0.72 compared to the County ratio of 1.2.

In 2020, Guadalupe had 1,436 jobs for 3,394 employed workers within the City. This already shows insufficiency of jobs for the labor force. It also means that large numbers of the labor force likely commuted to outlying areas for work. U.S. Census data reveals that Guadalupe had very little “In-Area Employment Efficiency” for all Jobs in 2020. Only 18 percent of the jobs within the City are held by residents while 82 percent are held by those who lived outside the City. Similarly, 91 percent of employed residents worked outside the City. This indicates that workers from other parts of the County continue to move to Guadalupe for its relative affordability, but this external demand can cause increase in the cost of housing in the City. The 2042 General Plan recommends that the City should monitor housing costs for affordability and take steps to create new jobs that suit the skills of residents to reduce commute times and improve the quality of life for residents.

Table 2-7: Jobs to Housing Ratio - Guadalupe City vs. Santa Barbara County, 2020 Guadalupe City
Santa Barbara
County
Total Housing Units 1,993 159,317
Total Jobs 1,436 190,550
Jobs to Housing Ratio 0.72 1.20
Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP05; US Census, On-TheMap Tool of the Longitudinal Employer Household Dynamics, 2019.

2.2.4 Conclusion
The employment characteristics and trends indicate a strong need for moderate-income and lowerincome housing to support the housing needs of residents employed by the farming and services sectors. The demand for affordable homes and apartments is likely to remain very high as many of the new jobs created are not likely to provide the incomes needed to buy market-rate homes in the region.

It is therefore important to provide adequate affordable housing, particularly for farm and service 12 workers. The City should also monitor housing prices as new units are built and continue to cultivate local job growth in order to reduce the imbalance between jobs and housing.

2.3 Household Characteristics

2.3.1 Growth in Households
Household characteristics are important indicators of the type and size of housing needed in a city. The U.S. Census Bureau defines a "household" as all persons occupying a housing unit, which may include single persons living alone, families related through marriage or blood, or unrelated persons who share a single unit. Under this definition, the number of households in a community has the most direct effect on the quantity of housing units needed irrespective of the sizes of or amenities within the units. Table 2-8 shows trends in the growth of households in Guadalupe from 2000 to 2020. The City experienced a large growth spurt of 132 percent between 2000 and 2010 followed by a slight decline in growth from 2010 to 2015. In 2020, there were 1,993 households in Guadalupe reflecting the latest period of growth and an average annual rate of 1 percent between 2015 and 2020. This result is consistent with the previous finding that many people in the region choose to live in Guadalupe for the relative affordability of its housing even if they do not have employment within the City.

Table 2-8: Household Growth Trends - Guadalupe City, 2000 to 2020 Year Households
Inter-Census
Change
Annual InterCensus
Growth Rate
2000 264 - -
2010 2,007 1,743 132%
2015 1,896 -111 -1%
2020 1,993 97 1%
Average Annual Growth (2000-2020) 33%
Source: U.S Census Bureau, DEC SF4, Table DP1, 2000; U.S Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP05; U.S Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP05; U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP05.

2.3.2 Household Composition and Size
Table 2-9 provides a snapshot of family orientation among households in Guadalupe compared to Santa Barbara County. Households in the City are much more family-oriented than in the County. Family households comprised approximately 85 percent of all households in the City while the County had 66 percent of family households. Similarly, family composition is more youthful in the City with 40 percent of all households having minor children under 18 years old compared to just 28 percent of all households in the County. Consistent with these data therefore, the City has larger average household and family sizes than the County. This suggests that housing in the City should cater mostly to relatively larger family households.
13 Table 2-9: Household Composition - Guadalupe City vs. Santa Barbara County, 2020 Type
Guadalupe City Santa Barbara County
Households Percent Households Percent
Total Households 1,912 100% 148,309 100%
Family Households 1,624 85% 97,397 66%
Households w/ children under 18 years 876 46% 42,187 28% Non-Family Households 288 15% 50,912 34%
Average Household Size 4.00 2.86
Average Family Size 4.25 3.37
Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S1101.

Further scrutiny of the distribution of household sizes reveals in Table 2-10 that almost half of all households in Guadalupe had four or more persons in 2020. On the contrary, more than half of all households in the County had two or fewer persons per household. The data suggest that Guadalupe has a higher need for large housing units than some of the other communities in Santa Barbara County.

Table 2-10: Distribution of Household Sizes - Guadalupe City vs. Santa Barbara County, 2020 Persons per Household
Guadalupe City Santa Barbara County
Households Percent Households Percent
1-Person Household 266 14% 35,383 24%
2-Person Household 293 15% 48,122 32%
3-Person Household 309 16% 22,106 15%
4-Person Household 330 17% 20,442 14%
5-Person Household 340 18% 11,472 8%
6-Person Household 205 11% 5,472 4%
7-Person Household 169 9% 5,312 4%
Total Households 1,912 100% 148,309 100%
Average Household Size 4.00 2.86
Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B11016.

2.3.3 Household Income
Household income is a primary factor in housing affordability. Table 2-11 shows the breakdown of the City’s households by income in 2020. It reveals a concentration of households in the low to lower middle-income categories with two out of five households earning less than $50,000. This reinforces the need for affordable housing units in the City.
14 Table 2-11: Household Income - Guadalupe City, 2020
Income Range Households Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Less than $10,000 94 5% 5%
$10,000 to $14,999 71 4% 9%
$15,000 to $24,999 193 10% 19%
$25,000 to $34,999 254 13% 32%
$35,000 to $49,999 258 14% 46%
$50,000 to $74,999 369 19% 65%
$75,000 to $99,999 229 12% 77%
$100,000 to $149,999 325 17% 94%
$150,000 or more 120 6% 100%
All Households 1,912
Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S1901.

Comparative median income data in Table 2-12 for 2020 further confirms the need for more affordable housing in Guadalupe than some other communities in the region. Guadalupe had one of the three lowest median incomes among cities in Santa Barbara County in 2020 at $68,000. Previously, Guadalupe had lower than 80 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI), which placed it under the classification of a “disadvantaged community” under the criteria of the State of California. In 2020, Guadalupe barely broke above the threshold. This provides further justification for relatively more affordable housing to adequately accommodate the lower incomes of the City’s residents.

Table 2-12: Comparative Median Household Incomes - Santa Barbara County and Cities, 2020 Jurisdiction
Median
Household
Income
Percent of County
Median Income
State of California 78,672 93%
Santa Barbara County 84,846 100%
Goleta City 98,035 116%
Buellton City 105,694 125%
Carpinteria City 74,868 88%
Santa Maria City 67,634 80%
Lompoc City 57,071 67%
Guadalupe City 68,781 81%
Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S1901.

State law established household income categories for purposes of housing programs based on area median income (AMI). State law also requires quantification and analysis of housing needs for variousincome groups. The criteria for the categories are as follows:
• Extremely low-income households earn up to 30 percent of AMI 15 • Very low-income households earn 31 percent to 50 percent of AMI • Low income households earn 51 percent to 80 percent of AMI • Moderate income households earn 81 percent to 120 percent of AMI • Above moderate-income households earn 121 percent and above of AMI.

Table 2-13 reveals that households in Guadalupe fall predominantly in the lower income categories with 60 percent in those “lower” categories compared to 40 percent in the “upper” categories. The table reflects the equivalent re-allocation (hypothetical) of Guadalupe’s share of 2023 to 2031 RHNA units according to the proportional distribution of households in the 2020 income groups.

Table 2-13: Median Income Distribution of Household Income Groups - Guadalupe City, 2020 Income Group Definition
(Percent
AMI*)
2020 Income
Range
2020
Households
Percent of
Households
Equivalent
2023-2031
RHNA
Units
Extremely Low < 31% < $23,678 347 18% 78
Very low 31% - 50% $24,467 - $39,463 468 24% 106
Low 51% - 80% $40,252 - $63,140 365 19% 82
Moderate 81% - 120% $63,929 - $94,710 276 14% 62
Above Moderate > 121% > $95,499 456 24% 103
Total - - 1,912 100% 431
Notes:
*For a four person household.

Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S1901; Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan, 2023-2031.

2.3.4 Conclusion
Guadalupe has experienced steady household growth. This trend is anticipated to continue under the 2042 General Plan. To adequately accommodate residents, it is essential to provide adequately sized and reasonably priced housing for all types of households, but especially for large-family households.

The demand for affordable homes including apartments is likely to remain high given the distribution of households by income groups.

2.4 Characteristics of the Housing Stock

2.4.1 Housing Types and Growth
The City of Guadalupe had 1,993 housing units in 2020. Table 2-14 reveals that the housing stock was predominantly single-family detached, which made up approximately two-thirds of the total stock. The next highest category with just over a quarter of the total stock is multi-family units. Compared to the County as a whole, Guadalupe had a much higher percentage of single-family detached units, a slightly lower percentage of multi-family units, and no mobile homes. Since City residents depict higher shares 16 of large family households than the County, it is likely mobile homes would tend to be too small to suit the housing needs of many Guadalupe residents although mobile homes provide an avenue for affordable units.

Table 2-14: Housing Unit Type- Guadalupe City vs. Santa Barbara County, 2020 Housing Type
Guadalupe City Santa Barbara County
Number Percent Number Percent
1-Unit Detached 1,337 67% 91,448 57%
1-Unit Attached 108 5% 11,256 7%
2+ Units 548 28% 49,703 31%
Mobile Home 0 0% 6,841 4%
Total Units 1,993 100% 159,248 100%
Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP04.

Table 2-15 shows growth in the occupied housing stock over the past 30 years. The City began to experience relatively high growth in its housing stock and related occupancy in 2000 and the growth sustained through 2020. During its boom period, the City produced an average of 78 housing units per year although annual average over the 30 year period was only 37 units per year. The data in Table 2-15 is from 2020 for housing units through the end of 2019. Additionally, records of the City’s Building Department indicate that the Pasadera housing development kept building strongly through 2021, and only slowed after that because of temporary difficulties in gaining approval to build the two bridges over to the second half of the project.

Table 2-15: Age Distribution and Growth of Housing Stock - Guadalupe City, 2020 Year Built/Occupied
Housing
Units
Percent of
2019
Housing
Stock
Cumulative
Percent
Average
Annual
Increase
Moved in 1989 and earlier 345 18% 18%
Moved in 1990 to 1999 205 11% 29% 21
Moved in 2000 to 2009 468 25% 53% 47
Moved in 2010 to 2014 461 24% 77% 92
Moved in 2015 to 2018 400 21% 98% 100
Moved in 2019 or later 33 2% 100% 33
Total Occupied 1,912 100% - -
Built 2015-2019 433 23% - 43
Built 1989 to 2019 1,479 77% - 37
Total housing units 1993
Occupied housing units 1912
Vacant housing units 81 4%
Homeowner vacancy rate 0.0
Rental vacancy rate 4.9
Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP04. 17 2.4.2 Housing Age and Conditions
Housing age may be an important indicator of housing condition. Housing units built prior to 1978, before stringent limits on the amount of lead in paint were imposed, may have exterior or interior building components coated with lead-based paint. It is most likely that housing units of that era would also have lead-based paint in deteriorating conditions that can be hazardous and would require rehabilitation. Figure 2-1 shows the age distribution of the housing stock. In combination with Table 2- 15, the data indicates that approximately one third of the housing stock was constructed before 2000 or are more than 20 years old. These findings suggest that there may be a strong need for maintenance and rehabilitation, including remediation of lead-based paint, for a large portion of the City's housing stock. The lead-based Paint Hazard Control (LHC) and the lead Hazard Reduction (LHRD) grant programs provide opportunities to identify and control lead-based paint hazards in eligible privately-owned housing for renter or owner-occupants.

Figure 2-1: Age Distribution of Housing Stock - Guadalupe City, 2020 Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP04 In October 2017, graduate students from the City and Regional Planning Department of the California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, conducted a citywide walking survey to identify the general structural conditions of homes in Guadalupe. Table 2-16 summarizes the results of this survey and others before it. The surveys categorized the conditions of the housing units as follows:
• Good – dwelling units in sound condition, required no repairs, or would only need minor maintenance (such as painting or patching of roof, etc.). • Fair – dwelling units in moderate condition and required rehabilitation in the form of one or more structural repairs.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
30+ 20-29 10-19 0-9
Percent of 2019 Housing Stock
Age of Housing Units (Years)
Age Group Cumulative Percent
18 • Poor – dwelling units in dilapidated condition required the replacement of all exterior elements and were generally considered not feasible for repairs, but rather for reconstruction.

The 2017 housing survey revealed that most of the housing stock (81 percent) was in good condition. A very small proportion was considered dilapidated and in need of replacement. The general trend depicts increase in overall quality of housing. This increase in quality could be partially due to rehabilitation grant programs funded by the now defunct Guadalupe Redevelopment Agency and partially due to newly constructed housing.

Table 2-16: Trends in Housing Conditions - Guadalupe 2008 to 2017 Condition
Cal Poly Land Use
Inventory 2008
Cal Poly Land Use
Inventory 2017
Number Percent Number Percent
Good 1,654 90% 1,248 81%
Fair 171 9% 275 18%
Poor 11 1% 13 1%
Total Housing Units 1,836 100% 1,536 100%
Source: City of Guadalupe, 2019 - 2027 Housing Element; City of Guadalupe, 2017 Background Report, Figure 6-1.

2.4.3 Housing Tenure
Housing tenure, or the split between owner-occupied and renter-occupied housing units, is an important indicator of the housing market. Communities need an adequate supply of units for both rental and purchase in order to accommodate a range of households with varying incomes, family sizes and composition, needs, and lifestyles. Table 2-17 shows that the share of owner-occupied housing units in Guadalupe has hovered consistently near 50 percent of the total housing stock since 2000 with an ever so slight a downward trend in recent years. The share of renter-occupied units depicted a consistent upward trend from 43 percent to 50 percent over the previous two decades. Vacancy rates remained very low throughout the period, with an all-time low of no vacancies in 2010, reflecting a tight housing market in the region.

Table 2-17: Trends in Housing Tenure of Occupied Units - Guadalupe, 2000 to 2020 Housing Type 2000 2010 2015 2017 2020
Occupied housing
units 1,432 98% 1,888 100% 1,837 97% 1,944 98% 1,912 96% Owner-occupied 803 55% 955 51% 920 49% 975 49% 909 46%
Renter-occupied 629 43% 933 49% 917 48% 969 49% 1,003 50% Vacant housing units 36 2% 0 0% 59 3% 39 2% 81 4%
Total Units 1,468 100% 1,888 100% 1,896 100% 1,983 100% 1,993 100% Source: U.S Census Bureau, DEC SF2, Table DP1, 2000; U.S Census Bureau, DEC SF1, Table H003, 2000; U.S Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP04; U.S Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP04; U.S Census Bureau, 2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP04; U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP04. 19 2.4.4 Vacancy
Housing vacancy rate depicts the relationship between housing supply and demand. For example, if the demand for housing is greater than the available supply, then the vacancy rate would be very low, and the price of housing could most likely increase. A low overall vacancy rate that indicates high demand and short supply of housing may result in overcrowding and ultimately unsafe, unsanitary, or otherwise unsuitable accommodations. When low vacancy results in high prices of homes and rentals, the effect is most severe on lower income households, people on fixed incomes, families with children, and other special-need groups. Housing discrimination could occur when the rental vacancy rate is low.

The vacancy rate also indicates whether a community has an adequate housing supply to provide choice and mobility. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) indicates that a vacancy rate of 5 percent is enough to provide choice and mobility. Table 2-17 shows that the highest vacancy rate in Guadalupe over the previous two decades was 4 percent in 2020. During the housing market crash in the 2000s, the vacancy rate dropped to 0 percent in 2010. The data reveal that the City has been typically below the recommended vacancy rate of 5 percent, which would indicate that Guadalupe residents have limited housing choice and mobility and could be susceptible to the adverse conditions associated with low vacancy rates.

2.4.5 Housing Cost
A major barrier to housing availability is the cost of housing. That is why State Law expressly requires cities to plan for a variety of housing opportunities at various prices that are suitable and affordable to various income groups in the community. Figure 2-2 shows that the median home value in Guadalupe more than doubled from $112,800 in 2000 to $270,100 in 2010 but retreated to $203,100 in 2015. Since 2015, the median home price has increased drastically to $304,400 in 2020. Over two decades, home values increased at an average annual rate of 8 percent compared to 4 percent for household incomes.

This implies increasing pressure from housing expenditure on households over time.

While home prices over the period increased overall, historically the median sale price in Guadalupe has been substantially lower than the median sales prices for the neighboring areas. Table 2-18 compares home values in Guadalupe with neighboring communities, the County and the State from 2000 to 2020.

The data confirms that Guadalupe traditionally had lower housing cost than its neighbors.

The median rent in Guadalupe was $1,212 per month for all types of rental housing in 2020. Table 2-19 shows the distribution of rental units by contract rent payments in 2020. This compares favorably to 30 percent of the City’s median income at $1,720. The fact remains that approximately half of all households in Guadalupe who earn below the median income would be hard pressed to afford the median rent in the City. Comparably, 30 percent of median income in the County of Santa Barbara was $2,121 per month, but rents are much higher in the region outside Guadalupe. 20 Figure 2-2: Median Household Income vs. Median Home Value – Guadalupe City, 2000-2020 Sources: Median Home Values –U.S Census Bureau, DEC SF3, Table DP3, 2000; U.S Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP03; U.S Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP03; U.S Census Bureau, 2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP03; U.S Census Bureau, 2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP03.

Median Household Incomes –U.S Census Bureau, DEC SF3, Table DP4, 2000; U.S Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25109; U.S Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25109; U.S Census Bureau, 2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25109; U.S Census Bureau, 2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25109.

Table 2-18: Comparative Median Home Values - Santa Barbara County and Cities, 2000 to 2020 Jurisdiction 2000 2010 2015 2017 2020
State of California 211,500 458,500 385,500 443,400 538,500 Santa Barbara County 293,000 576,500 465,300 509,400 610,300 Goleta 425,700 - - - 813,000
Buellton 269,500 561,100 574,600 458,600 580,100
Carpinteria City 382,400 669,200 203,100 617,000 711,100 Santa Maria City 145,600 338,800 297,200 359,700
Lompoc City 148,300 330,600 262,200 269,100 337,100
Guadalupe City 112,800 270,100 230,500 221,400 304,400
Source: U.S Census Bureau, DEC SF3, Table DP4, 2000; U.S Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25109; U.S Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25109; U.S Census Bureau, 2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25109; U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25109 $31,205 $42,978 $43,710 $44,000 $55,511
$112,800
$270,100
$203,100 $221,400
$304,400
$-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
2000 2010 2015 2017 2020
Values ($)
Year
Median Household Income Median Home Value
21 Table 2-19: Distribution of Contract Rent Payments - Guadalupe City, 2020 Value Number Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Less than $500 44 4% 4%
$500 to $999 231 23% 27%
$1,000 to $1,499 530 53% 80%
$1,500 to $1,999 149 15% 95%
$2,000 to $2,499 41 4% 99%
$2,500 to $2,999 0 0% 99%
$3,000 or more 0 0% 99%
No rent paid 8 1% 100%
Total 1,003 100%
Total Median Gross Rent 1,212
Total Median Contract Rent 1,049
2-bedroom Apartment 1,163
30% City's Median Income 1,720
Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP04; U.S Census Bureau, 2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25058; U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25031.

2.4.6 Affordability and Overpayment
Housing is typically the largest single item of recurrent expenditure for California families. According to HCD criteria, housing is affordable when a household spends less than 30 percent of its gross income on rental or ownership. When a household spends 30 percent or more of its gross income on housing, it is classified as cost-burdened or “overpaying”.

Table 2-20 shows the distributions of households by income range, expenditure, and tenure. The data reveals that over half of all renters in Guadalupe overpaid for housing while nearly one fifth of owners overpaid in 2020. In absolute numbers, more than three times as many renters as owners were costburdened. It is also noteworthy that the population of renters fell disproportionately in the lower income categories compared to the population of owners.

Table 2-20: Percent of Household Income Spent on Housing – Guadalupe City, 2020 Tenure
Household Income Range Total
Less
than
$10,000
$10,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
or
more Count
Percent of
Households
Owner – Occupied Units
Less than 30 percent 12 107 51 70 502 742 82%
30 percent or more 16 59 16 76 0 167 18%
Not computed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
Total 28 166 67 146 502 909 100%
Renter – Occupied Units
Less than 30 percent 0 0 81 159 172 412 41%
22 Tenure
Household Income Range Total
Less
than
$10,000
$10,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
or
more Count
Percent of
Households
30 percent or more 58 352 102 64 0 576 57%
Not computed 7 0 8 0 0 15 1%
Total 65 352 191 223 172 1,003 100%
Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25074; U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25095.

2.4.7 Overcrowding
Limited household incomes, high housing prices, and inadequate sizes of units within a community trigger overcrowding. The U.S Census Bureau considers a housing unit to be overcrowded when there is more than one person per room, excluding bathrooms and kitchens. Severe overcrowding occurs when a unit has more than 1.5 occupants per room. Overcrowding can result when there are not enough adequately sized housing units within a community, or when high housing costs relative to income force too many individuals or families to share housing. Overcrowding can also accelerate deterioration of the housing stock.

Table 2-21 shows that overcrowding is more prevalent in Guadalupe than in Santa Barbara County as a whole. In 2020, 8 percent of owner households in the City lived under overcrowded conditions compared to three percent of owner residents in the County. There were more than double the levels of overcrowding among renters with 19 percent and 8 percent in the City and County, respectively.

Therefore by tenure, renter units were more crowded than owner units. This suggests the need for larger and more affordable rental units in the City.

Table 2-21: Overcrowding - Guadalupe City vs. Santa Barbara County, 2020 Household Type
Guadalupe City Santa Barbara County
Households Percent Households Percent
Owner Occupied 909 48% 77,504 52%
Overcrowded 102 5% 2,631 2%
Severely Overcrowded 49 3% 1,199 1%
Renter Occupied 1,003 52% 70,805 48%
Overcrowded 252 13% 6,979 5%
Severely Overcrowded 112 6% 4,525 3%
Total Households 1,912 100% 148,309 100%
Note:

1. Overcrowded is when there is more than 1 person per room

2. Severely overcrowded is when there are more than 1.5 persons per room Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25014. 23 2.4.8 Conclusion
The City's housing stock is largely in good condition; however, one third of the housing stock is more than 20 years old, which might require more regular maintenance and repair. Since 2000, housing prices in the City have increased at a faster pace than household incomes. As a result, nearly half of all households in the City spent approximately a third or more of their incomes on housing with the cost burden more common among renters than owners. The numbers of households that can comfortably afford the median priced home in the City and the numbers that can afford the median priced apartment have declined since 2000. All these findings point to the need for more affordable housing in the future. Programs to assist moderate-income first-time buyers and lower-income renters could help narrow the affordability gap. Chapter 3 includes a list of potential funding sources and programs.

2.5 Special Housing Needs
Special circumstances make it difficult for certain groups to find decent, affordable housing. The circumstances may relate to type of employment and income, family characteristics, disability, or other limiting conditions. Those who fall into these circumstances would have a “special need” for housing.

Those with such specific demographic characteristics such as large families with low incomes, for instance, might need housing units with three or more bedrooms that they can afford. Those in such special occupational groups as seasonal farm workers might need single-room occupancy units. Analysis of special needs housing can help a municipality identify groups with the most serious housing needs in order to develop and prioritize programs to respond to those needs. State law specifically requires analysis of the special housing needs of the elderly, large families, female-headed households, persons with disabilities, farmworkers, homeless persons and families, and extremely low-income households.

Chapters 3 and 4 further discuss housing resources and constraints to housing provision.

2.5.1 Elderly
Fixed incomes, high health care costs, and physical disabilities are three typical circumstances that categorize some senior households for special housing need. Table 2-22 shows the trend in seniorheaded households in Guadalupe from 2000 to 2020. Senior households have kept pace with other households growing from 302 in 2000 to 329 in 2020 thereby maintaining a similar, but slightly declining share from 21 percent of all households in 2000 to 17 percent in 2020. The share of senior-headed households in Guadalupe was lower than Santa Barbara County, which had 41,284 senior-headed households, (or 28 percent of all households) in 2020.

Table 2-22: Households by Age of Householder - Guadalupe City, 2000 to 2020 Age of
Householder
2000 2010 2015 2020
Households % Households % Households % Households %
Up to 64 years 1,130 79% 1,615 86% 1,522 83% 1,583 83%
65 years+ 302 21% 273 14% 315 17% 329 17%
Total 1,432 100% 1,888 100% 1,837 100% 1,912 100%
Source: U.S Census Bureau, DEC SF3, Table H014, 2000; U.S Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey 5- Year Estimates, Table B25007; U.S Census Bureau, 2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25007; U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25007. 24 Table 2-23 shows the distribution of householders by tenure in Guadalupe in 2020. At 11 percent, senior-headed households make up one of the smallest shares among renters and with 36 percent senior-headed households make up the single largest share among home owners. Because senior citizens are on fixed incomes, they particularly tend to need affordable housing, especially if homes become too costly to maintain or if rents increase. Some senior citizens who do not rent or own housing can share housing with other family members. For instance, some elderly parents could live with their adult children or in other shared arrangements which could result in overcrowding.

Table 2-23: Householder by Tenure and Age - Guadalupe City, 2020 Age of Householder
Renter Occupied Owner Occupied All Tenure
Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent 15 to 24 16 2% 0 0% 16 1%
25 to 34 295 28% 38 4% 333 16%
35 to 44 325 31% 130 13% 455 22%
45 to 54 211 20% 147 14% 358 17%
55 to 64 77 7% 344 34% 421 20%
65 and over 119 11% 363 36% 482 23%
Total 1,043 100% 1,022 100% 2,065 100%
Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25007.

Elderly persons may also have additional physical and social needs particularly if: (a) they have no immediate family; (b) lack mobility through physical impairment; (c) or lack access to transportation alternatives. Such needs may include transportation, social service referrals, financial assistance employment, long-term care for the home-bound, and day care.

It behooves long-range planning to recognize elderly persons' needs and design programs to address them. Various organizations and programs that can assist seniors with their housing needs in Guadalupe include supportive services, rental subsidies, senior housing, and housing rehabilitation assistance. The Guadalupe Senior Citizens Center offers many programs for senior residents. The nutrition program serves lunch at the community center every day and delivers meals to homebound seniors who are unable to walk or drive to the center. The Club provides transportation for doctors' visits and shopping.

A health nurse comes in regularly to check blood pressure and general health. Bread and perishable staples are available weekly while commodities are distributed once a month free of charge to seniors who want them.

The Central Coast Commission for Senior Citizens has compiled a directory of services available for elderly persons in Santa Barbara County. Some of the services include adult education, financial planning services, health facilities such as home nursing and mental health care, and recreation and community interaction programs.
25 To address elderly housing needs, the City could require developers to design housing units that are accessible to all persons, regardless of physical ability. Units should also be affordable for seniors who are on fixed incomes.

2.5.2 Large Households
The U.S Census Bureau defines large households as those comprising five or more persons. These households may have special housing needs because there is often a limited supply of adequately sized, affordable housing units in communities. Large units generally cost more than smaller units pushing them out of the affordability range. To cover expenditure on such necessities as food and health care, it is common for large lower-income households to reside in smaller (more affordable) units, which frequently results in overcrowding. It is important, therefore, that there is both adequate supply and affordability of large units for large households in Guadalupe.

Table 2-24 shows the distribution of occupied housing units by number of rooms and tenure in 2020. It reveals that approximately 80 percent of renter units and 80 percent of owner units have four to six rooms, which would seem to be predominantly family-friendly. However, large families need at least as many rooms as there are persons in the household to prevent living in overcrowded conditions. In 2020, large units of five or more rooms made up approximately 40 percent of renter units and 85 percent of owner units. The large units were not necessarily affordable as there were two times as many large owner units as renter units. This would explain the overcrowding noted in Table 2-21.

Table 2-25 shows the distribution of occupied housing units by number of persons and tenure for 2020 which provides further insight into the potential for overcrowding. Households with five or more persons occupied 40 percent of renter units and 35 percent of owner units. While the share of large renter units matched the share of large households, the share of large owner units far outstrips the share of large households suggesting affordability issues with owner units for large families.

To address overcrowding and adequately supply large households with suitable housing, the City can offer incentives to facilitate the development of large housing units with four or more bedrooms. A shortage of large units can be alleviated through inclusionary zoning and community partnerships with entities such as People's Self-Help Housing, Habitat for Humanity, and other affordable housing developers that offer opportunities for affordable housing ownership. Funding sources such as the firsttime homebuyer program and Community Development Block Grant program can help move renters to home ownership. Chapter 3 discusses resources for general financial assistance which may be available to large households.
26 Table 2-24: Number of Rooms per Occupied Housing Unit by Tenure – Guadalupe City, 2020 Number of Rooms
Renter Occupied Owner Occupied All Tenure
Housing
Units Percent
Housing
Units Percent
Housing
Units Percent
1 Room 41 4% 13 1% 54 3%
2 Rooms 28 3% 0 0% 28 1%
3 Rooms 94 9% 12 1% 106 6%
4 Rooms 406 40% 104 11% 510 27%
5 Rooms 241 24% 412 45% 653 34%
6 Rooms 143 14% 199 22% 342 18%
7 Rooms 19 2% 93 10% 112 6%
8 Rooms 0 0% 22 2% 22 1%
9 Rooms or more 31 3% 54 6% 85 4%
Total 1,003 100% 909 100% 1,912 100%
Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25020.

Table 2-25: Number of Persons per Occupied Housing Unit by Tenure - Guadalupe City, 2020 Number of Rooms
Renter Occupied Owner Occupied All Tenure
Housing
Units Percent
Housing
Units Percent
Housing
Units Percent
1 Person 109 11% 157 17% 266 14%
2 Persons 153 15% 140 15% 293 15%
3 Persons 171 17% 138 15% 309 16%
4 Persons 171 17% 159 17% 330 17%
5 Persons 203 20% 137 15% 340 18%
6 Persons 98 10% 107 12% 205 11%
7 Persons or more 98 10% 71 8% 169 9%
Total 1,003 100% 909 100% 1,912 100%
Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25009.

2.5.3 Female Headed Households
Single-parent households, particularly female-headed households, often require special consideration and assistance with affordable housing, accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services.

Because of relatively lower incomes and higher living expenses, female-headed households tend to have limited opportunities for affordable, decent, and safe housing. These households become particularly vulnerable as they try to balance the needs of their children with responsibilities of work.

Table 2-26 shows the distribution of household types in Guadalupe by tenure in 2020. In comparing unmarried households, there were nearly twice as many female-headed households as male-headed households in the City. Table 2-27 reveals that the burden of single-parenting fell disproportionately on women with 76 percent of these households looking after one or more persons under age 18 years. A 27 third of unmarried female householders also had care-taking responsibilities for persons aged 60 years and over.

From the perspective of tenure, there were three times as many female-headed households in renter units as in owner units. This has implications for the incomes of female-headed households and the availability of affordable units to suit their needs. In 2020, 25 percent of female-headed households lived below the poverty level.

Table 2-26: Occupied Housing Units by Household Type by Tenure - Guadalupe City, 2020 Number of Rooms
Renter Occupied Owner Occupied All Tenure
Housing
Units Percent
Housing
Units Percent
Housing
Units Percent
Married Couple Family 448 45% 601 66% 1,049 55%
Male Householder, no spouse present 152 15% 73 8% 225 12% Female Householder, no spouse
present 272 27% 78 9% 350 18%
Nonfamily Householders 131 13% 157 17% 288 15%
Total 1,003 100% 909 100% 1,912 100%
Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S2501.

The Boys and Girls Club is a resource for female-headed households with children. This organization has a branch in Guadalupe where it offers many programs and opportunities for children and young adults.

The River View townhomes also provide low-income housing and includes a community center, health clinic, learning center, and education assistance to children and adults.

In addition, the federal Aid for Dependent Children program (AFDC) provides support for the children in single-parent families. Depending on household income, single-parent family households may also qualify for other federal housing assistance programs, such as Section 8 vouchers (also called housing choice vouchers), which subsidize the balance of the rental cost in excess of 30 percent of the renter's gross income. The program enables the prospective tenant to use the subsidy in the private market place in search of rental housing. To further address the housing needs of female-headed households, the City should promote the development of additional multifamily housing. 28 Table 2-27: Comparative Characteristics of Householders - Guadalupe City, 2020 Household Type
One or more
people under 18
years
One or more
people aged 60
years and over
Income in the
past 12 months
below poverty
level
Housing
Units Percent
Housing
Units Percent
Housing
Units Percent
Married Couple Family 732 70% 283 27% 149 14%
Male Householder, no spouse present 112 50% 62 28% 75 33% Female Householder, no spouse present 267 76% 110 31% 88 25% Nonfamily Householders 14 5% 150 52% - -
All Household Types 1,125 - 605 - 312 -
Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S1101; U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B17013.

2.5.4 Persons with Disabilities
A disability is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits major life activities. Persons with disabilities tend to have special housing needs in the form of affordable housing because of low or fixed incomes, higher health costs associated with their disabilities, and special requirements for mobility.

Table 2-28 shows the distribution of the disability population in Guadalupe among the six groups that the U.S Census identifies. Census data for 2020 revealed that the incidence of disability in Guadalupe cuts across gender, age, and race. City-wide, 8 percent of the population had one or more of the six disability types. The two most prevalent forms of disability in 2020 were: (a) ambulatory and (b) an independent living disability, which both occurred disproportionately among seniors.

The living arrangements for persons with disabilities depend on the type and severity of the disability.

Many disabled persons can live at home in an independent environment with or without the help of other family members. To maintain independent living, disabled persons may require assistance, which may include special design features for the physically disabled, income support for those who are unable to work, and in-home care for persons with medical conditions. These services are available through public or private agencies.

Table 2-28: Population with Disability - Guadalupe City, 2020 Type of Disability
Disability
Population
Percentage of Total
Civilian Population
With hearing difficulty 127 1.7%
With vision difficult 93 1.2%
With a cognitive difficulty 166 2.2%
With an ambulatory difficulty 334 4.4%
With a self-care difficulty 89 1.2%
With an independent living difficulty 189 2.5%
Subtotal Disability Population 610 8.0%
Total Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population 7,654 100% Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S1810. 29 In 1984, Title 24 of the State Uniform Building Code mandated that all multiple-family residential projects containing more than five units and constructed after September 15, 1985 conform to specific disabled, adaptability, and accessibility regulations. In 1988, the Federal government enacted the U.S Fair Housing Amendment Act with the intent to increase the number of rental units being built that would be accessible to disabled individuals. In July 1993, the State of California issued the "California Multifamily Access Requirements" based upon the Act. However, despite these regulatory changes, the actual increase in the number of accessible units available in the rental market has remained small. Even though Federal and State housing laws require certain design features or adaptation of housing design for physical accessibility in multifamily residential buildings, many dwelling units built before March 1991 are not subject to these accessibility requirements. There is a need therefore to adapt houses or apartments for wheelchairs and other special requirements for individuals with physical disabilities.

Requiring adaptive design features in new construction, for example, does not assist such individuals as seniors who may choose to remain in older housing rather than move to assisted living facilities or other newly constructed housing. A good planning consideration to suit persons with physical disabilities is to locate new housing units in proximity to services and public transportation.

The Tri-Counties Regional Center provides support and services for individuals with developmental disabilities living in the counties of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura. The agency documents individuals who receive services from the Tri-Counties Regional Center including those from Guadalupe.

Persons with mental disabilities are a critically under-served population with respect to housing. The physical modification of housing is typically not necessary to accommodate intellectually disabled persons, but they generally require more services and more monetary support. The mentally disabled tend to have limited opportunities for jobs and incomes making affordable housing important for them.

Many intellectually disabled persons would prefer to live independently, but because of monetary circumstances, they are compelled to live with other family members or in group homes. This may cause additional stress and problems. In some cases, the need for a resident assistant to help deal with crisis or challenging situations may also create special housing demand. This would suggest that there is a need for some apartment or condominium complexes that are reserved exclusively for persons requiring extra assistance in dealing with their daily routines. However, Guadalupe may be too small for such apartments, which are typically found in large cities. Because many intellectually disabled persons are unable to drive, access to public transportation for these residents is also important. There are a limited number of day treatment facilities and programs in Guadalupe, which include drop-in socialization centers to serve persons with mental disabilities. These individuals do not have regional centers as do the persons with physical disabilities and there is no respite care for families who provide round-the-clock care for relatives with mental disabilities.

2.5.5 Farmworkers
The definition of “farmworker” is a person who earns primary income through permanent or seasonal agricultural labor. Permanent farm laborers work year-round in the fields, processing plants, or supporting activities. When workload increases during harvest periods, employers of seasonal workers supplement the labor force often through a labor contractor. For some crops, farms may hire migrant 30 workers, that is, those whose travels prevent them from returning to their primary residence every evening.

It has been problematic estimating the size of the agricultural labor force as the U.S Census and other data sources undercounted or mis-classified farmworkers. For instance, the government agencies that track farm labor are not consistent in the definitions of related terms. Farm labor sometimes includes only field laborers and other times includes workers in plants that process farm produce. Length of employment sometimes includes only permanent workers and other times includes seasonal workers.

Place of work sometimes refers to the location of the business, but other times refers to the field.

The 2011 Census reported that there were approximately 12,094 farmworkers in Santa Barbara County and 590 in the City of Guadalupe. The 2020 Census reported approximately 18,824 in Santa Barbara County and 1,186 in the City of Guadalupe. This equals 35 percent of all employed persons in the City. In addition, The U.S. Census of Agriculture (Ag Census) estimates that farms and ranches across Santa Barbara County hired 22,985 laborers in 2007, a 6 percent increase over a 10-year period. According to the Ag Census, while the number of hired farm laborers increased, the number of farms decreased by 8 percent since 2012. Table 2-29 shows the top ten agricultural products in Santa Barbara County and listed by rank of annual revenue in 2020.

Table 2-29: Top 10 Agriculture Products by Rank - Santa Barbara County, 2018 and 2020 Crop Value 2018 Rank 2020 Rank
Strawberries $1,643,241,000 1 1
Cauliflower $109,282,000 6 2
Broccoli $104,654,000 5 3
Nursery Products $98,567,000 3 4
Wine Grapes $93,836,000 2 5
Avocado $80,161,000 9 6
Lettuce, leaf $78,084,000 8 7
Lettuce, head $74,298,000 7 8
Celery $61,688,000 - 9
Blackberries $46,560,000 - 10
Source: Santa Barbara County, Agricultural Production Report, 2020; https://www.countyofsb.org/469/CropReports.

Table 2-30 shows the distributions of the total employed populations in Guadalupe and Santa Barbara County in 2020. The Agriculture Industry was the single largest employer of Guadalupe residents making up 35 percent of the employed in the City and 9 percent of the employed in the County. In 2020, the concentration of agricultural workers in Guadalupe (35 percent of all jobs) was three times the concentration of such workers in the County (9 percent of all jobs). This reflects the importance of farmworkers in the City. Using the 2017 U.S Census of Agriculture for the County and applying the share of those employed in Agriculture would yield an upper estimate of 1,448 farmworkers in Guadalupe.

This would include both permanent and temporary workers in agriculture within the year. Since 31 historically farmworkers are among the lowest earning categories of workers, many farmworkers are likely to fall into the lower income groupings for housing affordability.

The scale and type of agricultural production in the County and the sector's importance to both the local and State economies suggest the need for decent and sanitary housing options for farmworkers.

Seasonal and migrant farmworkers tend to save as much of their earnings as possible for repatriation to their countries of origin to support families. This often leads migrant farmworkers to seek the lowestcost alternatives for housing during their stay. This further exacerbates the need for housing that is affordable to farmworkers. Given the importance of agriculture and its labor force, the provision of adequate farmworker housing is a critical issue for Guadalupe as many of these workers are believed to live in poor housing conditions and face the problems of overpayment or overcrowding.

An effective means to address the housing needs of the City's farmworker population is to facilitate development of new rental housing that is affordable to low and very low-income households. This should include both single and multiple room units. The City previously approved the Guadalupe Court affordable housing project, which included 38 extremely low, very low, and low-income rental housing units. The City also has several programs in place to increase affordable housing. Examples of such programs include density bonuses for subdivisions that include an affordable housing component and ongoing pursuit of state and federal funds to assist in the development of affordable housing.

Table 2-30: Estimates of Farmworker Population - Guadalupe City vs. Santa Barbara County, 2020 Industry
Guadalupe City
Santa Barbara
County
Guadalupe
City
Percent
of City
Santa
Barbara
County
Percent
of
County
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and
mining 1,186 35% 18,824 9%
Construction 110 3% 11,534 5%
Manufacturing 178 5% 14,778 7%
Wholesale trade 183 5% 4,291 2%
Retail trade 333 10% 20,694 10%
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 40 1% 6,430 3% Information 36 1% 4,161 2%
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental
and leasing 163 5% 9,998 5%
Professional, scientific, and management, and
administrative and waste management services 226 7% 25,068 12% Educational services, and health care and social
assistance 590 17% 49,005 23%
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and
accommodation and food services 136 4% 26,135 12%
Other services, except public administration 139 4% 11,684 6% Public administration 73 2% 9,149 4%
32 Civilian Employed Population 16 Years and Over 3,393 100% 211,751 100% 2017 U.S Census of Agriculture Farm Workers 1,4481 22,985 Percent of County Employed in Agriculture 6% 100%
Agriculture as Share of Ag. Forestry … Mining 122% 122% Note:

1. Guadalupe City estimate = Santa Barbara County 2017 Farmworkers total of 22,985 * 0.06 Sources: U.S Census Bureau, 2017 & 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP03; U.S Census of Agriculture, 2017 Census Volume 1, Chapter 2: County Level Data, Table 7.

2.5.6 Unhoused
Unhoused persons are individuals who lack regular nighttime residence possibly due to limited or lack of regular income. Some of them need short-term, temporary, or emergency shelter probably due to immediate crisis while others have long-term or chronic needs. The unhoused population represents a broad spectrum of the population including single men and women, couples, families, displaced youth without parents, and seniors. They can include individuals who are victims of economic dislocation, the physically disabled, teen parents with children, veterans, those discharged from hospital or jail, alcohol and drug abusers, survivors of domestic violence, persons with HIV AIDS, immigrants, refugees, and farmworkers.

According to the Guadalupe Police Department, there were rarely any unhoused persons in the City. The County of Santa Barbara conducted a count of unhoused people in the County in 2022. While the survey counted 1,962 people in the County, less than one percent lived in Montecito, Guadalupe, Orcutt, and the Santa Ynez Valley combined. In the past, unhoused persons have been transient farmworkers who had not yet found a place to live, but they did not remain unsheltered over extended periods of time.

Most transient workers were able to afford some form of shelter when they gained employment, but often under overcrowded or otherwise inadequate conditions.

The rare occurrence of homelessness in Guadalupe does not call for an emergency shelter or transitional housing facility, however, such a facility is permitted by right in areas zoned R-3 for residential uses.

Chapter 4 further discusses this issue under constraints to housing development. There are social services and year-round shelters for the unhoused at locations in Santa Maria and Santa Barbara. The Santa Barbara County Housing Authority has an office location in Guadalupe (at 1050 Escalante St, Guadalupe, CA 93434) to provide public housing assistance. The City also meets and coordinates with other government agencies and community groups to address homelessness.

2.5.7 Extremely Low-Income Households
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) defines “extremely lowincome” households as those earning up to 30 percent of area median income (AMI). In 2020, Santa Barbara County had a median income of 84,846. Households earning up to $25,453 would therefore fall into the classification of extremely low-income households. Table 2-13 reveals that households in Guadalupe fall predominantly in the lower income categories with 60 percent in those “lower-income” categories compared to 40 percent in the “upper-income” categories. About 18 percent of total households in Guadalupe fell into the extremely low-income category. These households (among others) 33 depict a variety of housing situations and needs when they face overpayment, overcrowding, and substandard housing conditions. Other families and individuals receiving public assistance in the form of social security insurance (SSI) or disability insurance tend to fall into the category of extremely lowincome households.

One way to address the housing needs of those in the extremely low-income category is to facilitate development of single and multiple room rental housing, as well as supportive rental housing linked to a range of support services. Supportive housing can help residents to maintain stable housing and lead productive lives. Services may include childcare, after-school tutoring, and career counseling, among others. The River View and the Guadalupe Court affordable housing developments in Guadalupe offer supportive services to their residents.

2.5.8 Persons with Developmental Disabilities
The presence of developmental disability is mild, but nevertheless present among the population of Guadalupe. As of December 2021, the Department of Developmental Services recorded 95 cases in Guadalupe, which equated to a rate of 11.7 per thousand population. Among the cases, 5.5 out of every ten were minors under age 18 while the remainder were adults of 18 years old or above. Table 3-31 has details. As far as type of care, persons with developmental disability receive care overwhelmingly (95%) from the homes of parents, family, or guardians. Therefore, issues of housing availability and choice relate primarily to care-givers rather than the subjects.

Table 2-31: Distribution of Persons with Developmental Disabilities - Guadalupe City, 2021 Developmental Disability by Type of Care Count
Percent of
Cases Percent of Population
Home of Parent /Family /Guardian 90 95% 1.11%
Independent /Supported Living <11 5% 0.06%
Community Care Facility 0 0% 0.00%
Intermediate Care Facility 0 0% 0.00%
Foster /Family Home 0 0% 0.00%
Total Residents >90 100% 1.17%
Developmental Disability by Age Group
Minors (00-17 years old) 52 55% 0.64%
Adults (18+ years old) 43 45% 0.53%
Total All Ages 95 100% 1.17%
Rate of developmental Disability (per 1000
population)

11.7 Total Population of McFarland, 2021 8,138
Source: Department of Developmental Services. (December, 2021). https://www.dds.ca.gov/transparency/facts-stats/.
34 2.6 Assisted Housing At-Risk of Conversion
This section identifies all residential projects in Guadalupe that are under an affordability covenant, along with those housing projects that are at-risk of losing their low-income affordability restrictions within the eight-year period from 2023 to 2031. This information is used to establish quantified objectives for units that can be conserved during this planning period. The inventory includes all units assisted under any federal, state, or local program.

2.6.1 Inventory of Potential At-Risk Units
Table 2-32 is an inventory of developments within Guadalupe which participate in federal, state, or local programs that provide some form of assistance either through financial subsidy or control.

Table 2-32: Inventory of Assisted Affordable Housing Developments - Guadalupe City, 2020 Project
Name Address Year
Number
of Units Authority Program Covenant Expires
Escalante
Tract
(Guadalupe
Ranch
Acres)
1050
Escalante
Drive
late
1950s
to
early
1960s 80
Housing
Authority
of the
County of
Santa
Barbara
Apartment
complex rents to
low-income
families. Rent is
based on a
percentage of
the family's
income. Permanent
Guadalupe
Ranch
Senior
Apartments
4561
Tenth
Street 1975 56
Housing
Authority
of the
County of
Santa
Barbara
Apartment for
elderly lowincome
residents. Permanent
Riverview
Townhome
s
230 Calle
Cesar
Chavez 2003 80
People's
Self Help
Housing
80 affordable
rental units, 39
of which are for
farmworkers;
includes a
community
center, health,
clinic, and
learning center. Permanent
Point Sal
Dunes
Point Sal
Dunes
Way 2000 18
-
Provides 18
mortgage
subsidies for the
low- income
residents. Units
have a 30-year
deed restriction
that limits the
resale price of 2030
35 Project
Name Address Year
Number
of Units Authority Program Covenant Expires
these units to
the average
increase in
median income
in the County.

Guadalupe
Court
11th
Street 2014 38
People's
Self Help
Housing
38 affordable
rental units for
farmworkers 2070
Source: Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara, 2022; Affordable Housing Online, 2022.

2.6.2 Risk of Conversion
According to the Santa Barbara County Housing Authority and City data, 7 percent or 18 of the 272 assisted units in the City would be at risk of converting to market rate in 2030, near the end of the 2023- 2031 time period. Guadalupe could consider reinstating the convent for Point Sal Dunes units at the end of its term in 2030 and modifying it to become permanent as most of the other assisted units are in the City.

2.7 Future Growth Needs
In accordance with State law, this section provides a quantification of Guadalupe's share of the regional housing need as established in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) prepared by the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG).

2.7.1 Overview of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process is a key planning tool for local governments to anticipate and prepare for future housing need. RHNA quantifies the anticipated need for housing within each jurisdiction based on regional population forecasts of the California Department of Finance.

Communities within specific regions determine collaboratively how to share the need and address it in updates to the housing elements of general plans.

SBCAG has the responsibility of preparing the RHNA for the incorporated and unincorporated communities within Santa Barbara County, which includes the City of Guadalupe. The most current RHNA was adopted in July 2021 and covers a period from February 2023 through February 2031. SBCAG applied the following methodology to allocate housing units to each jurisdiction:
• SBCAG estimated the future population within each jurisdiction based upon State Department of Finance projections and knowledge of circumstances particular to Santa Barbara County. • SBCAG converted the change in population into housing units necessary to accommodate increases in population. The estimate included a vacancy rate that reflects a "healthy" housing market that would enable movement among units and replacement of existing units that may become demolished.
36 • SBCAG divided the estimate of housing needs into four groups based on income categories labelled as very low, low, moderate, and above moderate income. This step is to target enough quantity of housing for all income groups in the community. • The “very low” category is subdivided in this document to show the “extremely low” (ELI) as a fifth category. HCD recommends that the projected housing need for ELI households be calculated either by using available census data to determine the number of very low-income households that qualify as ELI households or by presuming that 50 percent of the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) for very low-income households qualify as ELI households. • The process first allocates housing needs for each jurisdiction based on the percentage of households that falls into each category. For instance, if 15 percent of households fall under the low-income category then 15 percent of future housing needs should be affordable to households within that income category.
• The process then adjusted allocations according to such factors that may be particular to each jurisdiction as disproportionate housing types, number of renters, number of persons receiving public assistance, employment patterns, commuting patterns, and avoidance of over-impaction of low-income households.

Senate Bill 375 (5B 375) (Steinberg, 2008) and Senate Bill 575 (Steinberg, 2009) affect the RHNA process and this 6
th Housing Element cycles in several ways. The main changes since the 5th Cycle include: (a) the integration of the RHNA process with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS); (b) requirement for coordination and consistency of the housing element with the RTP and SCS; and (c) the length of the housing element cycle. The sixth cycle for the Santa Barbara County region covers an eight-year planning horizon (February, 2023 to February, 2031). The City of Guadalupe is on a 4-year update cycle due to a late submittal of a previous update to the Housing Element although each update continues to plan for an eight-year horizon.

Table 2-33 compares the shares of households in five income categories in 2020 with the adjusted shares of SBCAG's RHNA allocations for the 2023-2031 period. While the RHNA allocation indicates a split of 6 percent to the lower income categories and 94 percent to the upper income categories, in 2020, a more substantial 60 percent of households fell into the lower-income and 40 percent of households fell into in the upper-income categories. Table 2-33 shows what would be equivalent allocations based solely on shares of households in various income categories as is the practice with many RHNA processes. SBCAG adjusts the percentages to account for special circumstances. At any rate, Guadalupe needs to plan for a substantial proportion of affordable housing to meet the needs of lower income households.
37 Table 2-33: Shares of Households vs. RHNA Allocations by Income Groups - Guadalupe City, 2020 Income Group
2020 Shares of Households by Income
Group Allocations
Income Range Households
Percent of
Households
Hypothetical
Equivalent
Units
2023-2031
RHNA
Units
Extremely Low < $23,678 347 18% 78 1
Very low $24,467 - $39,463 468 24% 106 2
Low $40,252 - $63,140 365 19% 82 24
Moderate $63,929 - $94,710 276 14% 62 77
Above Moderate > $95,499 456 24% 103 327
Civilian Employed
Population 16 Years
and Over - 1,912 100% 431 431
Sources: U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S1901; Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan, 2023-2031.

SBCAG projects a total need of 431 new housing units in Guadalupe across various income categories over the eight-year planning period. Comparing the hypothetical units of 103 to the allocation of 327 in Table 2-33, one can infer that the RHNA allocations indicate that Guadalupe is to focus its future supply of housing units in the above moderate income category to contribute to the needs of the region in that income bracket.
38 3.0 Resources for Residential Development

3.1 Land Availability
Government Code Section 65583(a)(3) requires the Housing Element to contain "an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites." Appendix B contains a detailed analysis of vacant land and potential development opportunities.

The following paragraphs summarize the results of this analysis.

The most recent Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for Santa Barbara County covers the eightyear planning horizon from 2023 to 2031. Consistent with this length of planning horizon, this 2023- 2031 housing element for Guadalupe adopts the City's share of the regional housing need of 431 units.

Consistent with the City’s 2042 General Plan, the housing element focuses on the development potential of vacant land zoned for residential uses (infill sites), underdeveloped General-Commercial sites that could accommodate mixed use development in the City's Downtown Mixed Use District, and the DJ Farms Specific Plan area. Sites that are zoned R-3, Multiple Dwelling Residential (high density), would allow a density of up to 26 dwelling units per acre and are most appropriate for new housing for lower income households. R-3 zoned parcels are located on both sides of State Highway 1 to the north, east, and west of Guadalupe's downtown commercial core. Downtown extends from Sixth Street to Twelfth Street. There are many parcels within this area that are either vacant or could be redeveloped with projects that would exceed 26 to 30 units/acre to accommodate 50 or more units. Additionally, the Pasadera residential development can accommodate up to 322 additional dwelling units.

Development potential depends on the residential density standards of the City. Consideration of whether site constraints and land use controls can achieve the permitted densities help in refining the estimates of housing capacities. In general, the acreage of the parcel was multiplied by the allowable density, unlike the more restrictive minimum lot area per unit set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Any fractional component on the number of units allowed under the density standards was dropped. The application of density bonuses was not included in the calculation of allowable units; rather, the allowable base land use density was used. The conduct of a parcel by parcel evaluation of any unusual site characteristics or land use controls led to further downward adjustments to the allowable number of residential units if additional constraints to development existed. Constraints that in some cases resulted in lower residential development potential included right-of-way for road access, irregular lot shapes, difficulty in meeting minimum roadway frontage requirements, and existence of wetlands or drainage courses on the parcel. Such constraints had enough of an effect to result in reduced residential capacity on some of the available lots. Adherence to this methodology provided a conservative residential capacity that took into consideration any special or unusual circumstances.

Although in many cases, lot consolidation could result in a larger percentage of buildable area and a higher number of housing units, this methodology to calculate development potential did not take this possibility into account. It should be noted, however, that there are opportunities for lot consolidation, particularly in the City's Downtown Mixed Use District. For example, development of multiple contiguous parcels has occurred in Guadalupe with the Ruiz Apartments project on Olivera Street and 39 the Dune Villas project on Eleventh Street. The following paragraph further illustrates other examples of land consolidation.

In the past, development projects on lots zoned for multi-family residential (R-3) uses have been approved or developed at a density of 20-unlts per acre in Guadalupe. Examples of this include residential projects such as the 74-unit La Plaza Villas at 736-754 Olivera Street (built in 2006), the 7-unit Dune Villas project at 4623 Eleventh Street (approved in May 2006, with an extension of the tract map granted until 2010), the 38-unit Guadalupe Court (approved October14, 2014), and the 34-unit Pioneer Street Apartments project. Other multi-family projects approved in the last few years include the La Guardia Townhomes (20 units + 2 ADUs) approved in 2022 and now under construction; and Escalante Meadows (80 units + community center) approved in 2020 also under construction (replacing 50-unit Guadalupe Ranch Acres). Approximately 20 units of other multi-family units have been approved in three projects in 2021-2022.

3.1.1 Vacant Residential Parcels
The California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo conducted a Land Use Inventory in 2017 as part of the update to the General Plan and Land Use Element. As of September 30, 2017, the City had one hundred and thirty vacant parcels. The largest parcel was the DJ Farms Specific Plan Area, now known as Pasadera Homes. Besides the DJ Farms Specific Plan Area, there were 10.12 acres of other vacant residential lands within City limits. Based on the residential densities in the Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Element, and as further evaluated for site and planning constraints in Table B-1 in Appendix B, Table 3-1 indicates that the 10.12 acres of vacant residential land can conservatively accommodate approximately 102 units, which would satisfy the 27 very low and low income housing units RHNA allocated to Guadalupe. Additionally, there is residential development potential at the DJ Farms Specific Plan area and residential/commercial mixed-use in the downtown area.

As stated in the 2042 General Plan, DJ Farms has 363 existing dwelling units according to the Guadalupe Building Department. A total of 740 dwelling units were authorized for the site as of 2022. The difference of 377 units are to be developed on approximately 31.5 acres of land at an average density of

12.0 dwelling units per acre.

Development potential for the mixed-use designation assumed that all new development would accommodate commercial activities on the ground-floor and residential uses on the second floor.

Residential potential applied 25.5 dwelling units per acre (which is the midpoint of the allowable density for the High-Density Residential designation to the single-story square footage to estimate the potential for 35 additional dwelling units.

Together, these potentials for additional housing would exceed the short-term RHNA allocations for the 2023-2031 cycle. Besides, the 2042 General Plan has also identified additional acreage for residential development in the long term to a grand total of 874 units. 40 Table 3-1: Capacity of Vacant Residential Land Exclusive of DJ Farms Specific Plan Area Zoning
Vacant Land
(acres)
Allowable
Density (units
per acre)
Realistic
Capacity
(housing
units)
R-1, R-1-5P 4.56 6 23
R-1-M, R-1-M-SP 0.37 10 0
R-2, R-2-5P 1.03 10 10
R-3 4.16 20 69
Total 10.12 - 102
Source: Cal Poly land Use Inventory, 2017; City of Guadalupe 2042 General Plan; City of Guadalupe Zoning Ordinance
Appendix B includes an analysis of the suitability of vacant parcels for residential development. All highdensity vacant sites were less than half an acre in size except one and all except four sites were less than one-third of an acre in size. It is also notable that the City's updated General Plan has policies and programs that promote the consolidation of small lots, which would be expected to result in larger unit production potentials for consolidated properties. In addition, the Planned Residential Development Overlay provides for flexibility in design and allows modifications to base zoning district development standards to provide for more efficient utilization of housing sites to generate additional housing units.

The City has been active in facilitating development of smaller lots to produce affordable housing projects. City support for such affordable housing projects is primarily through the application of the Planned Development overlay district, which provides for flexibility with respect to density, on-site parking requirements, and other design standards. Historically, the City has utilized reductions in water meter connection fees and the negotiation of development agreements as additional tools to promote affordable housing. For instance, the City worked directly with Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation to approve in October 2014 a 38-unit multi-family affordable housing project on 3.12 acres located at 4202 11th Street.

3.1.2 Mixed Use Development
Parcels zoned “General Commercial” in the City’s downtown have been amended to Downtown Mixed Use which replaces Central Business District General Commercial. The Mixed-Use development would provide additional housing opportunities. The Santa Barbara County Assessor's data revealed 26.86 acres of commercially zoned land in the Downtown Mixed Use District that could accommodate mixed use development.

Maximum building intensity standards in the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance allow for a floor-to-area ratio (FAR) of 0.35. Assuming 20 percent buildout potential of sites zoned for general commercial use, the acreage could yield 54,874 square feet of residential development or 35 dwelling units (at approximately 1570 square feet of average unit size) . Table B-3 in Appendix B includes details of the estimates. Although lot consolidation could provide increased residential capacity the estimate included no assumptions on lot consolidation. 41 3.1.3 DJ Farms Specific Plan Area
The DJ Farms Specific Plan Area covers 209 acres of land providing ample opportunities for both marketrate and affordable residential development. The Plan area is in the southeastern section of the City south of West Main Street/State Route 166 and east of Highway 1. The Specific Plan was adopted in 2012 and called for residential development on 146 acres of the Plan area for up to 802 housing units.

As of August 2022, about 363 units were built with approval for construction of 377 more. The remaining 65 acres are to be developed into commercial uses, open space and parks, and a school. Table 3-2 shows the housing capacity of Pasadera. Even in the absence of infill development elsewhere in the City, developing the remainder of the approved housing in the DJ farms Specific Plan area would accommodate most of the 431 RHNA units.

Table 3-2: Housing Capacity of DJ Farms Specific Plan Area Density
Land
Available
(acres)
Allowable
Density
Realistic
Capacity
(housing
units)
Very Low 4.6 6 units/acre 15
Low 25.4 7 units/acre 108
Medium 71.4 8 units/acre 357
High 44.6 14 units/acre 322
Total 146 802
Source: Revised DJ Farm Specific Plan, August 2012.

Additional factors that can increase the potential for housing (but not specifically evaluated) include: (a) development of accessory (or secondary) dwelling units (also called granny units); (b) redevelopment of underdeveloped parcels that were not built to full allowable density; and (c) General Plan updates and Zoning Ordinance amendments to increase intensity in strategic areas of the City. While Guadalupe can meet its housing allocation without exercising these other options, they present additional opportunities for expansion of housing and affordable housing in the City. Indeed, since the conclusion of the 2042 General Plan Update, the City has upzoned many parcels for additional residential units and the City is already processing numerous applications for ADUs each year. Additionally, with the SB-9 regulations, the City is also processing ministerial small lot splits in R-1 zones.

3.2 Financial Resources
Financing is available for infrastructure and housing improvements through Federal, State, and local programs. The following subsections identify certain programs.

3.2.1 Federal and State Resources
Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) – Federal funding for housing is available through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The CDBG program is flexible allowing funds to be used for a wide range of activities. The eligible activities include, but are not limited to, acquisition or disposition of real estate or property, public facilities and improvements, relocation, rehabilitation and construction of housing with certain limitations, homeownership assistance, and 42 clearance activities. The City continues to apply for CDBG funds for housing and community development.

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program – The Tax Reform Act of 1986 created the low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program to provide an alternate method of funding low-income and moderateincome housing. Each state receives a tax credit based on population to fund housing that meets program guidelines. The tax credits typically leverage private capital into new construction or acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable housing. Limitations on projects funded under the Tax Credit programs include requirements that rent is restricted by median income on certain minimum percentages of units.

Other Federal and State Resources -Table 3-3 summarizes additional funding sources that can assist extremely low, very low, low, and moderate-income households or developers of affordable housing.

Many of these funding sources are typically eligible for specific types of projects and may not be secure.

However, they do offer opportunities to facilitate affordable and adequate housing.

Table 3-3: Additional Federal, State, and Private Financial Resources [Table 3-3] Program Description Eligible Activities
Federal Resources
HUD Section 202
Forgivable loans to non-profit developers of
supportive housing for the elderly
Site acquisitions,
rehabilitation, new
construction
HUD Section 203(k)
Long-term, low interest loans at fixed rate to
finance acquisition and rehabilitation of singlefamily homes Site acquisitions,
rehabilitation, new
construction
HUD Section 811
Grants to non-profit developers of supportive
housing for persons with disabilities, including
group homes, independent living facilities and
intermediate care facilitates
Site acquisitions,
rehabilitation, new
construction, rental
assistance
U.S Department of
Agriculture (USDA), Rural
Development Service's
Section 514 Farm Labor
Housing Program
Below market-rate loans for farmworker rental
housing
Site acquisitions,
rehabilitation, new
construction
U.S Department of
Agriculture (USDA), Rural
Development Service's
Section 514 Rural Rental
Housing Program
Below market-rate loans for low and very lowincome rental housing Rental assistance USDA Rural Development
Section 504 Housing
Repair and Rehabilitation
Program
Loans and grants to repair and rehabilitate the
homes for low-income families and seniors Rehabilitation USDA Rural Development
Section 533 Housing
Preservation Grant (HGP)
Grants to nonprofit and government agencies to
fund housing rehabilitation programs for lowincome households Rehabilitation 43 [Table 3-3] Program Description Eligible Activities
Program
Section 8
Rental assistance program which provides a
subsidy to very low-income families, individuals,
seniors, and disabled people. Participants pay a
percentage of their adjusted income toward rent Rental assistance HOME
Grant program intended to expand the supply of
decent and safe affordable housing. HOME is
designed as a partnership program between the
federal, state, local governments, non-profit and
for-profit housing entities to finance
build/rehabilitate, and manage housing for lower
income owners and renters
Rehabilitation,
administration
ACCESS and National
Homebuyers Fund (NHF)
Gold Programs
ACCESS and NHF are second loan programs for
down payments assistance. Allows low and
moderate-income homebuyers to pay for down
payment and closing costs up to 7% of the sales
price
Down payment
assistance
233(f) Mortgage Insurance
for Purchase/Refinance
Mortgage insurance for purchase or refinance of
existing multifamily projects
New rental housing
operation,
administration,
acquisition
241(a) Rehabilitation
Loans for Multifamily
Projects
Provides mortgage insurance for improvements
repairs, or additions to multi-family projects
Rehab of apartments,
energy conservation
Congregate Housing
Services Program
Provides grants to public agency or private nonprofit to provide meal services and other supportive services to frail elderly and disables
residents in federally assisted housing. Also
supports remodeling to meet physical needs Grants
HOPE 3- Homeownership
of Single-Family Homes
Program provides grants to State and local
governments and non-profit organizations to
assist low-income, first time homebuyers in
becoming homeowners by utilizing government
owned or finances single-family properties Grants
HOPE 6- Revitalization of
Severely Distressed Public
Housing
Provides funds for revitalization, demolition and
disposition of severely distressed public housing
for Section 8 tenant-based assistance Grants, rent subsidies HOPE II- Homeownership
for Multifamily Housing
Provides grants to develop programs allowing
mostly low-income families to purchase units in
multifamily housing projects owned, finances or
insured by HU or other federal, state, or local
public agencies Grants
Sec. 202 Supportive
Housing for Elderly
Provides capital grants and operation subsidies for
supportive housing for elderly
Rent subsidies,
construction,
rehabilitation
State Resources
44 [Table 3-3] Program Description Eligible Activities
CaliHome
Provides grants to local governments and nonprofit agencies for owner occupied rehabilitation programs and new home development projects
Site acquisition,
rehabilitation
CalHFA Rental Housing
Programs
Provides below market rate financing offered to
builders and developers of multifamily and elderly
rental housing. Tax exempt bonds provide belowmarket mortgages Site acquisitions,
rehabilitation, new
construction
Self-help Builder
Assistance Program
(SHBAP)
State lower interest rate CalHFA loans to ownerbuilders who participate in self-help housing projects sponsored by non-profit housing
developers
Site acquisitions,
rehabilitation, new
construction, home
buyers’ assistance
Multifamily Housing
Program (MHP) State deferred-payment loans
Rehabilitation, new
construction, rental
housing, supportive
housing for disabled
Multifamily Housing
Program (MHP)
Supportive Housing
Allocation
MHP loans for supportive housing for special
needs populations Supportive housing
Joe Serna Jr. Farmworker
Housing Grant Program
(JSJPWHG)
Provides grants and loans to local governments
and nonprofit housing developers for farmworker
housing
New construction,
acquisition, migrant
housing, housing with
related health
services
Weatherization Assistance
Program
Grants from California Department of Community
Services and Development to improve the energy
efficiency of homes occupied by low-income
households to reduce their heating and cooling
costs Improvements
Mobile Home Park
Resident Ownership
Programs (MPROP)
Loans from California Department of Housing and
Community Development for the purchase of
mobile home parks by local governments,
nonprofit corporations, or residents Mobile homes
California Self-Help
Housing Program (CSHHP)
Grants from the California Department of Housing
and Community Development for the
administrative costs of self-help or owner-builder
housing projects
Administration, new
construction
Predevelopment Loan
Program (PDLP)
Short-term loans from the California Department
of Housing and Community Development for the
construction, rehabilitation, conversion, or
preservation of affordable housing projects
Rehabilitation of
apartments,
acquisition,
preservation of
affordable housing,
new rental housing
Special Needs Affordable
Housing Lending Program
All multifamily projects that serve at-risk tenants
in need of special services
Rehabilitation of
apartments,
acquisition, new
45 [Table 3-3] Program Description Eligible Activities
rental housing
Private Resources
Federal Home Loan Bank
(FHLB) Affordable Housing
Program
Provides competitive grants and subsidized loans
to create affordable rental and homeownership
opportunities
New construction,
new rental housing
Access to Housing and
Economic Assistance for
Development (AHEAD)
Program
Recoverable grants from the Federal Home Loan
Bank of San Francisco to support housing projects
during the conception and early stages of
development
New construction,
new rental housing
Community Investment
Program (CIP)
Funds from the Federal Home Loan Bank of San
Francisco to finance first-time homebuyer
programs, create and maintain affordable
housing, and support other community economic
development activities
Homebuyer
assistance
Federal National
Mortgage Association
(Fannie Mae)
A variety of homebuyer assistance, rehab
assistance, and minority homeownership
assistance
Homebuyer
assistance,
rehabilitation,
minority
homeownership
assistance
California Community
Reinvestment Corporation
(CCRC)
Nonprofit mortgage banking consortium that
pools resources to reduce lender risk in finance of
affordable housing. Provides long term debt
financing for affordable multifamily rental housing
New construction,
rehabilitation,
acquisition
Community Reinvestment
Act Loan Program
Provides real estate construction financing, small
business loans, and consumer loans
Acquisition loans,
business loans,
predevelopment or
interim finance,
construction or
rehabilitation loans
Vision Forward
To provide affordable housing to low-income
residents throughout the U.S
Acquisition loans,
construction or
rehabilitation loans,
down payment
assistance
Affordable Housing
Programs
Provides grants or subsidies interest rate loans for
purchase, construction, or rehabilitation of
owner-occupied housing by or for very low-, low-,
and moderate-income households or to finance
the purchase, construction or rehabilitation of
rental housing
Construction or
rehabilitation loans,
grants, long-term
loans, technical
assistance

3.2.2 Local Resources
Guadalupe Redevelopment Agency (RDA) – As of February 1, 2012, the statewide dissolution of all Redevelopment Agencies ceased this local resource for funding affordable housing and redevelopment 46 projects in Guadalupe. However, “redevelopment” remains a viable approach to housing development and renewal of blighted area.

Santa Barbara County Housing Authority – This Housing Authority provides rental housing and supportive services to eligible persons with limited incomes through a variety of programs. The agency develops and manages housing for low-income households; it administers federal Section 8 rental housing assistance programs in the private rental market; and it offers a HUD-certified comprehensive counseling agency that serves homeowners and renters. The Santa Barbara County Housing Authority has owned and managed the Guadalupe Ranch Acres project for many years. Constructed between the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Authority determined that the project had reached the end of its useful life and began processing a project to replace it in 2018. A new project was approved in 2020 that included 80 units in ten buildings plus a large Community Center. All 50 residents were given an opportunity to relocate to another Section 8 housing property, and will be given first right of refusal to return to the new development once completed..

Peoples' Self-Help Housing Corporation (PSHHC) – PSHHC is a housing and community development corporation that serves the counties of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura. PSHHC helps lowincome individuals, families, senior citizens and developmentally disabled individuals to obtain affordable housing. PSHHC also offers first-time homebuyers an opportunity to build their own homes in lieu of down payments as was the case with the 50 affordable homes in the River View development in Guadalupe. PSHHC also owns and manages the 80 affordable River View Townhomes in the City, which opened in 2003. PSHHC purchased an approved project from Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation. The 38 unit project on eastern Eleventh Street has been constructed and is fully occupied by local farmworker families. There are 37 low income units and one manager’s unit.

Habitat for Humanity – Habitat for Humanity is a non-profit organization dedicated to building affordable housing and rehabilitating damaged homes for lower income families. The agency builds homes with the help of volunteers and partner-families who may be homeowners and sells to partner families at no profit with affordable, no-interest loans. The City provided Habitat for Humanity three separate affordable housing sites: one on the 800 block of Pioneer Street, one on Twelfth Street between Olivera Street and Pacheco Street, and the third on the 1100 block of Pacheco Street. All three of these housing sites are relatively small lots that range from 5,000 square feet to 7,500 square feet and the anticipation is to develop each exclusively for affordable housing. 47 4.0 Constraints
The Government Code prescribes that the Housing Element addresses constraints to housing production and availability (Gov. Code §65583(a)(5) and (6)). Governmental constraints impact housing costs and supply as well as certainty with the housing market via controls on use of land, codes and enforcement, requirements for on-site and off-site improvements, fees and exactions, processing and permit procedures, and guidelines for housing production to suit persons with disabilities.

Non-governmental constraints are primarily market-driven and generally outside direct government control, but jurisdictions can influence and offset the negative impacts of nongovernmental constraints through responsive programs and policies. This group of constraints include land prices, construction costs, and availability of financing. The following sections analyze various constraints to housing.

4.1 Governmental Constraints
Governmental regulations intend to control development for the health, safety, and welfare of the community, but can also unintentionally increase the costs of development and consequently the cost of housing. The following subsections describe potential governmental constraints, which could affect the supply and cost of housing in Guadalupe.

4.1.1 Land Use Controls
General Plan
State law requires each city and county in California to prepare a long-term, comprehensive plan to guide its growth and future development. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes the basic land uses and density of development within the various areas of the City. Under State law, the elements of the General Plan must be internally consistent, and the City's zoning must be consistent with the General Plan. The Land Use Element must therefore provide suitable locations and densities to implement the policies of the Housing Element.

The City adopted an updated General Plan in November 2022. The Guadalupe 2042 General Plan covers a comprehensive set of required and optional elements. Table 4-1 shows the residential land use designations in the Land Use Element, which include low density, medium density, and high-density housing in addition to mixed-use. The residential land use categories can accommodate a variety of housing types and styles and can assure a diversity and mixture of housing types throughout the City.

The category termed Planned Residential Development is an overlay district that allows increased flexibility in design with relaxed development standards for efficient use of certain housing sites. Specific allowances include deviation from standard setback requirements, removal of minimum or maximum lot size standards, and reduced parking requirements. Development sites seeking this overlay designation must demonstrate to the City Council that the project meets one or more of the following criteria:
• It provides facilities or amenities suited to such special needs groups as the elderly or families with children.
• It transfers allowable development within a site from areas of greater to areas of lower environmental sensitivity or hazard.
48 • It provides a wider range of housing types and costs than would be possible with development of uniform dwellings throughout the project site or neighborhood. • Features of the design meet or exceed tenets of conventional standards related to privacy, usable open spaces, adequate parking, compatibility with neighborhood character, and others.
• It incorporates features which can result in lower consumption of materials, energy, or water than conventional development.

Table 4-1: Guadalupe General Plan Residential Land Use Designations Land Use
Designation
Density Housing Type
Low Density
Residential Up to 12 units per gross acre
Detached single-family housing, group homes with
six (6) or fewer residents, accessory dwelling units
Medium Density
Residential 13-20 units per gross acre
Single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes,
fourplexes, townhouses
High Density
Residential 21-30 units per gross acre
Single-family homes, apartments, townhouses,
similar multiple-family structures, homeless
shelters, and group homes of any size
Planned
Residential
Development
Provides up to 15 percent
more housing units per acre in
Low and Medium Density
Housing Areas1
Single-family and multi-family housing units up to
the maximum allowed densities in the underlying
residential designation
Mixed Use
(including
housing)
Up to 30 units per gross acre in
addition to other compatible
uses
Vertical or lateral juxtaposition of such compatible
uses as housing (typically in the form of flats),
office, and retail. Residences occupy second floors
(e.g., above ground-floor non-residential uses)
including: 1) single-room occupancies, apartments,
and stacked-flat-style condominiums; and 2)
attached two- and three-story residences
occupying their own
sites. This second form of residential use is limited
to townhouse-style condominiums, townhousestyle
zero-lot-line units, and townhouse-style
apartments that are not located on Guadalupe
Street north of 7th Street
Note:

1. In January 2008, the City amended the Zoning Ordinance for a Planned Residential Development Overlay District
Source: 2042 Guadalupe General Plan, 2022.

The City has had three Specific Plan development sites, which include River View and Point Sal Dunes (both built out many years ago), and DJ Farms (currently under development). Specific Plans provide additional guidance on standards for development within the specific plan areas. Where the zoning 49 ordinance and subdivision regulations differ from the Specific Plan, the requirements of the Specific Plan take precedence. Conversely, unless otherwise prescribed by the Specific Plan, the standards and regulations of the underlying zoning district apply. The General Plan and Zoning Ordinance assigns an "SP" suffix to the land use designations and zone districts subject to a Specific Plan. The SP designation is intended to alert developers and property owners that the property is subject to the development standards and other requirements of a Specific Plan.

Zoning Designations
The City regulates the type, location, density, and scale of residential development through the Zoning Ordinance. Zoning regulations are tools to implement the General Plan and are designed to protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of residents. The Zoning Ordinance also helps to preserve the character and integrity of existing neighborhoods. The Zoning Ordinance sets forth residential development standards for each zoning district. Table 4-2 shows the five zones that allow residential development by right in Guadalupe.

In addition to the residential zones, four commercial zones permit varying levels of mixed-use and multiple-family residential development as either allowed or conditionally permitted uses. The GeneralCommercial (G-C) zoning district, for instance, permits single-family or multi-family dwellings if located above a permitted commercial use, but they are subject to a Conditional Use Permit if not associated or mixed with a permitted commercial use (that is, if for instance they are located on a floor above a permitted use). Table 4-2 also shows the commercial zones. As part of the recent General Plan update, most General Commercial-zoned lots in the downtown were changed to Downtown Mixed Use.

Table 4-2: Residential & Commercial Zoning in Guadalupe Zoning Ordinance Density
Residential
R-1, R-1-SP, and R/N-SP-CZ Single-Family (Low Density) Residential District R-1-M and R-1-M-SP Single-Family (Medium Density) Residential District R-2 and R-2-SP Multiple Dwelling (Medium Density) Residential District R-3 Multiple Dwelling (High Density) Residential District PD Planned Development Overlay
Commercial
MIX Mixed Use District
C-S Commercial Service District
G-C General Commercial District
C-N Commercial Neighborhood District
Source: City of Guadalupe Zoning Ordinance.

Table 4-3 summarizes the development standards in the City’s zoning regulations. Following recent adoption of the Guadalupe 2042 General Plan, the zoning regulations have been updated to harmonize with the densities in the Plan where necessary. The new zoning regulations went into effect on April 27, 2023. Several other revisions to the zoning ordinance were made to ensure compatibility with the adopted General Plan.
50 Table 4-4 provides a summary of the residential uses permitted under the City's zoning regulations. It is possible to accommodate low-income housing and special needs housing in multiple zones in the City of Guadalupe, provided they meet site-specific development standards.

Table 4-3: Development Standards in Guadalupe Zoning Ordinance Zoning
Designation
Minimum Lot
Size (Sq. Ft.)
Density (units
per acre)/FA1
Setback Requirements (Feet) Height
Limit
(feet) Front Rear Side
Corner
Lot
R-1 3,630 5 20 15 5 10 35
R-1-M 3,630 10 10 15 5 10 35
R-2 2,178 14 20 15 5 10 35
R-3 1,452 202 20 15 5 10 35
PD3 9-15
MIX None 6 None None None None 50
G-C None Not Specified None None None None 50
C-S None Not Specified None None None None 50
C-N None 4 None None None None 50
Note:

1. FAR is ratio of building floor area (sq ft) to land area (sq ft)

2. 1,452 sq. ft. minimum lot size excludes roads, sidewalks, and other infrastructure needs; Gross Density of 30 units per acre established in the Land Use Element

3. Where a PD overlay is applied, any standards identified or set in the approved planned development shall take precedence in development; those standards in the underlying zone shall remain in effect.

Source: City of Guadalupe Zoning Ordinance. Guadalupe, California Municipal Code. Title 18 ZONING Table 4-4: Allowed Residential Development by Zone
Housing Types R-1 R-1-M R-2 R-3 PD MIX G-C C-S C-N
Single-Family Detached P P P P P
Single-Family Duplex P P P P
Multiple Dwelling P P P C P C
Mobile Homes C
Dwelling Groups1 C P
2 P C C C
Farmworker Housing P P P C P C
Care Facilities C P
2 C C3
Single Room Occupancy P P P P P C
Emergency Shelters P C C C
Note:

1. 18.08.100 of the Guadalupe Municipal Code defines "Dwelling groups" as a group of 2 or more detached or semidetached one-family, two-family, or multiple dwellings occupying a parcel of land in one ownership, and having any yard or court in common, but not including motels, hotels, boardinghouses, or rest homes. [Ord, 189 Art. 7, 1980).

2. Provided that there is no more than one residing occupant for each 500 square feet of land in the lot or parcel on which the use is located.

3. Providing care for six or more persons.

P = Permitted; C = Conditional Use Permit; D = Design Review Source: Guadalupe Zoning Ordinance.
51 Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types
Emergency Shelters, Transitional Housing, and Supportive Housing – In 2007, the State Legislature adopted Senate Bill 2 (SB 2), which requires local governments to identify one or more zoning districts that permit emergency shelters by right in their Zoning Ordinances. That means the shelters would not require a conditional use permit, which could pose constraints. The law requires jurisdictions to amend Zoning Ordinances to allow by right in all residential zoning districts "transitional housing" and "supportive housing" (as defined by the Health and Safety Code Sections 50675.2(h) and 50675.14(b)).

SB 2 also specifies that "emergency shelters" (as defined in the Health and Safety Code Section 50801(e)) may only be subject to those development and management standards that apply to residential developments within the same zone except that a local government may apply written, objective standards that include all the following:
• The maximum number of beds or persons permitted to be served nightly by the facility. • Off-street parking based upon demonstrated need, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than for other residential or commercial uses within the same zone.
• The size and location of client exterior and interior onsite waiting and client intake areas. • The provision of onsite management.
• The proximity to other emergency shelters if emergency shelters are not required to be more than 300 feet apart.
• The length of stay.
• Lighting.
• Security during hours that the emergency shelter is in operation.

Table 4-4 reveals that the City's Zoning Ordinance lists Emergency Shelters as a permitted use by right within the R-3 zone and as a conditionally permitted use in three commercial zones designated C-S, C-N, and G-C zones. Ord. 2019-478 updated the Zoning Ordinance and added transitional and supportive housing definitions to allow these residential uses subject only to those regulations that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type within the same zone. “By right” means the shelters would not require conditional use permits.

Title 18 of the Guadalupe Municipal Code covers “ZONING”; and Chapter 18.73 covers “DESIGN REVIEW”. Close examination of this chapter of the Code reveals the following:

1. Section 18.73.010 on “Applicability” identifies a list of circumstances which require design review. The list does not include emergency shelters, but expressly identified “New multifamily residential developments exceeding 3 units or additions to existing multifamily developments where the addition would result in a total of 3 or more units on a given property”.

2. Section 18.73.030 on “Exceptions and exemptions” is also silent on emergency shelters.

3. Section 18.73.100 on “Findings required for approval” is silent as well on emergency shelters.
52 Low-Barrier Navigation Centers (LBNC) - A Low-Barrier Navigation Center (LBNC) is a temporary, service-enriched shelter that helps homeless individuals and families to quickly obtain permanent housing with little or no barriers to entry. In that respect it projects a "Housing First," attitude to help persons and families in distress in advance of resolving the mitigating circumstances. The City has designated Leroy Park as a location for emergency shelter during natural disasters. Close examination of the Municipal Code confirms that Guadalupe has not faced the need for emergency shelters for individuals in the past given that it has hardly any homeless population. However, the Code needs to make provisions for such other circumstances that might need emergency shelters for victims of spousal abuse, child abuse, and sudden, catastrophic economic situations. This housing element adds programs to allow emergency shelters in all zones that permit housing without requirements for design review permits and other discretionary actions (e.g. conditional use permits) as the design review decision-making criteria.

Permanent Supportive Housing: Residential Care Facilities and Group Homes – Residential care facilities include any family home, group home, or rehabilitation facility that provides non-medical care to persons in need of such personal services that are essential for daily living as protection, supervision, assistance, guidance, or training. State law (Health and Safety Code Sections 1267.8, 1566.3, and 1568.08) requires local governments to treat licensed group homes and residential care facilities with six or fewer residents the same as single-family uses. Furthermore, local governments must allow licensed residential care facilities in any area zoned for residential use and may not require licensed residential care facilities of six or fewer persons to obtain conditional use permits or variances that are not required of other family dwellings. The City’s zoning ordinance allows such facilities on properties zoned singlefamily residential (R-1, R-1-M, R-2 and R-3). However, they are conditionally allowed in the R-2 (Medium Density Residential) and G-C (General Commercial) zoning districts and they are permitted in the R-3 (High Density Residential) district. In the R-2 and R-3 zoning districts, the Zoning Ordinance limits the size of such facilities to no more than one occupant per 500 square foot of lot area. For minimum lot sizes of 1700 to 3000 square feet, this restriction translates to a range of 3 to 6 persons in each of these types of facilities.

Farmworker Housing – The City complies with the Employee Housing Act (Government Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6). Farmworker housing is allowed by right in all R-2, R-3, MIX, and G-C zones. They may be constructed to the standards of multifamily housing units, single-rate occupancy units, or dormitories as needs require in Guadalupe. The Housing Element includes Programs to facilitate the development of multi-family housing in Guadalupe to serve those working in the agricultural sector.

Housing for Persons with Disabilities – Both the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmative duty on local governments to make reasonable accommodations in the form of modifications or exceptions in zoning laws and other land use regulations when such accommodations may be necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The Building Code adopted by the City of Guadalupe incorporates accessibility standards contained in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. 53 Adherence to zoning and development standards in the City's Zoning Ordinance can present a potential constraint on the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons with disabilities.

Such standards do not pose a major constraint for new construction or redevelopment on large parcels because there is typically ample design flexibility to include accommodations for persons with disabilities. However, for redevelopment or retrofitting of existing buildings on smaller lots, setback requirements may conflict with the provision of accommodations for persons with disabilities. Programs in the Housing Element call for modification of zoning standards short of a variance to provide for accommodations for persons with disabilities.

Notwithstanding constraints related to zoning and development standards, the City strives to provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities in the enforcement of building codes and issuance of building permits. The City takes special needs into consideration and allows for adjustment of specification if requested. The City may accept changes due to practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship in enforcing the Code. In addition, the zoning ordinance makes provisions to reasonably accommodate accessibility needs. As part of these provisions, the City provides information to all interested parties regarding accommodations in zoning, permit processes, and application of building codes for persons with disabilities.

Compliance with accessibility standards contained in the Building Code could increase the cost of housing production and can also impact viability in the rehabilitation of older properties that need to be brought up to code. However, these regulations provide minimum standards that require compliance to assure the development of safe and accessible housing. In addition to providing disabled access in new construction projects, Guadalupe also provides funding for retrofitting existing rental and owneroccupied housing for ADA access under the City's Housing Rehabilitation Program.

Single Room Occupancy – A single room occupancy unit (SRO) is a single room that is typically 80-250 square feet in size, sometimes with a sink and closet, but requires the occupant to share a communal bathroom, shower, and kitchen. This use would be permitted by right in all R-2, R-3, and MIX zones and would require a conditional use permit.. It is only subject to those development and management standards that apply to residential development within the same zone. The Housing Element includes programs to facilitate the development of single room occupancy units in Guadalupe.

Mobile and Manufactured Homes – Pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.3, the location and permit process for manufactured housing should be regulated in the same manner as a conventional or stick-built structure. Specifically, Government Code Section 65852.3(a) requires that except for architectural requirements, a local government should only subject manufactured homes (also called mobile homes) to the same development standards as a conventional single-family residential dwelling on the same lot including, but not limited to, requirements for building setback, side and rear yard, enclosures, access, vehicle parking, aesthetics, and minimum square footage. Mobile and manufactured homes are conditionally permitted uses in the R-3 zone in Guadalupe. 54 Standard Parking and Street Requirements
Excessive parking standards can pose a significant constraint to housing development by increasing development costs and reducing the potential land availability for project amenities or additional units.

Many parking standards do not reflect actual parking demand. Table 4-5 lists the parking standards in the Guadalupe Zoning Ordinance. These requirements are generally not a development constraint and are comparable to those in jurisdictions throughout the state.

Table 4-5: Parking Space & Street Width Standards
Type of Use Requirement
Parking
Single Dwelling Unit 2 spaces per dwelling unit, 1 of the spaces need to be covered Multiple Dwelling Unit 2 spaces per dwelling unit, 1 of the spaces need to be covered Convalescent and Care Facilities no limit on guest spaces; 1 space per 2 employees per shift Streets
Residential Street 52 feet wide
Collector Street 56 feet wide
Local Arterial 72 to 84 feet wide
Principal Arterial 106 to 126 feet wide
Source: City of Guadalupe Zoning Ordinance, amended with Ord. 2019-478.

Parking requirements may be reduced in a Planned Residential Development. There are no other formal provisions for parking reductions, say for housing serving persons with disabilities, which might demonstrate a lower need. The Housing Element includes programs to establish a formal and written procedure to reasonably accommodate accessibility needs, including reduced parking for special needs housing.

Street Standards
Table 4-5 also lists the standards for street width in the Guadalupe Zoning Ordinance. These requirements are generally not a development constraint and compare to those in jurisdictions throughout the state.

Curbs and Sidewalks
The Guadalupe Zoning Ordinance has several specifications for the design and installation of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks to assure consistency and safety throughout the City. The specifications are generally not a development constraint, compare to those in jurisdictions throughout the state, and include the following stipulations:
• Construct curbs and gutters separately from sidewalks. • Use Weakened Plane Joints for all joints, except expansion joints shall be placed in curbs, gutters, and sidewalks at BCR and ECR and around utility poles located in sidewalk areas. • Construct Weakened Plane Joints at regular intervals, up to 10 feet for walks and up to 20 feet for gutters.
• Align sidewalk and curb joints.
• Curb and gutter widths are generally 24 inches.
55 • Sidewalk widths should be 4 to 6 feet.
• Curbs and gutters can be constructed of Portland Cement Concrete or of Asphalt Concrete. • Anchor curbs with dowels or epoxy.
• Measure the grade line at the curb line at top of curb; round all exposed corners on PCC curbs and gutters by half an inch and make gutters integral with the curb unless otherwise specified.

Other Potential Governmental Constraints
Since the early 2000s, policies and programs in the City’s General Plan and Housing Element have maintained the collection of affordable housing development fees for large developments. This Housing Element will continue to retain the pertinent policy and associated program which require new housing projects of at least 50 units that are located on land that has received an increase in allowable density through a general plan amendment, rezoning, or specific plan to pay a fee of 2% of the building valuation into an affordable housing trust fund although no residential developments in the city have triggered the 2% fee requirement. The fee may be waived by the City Council if it has determined that the project provides enough lower income housing units commensurate with that which the collection of the fee would generate. The applicant seeking a waiver would request this in the development approval process and present the rationale for how the subject project meets the criteria for the waiver.

The affordable housing fee requirement is not expected to present a significant constraint on projects since the economic benefit of increased units would be larger than the cost of complying with the policy.

Furthermore, for projects with affordable housing components that would equal or exceed the value of the calculated fee, the City Council could waive the fee.

Building Codes
The Guadalupe Building Code was updated from the 2019 to 2022 California Building Codes (CBC), which determines the minimum residential construction requirements for all of California. The 2022 CBC promotes safe housing and is not considered a significant constraint to housing production as it is the minimum necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare. The City’s code (15.04.010) states:
“The following codes are hereby adopted as the Building Code, Residential Code, Administrative Code, Electrical Code, Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code, Energy Code, Green Building Standards Code and Referenced Standards Code of the City of Guadalupe, and are incorporated herein as if fully set forth, with such further incorporation and amendment of individual sections and appendices as following below:

A. 2022 California Building Code, Volumes one and two.

B. 2022 California Residential Code.

C. 2022 California Administrative Code.

D. 2022 California Electrical Code.

E. 2022 National Electrical Code (NEC).

F. 2022 California Plumbing Code.

G. 2022 California Mechanical Code.

H. 2022 California Energy Code.
56 I. 2022 California Green Building Standards Code.

J. 2022 California Referenced Standards Code. (Ord. 2016-458 §1)”.

Since the adoption of the 2019-2021 mid-Cycle housing element, the City hired a full time code enforcement officer. Previously, the process began with a field investigation following a complaint.

Whether in response to a complaint of routine inspections of code enforcement officer, the investigator assesses the gravity of the problem and the City responds through letters, phone calls, or site visits to serious violations that have implications for health and safety. The City encourages voluntary compliance. If compliance is not forthcoming, the City may take more aggressive action through the legal process. The City's philosophy is to mitigate serious health or safety problems, but to allow the property owners reasonable time and flexibility to comply. The City attempts to balance the need to ensure safe housing against the potential loss of affordable housing that might result from overly strict enforcement. There is no indication that code enforcement actions have unnecessarily restricted the use of older buildings or inhibited rehabilitation.

Building Heights
Section 18.52.020 of the Municipal Code on “Height limits” states the following:
“In R-1, R-2 and R-3 districts, the height of a building or structure shall not exceed 2 stories, or a height of 35 feet. In all other districts, a building or structure shall not exceed 50 feet in height. Additional height may be permitted by granting a conditional use permit. (Ord. 189 Art. 4 §3, 1980)” The 2042 General Plan recommends compact mixed-use development primarily in the downtown areas and the increase in intensity of development for a more efficient way to develop the City. Consistent with the General Plan, this Housing Element includes programs for amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to enable development of three-story structures in areas designated for multi-family housing as an avenue to produce more housing for the available acreage, reduce cost per unit, and make these types of units even more affordable. This is possible under the existing code under conditional use permits, but the amendment can make development of affordable units more attractive to developers especially where lot sizes are limited. According to the Fire Department, due to limitations of fire apparatus, development of structures over two-stories is permitted on a case by case basis. In the recent past, no development has been permitted over three stories by the Fire Department.

Code Enforcement Activities
Prior to 2019, the City did not establish the ability to track code enforcement complaints electronically.

Since the 2019 H.E. was adopted, the City has hired a full time code enforcement officer. However, due to interruptions to work patterns from COVID-19 restrictions, data is not yet available on code enforcement activities.
57 4.1.2 Residential Development Processing Procedures
There are various levels of review and processing of residential development applications, depending on the size and complexity of the development. Due to budgetary constraints and limited development projects, the Planning Commission was disbanded in 2012 and therefore the City Council is responsible for hearing all discretionary development projects. City planners process all ministerial projects. The City also has a design review process, which may be required for residential developments, depending on the scope and location of the proposed development. Subsequent paragraphs discuss the Design Review Process in further detail.

City staff review all discretionary permit applications for completeness prior to determining if the project is exempt from environmental review. If the project is exempt, then staff prepare a Resolution that includes Findings for Approval, a CEQA exemption, and Conditions of Approval. A staff report is also prepared and presented to the City Council at a public hearing. If environmental review is required, then staff prepare the appropriate document, circulate it for public comment and then hold the public hearing on the project. If City Council approves the project, then the applicant files for a zoning clearance which is used to ensure that all conditions have been met prior to issuance of a building permit or other entitlement.

Even though Guadalupe is a small town, the planners have been able to expedite projects through the planning process. As an example, a recent employee housing project for farmworkers was approved in less than four weeks from deeming the project complete to the approval hearing with the City Council. The City’s permit processing for both discretionary permits and ministerial permits is efficient with no backlog of cases.” Include the rest of your paragraph but change the design review to 2-4 months. Table 4-6 lists typical permit processing times. As noted, a typical single-family residential subdivision takes on average 6 to 12 months to process, depending on whether a tract map or parcel map is required. A typical multi-family residential development requires a Design Review Permit and zoning clearance and has an average processing time of 2 to 4 months. Therefore, development processing procedures in Guadalupe do not present a significant constraint to housing production.

Ordinance No. 2008-393 adopted the Design Review requirements and inserted them into the Zoning Ordinance in April 2008 as Chapter 18.73 of the code. The chapter lists the procedures, components for review, as well as findings required for approval. Staff review plans and a planning application for projects requiring a design review permit (DRP) for completeness, and then schedule them for consideration of the Planning Commission (whose duties the City Council performs). A separate DRP is not required when the project, such as a parcel map, tract map, or a conditional use permit, has a component that already would require Planning Commission or City Council review. Projects that would otherwise only require a zoning clearance do not trigger the DRP. 58 Table 4-6: Typical Permit Processing Time Requirements Type of Approval or Permit
Typical Processing Time Approval Body
Zoning Clearance 15 days City Staff
Administrative Use Permit 15 days City Staff
Conditional Use Permit 3 months City Council
Variance 3 months City Council
Zone Change 4 months City Council
General Plan Amendment 3 to 4 months City Council
Design Review 2 to 4 months City Council
Tract Maps 12 months City Council
Parcel Maps 6 months City Council
Initial Environmental Study 30 days Planning Staff
Negative declaration 3 months City Council
Environmental Impact Report 9 months City Council
Source: City of Guadalupe Housing Element, 2019.

Certain residential projects are exempt from a DRP including most single-family residential projects and duplexes not on Main Street or Guadalupe Street, or in the City's Downtown Mixed Use District. The DRP requirement would most typically occur in the case of multi-family or mixed-use development in the City's Downtown Mixed Use District, or multi-family development elsewhere in the City. While the requirement for a DRP does add to the project’s permit fees (by $1,500 for minor and $3,500 for major DRP), it does not result in a substantial constraint or disincentive to development. The purview of the City Council is specific to the design of the project as it relates to compliance with other Zoning Ordinance regulations; staff evaluate development standards. Section 18.73.90 of the Zoning Ordinance describes eight design components the City Council considers upon application for a DRP, which cover such design issues as layout and orientation; height, bulk, and scale; and interference with scenic views.

In addition, Section 18.73.100, identifies fourteen findings that the approving agency should assess prior to approval of a DRP. These findings represent specific design objectives and include compatibility and harmony with neighborhoods; grading and landscaping; appropriate integration of mechanical and service systems; and conformity with the General Plan. They are intended to enhance the appearance and value of property and the livability of neighborhoods. They do not represent a constraint to development but simply help assure orderly and safe development in the City. Nonetheless, to provide greater certainty for residential projects subject to the Design Review Process, programs in the updated General Plan and the Housing Action Plan propose establishment of design guidelines to illustrate and guide the application of standards. A new Finding was recently added during the Consistency Rezone process whereby housing development in the Downtown Mixed Use zone may seek reduced or elimination of parking if certain beneficial findings can be made.

When processing a request to retrofit homes for accessibility, the procedure is the same as for any home improvement and its handling depends on the scope of the change. The City does not impose special permit procedures or requirements that could impede the retrofitting of homes for accessibility 59 and for meeting ADA requirements. City officials are not aware of any instances in which an applicant experienced delays or rejection of a retrofit proposal for accessibility to persons with disabilities.

4.1.3 Development Fees
State law limits the charging of fees to process development permits to a reasonable cost of providing the service. The City and other public agencies charge various fees and assessments to cover the costs of processing permit applications and providing services and facilities such as schools, parks, and infrastructure. Assessment of many of the fees depends on the magnitude of the project's impact or on the extent of the benefits to be derived. The three main types of development and permitting fees are:
1) Planning Application fees, which are collected at the outset of a project; 2) Development Impact Fees; and
3) Plan check fees, which are collected at the end of the process during issuance of the building permits.

The City updated planning application fees as of the 2022 to 2023 fiscal year. The intent of this revision was to better ensure that the City collects enough funds to cover the staff costs of processing the applications. Many of the City's discretionary permit application fees are now actual costs based on deposits collected at time of application submittal. Most ministerial permits are one-time flat fees. All development projects including the development of new residential units require a zoning clearance, which is a ministerial permit that allows staff to confirm that the proposed development meets Zoning Ordinance standards and requirements. Development projects may also require a Design Review Permit, although most single-family residential projects and additions are exempt from this requirement. Large development projects may require a tract map or a conditional use permit, and some projects require rezoning or are planned residential developments. Table 4-7 includes the most common planning fees and Appendix D includes the complete schedule of fees.

Development impact fees - the City does not have any adopted Development Fees, nor a fee program, other than standard fees that are adopted annually by the City Council and thus do not present a significant obstacle to production of affordable housing. There is discussion about commissioning a fee study for Council consideration. School districts have development fees, and Pasadera has development fees per its specific development agreement. The City of Guadalupe is responsible for such public services as water, wastewater, fire, and police; therefore, no county or regional fees are required for these services.

The actual total development impact fee per unit derives from all fees that are required for the project.

Some fees may not be applicable to certain projects. Some fees are based on sliding scale for size of unit or number of units in multi-family projects. Typical fees range from $6,000 and up for a single-family unit to $22,000 for a multi-family project of seven units or more. The total fee depends on how many units are being built and if plan check fees for grading or other activities apply.

Development and processing fees are lower in Guadalupe than in other areas. Furthermore, Guadalupe's financial condition makes further reductions in already low fees infeasible. It is the City's intent to give 60 high priority for processing low-income residential projects; however, the processing time for all types of projects is considerably shorter in Guadalupe than other cities in the area.

On-Site and Off-Site Improvements
In order to provide a safe and suitable environment for residential development, the City requires that certain public improvements be made. Each dwelling unit must connect to the City's water and sewer systems and project sites must properly capture and discharge runoff water into detention basins or storm drain systems. The City also requires that curbs, gutters, and sidewalks be placed along the frontage of every lot on which new construction or significant alteration is done. Table 4-7 lists public facility and traffic impact fees. These and other site improvement costs are typical of all cities in California and do not impose a significant constraint on the development of housing in Guadalupe. The City does not impose any unusual requirements as conditions of approval for new development. City regulations generally intend to facilitate private development and new construction.

Table 4-7: Fees that Affect Housing Production
Type of Approval or Permit
Flat Fee or Deposit for Cost-Based
Fee
Final Map $7,500 Deposit
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change – minor1 $4,000 Deposit General Plan Amendment and Zone Change – major1 $8,000 Deposit Encroachment Permit $63 Flat Fee
Public Improvement Plan Checking
$1460 per subdivision or $290 per
single lot
Public Facility and Traffic Impact Fees
Subdivision = $300 per lot
Annexation = $800 per lot
Building Permit Fee required by CBC
Grading Permit Fee required by CBC
Water Connection Fee
Flat Fee based on the diameter of the
service line
Sewer Connection Fee (Single-Family Unit) $3,542 per single-family residence Sewer Connection Fee (Multi-Family Unit) $2,361 per unit Source: City of Guadalupe, Master Fee Schedule, 2022/2023. 1 Staff reduces the deposit from the posted fee to one that staff believes will cover the actual processing cost.

4.1.4 Regional Constraints
Regional constraints can result from policies of external jurisdictions that affect a community. In Guadalupe, regional constraints are possible from policies of Santa Barbara County or the Santa Barbara Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) if the City must follow those policies. The Santa Barbara LAFCO is a supra-local planning agency that reviews and evaluates all proposals for formation of special districts, incorporation of cities, annexation to special districts or cities, consolidation of districts, and merger of districts with cities. If Guadalupe needed outward expansion to accommodate growth of housing, it would need approval from its LAFCO. However, Guadalupe's Sphere of Influence, which represents the City's ultimate anticipated growth boundary is congruent with City limits, thus precluding 61 outward expansion. This could have been an important governmental constraint to meeting the City's housing needs except the updated 2042 General Plan has determined that Guadalupe already has enough land within its City limits to accommodate growth to 2042 and beyond. Chapter 3 has additional details on availability of land in Guadalupe for housing.

4.1.5 Accessory Dwelling Units
Ordinance No. 2022-506 of January 10, 2023 amended Section 18.53.030 of Chapter 18.53 of the Guadalupe Municipal Code on “Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units”. The revamped chapter is intended to comply with State law (Government Code Section 65852.2), and to implement the policies in the City's 2042 General Plan and the Housing Element.

The ordinance defines an "accessory dwelling unit, (ADU)" as an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence or multifamily unit. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated.

A "Junior ADU" means a unit which is no more than 500 square feet, typically developed from a bedroom(s) in a single-family home with an exterior entrance, including cooking facilities with appliances, food prep counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to size of the JADU, and may share bathroom facilities with no additional parking required.

The update allows accessory dwelling units (ADU) through ministerial review in all Residential Districts, subject to certain requirements and standards, which include:
• An ADU may be an efficiency unit (as defined in Section 17958.1 of Health and Safety Code), a manufactured home (as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code Rev: 01-28- 2019), or a converted existing accessory structure (e.g. garage, carport, or covered parking structure)
• The minimum total square footage of the accessory dwelling unit shall be 110 square feet (suitable for an efficiency unit) and the maximum size shall be no more than 1,200 square feet. • Its implementation involves such usual requirements for new housing as filing an application with the planning department for ministerial approval, providing site plan, floor plans, elevations, and cross sections that are drawn to scale, and payment of application fees in the City’s most current schedule of fees.
• ADUs are required to pay any applicable growth mitigation fees in effect at the time a zoning clearance and building permit are requested.
• Accessory dwelling units are only allowed on lots that allow single-family homes and multifamily uses where an existing legal single-family dwelling or multifamily use exists or is proposed. • Besides the required parking for the primary dwelling unit, there should be one parking space per ADU except that tandem parking is allowed for ADUs as stated in Government Code Section 65852.2(a)(I)(D)(x) if the driveway is sufficiently long to accommodate vehicles without any encroachment on a sidewalk or street.
62 • Rental of the accessory dwelling unit is allowed for 30 days or longer and separate from rental of the primary residence. For an accessory dwelling unit to be rented for a period of less than 30 days, the owner shall be required to comply with the provisions of Chapter 18.55 (Short Term Rentals).
• The ADU may not be sold separately from the primary dwelling unit unless specific requirements are met through Government Code Section 65852.26. A JADU may not be sold separately. All conditions of the permit, restrictive covenants, and other contractual agreements with the City apply to the property.

Certain provisions of the Code promote affordability thereby reducing governmental constraints and ultimately cost on the implementation of ADUs. These include fees related to utility connections and access as well as reduced parking requirements as follows:
• ADUs are not new residential uses for the purpose of calculating utility connection fees or capacity charges for water and sewer service. ADUs within existing residence e.g. basement) or an existing accessory structure (e.g. converted garage) do not need to install new or separate utility connections or pay related connection fees or capacity charges. • New attached and detached accessory dwelling units, however, may pay connection fees or capacity charges that are proportionate to the burden of the unit on the water or sewer system based on the size of the unit or the number of plumbing fixtures. • Two-story detached ADUs are allowed but must limit the major access to stairs, decks, entry doors, and windows to the interior of the lot or an alley. • Only one (1) curb cut is permitted per parcel and no additional driveways or access points should be created to accommodate the accessory or main dwelling unit. • Access to a first story ADU or ADA accessible ramp may be permitted in the front of the primary dwelling.
• A detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed a height of 16 feet, unless the property is within ½ mile walking distance from a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor whereby the height may increase to 18 feet. In such a case, the City shall also allow an additional two feet in height (to 20 feet) to accommodate a roof pitch on the accessory dwelling unit that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a height of 18 feet for a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed multifamily, multistory dwelling shall be allowed. This clause shall not require the City to allow an accessory dwelling unit to exceed two stories.
• An attached accessory dwelling unit may occupy any level of the primary dwelling unit if it is designed as an integral part of the primary dwelling unit and a separate ingress and egress is provided. Attached ADUs may be constructed up to 50% of the size of the primary dwelling and can be as tall as the primary dwelling or the maximum zoning height, whichever is less. A height of 25 feet or the height limitation in the local zoning ordinance shall apply to the primary dwelling, whichever is lower, for an accessory dwelling unit that is attached to a primary dwelling.
63 • ADU parking is not required in instances where the ADU is: (a) located within one-half mile of public transit; (b) located within any Historic Overlay District that may be in existence at the time a zoning clearance or building permit for an ADU is requested; and (c) part of the existing single family residence, or an existing accessory structure except when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished or converted to construct the ADU.

4.2 Non-Governmental Constraints
Non-governmental constraints are primarily market-driven and generally outside direct government control. However, local governments can influence and offset negative impacts of non-governmental constraints through responsive programs and policies. Analyzing specific housing cost components including the availability of financing, cost of land, and construction costs assists a local government in developing and implementing housing and land-use programs that respond to prevailing conditions.

Factors that influence the cost of new housing may be beyond a locality's control, yet municipalities can create such essential preconditions as favorable zoning and development standards as well as fast-track permit processing among others to facilitate development of a variety of housing types at affordable levels. For instance, the Zoning Ordinance (Ord. 2019-478 §1; Ord. 189 Art. 7, 1980) expanded the definition of “Family” as follows:
" One or more persons occupying a dwelling unit and living as a single housekeeping unit.” This has facilitated the qualification of non-family households to obtain affordable and assisted housing.

This is particularly helpful when persons with disabilities need to join others in living arrangements who they may not even relate to by blood.

18.08.330 Family.

One or more persons occupying a dwelling unit and living as a single housekeeping unit. (Ord. 2019- 478 §1; Ord. 189 Art. 7, 1980)

4.2.1 Fiscal Constraints
Many of the constraints to new (and especially affordable) housing production stem from insufficient funding, which is a common problem throughout the State, but particularly in Guadalupe. Proposition 13 limits the increase of property assessments to two percent per year, unless the property is sold, in which case it is reassessed at its selling price. Property taxes comprise approximately 56 percent of the City's total tax revenue while in other California cities this percentage is as low as 25 percent. As a result of this level of dependency on property taxes, the City admits having a difficult time maintaining needed services. This makes the City less able to use direct fiscal means to promote housing production.

Availability of Financing
The availability of financing affects a household's ability to purchase a home or improve it. For example, in Guadalupe, it can be difficult for very low, low, and moderate-income first-time homebuyers to 64 acquire enough savings and income to pay for down payment, closing costs, monthly mortgage, and tax and insurance payments. It can also be challenging for households in these income groups to rehabilitate their homes. However, a few private financing and government assistance programs are available to the community as discussed in Chapter 3 on Resources for Residential Development.

Cost of Land
The cost of land varies and influences the cost of housing production. Cost factors include location, the market value of land as reflected in its unit price per square foot, the intended use (whether residential or commercial) reflected in its zoning designation, the number of proposed units or density of development permitted on the site, and the size of the parcel. Land that is conveniently located in a desirable area that is zoned for residential or commercial uses will likely tend to be more valuable and thus more expensive than a remote piece of land that is zoned for agricultural uses.

The County Assessor's office estimated the value of a single-family residential lot with water and sewer service at $50,000 to $66,000. When the DJ Farms lot 5 subdivision was approved in November 2014 the cost of a lot averaged approximately $65,000 per lot, which is toward the upper end of the County Assessor’s estimate. With price stability in the real estate market the price of land could remain in the same ballpark but recent escalations in the price of real estate would suggest higher prices of land.

Site Improvement Costs
Non-governmental site improvement costs may include the cost of providing access to the site, clearing the site, and grading building pad areas. In the case of a subdivision, such costs may also include major improvements like building roads and installing new infrastructure. As with land costs, multiple factors such as site topography and proximity to established roads, sewer lines, and water lines can affect site improvement costs. Site improvement costs typically also include engineering and other technical assistance costs to assure construction of the development according to established codes and standards. For the DJ Farms lot 5 subdivision, which was approved in November 2014, site improvement costs added approximately $65,000 per lot.

Cost of Construction
Construction costs do vary widely depending on the environmental conditions and scale of development. Important determinants of construction costs include the amenities built into the unit, materials used, the prevailing labor rate, and any unusual project site conditions that require special construction measures. In Guadalupe, expansive soils and mitigation of liquefaction risk often necessitate more extensive footings for houses that could increase construction costs. The unit construction cost for multi-family residences such as apartments is generally lower than single-family residences. The average construction cost of a good quality multifamily apartment averages approximately $130 per square foot under prevailing wage rates.

Prevailing Wages
State and federal laws require that when government funds assist affordable housing projects, the units must be constructed using the prevailing wages adopted by the State Department of Industrial Relations or the Federal Department of labor. Wages typically add 25 to 30 percent to the cost of construction. 65 Given Guadalupe’s proximity to large population centers, there is no issue with finding the requisite labor at prevailing wages.

4.2.2 Citizen Behavior
Housing preferences have evolved over the past half century. From the inception of track home construction of 900 to 1200 square feet, consumers have opted for predominantly large, detached houses of two to three times the typical sizes of the past. The expectation to live in large homes is not compatible with affordable housing in California and has contributed to the high cost of living in the State. Bias towards single-family residences can become a constraint when neighbors oppose the location of denser, more affordable housing in their neighborhoods.

Auto dependency causes housing expansion to increase road traffic volumes, congestion, and noise.

Community disdain for these types of problems sometimes lead to opposition to all types of development whether residential, commercial, or industrial. Community opposition can delay housing production, increase costs, and impair a city’s ability to meet its housing and economic goals. However, community opposition to single-family or multi-family development is typically not a factor and therefore does not pose a constraint to housing development in Guadalupe.

4.2.3 Environmental Constraints
The environmental factors that have the potential to constrain residential development include City boundaries and limits, protected agricultural land, proximity to a coastal zone, floodable areas, and seismic faults. Figures 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3 identify the key environmental constraints in and around Guadalupe. In addition to the coastal zone, Williamson Act lands, floodable areas, and habitat areas fall almost entirely outside City boundaries and thus do not pose constraints to housing development. 66 Figure 4-1: Environmental Constraints Map–Prime Agricultural Lands under Williamson Act Contract Source: Santa Barbara County GIS database, 2017
67 Figure 4-2: Environmental Constraints Map–Floodable Areas Source: Santa Barbara County GIS database, 2017
Figure 4-3: Environmental Constraints Map–Wetlands and Habitat Areas Source: Santa Barbara County GIS database, 2017
68 The City's General Plan policies include measures to protect sensitive areas from development, and to protect public safety by avoiding development in hazardous areas. While these policies could constrain residential development, they are necessary to promote the public good. It is important to also note that these environmental factors do not substantially constrain vacant lands identified in Appendix B to accommodate the City's fair share of housing.

Boundaries/Limits
City boundaries limit the available land for housing development. The Santa Maria River defines northern boundary and limits expansion to the north of the City. Williamson Act contract lands surround nearly all the City’s boundaries to the east, south, and west and thus limit expansion to those directions as well. However, Guadalupe has ample available land within its boundaries to accommodate its share of housing needs into the long-term future.

Coastal Zone
The California Coastal Commission regulates development of parcels within the Coastal Zone. Such development must comply with the Local Coastal Program, which is approved and adopted by the Coastal Commission. In Guadalupe, approximately 60 acres in the southwestern portion of the City are within the coastal zone. The City annexed this land in 1990 and prepared a local coastal plan (LCP) that California Coastal Commission has certified. All of the land within the coastal zone has been fully developed. None of the RHNA-allocated units will be in the coastal zone of the City.

Flood Zones
Portions of land northwest of City limits fall within the 100-year and 500-year flood zones. None of these lands is developed and there is no plan to develop any in the future. However, the west side of lower Pioneer Street received significant flood damage during the 2023 winter storms.

Seismic Faults
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Public Resources Code Section 2621, et seq.) restricts development on the surface traces of known active faults that are mapped by the State Geologist. No Alquist-Priolo faults are within the City limits. Twenty-one older commercial buildings in the City's downtown core are identified to be of unreinforced masonry construction. The City has been working with owners to seismically upgrade these buildings. Seismic faults do not pose a constraint to housing development in the City. All buildings have been reinforced except for the Royal Theater, Far Western Restaurant and City Hall.

4.2.4 Infrastructure and Public Facilities
The availability of infrastructure and public facilities is important in evaluating the potential of developing additional housing. The following subsections discuss the capacity of such key facilities as water and sewer. Both the City's water and sewage treatment systems are adequate to serve current and future needs.

Wastewater System
The City operates a wastewater treatment plant with a sewer capacity of about one million gallons per day. Based on a per capita wastewater generation of 80 gallons per day, the sewer could accommodate 69 a population of about 12,000 residents. The City of Guadalupe completed a Wastewater System and Treatment Master Plan in 2014, which confirmed that the existing and proposed wastewater infrastructure could adequately serve the City's residents over a 20-year planning period. In addition, the study established a plan for future wastewater improvements to accommodate future growth. Table 4-8 show that sewer capacity will be more than adequate beyond the next eight years, the planning horizon of this Housing Element.

Table 4-8: Sewer Capacity and Projected Sewer Demand
Future Year Population Projection
(Persons)
Gallon Per
Person/Day
Total City Usage
(Gallons)
Capacity
(Gallons)
Percent of
Capacity
2030 8,068

80 645,440

966,000 67%
2035 6,427

80 514,160

966,000 53%
2040 9,209

80 736,720

966,000 76%
Sources: City of Guadalupe 2042 General Plan; 2014 Wastewater System and Treatment Master Plan.

Water Supply Sources
The Santa Maria Groundwater Basin and the State Water Project are the City’s two primary water supply sources. In 1997, the Santa Maria Valley Water Conservation District filed a lawsuit to adjudicate water rights in the Basin (Santa Maria Valley Water Conservation District vs. City of Santa Maria CV 770214, January 11, 2005). In June 2006, the Santa Maria Valley Water Conservation District negotiated a Settlement Agreement with terms and conditions for a solution concerning the overall management of the water resources in the Basin including rights to groundwater use. According to that agreement, Santa Maria, the Golden State Water Company, and the City of Guadalupe have preferential appropriative rights to surplus native groundwater. Therefore, these parties may pump groundwater without limitation unless a severe water shortage condition exists. If a severe water shortage exists, the Court may require these parties to limit their pumping to their respective shares and assigned rights.

The Court granted the City of Guadalupe 1,300 acre-feet per year (AFY) of prescriptive rights in the Basin during drought conditions (Santa Maria Valley Water Management Agreement, 2005). The City completed a Water Master Plan Update in 2021, which calculated existing and future water demand within the City. The study confirmed that the existing and proposed water infrastructure could adequately serve the City's residents over a 20-year planning period. In addition, the study established a plan for future water improvements to accommodate future growth.

The City of Guadalupe retrieves all its water supply from the State Water Project and two wells which tap the Santa Maria Ground Water Basin. The Obispo Tank Well is located just west of Obispo Street near its intersection with Fir Street. The second well is located within the Pasadera Development and has a pumping capacity of 1,000 gpm. There is also a dedicated 12-inch transmission pipeline from the Pasadera Well to the Obispo Tank Site. It should be noted that City has utilized several other wells in the past, but that those wells have been decommissioned because of water quality and/or operation issues.

They include the 9th Street Well, 242 Obispo Well, 5th Street Well, and Tognazinni Well. In addition to 70 the 1,300 acre-feet per year in well water, the City is also entitled to 550 acre-feet per year from the State Water Project. Annual state water deliveries are impacted by annual rainfall and Sierra Nevada snow pack.

Water quality and supply are limiting factors for growth in cities throughout California; however, Guadalupe has adequate groundwater and State Water Project allocations to accommodate population increase. The Pasadera Development is the primary source of new water demand in Guadalupe, which can be served by the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin through the new Pasadera well and pumping station. The 2042 Guadalupe General Plan calls for incorporation of water conservation measures through the implementation of the State mandated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and incorporating Executive Order E-37-16 for existing and new developments. This action could offset some of the new water demand. All indications are that water supply poses no immediate constraint to housing development in Guadalupe.
71 5.0 Energy Conservation Opportunities
State law requires all new construction to comply with energy conservation standards that establish maximum allowable energy use from non-renewable sources (California Administrative Code, Title 24).

These requirements apply to design components such as structural insulation, air infiltration and leakage control, features on thermostats, and water heating system insulation for tanks and pipes. State law also requires that a tentative tract map provide for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, including designing the lot sizes and configurations to permit orienting structures to take advantage of a southern exposure, shade or prevailing breezes.

This chapter describes opportunities to conserve energy in residential development, including energy saving design, energy saving materials, and energy efficient systems and features. Areas evaluated include planning and land use and energy efficient building practices and technologies. Planning to maximize energy efficiency and the incorporation of energy conservation and green building features can contribute to reduced housing costs for homeowners and renters, in addition to promoting sustainable community design and reduced dependence on vehicles. Such planning and development standards can also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Chapter 6 on Housing Action Plan provides the goals, policies, and programs for conserving energy in new housing development and retrofits in Guadalupe.

5.1 Planning and land Use
The arrangement and compactness of land uses can conserve energy. Land use patterns that separate uses excessively, spread development on the landscape, and promote auto dependency tend to isolate residential areas from commercial uses like grocery stores causing residents to travel long distances to take care of daily shopping and service needs. Alternatively, keeping a balance between jobs and housing within the same community and locating them near each other can help to reduce travel distances, promote use of alternative forms of transportation, and reduce energy use. Long trips necessitate use of the automobile or other mechanical form of movement with attendant gasoline consumption. Short distances promote walking and cycling. Changing the land use pattern therefore can change energy use patterns. The intent of energy-efficient land use planning is to reduce the distances of automobile travel, reduce the costs of construction, and increase the potential for residents to complete shopping and other chores without driving or by driving short distances.

The small, compact nature of Guadalupe and its prevailing land use pattern are inherently energy efficient. The City promotes development of vacant and underutilized lots to assure a compact and contiguous community. According to the Urban Land Institute (ULI), "conserving or developing infill housing within a more urban core has been shown to reduce primary energy consumption an average of 20 percent per household over newer sprawl developments." (ULI, 2008, Growing Cooler). Compact development results in secondary energy savings or “embodied energy,” which is the term used for the energy spent producing the materials and finished products like sewer pipes, electrical lines, paving materials, and so on. Minimizing the length of necessary water, sewer, and electricity lines, consumes less of those products, thereby decreasing the total energy consumption. 72 The City's compact development also helps promote convenience and accessibility to public transit.

Efficient transit service generally requires a minimum of 6 housing units per acre in residential areas (Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2008). In Guadalupe, the older housing tracts have an average density of 7 to 10 units per acre. The newer Point Sal Dunes development has a density of 6 units per acre. At full buildout, the DJ Farms Specific Plan development will have an overall density of about 6 units per acre while individual residential tracts within the Plan area will have densities ranging from 6 units per acre to 14 units per acre. The residential zones and mixed-use areas in the Downtown Mixed Use District of Guadalupe have the potential for higher residential densities of up to 30 units per acre.

The City promotes mixed-use development, particularly in the core areas of the community and along such major roads as Guadalupe Street (State Route 1) and Main Street (State Route 166). Many residents, however, opt to do grocery and other shopping outside the City because Guadalupe lacks a large grocery store. There are stores within Guadalupe that can take care of daily essentials, but many residents drive to Santa Maria and neighboring communities for shopping.

The 2042 General Plan continues to promote prevailing patterns of compact growth with enhancements in the form of mixed-use development, neighborhood commercial centers, a network of biking and walking paths, and augmentation of public transit stops. Implementation of the Plan can promote use of public transit, reduce vehicle trips to neighboring cities, promote biking and walking, and conserve energy use.

5.2 Energy Efficient Practices and Technologies
Energy usage in housing largely depends on indoor heating and cooling. These in turn depend on the energy efficiency of: (a) the home in terms of material quality and insulation; (b) appliances, which include hot water heaters, dishwashers, washers, and dryers; (c) plumbing fixtures; and (d) mechanical systems within the building. To conserve energy in new housing developments and retrofits, the City should promote or require the use of any of the following practices and technologies:
• Passive solar construction techniques that require proper solar orientation, appropriate levels of thermal mass, south facing windows, and moderate insulation levels; • Higher insulation levels in place of thermal mass or energy conserving window orientation; • Active solar water heating in exchange for lower insulation or energy-conserving window treatments;
• Energy-efficient indoor and outdoor lighting, including fluorescent lighting; • Energy-efficient appliances;
• Drought tolerant landscaping and drip irrigation for landscaping, which reduces the amount of energy needed to pump water;
• Weatherization of windows and doors;
• Individual meters in multi-family units for gas, electricity, and water to promote conservation;
• Photovoltaic systems;
• Deciduous trees to naturally cool buildings, create wind barriers to surrounding areas, and enhance streetscapes to promote walking and bicycling; and 73 • Green building practices, which incorporate materials and construction practices that reduce a building's energy consumption.

Pacific Gas & Electric provides a variety of energy conservation services for residents and participates in several other energy assistance programs for lower income households, which help qualified homeowners and renters conserve energy and control electricity costs. These programs include the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) Program and the Relief for Energy Assistance through Community Help (REACH) Program.

The California Alternate Rates for Energy Program (CARE) provides a 15 percent monthly discount on gas and electric rates to income-qualified households, certain non-profits, facilities that house agricultural employees, homeless shelters, hospices and other qualified non-profit group-living facilities.

The REACH Program provides one-time energy assistance to customers who have no other way to pay their energy bills. The intent of REACH is to assist low-income customers, particularly the elderly, disabled people, the sick, the working poor, and the unemployed who experience severe hardships and are unable to pay for their necessary energy needs.

In addition, the State Department of Community Services & Development administers a home weatherization program as part of its Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). This program provides free energy efficiency upgrades to the dwellings of low-income families to help lower their monthly utility bills.
74 6.0 Housing Action Plan
This chapter provides statements of community goals, policies, programs, and quantified objectives as they relate to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing in Guadalupe.

The framework covers the 2023 to 2031 planning horizon.

6.1 Affordable Housing Supply
Goal 1: An adequate supply of affordable housing for all income levels.

Policies:

Pol-1.1. Designate an adequate number of housing sites for both rent and purchase to accommodate the City’s share of regional housing needs for each income classification.

Pol-1.2. Adopt policies, regulations, and procedures that do not add unnecessarily to the cost of housing while still attaining other important City objectives.

Pol-1.3. Give high priority for permit processing to low-income residential projects, and the highest priority for projects that include housing units for extremely low-income households.

Pol-1.4. Continue to support the efforts of the Santa Barbara County Housing Authority in Guadalupe.

Pol-1.5. Apply for funds from the State and Federal governments through the Santa Barbara County Housing Authority or in conjunction with nonprofit or for-profit developers to construct housing for the lower income households.

Pol-1.6. Continue to provide Section 8 assistance to eligible households through the Santa Barbara County Housing Authority.

Pol-1.7. Require dispersal of low-income housing throughout new residential projects instead of concentration into single buildings or single portions of the site to the extent practical given the size of the project and other site constraints.

Pol-1.8. Distribute low-income housing produced through government subsidies, incentives, or regulatory programs throughout the City rather than concentrate them in particular areas or neighborhoods.

Pol-1.9. If low-income units are proposed in density bonus projects, they shall be constructed at the same time as the market-rate units in the development.

Pol-1.10. Designate locations where adequate facilities are available for the development of multi-family dwellings if such development is consistent with neighborhood character.

Pol-1.11. Allow rehabilitation of legal, non-conforming dwellings that do not meet requirements for lot size, setbacks, and other zoning standards if the non-conformity does not increase and there is no threat to public health or safety.
75 Programs:

Prg-1.1. Evaluate annually the adequacy of services and facilities for additional residential development; identify service deficiencies and costs as well as priorities for correcting them.

Responsibility: City Administrator
Timeframe: Ongoing with an annual update report
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Annual review and priority report
Prg-1.2. Maintain priority water and sewer service procedures for developments with units that are affordable to lower income households.

Responsibility: Public Works Department
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: Water Fund
Expected Outcome: Priority water and service procedures Prg-1.3. Enforce the new zoning ordinance that complies with California State law, which allows accessory dwelling units, mobile and manufactured homes, licensed residential care facilities and group homes with fewer than six residents, rental housing, and transitional and supportive housing in all residential zones. Subject these uses to the development and management standards that apply to residential development within the same zones. Promote the use of secondary units through public awareness campaigns and dissemination of informational materials to property owners, builders, and developers.

Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: immediately
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Prg-1.4. Require a 55-year continued affordability condition for projects that receive a density bonus together with government funds. Also, require at least 20 years of continued affordability to projects that are awarded density bonuses but do not use government funds. Monitor projects built under all options for compliance with State density bonus laws.

Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Prg-1.5. Team with the Santa Barbara County Housing Authority, People's Self-Help Housing Corporation, or other non-profit agencies to secure funds through State and Federal programs for development of new low-income housing, rehabilitation, and room additions to relieve overcrowding among low-income households. Prioritize opportunities for the development of housing for extremely 76 low-income households to meet the City’s housing allocation in this RHNA cycle. Coordinate with the County and provide letters of support and technical support to nonprofits in seeking new funding.

Participate in the Housing Trust Fund of Santa Barbara County to leverage the City's resources. Expedite the processing of density bonus applications which include affordable housing. And provide a report annually to the City Council on progress in this endeavor.

Responsibility: City Administrator
Timeframe: (1) Meet with the Santa Barbara Housing Authority, the Self-Help Housing Corporation, and other non-profit agencies at least once a year; (2) Submit funding applications to these agencies annually; (3) Report to the City Council in December of every year. (4) Expedite processing of density bonus applications continuously.

Funding: Various Housing Development Funds
Expected Outcome: Secured funding and support for construction of low-income housing Prg-1.6. Continue code enforcement efforts to preserve the City’s housing stock. Continue the City’s Home Rehabilitation Program by applying annually for grants such as the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and providing annual loan programs (based on available funds) to low-income homeowners.

Responsibility: Public Safety & Building
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Preservation of low-income housing
Prg-1.7. Add regulations to permit the development of affordable, multi-family housing on small sites (e.g., less than a half-acre) offering incentives beyond State Density Bonus Law (GC Section 65915) Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: within 2 years in preparation for next RHNA cycle Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Prg-1.8. Revise the zoning code to allow emergency shelters in all zones that permit housing without requirements for design review permits and discretionary actions as the design review decision-making criteria.

Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Immediately
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Prg-1.9. Modify the zoning code by 2025 to establish written procedures to grant priority water and sewer services to developments with units affordable to lower-income households. 77 Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Immediately
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Zoning Ordinance Amendment

6.2 Conservation and Rehabilitation
Goal 2: Conservation and rehabilitation of the City's existing stock of affordable housing.

Policies:

Pol-2.1. Refer all requests for the funding of rehabilitation projects or the construction of new affordable housing projects to review by the Santa Barbara County Housing and Community Development Department.

Pol-2.2. Continue to coordinate with the Santa Barbara County Housing Authority to maintain Section 8 rent subsidies.

Pol-2.3. Apply for funds, including CDBG grants, for the purpose of rehabilitating low cost, owner occupied and rental housing.

Pol-2.4. Promote private financing of the rehabilitation of housing.

Pol-2.5. Require the abatement of unsafe structures, while giving property owners ample time to correct deficiencies. Provide relocation assistance to residents displaced by such abatement.

Pol-2.6. Allow the demolition of existing multi-family housing only when: (a) the structure is found to be substandard and unsuitable for rehabilitation; (b) relocation assistance is available to tenants with reasonable notice; (c) tenants could purchase the replacement property, if for sale.

Programs:

Prg-2.1. Coordinate the City’s efforts with the Santa Barbara County Housing Authority to continue receiving Section 8 subsidy funds.

Responsibility: City Administrator
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Maintenance of existing Section 8 subsidies

6.3 At-Risk Units
Goal 3: Preservation of at-risk units in Guadalupe.

Policies:

Pol-3.1. Strive to preserve all at-risk dwelling units in the City. 78 Pol-3.2. Require at least two years notice to the City, HCD, the Santa Barbara County Housing Authority, and residents of at-risk units prior to the conversion of any units for low-income households to market rate under any of the following circumstances:
• The units were constructed with the aid of government funding • The units were required by an inclusionary zoning ordinance • The project was granted a density bonus
• The project received other incentives
Programs:

Prg-3.1. Coordinate with the Santa Barbara County Housing Authority to maintain a list of all dwellings within the City that are subsidized by government funding or are low-income housing developed through regulations or incentives. At a minimum, the list should include the number of units, type of government program, and the date at which the units may convert to market-rate dwellings Responsibility: City Administrator
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: List of subsidized or incentivized housing Prg-3.2. Add to existing incentive programs, and include in all new incentive or regulatory programs, requirements to give notice prior to conversion to market rate units.

Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Ongoing with annual update reports
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Revised housing incentive and regulatory programs

6.4 Special Needs
Goal 4: Adequate housing for special needs groups in Guadalupe, including farmworkers, people with disabilities, and large families.

Policies:

Pol-4.1. Promote the development of housing for farmworkers and large families.

Pol-4.2. Remove housing restraints for those with disabilities as outlined in Senate Bill 520 (Chapter 671 California Code).

Pol-4.3. Disseminate information about housing opportunities and services in the area to migrant farmworkers.

Programs:

Prg-4.1. Amend the zoning ordinance to grant density bonuses in conformance with Chapter 16.97 of the State Density Bonus law, or exemption from the in-lieu fee requirement, or both, for projects that include three-and four-bedroom units, or single room occupancy units, as significant components of the 79 projects. Determine the thresholds for the qualifying number of such units and exact size of the density increase or fee exemption in the drafting of the ordinance but based on affordable housing needs. Peg the period of affordability for the qualifying units at 55 years or more.

Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Zoning ordinance amendment for special needs housing Prg-4.2. Adopt a procedure for making reasonable accommodations in the form of modifications or exceptions in zoning laws and other land use regulations and practices when such accommodations may be necessary to afford persons with disabilities and other special needs equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing. Include in the amendment a revised definition of family that is consistent with State housing law. The regulation should address all aspects of the Americans with Disabilities Act that relate to home construction, retrofitting, and parking requirements. And address financial incentives for housing developers who address SB 520 issues in new construction and in retrofitting existing homes.

Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Zoning ordinance amendment for special needs housing Prg-4.3. Continue to disseminate information in both English and Spanish about housing opportunities and services for homeless persons and migrant farmworkers through the Police Department and City Hall.

Responsibility: City Administrator, Police Department, and Planning Department Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Continually updated information on special needs housing Prg-4.4. Cooperate biennially with Santa Barbara County and other agencies in the development of programs aimed at providing affordable, multi-family housing, including housing for families with special needs. As part of this cooperation, identify sites biennially that could support affordable multi-family housing development and consult with the site owner or housing partners on the feasibility of developing the site for affordable housing.

Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: within two years in preparation for next RHNA cycle Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Coordination and development of affordable, multi-family housing. 80 Prg-4.5. Continue to allow residential areas to permit emergency, transitional, and supportive housing as residential uses, subject only to those regulations that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zones.

Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome. Accommodation of transitional housing Prg-4.6. Adopt by 2025 priority processing, granting of fee waivers or deferrals, modifying development standards, granting concessions, and offering incentives (beyond State Density Bonus Law) for housing developments that include units affordable to extremely low-income households or farmworkers. Assist and support the pursuit of funding applications, outreach, and coordination with affordable housing developers to biennially identify development opportunities and coordinate with farmworkers, employers, and other related organizations in expanding housing for extremely low-income and farmworker households.

Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Within two years in conformity with the new RHNA cycle Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Coordination and development of affordable, multi-family housing.

6.5 Energy Conservation
Goal 5: Energy efficient housing units that result in reduced energy costs for Guadalupe residents.

Policies:

Pol-5.1. Require new dwelling units to meet State requirements for energy efficiency and retrofits to existing units to meet similar standards.

Pol-5.2. Maintain the land use patterns in the 2042 General Plan for proactive energy efficiency.

Programs:

Prg-5.1. Continue to implement Title 24 of the California Code on new developments Responsibility: Building Department
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund with fees for plan reviews and building inspections Expected Outcome. Implementation of Title 24
Prg-5.2. Coordinate with PG&E to involve residents in energy efficiency retrofit programs. Conduct outreach on energy awareness programs in conjunction with PG&E to educate residents about the benefits of various retrofit programs.
81 Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund and PG&E
Expected Outcome. Increased awareness of and participation in energy efficiency programs Prg-5.3. Amend the subdivision ordinance to require orientation of subdivisions for solar access.

Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome. Subdivision Ordinance amendment
Prg-5.4. Apply for and support applications for affordable housing funds from agencies that reward and incentivize good planning. Examples include the HCD's Multifamily Housing Program (MHP) and California Tax Credit Allocation Committee resources which provide competitive advantage for affordable infill housing and affordable housing built close to jobs, transportation, and amenities.

Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome. Smart growth of the City
Prg-5.5. Partner with public utility districts and private energy companies to promote free energy audits for low-income owners and renters, rebate programs for installing energy efficient features and appliances and public education about ideas to conserve energy.

Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: Various sources
Expected Outcome. Reduction in per capita energy use

6.6 Equal Opportunity Housing
Goal 6: Equal access to sound, affordable housing for all persons regardless of race, creed, age or sex.

Policies:

Pol-6.1. Strive to achieve equal access to sound and affordable housing for all persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, family status, source of income, or disability.

Pol-6.2. Enforce the policies of the State Fair Employment and Housing Commission.

Programs:

Prg-6.1. Continue to provide information in English and Spanish from the Housing Authority and Department of Equal Housing and Employment about housing and tenant rights in City Hall. 82 Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome. Readily available information about equal opportunity to housing Prg-6.2. Cooperate with neighboring jurisdictions and local organizations that sponsor workshops on fair housing laws and how those who are victims of discrimination can address their grievances including referrals of persons experiencing discrimination in housing for legal assistance.

Responsibility: All City Departments
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome. Minimization of housing discrimination Prg-6.3. Notify stakeholders such as People's Self-Help Housing Corporation, Santa Barbara County Housing Authority, California Rural legal Assistance, and churches as well as post notices at public venues prior to public meetings for amendments or updates to the housing element.

Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Prior to public meetings and in conjunction with other planning efforts Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome. Awareness of Housing Element updates and increased participation Prg-6.4. Continue to permit up to 3-story structures in areas designated for multifamily housing. Notify and collaborate with such stakeholders as People's Self-Help Housing Corporation and the Santa Barbara County Housing Authority as well as post notices at public venues prior to public meetings about the amendments and create information material for dissemination to other developers.

Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome. Flexibility and attractiveness of multifamily housing sites for production of affordable units
Prg-6.5. Evaluate the municipal code on the design review permit process and amend to include refinement of design guidelines that establish objective design standards and define required findings on terms like “compatibility” and “harmony” to reduce subjectivity and thereby address potential constraints or impacts on certainty about the City’s expectations on design.

Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: within a year
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome. Lower subjectivity of officials and uncertainty to stakeholders about expectations of the City for design review
83 6.7 Quantified Objectives
Table 6-1 presents an estimate of the number of units to be constructed by income level during the planning period from 2023 to 2031. The quantified objectives do not represent ceilings on development but rather set target goals for the City to achieve based on needs, resources and constraints. The target of 431 total units is a steep increase from the 50 units in the 2014-2022 cycle presumably because of Guadalupe’s potential to deliver a good number of housing units to serve the region.

Table 6-1 reveals that not only did Guadalupe fully meet its allocation for the 5 th Cycle but exceeded it
substantially for the income categories of very low, moderate, and above moderate. Appendix A has additional details on building permits and accomplishments in housing construction in Guadalupe.

Table 6-1 also shows that if the excess of 354 housing units completed in the 5th Cycle were counted toward Guadalupe’s allocation for the 6th Cycle plus the 324 other units anticipated to be completed mostly in the Pasadera development over the period, then over 678 total housing units are expected in the 6th Cycle. This number exceeds the 6th Cycle allocation of 431 units by more than 50 percent.

Table 6-1: Comparison of RHNA Allocations Met and Unmet by Income Groups in Guadalupe Income Category
5th Cycle
RHNA
Allocation
Total
Completed
in 5th Cycle
Balance
from 5th
Cycle
Pending
Construction
Total
Potential in
6th Cycle
6th Cycle
RHNA
Allocation
RHNA
Allocation Applicable to 6th Cycle
RHNA
Allocation
Extremely low 5 6 1 0 1 1
Very Low 7 27 20 0 20 2
Low 8 8 0 0 0 24
Moderate 13 154 141 40 181 77
Above Moderate 17 209 192 284 476 327
Total 50 404 354 324 678 431
Sources: City of Guadalupe Planning Department; SBCAG, 2014-2022 & 2023-2031 RHNA Allocations. 84 7.0 Appendices

7.1 Appendix A: Evaluation of 5th Cycle Housing Element Government Code Section 65588(a) requires that jurisdictions evaluate the effectiveness of the existing Housing Element, the appropriateness of goals, objectives, and policies, and the progress in implementing programs for the previous planning period. This appendix contains a review of the goals, policies, and programs of the previous housing element and evaluates the degree to which these programs have been implemented during the previous planning period, 2019 through 2023. The analysis includes an assessment of the appropriateness of goals, objectives, policies, and programs.

7.1.1 Program Evaluation
Table A-1 summarizes the effectiveness of programs contained in the previous Housing Element along with responsible agencies, accomplishments, and policies or actions to pursue moving forward. Many programs are essential for continued good planning and planning administration. The recommendation is for those programs that remain relevant to continue in the new cycle.

7.1.2 Appropriateness of Goals and Policies
Table A-2 evaluates the appropriateness of previous goals and policies and identifies necessary changes considering the City's experience during the past planning period. The goals and policies address mandatory requirement for housing according to State law. Therefore, many remain appropriate and would be retained in the new cycle.

7.1.3. Progress in Meeting Quantified Objectives
Table A-3 presents the City's progress in meeting the quantified objectives across the two previous Housing Elements within the 5
th Cycle . The DJ Farms Specific Plan area broke ground in 2015, built, and sold 130 new housing units by January 2019. By the end of 2022, the development completed 363 dwelling units out of a total authorization of 740 dwelling units (Guadalupe Building Department) leaving a difference of 377 units to construct during the new cycle. The units fall primarily in the moderate and above moderate-income categories, but nevertheless fulfilled more than the City’s RHNA allocations for the planning period in those two income categories. The City fulfilled the housing need in the lower income categories with People’s Self-Help construction of 37 assisted housing apartments and the construction of a few ADUs.

Table A-4 presents a summary of development activity in terms of permits from 2015 through 2021.

Table A-4a provides a broad over view of trends and indicate that the period registered steady increases in permit activities for new homes and accessory dwelling units as well as extensions and repairs to existing housing.

Table A-4b shows details by income group of permit activity in the recent years for which data were available. The trends in development permit activity within Guadalupe reflected fluctuation from year to year in number of entitlements approved, consistent number of building permits issued at about 70 per annum, and increasing number of certificates of occupancy issued as construction is completed for 85 permits issued in prior years. It also shows that ADUs represented the latest form of satisfying demand for lower income housing. Most permitting activities, however, related to above moderate priced housing.

Table A-5 presents analysis of completed housing construction since 2015. The analysis shows how much households could afford to pay for housing assuming 30 percent of income points that represent definitions of various income ranges. Estimate of mortgage payments under prevailing market conditions shed light on the household income groups that can afford the price ranges of the completed housing units.

7.1.4. Progress toward Special Needs Populations
Table A-3a reveals that Guadalupe produced 41 housing units in the three lower income categories compared to the 20 units allocated in the 5th Cycle. The foremost requirement for special needs housing is affordability. In producing the lower income units, the City largely fulfilled the single most important need and additionally, implementation addressed accessibility issues with disabled people and seniors.

The City fulfilled the housing need in the lower income categories with People’s Self-Help construction of 37 assisted housing apartments and the construction of a few ADUs.

7.1.5. Shortfall of Sites from the 5th Cycle Planning Period There was no shortage of sites for housing in Guadalupe over the 5th Cycle planning period. The following paragraphs explain.

The 5th Cycle Housing Element relied on the production of housing within the then newly approved DJ Farms Specific Plan area for a compact City hemmed in by Williamson Act contract lands and the coastal zone. The Plan worked beyond expectations when DJ Farms broke ground in 2015 as the Pasadera Development, built and sold 130 new housing units by January 2019. This compared to the total RHNA allocation of 50. As of August 2022, which was toward the end of the 5th Cycle, 363 units were built with approval for construction of 377 more. The original Specific Plan was approved for 803 units.

Additionally, amendments to Chapter 18.53 of the Guadalupe Municipal Code in January 2023 on “Accessory Dwelling Units” revamped the ADU ordinance, is intended to comply with State law (Government Code Section 65852.2), and is to implement the policies in the City's 2042 General Plan and the Housing Element. The update allows accessory dwelling units (ADU) through ministerial review in all Residential Districts. This created additional opportunities for housing units. 86 Table A-1: Evaluation of Programs in 5th Cycle (2015 & 2019) Housing Element - City of Guadalupe [Table A-1] Program Responsible
Agency
Time
Frame
Evaluation & 2015-2022
Accomplishments
Future Policies
and Actions
A.1. The City shall annually
evaluate the adequacy of
services and facilities for
additional residential
development. Service
deficiencies and the cost
of correcting such
deficiencies will be
identified and priorities
will be set.

City
Administrator Ongoing
Ongoing part of
development review
process.

The City completed a
water and wastewater
system Master Plan and a
water and wastewater rate
study that incorporated the
cost of needed water &
wastewater capital
Improvements,
This program assured
adequacy of services and
facilities as actual housing
construction became 4
times the RHNA allocation.

Continue
program
A.2. The City shall
establish priority water
and sewer service
procedures for
developments with units
affordable to lowerincome households.

Planning
Department Ongoing
Part of development
review process
This enabled construction
of ADU units and three
dozen assisted housing
apartments
Continue
program
A.3. The City should
amend the zoning
ordinance to comply with
California State law and
allow accessory dwelling
units (ADU), mobile and
manufactured homes,
licensed residential care
facilities and group homes
with fewer than six
residents, rental housing,
and transitional and
supportive housing in all
residential zones. These
uses are subject to those
development and
management standards
that apply to residential
development within the
same zone.

Planning
Department Ongoing
Amendments made to the
Guadalupe Municipal Code
between August 2017 and
January 2019 include
Chapter 18.53 of January
28, 2019 on “ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS”.

ADUs are easily permitted
and a four ADU units were
built.

Continue
program to
promote use of
ADUs by
providing a
public
awareness
campaign to
property
owners,
builders, and
developers
87 [Table A-1] Program Responsible
Agency
Time
Frame
Evaluation & 2015-2022
Accomplishments
Future Policies
and Actions
A.4. The City shall require
a 55-year continued
affordability condition in
projects that receive a
density bonus that also
utilize government funds.

As an additional incentive,
projects that do not use
any government monies
may be eligible for
bonuses if the units have
at least 20 years of
continued affordability.

The City will ensure all
options comply with State
density bonus laws.

Planning
Department Ongoing
Ongoing part of
development review
process,
Applied to the assisted
living units.

Continue
program
A.5. The City shall
continue to work with the
Santa Barbara County
Housing Authority,
People's Self-Help Housing
Corporation, or other nonprofit agencies to secure
funds through State and
Federal programs for
development of new lowincome housing, and
rehabilitation or room
additions to relieve
overcrowding for existing
low-income households.

Opportunities for the
development of housing at
the ELI level shall be a
priority, until the City
meets its ELI housing
allocation in the RHNA
cycle. The City will
coordinate with the
County applications for
new funding and will
provide letters of support
and technical support to
nonprofits. The City will
City
Administrator Ongoing
Essential element of
affordable housing
facilitation and production.

It aided the funding and
construction of assisted
housing apartments
Continue
program
88 [Table A-1] Program Responsible
Agency
Time
Frame
Evaluation & 2015-2022
Accomplishments
Future Policies
and Actions
also participate in the
Housing Trust Fund of
Santa Barbara County to
leverage the City's
funding. The City will also
continue to incentivize
affordable housing by
expediting the density
bonus applications which
include affordable
housing. A report will be
provided annually to the
City Council on progress in
this endeavor.

A.6. The City of Guadalupe
shall continue code
enforcement efforts to
preserve its existing
housing stock and to
expedite the issuance of
building permits for new
low-income housing,
including those units at
the ELI level, housing
rehabilitation projects and
room additions for existing
low-income housing. All
requests for funding
assistance will be
forwarded to the County
of Santa Barbara Housing
and Community
Development
Department's
rehabilitation assistance
program to help alleviate
the impact of high
overcrowding.

City
Administrator Ongoing
Essential element of
affordable housing
retention.

This has helped in
maintaining the quality of
affordable and assisted
units in the City
Continue
program
B.1. The City shall
coordinate its efforts with
the Santa Barbara County
Housing Authority to
continue receiving Section
8 subsidy monies. A City
City
Administrator Ongoing
Essential element of
affordable housing for
those in the very low end
of income spectrum
The subsidies have made
Continue
program
89 [Table A-1] Program Responsible
Agency
Time
Frame
Evaluation & 2015-2022
Accomplishments
Future Policies
and Actions
staff liaison will have the
responsibility of
coordinating these efforts.
housing affordable for
large segments of the City’s
residents
C.1. Coordinate with the
Santa Barbara County
Housing Authority to
maintain a list of all
dwellings within the City
that are subsidized by
government funding or
low-income housing
developed through
regulations or incentives.

The list shall Include, at a
minimum, the number of
units, type of government
program, and the date at
which the units may
convert to market-rate
dwellings
Planning
Department Ongoing
Essential element of
tracking affordable
housing.

It has provided data for
analysis in the
development of the new
housing element.

Continue
program
C.2. The City shall add to
existing incentive
programs, and include in
all new incentive or
regulatory programs,
requirements, to give
notice prior to conversion
units to market rate.

Planning
Department Ongoing
Ongoing part of
development review
process.

This has aided the
preservation of affordable
units across the City.

Continue
program
D.1. The City shall amend
its zoning ordinance to
grant a density bonus in
conformance with Chapter

16.97 of the State Density
Bonus law, or exemption
from the in-lieu fee
requirement, or both for
projects that include
three- and four-bedroom
units, or single room
occupancy units, as a
significant portion of the
total project. The
thresholds for determining
Planning
Department Ongoing
Density bonus provision is
part of Zoning Ordinance.

Besides DJ Farms no
other major housing
development projects
occurred in the City. It
helped in approval of the
number of units at DJ
Farms and enabled the
development to provide
multiple parks and
infrastructure.

Continue
program
90 [Table A-1] Program Responsible
Agency
Time
Frame
Evaluation & 2015-2022
Accomplishments
Future Policies
and Actions
the number of such units
and exact size of
the density increase or fee
exemption shall be
determined during
drafting of the ordinance.

The period of affordability
for the density bonus units
will be 55 years or more.

D.2. The City shall adopt a
procedure to make
reasonable
accommodations (i.e.
modifications or
exceptions) in its zoning
laws and other land use
regulations and practices
when such
accommodations may be
necessary to afford
persons with disabilities
and other special needs an
equal opportunity to use
and enjoy a dwelling. The
amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance shall include a
revised definition of family
that is consistent with
State housing law. It shall
address all aspects of the
Americans with Disabilities
Act in regard to home
construction, retrofitting
restrictions, and parking
requirements due to City
Zoning Ordinance. The City
will also address financial
incentives for developers
who address code issues
in new construction and in
retrofitting existing
homes.

Planning
Department Ongoing
Compliance with ADA
requirements is part of the
Building Code.

It has helped make lower
income and assisted
housing developments
accessible to those with
disabilities.

Continue
program
91 [Table A-1] Program Responsible
Agency
Time
Frame
Evaluation & 2015-2022
Accomplishments
Future Policies
and Actions
D.3. The City shall
continue to provide
information about housing
opportunities and services
for homeless persons to
migrant farmworkers
through the Police
Department, as well as
City Hall; provide
information in both
English and Spanish and
provide other additional
language material to other
minority languages in the
community; and survey
the community for the
need of other language
materials.

Police
Department,
City
Administrator
Ongoing
Information is available at
City Hall.

This has aided a large
segment of the population
for whom English is a
second language and
incoming migrants to
navigate the housing
landscape.

Continue
program
D.4. The City shall
cooperate with Santa
Barbara County and other
agencies in the
development of programs
aimed at providing
affordable multi-family
housing, including housing
for families with special
needs. As part of this
cooperation, the City shall
identify one or more sites
that could support
affordable multi-family
housing development and
consult with the site
owner and housing
partners on the
feasibility of developing
the site for affordable
housing.

Police
Department,
City
Administrator
Ongoing
This is necessary to
continue provision of
assisted housing for those
in the lowest income
brackets.

This facilitated the
construction of the new
multi-family assisted living
apartments of three dozen
units.

Continue
program
92 [Table A-1] Program Responsible
Agency
Time
Frame
Evaluation & 2015-2022
Accomplishments
Future Policies
and Actions
D.5. To encourage
transitional and
supportive housing, the
City will amend all zoning
districts allowing
residential uses to permit
transitional and
supportive housing as a
residential use, subject
only to those regulations
that apply to other
residential dwellings of the
same type in the same
zoning (i.e. apartments in
a multi-family zone).

Planning
Department Ongoing
Overlay district created
permitting such uses.

This facilitate the
construction of SROs,
shelters, and ADUs in most
zones within the City.

Continue
program
E.1. The City shall continue
to implement Title 24 of
the California Code on all
new development.

Building
Department Ongoing
Verified during plan check
for building permits
Continue
program
E.2. The City shall work
with PG&E to encourage
existing residents to
participate in energy
efficiency retrofit
programs. The City will
consider sponsoring an
energy awareness
program, in conjunction
with PG&E to educate
residents about the
benefits of various retrofit
programs.

Planning
Department Ongoing
Disseminated
collaboratively in utility
bills
Continue
program
E.3. The City shall amend
the subdivision ordinance
to implement the
subdivision map act on
subdivision orientation for
solar access.

Planning
Department Ongoing
Part of development
review process.

Continue
program
E.4. New annexations to
the City shall be
contiguous to the existing
City to maintain compact
urban form and energy
efficiency.

Planning
Department Ongoing
Addressed in update to
General Plan
Continue
program
93 [Table A-1] Program Responsible
Agency
Time
Frame
Evaluation & 2015-2022
Accomplishments
Future Policies
and Actions
E.5. The City shall apply for
and support applications
for affordable housing
funds from agencies that
reward and incentivize
good planning. Examples
include the HCD's Multifamily Housing Program
(MHP) and California Tax
Credit Allocation
Committee resources
which provide competitive
advantage for affordable
infill housing and
affordable housing built
close to jobs,
transportation, and
amenities.

City
Administrator Ongoing
Part of application efforts
for grant resources
Continue
program
E.6. Partner with public
utility districts and private
energy companies to
promote free energy
audits for low-income
owners and renters,
rebate programs for
installing energy efficient
features and appliances
and public education
about ideas to conserve
energy.

Planning
Department Ongoing
Disseminated
collaboratively in utility
bills
Continue
program
F.1. The City will continue
to provide information
from the Housing
Authority and Department
of Equal Housing and
Employment regarding
housing and tenant rights
at City Hall. And the City
will continue to provide
information in Spanish as
well as review the need
for any third language
information in Guadalupe.

Planning
Department Ongoing
Information is available at
City Hall.

This has aided a large
segment of the population
for whom English is a
second language and
incoming migrants to
navigate rights and
requirements for housing
access in the City.

Continue
program
94 [Table A-1] Program Responsible
Agency
Time
Frame
Evaluation & 2015-2022
Accomplishments
Future Policies
and Actions
F.2. The City will refer
persons experiencing
discrimination in housing
to California Rural Legal
Assistance. The City will
cooperate with
neighboring jurisdictions
and local organizations
that sponsor workshops
on fair housing laws and
how those who are victims
of discrimination can
address their grievances.

All city
Departments
that
receive
complaints
Ongoing
Part of outreach activities.

This has aided a large
segment of the population
and incoming migrants to
fight off discrimination in
housing access.

Continue
program
F.3. The City shall notify
People's Self-Help Housing
Corporation, Santa
Barbara County Housing
Authority, California Rural
legal Assistance and local
churches. as well as post
notices at significant
public locations, prior to
any public hearing where
the City is considering
amending or updating the
housing element.

Planning
Department Ongoing
Part of outreach activities
during development of
plans.

This has made People’s
Self-Help a strong partner
for affordable and assisted
housing production and
collaboration with the City.

Continue
program
95 Table A-2: Appropriateness of 2015 Guadalupe Housing Element Goals and Policies [Table A-2] Goals & Policy Evaluation & 2015-2022
Accomplishments Appropriateness
Goal A: An adequate supply of affordable housing
for all income levels.

The City has exceeded it Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy A.1: The City shall provide an adequate number
of housing sites for both rent and purchase to
accommodate its share of regional housing needs,
including the number of units for each income
classification.

This City accomplished this
with the new General Plan Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy A.2: The City shall ensure that adopted policies, regulations, and procedures do not add unnecessarily
to the cost of housing while still attaining other
important City objectives.

The City streamlined but
largely left fees unchanged Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy A.3: The City shall give high priority for permit processing to low-income residential projects, and
the highest priority for projects that provide housing
units at the extremely-low income (ELI) level.

This integral to the
development application
review process
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy A.4: The City shall continue to support the
efforts of the Santa Barbara County Housing Authority
within the City.

The City and SBCHA are
strong cooperating partners Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy A.5: The City shall, through the Santa Barbara
County Housing Authority or in conjunction with
nonprofit or for-profit developers, apply for funds
from the State and Federal governments to construct
housing for low-income households.

The City has strong
partnership with SBCHA,
People’s Self-Help and
Habitat for Humanity
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy A. 6: The City shall continue to provide Section 8 assistance to eligible households through the Santa
Barbara County Housing Authority.

This has greatly aided large
segments of residents Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy A. 7: Housing for low-income households that is
required in a new residential project shall not be
concentrated into a single building or portion of the
site but shall be dispersed throughout the project, to
the extent practical given the size of the project and
other site constraints.

This has fostered integration
in the City
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy A. 8: low-income housing produced through
government subsidies or through incentives or
regulatory programs shall be distributed throughout
the City and not concentrated in a particular area of
the community.

This is the case in the City
and prevented segregation Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy A. 9: The City shall require low-income housing
units in density bonus projects to be available at the
same time as the market-rate units in the project.

This is part of the application
review process for
development
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy A. 10: The City shall encourage the
development of multi-family dwellings in locations
where adequate facilities are available and where
such development would be consistent with
This has aided cost effective
construction of affordable
units
Still Appropriate -
retain
96 [Table A-2] Goals & Policy Evaluation & 2015-2022
Accomplishments Appropriateness
neighborhood character.

Policy A. 11: The City shall allow rehabilitation for
legal, non-conforming dwellings that do not meet
current lot size requirements, setbacks, yard
requirements, and other current zoning
requirements, so long as the non-conformity is not
increased and there is no threat to public health and
or safety.

This is part of the application
review process for
development Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy A. 12: To meet the City's needs to provide
housing at the extremely low income (ELI) level, the
City shall encourage projects that meet the housing
needs of ELI households by offering financial
incentives, financial assistance, or regulatory
concessions to encourage the development of ELI
units, such as that provided by single-room occupancy
units. The City shall consider prioritizing its affordable housing development assistance to one or more
projects that meet the City's Ell housing needs, as
identified in the latest RHNA allocation.

This culminated in the
construction of three dozen
apartments as solely assisted
living units
Still Appropriate -
retain
Goal B: Conservation and rehabilitation of the City's
existing stock of affordable housing.

This has preserved the
affordable housing stock
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy B.1: The City shall refer all requests for the
funding of rehabilitation projects or the construction
of new affordable housing projects to the Santa
Barbara County Housing and Community
Development Department.

This aided construction of
three dozen apartments as
solely assisted living units Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy B.2: The City shall continue to coordinate with
the Santa Barbara County Housing Authority to
maintain Section 8 rent subsidies.

This aids large segments of
residents in the City Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy B.3: The City shall apply for funds, including
CDBG grants for the purpose of rehabilitating low
cost, owner occupied and rental housing.

This contributed to upkeep
of affordable units across
the City
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy B.4: Private financing of the rehabilitation of
housing shall be encouraged.

Is has given flexibility to
providers of affordable
housing
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy B.5: The City shall require the abatement of
unsafe structures, while giving property owners
ample time to correct deficiencies. Residents
displaced by such abatement should be provided
relocation assistance.

Given ample time has been
the practice and has worked
well Still Appropriate -
retain
97 [Table A-2] Goals & Policy Evaluation & 2015-2022
Accomplishments Appropriateness
Policy B.6: The demolition of existing multi-family
housing shall be allowed when: a) the structure(s) is
found to be substandard and unsuitable for
rehabilitation; b) tenants are provided reasonable
notice and an opportunity to purchase the property;
and c) relocation assistance is provided.

There has not been the need
to demolish multi-family
housing but the policy is
good.

Still Appropriate -
retain
Goal C: Preservation of all at-risk units in Guadalupe.

This has helped avoid
displacements
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy C.1: The City shall strive to preserve all at-risk dwelling units
This has helped avoid
displacements
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy C.2: At least two years notice shall be required prior to the conversion of any units for low-income
households to market rate units in any of the
following circumstances:
• The units were constructed with the aid of
government funding
• The units were required by an inclusionary zoning
ordinance
• The project was granted a density bonus
• The project received other incentives
Such a notice shall be given at least to the following:
• The City;
• HCD;
• Santa Barbara County Housing Authority; and
• Residents of at-risk units.

There has not been recent
need to convert units for
low-income households
Still Appropriate -
retain
Goal D: Adequate housing for special needs groups
in Guadalupe, including farmworkers, people with
disabilities, and large families.

This is the City’s strength
historically and enable new
RHNA allocations in the
moderate and above income
groups.

Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy D.1: The City shall encourage the development
of housing for farmworkers and large families.

This is the City’s strength
historically and enable it to
house farmworkers who are
vital for its economic base
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy D.2: The City will encourage the removal of
housing restraints for those with disabilities as
outlined in Senate Bill 520 (Chapter 671 California
Code).

This has made the City a
friendly place for persons
with disabilities
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy D.3: The City shall provide information to
migrant farmworkers about housing opportunities
and services for in the area.

This has aided a large
segment of incoming
migrants to access housing
conveniently
Still Appropriate -
retain
Goal E: Energy efficient housing units that result in a reduction in energy costs to Guadalupe residents.

This is implemented during
the application review
Still Appropriate -
retain
98 [Table A-2] Goals & Policy Evaluation & 2015-2022
Accomplishments Appropriateness
process
Policy E.1: All new dwelling units shall be required to meet current State requirements for energy efficiency
and retrofitting of existing units shall be encouraged.

This is implemented during
the application review
process
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy E.2: New land use patterns shall encourage
energy efficiency, to the extent possible.

The spirit of the new General
Plan encapsulates this policy
Still Appropriate -
retain
Goal F: Assurance of equal access to sound,
affordable housing for all persons regardless of race,
creed, age or sex.

The City has lived by this
tenet making it one of the
most diverse communities in
the area.

Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy F.1: The City declares that all persons
regardless of race, color, religion, sex, sexual
orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, or disability should have equal access to sound and affordable housing.

The City has lived by this
tenet making it one of the
most diverse communities in
the area.

Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy F.2: The City will promote the enforcement of
the policies of the State Fair Employment and
Housing Commission.

The City has lived by this
tenet making it one of the
most diverse communities in
the area.

Still Appropriate -
retain
Table A-3a. Progress in Achieving Quantified Objectives (All Incomes) Income Category
Quantified
Objective Completed Progress Future
(Allocated 5th
Cycle Dwelling
Units)
(Completed
2015 to 2019)
(Completed
2019 to 2022)
Total
Completed in
5th Cycle
Percent of 5th
Cycle RHNA
Completed
(Dwelling Units
Pending
Construction)
RHNA
Allocation New Construction
Extremely low 5 2 4 6 120% 0
Very Low 7 1 26 27 386% 0
Low 8 1 7 8 100% 0
Moderate 13 23 131 154 1185% 40
Above Moderate 17 107 102 209 1229% 284
Total 50 134 270 404 808% 320
00 – Accessory Dwelling Units
00 – People’s Self-Help Housing Project
00 – Pasadera Housing Development
Sources: City of Guadalupe Planning Department; SBCAG, 2014-2022 RHNA Allocations. 99 Table A-3b. Progress in Achieving Quantified Objectives (Lower Incomes) – Completed Apartments Tenant Affordability Level Number of Units Mechanism to Achieve Affordability At or below 30% AMI – Extremely Low 4 Rent set to tenant income At or below 40% AMI – Very Low 2 Rent set to tenant income At or below 45% AMI – Very Low 5 Rent set to tenant income At or below 50% AMI – Very Low 19 Rent set to tenant income At or below 60% AMI – Low 7 Rent set to tenant income
Total (dwelling units in Guadalupe Courts) 37 Prg-1.4 & Prg-1.5 (Chapter 6) Table A-3c. Progress in Achieving Quantified Objectives (Lower Incomes) – Completed ADUs ADU Location Square Feet Cost Estimate Interest Rate Term (Years) Monthly Payment Monthly+25% MaintenanceIncome GroupsTotal Payment
1 4443 Elm St 396 $34,000 5% 30 ($182) $227 EL $65,434
2 4578 Twelfth St. 800 $50,000 5% 30 ($267) $334 EL $96,227 3 379 Campodonico 1,023 $90,000 5% 30 ($481) $601 VL $173,209 4 150 Egret Lane 976 $200,000 5% 30 ($1,069) $1,336 L $384,908 Table A-4a: Residential Permit Activities - City of Guadalupe, 2015 through 2021 A-4a: Residential Permits
2015
Permits
Issued
2016
Permits
Issued
2017
Permits
Issued
2019
Permits
Issued
2020
Permits
Issued
2021
Permits
Issued
Detached Single-family
Dwellings 6 35 95 85 148
Detached Single-family
Dwellings w/ Secondary
Dwelling
Attached Single-family
Dwellings
Attached Single-family
Dwelling w/ Secondary
Dwelling
Attached or Detached
Secondary Dwellings 1 6 14
Multi-family Dwellings 72
Residential Additions 5 5 2
Residential Alterations 3 5 8
New Garage/Carports 3 1
Residential Repairs
100
A-4a: Residential Permits
2015
Permits
Issued
2016
Permits
Issued
2017
Permits
Issued
2019
Permits
Issued
2020
Permits
Issued
2021
Permits
Issued
Residential Re-roofs 27 18 35
Residential Misc. Plumbing,
Electrical, Mechanical
Permit
39 57 39
Residential Accessory
Buildings, Structures,
Driveways
3 4 6
Residential Pools/ Spas
Residential Grading, Site
Work, Stockpiling, Misc.

Residential Demolitions
Residential Permit Reissued 1 1
Residential Solar 43 41 9
Residential Fire 8 34 86
Total Residential Permits 134 204 282 72 91 162
Source: Guadalupe Planning Department
101
Table A-4b: Recent Residential Permit Activities by Income - City of Guadalupe, 2019-2021 Source: Guadalupe Planning Department
Income Group
Multifamily
(5+ units)
Accessory
Dwelling
Units
Single
Family
Detached Grand Total
Multifamily
(5+ units)
Accessory
Dwelling
Units
Single
Family
Detached Grand Total
Multifami
ly (5+
units)
Accessory
Dwelling
Units
Single
Family
Detached Grand Total
EntitlementsVery Low- Income Deed Restricted 0 0 0
Very Low- Income Non Deed Restricted 0 0 0Low- Income Deed Restricted 0 0 0Low- Income Non Deed Restricted 0 0 0Moderate- Income Deed Restricted 0 0 0Moderate- Income Non Deed Restricted 0 0 0Above Moderate- Income 0 0 57 57 Subtotal Entitlements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 57
Building PermitsVery Low- Income Deed Restricted 30 30 0 0Very Low- Income Non Deed Restricted 0 0 0Low- Income Deed Restricted 7 7 0 0Low- Income Non Deed Restricted 0 6 6 0Moderate- Income Deed Restricted 1 1 0 0Moderate- Income Non Deed Restricted 34 34 0 0 Above Moderate- Income 0 67 67 12 57 69
Subtotal Permits 72 0 0 72 6 67 73 0 12 57 69
Certificates of OccupancyVery Low- Income Deed Restricted 0 0 0Very Low- Income Non Deed Restricted 0 0 0Low- Income Deed Restricted 0 0 0Low- Income Non Deed Restricted 0 0 0Moderate- Income Deed Restricted 0 0 0 Moderate- Income Non Deed Restricted 0 4 4 0Above Moderate- Income 0 14 14 2 34 36 Subtotal Certificates 0 0 0 0 0 18 18 0 2 34 36
Grand Total All Activities 72 0 0 72 0 6 85 91 0 14 148 162 2019 2020 2021
102
Table A-5: Affordability of Residential Construction - City of Guadalupe, Late 2015 to Early 2019 Income Range for Santa Barbara County Area Median Income Income Group Low Mid High
Extremely Low $12,000 $16,203 $20,407
Very Low $20,408 $27,210 $34,012
Low $34,012 $44,215 $54,418
Moderate $54,419 $68,023 $81,628
Above Moderate $81,628 $100,814 $120,000
Affordable Monthly Housing Expenditure @ 30% of Monthly Income Extremely Low $300 $405 $510
Very Low $510 $680 $850
Low $850 $1,105 $1,360
Moderate $1,360 $1,701 $2,041
Above Moderate $2,041 $2,520 $3,000
DJ Farms Home Price $340,000 $400,000 $470,000
Potential Mortgage (P&I) $1,786 $2,101 $2,469
DJ Farms Housing Production Cielo Collection Paseo Collection ALL Planned units 217 600 817
Price Range $340k to $400k $400k to $470k $340k to $470k Assumed Home Price $340,000 $400,000 $470,000
Potential Mortgage (P&I) $1,786 $2,101 $2,469
Construction Start Late 2015 Late 2015 Late 2015
Built by January 2019 23 107 130
Percent of Total Built 18% 82% 100%
Sample calculation of mortgage terms and payment
103
Figure A-1 DJ Farms Site Map
Source: Pasadera Homes web site: https://newpasaderahomes.com/pasadera-site-map 104
Figure A-2: Peoples’ Self-Help Housing Breaks Ground on New Affordable Housing in Guadalupe, CA Source: https://pshhc.org/medias/press_releases.html/article/2019/01/04/peoples-self-help-housingbreaks-ground-on-new-affordable-housing-in-guadalupe-ca 105
Figure A-3: Guadalupe Ranch Acres becomes Escalante Meadows Affordable Housing in Guadalupe, CA

106

107

7.2 Appendix B: Residential Land Inventory
Preparation of the 2042 Guadalupe General Plan included a complete land use inventory in 2017, which identified specific sites that are suitable for residential development. This analysis compares the City’s regional housing need allocation of 431 units with its residential development capacity. The site inventory and analysis are to help in determining whether program actions are necessary to designate sites with appropriate zoning, development standards, and infrastructure capacity to accommodate the RHNA-allocated units. Using the inventory of available land, the analysis proceeded to determine (a) the suitability of individual parcels and (b) the appropriate development densities. For the 2023 to 2031 planning horizon, the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments approved the Regional Housing Needs Allocations (RHNA) and assigned a total of 431 new housing units to Guadalupe. Table B-1 shows the distribution of the City’s allocation by income groups.

Table B-1: Summary of 2014-2022 RHNA Allocations to Guadalupe Income Group Dwelling Units Percent
Extremely Low 1 0.2%
Very Low 2 0.5%
Low 24 5.6%
Moderate 77 17.9%
Above Moderate 327 75.9%
Total 431 100.0%
Source: SBCAG, 2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan To accommodate the 431 new RHNA units, the examination focused on the development potential of vacant land that are infill sites, the approved Guadalupe Court multi-family housing project, and the DJ Farms Specific Plan area. The following paragraph describes the methodology applied to determine residential development capacity.

Residential development potential depends on the residential density standards of the City. The analysis evaluated whether site constraints and land use controls enabled the achievement of the permitted densities. First, the acreage of the parcel was multiplied by the allowable density. Fractional components on the number of units allowed under the density standards were discarded. The allowable unit calculation applied base land use densities with no assumptions about density bonuses. A parcel by parcel evaluation of any unusual site characteristics or land use controls revealed where the allowable number of residential units should adjust further downward in areas where additional constraints to development existed. Constraints that resulted in lower residential capacity included road rights-of-way, irregular lot shapes, difficulty in meeting minimum roadway frontage requirements, and existence of wetlands or drainage courses on the parcels. The methodology results in a more conservative residential capacity that takes into consideration special or unusual circumstances.

7.2.1 Vacant Land
In 2017, the City and Regional Planning Department of the California Polytechnic State University conducted a parcel-by-parcel inventory of all land within the City. The inventory revealed that 4.9 acres 108
of vacant land that is zoned for housing is available suitable to accommodate 57 housing units. Table B-2 summarizes the inventory of vacant residential infill sites within the built-up area and indicates there is opportunity for housing to suit all income segments within the community. Most of these sites, that is 40 out of 57, can accommodate low, very low, and extremely low-income housing.

Table B-2: Inventory of Vacant Residential Infill Sites in Guadalupe from Land Use Inventory [Table B-2]
Parcel
Number
Parcel
Size
General
Plan
Designation
Zoning
Designation
Density
(du per
acre)
Capacity
(dwelling
units)
Income
Group
Affordability
On-Site
Constraints
113-370-
037 0.27 Low Density R-1 6.00 1
Above
Moderate,
Moderate
Road Access
Required
115-122-
001 0.2 Low Density R-1 6.00 1
Above
Moderate,
Moderate
None
115-132-
016 0.22 Low Density R-1 6.00 1
Above
Moderate,
Moderate
None
115-201-
011 0.18 Low Density R-1 6.00 1
Above
Moderate,
Moderate
None
115-201-
012 0.17 Low Density R-1 6.00 1
Above
Moderate,
Moderate
None
115-201-
013 0.18 Low Density R-1 6.00 1
Above
Moderate,
Moderate
None
115-230-
010 0.25 Low Density R-1 6.00 1
Above
Moderate,
Moderate
None
115·082-
021 1.03 Medium Density R-2 10.00 10 Moderate, Low None 115-032-
005 0.11 High Density R-3 20.00 1
Low, Very
Low,
Extremely
low
Irregularly
shaped lot
115-034-
016 0.33 High Density R-3 20.00 6
Low, Very
Low,
Extremely
low
None
115-035-
001 0.35 High Density R-3 20.00 7
Low, Very
Low,
Extremely
low
None
115-035-
006 0.17 High Density R-3 20.00 3
Low, Very
Low,
Extremely
low
None
115-036-
002 0.12 High Density R-3 20.00 2
Low, Very
Low, None
109
[Table B-2]
Parcel
Number
Parcel
Size
General
Plan
Designation
Zoning
Designation
Density
(du per
acre)
Capacity
(dwelling
units)
Income
Group
Affordability
On-Site
Constraints
Extremely
low
115-036-
015 0.12 High Density R-3 20.00 2
Low, Very
Low,
Extremely
low
None
115-036-
018 0.17 High Density R-3 20.00 3
Low, Very
Low,
Extremely
low
None
115-102-
013 0.17 High Density R-3 20.00 3
Low, Very
Low,
Extremely
low
None
115-102-
015 0.17 High Density R-3 20.00 3
Low, Very
Low,
Extremely
low
Drainage
Crosses far
southeastern
corner of site
115-102-
016 0.17 High Density R-3 20.00 1
Low, Very
Low,
Extremely
low
Drainage
crosses site
115-102-
017 0.17 High Density R-3 20.00 3
Low, Very
Low,
Extremely
low
Drainage
crosses
southeastern
corner of site
15-102-018 0.17 High Density R-3 20.00 3
Low, Very
Low,
Extremely
low
Drainage
crosses
northwestern
corner of site
115-063-
019 0.18 High Density R-3 20.00 3
Low, Very
Low,
Extremely
low
None
The Guadalupe 2042 General Plan identified several other opportunities for housing development in the City. These include many small, vacant lots which might need some mitigation or might allow accessory dwelling units, mixed-use sites, and a large reservoir of development opportunity in the DJ Farms Specific Plan area. Figure B-1 shows the distribution of opportunity sites across the City. The next two subsections present opportunities for housing at mixed-use locations and the DJ Farms site. Table B-3 is an inventory of “other vacant lands” within the built-up area. 110
Figure B-1: Opportunities for Housing at Vacant Infill, Mix-Use, and DJ Farms Sites Source: 2017 Land Use Inventory
111
Table B-3: Other Vacant Residential Land within Built-Up Area [Table B-3] Parcel Number
Zoning
Designation
Parcel Size
(Acreage)
113-320-097 R-2 0.31
113-370-036 R-2 0.1
113-370-037 R-2 0.27
113-370-038 R-2 0.25
113-450-004 R-2 31.25
113-460-001 R-2 0.15
113-460-002 R-2 0.13
113-460-003 R-2 0.13
113-460-004 R-2 0.12
113-460-005 R-2 0.12
113-460-006 R-2 0.12
113-460-007 R-2 0.12
113-460-008 R-2 0.12
113-460-009 R-2 0.12
113-460-010 R-2 0.12
113-460-011 R-2 0.12
113-460-012 R-2 0.12
113-460-013 R-2 0.17
113-460-014 R-2 0.12
113-460-015 R-2 0.12
113-460-017 R-1 0.12
113-460-032 R-1 0.12
113-460-033 R-1 0.12
113-460-034 R-1 0.12
113-460-035 R-1 0.11
113-460-036 R-1 0.17
113-470-001 R-1 0.12
113-470-002 R-1 0.12
113-470-003 R-1 0.12
113-470-004 R-1 0.12
113-470-005 R-1 0.12
113-470-006 R-1 0.12
113-470-007 R-1 0.12
113-470-008 R-1 0.12
113-470-009 R-1 0.12
113-470-010 R-1 0.12
113-470-011 R-1 0.12
113-470-012 R-1 0.12
113-480-001 R-1 0.12
112
[Table B-3] Parcel Number
Zoning
Designation
Parcel Size
(Acreage)
113-480-002 R-1 0.12
113-480-003 R-1 0.12
113-480-004 R-1 0.12
113-480-005 R-1 0.12
113-480-006 R-1 0.12
113-480-007 R-1 0.12
113-480-008 R-1 0.12
113-480-009 R-1 0.12
113-480-010 R-1 0.12
113-480-011 R-1 0.11
113-480-012 R-1 0.14
113-480-013 R-1 0.2
113-480-014 R-1 0.18
113-480-015 R-1 0.17
113-480-016 R-1 0.12
113-480-017 R-1 0.12
113-480-018 R-1 0.12
113-480-019 R-1 0.12
113-480-020 R-1 0.12
115-031-001 R-1 0.01
115-036-012 R-1 0.19
115-041-010 R-1 0.11
115-063-002 R-1 0.1
115-063-011 R-1 0.09
115-082-009 R-1 0.09
115-102-014 R-1 0.17
115-102-022 R-1 0.36
115-153-014 Undecided 0.18
115-201-012 Undecided 0.17
115-201-013 Undecided 0.18
115-202-002 Undecided 0.18
115-230-009 Undecided 0.48
115-230-028 Undecided 1.77
115-230-030 Undecided 2.92
Total All 45.88

7.2.2 Mixed-Use Development
The updated General Plan designates mixed-use development strategically in the City’s Downtown Mixed Use District. This offers additional housing opportunities, including those for lower income 113
residents. The General Plan identified 26.22 acres of commercially-zoned land across 113 parcels to accommodate mixed-use development. The General Plan specifies maximum building intensity standards of 0.35 floor-to-area ratio (FAR) under the general vision that upper levels would be developed for residential uses and lower levels for commercial uses. Table B-4 shows that at full buildout, mixed-use area can accommodate 383 dwelling units. Conservatively assuming 20 percent buildout potential of sites zoned for general commercial use, the acreage could yield 54,874 square feet of residential development or 35 dwelling units (at approximately 1570 square feet of average unit size).

Table B-5 lists additional mixed-use opportunities beyond the vetted sites. These other sites total approximately 10 additional acres of which 6.4 acres are under temporary agricultural use and are not likely to be developed for housing.

Table B-4. Mixed-Use Development Potential
[Table B-4]
Parcel Number
Parcel
Site
(sq. ft.)
Zoning
FloorArea
Ratio
Maximum
Developable
Area (sq. ft.)
Maximum
Residential
Area (sq. ft.)
Adjusted
Potential
Dwelling
Units
On-Site
Constraints
115-092-001 23,958 G-C 0.35 8,385.30 5,618.15 9 None
115-092-003 14,810 G-C 0.35 5,183.64 3,473.04 5 None
115-092-004 10,019 G-C 0.35 3,506.58 2,349.41 3 None
115-052-007 15,246 G-C 0.35 5,336.10 3,575.19 6 None
115-051-007 19,166 G-C 0.35 6,708.24 4,494.52 7 None
115-101-001 6,970 G-C 0.35 2,439.36 1,634.37 2 None
115-052-015 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None
115-140-011 22,651 G-C 0.35 7,927.92 5,311.71 8 None
115-071-019 13,068 G-C 0.35 4,573.80 3,064.45 5 None
115-052-018 10,019 G-C 0.35 3,506.58 2,349.41 3 None
115-091-002 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None
115-091-006 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None
115-092-005 10,019 G-C 0.35 3,506.58 2,349.41 3 None
115-113-001 12,197 G-C 0.35 4,268.88 2,860.15 4 None
115-113-0Q4 7,841 G-C 0.35 2,744.28 1,838.67 3 None
115-113-005 16,117 G-C 0.35 5,641.02 3,779.48 6 None
115-071-015 11,761 G-C 0.35 4,116.42 2,758.00 4 None
115-071-018 33,977 G-C 0.35 11,891.88 7,967.56 13 None
115-072-014 2,178 G-C 0.35 762.30 510.74 0 None
115-072-015 5,227 G-C 0.35 1,829.52 1,225.78 2 None
115-072-018 11,326 G-C 0.35 3,963.96 2,655.85 4 None
115-092-016 3,485 G-C 0.35 1,219.68 817.19 1 None
115-092-017 2,178 G-C 0.35 762.30 510.74 0 None
115-092-019 6,970 G-C 0.35 2,439.36 1,634.37 2 None
115-092-023 3,485 G-C 0.35 1,219.68 817.19 1 None
115-101-003 3,485 G-C 0.35 1,219.68 817.19 1 None
114
[Table B-4]
Parcel Number
Parcel
Site
(sq. ft.)
Zoning
FloorArea
Ratio
Maximum
Developable
Area (sq. ft.)
Maximum
Residential
Area (sq. ft.)
Adjusted
Potential
Dwelling
Units
On-Site
Constraints
115-101-011 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None
115-112-002 8,276 G-C 0.35 2,896.74 1,940.82 3 None
115-121-014 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None
115-072-001 10,890 G-C 0.35 3,811.50 2,553.71 4 None
115-101-006 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None
115-112-001 56,628 G-C 0.35 19,819.80 13,279.27 22 None 115-113-006 16,117 G-C 0.35 5,641.02 3,779.48 6 None
115-101-016 20,473 G-C 0.35 7,165.62 4,800.97 8 None
115-052-009 5,663 G-C 0.35 1,981.98 1,327.93 2 None
115-072-002 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None
115-052-013 4,356 G-C 0.35 1,524.60 1,021.48 1 None
115-092-009 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None
115-092-021 10,890 G-C 0.35 3,811.50 2,553.71 4 None
115-101-005 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None
115-052-010 8,712 G-C 0.35 3,049.20 2,042.96 3 None
115-051-004 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None
115-072-010 5.227 G-C 0.35 1,829.52 1,225.78 2 None
115-091-012 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None
115-071-012 16,553 G-C 0.35 5,793.48 3,881.63 6 None
115-072-003 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None
115-092-006 10,019 G-C 0.35 3,506.58 2,349.41 3 None
115-092-024 10,890 G-C 0.35 3,811.50 2,553.71 4 None
115-121-016 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591,82 1,736.52 2 None
115-091-007 7,405 G-C 0.35 2.591.82 1,736.52 2 None
115-140-013 22,651 G-C 0.35 7,927.92 5,311.71 8 None
115-112-003 27,878 G-C 0.35 9,757.44 6,537.48 10 None
115-052-012 4,792 G-C 0.35 1,677.06 1,123.63 1 None
115-072-012 3,485 G-C 0.35 1.219.68 817.19 1 None
115-092-008 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None
115-092-018 4,792 G-C 0.35 1,677.06 1,123.63 1 None
115-101-002 3,485 G-C 0.35 1,219.68 817.19 1 None
115-112-005 12 G-C 0.35 4,116.42 2,758.00 4 None
115-052-014 11,326 G-C 0.35 3,963.96 2,655.85 4 None
115-071-002 5,227 G-C 0.35 1,829.52 1,225.78 2 None
115-071-003 3,920 G-C 0.35 1,372.14 919.33 1 None
115-071-004 6,098 G-C 0.35 2,134.44 1,430.07 2 None
115-071-005 4,356 G-C 0.35 1,524.60 1,021.48 1 None
115-072-011 2,178 G-C 0.35 762.3 510.74 0 None
115
[Table B-4]
Parcel Number
Parcel
Site
(sq. ft.)
Zoning
FloorArea
Ratio
Maximum
Developable
Area (sq. ft.)
Maximum
Residential
Area (sq. ft.)
Adjusted
Potential
Dwelling
Units
On-Site
Constraints
115-072-013 3,920 G-C 0.35 1,372.14 919.33 1 None
115-072-020 15,246 G-C 0.35 5,336.10 3,575.19 6 None
115-092-012 7,405 G-C 0.35 2.591.82 1,736.52 2 None
115-092-013 14,375 G-C 0.35 5,031.18 3,370.89 5 None
115-092-014 2,178 G-C 0.35 762.30 510.74 0 None
115-101-004 6,970 G-C 0.35 2,439.36 1,634.37 2 None
115-101-014 37,897 G-C 0.35 13,264.02 8,886.89 14 None
115-121-011 3,485 G-C 0.35 1,219.68 817.19 1 None
115-121-012 33,541 G-C 0.35 11,739.42 7,865.41 13 None
115-121-015 14,375 G-C 0.35 5,031.18 3,370.89 5 None
115-121-017 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None
115-140-001 12,632 G-C 0.35 4,421.34 2,962.30 4 None
115-052-017 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None
115-052-016 13,939 G-C 0.35 4,878.72 3,268.74 5 None
115-071-001 18,295 G-C 0.35 6,403.32 4,290.22 7 None
115-091-004 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None
115-091-005 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None
115-091-008 12,197 G-C 0.35 4,268.88 2,860.15 4 None
115-091-013 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None
115-133-004 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None
115-051-005 6,970 G-C 0.35 2,439.36 1634.37 2 None
115-052-003 4,792 G-C 0.35 1,677.06 1,123.63 1 None
115-052-Q04 4,792 G-C 0.35 1,677.06 1,123.63 1 None
115-052-005 4,792 G-C 0.35 1,677.06 1,123.63 1 None
115-052-011 5,227 G-C 0.35 1,829.52 1,225.78 2 None
115-071-014 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None
115-072-004 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None
115-072-005 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None
115-072-007 6,534 G-C 0.35 2,286.90 1,532.22 2 None
115-072-008 7,841 G-C 0.35 2,744.28 1,838.67 3 None
115-072-009 14,810 G-C 0.35 5,183.64 3,473.04 5 None
115-092-020 9,148 G-C 0.35 3,201.66 2,145.11 3 None
115-101-010 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None
115·121-018 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None
115-121-019 11,326 G-C 0.35 3,963.96 2,655.85 4 None
115-121-020 4,356 G-C 0.35 1,524.60 1,021.48 1 None
115-121-022 2,178 G-C 0.35 762.30 510.74 0 None
115-113-007 14,810 G-C 0.35 5,183.64 3,473.04 5 None
116
[Table B-4]
Parcel Number
Parcel
Site
(sq. ft.)
Zoning
FloorArea
Ratio
Maximum
Developable
Area (sq. ft.)
Maximum
Residential
Area (sq. ft.)
Adjusted
Potential
Dwelling
Units
On-Site
Constraints
115-051-006 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None
115-091-003 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None
115-092-002 11,326 G-C 0.35 3,963.96 2,655.85 4 None
115-051-009 15,246 G-C 0.35 5,336.10 3,575.19 6 None
115-052-006 7,841 G-C 0.35 2,744.28 1,838.67 3 None
115-071-016 12,197 G-C 0.35 4,268.88 2,860.15 4 None
115-071-017 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None
115-092-015 2,178 G-C 0.35 762.30 510.74 0 None
115-101-009 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None
115-101-013 30,056 G-C 0.35 10,519.74 7,048.23 11 None
115-121-021 1,307 G-C 0.35 457.38 306.44 0 None
ALL 1,142,157 160,540.38 271,816.40 383
Table B-5: Other Lots with Mixed-Use Potential
Parcel Number
Zoning
Designation Parcel Size
113-450-003 A-1 4.645
113-450-010 A-1 1.775
115-020-032 - 0.74
115-020-033 - 0.1
115-051-001 R-1 0.68
115-051-007 - 0.44
115-051-010 R-1 0.32
115-121-023 R-1 0.17
115-121-024 R-1 0.17
115-133-005 R-1 0.17
115-133-008 G-C 0.2
115-134-004 G-C 0.34
115-134-005 G-C 0.18
115-134-006 G-C 0.51
115-140-004 R-1 0.53
115-153-004 G-C 0.32
115-153-005 G-C 0.18
ALL 10.19
Note: Parcels without zoning designation are excluded from the total 117

7.2.3 DJ Farms Specific Plan
The DJ Farms Specific Plan area covers 209 acres south of West Main Street (or State Route 166) and west of Guadalupe Street (or SR 1) in the southeastern section of the City. It offers tremendous opportunity for the development of market-rate and affordable housing in addition to public facilities and commercial uses. The 2012 Specific Plan calls for the development of up to 802 housing units on approximately 145 acres. Table B-6 shows the distribution of housing densities in the DJ Farms area. The remaining acreage is for commercial uses, parks and open space, and a school. Housing opportunity at DJ Farms is so much that it alone could primarily meet the City’s above moderate regional housing need for a couple of cycles into the future even without development elsewhere in the City.

Table B-6: Housing Capacity at DJ Farms Specific Plan Area Density Land Available
(acres)
Allowable Density
(units per acre)
Capacity
(dwelling units)
Low 30 Up to 7 units/acre 123
Medium 71 Up to 8 units/acre 357
High 45 10-20 units/acre 322
Total 145 802
Source: DJ Farms Specific Plan, August 2012
The DJ Farms Specific Plan area broke ground in 2015, built and sold 130 new housing units by January 2019. As of August 2022, 363 units were built with approval for construction of 377 more.

7.2.4 People’s Self-Help Housing Project
People’s Self-Help Housing broke ground in January 2019 to add additional 37 low-income units to the Guadalupe Ranch Acres site on 11th street to be called Escalante Meadows. Table A-3b shows the distribution of units all of which are restricted to serve specified low-income categories. With the completion of this project, the City of Guadalupe met practically all its housing need allocation for the new RHNA cycle in the lower income groups.

7.2.5 Santa Barbara County Housing Authority
Escalante Meadows is the newest affordable and assisted housing project of the Santa Barbara County Housing Authority in Guadalupe, CA. It involves the demolition of 52 Public Housing units and $60M reconstruction of 80 new units through the HUD Rental Assistance Demonstration program (RAD). The existing 52 Public Housing duplex units were built in three phases beginning in the mid 1950’s and have exceeded their useful life. The redevelopment will keep the previous mix of unit types and add 28 additional units. All new buildings will be of similar garden apartment style construction. Additionally, the project will include 1,125 square feet of a maintenance building on-site.

Common area amenities will include a large children’s playground, sports court, community playground, BBQ/picnic area, bicycle racks, and raised‐bed community garden space. The covered parking will also include the installation of a photovoltaic solar system targeted to meet 100% of consumption needs.

The project will be built in accordance with the minimum requirements of the GreenPoint Rated program. Figure A-3 shows a 3-D view of the development. 118

7.2.6 Conclusions on Inventory of Residential Opportunities The 2042 General Plan has determined that Guadalupe already has enough land within its City limits to accommodate growth to 2042 and beyond. The 2042 General Plan and this 6 th Cycle Housing Element
therefore identified enough land for the construction of housing to suit households in all income groups and fulfill the City’s share of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Opportunities for housing development include vacant infill, mixed-use, and the DJ Farms sites. Other options, especially for affordable housing, exist in the built-up area for accessory (or secondary) dwelling units (also termed granny units). While Guadalupe's housing allocation can be met without exercising all these options, they present multiple opportunities for affordable and market rate housing within the City. 119

7.3 Appendix C: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

7.3.0 Legislative Basis for Fair Housing
Assembly Bill 686 passed in 2017 requiring Housing Elements to include an analysis of barriers that restrict access to opportunity and commitments from local governments to specific meaningful actions to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) that are consistent with the Federal Fair Housing Act. AB 686 mandates that local governments identify meaningful goals to address the impacts of systemic issues such as residential segregation, housing cost burden, and unequal educational or employment opportunities in as far as these issues create or perpetuate discrimination against protected classes.

Therefore, AB 686 seeks the following:
• Requires the State, cities, counties, and public housing authorities to administer programs and activities related to housing and community development in a way that affirmatively furthers fair housing;
• Prohibits the State, cities, counties, and public housing authorities from taking actions that are materially inconsistent with the AFFH obligation;
• Requires that the interpretation of the AFFH obligation be consistent with HUD’s 2015 regulation, irrespective of federal actions on the regulation; • Adds an AFFH analysis to the mandated, short-term, Housing Element that are due from the beginning of 2021; and
• Requires that the AFFH analysis in the Housing Element includes an examination of issues such as segregation and resident displacement, as well as the required identification of fair housing goals.

Effective January 1 2021, Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c)(10)(A) requires Housing Elements to include an assessment of fair housing. The discussion is to cover regional and local trends in specified topical areas. The checklist of topics for discussion includes the following five parts:

1. Part 1 Outreach and Fair Housing Enforcement

2. Part 2 Assessment of Fair Housing (in four thematic areas)

3. Part 3 Sites Inventory

4. Part 4 Identification of Contributing Factors

5. Part 5 Goals and Actions
The Assessment of Fair Housing in Part 2 is to include discussion of these four thematic areas:
a) Integration and segregation patterns and trends
b) Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty c) Disparities in access to opportunity
d) Disproportionate housing needs within the jurisdiction, including displacement risk.

The sections that follow describe and analyze these topical areas for Guadalupe.

7.3.1 Fair Housing Outreach & Enforcement

7.3.1.1 Fair Housing Outreach
This housing element is a product of broad community participation by stakeholders of Guadalupe, including residents, City Staff, the School District, Planning Commission, and City Council jointly with the 120
preparation of the General Plan and specifically for the Housing Element. Input from all segments of the community was to help assure efficient and effective evaluation, development, and implementation of appropriate housing strategies. During preparation of the update to the Housing Element, citizen and stakeholder participation was actively sought in four outreach meetings and two public meetings.

Section 1.2 provides additional information on each meeting.

A broad cross-section of residents in terms of ethnicity, income level, and occupation attended the meetings for which there were Spanish translations and versions of materials. Discussions at these workshops and meetings indicate that housing for families and farmworkers is a concern and both single-family and single-room occupancy units are desired to accommodate the need. Residents of Guadalupe also support infill development that is affordable by design in the downtown core of the City.

This update of the Housing Element captures these community aspirations for housing.

7.3.1.2 Fair Housing Enforcement
Enforcement refers to activities directed at addressing compliance with fair housing laws. Such actions may include investigation of complaints, putting remedies in place, and disseminating information related to fair housing to assure community members are well aware of fair housing laws and people’s rights. There are two key laws to foster fair housing in the State of California. They are the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. These laws cover the same protected classes of persons as federal law and also prohibit discrimination based on marital status, sexual orientation, source of income, ancestry, immigration status, citizenship, primary language, and such arbitrary factors as age or occupation.

Regional Trends and Comparisons of Fair Housing Enforcement The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development - HUD’s - Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) works toward eliminating housing discrimination, promoting economic opportunity, and achieving diverse, inclusive communities. FHEO maintains a dataset of all the Title VIII fair housing cases filed by FHEO from 01/01/2006 to 06/30/2020. Like other key data on Fair Housing, FHEO data is accessible online through the State of California’s Housing and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer.

For the purposes of this analysis, the “Guadalupe Region” extends from the City of Paso Robles and the City of Delano in the north to the City of Thousand Oaks in the south. It encompasses cities and smaller communities that are within both the central cost and the Central Valley of California and cut across the four contiguous counties of Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Kern.

Table C-1 shows the number of cases in 2010 and 2020 in the counties within the Guadalupe Region.

Results indicate that Santa Barbara County had lower frequency of total cases than two of its neighboring counties with disability bias and familial bias as the main reasons for enforcement. What may be promising is the reduction by half in cases in Santa Barbara County between 2010 and 2020, which is similar to the rate in many of the other counties in the region. It is worth noting, however, that the reduction could simply be due to a half-year of data in 2020 which, if true, would mean little to no change in the frequency of enforcement cases between the two years. 121
Table C-1: Number of Fair Housing Enforcement Cases in Counties near Guadalupe, 2010 and 2020 2010 2020
County Total
Cases1
Disability
Bias
Familial
Bias
Racial
Bias
Total
Cases1
Disability
Bias
Familial
Bias
Racial
Bias
Percent
Change
(2010-2020)
Guadalupe Region
Ventura 16 7 3 2 5 4 -69%
Santa Barbara 10 8 5 2 2 1 -50%
San Luis Obispo 4 1 3 0 4 1 3 0 0%
Kern 17 9 6 3 9 4 2 0 -47%
Region Total 47 25 12 5 23 11 7 1 -51%
Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022)
1Note: Cases may involve more than one bias category and other reasons may not be in the dataset.

Figure C-1 and Figure C-2 compare trends in the distribution of the number of FHEO cases in 2010 and 2020 respectively against State averages. The data, which is aggregated at the county level, reveals the following:
• In 2010. Santa Barbara County depicted close to an average level of frequency among counties in the State of California, similar to its neighbor, San Luis Obispo County and lower than Kern and Ventura counties.
• In 2020, Santa Barbara County again depicted close to an average level of frequency among counties in the State of California, but higher than its neighbor, San Luis Obispo County but was similar in frequency to Kern and Ventura counties.
• The pattern for Sant Barbara, therefore worsened relatively between 2010 and 2020.

Local Trends and Analysis
The data on fair housing enforcement complaints is available at the county level. And the City of Guadalupe does not keep a record of such complaints. Therefore it is not possible to analyze local trends on fair housing enforcement cases.
122
Figure C-1: Distribution of Fair Housing Enforcement Cases in Guadalupe & Region, 2010 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
123
Figure C-2: Distribution of Fair Housing Enforcement Cases in Guadalupe & Region, 2020 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
124

7.3.2 Assessment of Fair Housing
Guadalupe is a predominantly Hispanic community. In 2020, for instance, The US Census indicates 92 percent of City residents claimed Hispanic origin. The assessment of affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) discusses patterns and trends in socio-economic characteristics within the City and between the City and its region. The following subsections elaborate.

7.3.2.1 Integration and segregation patterns and trends Integration refers to the situation when groups of varied demographic or socioeconomic characteristics mix in a geographic area resulting in even or proportional distribution of the groups within the area.

Segregation is the separation of groups of varied demographic or socioeconomic characteristics into different geographic areas, resulting in uneven or disproportional distribution of the groups across geographic locations. This subsection discusses integration and segregation in the study area in terms of race and ethnic composition, populations with disabilities, household types, income groups, and trends in housing choice vouchers.

7.3.2.1-a Race and ethnic composition
The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity. Therefore, racial and ethnic composition of areas become useful considerations in analyzing housing demand, opportunity, acceptance, and other issues that relate to fairness in obtaining or keeping housing.

Regional Trends and Comparisons
Table C-2 reveals that the City of Guadalupe depicted slightly higher racial diversity than Santa Barbara County and neighboring counties in 2021. Guadalupe’s dominant racial groups were white (making up nearly half of the population), some other race (making up a quarter of the population), and two or more races (making up a fifth of the population). The shares of the white population ranged from approximately 60 percent to 80 percent among the counties in the region and therefore were noticeably higher than Guadalupe. There were clear differences in the distribution of the races between the City and the counties in the region. Table C-3 shows similar data for 2010 and confirms the persistence of the trends over the decade.

Tables C-2 and C-3 also reveal that Guadalupe is a predominantly Hispanic community. This stems partially from its high dependence on an agriculture related economic base. The difference between Guadalupe and the region is most noticeable in Hispanic origin. While approximately a quarter to half of residents in the counties within the region claimed Hispanic origin, most of the City residents or between 85 percent and 90 percent claimed Hispanic origin in 2010 and 2021, respectively. Since persons of Hispanic origin are generally considered “minorities,” one can also conclude that the City of Guadalupe is a predominantly minority community. Therefore, Guadalupe appears more integrated and less segregated in racial composition, but not so in ethnic composition in comparison to its region. 125
Table C-2: Population by Race/Ethnicity - Guadalupe City & Region, 2021 Kern County,
California
San Luis Obispo
County,
California
Santa Barbara
County,
California
Ventura
County,
California
Guadalupe city,
California
Race and Ethnicity Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Racial Distribution
White 564,183 62.30% 225,822 79.90% 294,936 65.90% 592,773 70.10% 3,959.00 48.60% Black or
African American 48741 5.40% 4,237 1.50% 8,423 1.90% 15,486 1.80% 21.00 0.30% American
Indian and Alaska
Native
8842 1.00% 2,371 0.80% 5,318 1.20% 9,584 1.10% 89.00 1.10% Asian 43812 4.80% 10,137 3.60% 24,633 5.50% 61,322 7.30% 396.00 4.90% Native
Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander
1214 0.10% 309 0.10% 656 0.10% 1,677 0.20% 94.00 1.20%
Some other
race
124,568 13.80% 12,831 4.50% 50,790 11.30% 58,603 6.90% 2,027.00 24.90% Two or more
races
114,284 12.60% 27,064 9.60% 62,895 14.10% 105,810 12.50% 1,552.00 19.10% Total
Population 905,644 100% 282,771 100% 447,651 100% 845,255 100% 8,138.00 100% Hispanic Origin
Hispanic or
Latino (of any race) 495,742 54.70% 65,588 23.20% 207,554 46.40% 366,211 43.30% 7,178.00 88.20% Not Hispanic or
Latino 409,902 45.30% 217,183 76.80% 240,097 53.60% 479,044 56.70% 960.00 11.80% All Origins 905,644 100.00% 282,771 100.00% 447,651 100.00% 845,255 100.00% 8,138.00 100.00% Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP05 Table C-3: Population by Race/Ethnicity - Guadalupe City & Region, 2010 Kern County,
California
San Luis Obispo
County,
California
Santa Barbara
County,
California
Ventura
County,
California
Guadalupe city,
California
Race and Ethnicity Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Racial Distribution
White 537,410 65.90% 223,464 84.10% 317,602 76.30% 559,845 69.20% 5,476.00 80.90% Black or
African American 45273 5.60% 5,666 2.10% 7,976 1.90% 14,532 1.80% 45.00 0.70% American
Indian and Alaska
Native
8367 1.00% 2,539 1.00% 4,162 1.00% 9,881 1.20% 78.00 1.20% Asian 32097 3.90% 8,158 3.10% 20,663 5.00% 55,733 6.90% 174.00 2.60% Native
Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander
947 0.10% 349 0.10% 804 0.20% 1,411 0.20% - 0.00%
Some other
race
159,750 19.60% 16,823 6.30% 50,387 12.10% 137,640 17.00% 856.00 12.60% Two or more
races
31,849 3.90% 8,578 3.20% 14,457 3.50% 30,038 3.70% 141.00 2.10% Total
Population 815,693 100% 265,577 100% 416,051 100% 809,080 100% 6,770.00 100% 126
Kern County,
California
San Luis Obispo
County,
California
Santa Barbara
County,
California
Ventura
County,
California
Guadalupe city,
California
Race and Ethnicity Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Hispanic Origin
Hispanic or
Latino (of any race) 388,756 47.70% 52,751 19.90% 170,439 41.00% 315,604 39.00% 5,742.00 84.80% Not Hispanic or
Latino 426,937 52.30% 212,826 80.10% 245,612 59.00% 493,476 61.00% 1,028.00 15.20% All Origins 815,693 100.00% 265,577 100.00% 416,051 100.00% 809,080 100.00% 6,770.00 100.00% Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP05 Local Trends and Analysis
Within City comparisons are between neighborhoods as discerned from residents and local officials, housing type, income, and other socioeconomic characteristics in the Guadalupe 2042 General Plan.

Figure C-3 identifies six neighborhoods within the City.

Figure C-3: 2020 Neighborhood Designations within the City of Guadalupe Source: City of Guadalupe 2042 General Plan
127
Figures C-4 and C-5 show the concentrations of persons of Hispanic ethnicity in Guadalupe and its immediate region for 2010 and 2020, respectively. It is noteworthy that the concentration is more pronounced in Guadalupe than neighboring cities.

Within Guadalupe, differences in ethnic composition varied only slightly by neighborhood in 2010. The highest concentrations (above 74 percent) existed in the predominantly residential neighborhood of Downtown, Northeast (Gularte Tract), West, and Obispo; the Pasadera neighborhood was not yet in existence. In 2020, the composition became rather uniformly high, rising between 75 percent and 100 percent of the population in all neighborhoods except the new Pasadera neighborhood, which nevertheless reflected between 50 percent and 75 percent Hispanic origin in the population. Overall, the percentage increased by census block from an average of 83 percent in 2010 to 86 percent in 2020.

Trends and Patterns
It is discernible from Tables C-2 and C-3 as well as Figures C-4 and C-5 that trends in Hispanic residency have persisted and intensified across the region. In Guadalupe, the concentration of Hispanic residents increased between 2010 and 2020 to make it a de facto Hispanic community.

Other Relevant Factors
The typical pattern in the composition of labor pools by race and ethnicity indicates a more than proportionate concentration of persons of Hispanic origin in the agricultural sector, especially in California. As a geographical center of agricultural production in the State, the Santa Maria Valley of California has a high concentration of agricultural workers. Since Guadalupe is located in the Santa Maria Valley and its economic base is predominantly agricultural, it follows reason that most of its residents are Hispanic. It is also notable that incomes are much lower in the agricultural sector than in many other sectors of the economy. The issue of affordability of housing would gain prominence in such a community. Conventional knowledge indicates that Hispanics tend to have larger families than other races in the US. The average household size in Guadalupe was 4.0 persons in 2020 compared to 2.85 in Santa Barbara County. This would suggest the need for large housing units even as the units are affordable.

Conclusion
Segregation and integration are not key issues in Guadalupe. Population data indicates steady growth which would suggest the need for a steady supply of housing. The comparatively low incomes, the youthful population, and relatively large household and family sizes could indicate the need for affordable housing to suit large families among other special needs groups. 128
Figure C-4: 2010 Concentrations of Hispanic Population by Census Block in Guadalupe Neighborhoods Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2010 Decennial Census, Table P2 129
Figure C-5: 2020 Concentrations of Hispanic Population by Census Block in Guadalupe and its Region Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census, Table P2 130

7.3.2.1-b Populations with disabilities
The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of disability. The US Census Bureau identifies persons with any one of six impairments as having a disability. The impairments may relate to hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, and independent living. Persons with disabilities may have special housing needs because of the higher health costs associated with the disability or inaccessibility and unaffordability of housing. Additionally, many persons with disability could depend on fixed incomes which could further limit housing options for them. Also, the disability status and the types of accommodations associated with them sometimes can make them victims of housing discrimination.

Regional Trends and Comparisons
Figures C-6 and C-7 show the concentrations of persons with disability by census tract in Guadalupe and its region for 2014 and 2019, respectively. The concentration measured as percent of population varied widely across the region and within Santa Barbara County. The two maps reveal that the levels of concentration in the region reduced between 2014 and 2019 compared to the respective statewide averages. Overall, the percentages of persons with disabilities were close among counties in the region but varied widely by race, age, and type of disability as Table C-4 shows.

Local Trends and Analysis
With tract-level data one could not distinguish the concentrations in populations with disability among neighborhoods within Guadalupe. Citywide, while the concentration was close to the state average in 2014, it fell below the state average in 2019.

Table C-4: Incidence of Disability in the Guadalupe Region, 2019 Sources: U.S Census Bureau, 2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S1810 Santa Barbara County, 2023 – 2031 Housing Element, Table D-6 131
Figure C-6: 2014 Concentrations of Disability Populations in Guadalupe and its Region Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
132
Figure C-7: 2019 Concentrations of Disability Populations in Guadalupe and its Region Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
133

7.3.2.1-c Household type or family status
The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of family status or household type.

Family status refers to the presence of children under the age of 18, pregnant women, or persons in the process of securing legal custody of a minor child whether by adoption or foster parenting. Household type refers to such characteristics as family or non-family groups, marriage, male or female heads, or single parenting.

Regional Trends and Comparisons
Tables C-5 and C-6 show the distribution of households and family types in the Guadalupe region in 2010 and 2019, respectively. In 2010, family households dominated across the region ranging from 78 percent in San Luis Obispo County to 90 percent in Kern County and 95 percent in Guadalupe. By 2019, family households remained dominant but reduced in shares across the board ranging from 63 percent in San Luis Obispo County to 74 percent in Kern County and 82 percent in Guadalupe.

Local Trends and Analysis
Similarly, Tables C-5 and C-6 show county-level and city-level data but revealed that Guadalupe maintained the highest share of family households among other cities in the region. Data was unavailable at the neighborhood level.

Table C-5: Distribution of Household/Family Types in the Guadalupe Region, 2010 Household/Family Type
Kern
County
San Luis
Obispo
County
Santa
Barbara
County
Ventura
County
Guadalupe
City
Total Households

802,874 252,631 406,113 812,718

7,080
Family households 90% 78% 81% 88% 95%
Married couple family 63% 60% 61% 68% 64%
Other family 27% 17% 20% 20% 31%
Male householder, no spouse
present 9% 6% 7% 7% 10%
Female householder, no
spouse present 18% 11% 13% 13% 21%
Nonfamily households 10% 22% 19% 12% 5%
Households with a male
householder 6% 11% 9% 6% 3%
1-person household 3% 5% 4% 3% 1%
2-or-more-person
household 3% 7% 6% 3% 1%
Households with a female
householder 5% 11% 10% 6% 2%
1-person household 3% 6% 5% 4% 2%
2-or-more-person
household 1% 5% 5% 2% 1%
Sources: U.S Census Bureau, 2010 Decennial Census, Table P30 134
Table C-6: Distribution of Household/Family Types in the Guadalupe Region, 2019 Sources: U.S Census Bureau, 2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Santa Barbara County, 2023 – 2031 Housing Element, Table D-9 & D-10

7.3.2.1-d Income groups
Household and family income levels are key to housing affordability. The concentration of populations of various income levels in geographic areas affect perception of wealth of residents and have implications for integration and segregation of populations. The income profiles of areas have direct relationship to issues about fair housing especially for those in lower income brackets. Ultimately, the share of income spent on housing reflects affordability for respective income groups no matter how high or low the income or whether the household owns or rents housing. Housing that requires 30 percent or more of household income is unaffordable.

Regional Trends and Comparisons
Table C-7 compares median incomes in 2010 and 2020 across the Guadalupe region. In both years, median incomes were close between Santa Barbara County and San Luis Obispo County, noticeably lower compared to Ventura County, and noticeably higher compared to Kern County. The table also reveals that lower median incomes correlated with higher levels of poverty in the population. Over the decade, median incomes grew by 16 percent in Kern County and 36 percent in San Luis Obispo County.

The percent of residents below the poverty level also increased slightly in the counties over the decade except for San Luis Obispo County where it fell by 15 percent.

Figures C-8 and C-9 show the percentages of home owners by census tract who paid 30 percent or more of their incomes on housing in 2014 and 2019, respectively. In 2014, tracts in cities within the region indicate that 20 percent to 60 percent of owners paid more than 30 percent of incomes on housing. 135
Effectively, one can conclude that home ownership was generally unaffordable across the region. In 2019, the situation improved slightly for owners across the region. One would assume that home prices fell, or incomes went up, or more wealthy persons took over much of the housing. or multiple income earners shared in the housing cost per unit.

Figures C-10 and C-11 show the percentages of renters by census tract who paid 30 percent or more of their incomes on housing in 2014 and 2019, respectively. Similarly in 2014, tracts in cities within the region indicate that 40 percent to 80 percent of renters paid more than 30 percent of incomes on housing. Effectively, one can conclude that rental housing was noticeably unaffordable in communities across the region. In 2019, the situation improved slightly for renters across the region. One would assume that home prices fell, or incomes went up, or more wealthy persons took over much of the housing, or multiple income earners shared in the rental housing cost per unit.

Table C-7: 2010 and 2020 Median Incomes and Poverty Levels in the Guadalupe Region Income and Poverty
Kern
County
San Luis
Obispo
County
Santa
Barbara
County
Ventura
County Guadalupe City
2010
Percent of Santa
Barbara County
Median income $47,089 $57,365 $60,078 $75,348 $42,978 72% Below poverty level 18% 13% 12% 8% 17%
2020
Median income $54,851 $77,948 $78,925 $89,295 $55,511 70% Below poverty level 19% 11% 12% 8% 24%
Percent change 2010 to 2020
Median income 16% 36% 31% 19% 29%
Below poverty level 7% -15% 2% 5% 45%
Sources: U.S Census Bureau, 2010 & 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S2201 Local Trends and Analysis
Data was not detailed enough to make comparisons by neighborhoods. Table C-7 reveal that Guadalupe historically depicted lower median incomes than Santa Barbara and the other counties in the region. It also depicted a higher percentage of persons living below the poverty line than the counties in the region. Over the decade, while Guadalupe’s median income increased by 29 percent, the percentage of residents living below the poverty level increased by nearly half or 45 percent.

Using Figures C-8, C-9, C-10, and C-11, the census tract within which Guadalupe falls depicted similar trends as the region. For home owners, Guadalupe was in the 20 percent to 40 percent range in 2014 and the situation improved in 2019 when less than 20 percent of owners had unaffordable housing costs. For renters, the situation was worse in 2014 when 40 percent to 60 percent of renters had to pay unaffordable cost for housing and the situation remained the same in 2019. 136
Figure C-8: Percent of Home Owners Paying >30% of Incomes on Housing, Guadalupe Region, 2014 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
137
Figure C-9: Percent of Home Owners Paying >30% of Incomes on Housing, Guadalupe Region, 2019 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
138
Figure C-10: Percent of Renters Paying >30% of Incomes on Housing, Guadalupe Region, 2014 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
139
Figure C-11: Percent of Renters Paying >30% of Incomes on Housing, Guadalupe Region, 2019 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
140

7.3.2.1-e Trends in housing choice vouchers
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) explains the housing choice voucher (HCV) program as “the federal government's major program for assisting very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. Since housing assistance is provided on behalf of the family or individual, participants are able to find their own housing, including single-family homes, townhouses and apartments.” (https://www.hud.gov/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_section_8) Public housing agencies (PHAs) receive federal funds from HUD to administer the voucher program.

Notably, participants are free to choose any housing that meets the requirements of the program and are not limited to units located in subsidized housing projects. The PHA pays a housing subsidy directly to the landlord on behalf of the participant. The family then pays the difference between the actual rent and the amount the program subsidizes. With authorization from the PHA, a participant may use the voucher to purchase a modest home under certain circumstances.

A key objective of the program is to help participants get out of poverty. Therefore, if the use of HCV concentrates participants in areas of high poverty because of low rents in those areas, then segregation into enclaves of poverty can occur and it defeats integration.

Regional Trends and Comparisons
Figure C-12 shows the locations of subsidized housing projects in the Guadalupe region in 2021. They do appear in all urbanized areas across the region and are more frequent in larger urban areas. The map reveals that subsidized housing units tended to be distributed through the respective cities in the region.

Local Trends and Analysis
Figure C-13 shows the locations of subsidized housing projects within the City of Guadalupe in 2021. The map reveals that subsidized housing units are distributed across the City instead of clustering into any particular enclave. This is consistent with the integration objective of the housing choice voucher program.
141
Figure C-12: Locations of Subsidized Housing Projects in the Guadalupe Region, 2021 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
142
Figure C-13: Locations of Subsidized Housing Projects within Guadalupe and Vicinity, 2021 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
143

7.3.2.2 Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty HUD has developed a definition of racially/ethnically-concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs). The definition combines thresholds for racial/ethnic concentration and poverty. Census tracts with extreme poverty that satisfy the racial/ethnic concentration thresholds are deemed R/ECAPs as follows:
• The threshold for racial/ethnic concentration flags R/ECAPs with concentrations of non-white populations:
o In relatively large, urbanized areas for up to Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs), which are urban centers of at least 10,000 people plus adjacent counties that are tied to the urban centers socioeconomically by commuting, census blocks with 50 percent or more of non-white populations qualify as R/ECAPS.
o In smaller areas outside of CBSAs and larger geographies which are unlikely to have racial or ethnic concentrations as high as 50 percent, the racial/ethnic concentration threshold is set at 20 percent.
• The threshold for extreme poverty typically defines neighborhoods of extreme poverty as census tracts with 40 percent or more of individuals living at or below the poverty line. Because overall poverty levels are substantially lower in many parts of the country, HUD supplements the typical with an alternate criterion. Thus, a neighborhood meets the poverty qualification for R/ECAP based on the lower of two poverty thresholds:
o If it has a poverty rate that exceeds 40 percent.
o If it is three or more times the average tract poverty rate for its metropolitan or micropolitan area.

Similarly, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) convened a group of independent organizations and research centers in February 2017 that became the California Fair Housing Task Force. TCAC and HCD charged the Task Force with the creation of an opportunity map to identify areas in every region of the State where research supports the need for positive economic, educational, and health outcomes for low-income families and especially in the long-term outcomes for children.

Regional Trends and Comparisons
Figure C-14, Figure C-15, Figure C-16, and Figure C-17 depict trends in the incidence of race and ethnic concentrations of poverty within Guadalupe and its region in 2000, 2010, 2013, and 2020, respectively.

The maps reveal that such concentrations were rare within the region. Such incidences appeared in Atascadero, (which is a city in San Luis Obispo County to the north of Guadalupe) by 2010 and remained thereafter. As of 2020, such incidences remained extremely low in Guadalupe and most of the region in comparison to the state average.
144
Figure C-14: Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty in Guadalupe & Region, 2000 Sources: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022. Decennial census (2000) 145
Figure C-15: Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty in Guadalupe & Region, 2010 Sources: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022. Decennial census (2010) 146
Figure C-16: Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty in Guadalupe & Region, 2013 Sources: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022. American Community Survey (ACS), 2009-2013 147
Figure C-17: Composite Opportunity Areas in Guadalupe & Region, 2020 Sources: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022. Original data sourced from:
https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity/2020.asp 148
Local Trends and Analysis
Available data did not show that Guadalupe’s neighborhoods had such areas of poverty from 2000 through 2020. Given that most of the population in Guadalupe is Hispanic, neighborhoods of noticeably low income could become ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, but available data did not confirm that situation. Figures C-18 and C-19 reveal that concentrations of non-Hispanic whites was low within the census blocks that make up Guadalupe neighborhoods. The most noticeable concentrations were in the downtown neighborhood in 2010. Overall, the percentage decreased by census block from an average of 11 percent in 2010 to 8 percent in 2020.

It is noteworthy that the City as a whole falls predominantly in the lower income categories. Prior to 2020, comparative median income data confirmed the need for more affordable housing in Guadalupe than some other communities in the region. Since Guadalupe depicted approximately 70 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI), it fell under the classification of a “disadvantaged community” according to the criteria of the State of California.

By 2020 after the Pasadera housing development came online with residents largely in the moderate and above moderate income brackets, median income in Guadalupe increased although it remained one of the three lowest in Santa Barbara County. With a median income in 2020 of $68,000 (81% of AMI) Guadalupe barely exceeded the 80 percent threshold to be classified as disadvantaged. Indeed, many residents remained in the lower income categories. This provides further justification for relatively more affordable housing to adequately accommodate the many lower income residents of the City.

Trends and Patterns
Figures C-14 through C-17 show that trends of minimal incidence in concentrations of poverty persisted across the region from 2000 to 2010 and beyond. It is noteworthy, however, that minority populations were generally low in the region. Guadalupe, which had a relatively higher incidence of minorities in the region, also had a dominant Hispanic population. This could create the potential for large enough concentrations of Hispanic populations who lived in poverty to meet the criteria.

Other Relevant Factors
The interplay of low incomes and higher housing costs in California than other parts of the nation mean high burdens of housing cost among households. Concentrations of poverty or not, the problem with affordability of housing is pervasive across the State.

Conclusion
Relatively low incomes vis-à-vis relatively large families and households with relatively high unemployment can lead to poverty. That is no longer the situation in Guadalupe. Household sizes are large but more families in the City are in higher income groups. The 2020 unemployment rate of 3.9 percent compared favorably to the County rate of 5.7 percent. There remains, however, many family units in the City within those income categories in need of affordable housing. The relatively homogeneous ethnic composition in Guadalupe all but eliminates the issue of poverty concentrations by racial enclaves but the City’s Hispanic dominance can create ethnic concentrations of poverty. 149
Figure C-18: Concentrations of Non-Hispanic Whites in Guadalupe Neighborhoods, 2010 Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2010 Decennial Census, Table P2 150
Figure C-19: Concentrations of Non-Hispanic Whites in Guadalupe Neighborhoods, 2020 Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census, Table P2 151

7.3.2.3 Disparities in access to opportunity
Research shows that places have independent and inter-related effects on such critical life outcomes as educational attainment, earnings from employment, and economic mobility. Different places present different levels of opportunity to achieve these critical life outcomes as well as housing choice. Mapping is a way to measure and visualize place-based characteristics linked to opportunity. Results of the analyses can inform how to target investments and policies to achieve beneficial economic, educational, health, and housing outcomes. It is noteworthy, however, that opportunity mapping has limitations since the accuracy of maps depends on the accuracy of the data which may derive from self-reported surveys of subsets of an area’s population, and sometimes may not be recorded or be reliable in some areas.

The County of Santa Barbara has determined opportunity indices based on HUD criteria. The County notes that the federal government has repealed the Federal AFFH Rule, but the data and mapping tool to aid preparation of the AFFH remains useful in determining segregation and disparities in access to opportunity. (County of Santa Barbara, 2023 – 2031 Housing Element). The definitions of various opportunity indices are as follows:
• School Proficiency: This index applies school-level data on the performance of 4th grade students on State exams to describe neighborhoods in the proximity of high-performing and low-performing elementary schools. The higher the value of the index, the higher is the quality of the school system serving the neighborhood.
• Labor Market Engagement: This index summarizes the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood based on the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment within the applicable census tract. The higher the value of the index, the higher is the labor force participation and human capital in the neighborhood. • Transit Access: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a single-parent family with three persons and income at 50 percent of the median income for renters in the region, which is defined as the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA). The higher the value of the index, the more likely it is that residents in that neighborhood would use public transit. • Transportation Cost: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a single-parent family with three persons and income at 50 percent of the median income for renters in the region, which is defined as the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA). The higher the value of the index, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood. • Proximity to Jobs: This index estimates the accessibility of a residential neighborhood as an inverse function of its distances to all job locations within a region (CBSA) and a direct function of the sizes of the employment centers. The higher the value of the index, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in the neighborhood. 152
• Environmental Health: This index summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at the neighborhood level. The higher the value of the index, the lower the exposure to toxins that are harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the index value, the better the environmental quality of the neighborhood, which is defined as a census block-group.

Regional Trends and Comparisons
Figure C-20 depicts the levels of resource availability in Guadalupe and its region in 2020. Within the Guadalupe region, population centers in northern San Luis Obispo County to the north and southern Santa Barbara County to the south feature varying levels of opportunity measured in levels of resource availability which range from low to high. Guadalupe together with Santa Maria fall to the lower end of the range with the classification of low-resource.

Figure C-20: Levels of Resource Availability in Guadalupe & Region, 2020 Sources: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022.

Educational attainment and level of training affect job opportunities a person qualifies to hold. And the number and type of new future jobs affect future housing needs. Table C-8 shows comparative 153
opportunity Indices in 2020 for School Proficiency in the four counties in the Guadalupe region (County of Santa Barbara, 2023 – 2031 Housing Element, Table D-17). Based on school-level data on the performance of 4th grade students on State exams, the indices reflect proximity of neighborhoods to high-performing and low-performing elementary schools. The higher the index, the higher the quality of the school systems.

With indices ranging from 57 to 78, San Luis Obispo County had the highest indices within the region across all races and ethnicity as well as for residents living below the poverty level with indices ranging from 60 to 80. Black and Asian or Pacific Islander residents had the highest indices while Hispanic residents had the lowest.

Kern County had the lowest indices within the region ranging from 21 to 31. For residents living below the poverty level, the index range of 13 to 29 suggests even more difficult access to education. White residents had the highest indices while Black and Hispanic residents had the lowest.

Indices for Santa Barbara County fell in the middle of the range from approximately 26 to 45 generally.

For populations below the poverty level, the range was a tad lower ranging from 20 to 45. White residents had the highest indices while Black and Hispanic residents had the lowest.

Table C-8: Comparative opportunity Indices for School Proficiency in the Guadalupe Region, 2020 Sources: HUD, 2020; County of Santa Barbara, 2023 – 2031 Housing Element, Table D-17.

Local Trends and Analysis
Different types of employment opportunities determine household incomes which in turn determine the types and sizes of housing that households could afford. Table C-9 shows indices on access to opportunity within Santa Barbara County. The indices confirm generally lower levels of opportunities for minority groups. The minority groups most noticeably disadvantaged in terms of access to opportunities are Blacks and Hispanics among the general population and among those below the poverty line. Indices 154
on transportation cost and environmental health are the two that appear most equitable in the Guadalupe area.

Table C-9: HUD Opportunity Indicators in Santa Barbara County, 2010 Sources: HUD, 2020; County of Santa Barbara, 2023 – 2031 Housing Element, Table D-16.

Table C-10 is a summary from the American Community Survey. It shows that both Guadalupe and Santa Barbara County as a whole reflected relatively similar levels of employment with approximately 95 percent of those residents in the labor force employed in 2020. Similarly, approximately 5 percent of those in the labor force were unemployed. Guadalupe, however, depicted a slight advantage in the unemployment rate. On the surface, employment status would suggest some modicum of fairness.

Nevertheless, the types of jobs and remuneration can make major differences in equality of economic opportunity.

Table C-10: Labor Force and Employment Rates - Guadalupe City vs. Santa Barbara County, 2020 Guadalupe City Santa Barbara County
Persons Percent Persons Percent

EMPLOYMENT STATUS
In Labor Force* 3,529 68% 227,159 64%
Employed 3,393 96.1% 212,400 93.5%
Unemployed 136 3.9% 12,848 5.7%
Not in Labor Force 1,669 32% 129,540 36%
All ages 16 and over 5,198 356,699
155
Guadalupe City Santa Barbara County
Persons Percent Persons Percent

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Population 25 to 64 years 3,383 208,085
Less than high school graduate 1,367 40% 41,349 20%
High school graduate (includes
equivalency) 616 18% 35,333 17%
Some college or associate degree 1,056 31% 62,513 30%
Bachelor's degree or higher 344 10% 68,890 33%
*Ages 16 and over in labor force
Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S2301 Table C-10 also shows comparative educational attainment between Guadalupe and Santa Barbara County. The differences are extreme at the lowest and highest levels of education. In 2020, a notable 40 percent of Guadalupe’s population did not graduate high school compared to half as much (20 percent) in the County. At the opposite end of the spectrum, Guadalupe had a third as much share of those with a bachelor’s degree or higher compared to Santa Barbara County as a whole. This disparity in level of education has major implications for type of employment and earning potential.

Table C-11 shows the distribution of employment by occupation in 2021 and median earnings in 2020.

The largest employment sector for Guadalupe residents was agriculture with approximately two out of every five employed residents; this compares with 6 percent in the County. Agriculture together with the natural resource group of occupations constituted the largest sector at 28 percent (compared to 13 percent in the County) followed by sales occupations at 25 percent in the City and 19 percent in the County. The third and fourth largest occupation groups in Guadalupe were service and production occupations, respectively. The four top occupation groups employed 88 percent of Guadalupe residents.

What is most notable is that those occupation groups predominantly offered the lower earning potential except for those in sales. Comparatively in the management occupations where Guadalupe had only 12 percent of its employed, the County had 38 percent of employed residents at salaries that are two times as high as similar fields for Guadalupe residents and three times as much as agriculture. With median earning at $23,171, agriculture provided nearly $8,000 more in median annual earning than the service occupation group, but it provided $42,000 lower median earning than the highest-paying sector (Management). Close examination of the distribution suggests that working residents of Guadalupe fall predominantly into occupations that pay low to mid-level salaries that are below $45,000 a year.

Housing affordability would depend on the number of income earners in households and families.

Education and job training are ways to evolve toward opportunities for higher earning ability. However, populations in Guadalupe, particularly, lagged behind in educational attainment. In 2021, for instance, 36 percent of the population in California attained a bachelor’s degree or higher. Closely mirroring the State, 33 percent of residents in Santa Barbara County attained a bachelor’s degree or higher. Notably in Guadalupe, 10 percent of its population attained that level of education. This realization suggests the need for a push to provide resources and educational classes for low-income families in Guadalupe. 156
Table C-11: Distribution of Employment by Occupation (2021) and Median Earning (2020) [Table C-11]
Occupation
Guadalupe City Santa Barbara County
Persons Percent Median
Earning Persons Percent Median Earning
Civilian employed population 16
years and over 3,400 $26,646 211,109 $35,775
Management, business, science,
and arts occupations: 407 12% $32,288 80,757 38% $65,131 Management, business, and
financial occupations: 229 7% $33,750 32,271 15% $74,050 Management occupations 177 5% $32,014 23,397 11% $79,312 Business and financial
operations occupations 52 2% $45,795 8,874 4% $64,244
Computer, engineering, and
science occupations: 28 1% - 14,346 7% $77,442
Computer and mathematical
occupations 0 0% - 6,552 3% $86,731
Architecture and engineering
occupations 17 1% - 4,954 2% $81,447
Life, physical, and social
science occupations 11 0% - 2,840 1% $53,261
Education, legal, community
service, arts, and media
occupations: 96 3% $31,389 24,162 11% $40,723
Community and social
service occupations 12 0% - 3,532 2% $44,326
Legal occupations 0 0% - 1,945 1% $91,988
Educational instruction, and
library occupations 56 2% $30,278 14,175 7% $33,044
Arts, design, entertainment,
sports, and media occupations 28 1% $67,882 4,510 2% $40,709 Healthcare practitioners and
technical occupations: 54 2% $43,125 9,978 5% $74,182
Health diagnosing and
treating practitioners and other
technical occupations 15 0% - 6,608 3% $87,490
Health technologists and
technicians 39 1% - 3,370 2% $41,632
Service occupations: 602 18% $15,167 43,154 20% $21,769 Healthcare support occupations 194 6% $18,450 8,352 4% $23,968 Protective service occupations: 78 2% $43,333 3,772 2% $60,329 Firefighting and prevention,
and other protective service workers
including supervisors 60 2% $29,167 2,261 1% $28,196
Law enforcement workers
including supervisors 18 1% - 1,511 1% $81,767
157
[Table C-11]
Occupation
Guadalupe City Santa Barbara County
Persons Percent Median
Earning Persons Percent Median Earning
Food preparation and serving
related occupations 55 2% $14,777 14,008 7% $17,195
Building and grounds cleaning
and maintenance occupations 234 7% $7,165 11,195 5% $24,857 Personal care and service
occupations 41 1% $15,709 5,827 3% $20,536
Sales and office occupations: 859 25% $41,622 39,562 19% $32,802 Sales and related occupations 387 11% $23,750 18,604 9% $27,267 Office and administrative
support occupations 472 14% $52,237 20,958 10% $35,508
Natural resources, construction,
and maintenance occupations: 938 28% $26,037 28,050 13% $29,396 Farming, fishing, and forestry
occupations 646 19% $23,171 13,101 6% $23,950
Construction and extraction
occupations 163 5% $32,027 10,511 5% $40,214
Installation, maintenance, and
repair occupations 129 4% $36,023 4,438 2% $41,277
Production, transportation, and
material moving occupations: 594 17% $26,743 19,586 9% $29,563 Production occupations 152 4% $26,902 7,365 3% $35,135
Transportation occupations 119 4% $30,865 5,870 3% $31,601 Material moving occupations 323 10% $25,898 6,351 3% $23,797 Note: empty cells [ - ] indicate unavailable data
Sources: U.S Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S2401 (Occupations); U.S Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B24011 Trends and Patterns
Guadalupe’s location within reach of labor markets to the north and south in addition to its agriculture and production opportunities have enable it to maintain the trend of relatively low unemployment over time. Lower than typical educational attainment, minimal opportunities to improve skills in the City through education and training, and the necessity to work long hours to make reasonable income spell confinement to lower income jobs for residents of Guadalupe.

Other Relevant Factors
The situation in Guadalupe would more often than not lead to lower ability to earn higher incomes and the perpetuation of the need for affordable housing for the lower-income groups.

Conclusion
Many households in the City within the lower income categories would continue to need affordable housing. The relatively homogeneous ethnic composition in Guadalupe all but eliminates the issue of disparities in opportunities by racial enclaves but can emphasize such a phenomenon in terms of ethnicity.
158

7.3.2.4 Disproportionate housing needs with displacement risk Residential displacement may be defined as “the process by which a household is forced to move from its residence or is prevented from moving into a neighborhood that was previously accessible to them because of conditions beyond their control” (UC Berkley Urban Displacement Project). Factors that can trigger residential displacement include redevelopment of previously affordable areas to higher cost units and general increase in housing costs.

The Urban Displacement Project’s (UDP) Estimated Displacement Risk (EDR) model for California identifies varying levels of displacement risk for low-income renter households in all census tracts in the state from 2015 to 2019. The EDR uses machine learning and household level data to predict displacement. To create the EDR, UDP joined data from the following multiple sources:
• Household-level data from Data Axle (formerly Infogroup); • Tract-level data from the 2014 and 2019 5-year American Community Survey; • Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) data from various sources compiled by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD); • Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) data; and
• The Environmental Protection Agency’s Smart Location Database.

UDP uses a machine learning model to determine the variables that most strongly relate to displacement at the household level. A machine learning model is a computer algorithm that is trained with a set of data to recognize certain types of patterns. Then the UDP uses model parameters to predict tract-level displacement risk statewide while controlling for the region. UDP models displacement risk as the net migration rate of three separate income categories of renter households:

1. Extremely low-income (ELI), which are households with incomes from 0% to 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI);

2. Very low-income (VLI), which are households with incomes from 30% to 50% of AMI; and

3. Low-income (LI), which are households with incomes from 50% to 80% of AMI.

The model classifies census tracts with predicted net losses within these groups as experiencing any of three levels of displacement labeled as elevated, high, or extreme. The output also includes a category, termed “At Risk of Displacement,” in tracts that might be experiencing displacement.

Regional Trends and Comparisons
Figure C-21 shows estimated levels of displacement risk in Guadalupe and its region. While the full range of displacement risks exist in the larger cities of San Luis Obispo to the north, Santa Maria to the east, and Lompoc to the south, there are noticeable pockets of areas across the region that have the classification, “at risk of displacement.” This means the model estimates potential displacement or risk of displacement of the given population in the tracts with this classification.

Local Trends and Analysis
According to Figure C-21, the City of Guadalupe notably has the classification of “1 income group displacement”. This means one of the income groups in the census tract is likely to experience 159
displacement risk. Consequently, some of the neighborhoods could have small pockets of displacement within their boundaries.

Figure C-21: Levels of Displacement Risk in Guadalupe & Region, 2019 Sources: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022.
160
There are no development proposals in the Guadalupe General Plan and its housing section that would cause disproportionate housing needs within the jurisdiction or create the risk of displacing segments of the population. On the contrary, development proposals promote a variety of type and cost of housing in the form of mixed-use, ADU, and medium-income housing. The exception to this observation is difficulty in producing sufficient variety of housing to meet the allocation within every affordability group. The RHNA process determines the allocation within affordability groups at the regional level while considering the needs of the City and the larger region within which Guadalupe resides.

Trends and Patterns
Figure C-22 compares trends over the previous decade in vacancy rates within Guadalupe and Santa Barbara County. Guadalupe has hovered close to and sometimes dipped below the 5 percent vacancy rate commonly adjudged healthy for communities. The County has also maintained relatively low vacancy rates consistently at 7 percent of the housing stock. The relatively tight housing market within and outside Guadalupe in terms of available units is a condition that can trigger competitive bidding and ultimately displacement risk especially for those in the lower income brackets.

Review of the previous housing elements reveals that Guadalupe has a progressively good record of accomplishment in meeting its allocated housing needs and most consistently in taking care of the need in the lower income groups. The following paragraphs illustrate.

The 2009-to-2014 RHNA cycle straddled a period of weak recovery from the economic recession period, which began in December 2007 as a result of a crisis that subprime mortgages and the resulting housing bubble in previous years induced. The housing market correction that followed busted the housing bubble and the United States entered a severe economic recession. Although a recovery began in 2009, it was weak resulting in an erratic, slow, and uneven growth in jobs and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) through 2015. As a result, construction of new housing units halted in the City of Guadalupe during that housing cycle. The City saw the production of 3 new housing units in the above moderate income category.

During Guadalupe's 5th Cycle (2015 to 2023), the DJ Farms Specific Plan area broke ground in 2015, built and sold 130 new housing units by January 2019 and a total of 363 by the end of 2022. The units fell primarily in the moderate and above moderate-income categories. By the end of the cycle, the City fulfilled more than its share of RHNA allocations of 50 units for the planning period in all the income categories. Appendix A has additional details.

The City of Guadalupe adopted its 5th Cycle Housing Element on May 24, 2016 and submitted it to HCD for review on June 9, 2016. While HCD found the adopted housing element to be in full compliance with State housing element law (GC, Article 10.6), it was nevertheless late and triggered the requirement [Senate Bill 375, (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008), amended GC Section 65588(e)(4)] to revise its element every four years until adopting at least two consecutive revisions by the applicable due dates. Therefore the due date for the City to revise its subsequent housing element was February 15, 2019. 161
Figure C-22: 2010 to 2021 Trends in Housing Vacancy in Guadalupe and Santa Barbara County Sources: U.S Census Bureau, 2010, 2015, 2019, 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B25002 162
During the period of the 2019 to 2027 Housing Element, Guadalupe recorded the construction of 270 additional units mainly in the moderate and above moderate income brackets. Table C-12 summarizes progress in achieving quantified objectives under the 5th Cycle. The City exceeded housing production in both the lower income and moderate income categories. It is most notable that the pressure on demand for housing in the region also enabled the production of twelve times as many above moderate units as allocated under the 5th Cycle.

Table C-12. Progress in Achieving Quantified Objectives (All Incomes) in 2015-2023 Housing Element
Income Category
Quantified
Objective Completed Progress Future
(Allocated 5th
Cycle Dwelling
Units)
(Completed
2015 to 2019)
(Completed
2019 to 2022)
Total
Completed in
5th Cycle
Percent of 5th
Cycle RHNA
Completed
(Dwelling Units
Pending
Construction)
RHNA
Allocation New Construction
Extremely low 5 2 4 6 120% 0
Very Low 7 1 26 27 386% 0
Low 8 1 7 8 100% 0
Moderate 13 23 131 154 1185% 40
Above Moderate 17 107 102 209 1229% 284
Total 50 134 270 404 808% 320
00 – Accessory Dwelling Units
00 – People’s Self-Help Housing Project
00 – Pasadera Housing Development
Sources: City of Guadalupe Planning Department; SBCAG, 2014-2022 RHNA Allocations.

Other Relevant Factors
Closely related to the risk of displacement are the price and availability of the housing stock. The housing vacancy rate depicts the availability, which reflects the relationship between housing supply and demand. For example, if the demand for housing is greater than the available supply, then the vacancy rate would be very low, and the price of housing would most likely increase. A low overall vacancy rate that indicates high demand and short supply of housing may result in overcrowding and ultimately unsafe, unsanitary, or otherwise unsuitable accommodations. When low vacancy results in high prices of homes and rentals, the effect is most severe on lower income households, people on fixed incomes, families with children, and other special-need groups. Housing discrimination could occur when the rental vacancy rate is low. And the risk of displacement could increase most notably to lower income households.

The vacancy rate also indicates whether a community has an adequate housing supply to provide choice and mobility. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) indicates that a vacancy rate of 5 percent is enough to provide choice and mobility. The vacancy rate in Guadalupe over the previous decade ranged from 3 percent during an economic boom to 6 percent in 2010 in the aftermath 163
of the housing market crash of the mid-2000s. The data reveal that the City has been typically near the recommended vacancy rate of 5 percent, which would indicate that Guadalupe residents have somewhat of a limited housing choice and mobility and could be susceptible to displacement risks that low vacancy rates could trigger. Small numbers of homeless populations are known to exist in the City.

Conclusion
While there are no development proposals in the General Plan and its housing section that would cause disproportionate housing needs within the jurisdiction or create the risk of displacing segments of the population, the City has been typically close to the recommended vacancy rate of 5 percent, which would indicate that Guadalupe residents have somewhat of a limited housing choice and mobility and could be susceptible to the displacement risks that low vacancy rates could trigger. While such risks may be greater for households in the lower-income segments from price competition, the City has steadfastly kept the production of lower-income housing at par with its allocations over the previous two cycles. And the incidence of homelessness is rare in the City.

7.3.3 Sites Inventory
Appendix B has details on residential land inventory. Preparation of the Guadalupe General Plan included a complete land use inventory in 2017, which identified specific sites that were suitable for residential development. The site inventory and analysis helped in determining whether program actions are necessary to designate sites with appropriate zoning, development standards, and infrastructure capacity to accommodate the RHNA-allocated units. Using the inventory of available land, the analysis proceeded to determine (a) the suitability of individual parcels and (b) the appropriate development densities. For the 2023 to 2031 planning horizon, the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments approved the Regional Housing Needs Allocations (RHNA) and assigned a total of 431 new housing units to Guadalupe.

7.3.3.1 Location and Affordability of Sites
The 6th-Cycle, 2023 to 2031 Housing Element, narrowed its focus on the location and affordability of new housing development onto the historically compact city limits as the most accessible and most location-efficient area for relatively short-term housing development. Table B-4 in Appendix B is an inventory showing vacant parcels with residential development opportunities in the downtown area.

Parcels that are vacant and designated for housing development can accommodate housing units for households with incomes that are below moderate and moderate.

For mixed-use development, the Housing Element designates mixed-use development at such strategic locations as the City’s historic downtown. This offers additional housing opportunities for a range of income groups, including those for lower income residents. The General Plan identified 2.7 acres of vacant land downtown to accommodate mixed-use (housing and commercial) development for low, very low, and moderate-income housing. Anticipated to be high density residential units, housing in the mixed use development can accommodate 35 additional housing units. Figure B-2 of Appendix B 164
identifies parcels designated for mixed-use development in the City’s historic downtown, replacing the previous General Commercial zoning designation.

For accessory dwelling units, residential lots with potential to comfortably develop affordable accessory dwelling units (ADU) have the potential to generate 28 such units across 31 acres of single-family homes mostly east of Downtown and in the Gularte Tract. Table B-6 of Appendix B is an inventory of those lots while Figure B-2 of Appendix B identifies parcels with ADU potential.

For moderate and above moderate housing the Pasadera development has the capacity to accommodate those types of units. Additionally, the General Plan has identified capacity across the City to accommodate a total of 639 dwelling units of various densities and price points.

The analysis points to the conclusion that the number of units possible in the downtown area, the location of sites, and the affordability of units to build can accommodate lower, moderate, and above moderate income RHNA allocations and result in a favorable assessment of fair housing in Guadalupe.

The sites would not raise issues with integration and segregation within the City nor would they foster racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty due to the City’s predominant Hispanic ethnicity.

Rather than reduce areas of opportunity, the sites hold the promise of expanding convenience of access and filling gaps in any disproportionate housing needs of the past including the risk of displacements for lower income households.

7.3.3.2 Improvement or Exacerbation of Conditions by Sites The concentration of new housing within the city limits of Guadalupe and the diversity of housing types proposed in the area are to assure location efficiency in terms of development cost since utilities are already present or within short extensions to the units to be developed. The cost of land would be minimal, if any, for mixed-use and ADUs which together with other location advantages can deliver affordable units of different sizes. Public transit already serves the City and is proposed under the Circulation Element of the General Plan to be routed through the City for increased accessibility to this transportation alternative. The increase in intensity of development together with the mixture of residential and commercial uses in the City would facilitate the use of non-motorized modes thereby reducing living costs for residents and indirectly expanding the abilities of those at the margins to afford housing in higher price ranges if they so choose.

The analysis points to the conclusion that instead of exacerbating conditions for each of the fair housing areas, the concentration of housing under the 6th Cycle within City limits, can enhance the affordability of units to build, accommodate lower, moderate, and above moderate income RHNA allocations, and result in a favorable assessment of fair housing in Guadalupe. The compactness of the City would not raise issues with integration and segregation within the City nor would it foster racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty. Rather than reduce areas of opportunity, the compactness holds the promise of expanding convenience of access and filling gaps in any disproportionate housing needs of the past including the risk of displacements for lower income households. 165

7.3.4 Identification of Contributing Factors
Among the factors that could contribute to high cost, environmental risk, and environmental justice concerns in relation to fair housing issues in a community are: (a) the presence of hazardous waste and (b) toxic release. For the City of Guadalupe, however, all indications are that these two factors are not major issues although much of the new housing is to go into a largely built-up area. There are, therefore, no other known contributing factors to fair housing in Guadalupe.

According to data from the Cal Enviro Screen site, Guadalupe had little hazardous waste in its central city area. Similarly, data from the Cal Enviro Screen site via the HCD AFFH Data Viewer indicate that the City had minimal toxic release in its City limits. Figure C-23 depicts the incidence of toxic release within Guadalupe. Compared to the State average, Guadalupe fell in the lowest category. 166
Figure C-23: 2022 Incidence of Toxic Release by Census Tract in Guadalupe Sources: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
167

7.3.5 Goals and Actions
Goal 6 of the 6th Cycle Housing Element and associated policies and programs consolidate actions toward affirmatively furthering Fair Housing. This section repeats the relevant policy statements.

Goal 6: Equal access to sound, affordable housing for all persons regardless of race, creed, age or sex.

Policies:

Pol-6.2. Enforce the policies of the State Fair Employment and Housing Commission.

Programs:

Prg-6.1. Continue to provide information in English and Spanish from the Housing Authority and Department of Equal Housing and Employment about housing and tenant rights in City Hall.

Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Readily available information about equal opportunity to housing Prg-6.2. Cooperate with neighboring jurisdictions and local organizations that sponsor workshops on fair housing laws and how those who are victims of discrimination can address their grievances including referrals of persons experiencing discrimination in housing for legal assistance.

Responsibility: All City Departments
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome. Minimization of housing discrimination Prg-6.3. Notify such stakeholders as Self-Help Enterprises, Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara, California Rural legal Assistance, and churches as well as post notices at public venues prior to public meetings for amendments or updates to the housing element.

Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Ongoing
168
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome. Flexibility and attractiveness of multifamily housing sites for production of affordable units
Prg-6.5. Evaluate the municipal code on the design review permit process and amend to include refinement of design guidelines that establish objective design standards and define required findings on terms like “compatibility” and “harmony” to reduce subjectivity and thereby address potential constraints or impacts on certainty about the City’s expectations on design.

7.4 Appendix D: Development Fees
This appendix presents a master list of fees, which combines common planning department fees with a master schedule of development fees in Guadalupe. City Council Resolution adopted the 2022-2023 Master Fee Schedule. Requested services not covered by the Master Fee Schedule are to be charged actual costs at full cost recovery and might require a deposit. Where:

Full cost recovery = actual cost + 35% Administrative Overhead Table D-1: Consolidated List of Fees in Guadalupe
[Table D-1] Item Current Fee Proposed Fee Increase
Annexation Deposit $12,500 Deposit $12,500 $0
Building Permit Fee required by CBC Fee required by CBC Certificate of Compliance Deposit $750 Deposit $750 $0
City Council Conceptual Review Fee $900 Fee $968 $68
Coastal Development Permit Deposit $1,000 Deposit $1,000 $0 CUP/DRP - major (by determination of Planner) Deposit $3,500 Deposit $3,500 $0 CUP/DRP - minor Deposit $1,500 Deposit $1,500 $0
CUP/DRP- home occupation permit Fee $298 Fee $320 $22
EIR Addendum Deposit $7,500 Deposit $7,500 $0
EIR or Supplemental EIR Deposit $25,000 Deposit $25,000 $0 Environmental Clearance Review - Major (by determination of Planner) Deposit $1,000 Deposit $1,000 $0
Environmental Clearance Review - Minor Deposit $500 Deposit $500 $0 Environmental: Negative Declaration - Complex (Mitigated Negative Declaration) Deposit $3,500 Deposit $3,500 $0
Environmental: Negative Declaration - Simple Deposit $1,500 Deposit $1,500 $0 General Plan Amendment - major (by determination of
Planner) Deposit $8,000 Deposit $8,000 $0
General Plan Amendment - minor Deposit $4,000 Deposit $4,000 $0 General Plan Amendment & Zone Change - major (by
determination of Planner) Deposit $15,000 Deposit 15,000 $0 General Plan Amendment & Zone Change - minor Deposit $10,000 Deposit 10,000 $0 Grading Permit Fee required by CBC Fee required by CBC
Landscape Plan Check - major (by determination of Planner) Deposit $800 Deposit $800 $0 Landscape Plan Check - minor Deposit $400 Deposit $400 $0 Lot Line Adjustment Deposit $1,500 Deposit $1,500 $0
Lot Merger Deposit $750 Deposit $750 $0
Map: Final Map Deposit $7,500 Deposit $7,500 $0
Map: Preliminary Parcel Map Deposit $1,000 Deposit $1,000 $0 Map: Preliminary Track Map Deposit $2,000 Deposit $2,000 $0 Map: Tentative Parcel Map Deposit $3,000 Deposit $3,000 $0 Map: Tentative Track Map Deposit $5,000 Deposit $5,000 $0 Mitigation Monitoring Deposit $1,250 Deposit $1,250 $0
Planned Development - minor Deposit $3,000 Deposit $3,000 $0 Planned Development- major (by determination of Planner) Deposit $6,000 Deposit $6,000 $0 Pre-Application Review - major (by determination of Planner) Deposit $2,500 Deposit $2,500 $0 Pre-Application Review - minor Fee $394 Fee $424 $30
170
Public Facility and Traffic Impact Fees (per annexation lot) Fixed Fee $800 Fixed Fee $800 $22 Public Facility and Traffic Impact Fees (per subdivision lot) Fixed Fee $300 Fixed Fee $300 $22 Public Improvement Plan Checking (per single lot) Fixed Fee $290 Fixed Fee $290 $22 Public Improvement Plan Checking (per subdivision) Fixed Fee $1,460 Fixed Fee $1,460 $22 Sewer connection fee (per multi-family unit) Fixed Fee $2,361 Fixed Fee $2,361 $22 Sewer connection fee (per single family unit) Fixed Fee $3,542 Fixed Fee $3,542 $22 Sign Permit - minor Fee $135 Fee $145 $10
Sign Permit-major (requiring Council approval) Deposit $600 Deposit $600 $0 Specific Plan - Development Agreement Deposit $10,000 Deposit 10,000 $0 Specific Plan - New Deposit $8,000 Deposit $8,000 $0
Specific Plan - Revision or Amendment Deposit $4,000 Deposit $4,000 $0 Sphere of Influence Adjustment Deposit $5,000 Deposit $5,000 $0 Temporary Use Permit Deposit $500 Deposit $500 $0
Time Extension or Appeal Fee $687 Fee $739 $52
Variance Deposit $1,500 Deposit $1,500 $0
Water Connection Fee (based on the diameter of the service line)
Fixed Fee Fixed Fee
$22
Zoning Clearance - change in use only Fee $180 Fee $194 $14 Zoning Clearance - home business application Fee $180 Fee $194 $14 Zoning Clearance - new multi-family residential or
commercial Fee $478 Fee $514 $36
Zoning Clearance - new single family residential Fee $298 Fee $320 $22 Zoning Code Change - major (by determination of Planner) Deposit $7,500 Deposit $7,500 $0 Zoning Code Change - minor Deposit $5,000 Deposit $5,000 $0 Zoning Code Text Amendment Deposit $2,500 Deposit $2,500 $0 Zoning: Additional Reviews for All Zoning Clearances are billable at full cost recovery
Full Cost Recovery Full Cost Recovery
Any requested services not covered by the Master Fee Schedule will be charged actual costs at full cost recovery.

Full cost recovery= actual cost + 35% Administrative Overhead . A deposit may be required. 171
Other Building Related Fees
Water & Wastewater Connections* Current Fee Proposed Fee Increase Water Connections -- Res. & Non-Res.

0.75" meter $2,905 $3,138 $233

1.0" meter $3,269 $3,531 $262

1.5" meter $4,359 $4,709 $349

2.0" meter $8,717 $9,415 $699

3.0" meter $11,623 $12,555 $932

4.0" meter $16,226 $17,527 $1,301

6.0" meter $28,332 $30,603 $2,271

8.0" meter
Wastewater Connections -- Residential
$39,231 $42,376 $3,145
Single Family (per unit) $4,359 $4,709 $350
Multi-Family (per unit) $2,905 $3,138 $233
Hotel
Base plus $4,359 $4,709 $350
Per Room $2,421 $2,615 $194
Wastewater Connections -- Non-Residential

0.75" water meter $4,359 $4,709 $349

1.0" water meter $4,905 $5,298 $393

1.5" water meter $6,537 $7,061 $524

2.0" water meter $13,076 $14,124 $1,048

3.0" water meter $17,273 $18,658 $1,385

4.0" water meter $25,039 $27,046 $2,007

6.0" water meter $42,497 $45,903 $3,407

8.0" water meter $58,841 $63,558 $4,717
* Water connection charges are set following the provisions of Municipal Code 13.04.020.C Wastewater connection charges are set following the provisions of Municipal Code 13.12.250.B These code sections established charges in January, 1994 and allowed for annual increments based on the Engineering News Construction Cost Index.

The New Fees above use the 2021 October Engineering Construction Cost Index Amounts shown represent the fee for connecting to City utilities, not the cost of installing the water or wastewater connection.
172
Special Water Connection Fees* Current Fee Proposed Fee Increase Water Connections where no meter required -- 13.04.020.C Single family residence
Duplex
Three family dwelling or apartment
Each apartment in excess of three, add
Business establishment (5,000 sq. ft. or less)
Business establishment (5,001 sq. ft. or more)
Note: City's standard practice is to require a meter
for all connections.

Water Connections outside City limits -- 13.04.050
Per lot
Annexation required
Developer pays cost of extension of water main
$2,905 $3,138 $233
$2,905 $3,138 $233
$3,269 $3,531 $262
$1,079 $1,165 $86
$3,269 $3,531 $262
Use meter size for Use meter size for
comparable business comparable business
Per Development Per Development Varies
Agreement or Agreement or
per City's regular per City's regular
Connection Fee table Connection Fee table
Yes Yes NA
Yes Yes NA
* Replaces by Resolution fees formerly set by Ordinance. 173
Per Development
Specific fees in this table were in the Municipal Code.

Same fee is now being established by Resolution.

Further financial analysis must take place before City can increase these fees.

Other Impact Fees Current Fee Proposed Fee Increase
Park Development Fee (3.28.060)
Each residential dwelling unit $150
Per Development
Agreement or
$150 $0
(includes homes, apartments, & condos)
Hotels & motels
Per unit (including manager's quarters) $75 $75 $0
Industrial buildings
per square foot of floor area $0.10 $0.10 $0
All other uses (includes retail, commercial, service)
per square foot of floor area
Public Facilities Fee (13.16.040)
Annexation fee (per acre or portion thereof)
Subdivision fee (per subdivided lot)
Building fee (per square foot of floor area)
$0.10 $0.10 $0
$800
$800
$0
$300 $300 $0
$0.10 $0.10 $0
174
255.674
Special Fees Related to Business Taxes, Licenses, and
Regulations (Title 5 of Muni. Code)* Current Fee Proposed Fee Increase See Municipal Code 5.04 for Business License Fees
Special Fees set elsewhere in the Municipal Code
Astrology and Fortune Telling Permit -- 5.16.030
Auctioneer's Permit -- 5.16.030
$18 $19 $1
$120 $129 $9
Permit for Jewelry Sales at Public Auction -- 5.20.140 , 5.20.170, & 5.20.200 Fee (first 30 days) $120 $129 $9
Each additional 30 days $60 $65 $5
Investigation of applicant Full Cost Recovery Full cost recovery Deposit $300 $323 $23
Bingo Permits (non-profit organizations) -- 5.24.030
One day $30 $32 $2
Annual $300 $323 $23
Annual renewal $300 $323 $23
Cable Television Application Fee -- 5.28.030.A.6
To cover cost of City staff review Full cost recovery Full cost recovery (Deposit of $2,500) (Deposit of $2,500)
Cardroom Work Permit (each person)-- 5.32.080.E
Business permit = $500/business + $200/table (5.32.050) $241 $259 $18
Coin-Operated Machine Permits -- 5.36.030
Mechanical music machine (per quarter) $30 $32 $2
Game machine (per quarter) $60 $65 $5
Vending machine (per quarter) $12 $13 $1
Public Dance Permit -- 5.40.060.A
Per public dance $30 $32 $2
Maximum fee per location per year $241 $259 $18
Farmers Market Permit -- 5.51.090 $144 $155 $11
175
GMC section 9.22.370 Current Fee Proposed Fee Increase
Cannabis Fee Schedule
$3,013
$19,904
$1,600
Community Benefit Agreement
Annual Regulatory Fee
Pre-License Site Inspection
* Replaces by Resolution fees formerly set by Ordinance.

Any requested service not covered by Master Fee Schedule will be charged actual cost at full cost recovery.

Full cost recovery = direct cost (personnel time & materials) + 35% overhead 176
Code Compliance & Collections Current Fee
Code Compliance Efforts -- Hourly personnel rate Full cost recovery* Collection Efforts -- Hourly personnel rate Full cost recovery* Stage 1 - Internal Compliance Proceeding
Stage 2 - Hearing /Court Proceeding
Full cost recovery*
Full cost recovery*
Late payment fee 10% of balance due
($10 minimum)
Citation & Fines may apply: Fines per Municipal Code 1.08.020 1st violation: Up to $100 per offense per day
2nd violation: Up to $200 per offense per day
3rd violation: Up to $500 per offense per day
*Full cost recovery = direct cost (personnel time & materials) + 35% overhead See Schedule of Hourly Personnel Rates for current personnel time costs Includes City employees & independent contractors
177
Short Term Rentals Current Fee
Initial Registration Fee $180
Annual Renewal Fee $180
Administrative Use Permit Application $394
see Ordinance No. 2021-497 for Short Term Rentals, approved Aug. 12, 2022. 178

8.0 References
California Department of Housing and Community Development. (2022). AFFH Data Viewer City of Guadalupe. (2019). 2019-2027 Housing Element
City of Guadalupe. (2016). 2015-2027 Housing Element
City of Guadalupe. (2023). Zoning Ordinance
City of Guadalupe. (2023). Master Schedule of Fees
City of Guadalupe. (2006). DJ Farms Revised Specific Plan EIR City of Guadalupe. (2014). Wastewater System and Treatment Master Plan City of Guadalupe. (2017). Background Report: Land Use Inventory City of Guadalupe. (2022). Guadalupe 2042 General Plan
Pasadera Homes. (n.d.). DJ Farms Development web site: https://newpasaderahomes.com/pasaderasite-map Santa Barbara County Association of Governments. (2023). Regional Housing needs Allocation for 2023- 2031
Santa Barbara County Association of Governments. (2013). Regional Housing needs Allocation for 2014- 2022
Santa Barbara County. (2023). 2023 – 2031 Housing Element, Santa Barbara County. (2016, 2017). Agricultural Production Report:
https://countyofsb.org/uploadedFiles/agcomm/Content/Other/crops/2017.pdf State of California Employment Development Department. (2017). Protected Job Growth by Occupation from 2014 to 2024 in the Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta Metropolitan Statistical Area State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning Research (OPR). (2019, 2003). General Plan Guidelines.

Sacramento, CA. www.opr.ca.gov/
United States Census Bureau. (2015). On-The-Map Tool of the Longitudinal Employer Household Dynamics
United States Census Bureau. (2006-2010, 2011-2015, 2016-2020). American Community Survey. 5-Year Estimates. Table 2301; Table B11016; Table B17013; Table B19013; Table B24011; Table B25007; Table B25009; Table B25014; Table B25020; Table B25031; Table B25056; Table B25058; Table B25074; Table B25095; Table B25109; Table DP03; Table DP03; Table DP04; Table DP-4; Table H1; Table H2; Table HCT012; Table S0101; Table S1810; Table S1901; Table S2401; Table S2501 United States Census Bureau. (1990, 2000, 2020). Decennial Census. SF3 Table PF1 United States Census of Agriculture. (2012). Census Volume 1 Chapter 2. County Level Data. Table 7 Victoria Transport Policy Institute. (2008). Transportation Demand Management. http://www.vtpi.org!tdm!tdm4S.htm

Page 1 of 4 ends

Guadalupe City CouncilJuly 11, 2023

Guadalupe City Council
July 11, 2023