Guadalupe City Council
April 23, 2024

4.1.5 Accessory Dwelling Units
Amendments to the Guadalupe Municipal Code between in August 2017, and January 2019, and December, 2023 include revised Chapter 18.53 of January 28, 2019the Code on “ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS”. The Municipal Code formerly titled this chapter, “SECONDARY HOUSING UNITS.” The revamped 74 chapter is intended to comply with the latest provisions of State law (Government Code Section 65852.2), and to implement the policies in the City's 2042 General Plan and the Housing Element. The update allows accessory dwelling units (ADU) and Junior ADUs (JADU) through ministerial review in all Residential Districts, subject to certain requirements and standards, which include:
• An attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as a primary dwelling unit. • 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 multi-room permanent structure.
• The minimum total square footage of the accessory dwelling unit shall be 150 square feet (suitable for an efficiency unit) and the maximum size shall be no more than 1,200 square feet. • “Junior ADU” means a unit which is no more than 500 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.
• All lots that are zoned residential (R-1, R-1 (SP), R-1M, R-2, and R-3) and are occupied with one single family dwelling unit or are vacant with approved plans for the construction of a singlefamily dwelling unit can have ADU. • 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.
• The code allows rental of ADUs but places some restriction on those in the R-1 zone where the owner must occupy either the primary dwelling unit or the ADU. However, the code permits exceptions to the owner-occupied requirement on a case-by-case basis when the Zoning Administrator or designee determines that the purpose of the owner-occupancy requirement is met even though the property owner does not reside in either the primary residence or the ADU.
• The unit may not be sold separately from the primary dwelling unit.

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.e.g., basement) 75 or an existing accessory structure (e.g.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.

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.

Recent updates to ADU requirements in the Municipal Code have not posed constraints to ADU production. ADU activity in Guadalupe over the four-year period between November 2019 and November 2023 surged to 80 including 53 completely constructed units, 21 units approved but not completed, and 6 in the planning process. At this rate, Guadalupe is on track to produce approximately a dozen ADUs per year. Final records showed that the City processed 38 building permit applications for ADUs and issued 26 occupancy clearances for ADUs during calendar year 2023. Therefore, applications for ADUs accounted for over 57 percent of the total applications for new housing during the year.

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, Ordinance. Ord. 2019-478 §1 broadly defines a “Family” as follows:
"Family" means 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 who they may not even relate to by blood in living arrangements.
76 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.

4.2.1.1 Availability of Financing
The availability of financing affects a household's ability to purchase a home or improve on it. For example, in Guadalupe, it can be difficult for very low, low, and moderate-income first-time homebuyers to 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.

4.2.1.2 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.

4.2.1.3 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 to the approximately $65,000 price per lot. Site costs have not been extraordinary in the City compared to its neighbors.

Formatted: Heading 4
Formatted: Heading 4
Formatted: Heading 4
77 4.2.1.4 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 averaged approximately $65 to $75 per square foot in 2015. The 80 units of newly re-constructed affordable apartments at the Escalante Meadows Apartments cost a total of $18,238,141. This converts to averages of $227,980 per unit (excluding the cost of land) and $200 per square foot in 2023. Comparatively, a 1200 square-foot, 5-year old, single family home in the Pasadera development sold in March 2024 (according to Zillow) for $579,000 or $483 per square foot in Guadalupe. A new construction is bound to cost more The average construction cost of a good quality multifamily apartment averages approximately $130 per square foot under prevailing wage rates.

4.2.1.5 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.

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 leads to apposition 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

4.2.3.1 Environmental Factors
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 Formatted: Heading 4
Formatted: Underline
Formatted: Underline
Formatted: Heading 4
Formatted: Heading 4
78 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.

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.

4.2.3.2 Boundaries/Limits
City boundaries limit the available land for housing development. The Santa Maria River defines the northern boundary and limits expansion to the north of the City. As Figure 4-1 shows, Williamson Act contract lands surround nearly all the City’s boundaries to the east, south, and west and thus limit expansion toin 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.

Prime agricultural land surrounds The City of Guadalupe. Therefore it is limited in its ability to expand outwards. Expansion of the City is limited to (a) infill via the use of the minimally available vacant parcels of land within the built-up area; (b) the Pasadera PUD area; and (c) conversion to mixed-uses.

Typically, private developers construct the newer apartments (e.g. 11th St Apartments on East 11th St. and West 11th St.) as well as ADUs and tend to charge market rate rents for them.

4.2.3.3 Coastal Zone
The California Coastal Commission regulates development on 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. Designated uses for the site include a community park, single family residences, open space, and the City's wastewater treatment plant. None of the RHNAallocated units will be in the coastal zone of the City.

4.2.3.4 Flood Zones
Portions of land northwest of City limits fall within the 100-year and 500-year flood zones. However, none of these lands is developed and there is no plan to develop any in the future.

4.2.3.5 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.

Formatted: Heading 4
Formatted: Heading 4
Formatted: Heading 4
Formatted: Heading 4
79 Figure 4-1: Environmental Constraints Map–Prime Agricultural Lands under Williamson Act Contract Formatted: Centered, Space After: 0 pt
80 Figure 4-2: Environmental Constraints Map–Floodable Areas Figure 4-3: Environmental Constraints Map–Wetlands and Habitat Areas 81 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 on 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. Designated uses for the site include a community park, single family residences, open space, and the City's wastewater treatment plan. None of the RHNAallocated 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. However, none of these lands is developed and there is no plan to develop any in the future.

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.

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.

4.2.4.1 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 a population of about 12,000 residents. The City of Guadalupe completed a Wastewater System and Formatted: Heading 4
82 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 shows 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.

4.2.4.2 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 Formatted: Heading 4
83 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 the 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 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. State water is subject to change when the percent annual delivery is revised according to levels of annual rainfall and Sierra Nevada snow pack.

Following the 2021 Water Master Plan Update, the City scheduled its well operations and anticipated state water deliveries to provide approximately 605 AFY of water supply. This reduction in State Water allotment is due in part to continued drought conditions being experienced throughout California.

Although state water supply has reduced, the combination of the two sources would be enough to meet demand through the next eight years.

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.

4.2.5 Short Term Rentals (STRs)
Short Term Rentals refer to the right to use or possess a dwelling unit (or portions of a dwelling unit) for residency or lodging purposes over a period of less than 30 consecutive calendar days. The dedication of many dwelling units for short term rentals can exacerbate housing shortage and affect the rental cost of housing.

Section 18.55.060 of the Municipal code comprehensively defines the operating standards and requirements for short term rentals. The City has a minimal number of STRs. Also, STRs have not contributed in any substantial way to the City's low vacancy rate compared to other jurisdictions in the region. Therefore, STRs pose no potential constraints to the availability of the existing supply of housing for households.
84 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 as well as 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 to existing housing 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 on 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. 85 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 near and in the Central Business District (CBD) of Guadalupe have the potential for higher residential densities of 15 to 20 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;
86 • Deciduous trees to naturally cool buildings, create wind barriers to surrounding areas, and enhance streetscapes to promote walking and bicycling; and • 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, the disabled, 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.
87 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. Require low-income housing units in density bonus projects to be available 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.
88 Pol-1.12. Offer financial incentives, financial assistance, or regulatory concessions for projects that develop housing for extremely low-income households such as single-room occupancy units.

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. Create and maintain an up-to-date inventory of vacant and underutilized parcels.

Responsibility: City Administrator
Timeframe: Ongoing with an annual update report
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Annual progress and priority reports submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in compliance with State law. 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: Planning Department
Timeframe: Ongoing
Funding: General 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 (and modify to qualify group homes as units with fewer than six residents and seven or more persons regardless of licensing), rental housing, and transitional and supportive housing in all residential zone districts. Subject these uses to the development and management standards that apply to residential development within the same zones. Implement the revised Zoning Ordinance that meet all requirements under State ADU Law. Revise the Zoning Ordinance to meet all requirements under State ADU Law including changing all references from “Secondary Units” to “Accessory Dwelling Units” (ADUs) in compliance with State Law. Foster SADU development through the pursuit of funding biennially, establishment of prototype plans, and modifications to development standards (e.g., heights, unit size, etc.) beyond ADU Law. Promote the use of ADUs through public awareness campaigns and dissemination of informational materials to property owners, builders, and developers.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 zone districts. 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, but within two years into new Housing Element 89 Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Zoning Ordinance Amendment within two years or by 2026 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 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 annual 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: City Administrator
Timeframe: Ongoing with annual reports
Funding: Santa Barbara County Housing and Community Development Department Expected Outcome: Annual data reports & Development 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) 90 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 by 2025 to allow emergency shelters in all zones that permit housing without requirements for design review permits and discretionary actions as the design review decisionmaking criteria. Specifically define low barrier navigation centers (LBNCs) as a separate and permitted use type of emergency shelters.

Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Immediately, but within two years into new Housing Element Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Zoning Ordinance Amendment within two years or by 2026 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.

Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Immediately, but within two years into new Housing Element Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Zoning Ordinance Amendment within two years or by 2026 Prg-1.10. Further foster the production of affordable housing through an update to the City’s zoning code to implement Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) requirements. Support property owners willing to pursue lot splits and duplexes with accessible web information on the qualifying conditions and an abbreviated approval process.

Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Immediately, but within two years into new Housing Element Funding: Community Development Block Grant, other sources of grant funds, and development impact fees.

Expected Outcome: Zoning Ordinance Amendment within two years or by 2026 Prg-1.11. Unshackle and speed up housing production through updates to the City’s zoning code to implement Senate Bill 35 (SB 35) and Senate Bill 300 (SB 330) requirements. Streamline regulatory requirements, reduce permit processing delays, and reduce or defer impact and service fees that delay production of housing, particularly for already planned projects of residential (non-commercial) units, mixed uses that combine residential and non-residential uses, as well as transitional and supportive housing. And protect existing inventories of housing.

Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Immediately, but within two years into new Housing Element Funding: General fund.

Expected Outcome: Zoning Ordinance Amendment within two years or by 2026 Formatted: Space After: 0 pt
Formatted: Space After: 0 pt
Formatted: Space After: 0 pt
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5"
91 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 with annual tallies
Funding: Planning Department budget
Expected Outcome: Maintenance of existing Section 8 subsidies plus annual tallies

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.

Pol-3.2. C.2. Require at least two three years notice and again six months’ 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
92 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 could convert to market-rate dwellings Responsibility: City Administrator
Timeframe: Ongoing with annual lists
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: List of subsidized or incentivized housing by year 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 Prg-3.3. Coordinate with the Santa Barbara County Housing Authority and non-profit organization of affordable home developers like People’s Self-help and establish specific time parameters around actions to preserve the 18 at-risk units in Point Sal Dune to prevent them from conversion to market rate units by reinstating the covenant 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.

Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Ongoing with annual update reports
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Addition to the permanently subsidized housing stock

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:

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0.5"
93 Prg-4.1. Amend the zoning ordinance by 2025 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 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: 2025 with ongoing implementationOngoing
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: Fall 20192027
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: OngoingAnnually
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 owners or housing partners on the feasibility of developing the sites 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. 94 Prg-4.5. Amend multi-family residential and mixed-use areas to permit emergency, transitional, lowbarrier navigation centers, and supportive housing as residential uses by right, subject only to those regulations that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zones. Establish “byright” approval provisions in zoning for multi-family districts particularly when accommodating groups with special housing needs. And streamline processing procedures.Amend all zoning districtsmulti-family residential and mixed-use areas to allow residential areas to permit emergency, transitional, low-barrier navigation centers, 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 zones.

Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: within a year and in preparation for next RHNA cycle Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome. New ordinance on 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 to 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. Reorganize land use patterns proactively for energy efficiency.

Programs:

Prg-5.1. Continue to implement Title 24 of the California Code on new developments Responsibility: Building Department
Timeframe: 2025 with ongoing implementationOngoing
Funding: General Fund with fees for plan reviews and building inspections Expected Outcome. Implementation of Title 24
Formatted: Space After: 0 pt
95 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.

Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: 2025 with ongoing implementationOngoing
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: 2025 with ongoing implementationOngoing
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome. Subdivision Ordinance amendment
Prg-5.4. Apply biennially 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: BienniallyOngoing
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: 2025 with ongoing implementationOngoing
Funding: Various sources
Expected Outcome. Reduction in per capita energy use
Prg-5.6. Adopt Sustainable Design Guidelines, which give guidance on sustainable design principles such as sustainable energy usage, water conservation, and utilization of reusable building materials.

Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: Within two years in conformity with the new RHNA cycle Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome: Sustainable Design Guidelines

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

Formatted: Space After: 0 pt
96 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.

Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: AnnuallyOngoing
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: AnnuallyOngoing
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. Amend the zoning code to permit 3-story and 4-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 materials for dissemination to other developers.

Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: within a year
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome. Flexibility and attractiveness of multifamily housing sites for production of affordable units
97 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
Prg-6.6. Continue the City’s Fair Housing Program with preparation and distribution of a pamphlet on the subject of “Fair Housing and People’s Rights.”
Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: 2025 with ongoing implementation
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome. Flexibility and attractiveness of multifamily housing sites for production of affordable units
Prg-6.7. Begin record keeping on complaints and enforcement cases related to fair housing.

Responsibility: Planning Department
Timeframe: 2025 with ongoing implementation
Funding: General Fund
Expected Outcome. Records of annual complaints and enforcement cases related to fair housing.

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 overall.

The one exception is the “low-income” category for which the excess in the “very low” category would nearly coveralmost make up the difference. Additionally, ADU activity in Guadalupe over the recent four-year period between November 2019 and November 2023 spiked to include 53 completely Formatted: Space After: 0 pt
Formatted: Space After: 0 pt
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Space After: 10 pt
98 constructed units. At this rate, Guadalupe is on track to produced approximately a dozen ADUs per year on average, which can to contribute to the RHNA in the “lower income ” categoryies. However, ADU activity has accelerated in recent years. For instance, final records showed that the City processed 38 building permit applications for ADUs and issued 26 occupancy clearances for ADUs during calendar year 2023. Therefore, applications for ADUs accounted for over 57 percent of the total applications for new housing during the year. Table 6-2 shows the quantified housing objectives for the upcoming 2023-2031 cycle. 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.

Table 6-1: Comparison of RHNA Allocations Met and Unmet by Income Groups in Guadalupe Income Category
5 th Cycle
RHNA
Allocation
Total
Completed
in 5th Cycle
Balance
from 5th
Cycle
Pending
Construction
Total
Potential in
6 th Cycle
6 th 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.

Table 6-2: Quantified Housing Need in Guadalupe for 2023-2031 Cycle Income Category
2023 - 2031
Regional Housing
Allocation
Housing
Rehabilitation
Objectives
Housing
Conservation
Objectives
New Construction
Objective
Extremely Low 1 7 40
Very low 2 8 40
Low 24 9 20
Moderate 77 12 77
Above Moderate 327 34 327
Total 431 46 24 504
Formatted: Space After: 6 pt
Formatted: Superscript
Formatted: Superscript
Formatted: Superscript
Formatted: Superscript
Formatted: Superscript
Formatted: Superscript
Formatted Table
Formatted: Space Before: 12 pt
Formatted: Space After: 6 pt
Formatted: Space After: 6 pt
Formatted: Space After: 6 pt
Formatted: Space After: 6 pt
Formatted: Space After: 6 pt
Formatted: Space After: 6 pt
Formatted: Font: 6 pt
Formatted: Normal
99 6.8 Implementation Actions to Further Fair Housing

6.8 Implementation Actions to Further Fair Housing
Table 6-23 summarizes the City’s implementation actions to further fair housing under the following five themes:
• Fair housing outreach and enforcement
• Tenant protection and anti-displacement
• New opportunities in high resource areas
• Housing mobility through expanded choices in housing types andlocations • Place-based strategies for neighborhood improvements
It is noteworthy that some of the fair housing actions in Table 6-23 reflect initiatives that are not explicitly listed among the housing-specific policies of the Housing Element (sections 6.1 through 6.6) but support the goal of affirmatively furthering fair housing. Fair Housing Analysis in Appendix C includes discussions of these supportive initiatives.

Formatted: Heading 2, Indent: Left: 0"
100
Table 6-23: AFFH Action Matrix for 2023-2031
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics

FAIR HOUSING OUTREACH AND ENFORCEMENT
1 Public Information
and Engagement
Prg Prg-1.3
Prg Prg-6.3
Prg Prg-6.4Public
Information and
Engagement
Prg 1.2
Prg 6.3
Prg 6.4
• Organize regular community events on housing
Annually
Citywide (including
library, recreation
centers, City Hall, at
community events),
prioritizing areas with
greatest housing
needs
25% increase in
inquiries about fair
housing
• Prepare and disseminate handouts in English and Spanish • Post materials in multiple public places and distribute to community-based organizations
• Hold workshops on Fair Housing
2024-2025 Citywide
• Conduct outreach to multiple vulnerable groups on Fair Housing
• Revise Notice of Tenant Rights
• Make presentations on “Fundamentals of Housing” during staff meetings
• Expand information online about Fair Housing
2 Fair Housing Program
Administration
Prg Prg-1.5
Pol Pol-2.3Fair
Housing Program
Administration
Prg 1.5
Pol 2.3
Direct CDBG funds to administer a fair housing program that includes counseling, complaint investigation, technical assistance, & enforcement
2024-2025 onwards Citywide
Formatted: Font: 2 pt
Formatted: Space After: 0 pt, Line spacing: single
Formatted: Width: 11", Height: 8.5"
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted Table
Formatted: Centered, Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Black
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Font: Font color: Black
Formatted: Font: (Default) Calibri, 10 pt, Font color: Black Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Font color: Black
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
101
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics
3 Affirmative
Marketing of Housing
Opportunities
Pol Pol-4.3
Prg Prg-4.3
Prg Prg-4.6
Pol Pol6.2Affirmative
Marketing of Housing
Opportunities
Pol 4.3
Prg 4.3
Prg 4.6
• Require development applicants to submit Affirmative
Action Marketing Plans
2024-2025 onwards Citywide
For every belowmarket-rate (BMR)
housing opportunity,
at least 30% of
outreach should target
lower income
households
• Require awardees to provide project demographics and
affirmative marketing plans for annual reporting
Identify a contractor with expertise in affirmative marketing to administer the below-market-rate (BMR) rental program 2024-2025 onwards Citywide 4 Latinx Community
Capacity Building and
Engagement
Prg Prg-4.3
Prg Prg-6.1Latinx
Community Capacity
Building and
Engagement
Prg 4.3
Prg 6.1
• Conduct capacity-building meetings on housing
2024-2025 onwards Citywide
Reach a dozen or more
community leaders
through workshops
• Develop strategies to sustain momentum and
communication.
• Incorporate what City staff learns into City policies and practices.

Increase number of
tenant inquiries/
dialogue with City
Council and City Staff
by 20%

TENANT PROTECTION AND ANTI-DISPLACEMENT
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted Table
Formatted: Centered, Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
102
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics
5 Just Cause for
Eviction
Pol Pol-2.6
Pol Pol-6.2
Prg Prg-6.2Just Cause
for Eviction
Pol 2.6
Prg 6.1
Meet with tenant advocacy organizations to understand issues and gaps. Maintain an open channel of communication. Annually/ongoing Citywide Adopted and/or
revised tenant
protection strategies Review and revise regulations as needed to ensure that they are achieving desired outcomes Every three years,
starting in 2024-2025 Citywide
Work with landlords to provide support for tenants in cases of “no fault” evictions Annually/ongoing
Citywide, especially in
rental housing
neighborhoods
Eligible tenants receive
required notice and
relocation assistance
• Develop internal process and train staff to implement an Opportunity Zone Relocation Assistance Ordinance
2024-2025 onwards
Low-income
neighborhoods with
large renter
populations
Eligible tenants receive
required notice and
relocation assistance
• Evaluate and regulate buyout practices
• Expand Opportunity Zone Relocation Assistance to other low-income neighborhoods
City establishes
regulations for buyout
agreements between
landlords and tenants
Evaluate relocation assistance policies, including to ensure payment amounts match cost of living Every three years Citywide Eligible tenants receive
required payment
amounts that match
cost of living
6 Tenant Protection
Measures
Pol Pol-2.6
Convene stakeholders to provide input, review existing
measures, and provide recommendations to the City Council Begin outreach in 2024 Citywide, with focus
on areas with
concentrations of
affordable housing
Adopted and/or
revised tenant
protection strategies
Adopt/revise
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted Table
Formatted: Centered, Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
103
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics
Prg Prg-6.1Tenant
Protection Measures
Pol 2.6
Prg 6.1
strategies in 2025 units
7 Periodic Housing
Inspection Program
Prg Prg-5.1Periodic
Housing Inspection
Program
Prg 5.1
Inspect rental units in buildings with 3 units or more within the City at least once every 5 years Every five years Citywide Regular inspection of
rental units in
buildings with 3 or
more units
Increase the frequency of inspections for properties that have more than one reported and verified violation in a year for 10% of units and extended noncompliance
2025 and every 2 years Citywide
All properties with 1+
verified violation and
extended
noncompliance for
10% of units are
inspected at least
every 2 years
8 Code Enforcement
Program
Prg Prg-1.5
Prg Prg-6.7Code
Enforcement
Program
Prg 1.5
Prg 6.7
Respond within two business days of receiving a complaint from a landlord or tenant. If
Starting in 2024 Citywide
• 90% of all
violations not requiring
a permit are corrected
within 30 days
necessary, schedule a site visit within two business days. • 90% of all
violations requiring a
permit are corrected
within 6 months
• Maintain staff in the Code Enforcement Division who speak Spanish; continue to support efforts by staff to use Spanish 2024-2025 onwards Lowincome/affordable
housing
neighborhoods
Increase inquiries/
contact with lowincome/affordable
housing residents to
20 per week;
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted Table
Formatted: Centered, Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
104
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics
• Post information in English and Spanish in libraries and other public places, especially in the City’s lowest income census tracts, about how to reach Code Enforcement and the services they provide
90% of respondents
rate service as good or
excellent
• Pilot weekly walk-in hours in low-income/affordable housing neighborhoods so that tenants can easily access code
enforcement officers in-person to inquire about potential violations
• Administer real-time satisfaction surveys
9 Funding for
Affordable Housing
Prg Prg-1.2, Prg Prg1.4
Pol Pol-2.1Funding
for Affordable
Housing
Prg 1.2, Prg 1.4
Pol 2.1
Support local application for preservation pilot funding from Housing Finance Agency of area’s council of government 2025 Citywide, with
emphasis on lowincome/affordable
housing
neighborhoods
At least half a dozen
units preserved
through preservation
pilot funding program
10 Preservation of AtRisk Housing
Pol Pol-3.1, Pol Pol3.2
Prg Prg-1.4, 3.1, 3.2,
• Monitor potential affordability expirations and contact nonprofit property owners to address any future loss of funding that may put these units at risk 2024-2025 onwards Citywide Preserve 100% of atrisk rental units
• Explore ways to ensure continued affordability for belowmarket-rate units in market-rate developments Preserve 100% of
below-market-rate
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted Table
Formatted: Centered, Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
105
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics

3.3Preservation of
At-Risk Housing
Pol 3.1, Pol 3.2
Prg 3.1, 3.2, 3.3
rental units
• Monitor the status of mobile home parks. In the event of a sale, alert nonprofit partners who may be interested in purchasing.

Preserve 100% of
mobile home park
units

NEW OPPORTUNITIES IN HIGH RESOURCE AREAS
11 Funding for
Affordable Housing
Prg Prg-1.2, Prg Prg1.4
Pol Pol-2.1Funding
for Affordable
Housing
Prg 1.2, Prg 1.4
Pol 2.1
• Pursue funding every two years from the Affordable
Housing Trust Fund
2024-2025 onwards Citywide
By 2031, contribute
local funding towards
at least 50 units of
housing for lower
income households
• Work with community-based organizations, the County,
philanthropy, and other jurisdictions to identify and pursue funds for affordable housing
By 2031, secure grants
totaling at least
$500,000 for housingrelated services
12 Pro-Housing City
Designation
Pol Pol-2.3ProHousing City
Designation
Pol 2.3
Apply for HCD’s Pro-Housing City designation and associated financial benefits 2024-2025 onwards Citywide
13 Affordable Housing
Requirements for
• Adopt updated commercial linkage fees that align with other jurisdictions in the County 2024-2025 onwards Citywide By 2031, produce at least 100 belowFormatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted Table
Formatted: Centered, Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Centered
106
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics
Residential and
Commercial
Development
Prg Prg1.10Affordable
Housing
Requirements for
Residential and
Commercial
Development
Prg 1.8
• Evaluate the success of the policy changes for residential projects and propose adjustments as needed 2025-2026 onwards market-rate units (25%
of RHNA) through the
inclusion of affordable
units in market-rate
projects
14 Air Rights Strategic
Plan
Pol Pol-1.5
Prg Prg-1.3
Prg Prg-4.2Air Rights
Strategic Plan
Prg 1.3
• Prepare a Downtown Air Rights Strategic Plan that
prioritizes housing for extremely low income and special needs households, and partner with non-profits and affordable housing developers
2029
Downtown Initiate two Air Rights
projects (100 units)
• Reach out to the owners of large private parking lots in Downtown who may be interested in joint development 2030 15 Specific Plan for Prepare and adopt downtown specific plan, regulatory framework, and environmental document 2027 Downtown 100 new units of housing by Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted Table
Formatted: Centered, Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Justified
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
107
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics
downtown
Prg Prg-1.3,

4.2Specific Plan for
downtown
Prg 1.3
2031, with at least 50
affordable units
16 Monitoring and
Marketing of Housing
Opportunity Sites
Pol Pol-4.3
Prg Prg-4.3
Prg Prg4.6Monitoring and
Marketing of Housing
Opportunity Sites
Pol 4.3
Prg 4.3
Prg 4.6
• Dynamically present Housing Opportunity Sites online
2025 Citywide
50% of the identified
capacity on the
Housing Opportunity
Sites is realized
• Keep information on development opportunities up to
date.
• Update webpage with current information on status of
major planning and development projects.
• Develop fact sheets
• Use housing site list as a marketing and informational tool when meeting with prospective residential developers
residential developers
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted Table
Formatted: Centered, Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
108
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics
17 By Right
Development Along
Commercial Corridors
Prg Prg-4.5By Right
Development Along
Commercial Corridors
Prg 4.5
• Identify and publish list of commercial corridors and sites located along commercial corridors that could be prime for by right development under AB2011
2025 Commercial corridors
By 2031, construct at
least 100 units on
corridor sites
• Contact property owners to advise them of the
opportunity and provide technical assistance to those
interested
18 Lot Splits and
Duplexes
Prg Prg-1.10Lot Splits
and Duplexes
Prg 1.10
• Update website with information on SB9
2024-2025 onwards Single-family
neighborhoods
25 new units created
through SB 9
applications
• Provide expanded FAQs/ how-to guide and fact sheets to explain SB 9 and identify various scenarios for adding housing units
• Include fair housing fact sheet in SB9 applications
19 Housing on
Institutional and
Religious Properties
Pol Pol-4.1
Prg Prg-4.6
Housing on
Institutional and
Religious Properties
• Conduct outreach to schools and religious institutions 2025 Citywide
By 2031, develop at
least 10 multi-family
housing units on
institution-owned
properties
• Provide technical support to those owners who are
interested in developing housing
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted Table
Formatted: Centered, Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Left
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
109
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics
Prg 1.4, 4.6
Pol 4.1
20 Review of
Development Fees
and Waiver/Deferral
Policies
Prg Prg-4.6Review of
Development Fees
and Waiver/Deferral
Policies
Prg 4.6
Review and update the master fee schedule to reduce fee burdens for affordable housing projects, where possible 2024-2025 onwards Citywide
Achieve RHNA targets
for below market rate
housing
21 Affordable Housing
Incentives
Prg Prg-4.6Affordable
Housing Incentives
Prg 4.6
Implement State and local density bonus programs, including allowances for additional height and concessions and waivers to development standards for projects with affordable housing 2024-2025 onwards Citywide
Achieve RHNA targets
for below market rate
housing
22 Incentives for Lot
Consolidation
Prg Prg-4.6Incentives
for Lot Consolidation
Prg 1.4
Develop tools to facilitate the consolidation of small lots into larger, more developable sites, including a voluntary merger process that allows two parcels to be combined into a single one.
2026-2027 Citywide, especially in
Downtown
100 units created on
consolidated lots
23 Streamlining of
Development
Approval
Implement measures to streamline the development approval process
2024-2025 onwards Citywide
Reduce time required
between project
proposal and project
entitlement by 60 to
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted Table
Formatted: Centered, Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Centered
110
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics
Prg Prg-4.5,

4.6Streamlining of
Development
Approval
Prg 4.5, 4.6
90 days
24 Water and Sewer
Priority
Prg Prg-1.2, 1.9Water
and Sewer Priority
Prg 1.7
Adopt a policy resolution recommending that housing
affordable to low- and very low- income households or possibly all residential projects receive priority for new water and sewer connections in the event of future service limitations 2024-2025 onwards Citywide Achieve RHNA targets
25 Zoning Text and Map
Revisions
Prg Prg-1.8,

1.9Zoning Text and
Map Revisions
Prg 1.3
Complete recommended zoning changes that facilitate the full range of General Plan densities
2024-2026 Citywide
26 Revisions to Parking
Standards
Prg Prg-1.7, 1.8,

1.9, 4.2
Revisions to Parking
Standards
Prg 1.2
Complete an evaluation of residential off-street parking standards to reduce parking as a housing development expense 2024-2025 Citywide, especially
within one-half mile
of transit stops and
bus corridors
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted Table
Formatted: Centered, Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Left
111
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics
27 Monitoring of
Approved
Development
Projects
Prg Prg4.6Monitoring of
Approved
Development
Projects
Prg 4.6
Contact developers of approved projects at least once every six months between entitlement and issuance of building permit to discuss project status/schedule and any potential constraints that can be addressed.
2024-2031
Citywide, especially
on pipeline project
sites
Completion of most
units in existing
development pipeline
by 2031

HOUSING MOBILITY THROUGH EXPANDED CHOICES IN HOUSING TYPES AND LOCATIONS 28 Extremely LowIncome (ELI) Housing
Resources
Pol Pol-1.3, 1.12
Prg Prg-4.6Extremely
Low-Income (ELI)
Housing Resources
Pol 1.3, 1.12
Prg 4.6
Identify site for interim housing pilot project and install interim housing units Identify sites in 2024; Install units in 2025 Citywide
29 Funding and
Resources to Prevent
and Reduce
Homelessness
Actively seek funding for strategies that prevent homelessness and help City residents experiencing homelessness in securing a place to live and access to services 2025-2026 onwards Citywide Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted Table
Formatted: Centered, Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Centered
Formatted Table
Formatted Table
112
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics
Prg Prg-4.3, 4.4,

4.5Funding and
Resources to Prevent
and Reduce
Homelessness
Prg 4.3, 4.4
30 Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADUs)
Prg Prg-1.3Accessory
Dwelling Units
(ADUs)
Prg 1.2
• Provide expanded resources on ADUs on the City’s website 2024-2025 onwards
Citywide, especially
single-family
neighborhoods
• Develop incentives such as fee waivers or tax abatements for owners who agree to rent their ADUs to qualifying lower income households
• Pursue grant funding to help homeowners add ADUs with a deed restriction that limits occupancy to a lower income tenant
31 Monitoring the
Status of belowmarket-rate (BMR)
Units
Prg Prg3.1Monitoring the
Status of belowmarket-rate (BMR)
Units
Prg 3.1
• Enter agreement with County Housing Authority for monitoring of BMR ownership units
2024-2025 onwards Citywide
• In 2024, identify a service provider to monitor BMR rental units • Meet with service providers at least every 6 months for updates on BMR portfolio 32 Housing Resources
for Older Adults
• Amend affordable housing provisions to treat assisted living as a residential use rather than a commercial use so that the City’s affordable housing requirements may be applied
2024-2025 onwards Citywide
Increase housing units
for older adults by 20
percent
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted Table
Formatted: Centered, Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
113
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics
Prg Prg-1.3, 3.3
Prg Prg-4.2.

4.5Housing
Resources for Older
Adults
Prg 3.3
Prg 4.2
• Work with the nonprofit sector to increase the number of permanently affordable senior housing units and affordable assisted living facilities
33 Adaptable and
Accessible Housing
Pol Pol-4.2
Pol Pol-6.1
Prg Prg-4.2Adaptable
and Accessible
Housing
Pol 4.2
Pol 6.1
Prg 4.2
• Adopt a Universal Design Ordinance that increases the number of units that are adaptable or accessible to persons with disabilities
2024-2025 onwards Citywide
Increase accessible
units by 10 percent
• Amend the City’s Affordable Housing Requirements to
require affordable housing units to comply with universal design.
• Consider requiring that a percentage of units in new
development be adaptable for persons with disabilities. 100% of new
affordable housing
units comply with
universal design • Implement Reasonable Accommodation
• Achieve 100% compliance with all State laws regarding accessibility
• Eliminate any fee for a reasonable accommodation request 34 Residential Care
Facilities
Prg Prg-1.3,
Prg Prg-4.5
Residential Care
• Add to the Municipal Code definitions of licensed and unlicensed group homes that conform to State standards
2024-2025 onwards Higher-density zoning
districts
Reduce time required
for approval by 50%
for residential care
facilities
• Eliminate Code distinction between care facilities for persons with disabilities and other care facilities
• Adopt objective standards to allow for ministerial review in Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted Table
Formatted: Centered, Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted Table
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
114
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics
Facilities
Prg 1.2
Prg 4.5
higher- density zoning districts
35 Affordable Housing
for Large Families
Pol Pol-4.1
Prg Prg-4.1Affordable
Housing for Large
Families
Pol 4.1
Prg 4.1
• Develop thresholds for requiring three-bedroom
affordable rental units in new construction for certain types of projects.
2024-2025 onwards Citywide
Develop at least 50
three- bedroom
apartments that are
affordable to low- and
very low- income
households (roughly
200 percent of the
lower income RHNA)
• When considering proposals for projects that are 100
percent affordable, express preference for a mix of housing units that include units designed for larger families.

PLACE-BASED STRATEGIES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS
36 Extremely Low
Income Housing
Resources
Pol Pol-4.1
Prg Prg-4.1Extremely
Low Income Housing
Resources
Pol 4.1
Prg 4.1
Research best practices and develop a strategy to create interim housing with a strong service component to assist individuals to take steps towards stable housing.
2024-2025 onwards
Areas with people
experiencing
homelessness,
including but not
limited to:

Downtown, highway
underpasses, and
open space areas.

In Year 1 of operating
interim housing pilot
(2025-26), house 50%
of residents in
permanent supportive
housing.

Identify sites for interim housing pilot project, to be completed with State grants in partnership with community partners.

In Year 2 of operating
interim housing pilot
(2026-27), house an at
least additional 25% of
residents in permanent
supportive housing.

Install interim housing units
37 Increasing Equity in
Home Maintenance
with Residential
Rehabilitation Loan
Direct CDBG funds to provide property improvement loans and technical assistance to very low income homeowners Annually Citywide Assist a dozen households by 2031 Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted Table
Formatted: Centered, Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted Table
115
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics
Program
Prg Prg-1.5
Pol Pol-2.3,

2.4Increasing Equity
in Home
Maintenance with
Residential
Rehabilitation Loan
Program
Prg 1.5
Pol 2.3, 2.4
38 Specific Plan to uplift
east side
neighborhoods
Prg Prg-1.5
Pol Pol-2.3,

2.4Specific Plan to
uplift east side
neighborhoods
Prg 1.5
Pol 2.3, 2.4
Prepare and adopt plan, regulatory framework, and
environmental document 2027
Eastern
neighborhoods of the
City
Create housing
capacity for at least 25
additional units
A
AFFH Action: Mental
Health Liaison
Fund a Mental Health Liaison position within the Police Department 2024-2025 onwards
Areas with high
concentrations of
people experiencing
homelessness,
including but not
limited to:

Downtown, highway
Connect people
experiencing
homelessness to
mental health and
housing services,
including the
Countywide amenities
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted Table
Formatted: Centered, Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Font color: Light Blue
Formatted: Centered
116
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics
underpasses, and
open space areas.

B
AFFH Action: SAFE
Program
Launch pilot of Alternative Response Team, also known as the SAFE Team (Specialized Assistance For Everyone), a two person mobile team comprised of a Crisis Intervention Specialist and an Emergency Medical Technician. They are tied into the
emergency response system and will supplement Fire and Police response to calls for service.

Launch three-year pilot
in 2024-2025 onwards Citywide
Connect vulnerable
community members,
especially those with
mental health history
and those experiencing
homelessness, to the
best supportive
services available
C
AFFH Action: Small
Business Assistance
Work with the Economic Development Department and/or
Chamber of Commerce to prevent displacement of small
businesses in mixed use projects
2025-2026 onwards Citywide
100% of small
businesses impacted
by mixed use projects
are successfully
incorporated or
relocated
D
AFFH Action:

Neighborhood
Lighting
Improvements
Improve lighting in the downtown based on community
feedback (Public Works) 2025-2026 onwards Downtown neighborhood Assess and address
better lighting
conditions at existing
poles that have no or
weak lighting
E
AFFH Action: Digital
divide
• Citywide Public Wi-Fi Network; Work with County to address digital equity/divide
2025-2026 onwards Citywide
Establish Wi-Fi access
for residents; apply for
grants from the PUC
for a feasibility study
for broadband
infrastructure in the
City; hire community
engagement staff for
Strategic
Communications Plan
• Grant funding for dedicated broadband infrastructure to the Canal
• City-wide language access; Hybrid communications
engagement strategy
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted Table
Formatted: Centered, Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
117
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics
F
AFFH Action: Park
Master Plan
Improvements
Develop a City-wide Parks and Recreation Master Plan that incorporates environmental justice and social equity as key elements in the operation and planning of the City’s park and recreation network
2025-2026 onwards Citywide
• Develop guide to
further develop parks
and recreational
programs for all ages,
abilities, and activities.

Create and maintain
funding and set
priorities for
the 
G
AFFH Action:

Sea/Flood Level Rise
and Resilience Study
Conduct feasibility study for nature- based, hybrid, and hard infrastructure protection of the City. Build capacity in community-based organisationsorganizations. Engage and
educate residents and youth in the study to learn about and give input on the study, and choose options to pursue.
2025-2026 onwards Citywide
• Establish a
community-based
adaptation planning
team with the City and
County
• Develop at least one
option/project for
further development
and to seek funding for
implementation
• Codify resident
feedback and choices
into the City’s
adaptation, neighborhood, and land use
planning policies and
documents
H
AFFH Action:

Implementation of
Multi-Modal
Transportation Plan
Pedestrian and bicycle crossings of main thoroughfares; traffic calming and bicycle and pedestrian crossing improvements; transit bus stop improvements and maintenance; expanded transit service; transportation to schools
2027 Citywide
• Secure funding and
complete feasibility
studies
• Implement quickbuild crossing projects
and traffic calming
programs
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted Table
Formatted: Centered, Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
118
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics
• Implement bus stop
improvements
• Streamline
maintenance process
• Conduct focused
ridership survey on
transit line
• Secure funding and
add additional runs
A, B, . . . H = The City can implement these non-housing strategies to achieve more equitable and just outcomes. They can complement and advance AFFH principles to facilitate fair housing throughout the City. useone. to
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted Table
Formatted: Centered, Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0 ch
Formatted: Normal
Formatted: Table Paragraph, Left, Indent: Left: 0.24", Line spacing: Exactly 10.6 pt
Formatted: Left
119
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Formatted
120

7.0 Appendices

7.1 Appendix A: Evaluation of 2015 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. All programs are essential for continued good planning and planning administration. The programs remain relevant and the recommendation is for all of them 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 requirements for housing according to State law. Therefore, they remain appropriate and must 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 121
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 housing priced in the above moderate categorypriced 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 the disabled 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 bankedrelied 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 the Guadalupe Municipal Code between in August 2017, and January 2019, and December 2023, revisedinclude Chapter 18.53 of January 28, 2019 onthe Code on “ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS”. The Municipal Code formerly previously titled this chapter, “SECONDARY HOUSING UNITS.” The revamped chapter is intended to comply with the latest requirements of State law (Government Code Section 65852.2), and to implement the policies in the City's 2042 General Plan and the Housing Element. The update allows accessory dwelling units (ADU) and Junior ADUs (JADU) through ministerial review in all Residential Districts. This created additional opportunities for housing units.
122
Table A-1: Evaluation of Programs in 2015 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
In effect
during
5th
cycleOng
oing
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 imple
mentation
A.2. The City shall
establish priority water
and sewer service
procedures for
developments with units
affordable to lowerincome households.

Planning
Department
In effect
during 5th
cycleOng
oing
Part of development
review process
This enabled construction
of ADU units and three
dozen assisted housing
apartments
Continue
program
implementatio
n
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
In effect
since
2017
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
Formatted: Superscript
123
[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
In effect
during
5th cycle
Ongoing
Ongoing part of
development review
process,
Applied to the assisted
living units.

Continue
program
implementatio
n
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
In effect
during
5th
cycleOng
oing
Essential element of
affordable housing
facilitation and production.

It aided the funding and
construction of assisted
housing apartments
Continue
program
implementatio
n
124
[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
In effect
during
5th
cycleOng
oing
Essential element of
affordable housing
retention.

This has helped in
maintaining the quality of
affordable and assisted
units in the City
Continue
program
implementatio
n
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
In effect
during
5th
cycleOng
oing
Essential element of
affordable housing for
those in the very low end
of income spectrum
The subsidies have made
Continue
program
implementatio
n
125
[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
In effect
during
5th
cycleOng
oing
Essential element of
tracking affordable
housing.

It has provided data for
analysis in the
development of the new
housing element.

Continue
program
implementatio
n
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
In effect
during
5th
cycleOng
oing
Ongoing part of
development review
process.

This has aided the
preservation of affordable
units across the City.

Continue
program
implementatio
n
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
In effect
during
5th
cycleOng
oing
Density bonus provision is
part of zoning code.

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
implementatio
n
126
[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.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 Code. The City will
also address financial
incentives for developers
who address code issues
in new construction and in
retrofitting existing
homes.

Planning
Department
In effect
during
5th
cycleOng
oing
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
implementatio
n
127
[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
Continue
d during
5th
cycleOng
oing
Information 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
implementatio
n
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
Continue
d during
5th
cycleOng
oing
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
implementatio
n
128
[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.i.e., apartments
in a multi-family zone).

Planning
Department
Continue
d during
5th
cycleOng
oing
Overlay district created
permitting such uses.

This facilitate the
construction of SROs,
shelters, and ADUs in most
zones within the City.

Continue
program
implementatio
n
E.1. The City shall continue
to implement Title 24 of
the California Code on all
new development.

Building
Department
Continue
d during
5th
cycleOng
oing
Verified during plan check
for building permits
Continue
program
implementatio
n
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
Impleme
nted
during
5th
cycleOng
oing
Disseminated
collaboratively in utility
bills
Continue
program
implementatio
n
E.3. The City shall amend
the subdivision ordinance
to implement the
subdivision map act on
subdivision orientation for
solar access.

Planning
Department
In effect
during
5th
cycleOng
oing
Part of development
review process.

Continue
program
implementatio
n
E.4. New annexations to
the City shall be
contiguous to the existing
City to maintain compact
urban form and energy
Planning
Department
Continue
d during
5th
cycleOng
oing
Addressed in update to
General Plan
Continue
program
implementatio
n
129
[Table A-1] Program Responsible
Agency
Time
Frame
Evaluation & 2015-2022
Accomplishments
Future Policies
and Actions
efficiency.

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
Continue
d during
5th
cycleOng
oing
Part of application efforts
for grant resources
Continue
program
implementatio
n
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
Continue
d during
5th
cycleOng
oing
Disseminated
collaboratively in utility
bills
Continue
program
implementatio
n
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
Planning
Department
Continue
d during
5th
cycleOng
oing
Information 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
Continue
program
implementatio
n
130
[Table A-1] Program Responsible
Agency
Time
Frame
Evaluation & 2015-2022
Accomplishments
Future Policies
and Actions
for any third language
information in Guadalupe.
access in the City.

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
Continue
d during
5th
cycleOng
oing
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
implementatio
n
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
Continue
d during
5th
cycleOng
oing
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
implementatio
n
131
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 forprofit 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 SelfHelp 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 neighborhood character.

This has aided cost
effective
construction of
affordable units
Still Appropriate -
retain
132
[Table A-2] Goals & Policy
Evaluation & 2015-
2022
Accomplishments
Appropriateness
Policy A. 11: The City shall allow rehabilitation for legal, nonconforming 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 singleroom 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
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
133
[Table A-2] Goals & Policy
Evaluation & 2015-
2022
Accomplishments
Appropriateness
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
process
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy E.1: All new dwelling units shall be required to meet current State requirements for energy efficiency and
This is implemented
during the
Still Appropriate -
retain
134
[Table A-2] Goals & Policy
Evaluation & 2015-
2022
Accomplishments
Appropriateness
retrofitting of existing units shall be encouraged. application review process
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
135
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.

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 $384,908 136
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
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
137
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 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 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 0 Low- Income Non Deed Restricted 0 6 6 0Moderate- Income Deed Restricted 1 1 0 0Moderate- Income Non Deed Restricted 34 34 0 0Above 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 0 Low- Income Deed Restricted 0 0 0Low- Income Non Deed Restricted 0 0 0Moderate- Income Deed Restricted 0 0 0Moderate- 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
138
Table A-4c: Recent Activities on ADUs - City of Guadalupe, Nov. 2019 to Nov. 2023 Activity Type 4-Year Total Average Annual
Completed construction 53 13.25
Approved but construction not completed 21 5.25
Planning - application in planning process 6 1.50
Total Activities 80 20.00
Source: Guadalupe Planning Department
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
Sample calculation of mortgage terms and payment
Formatted Table
Formatted: Font color: Purple
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted Table
Formatted: Indent: Left: 4"
139
140
Figure A-1 DJ Farms Site Map
Source: Pasadera Homes web site: https://newpasaderahomes.com/pasadera-site-map 141
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 142

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 Council 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 initially 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 143
of vacant land that is zoned for housing is available and 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. It is noteworthy that housing development in the DJ Farms Specific Plan Area into the Pasadera Housing neighborhood during the 5th Cycle dominated housing over-production in the City of Guadalupe so that most of the previous vacant sites scattered within the community remain to accommodate housing need within the 6th Cycle and beyond.

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
Formatted: Superscript
Formatted: Superscript
144
[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
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,
Extremely
low
None
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. 145
Figure B-1: Opportunities for Housing at Vacant Infill, Mix-Use, and DJ Farms Sites 146
Table B-3: Other Vacant Residential Land within Built-Up Area [Table B-3] Parcel Number
Zoning
Designation
Parcel Size
(Acreage)
Income Group
Affordability
113-320-097 R-2 0.31 Moderate
113-370-036 R-2 0.1 Moderate
113-370-037 R-2 0.27 Moderate
113-370-038 R-2 0.25 Moderate
113-450-004 R-2 31.25 Moderate
113-460-001 R-2 0.15 Moderate
113-460-002 R-2 0.13 Moderate
113-460-003 R-2 0.13 Moderate
113-460-004 R-2 0.12 Moderate
113-460-005 R-2 0.12 Moderate
113-460-006 R-2 0.12 Moderate
113-460-007 R-2 0.12 Moderate
113-460-008 R-2 0.12 Moderate
113-460-009 R-2 0.12 Moderate
113-460-010 R-2 0.12 Moderate
113-460-011 R-2 0.12 Moderate
113-460-012 R-2 0.12 Moderate
113-460-013 R-2 0.17 Moderate
113-460-014 R-2 0.12 Moderate
113-460-015 R-2 0.12 Moderate
113-460-017 R-1 0.12 Moderate
113-460-032 R-1 0.12 Moderate
113-460-033 R-1 0.12 Moderate
113-460-034 R-1 0.12 Moderate
113-460-035 R-1 0.11 Moderate
113-460-036 R-1 0.17 Moderate
113-470-001 R-1 0.12 Moderate
113-470-002 R-1 0.12 Moderate
113-470-003 R-1 0.12 Moderate
113-470-004 R-1 0.12 Moderate
113-470-005 R-1 0.12 Moderate
113-470-006 R-1 0.12 Moderate
113-470-007 R-1 0.12 Moderate
113-470-008 R-1 0.12 Moderate
113-470-009 R-1 0.12 Moderate
113-470-010 R-1 0.12 Moderate
113-470-011 R-1 0.12 Moderate
113-470-012 R-1 0.12 Moderate
113-480-001 R-1 0.12 Moderate
Formatted Table
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
147
[Table B-3] Parcel Number
Zoning
Designation
Parcel Size
(Acreage)
Income Group
Affordability
113-480-002 R-1 0.12 Moderate
113-480-003 R-1 0.12 Moderate
113-480-004 R-1 0.12 Moderate
113-480-005 R-1 0.12 Moderate
113-480-006 R-1 0.12 Moderate
113-480-007 R-1 0.12 Moderate
113-480-008 R-1 0.12 Moderate
113-480-009 R-1 0.12 Moderate
113-480-010 R-1 0.12 Moderate
113-480-011 R-1 0.11 Moderate
113-480-012 R-1 0.14 Moderate
113-480-013 R-1 0.2 Moderate
113-480-014 R-1 0.18 Moderate
113-480-015 R-1 0.17 Moderate
113-480-016 R-1 0.12 Moderate
113-480-017 R-1 0.12 Moderate
113-480-018 R-1 0.12 Moderate
113-480-019 R-1 0.12 Moderate
113-480-020 R-1 0.12 Moderate
115-031-001 R-1 0.01 Moderate
115-036-012 R-1 0.19 Moderate
115-041-010 R-1 0.11 Moderate
115-063-002 R-1 0.1 Moderate
115-063-011 R-1 0.09 Moderate
115-082-009 R-1 0.09 Moderate
115-102-014 R-1 0.17 Moderate
115-102-022 R-1 0.36 Moderate
115-153-014 Undecided 0.18 Moderate/Lower
115-201-012 Undecided 0.17 Moderate/Lower
115-201-013 Undecided 0.18 Moderate/Lower
115-202-002 Undecided 0.18 Moderate/Lower
115-230-009 Undecided 0.48 Moderate/Lower
115-230-028 Undecided 1.77 Moderate/Lower
115-230-030 Undecided 2.92 Moderate/Lower
Total All 45.88

7.2.2 Mixed-Use Development
The updated General Plan designates mixed-use development strategically in the City’s Central Business District. This offers additional housing opportunities, including those for lower income residents. The Formatted Table
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
148
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 floorto-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 build-out, mixed-use areas 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 mixeduse 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
Income
Group
Affordability
115-092-001 23,958 G-C 0.35 8,385.30 5,618.15 9 None Moderate 115-092-003 14,810 G-C 0.35 5,183.64 3,473.04 5 None Moderate 115-092-004 10,019 G-C 0.35 3,506.58 2,349.41 3 None Moderate 115-052-007 15,246 G-C 0.35 5,336.10 3,575.19 6 None Moderate 115-051-007 19,166 G-C 0.35 6,708.24 4,494.52 7 None Moderate 115-101-001 6,970 G-C 0.35 2,439.36 1,634.37 2 None Moderate 115-052-015 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-140-011 22,651 G-C 0.35 7,927.92 5,311.71 8 None Moderate 115-071-019 13,068 G-C 0.35 4,573.80 3,064.45 5 None Moderate 115-052-018 10,019 G-C 0.35 3,506.58 2,349.41 3 None Moderate 115-091-002 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-091-006 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-092-005 10,019 G-C 0.35 3,506.58 2,349.41 3 None Moderate 115-113-001 12,197 G-C 0.35 4,268.88 2,860.15 4 None Moderate 115-113-0Q4 7,841 G-C 0.35 2,744.28 1,838.67 3 None Moderate 115-113-005 16,117 G-C 0.35 5,641.02 3,779.48 6 None Moderate 115-071-015 11,761 G-C 0.35 4,116.42 2,758.00 4 None Moderate 115-071-018 33,977 G-C 0.35 11,891.88 7,967.56 13 None Moderate 115-072-014 2,178 G-C 0.35 762.30 510.74 0 None Moderate 115-072-015 5,227 G-C 0.35 1,829.52 1,225.78 2 None Moderate 115-072-018 11,326 G-C 0.35 3,963.96 2,655.85 4 None Moderate 115-092-016 3,485 G-C 0.35 1,219.68 817.19 1 None Moderate 115-092-017 2,178 G-C 0.35 762.30 510.74 0 None Moderate 115-092-019 6,970 G-C 0.35 2,439.36 1,634.37 2 None Moderate 115-092-023 3,485 G-C 0.35 1,219.68 817.19 1 None Moderate 115-101-003 3,485 G-C 0.35 1,219.68 817.19 1 None Moderate 115-101-011 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 149
[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
Income
Group
Affordability
115-112-002 8,276 G-C 0.35 2,896.74 1,940.82 3 None Moderate 115-121-014 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-072-001 10,890 G-C 0.35 3,811.50 2,553.71 4 None Moderate 115-101-006 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-112-001 56,628 G-C 0.35 19,819.80 13,279.27 22 None Moderate 115-113-006 16,117 G-C 0.35 5,641.02 3,779.48 6 None Moderate 115-101-016 20,473 G-C 0.35 7,165.62 4,800.97 8 None Moderate 115-052-009 5,663 G-C 0.35 1,981.98 1,327.93 2 None Moderate 115-072-002 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-052-013 4,356 G-C 0.35 1,524.60 1,021.48 1 None Moderate 115-092-009 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-092-021 10,890 G-C 0.35 3,811.50 2,553.71 4 None Moderate 115-101-005 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-052-010 8,712 G-C 0.35 3,049.20 2,042.96 3 None Moderate 115-051-004 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-072-010 5.227 G-C 0.35 1,829.52 1,225.78 2 None Moderate 115-091-012 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-071-012 16,553 G-C 0.35 5,793.48 3,881.63 6 None Moderate 115-072-003 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-092-006 10,019 G-C 0.35 3,506.58 2,349.41 3 None Moderate 115-092-024 10,890 G-C 0.35 3,811.50 2,553.71 4 None Moderate 115-121-016 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591,82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-091-007 7,405 G-C 0.35 2.591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-140-013 22,651 G-C 0.35 7,927.92 5,311.71 8 None Moderate 115-112-003 27,878 G-C 0.35 9,757.44 6,537.48 10 None Moderate 115-052-012 4,792 G-C 0.35 1,677.06 1,123.63 1 None Moderate 115-072-012 3,485 G-C 0.35 1.219.68 817.19 1 None Moderate 115-092-008 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-092-018 4,792 G-C 0.35 1,677.06 1,123.63 1 None Moderate 115-101-002 3,485 G-C 0.35 1,219.68 817.19 1 None Moderate 115-112-005 12 G-C 0.35 4,116.42 2,758.00 4 None Moderate 115-052-014 11,326 G-C 0.35 3,963.96 2,655.85 4 None Moderate 115-071-002 5,227 G-C 0.35 1,829.52 1,225.78 2 None Moderate 115-071-003 3,920 G-C 0.35 1,372.14 919.33 1 None Moderate 115-071-004 6,098 G-C 0.35 2,134.44 1,430.07 2 None Moderate 115-071-005 4,356 G-C 0.35 1,524.60 1,021.48 1 None Moderate 115-072-011 2,178 G-C 0.35 762.3 510.74 0 None Moderate 115-072-013 3,920 G-C 0.35 1,372.14 919.33 1 None Moderate 150
[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
Income
Group
Affordability
115-072-020 15,246 G-C 0.35 5,336.10 3,575.19 6 None Moderate 115-092-012 7,405 G-C 0.35 2.591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-092-013 14,375 G-C 0.35 5,031.18 3,370.89 5 None Moderate 115-092-014 2,178 G-C 0.35 762.30 510.74 0 None Moderate 115-101-004 6,970 G-C 0.35 2,439.36 1,634.37 2 None Moderate 115-101-014 37,897 G-C 0.35 13,264.02 8,886.89 14 None Moderate 115-121-011 3,485 G-C 0.35 1,219.68 817.19 1 None Moderate 115-121-012 33,541 G-C 0.35 11,739.42 7,865.41 13 None Moderate 115-121-015 14,375 G-C 0.35 5,031.18 3,370.89 5 None Moderate 115-121-017 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-140-001 12,632 G-C 0.35 4,421.34 2,962.30 4 None Moderate 115-052-017 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-052-016 13,939 G-C 0.35 4,878.72 3,268.74 5 None Moderate 115-071-001 18,295 G-C 0.35 6,403.32 4,290.22 7 None Moderate 115-091-004 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-091-005 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-091-008 12,197 G-C 0.35 4,268.88 2,860.15 4 None Moderate 115-091-013 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-133-004 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-051-005 6,970 G-C 0.35 2,439.36 1634.37 2 None Moderate 115-052-003 4,792 G-C 0.35 1,677.06 1,123.63 1 None Moderate 115-052-Q04 4,792 G-C 0.35 1,677.06 1,123.63 1 None Moderate 115-052-005 4,792 G-C 0.35 1,677.06 1,123.63 1 None Moderate 115-052-011 5,227 G-C 0.35 1,829.52 1,225.78 2 None Moderate 115-071-014 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-072-004 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-072-005 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-072-007 6,534 G-C 0.35 2,286.90 1,532.22 2 None Moderate 115-072-008 7,841 G-C 0.35 2,744.28 1,838.67 3 None Moderate 115-072-009 14,810 G-C 0.35 5,183.64 3,473.04 5 None Moderate 115-092-020 9,148 G-C 0.35 3,201.66 2,145.11 3 None Moderate 115-101-010 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115·121-018 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-121-019 11,326 G-C 0.35 3,963.96 2,655.85 4 None Moderate 115-121-020 4,356 G-C 0.35 1,524.60 1,021.48 1 None Moderate 115-121-022 2,178 G-C 0.35 762.30 510.74 0 None Moderate 115-113-007 14,810 G-C 0.35 5,183.64 3,473.04 5 None Moderate 115-051-006 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 151
[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
Income
Group
Affordability
115-091-003 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-092-002 11,326 G-C 0.35 3,963.96 2,655.85 4 None Moderate 115-051-009 15,246 G-C 0.35 5,336.10 3,575.19 6 None Moderate 115-052-006 7,841 G-C 0.35 2,744.28 1,838.67 3 None Moderate 115-071-016 12,197 G-C 0.35 4,268.88 2,860.15 4 None Moderate 115-071-017 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-092-015 2,178 G-C 0.35 762.30 510.74 0 None Moderate 115-101-009 7,405 G-C 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-101-013 30,056 G-C 0.35 10,519.74 7,048.23 11 None Moderate 115-121-021 1,307 G-C 0.35 457.38 306.44 0 None Moderate 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
Income Group
Affordability
113-450-003 A-1 4.645 Moderate
113-450-010 A-1 1.775 Moderate
115-020-032 - 0.74 Moderate/Lower
115-020-033 - 0.1 Moderate/Lower
115-051-001 R-1 0.68 Moderate
115-051-007 - 0.44 Moderate/Lower
115-051-010 R-1 0.32 Moderate
115-121-023 R-1 0.17 Moderate
115-121-024 R-1 0.17 Moderate
115-133-005 R-1 0.17 Moderate
115-133-008 G-C 0.2 Moderate
115-134-004 G-C 0.34 Moderate
115-134-005 G-C 0.18 Moderate
115-134-006 G-C 0.51 Moderate
115-140-004 R-1 0.53 Moderate
115-153-004 G-C 0.32 Moderate
115-153-005 G-C 0.18 Moderate
ALL 10.19
Note: Parcels without zoning designation are excluded from the total

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 Formatted Table
152
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 potentially meet the City’s 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)
IncomeAppropriate
Housing
Low 30 Up to 7 units/acre 123 Above Moderate
Medium 71 Up to 8 units/acre 357 Above Moderate
High 45 10-20 units/acre 322 Moderate
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 Small and Large Sites & Suitability of Nonvacant Sites Most of the available parcels in the central area of Guadalupe are predominantly sites that are smaller than 0.5 acres as Table B-2 shows. Non-vacant sites for mixed-use and ADU units do not count toward meeting RHNA requirements. This is because the City has an abundance of space for housing, which enables the Housing Element to not rely on non-vacant space to accommodate the RHNA. Any use of non-vacant space for housing would be over and above the capacity of vacant units. There are no large sites (over 10 acres each) in Table B-2 in the central area of the City.

7.2.4 5 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. This is an example of qualified and proven entities to acquire and manage affordable housing, which already has a footprint in the City.

7.2.6 Opportunities for Emergency Shelters
Emergency shelters do not require conditional use permits in the zones where they are permitted.

Guadalupe permits emergency shelters in residential zones by right, which means there are no requirements for discretionary action. Program 1.6 asks the City to modify permit procedures to allow emergency shelters in all zones that permit housing without requirements for design review permits and discretionary actions. There is a concentration of opportunities in the downtown area, which is already close to public transit and shopping. This creates a tremendous opportunity to establish emergency Formatted Table
153
shelters in the downtown area with its location efficiency and accessibility to many amenities. The acreage of vacant land is enough to satisfy the City’s need for emergency shelters and other supportive housing.

7.2.5 7 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 it is possible to meet 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.

Figure B-1: Opportunities for Housing in Central McFarland 154

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 155
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. 156
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
Complaints and Enforcement – The data on fair housing enforcement complaints is available at the county level. And the City of Guadalupe does not keep a record on such complaints. Therefore it was not possible to analyze local trends on fair housing enforcement cases based on HCD’s AFFH data resources.

The element had to rely on local knowledge of city officials and residents. A new Program 6.7 is added for the City to begin record keeping on complaints and enforcement cases related to fair housing. The general sentiment is that Guadalupe has a fair distribution of households by income group and housing type.

Needs of Large Households – Section 2.5.2 discusses Large Households. Its Table 2-25 shows the distribution of occupied housing units by number of persons and tenure for 2019. It provides further insight into the potential for overcrowding. Households with five or more persons occupied just over 40 percent of renter units and nearly 40 percent of owner units. While the share of large renter units was sufficient for the share of large households, the share of large owner units far outweighs the share of large households suggesting affordability issues with owner units for large families. The data does not suggest issues with fairness in the availability of large units. However, to address overcrowding and Formatted: Font: (Default) Calibri
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
157
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 Self-Help Enterprises, Habitat for Humanity, and other affordable housing developers that offer opportunities for affordable housing ownership.

Place-Based Strategies & Targeted Investments – The City has historically distributed affordable renter units of multi-family buildings in similar neighborhoods as singe-family housing, which tend for the most part to be market rate. East of State Highway 99, affordable housing includes both single-family and multi-family units. The 2040 General Plan and the Housing Element also plan for the conversion of downtown to mixed-use not only for mixture of lower-income and moderate income housing, but also to enable location efficiency and ease of access to the basic necessities of life for residents. Planned new developments, such as the Milicic Development, that are proposed for the western end of the City also include a mixture of single-family and multi-family units. These place-based strategies in the distribution of housing help to preserve and revitalize housing affordability, choice, and availability, thereby fostering geographic mobility, minimizing displacement, and furthering fair housing. Table 6.4 includes programs on place-based strategies.

Investments & Disinvestments – The place-based strategies identified in the previous paragraph reflect investment in housing to suit a wide range of income groups across the City in a bid to foster investment in resource areas and to prevent disinvestment in older areas, such as downtown, which offer opportunities for location efficiency and fair housing. Location efficiency can be cost effective for residents in terms of accessibility while it makes housing affordable for them and prevent abandonment or deterioration of older areas with potential for convenient living. 158
Figure C-1: Distribution of Fair Housing Enforcement Cases in Guadalupe & Region, 2010 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
159
Figure C-2: Distribution of Fair Housing Enforcement Cases in Guadalupe & Region, 2020 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
160

7.3.2 Assessment of Fair Housing
Guadalupe is a predominantly Hispanic community. In 2020, for instance, 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. 161
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% ,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% ,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% ,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% 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 162
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. The community perceives the City as falling into six neighborhoods (which Figure C- shows). Households and families of all income groups occur in all the neighborhoods. Similarly, multifamily housing and assisted housing facilities occur in neighborhoods on both sides of Highway 1. There are two minor exceptions:
• Pasadera, the newest neighborhood to the south primarily serves housing needs in the moderate to above moderate income groups.
• The Gularte Tract in the northeast neighborhood has a concentration of older homes and a more than average concentration of households in the lower income groups. However, it also has the newest, most attractive housing development for assisted and very low income households.

Formatted: Font: (Default) Calibri
Formatted: List Paragraph, Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at:

0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted: Font: (Default) Calibri, Font color: Auto
163
Figure C-3: 2020 Neighborhood Designations within the City of Guadalupe Source: City of Guadalupe General Plan
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.
164
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, 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 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. 165
Figure C-4: 2010 Concentrations of Hispanic Population by Census Block in Guadalupe Neighborhoods Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2010 Decennial Census, Table P2 166
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 167

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-6 168
Figure C-6: 2014 Concentrations of Disability Populations in Guadalupe and its Region Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
169
Figure C-7: 2019 Concentrations of Disability Populations in Guadalupe and its Region Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
170

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 171
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 20192019, 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 172
housing. 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 20192019, 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. 173
Figure C-8: Percent of Home Owners Paying >30% of Incomes on Housing, Guadalupe Region, 2014 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
174
Figure C-9: Percent of Home Owners Paying >30% of Incomes on Housing, Guadalupe Region, 2019 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
175
Figure C-10: Percent of Renters Paying >30% of Incomes on Housing, Guadalupe Region, 2014 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
176
Figure C-11: Percent of Renters Paying >30% of Incomes on Housing, Guadalupe Region, 2019 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
177

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 distribute 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 distribute across the City instead of clustering into any particular enclave. This is consistent with the integration objective of the housing choice voucher program.
178
Figure C-12: Locations of Subsidized Housing Projects in the Guadalupe Region, 2021 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
179
Figure C-13: Locations of Subsidized Housing Projects within Guadalupe and Vicinity, 2021 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
180

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 20202020, 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.
181
Figure C-14: Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty in Guadalupe & Region, 2000 Sources: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022. Decennial census (2000) 182
Figure C-15: Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty in Guadalupe & Region, 2010 Sources: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022. Decennial census (2010) 183
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 184
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 185
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. 186
Figure C-18: Concentrations of Non-Hispanic Whites in Guadalupe Neighborhoods, 2010 Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2010 Decennial Census, Table P2 187
Figure C-19: Concentrations of Non-Hispanic Whites in Guadalupe Neighborhoods, 2020 Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census, Table P2 188

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. 189
• 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 190
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 191
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
192
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. 193
Table C-11: Distribution of Employment by Occupation (2021) and Median Earning (2020) 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
Food preparation and serving related
occupations 55 2% $14,777 14,008 7% $17,195
Building and grounds cleaning and 234 7% $7,165 11,195 5% $24,857 194
Occupation
Guadalupe City Santa Barbara County
Persons Percent Median
Earning Persons Percent Median Earning
maintenance occupations
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 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.
195

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. Then it 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 196
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.
197
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. 198
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 199
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 200
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 Council 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 201
mixed use development can accommodate 35 additional housing units. Figure B-2 of Appendix B identifies parcels designated for mixed-use development.

For accessory dwelling units, residential lots with potential to comfortably develop affordable accessory dwelling units (ADU) have the potential to generate 120 such units across 40 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. 202

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-22 depicts the incidence of toxic release within Guadalupe. Compared to the State average, Guadalupe fell in the lowest category. 203
Figure C-23: 2022 Incidence of Toxic Release by Census Tract in Guadalupe Sources: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
204

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 Table 6-23 repeats combines the relevant policy statements and initiatives that are not explicitly listed among the housing-specific policies of the Housing Element (sections 6.1 through 6.6). It is noteworthy that the additional fair housing actions (which are not housing-specific) do support the goal of affirmatively furthering fair housing. Refer to Table 6-23 for the comprehensive list of AFFH programs.

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.

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: 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 the City’s Fair Housing Program and distribute the booklet “Fair Housing: It’s Your Right.”
205
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
206

7.4 Appendix D: Development Fees
This appendix presents a consolidated list of fees, which combines common planning department fees with a master schedule of development fees in Guadalupe. City Council Resolution No. 2013-39 of September 24, 2013 adopted the Master Fee Schedule, which was recently re-established by ordinance.

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 + 30% Administrative Overhead The following link provides a web link to an exhaustive list of fees including personnel rates for actual costs: https://ci.guadalupe.ca.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Master-Fee-Schedule-FY-2020-2021- Attachment-2-8-11-2020.pdf
Table D-1: Consolidated List of Fees in Guadalupe
[Table C-1] Activity or Service
Fee Type (Fixed or
Deposit toward
Actual Cost) Fee
Annexation Deposit $12,500
Building Permit Fee required by CBC
Certification of Compliance Deposit $750
City Council Conceptual Review Fixed Fee $750
Coastal Development Permit Deposit $1,000
CUP/DPR - home occupation permit Fixed Fee $250
CUP/DPR - major Deposit $3,500
CUP/DPR - minor Deposit $1,500
Development Agreement Deposit $10,000
EIR Addendum Deposit $7,500
EIR or Supplemental EIR Deposit $25,000
Encroachment Permit $63
Environmental Clearance Review - Major) by determination of planner Deposit $1,000 Environmental Clearance Review - Minor) by determination of planner Deposit $500 Final Map Deposit $7,400
General Plan Amendment - major) by determination of planner Deposit $8,000 General Plan Amendment - minor) by determination of planner Deposit $4,000 General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Deposit $10,000
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Deposit $15,000
Grading Permit Fee required by CBC
Landscape Plan Check - major) by determination of planner Deposit $800 Landscape Plan Check - minor) by determination of planner Deposit $400 Lot Line Adjustment Deposit $1,500
Lot Merger Deposit $750
Mitigation Monitoring Deposit $1,250
Negative Declaration - Complex (Mitigated Negative Declaration) Deposit $3,500 207
[Table C-1] Activity or Service
Fee Type (Fixed or
Deposit toward
Actual Cost) Fee
Negative Declaration - Simple Deposit $1,500
Planned Development - minor Fixed Fee $330
Planned Development - major Deposit $2,500
Pre-Application Review - major Deposit $2,500
Pre-Application Review - minor Fixed Fee $330
Preliminary Parcel Map Deposit $1,000
Preliminary Track Map Deposit $2,000
Public Facility and Traffic Impact Fees (per annexation lot) Fixed Fee $800 Public Facility and Traffic Impact Fees (per subdivision lot) Fixed Fee $300 Public Improvement Plan Checking (per single lot) Fixed Fee $290 Public Improvement Plan Checking (per subdivision) Fixed Fee $1,460 Sewer connection fee (per multi-family unit) Fixed Fee $2,361 Sewer connection fee (per single family unit) Fixed Fee $3,542 Sign Permit - major (requiring council approval) Deposit $600 Sign Permit - minor (requiring council approval) Fixed Fee $110 Specific Plan - New Deposit $8,000
Specific Plan - Revision or Amendment Deposit $4,000
Sphere of Influence Adjustment Deposit $5,000
Temporary Use Permit Deposit $500
Tentative Parcel Map Deposit $3,000
Tentative Tract Map Deposit $5,000
Time Extension or Appeal Fixed Fee $570
Variance Deposit $1,500
Water Connection Fee (based on the diameter of the service line) Fixed Fee Zoning Clearance - change in use only Fixed Fee $150
Zoning Clearance - home business application Fixed Fee $150 Zoning Clearance - multi-family development or commercial Fixed Fee $400 Zoning Clearance - new single-family unit or duplex Fixed Fee $250 Zoning code Change - major Deposit $5,000
Zoning code Change - minor Deposit $7,500
Zoning Code Text Amendment Deposit $2,500
208

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. (2014). Zoning Code
City of Guadalupe. (2013). 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

Agenda Item No. 12

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE
Agenda of April 23, 2024
_________________________________ _________________________________ Prepared by: Approved by:

Philip F. Sinco, City Attorney Todd Bodem, City Administrator SUBJECT: Fee Waiver Policy for Use of City-Owned Facilities by Non-Profit Organizations RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council consider a proposed policy for fee waivers for the use of City-owned facilities and the procedure for requesting such fee waivers from the City Council, and thereafter, provide direction to staff for a final policy to be considered at a future City Council meeting.

BACKGROUND:

When the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2018-41 at its meeting on September 11, 2018, approving increased fees for the City’s Master Fee Schedule (Part 2, Section B-1, Park & Facilities & Special Events) related to the use of certain City facilities, three of the “whereas” recitals statements were incorporated into the resolution as findings. The three (3) “whereas” statements were:

WHEREAS, the City of Guadalupe supports youth recreation and other events and the use of City facilities and parks in the community; and
WHEREAS, the City facilities and parks must be maintained to be appropriately viable for rental purposes; and
WHEREAS, the City can no longer provide such facilities and parks for rental purposes without reasonable rental fees to be charged; …
The issue of charging City-based non-profit organizations to use the City’s facilities and the previous practice of not charging fees to nonprofits organization was directly addressed to the City Council at the meeting on September 11, 2018. At that meeting, the staff report stated:

The primary concern raised on the increased fees was focused on the youth groups/organizations and non-profits. Meetings have been held with all those groups. The City supports youth recreation and events being held at our facilities and parks. However, those facilities and parks must be maintained and the City’s financial state is such that there isn’t sufficient revenue to do so. Individuals and groups will need to pay a fair fee to help maintain the upkeep of the Philip F. Sinco

auditorium/gym and City parks. Previously, the City did not charge any fee to nonprofit groups (501C3), government/agencies, schools and youth groups/organizations.

At a subsequent Council meeting on March 11, 2020, the Council adopted Resolution No. 2020- 21, approving further increased fees for Part 2, Section B-1 of the City’s Master Fee Schedule.

The staff report for this item stated:

At their March 5, 2020 Recreation and Parks Commission meeting, the primary concern raised on the increased fees was focused on the youth groups/organizations and non-profits. While past practice had allowed these groups to use City facilities and parks free of charge, the City recognizes it can no longer continue doing so. The City auditorium/gym, council chambers, other city facilities, and parks are in serious need of repair. Meetings had been held with all those groups to discuss the rationale behind the increased fees.

Our facilities and parks must be maintained to be used as venues to support youth recreation and events in our community. Unfortunately, the City’s financial state is such that there isn’t sufficient revenue to do so. Individuals and groups will now need to pay a fair fee to help maintain the upkeep of the auditorium/gym and parks.

In Resolution No. 2020-21, one of the “whereas” recitals quoted above was slightly modified to include a reference to the Recreation and Parks Commission’s statements, which was as follows:

WHEREAS, at its February 12, 2020, Recreation and Parks Commission meeting, the Commission stated and recommended that the City can no longer provide such facilities and parks for rental purposes without reasonable rental fees to be charged; … At the City Council meeting on October 11, 2022, Recreation Services Manager, Hannah Sanchez, submitted a staff report to the Council requesting significantly increased fees for use of City facilities. One of the issues discussed at length during the presentation of this item was the issue of non-profit organizations wanting to request fee waiversto use City facilities. The minutes from this meeting state: “Ms. Sanchez mentioned that fees had been waived in the past for nonprofits. She said, “A lot of non-profits want to request to speak before the City Council to justify not having to pay a fee.”
The Council did not take any action at the October 11th meeting on the fees, but directed staff to study the issue further and come back with new recommendations for fees at a future meeting.

Staff did so and brought the issue back to the Council at its meeting on August 22, 2023. The new proposed fees included discounted fees for nonprofit organizations, which were proposed as being responsive to the Council’s direction given at the October 11, 2022, Council meeting. At the August 22nd meeting, the Council indicated its approval for the new proposed fees, and took official action at its meeting on September 12, 2023, to amend Part 2, Section B-1 of the Master Fee Schedule to include the new fees for use of City facilities when it adopted Resolution No. 2023-76. Once again, incorporated as a finding into the resolution was the recital that stated:

“the City can no longer provide such facilities and parks for rental purposes without reasonable rental fees to be charged.”
Although the issue of nonprofit organizations use of City facilities was discussed at all of the City Council meetings referred to above, the issue whether nonprofit organizations should always be required to pay fees was not definitively settled.

In or about late April/early May 2023, the Kids Come First Foundation requested a fee waiver from City staff for the use of the City Auditorium. Because staff believed that the Council’s previous actions (set forth above) essentially constituted a rejection of the previous practice (prior to 2018) of waiving fees for nonprofit organizations at the staff level, staff brought this fee waiver request to the City Council at its meeting on May 9, 2023.

At the May 9th meeting, the staff report stated, in part, as follows:

The issue of the appropriate amount of fees charged to non-profit organizations based in the City of Guadalupe to use City facilities has come up for discussion before the City Council several times; and unfortunately, the Council has not provided City staff with clear guidance….

Obviously, this has been a long-standing and difficult issue for the City Council. On one hand, the work done by the City’s non-profits is important and, as non-profits, their funds are limited and charging them fees takes away funding they can use to serve their missions. On the other hand, the City is not recovering fair value for allowing the nonprofits to use the City’s facilities, which is counter-productive in the long run since this reduces the funds necessary for the City to adequately maintain its facilities.

The staff report for the fee waiver request for the Kids Come First Foundation was presented to the Council at the behest of Mayor Julian. As stated in the staff report for that item, he believed that the City Administrator had the authority to grant fee waivers, but the City Attorney determined that only the Council had this authority, which necessitated bringing this item for the Council’s consideration.

In fact, Mayor Julian’s belief was well-founded. Guadalupe Municipal Code (GMC) section 2.28.040 provides that a nonprofit organization or group of individuals may obtain a permit for the use of any portion of any City recreation facilities by making a written request to the City Administrator providing information about the event, and if an admission fee is proposed to be charged. GMC section 2.28.040 states, in part:

If no admission price is proposed to be charged, the City Administrator may grant or refuse a permit in his or her discretion, and may grant a permit upon any condition which he or she deems necessary. If an admission is proposed to be charged, the City Administrator shall submit a written report and recommendation to the City Council, which may accept, reject or modify such recommendation in whole or in part, in its discretion, …
Thus, Mayor Julian was correct that the City Administrator had the discretion to waive the fee for the Kids Come First Foundation to use the City Auditorium under GMC section 2.28.040, but in light of the

several actions taken by the City Council since 2018 concerning the need for nonprofits to pay to use City recreational facilities, City staff (and the City Attorney) did not believe it was appropriate for the City Administrator to make this decision, and therefore, brought the fee waiver request to the City Council.

The City Council ultimately voted to waive the fee(s) for the Kids Come First Foundation event at the City Auditorium.

DISCUSSION:

Recently, the Touch of Style Car Club requested a waiver of City fees from the City Council for an event it wishes to hold. This request presented an appropriate opportunity for City staff to bring a policy to the City Council for its consideration concerning fee waivers. A proposed policy is attached hereto as Attachment 1. This proposed policy was based upon a policy used by the City of Lathrop, California, and has been slightly modified to better conform to City of Guadalupe’s situation and needs.

The proposed policy provides that the fees for the use of City facilities (including parks) may be waived for three categories of entities or organizations: (1) governmental agencies; (2) nonprofit organizations (e.g., 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations) that are located in Guadalupe or that serve the Guadalupe community; and (3) certain “community service organizations” (that are not nonprofits but provide benefits to the Guadalupe community). If an entity falling under one of these three categories wants to request a waiver of the fee that would otherwise be required to use a City facility, the entity must submit a letter to the Recreation and Parks Department stating the reason(s) for the fee waiver request, and a completed Facility Use Application form. If the entity is a nonprofit organization, proof of its nonprofit status will be required. For a nonprofit or “community service organization” (but not for a governmental entity), a copy of the organization’s mission statement, if any, and a financial balance statement or bank statement will also be required to be provided (and kept confidential). Finally, if the request is approved, the entity will be required to provide a certificate of insurance in designated amount naming the City and its officers, employees, etc., as additional named insureds for the event or program.

Once the required paperwork has been submitted, the facility fee waiver request will be presented to the City Council which will approve or deny it.. The decision of the City Council will be final.

The proposed policy also sets forth criteria that the City Council should consider when deciding whether to grant or deny a fee waiver request. The criteria include, but are not limited to, such considerations as:
• If applicable, the organization must not deny participants/players due to their inability to pay registration or participation fees.
• The imposition of fees would create a financial hardship on the organization or would have a detrimental effect upon the services provided to the public. • Whether the proposed fee waiver: (a) will not have any significant impacts on the facilities or Recreation and Parks Department activities; (b) that the applicant will provide volunteer services and materials to mitigate any impacts created by the event or program; or (c) that the impacts are adequately offset by the public benefit provided by the program or event. (If the applicant offers to provide volunteer services to offset any impacts of the event, such volunteer services

are subject to approval of the Recreation and Parks Department which may require the use of a City building attendant, for example, an event where alcohol is served). • Scheduling and use of facilities and events are subject to availability of requested facilities and must not impact City programs and activities or previous commitments to outside parties. • Reasonable steps to minimize impacts to the City of Guadalupe facilities, programs, and residents.

The policy includes a statement that, in all cases, certain expenses incurred by the City, including but not limited to, the cost of a building attendant or the cost for utilities, may not be waived without a documented financial hardship.

If a fee waiver is granted, the proposed policy requires that, within thirty (30) days after the event or program, for future consideration of fee waivers, a written report should be provided to the Recreation and Parks Department, to include at a minimum; number of participants; event revenue and expenses; and if any benefit to the City. Recreation and Parks Department staff would use this information and provide a written update to the City Council reporting on the event and will include the pros and cons of the event for future reference for any necessary improvements for facility use.

Lastly, any failure to abide by the rules and procedures as set forth in the proposed policy could result in the respective permittee being denied for future fee waiver requests.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Any waiver of fees for the use of City facilities will result in a loss in revenue to the City. The more fee waivers granted by the City Council under the proposed policy, the greater would the loss of revenue be, and this could have a negative impact on the City’s ability to maintain its facilities, including parks.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Proposed Fee Waiver Policy
[PROPOSED] FACILITY FEE WAIVER POLICY
Facility fees charged for the use of City facili�es may be waived by the City of Guadalupe in certain limited cases. Any applicant reques�ng such a waiver must submit the appropriate documents demonstra�ng that the applicant or intended use fall within the following categories:
• Governmental agencies including, but not limited to other municipali�es, County agencies, or special districts.
• Non-profit organiza�ons, including 501(c)(3) and/or 501 (c)(4) organiza�ons, located in Guadalupe or those who serve the Guadalupe community.
• Guadalupe organiza�ons with financial hardship directly benefi�ng the Guadalupe community, such as a community group without non-profit status.

Any applicant reques�ng considera�on of their waiver must do the following:

1. Submit a leter (or email) to the City of Guadalupe Recrea�on and Parks Department sta�ng the reason(s) for the requested facility fee waiver. The leter (or email) must be from an authorized representa�ve or the agency or organiza�on.

2. Submit a Facility Use Applica�on form for the specific City facility for which the fee waiver is being requested.

3. Submit cer�fica�on of the applicant’s 501(c)(3) or 501(c)4 status, non-profit organiza�on documents, or any other applicable documents.

4. Submit a copy of the organiza�on's mission statement, if any.

5. Submit a copy of the organiza�on's financial statement balance or bank statement.

6. If approved, submit a copy of insurance naming the City of Guadalupe as the Cer�ficate Holder and an Endorsement sta�ng," The City of Guadalupe, its officers, officials, agents, and volunteers are to be covered as addi�onally insured."
Facility fee waivers will be presented to the CIty Council for a recommenda�on to approve or deny the fee waiver request. The decision of the City Council will be final.

In all cases, certain expenses incurred by the City, including but not limited to, the cost of a building attendant or the cost for utilities, may not be waived without a documented financial hardship.

ATTACHMENT 1

FACILITY FEE WAIVER CRITERIA
In reviewing a fee waiver request, if a fee is to be waived, the following criteria should be considered:

1. The organiza�on must show proof of valid 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) status. If the organiza�on, is not a nonprofit, then it must be a community service organiza�on serving the City of Guadalupe and benefi�ng the residents of Guadalupe.

2. If applicable, the organiza�on must submit their policy showing that they do not deny par�cipants/players due to their inability to pay registra�on or par�cipa�on fees.

3. The imposi�on of fees would create a financial hardship on the organiza�on or would have a detrimental effect upon the services provided to the public.

4. Whether the proposed fee waiver: will have any significant impacts on the facili�es or Recrea�on and Parks Department ac�vi�es, and if so: (1) whether the applicant will provide volunteer services and materials to mi�gate any impacts created by the event or program, or the impacts are adequately offset by the public benefit provided by the program or event. If the applicant offers to provide volunteer services to offset any impacts of the event, such volunteer services are subject to approval of the Recrea�on and Parks Department which may require the use of a City building atendant (e.g., for an event where alcohol is served).

5. A Cer�ficate of General Liability Insurance must be submited 30 days prior to the event in an amount no less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage, and endorsed to provide that "the City of Guadalupe and its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be addi�onal names insureds" under such policies with coverage at least as broad as ISO form CG 2010 or CG 20 26.

6. Scheduling and use of facili�es and events are subject to availability of requested facili�es and do not have preference over City programs and ac�vi�es or previous commitments to outside par�es.

7. Reasonable steps must be made by the permitee to minimize impacts to the City of Guadalupe facili�es, programs, and residents.

8. Within thirty (30) days of comple�on of the event for which a fee waiver was given, for future considera�on of fee waivers, the permitee should provide a writen report to the Recrea�on and Parks Department, to include at a minimum; number of par�cipants; event revenue and expenses; and if any benefit to the City. A�er receiving this informa�on from the permitee, the Recreation and Parks Department staff shall provide a written update to the City Council reporting on the event and will include the pros and cons of the event for future reference for any necessary improvements for facility use.

9. Failure to abide by the rules and procedures as set forth in this document may result in the respec�ve permitee being denied for future fee waiver requests.