Guadalupe City Council
May 27, 2025

Prg-1.7, 1.8, 1.9,

4.2 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
Updated parking
standards
113
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics
27 Monitoring 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
pipeline development
by 2031

HOUSING MOBILITY THROUGH EXPANDED CHOICES IN HOUSING TYPES AND LOCATIONS 28 Extremely LowIncome (ELI) Housing
Resources
Pol-1.3, 1.12
Prg-4.6
Identify sites for additional ELI housing projects and begin exploration for funding sources for ELI housing units
Identify sites in 2025;
begin exploration of
funding sources in 2026
Citywide
Future new interim
housing units for ELI
households
29 Funding and
Resources to Prevent
and Reduce
Homelessness
Prg-4.3, 4.4, 4.5
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
By 2031, seek at least
$500,000 dollars in
funding.
30 Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADUs)
Prg-1.3
• Provide expanded resources on ADUs on the City’s website Citywide, especially
single-family
neighborhoods
Create or legalize at
least 10 ADUs a year
through 2031, or 80
over the planning
period.
• Develop incentives such as fee waivers or tax abatements for owners who agree to rent their ADUs to qualifying lower income households
2024-2025 onwards
• Pursue grant funding to help homeowners add ADUs with a deed restriction that limits occupancy to a lower income tenants
31 Monitoring the
Status of belowmarket-rate (BMR)
Units
• Enter agreement with County Housing Authority for
monitoring of BMR ownership units Citywide
All tenants and
homeowners qualify
as lower or moderateincome households. • In 2024, identify a service provider to monitor BMR rental units 2024-2025 onwards
114
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics
Prg-3.1 • Meet with service providers at least every 6 months for updates on BMR portfolio
All property owners
charge appropriate
rents for BMR units.
32 Housing Resources
for Older Adults
Prg-1.3, 3.3
Prg-4.2. 4.5
• 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 • 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-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-1.3,
Prg-4.5
• Add to the Municipal Code definitions of licensed and unlicensed group homes that conform to State standards
2024-2025 onwards Higher-density zoning
districts
Reduction in 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 higher- density zoning districts
115
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics
35 Affordable 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 (i.e., 200
percent of the lower
income RHNA units or
40 percent of lowerincome pipeline units)
• 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 LowIncome 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 in taking steps towards stable housing.
2024-2025 onwards
Areas with people
experiencing
homelessness,
including but not
limited to:

Downtown, highway
underpasses, and
open space areas as
applicable.

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 at
least additional 25%
of residents in
permanent supportive
housing.

Produce a stock of interim housing units with grants
37 Increasing Equity in
Home Maintenance
with Residential
Rehabilitation Loan
Program
Prg-1.5
Pol-2.3, 2.4
Direct CDBG funds to provide property improvement loans and technical assistance to very low-income homeowners Annually Citywide Assist up to a dozen households by 2031
116
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics
38 Specific 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
With very low occurrence on unhoused persons in the City, a full mental health position would not be necessary. Therefore, the City can rely on the mental health services and personnel of the County.
2024-2025 onwards
Enclaves with high
concentrations of
people experiencing
homelessness
Connect people
experiencing
homelessness to
mental health and
housing services,
including the
Countywide amenities
B AFFH Action: SAFE
Program
In conjunction with the County Mental Health Department, launch a pilot program consisting of an 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 local Guadalupe Business Association 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
117
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics
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
• City-wide language access; Hybrid communications
engagement strategy
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 φυτυρε
G
AFFH Action: 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 organizations. 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
118
ID Program Specific Commitment(s) Timeline Geographic
Targeting Metrics
• 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
• 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. 119

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 5th 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 ADUs.

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

Table A-4a provides a broad overview 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 120
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 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 category.

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

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

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

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

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

Additionally, amendments to the Guadalupe Municipal Code in August 2017, January 2019, and December 2023, revised Chapter 18.53 of the Code on “ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS”. The Municipal Code 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. 121
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
cycle
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
cycle
Part of development
review process
This enabled
construction of ADU
units and three dozen
assisted housing
apartments
Continue
program
implementation
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
Planning
Department
In effect
since
2017
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
122
[Table A-1] Program Responsible
Agency
Time
Frame
Evaluation & 2015-2022
Accomplishments
Future Policies
and Actions
that apply to residential
development within the
same zone.

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 part of
development review
process,
Applied to the assisted
living units.

Continue
program
implementation
123
[Table A-1] Program Responsible
Agency
Time
Frame
Evaluation & 2015-2022
Accomplishments
Future Policies
and Actions
A.5. The City shall
continue to work 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 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
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.

City
Administrator
In effect
during 5th
cycle
Essential element of
affordable housing
facilitation and
production.

It aided the funding
and construction of
assisted housing
apartments
Continue
program
implementation
124
[Table A-1] Program Responsible
Agency
Time
Frame
Evaluation & 2015-2022
Accomplishments
Future Policies
and Actions
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
cycle
Essential element of
affordable housing
retention.

This has helped in
maintaining the quality
of affordable and
assisted units in the City
Continue
program
implementation
B.1. The City shall
coordinate its efforts with
the Santa Barbara County
Housing Authority to
continue receiving
Section 8 subsidy monies.

A City staff liaison will
have the responsibility of
coordinating these
efforts.

City
Administrator
In effect
during 5th
cycle
Essential element of
affordable housing for
those in the very low
end of income spectrum
The subsidies have
made housing
affordable for large
segments of the City’s
residents
Continue
program
implementation
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.

Planning
Department
In effect
during 5th
cycle
Essential element of
tracking affordable
housing.

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

Continue
program
implementation
125
[Table A-1] Program Responsible
Agency
Time
Frame
Evaluation & 2015-2022
Accomplishments
Future Policies
and Actions
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
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
cycle
Ongoing part of
development review
process.

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

Continue
program
implementation
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 inlieu fee requirement, or
both for projects that
include three- and fourbedroom units, or single
room occupancy units, as
a significant portion of
the total project. The
thresholds for
determining 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.

Planning
Department
In effect
during 5th
cycle
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
implementation
126
[Table A-1] Program Responsible
Agency
Time
Frame
Evaluation & 2015-2022
Accomplishments
Future Policies
and Actions
D.2. The City shall adopt a
procedure to make
reasonable
accommodations (i.e.,
modifications or
exceptions) in its zoning
laws and other land use
regulations and practices
when such
accommodations may be
necessary to afford
persons with disabilities
and other special needs
an equal opportunity to
use and enjoy a dwelling.

The amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance shall
include a revised
definition of family that is
consistent with State
housing law. It shall
address all aspects of the
Americans with
Disabilities Act in regard
to home construction,
retrofitting restrictions,
and parking requirements
due to City Zoning 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
cycle
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
implementation
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
Police
Department,
City
Administrator
Continued
during 5th
cycle
Information available at
City Hall.

This has aided a large
segment of the
population for whom
English is a second
language and incoming
Continue
program
implementation
127
[Table A-1] Program Responsible
Agency
Time
Frame
Evaluation & 2015-2022
Accomplishments
Future Policies
and Actions
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.
migrants to navigate the
housing landscape.

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
Continued
during 5th
cycle
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
implementation
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.,
Planning
Department
Continued
during 5th
cycle
Overlay district created
permitting such uses.

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

Continue
program
implementation
128
[Table A-1] Program Responsible
Agency
Time
Frame
Evaluation & 2015-2022
Accomplishments
Future Policies
and Actions
apartments in a multifamily zone).

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

Building
Department
Continued
during 5th
cycle
Verified during plan
check for building
permits
Continue
program
implementation
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
Implemen
ted during
5th cycle
Disseminated
collaboratively in utility
bills
Continue
program
implementation
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
cycle
Part of development
review process.

Continue
program
implementation
E.4. New annexations to
the City shall be
contiguous to the existing
City to maintain compact
urban form and energy
efficiency.

Planning
Department
Continued
during 5th
cycle
Addressed in update to
General Plan
Continue
program
implementation
129
[Table A-1] Program Responsible
Agency
Time
Frame
Evaluation & 2015-2022
Accomplishments
Future Policies
and Actions
E.5. The City shall apply
for and support
applications for
affordable housing funds
from agencies that
reward and incentivize
good planning. Examples
include the HCD's Multifamily Housing Program
(MHP) and California Tax
Credit Allocation
Committee resources
which provide
competitive advantage
for affordable infill
housing and affordable
housing built close to
jobs, transportation, and
amenities.

City
Administrator
Continued
during 5th
cycle
Part of application
efforts for grant
resources
Continue
program
implementation
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
Continued
during 5th
cycle
Disseminated
collaboratively in utility
bills
Continue
program
implementation
F.1. The City will continue
to provide information
from the Housing
Authority and
Department of Equal
Housing and Employment
regarding housing and
tenant rights at City Hall.

And the City will continue
to provide information in
Spanish as well as review
the need for any third
Planning
Department
Continued
during 5th
cycle
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 access in the
City.

Continue
program
implementation
130
[Table A-1] Program Responsible
Agency
Time
Frame
Evaluation & 2015-2022
Accomplishments
Future Policies
and Actions
language information in
Guadalupe.

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
Continued
during 5th
cycle
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
implementation
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
Continued
during 5th
cycle
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
implementation
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 enabled new
RHNA allocations in
the moderate and
above moderateincome 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
134
[Table A-2] Goals & Policy
Evaluation & 2015-
2022
Accomplishments
Appropriateness
Policy E.1: All new dwelling units shall be required to meet current State requirements for energy efficiency and
retrofitting of existing units shall be encouraged.

This is implemented
during the
application review
process
Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy E.2: New land use patterns shall encourage energy efficiency, to the extent possible.

The spirit of the new
General Plan
encapsulates this
policy
Still Appropriate -
retain
Goal F: Assurance of equal access to sound, affordable
housing for all persons regardless of race, creed, age or sex.

The City has lived by
this tenet making it
one of the most
diverse communities
in the area.

Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy F.1: The City declares that all persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, or disability should have equal access to sound and affordable housing.

The City has lived by
this tenet making it
one of the most
diverse communities
in the area.

Still Appropriate -
retain
Policy F.2: The City will promote the enforcement of the policies of the State Fair Employment and Housing
Commission.

The City has lived by
this tenet making it
one of the most
diverse communities
in the area.

Still Appropriate -
retain

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 Tota Entitlements Very Low- Income Deed Restricted 0 0 0 Very Low- Income Non Deed Restricted 0 0 0 Low- Income Deed Restricted 0 0 0
Low- Income Non Deed Restricted 0 0 0
Moderate- Income Deed Restricted 0 0 0
Moderate- Income Non Deed Restricted 0 0 0
AboveModerate-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 0 Very Low- Income Non Deed Restricted 0 0 0
Low- Income Deed Restricted 7 7 0 0
Low- Income Non Deed Restricted 0 6 6 0
Moderate- Income Deed Restricted 1 1 0 0
Moderate- Income Non Deed Restricted 34 34 0 0
AboveModerate-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 0 Very Low- Income Non Deed Restricted 0 0 0
Low- Income Deed Restricted 0 0 0
Low- Income Non Deed Restricted 0 0 0
Moderate- Income Deed Restricted 0 0 0
Moderate- Income Non Deed Restricted 0 4 4 0
AboveModerate-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
139
Figure A-1 DJ Farms Site Map
Source: Pasadera Homes web site: https://newpasaderahomes.com/pasadera-site-map 140
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 141

7.2 Appendix B: Residential Land Inventory

7.2.0 Site Analysis for 6th Cycle RHNA

7.2.0.1 Pipeline Projects for 6th Cycle RHNA & Buffer
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. 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. This analysis compares the City’s regional housing need allocation of 431 units with its pipeline projects that are either under construction or are on the cusps of starting construction. To accommodate the RHNA, the examination focused initially on the development potential of vacant lots that are infill sites and such approved housing projects as multi-family development of People’s Self-Help and expansion of the Pasadera development in the DJ Farms Specific Plan area as well as pipeline projects that received a certificate of occupancy after the beginning of the SBCAG projection period. Table B-1 shows the distribution of the City’s allocation by income groups side-by-side with the numbers of pipeline units slated for delivery during the 6th Cycle. It became immediately clear that housing units under pipeline projects were sufficient to accommodate the City’s allocation by income categories.

Table B-1: Summary of 2023-2031 RHNA Allocations to Guadalupe vs. Pipeline Projects Income Group Dwelling
Units1
Percent
of
RHNA
Pipeline
Projects2
Vacant
DJ
Farms
Parcels3
Subtotal
Pipeline
Units
Percent
Above
RHNA
(Buffer)
Extremely Low 1 0.20% 38 0 38 3700%
Very Low 2 0.50% 40 0 40 1900%
Low 24 5.60% 40 0 40 67%
Moderate 77 17.90% 22 74 96 22%
Above Moderate 327 75.90% 0 391 391 20%
Total 431 100.00% 140 465 605 40% 1
Source: SBCAG, 2023-2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan 2 Pipeline projects under construction in the City by PSHH, Escalante Meadows, and private development; all to be inhabited within 6th Cycle
3 Two relatively large parcels designated and zoned for housing but are vacant with potential to meet the large RHNA for “above moderate” that are allocated to the City.

Figure B-1 shows the locations of pipeline projects and additional opportunities to consolidate vacant lots at two locations to become suitable for the development of additional low-income housing. Given that housing distribution across the City historically depicts a mixture of income types, the locations of pipeline and potential consolidation sites reinforce such a desirable distribution of housing by income.

The following are noteworthy:
• There are two pipeline projects which are near completion for the three lowest income categories, which include 38 extremely low-income by People’s Self Help Housing (PSHH) as well 142
as 80 units in the very low and low-income Escalante Meadows development as Table B-1 shows. Projects with low and very low-income rentals are guaranteed for the life of the projects due to agreements made at the time that federal loans were issued for the construction of these projects. As Figure B-1 indicates, PSHH units are anticipated to be fully occupied within 2024 while the units in Escalante Meadows are expected to be fully occupied within 2025. • In addition, a private developer has almost completed constructing a third pipeline project of 22 units in the moderate-income category as Table B-1 shows. Figure B-1 shows that these moderate-income units are next door to the PSHH project for those in the extremely lowincome category. The moderate units are expected to be occupied in early 2025.

Figure B-1: Locations of Pipeline Projects and Potential Lot Consolidations in 6th Cycle • The impending phase of the Pasadera development on two relatively large vacant parcels in the DJ Farms specific plan area totaling approximately 44 acres (not identified in previous cycles) that the General Plan and zoning designate for housing development, can accommodate a total of 465 units to serve the moderate and above moderate-income groups as Table B-1 shows. 143
• Overall, these pipeline projects can accommodate the full RHNA for the 6th Cycle plus an overall buffer of 40 percent more units. It is noteworthy that there is no buffer in any income category that is below 20 percent. The buffers of units slated for delivery are higher than the 15%+ buffer that SB 166 (2021) requires. The next subsection identifies surpluses of additional sites. • Furthermore, during preparation of this Housing Element, other projects have come online. In addition to the large, low-income housing projects (identified in previous paragraphs) that will be occupied later this year or next year, a number of smaller housing projects have been approved in the past year and are now in “the pipeline” since they have been issued building permits. Two of the new projects are projected to have apartment units that will be rented in the moderate-income range. The Crandall Apartments are providing nine new units and two ADUs while the Edwards Apartments are providing eight new units – all in the moderate-income range. The planning office anticipates the same developers will submit additional projects with similar housing products to provide rental units in the moderate-income range.

Implications for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH): The locations and distribution of the key pipeline projects contributing to the 6th Cycle RHNA have implications for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). There is a potential to look at the sites and wonder initially if there is integration by income since lower income housing units seem concentrated in the north while moderate income housing seems concentrated in the DJ Farms area to the south. The answer is affirmative in terms of AFFH integration. The central city already has mixed income housing which combines lower-income and moderate-income units. Additionally, the following is notable:
• Pipeline projects counting toward 6th Cycle RHNA include moderate income apartments on East 11th St, which are currently almost completed. These moderate units are right next door to the extremely low-income housing in the PSHH project and rather close to the low and very lowincome housing in Escalante Meadows. • Together with the units at DJ Farms to the south the moderate units that are existing or under construction occur from north to south across the City, interspersed with the lower income units also spread across the City.
• Furthermore, recent ADU construction is also spread through the central city and are largely moderate units intermixed with housing for the range of income levels. • Finally, Program 6.8 is added to promote upper income housing as well in the downtown area.

Progress in Meeting 6th Cycle RHNA: Projects counting toward the 6th Cycle RHNA are already being implemented as evidenced by the issuance of building permits, the commencement of construction activities, and near-completion of three out of four pipeline projects. For Pasadera, previous hold-ups with the local rail line over crossing permits have recently been resolved (in mid-2024), paving the way for construction to resume. The development has already recorded lots therefore the next action is the issuance of building permits for the new homes. Given the developer’s record of accomplishment, construction is anticipated to be complete within the 6th Cycle. 144

7.2.0.2 Additional Site Analysis Above 6th Cycle RHNA
Tables in this section of the report identify additional residential development capacity over and above what is required for the 6th Cycle RHNA. 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. To accommodate future housing potential, the examination focused on the development potential of vacant land that are infill sites for location efficiency and maximum accessibility. 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-byparcel 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 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, which 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. All parcels in Table B-2 also appeared in the 5th Cycle. Most of the parcels in Table B-2 are scattered throughout the City with built-up lots separating them. There are two locations where the vacant, small lots may be consolidated to meet the 0.5-acre lot size requirements for low-income housing development as follows:
• One location is north of Hwy 166 and west of Hwy 1 (115-201-011, 115-201-012, 115-201-013) into a consolidated size of (0.18 + 0.17 + 0.18) or 0.53 acres. • The second location is between Olivera St and Pacheco St, south of Hwy 1 (115-102-015, 115- 102-016, 115-102-017, 15-102-018) into a consolidated size of (0.17 + 0.17 + 0.17 + 0.17) or 0.68 acres.
145
Table B-2: Inventory of Vacant Residential Infill Sites in Guadalupe from Land Use Inventory [Table B-2]
Parcel
Number
Parcel
Size
General
Plan
Designation
Zoning
Designation
Density
(du per
acre)
Capacity
(dwelling
units)
Income
Group
Affordability
On-Site
Constraints
113-370-
037 0.27 Low Density R-1 6.00 1
Above
Moderate,
Moderate
Road Access
Required
115-122-
001 0.2 Low Density R-1 6.00 1
Above
Moderate,
Moderate
None
115-132-
016 0.22 Low Density R-1 6.00 1
Above
Moderate,
Moderate
None
115-201-
011 0.18 Low Density R-1 6.00 1
Above
Moderate,
Moderate
None
115-201-
012 0.17 Low Density R-1 6.00 1
Above
Moderate,
Moderate
None
115-201-
013 0.18 Low Density R-1 6.00 1
Above
Moderate,
Moderate
None
115-230-
010 0.25 Low Density R-1 6.00 1
Above
Moderate,
Moderate
None
115·082-
021 1.03 Medium Density R-2 10.00 10 Moderate, Low None 115-032-
005 0.11 High Density R-3 20.00 1
Low, Very
Low,
Extremely
low
Irregularly
shaped lot
115-034-
016 0.33 High Density R-3 20.00 6
Low, Very
Low,
Extremely
low
None
115-035-
001 0.35 High Density R-3 20.00 7
Low, Very
Low,
Extremely
low
None
115-035-
006 0.17 High Density R-3 20.00 3
Low, Very
Low,
Extremely
low
None
115-036-
002 0.12 High Density R-3 20.00 2
Low, Very
Low,
Extremely
low
None
115-036-
015 0.12 High Density R-3 20.00 2
Low, Very
Low,
Extremely
low
None
146
[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
115-036-
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-2 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. Except for the first four parcels, all other parcels in Table B-3 also appeared in the 5th Cycle.
147
Figure B-2: Opportunities for Housing at Vacant Infill, Mix-Use, and DJ Farms Sites 148
Table B-3: Other Vacant Residential Land within Built-Up Area [Table B-3] Parcel Number
Zoning
Designation
Parcel Size
(Acreage)
Income Group
Affordability
Parcel Listed in
Previous Cycle?
113-320-097 R-2 0.31 Moderate No
113-370-036 R-2 0.1 Moderate No
113-370-037 R-2 0.27 Moderate No
113-370-038 R-2 0.25 Moderate No
113-450-004 R-2 31.25 Moderate No
113-460-001 R-2 0.15 Moderate Yes
113-460-002 R-2 0.13 Moderate Yes
113-460-003 R-2 0.13 Moderate Yes
113-460-004 R-2 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-460-005 R-2 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-460-006 R-2 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-460-007 R-2 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-460-008 R-2 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-460-009 R-2 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-460-010 R-2 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-460-011 R-2 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-460-012 R-2 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-460-013 R-2 0.17 Moderate Yes
113-460-014 R-2 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-460-015 R-2 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-460-017 R-1 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-460-032 R-1 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-460-033 R-1 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-460-034 R-1 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-460-035 R-1 0.11 Moderate Yes
113-460-036 R-1 0.17 Moderate Yes
113-470-001 R-1 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-470-002 R-1 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-470-003 R-1 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-470-004 R-1 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-470-005 R-1 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-470-006 R-1 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-470-007 R-1 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-470-008 R-1 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-470-009 R-1 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-470-010 R-1 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-470-011 R-1 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-470-012 R-1 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-480-001 R-1 0.12 Moderate Yes
149
[Table B-3] Parcel Number
Zoning
Designation
Parcel Size
(Acreage)
Income Group
Affordability
Parcel Listed in
Previous Cycle?
113-480-002 R-1 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-480-003 R-1 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-480-004 R-1 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-480-005 R-1 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-480-006 R-1 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-480-007 R-1 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-480-008 R-1 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-480-009 R-1 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-480-010 R-1 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-480-011 R-1 0.11 Moderate Yes
113-480-012 R-1 0.14 Moderate Yes
113-480-013 R-1 0.2 Moderate Yes
113-480-014 R-1 0.18 Moderate Yes
113-480-015 R-1 0.17 Moderate Yes
113-480-016 R-1 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-480-017 R-1 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-480-018 R-1 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-480-019 R-1 0.12 Moderate Yes
113-480-020 R-1 0.12 Moderate Yes
115-031-001 R-1 0.01 Moderate Yes
115-036-012 R-1 0.19 Moderate Yes
115-041-010 R-1 0.11 Moderate Yes
115-063-002 R-1 0.1 Moderate Yes
115-063-011 R-1 0.09 Moderate Yes
115-082-009 R-1 0.09 Moderate Yes
115-102-014 R-1 0.17 Moderate Yes
115-102-022 R-1 0.36 Moderate Yes
115-153-014 Undecided 0.18 Moderate/Lower Yes
115-201-012 Undecided 0.17 Moderate/Lower Yes
115-201-013 Undecided 0.18 Moderate/Lower Yes
115-202-002 Undecided 0.18 Moderate/Lower Yes
115-230-009 Undecided 0.48 Moderate/Lower Yes
115-230-028 Undecided 1.77 Moderate/Lower Yes
115-230-030 Undecided 2.92 Moderate/Lower Yes
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 150
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. All parcels in Table B-4 also appeared in the 5th Cycle.

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 MIX 0.35 8,385.30 5,618.15 9 None Moderate 115-092-003 14,810 MIX 0.35 5,183.64 3,473.04 5 None Moderate 115-092-004 10,019 MIX 0.35 3,506.58 2,349.41 3 None Moderate 115-052-007 15,246 MIX 0.35 5,336.10 3,575.19 6 None Moderate 115-051-007 19,166 MIX 0.35 6,708.24 4,494.52 7 None Moderate 115-101-001 6,970 MIX 0.35 2,439.36 1,634.37 2 None Moderate 115-052-015 7,405 MIX 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-140-011 22,651 MIX 0.35 7,927.92 5,311.71 8 None Moderate 115-071-019 13,068 MIX 0.35 4,573.80 3,064.45 5 None Moderate 115-052-018 10,019 MIX 0.35 3,506.58 2,349.41 3 None Moderate 115-091-002 7,405 MIX 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-091-006 7,405 MIX 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-092-005 10,019 MIX 0.35 3,506.58 2,349.41 3 None Moderate 115-113-001 12,197 MIX 0.35 4,268.88 2,860.15 4 None Moderate 115-113-0Q4 7,841 MIX 0.35 2,744.28 1,838.67 3 None Moderate 115-113-005 16,117 MIX 0.35 5,641.02 3,779.48 6 None Moderate 115-071-015 11,761 MIX 0.35 4,116.42 2,758.00 4 None Moderate 115-071-018 33,977 MIX 0.35 11,891.88 7,967.56 13 None Moderate 115-072-014 2,178 MIX 0.35 762.30 510.74 0 None Moderate 115-072-015 5,227 MIX 0.35 1,829.52 1,225.78 2 None Moderate 115-072-018 11,326 MIX 0.35 3,963.96 2,655.85 4 None Moderate 115-092-016 3,485 MIX 0.35 1,219.68 817.19 1 None Moderate 115-092-017 2,178 MIX 0.35 762.30 510.74 0 None Moderate 115-092-019 6,970 MIX 0.35 2,439.36 1,634.37 2 None Moderate 115-092-023 3,485 MIX 0.35 1,219.68 817.19 1 None Moderate 115-101-003 3,485 MIX 0.35 1,219.68 817.19 1 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
115-101-011 7,405 MIX 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-112-002 8,276 MIX 0.35 2,896.74 1,940.82 3 None Moderate 115-121-014 7,405 MIX 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-072-001 10,890 MIX 0.35 3,811.50 2,553.71 4 None Moderate 115-101-006 7,405 MIX 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-112-001 56,628 MIX 0.35 19,819.80 13,279.27 22 None Moderate 115-113-006 16,117 MIX 0.35 5,641.02 3,779.48 6 None Moderate 115-101-016 20,473 MIX 0.35 7,165.62 4,800.97 8 None Moderate 115-052-009 5,663 MIX 0.35 1,981.98 1,327.93 2 None Moderate 115-072-002 7,405 MIX 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-052-013 4,356 MIX 0.35 1,524.60 1,021.48 1 None Moderate 115-092-009 7,405 MIX 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-092-021 10,890 MIX 0.35 3,811.50 2,553.71 4 None Moderate 115-101-005 7,405 MIX 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-052-010 8,712 MIX 0.35 3,049.20 2,042.96 3 None Moderate 115-051-004 7,405 MIX 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-072-010 5.227 MIX 0.35 1,829.52 1,225.78 2 None Moderate 115-091-012 7,405 MIX 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-071-012 16,553 MIX 0.35 5,793.48 3,881.63 6 None Moderate 115-072-003 7,405 MIX 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-092-006 10,019 MIX 0.35 3,506.58 2,349.41 3 None Moderate 115-092-024 10,890 MIX 0.35 3,811.50 2,553.71 4 None Moderate 115-121-016 7,405 MIX 0.35 2,591,82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-091-007 7,405 MIX 0.35 2.591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-140-013 22,651 MIX 0.35 7,927.92 5,311.71 8 None Moderate 115-112-003 27,878 MIX 0.35 9,757.44 6,537.48 10 None Moderate 115-052-012 4,792 MIX 0.35 1,677.06 1,123.63 1 None Moderate 115-072-012 3,485 MIX 0.35 1.219.68 817.19 1 None Moderate 115-092-008 7,405 MIX 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-092-018 4,792 MIX 0.35 1,677.06 1,123.63 1 None Moderate 115-101-002 3,485 MIX 0.35 1,219.68 817.19 1 None Moderate 115-112-005 12 MIX 0.35 4,116.42 2,758.00 4 None Moderate 115-052-014 11,326 MIX 0.35 3,963.96 2,655.85 4 None Moderate 115-071-002 5,227 MIX 0.35 1,829.52 1,225.78 2 None Moderate 115-071-003 3,920 MIX 0.35 1,372.14 919.33 1 None Moderate 115-071-004 6,098 MIX 0.35 2,134.44 1,430.07 2 None Moderate 115-071-005 4,356 MIX 0.35 1,524.60 1,021.48 1 None Moderate 115-072-011 2,178 MIX 0.35 762.3 510.74 0 None Moderate 152
[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
115-072-013 3,920 MIX 0.35 1,372.14 919.33 1 None Moderate 115-072-020 15,246 MIX 0.35 5,336.10 3,575.19 6 None Moderate 115-092-012 7,405 MIX 0.35 2.591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-092-013 14,375 MIX 0.35 5,031.18 3,370.89 5 None Moderate 115-092-014 2,178 MIX 0.35 762.30 510.74 0 None Moderate 115-101-004 6,970 MIX 0.35 2,439.36 1,634.37 2 None Moderate 115-101-014 37,897 MIX 0.35 13,264.02 8,886.89 14 None Moderate 115-121-011 3,485 MIX 0.35 1,219.68 817.19 1 None Moderate 115-121-012 33,541 MIX 0.35 11,739.42 7,865.41 13 None Moderate 115-121-015 14,375 MIX 0.35 5,031.18 3,370.89 5 None Moderate 115-121-017 7,405 MIX 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-140-001 12,632 MIX 0.35 4,421.34 2,962.30 4 None Moderate 115-052-017 7,405 MIX 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-052-016 13,939 MIX 0.35 4,878.72 3,268.74 5 None Moderate 115-071-001 18,295 MIX 0.35 6,403.32 4,290.22 7 None Moderate 115-091-004 7,405 MIX 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-091-005 7,405 MIX 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-091-008 12,197 MIX 0.35 4,268.88 2,860.15 4 None Moderate 115-091-013 7,405 MIX 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-133-004 7,405 MIX 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-051-005 6,970 MIX 0.35 2,439.36 1634.37 2 None Moderate 115-052-003 4,792 MIX 0.35 1,677.06 1,123.63 1 None Moderate 115-052-Q04 4,792 MIX 0.35 1,677.06 1,123.63 1 None Moderate 115-052-005 4,792 MIX 0.35 1,677.06 1,123.63 1 None Moderate 115-052-011 5,227 MIX 0.35 1,829.52 1,225.78 2 None Moderate 115-071-014 7,405 MIX 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-072-004 7,405 MIX 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-072-005 7,405 MIX 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-072-007 6,534 MIX 0.35 2,286.90 1,532.22 2 None Moderate 115-072-008 7,841 MIX 0.35 2,744.28 1,838.67 3 None Moderate 115-072-009 14,810 MIX 0.35 5,183.64 3,473.04 5 None Moderate 115-092-020 9,148 MIX 0.35 3,201.66 2,145.11 3 None Moderate 115-101-010 7,405 MIX 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115·121-018 7,405 MIX 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-121-019 11,326 MIX 0.35 3,963.96 2,655.85 4 None Moderate 115-121-020 4,356 MIX 0.35 1,524.60 1,021.48 1 None Moderate 115-121-022 2,178 MIX 0.35 762.30 510.74 0 None Moderate 115-113-007 14,810 MIX 0.35 5,183.64 3,473.04 5 None Moderate 153
[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
115-051-006 7,405 MIX 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-091-003 7,405 MIX 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-092-002 11,326 MIX 0.35 3,963.96 2,655.85 4 None Moderate 115-051-009 15,246 MIX 0.35 5,336.10 3,575.19 6 None Moderate 115-052-006 7,841 MIX 0.35 2,744.28 1,838.67 3 None Moderate 115-071-016 12,197 MIX 0.35 4,268.88 2,860.15 4 None Moderate 115-071-017 7,405 MIX 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-092-015 2,178 MIX 0.35 762.30 510.74 0 None Moderate 115-101-009 7,405 MIX 0.35 2,591.82 1,736.52 2 None Moderate 115-101-013 30,056 MIX 0.35 10,519.74 7,048.23 11 None Moderate 115-121-021 1,307 MIX 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 154

7.2.3 DJ Farms Specific Plan
The DJ Farms Specific Plan area covers 209 acres south of West Main Street (or State Route 166) and west of Guadalupe Street (or SR 1) in the southeastern section of the City. It offers tremendous opportunity for the development of market-rate and affordable housing in addition to public facilities and commercial uses. The 2012 Specific Plan calls for the development of up to 802 housing units on approximately 145 acres. Table B-6 shows the distribution of housing densities in the DJ Farms area. The remaining acreage is for commercial uses, parks and open space, and a school. Housing opportunity at DJ Farms is so much that it alone could 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: Full 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.

7.2.5 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 155
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 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.

7.2.7 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 6th 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 without exercising all these options, they present multiple opportunities for affordable and market rate housing within the City as Table B-7 shows. The City has potential with mixed use and vacant lands to accommodate two and a half times the 6th
Cycle RHNA. It is noteworthy that there is additional potential for ADUs and JADUs that Table B-7 does not include. It is also noteworthy that the numbers of housing units under already approved projects that are under construction or soon to begin construction are sufficient to meet the City’s RHNA plus an overall buffer of 40 percent extra units.

Table B-7: Summary of Potential for Housing Development in Guadalupe Including 6th Cycle Source of Space
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
ModerateIncome
Capacity
Total
Capacity
Table B2: Infill Pipeline Units 118 20 0 138
Table B-3: DJ Farms Pipeline Units 0 74 391 465
Table B-3: Carry-over 53 129 0 182
Table B-4: Mixed-use Downtown 0 380 0 380
Tab B-5: Other Mixed-Use Sites 0 75 0 75
Total 93 674 392 1240
Green rows count toward 6th Cycle RHNA (Refer to Table B-1) 156

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 157
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.

Using the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity data in the AFFH Data Viewer 2.0, for the reporting period between 2013 – 2021, there were no inquiries in the City of Guadalupe. In addition, there are no known fair housing lawsuits, findings, settlements, judgments, or complaints within City limits. Residents in Guadalupe can access the County’s Fair Housing Counseling for information on fair housing, while local organizations such as the California Rural Legal Assistance Services is available to aid residents who wish to pursue housing discrimination lawsuits. While the City has not had any enforcement complaints within its limits, Program 6.7 commits the City to establishing a method to formally track cases as well as providing a dedicated City employee to assist with any case-specific needs.

Compliance with Fair Housing Laws
Reasonable Accommodation: The City’s reasonable accommodation procedures are compliant with state and federal requirements. Program 4.2 commits the City to affirmatively marketing its reasonable accommodation procedures at all times during the 6th cycle housing element planning period and Program 4.7 commits to amending the zoning ordinance to provide flexible permitting processes for large group homes.

Government Code Section 65008 covers actions of a city, county, city and county, or other local government agency, and makes those actions null and void if the action denies an individual or group of individuals the enjoyment of residence, landownership, tenancy, or other land use in the state 158
because of membership in a protected class, the method of financing, and/or the intended occupancy. The City encourages housing development of all types regardless of size, prospective tenant, or financing source, and supports by-right development in residential zones and mixed-use zones.

Government Code Section 8899.50 requires all public agencies to administer programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing and avoid any action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.

Programs 6.1 to 6.10 commit the City to implement strategies that make progress towards addressing the identified fair housing issues.

Government Code Section 11135 et seq. requires full and equal access to all programs and activities operated, administered, or funded with financial assistance from the state, regardless of one’s membership or perceived membership in a protected class. The City adheres to these mandatory requirements when applying for and administering state programs.

Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915 et seq.). Program 4.1 commits the City to completing a comprehensive update of its density bonus implementing procedures for compliance with State density bonus law (SDBL). Post-adoption, Program 1.1 commits to annual review of its density bonus regulations to ensure ongoing consistency with SDBL. Programs 4.6 and 6.8 commit the City to prepare information for property owners and housing developments about density bonus and publishing this content on its website and providing density bonuses and development incentives to qualifying housing developments.

Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5.). The City Planning staff is familiar with recent amendments to the Housing Accountability Act and actively monitors, no less than annually, online resources for legislative updates. Guadalupe tracks new legislation through the state’s website as well as follows and receives legislative updates from various legal firms, which includes amendments to the Housing Accountability Act amongst others.

No Net Loss Law (Government Code Section 65863). This housing element meets No Net Loss (NNL) requirements by providing capacity sufficient to meet the RHNA plus a buffer of additional capacity in all income categories. As compliance with NNL requires transactional review of development applications, both ministerial and discretionary, Program 1.1 memorializes and commits the City to conducting this review on a project-by-project basis, and to take the actions as required by State law should an inventory deficit occur as defined in NNL law.

Least Cost Zoning Law (Government Code Section 65913.1). As shown in the Inventory of Sites, Sites for Emergency Shelters, and Lands Available for Residential Development, the City has designated and zoned sufficient vacant land for residential use with appropriate standards to accommodate all income categories identified by the RHNA as verified in the Land Use Element of the 2042 General Plan. 159
Excessive subdivision standards (Government Code Section 65913.2.). The City complies. The City has no policies, ordinances, or recent practices that impose design controls or public improvement standards for the purpose of rendering development infeasible. Further, the City considers the effect of ordinances adopted and actions taken on the housing needs of the region.

Limits on growth controls (Government Code 65302.8.). The City does not currently impose growth controls or growth management practices.

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.

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)
1 Note: Cases may involve more than one bias category and other reasons may not be in the dataset. 160
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 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 single-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, which are proposed for the western end of the City also 161
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. 162
Figure C-1: Distribution of Fair Housing Enforcement Cases in Guadalupe & Region, 2010 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
163
Figure C-2: Distribution of Fair Housing Enforcement Cases in Guadalupe & Region, 2020 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
164

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. 165
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% 166
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 All Origins 815,693 100.00% 265,577 100.00% 416,051 100.00% 809,080 100.00% 6,770.00 100.00% Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP05 Local Trends and Analysis
Within City comparisons are between neighborhoods as discerned from residents and local officials, housing type, income, and other socioeconomic characteristics in the Guadalupe 2042 General Plan.

Figure C-3 identifies six neighborhoods within the City. The community perceives the City as falling into six neighborhoods (which Figure C-3 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:
• The historical distribution of housing in the City depicts spreading of multiple income types across the community. The Housing Element acknowledges this phenomenon and encourages the distribution of affordable housing throughout various neighborhoods in the City.

Encouragements include allowing Accessory Dwellings in single family neighborhoods and promoting duplexes, SB 9 lot splits, or lot consolidations elsewhere to enable construction of multi-family units. DJ Farms is the newest neighborhood located just south of Hwy 166 across from the original boundary. With its proximity to the old neighborhoods which have suitable parcels for lower income housing, there is no segregation by income. Thus, the sites do not exacerbate housing conditions.
• In addition, Pasadera, the newest neighborhood to the south primarily serves housing needs in the moderate to above moderate-income groups. The part of RHNA that this development holds is more to satisfy the regional need than the local need. • Similarly, 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. Additionally, it has moderate income apartments that are already under construction.
167
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.
168
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. 169
Figure C-4: 2010 Concentrations of Hispanic Population by Census Block in Guadalupe Neighborhoods Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2010 Decennial Census, Table P2 170
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 171

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-6 172
Figure C-6: 2014 Concentrations of Disability Populations in Guadalupe and its Region Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
173
Figure C-7: 2019 Concentrations of Disability Populations in Guadalupe and its Region Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
174

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. The tables reveal that at 21 percent, the proportion of female-headed household remained relatively high compared to neighboring cities and neighboring counties in both 2010 and 2019. While there is no single determinant of the higher rate of female-headed households, the City will look to target County programs to assist female-headed and single-parent households in Guadalupe.

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%
175
2-or-more-person
household 1% 5% 5% 2% 1%
Sources: U.S Census Bureau, 2010 Decennial Census, Table P30 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. 176
Figures C-8 and C-9 show the percentages of homeowners by census tract who paid 30 percent or more of their incomes on housing in 2014 and 2019, respectively. In 2014, tracts in cities within the region indicate that 20 percent to 60 percent of owners paid more than 30 percent of incomes on housing.

Effectively, one can conclude that home ownership was generally unaffordable across the region. In 2019, the situation improved slightly for owners across the region. One would assume that home prices fell, or incomes went up, or more wealthy persons took over much of the housing. or multiple income earners shared in the housing cost per unit.

Figures C-10 and C-11 show the percentages of renters by census tract who paid 30 percent or more of their incomes on housing in 2014 and 2019, respectively. Similarly in 2014, tracts in cities within the region indicate that 40 percent to 80 percent of renters paid more than 30 percent of incomes on housing. Effectively, one can conclude that rental housing was noticeably unaffordable in communities across the region. In 2019, the situation improved slightly for renters across the region. One would assume that home prices fell, or incomes went up, or more wealthy persons took over much of the housing. or multiple income earners shared in the rental housing cost per unit.

Table C-7: 2010 and 2020 Median Incomes and Poverty Levels in the Guadalupe Region Income and Poverty
Kern
County
San Luis
Obispo
County
Santa
Barbara
County
Ventura
County Guadalupe City
2010
Percent of Santa
Barbara County
Median income $47,089 $57,365 $60,078 $75,348 $42,978 72% Below poverty level 18% 13% 12% 8% 17%
2020
Median income $54,851 $77,948 $78,925 $89,295 $55,511 70% Below poverty level 19% 11% 12% 8% 24%
Percent change 2010 to 2020
Median income 16% 36% 31% 19% 29%
Below poverty level 7% -15% 2% 5% 45%
Sources: U.S Census Bureau, 2010 & 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S2201 Local Trends and Analysis
Data was not detailed enough to make comparisons by neighborhood. 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 homeowners, Guadalupe was in the 20 percent to 40 percent range in 2014 177
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.

Figure C-8: Percent of Homeowners Paying >30% of Incomes on Housing, Guadalupe Region, 2014 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
178
Figure C-9: Percent of Homeowners Paying >30% of Incomes on Housing, Guadalupe Region, 2019 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
179
Figure C-10: Percent of Renters Paying >30% of Incomes on Housing, Guadalupe Region, 2014 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
180
Figure C-11: Percent of Renters Paying >30% of Incomes on Housing, Guadalupe Region, 2019 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
181

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 disabled people 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.
182
Figure C-12: Locations of Subsidized Housing Projects in the Guadalupe Region, 2021 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
183
Figure C-13: Locations of Subsidized Housing Projects within Guadalupe and Vicinity, 2021 Source: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
184

7.3.2.2 Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty HUD has developed a definition of racially/ethnically-concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs). The definition combines thresholds for racial/ethnic concentration and poverty. Census tracts with extreme poverty that satisfy the racial/ethnic concentration thresholds are deemed R/ECAPs as follows:
• The threshold for racial/ethnic concentration flags R/ECAPs with concentrations of non-white populations:
o In relatively large, urbanized areas for up to Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs), which are urban centers of at least 10,000 people plus adjacent counties that are tied to the urban centers socioeconomically by commuting, census blocks with 50 percent or more of non-white populations qualify as R/ECAPS.
o In smaller areas outside of CBSAs and larger geographies which are unlikely to have racial or ethnic concentrations as high as 50 percent, the racial/ethnic concentration threshold is set at 20 percent.
• The threshold for extreme poverty typically defines neighborhoods of extreme poverty as census tracts with 40 percent or more of individuals living at or below the poverty line. Because overall poverty levels are substantially lower in many parts of the country, HUD supplements the typical with an alternate criterion. Thus, a neighborhood meets the poverty qualification for R/ECAP based on the lower of two poverty thresholds:
o If it has a poverty rate that exceeds 40 percent.
o If it is three or more times the average tract poverty rate for its metropolitan or micropolitan area.

Similarly, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) convened a group of independent organizations and research centers in February 2017 that became the California Fair Housing Task Force. TCAC and HCD charged the Task Force with the creation of an opportunity map to identify areas in every region of the State where research supports the need for positive economic, educational, and health outcomes for low-income families and especially in the long-term outcomes for children.

Regional Trends and Comparisons
Figure C-14, Figure C-15, Figure C-16, and Figure C-17 depict trends in the incidence of race and ethnic concentrations of poverty within Guadalupe and its region in 2000, 2010, 2013, and 2020, respectively.

The maps reveal that such concentrations were rare within the region. Such incidences appeared in Atascadero, (which is a city in San Luis Obispo County to the north of Guadalupe) by 2010 and remained thereafter. As of 2020, such incidences remained extremely low in Guadalupe and most of the region in comparison to the state average.
185
Figure C-14: Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty in Guadalupe & Region, 2000 Sources: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022. Decennial census (2000) 186
Figure C-15: Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty in Guadalupe & Region, 2010 Sources: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022. Decennial census (2010) 187
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 188
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 189
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.

With the exception of the newer Pasadera neighborhood, there is not a great deal of differences in median household incomes between neighborhoods in the City. With racial demographics being relatively homogeneous across neighborhoods in the City, the slightly lower incomes outside of Pasadera may be notable but does not create a condition of “High Segregation and Poverty” within the City.

While Table 6-4 highlights AFFH actions and programs that are targeted to these areas, it should be noted that previous investments in the City have been proportional when considering a north/south division among the demographics of the City.

Lastly, information from City officials suggests that differences between neighborhoods in the City are fairly minimal. The housing stock in the older neighborhoods north of Hwy 166 are obviously older than in Pasadera, but do not show any signs of higher concentrations of units lacking plumbing or a complete kitchens. Furthermore, the largest park in the City is located within the northwester neighborhood, although services like grocery stores, laundromats, and gas stations are concentrated in the downtown.

Transportation improvement made all across the City include enhanced pedestrian crosswalks with crossing signals and buttons as well as sidewalk extensions utilizing the Active Transportation Program (ATP) grants from the State of California.

As noted in other sections of the housing element, the most recent development in the City has occurred south of Highway 166, particularly in the Pasadera neighborhood of the City. As a result, 190
streets, sidewalks, and infrastructure in these areas tend to be newer than in the older neighborhoods.

However, this does not indicate that older neighborhoods are lacking adequate infrastructure, but rather that the existing infrastructure has been maintained and is in satisfactory condition.

Sidewalks in the City are generally in fair condition, with a few exceptions. According to a windshield survey conducted by City staff, areas to the west of town were among the more recent developments and areas to the east along Obispo Street were built at the same time and continue remain in good condition. However, sections in the center of town have “inconsistent” sidewalks, which include a combination of paved and unpaved sidewalks. Improvements to these areas are incorporated into the City’s Capital Improvement Program, programmed in conjunction with other improvements, including handicap, accessibility ramps, storm drain, culverts, and street paving, consistent with recommendations in the Programs adopted within the Circulation Element of the General Plan.

Of the two existing schools in Guadalupe one is located in the center of town and the other is located on Highway 166 west of Highway 1. A new middle school is under construction south of Highway 166 within the new Pasadera neighborhood. The City also completed a Safe Routes to Schools program which included installation of sidewalks, crosswalks, ADA curb ramps, and curb and gutter improvements at various locations on the routes leading to the schools.

The City already has a bridge that connects the eastern neighborhoods with the commercial center across the Southern Pacific Rail lines. There are discussions to add community art work to the existing pedestrian overpass across the railroad.

Access to community facilities in the northern neighborhoods is going to be enhanced when grantfunded improvements are made to the two largest park, Leroy Park and Central Park. Existing facilities to be upgraded include bathrooms, walkways, waste collection receptacles, etc.

Lastly, the City’s planned growth area are located in Pasadera to the south and the Gularte area to the northeast. The latter was rezoned for higher density (up to 20 units per acre) in order to redevelop the area.

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. 191
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. 192
Figure C-18: Concentrations of Non-Hispanic Whites in Guadalupe Neighborhoods, 2010 Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2010 Decennial Census, Table P2 193
Figure C-19: Concentrations of Non-Hispanic Whites in Guadalupe Neighborhoods, 2020 Source: U.S Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census, Table P2 194

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. 195
• 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 196
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 197
on transportation cost and environmental health are the two that appear most equitable in the Guadalupe area.

Transit options are relatively limited within the City. The City does not have any “High Quality Transit Stops” or “High Quality Transit Areas within ½ mile”, and only has one bus route (The Guadalupe Flyer).

This line has its terminus points at the Santa Maria Transit Center and the Guadalupe Amtrak Station with one additional stop at Obispo/Amber within the City. It runs hourly from approximately 6 am to 7 pm.

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.
198
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

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. 199
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.

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% $23,968 200
Occupation
Guadalupe City Santa Barbara County
Persons Percent Median
Earning Persons Percent Median Earning
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
maintenance occupations 234 7% $7,165 11,195 5% $24,857 Personal care and service occupations 41 1% $15,709 5,827 3% $20,536 Sales and office occupations: 859 25% $41,622 39,562 19% $32,802 Sales and related occupations 387 11% $23,750 18,604 9% $27,267 Office and administrative support
occupations 472 14% $52,237 20,958 10% $35,508
Natural resources, construction, and
maintenance occupations: 938 28% $26,037 28,050 13% $29,396 Farming, fishing, and forestry
occupations 646 19% $23,171 13,101 6% $23,950
Construction and extraction
occupations 163 5% $32,027 10,511 5% $40,214
Installation, maintenance, and repair
occupations 129 4% $36,023 4,438 2% $41,277
Production, transportation, and material
moving occupations: 594 17% $26,743 19,586 9% $29,563
Production occupations 152 4% $26,902 7,365 3% $35,135
Transportation occupations 119 4% $30,865 5,870 3% $31,601 Material moving occupations 323 10% $25,898 6,351 3% $23,797 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. 201
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.
202

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 203
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.
204
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. 205
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 206
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 207
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 208
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. 209

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. 210
Figure C-23: 2022 Incidence of Toxic Release by Census Tract in Guadalupe Sources: State HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 2022
211

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. Table 6-3 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 6-3 for the comprehensive list of AFFH programs.

7.3.6 Local Data and Knowledge
In addition to information presented in the analysis of fair housing above, additional local data and knowledge is helpful to fully analyze potential impediments to fair housing. The following paragraphs summarize local knowledge in the City:

The City comprises primarily residential neighborhoods, with minimal commercial opportunities.

However, the City is focusing its economic development strategy to include new commercial opportunities as the City continues to grow to provide residents with commercial and recreational opportunities in their own City. For example, the City recently amended the Land Use Element to change downtown from General-Commercial to Mixed-Use. This will allow many more commercial opportunities together with second-floor housing downtown. Also, south of Highway 166 and adjacent to Highway 1 are parcels for neighborhood commercial development as part of the Pasadera neighborhood. Discussions are under way to locate a large grocery store north of Highway 166, opposite neighborhood commercial parcels of Pasadera.

There are no areas within the City with a concentration of persons with disabilities, group homes or residential care facilities, or locational differences in terms of disabilities. Ongoing programs of the Public Works Department, include such accessibility improvements for sidewalks as handicap ramps.

The incidence of children in female-headed households with no spouse present occur throughout the City. Existing social programs of Santa Barbara County cater to those identified as in need for support.

Subsidized housing exists in the northeastern part of town (e.g., Escalante Meadows) and the agricultural worker apartment complex called Guadalupe Court in the east, as well as in the far western end of town north of Highway 166, within the 30-year deed-restricted apartment development called Riverview Apartments. It is notable that these subsidized housing units are part of newer developments and thus include newer housing stock.

Major industries in and around the City are centered around agriculture, with 29% of residents in the labor force employed in this sector. In 2020, the largest employment sector for Guadalupe residents was farming, fishing, and forestry with approximately one out of every three employed residents. 212
As part of the new and ongoing growth area in Pasadera, anticipated infrastructure improvements are part and package of additional development. These improvements were negotiated as part of the Specific Plan adoption process.

Given the City’s size, there is regular transit to Santa Maria, which provides opportunities to access other centers in the region, including the large employment centers in Santa Maria and San Luis Obispo County.

Home prices in the southern portion of the City, where the newer housing stock is concentrated, tend to be higher than those in the other portions of the City.

Outside of agricultural land constraints (Williamson Act) and 100-year floodplain that exists north and west of city boundaries, there is also the wetland complex near the Gularte Tract. The General Plan accounted for these constraints in the Land Use Element. Therefore no additional environmental constraints exist to residential development.
213

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 $3,500 214
[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

215

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
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-25

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

THE FINDINGS OF FACT REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIAL ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY- NEGATIVE DECLARATION EVALUATING THE 6TH CYCLE FINAL HOUSING ELEMENT (2025-018-ND)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration evaluating the environmental impacts of the Draft Housing Element; and WHEREAS, the City determined that the subject project would not result in significant impacts on the environment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and related Guidelines (Public Resources Code 21000 et seq.); and
WHEREAS, the Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration circulated for a public review period of 21 days (April 12, 2025 through May 1, 2025) and no comments were received.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby finds and determines the foregoing recitals, which are incorporated herein by reference, are true and correct.

SECTION 2. Findings. There are no significant effects of the project on the environment based upon the analysis contained in the Final Initial Study-Negative Declaration, which properly assessed the environmental impacts of the project, in accordance with CEQA, and the CEQA Guidelines. This resolution incorporates by reference the environmental findings and analysis set forth in the Final Initial Study-Negative Declaration.

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby adopts the Final Initial Study-Negative Declaration attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance of the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the City Clerk shall consult with the City Administrator and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.

SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.

ATTACHMENT 3
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting on the 27th day of May, 2025 by the following vote:

MOTION:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

I, Judy Wilson, City Clerk of the City of Guadalupe DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 2025-25, has been duly signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of the City Council, held May 27, 2025 and that same was approved and adopted.

ATTEST:
______________________________ ____________________________________ Judy Wilson, City Clerk Ariston Julian, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Philip F. Sinco, City Attorney
1 CITY OF GUADALUPE
Final Initial Study and Negative Declaration
for 2023 – 2031 Housing Element
City of Guadalupe
Submitted by the City of Guadalupe
5/27/2025
Prepared by:

De Lapide & Associates, Inc.
[email protected]
EXHIBIT 1
2 Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the City Council, the City Staff, and stakeholders of the City of Guadalupe for their assistance in preparation of the Housing Element. We would like to acknowledge the following officials:

City Council
Ariston Julian, Mayor
Christina Hernandez, Mayor Pro Tem
Eugene Costa Jr., Councilmember
Whitney Furness, Councilmember
Amelia M. Villegas , Councilmember
Anna Marie Santillan Michaud, City Treasurer (Elected Official) Judy Wilson, City Clerk (Elected Official)
Staff
Todd Bodem, City Administrator
Larry Appel, Contract Planning Director
Chief Michael Cash, Public Safety Department
David Trujillo , Public Works Director
Jeff van den Eikhof, City Engineer
Janice Davis, Finance Director
Sylvia Estrada, Human Resources Manager
Juana Escobar, Administrative Assistant
3 Contents
Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................................... 2 City Council ............................................................................................................................................... 2 Staff........................................................................................................................................................... 2 Figures........................................................................................................................................................... 5 Preamble....................................................................................................................................................... 6 Summary of Mitigated Negative Declaration for 2042 General Plan ........................................................... 7 Air Quality..................................................................................................................................................... 7 Biological Resources..................................................................................................................................... 7 Geology and Soils......................................................................................................................................... 9 Greenhouse Gas Emissions........................................................................................................................... 9 Summary of Project Information ................................................................................................................11

1.0 Project Information...............................................................................................................................12

1.1. Project..............................................................................................................................................12

1.2. Lead Agency .....................................................................................................................................12

1.3. Contact Person & Phone..................................................................................................................12

1.4. Project Location ...............................................................................................................................12

1.5. Sponsor ............................................................................................................................................12

1.6. General Plan Designation.................................................................................................................12

1.7. Zoning...............................................................................................................................................12

1.8. Project Description...........................................................................................................................12

1.9. Project Location And Setting............................................................................................................14

1.10. Other Required Agency Approvals................................................................................................. 15

1.11. Native American Consultation.......................................................................................................15

1.12. Summary Of Environmental Factors Potentially Affected.............................................................16

2.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts...................................................................................................17

2.1 Aesthetics..........................................................................................................................................18

2.2 Agricultural Resources......................................................................................................................19

2.3 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................................21

2.4 Biological Resources..........................................................................................................................23

2.5 Cultural: Archeological and Historical Resources .............................................................................25

2.6 Geology and Soils..............................................................................................................................26 4 2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions...............................................................................................................29

2.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................................30

2.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ...........................................................................................................33

2.10 Land Use and Planning....................................................................................................................36

2.11 Mineral Resources ..........................................................................................................................37

2.12 Noise ...............................................................................................................................................38

2.13 Population and Housing..................................................................................................................40

2.14 Public Facilities................................................................................................................................41

2.15 Recreation.......................................................................................................................................43

2.16 Transportation ................................................................................................................................44

2.17 Utilities............................................................................................................................................46

2.18 Energy .............................................................................................................................................48

2.19 Tribal Cultural Resources................................................................................................................49

2.20 Wildfire ...........................................................................................................................................51

2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance................................................................................................53

3.0 Certification...........................................................................................................................................55

3.1 Preparers...........................................................................................................................................55

3.2 Determination...................................................................................................................................55

3.3 De Minimis Fee Determination.........................................................................................................55

3.4 Environmental Determination ..........................................................................................................56

4.0 Public Participation. .......................................................................................................................57

4.1 Public Hearing Before Preparation of Housing Element (1/10/2023) ..............................................57

4.2 Public Hearing After Preparation of Draft Housing Element (6/22/2023)........................................58

4.3 Public Hearing at Regular Guadalupe City Council Meeting (7/11/2023) ........................................60

4.4 Seven-Day Notice: Preparation of Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element ...............................61

4.5 Public Hearing at Regular Guadalupe City Council Meeting (3/25/2025) .......................................62 References ..................................................................................................................................................64 5 Figures
Figure 1: Location of Guadalupe within Santa Barbara County..................................................................15 Figure 2: Guadalupe City Limits and Sphere of Influence...........................................................................16 6 Preamble
The California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issued the CEQA Technical Advice Series (OPR, December 2004 Edition) to clarify aspects of the California Environmental Quality Act. According to the Technical Advice:

CEQA Guidelines § 15152 and § 21083.3 of the Public Resources Code allow a Negative Declaration to be adopted when an EIR [or ND] has previously been prepared for a program, policy, plan or ordinance. The later project must be consistent with that program or other action and must not result in any significant effects which were not examined in that previous EIR [or ND]. In order to tier from an EIR [or ND], the later project must be consistent with the general plan and zoning of the applicable city or county.

In preparation for the adoption of the 2042 Guadalupe General Plan, The City of Guadalupe prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The 2042 General Plan is separated into thematic elements. All elements must be consistent with each other. Seven elements are required for all General Plans in California, with two further elements required for communities meeting certain criteria, one of which exists in Guadalupe. Optional elements may also be included and carry the same legal force and status as the required elements. The General Plan includes three optional elements. Its elements are:
• Required: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Safety and Air Quality, Conservation, Open Space, and Noise
• Required in Disadvantaged Communities: Environmental Justice • Optional: Economic Development, Community Design and Historic Preservation, and Public Facilities and Services
The 2042 General Plan encapsulates a long-term vision and policies for housing; this relatively shortterm, 6th Cycle 2023 to 2031 Housing Element is part of the long-term vision for housing in terms of proposals and policies for future development of housing. The practice of developing long-term vision and policies for housing during the update of the General Plan is to assure consistency not only among various elements, but also with subsequent, short term housing elements.

Consistent with the Technical Advice, this Initial Study & Negative Declaration tiers upon the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the General Plan. The policies and programs of the 6th Cycle 2023 to 2031 Housing Element are consistent with the General Plan programs and actions and the Housing Element contains no new proposals which would result in any significant effects that were not examined in the Negative Declaration for the 2042 General Plan.

Both the 2042 General Plan and the Mitigated Negative Declaration are available to the General Public.

The electronic copies of the documents are accessible at the City’s website: www.Guadalupecity.org; hard copies are available at City Hall.

City of Guadalupe
918 Obispo Street
Guadalupe, CA 93434
7 Summary of Mitigated Negative Declaration for 2042 General Plan The initial study for the General Plan concludes as follows:
“The proposed project [the 2042 General Plan] has the potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts. However, the mitigation measures identified in the initial study would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City of Guadalupe that the project, with mitigation measures incorporated, may have a significant effect on the environment.” [City of Guadalupe. (2022).

Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Guadalupe 2042 General Plan. (p 1).] The project-specific mitigation measures are the following:

Air Quality
“AQ-1 Add the following new policy to the Safety Element:

Implement Dust-Control Measures. Require the implementation of the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District dust control measures during construction of new development projects.

AQ-2 Add the following new policy to the Safety Element:

Implement Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District construction exhaust control measures during construction activities.

Biological Resources
BIO-1 Add the following new policy to the Conservation and Open Space Element of the proposed general plan:

Where development could occur in areas with potential habitat for special-status species, such as within the riparian or disturbed grassland areas shown on Figure 7, Habitat Map, [of 2042 General Plan] or in other locations where such habitat may be present as may be identified by the Planning Director, an assessment of potential impacts to biological resources shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If determined necessary by a qualified biologist, focused surveys per applicable regulatory agency protocols shall be conducted to determine if such species could occur. Impacts to special-status species shall be avoided or minimized to the extent possible. If impacts cannot be avoided, measures to mitigate for the loss of individuals and/or habitat shall be implemented.

BIO-2 Add the following new policy to the Conservation and Open Space Element of the proposed general plan:

Where development could occur in areas with potential nesting bird habitat, such as within the riparian or disturbed grassland areas shown on Figure 7, Habitat Map, or in other locations where such habitat may be present as may be identified by the Planning Director, native nesting birds protected by the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code shall be surveyed for and protected, if found. Disturbance activities shall not occur during the nesting season (generally considered February 1 – August 31) until nesting bird surveys have been conducted and no nesting activity is 8 occurring on or adjacent to a project site. If nesting activity is observed, a qualified biologist may recommend an exclusion area be maintained until birds have fledged.

BIO-3 Replace Policy COS-1.5 of the proposed general plan with the following policy:

The City will not allow development of land within 25 feet of the Ninth Street Wetland Complex. The City will make exceptions to this policy for parcels of land designed for residential use to prevent a legal “taking.”
The City shall protect the ecological, aesthetic, and recreational value of sensitive wetland and riparian habitats associated with aquatic features within and directly adjacent to the city limits. Where development could occur in or within 50 feet of the edge of riparian vegetation or 50 feet from the top of bank of wetland habitats shown on Figure 7, Habitat Map, or in other locations where such features may be present as may be identified by the Planning Director, a qualified biologist or restoration ecologist shall be retained to determine the appropriate development setbacks and other protective measures needed to ensure the long-term protection and enhancement of the sensitive community.

BIO-4 Add the following new policy to the Conservation and Open Space Element of the proposed general plan:

Applicants for projects on sites within 50 feet from the top of bank of potential jurisdictional wetlands or waterways as shown on Figure 7, Habitat Map, or in other locations where such features may be present as may be identified by the Planning Director, shall retain a qualified biologist/wetland regulatory specialist to conduct a site investigation and assess whether the wetland or waterway features are jurisdictional, assess potential impacts, and determine whether stream buffers/riparian setbacks are required. If a feature is found to be jurisdictional or potentially jurisdictional, the applicant shall comply with the appropriate permitting processes.

Cultural Resources
CUL-1 Add the following new policy to the Community Design and Historic Preservation Element of the proposed general plan:

If unknown subsurface historical resources, including potential tribal cultural resources, are discovered during grading, excavation, trenching or other disturbance of the existing ground surface of a project site, all work shall be halted within at least 50 meters (165 feet) of the find and the area shall be staked off immediately. The City shall be notified immediately and a qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained to evaluate the find and report to the City. If the find is determined to be significant, recommendations provided by the archaeologist to mitigate potential impacts on archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources shall be required as conditions of project approval. Individual projects shall follow CEQA and other applicable State laws for mitigating impacts on cultural and tribal cultural resources.

CUL-2 All archaeological resources and cultural resources of Native American origin, and all tribal cultural resources uncovered and recovered during the development of vacant or underutilized land shall be returned to local Native American tribes after the resources have been examined by a qualified archaeologist. 9 CUL-3 Add the following new policy to the Conservation and Open Space Element of the proposed general plan:

If human remains are found during earth-moving, grading, or construction activities, pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, all construction and excavation activity shall cease. If the remains are of Native American descent, actions must be taken to identify and appropriately treat the remains, including the coroner notifying the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours, and notifying a most likely descendent pursuant to Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code.

Geology and Soils
GEO-1 Add the following new policy to the Conservation and Open Space Element of the proposed general plan:

In the event that evidence of paleontological resources is uncovered during ground disturbing activities, all work shall stop in the immediate area and the Planning Director shall be notified. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to assess the scientific significance of the paleontological resources. If found to be significant, an appropriate data recovery program shall be developed and implemented by the paleontologist.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG-1 Modify proposed general plan policy EJ-1.1 as follows:

The City will support the preparation of prepare a climate action plan to identify ways to reduce citywide greenhouse gas emissions and minimize the impacts of climate change on Guadalupe residents. The climate action plan will incorporate the goals of reducing emissions within the city to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality by 2045.

GHG-2 Add the following new policy to the Conservation and Open Space Element of the proposed general plan:

Until such time as the City adopts a qualified action plan consistent with mitigation measure GHG-1, individual development projects shall be constructed to use no natural gas and to meet California Green Building Standards Code Tier 2 requirements for electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Where such projects also generate less than 110 vehicle trips per day or produce less than 1,100 metric tons per year of carbon dioxide equivalent, no further action is required. Where such projects do not meet either the daily trip volume or mass emissions criteria, a VMT analysis must be conducted. If the VMT impact is less than significant, no further action is required. If the proposed project cannot meet one or more of the three required best management practices (no natural gas, electric vehicle support infrastructure, and less-than-significant VMT impact), the project applicant shall:
1) identify and implement other GHG reduction measures, with a priority on on-site measures; and/or 2) purchase and retire carbon offsets from a qualified registry that are real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, enforceable, and additional. The emission 10 reductions and/or offsets must be equivalent to reductions that would otherwise be realized from the best management practice(s) that cannot be implemented.

Noise
N-1 Construction activities at new development sites shall be managed to reduce noise generation. Construction contractors will implement the following construction noise reduction measures, or equivalent measures that achieve the same noise reduction:
• Restrict noise-generating activities at construction sites or in areas adjacent to construction sites to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and Federal holidays unless the building official grants prior written approval.
• Where feasible, construct temporary noise barriers between the noise source and receiver, where feasible.
• Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers.
• Prohibit unnecessary engine idling.
• Locate stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors or portable power generators, as far as possible from receivers as possible. Adequate muffling (with enclosures where feasible and appropriate) shall be used to reduce noise levels.
• Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
• Route all construction traffic via designated truck routes where possible.

Prohibit construction related heavy truck traffic in residential areas where feasible.
• Signs shall be posted at the construction site and near adjacent sensitive receptors displaying hours of construction activities and providing the contact phone number of a designated noise disturbance coordinator to whom complaints can be directed and issues resolved.

N-2 The City will review new public and private development proposals to determine whether their construction has potential to cause vibration at levels that could cause strongly perceptible annoyance to nearby sensitive receptors and existing structures or could result in structure damage to adjacent buildings or infrastructure. Where this potential exists, the City will require a vibration analysis to determine whether such impacts may occur and if so, identify mitigation measures that shall be implemented during the construction process to reduce vibration annoyance and damage potential to acceptable levels.” [City of Guadalupe. (2022). Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Guadalupe 2042 General Plan. (pp 2-6).]
11 Summary of Project Information
Project Title The 6th Cycle 2023 to 2031 Guadalupe Housing Element Lead Agency City of Guadalupe
918 Obispo Street
Guadalupe, CA 93434
Contact Person & Phone Larry Appel, Contract Planning Director (805) 287-9494
Project Location City of Guadalupe, Santa Barbara County, California Project Sponsor City of Guadalupe
918 Obispo Street, Guadalupe, CA 93434
General Plan Designation Various per 2042 Guadalupe General Plan Zoning Various per Guadalupe Municipal Code
Description of Project The project is the 6th Cycle 2023 to 2031 Guadalupe Housing Element.

The proposed Housing Element is available to the General Public.

Electronic copies of the documents are accessible at the City’s website; hard copies are at City Hall (918 Obispo Street Guadalupe, CA 93434).

This initial Study tiers upon the environmental documentation of the 2042 Guadalupe General Plan for the evaluation of potential environmental impacts expected to result from adoption of the 6th Cycle 2023 to 2031 Guadalupe Housing Element.

Other Information Consistent with the CEQA Technical Advice (OPR, December 2004 Edition), this Initial Study & Negative Declaration tiers upon the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Guadalupe 2042 General Plan.

Compatibility of Project The 2023-2031 Housing Element is one of the required elements and maintains consistency with the vision and other policies of the 2042 Guadalupe General Plan.

12 1.0 Project Information

1.1. Project: The 6th Cycle 2023 to 2031 Guadalupe Housing Element

1.2. Lead Agency: City of Guadalupe, 918 Obispo Street Guadalupe, CA 93434

1.3. Contact Person & Phone: Larry Appel, Contract Planning Director, (805) 287-9494

1.4. Project Location: City of Guadalupe

1.5. Sponsor: City of Guadalupe

1.6. General Plan Designation: Various

1.7. Zoning: Various

1.8. Project Description
California Government Code Section 65302(c) mandates that cities develop Housing Elements as part of their General Plans. The code requires that Housing Elements identify and analyze both existing and projected housing needs and articulate statements of each jurisdiction’s goals, policies, quantified objectives and programs for preservation, improvement, and development of housing. In adopting its Housing Element, a city must consider economic, environmental, and fiscal factors, as well as community goals as set forth in the General Plan, in accordance with California Government Code Section 65580 et. seq.

The project is the 6th Cycle 2023 to 2031 Guadalupe Housing Element. The proposed Housing Element is available to the General Public. The electronic copies of the documents are accessible at the City’s website; hard copies are at City Hall (918 Obispo Street Guadalupe, CA 93434). This initial Study tiers upon the environmental documentation of the 2042 Guadalupe General Plan for the evaluation of potential environmental impacts expected to result from adoption of the 6th Cycle 2023 to 2031 Guadalupe Housing Element.

State housing element law assigns the responsibility for preparing the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) to California councils and associations of governments (COGs and CAGs). Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) is responsible for the Santa Barbara County region, which undertakes the RHNA process prior to each housing element cycle. The current RHNA is for the 13 sixth housing element cycle and covers a period of eight years from February 15, 2023 through February 15, 2031. Consistent with state law, Guadalupe’s 6th Cycle Housing Element plans to accommodate the City’s fair share of affordable housing in five required affordability groups.

For the 2023 to 2031 housing cycle, SBCAG assigned a RHNA of 24,856 total housing units to its jurisdictions out of which the allocation to Guadalupe is 431 units across the five income levels labeled as Extremely Low, Very Low, Low, Moderate, and Above Moderate. Guadalupe’s 6th Cycle 2023 to 2031 Housing Element narrowed its focus on the location of new housing development onto the downtown and other locations identified as growth areas in the 2042 General Plan.

Inventories of available sites indicate sufficient space to accommodate the City’s share of the RHNA Plan. Vacant parcels with residential development opportunities exist in the downtown, Gularte tract, and Pasadera (DJ Farms). Besides the DJ Farms Specific Plan Area, there were 10.12 acres of other vacant residential lands within City limits. Based on the residential densities in the Zoning Ordinance and Land Use Element, and as further evaluated for site and planning constraints, the 10.12 acres of vacant residential land can conservatively accommodate approximately 102 units, which would satisfy the 27 very low- and low-income housing units RHNA allocated to Guadalupe. Additionally, there is residential development potential at the DJ Farms Specific Plan area and residential/commercial mixed-use in the downtown area.

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

12.0 dwelling units per acre.

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

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

Together, these potentials for additional housing would exceed the short-term RHNA allocations for the 2023-2031 cycle. Besides, the 2042 General Plan has also identified additional acreage for residential development in the long term to a grand total of 874 units in the long term.

The concentration of new housing in and around downtown 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 are 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 varied sizes. Public transit already serves the downtown and is proposed under the Circulation Element of the General Plan to be routed through the central 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 central city would facilitate the use of non-motorized modes 14 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.

In summary, implementation of the programs in the Housing Element would provide sufficient housing sites to accommodate the City’s fair share of housing in various affordability brackets especially in the infill sites of downtown as well as mixed-use and ADU sites where infrastructure is readily available.

Implementation will increase development densities in the target areas and support the use of nonmotorized, alternative modes of transport. It will also enhance availability of affordable housing especially with programs to expedite processing of development applications in the target areas. For instance, consolidation of adjacent parcels to create unified development sites would occur under a simple administrative review process that is concurrent with application review.

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

The City occupies approximately 1.31 square miles including the sphere of influence. According to the American Community Survey of the United States Census Bureau, Guadalupe had a population of 6,770 in 2010, 7,218 in 2015, and 7,654 in 2020. Between 2010 and 2020, the population of Guadalupe grew at a rate of 1.3 percent a year, while Santa Barbara County grew at 0.7 percent a year. Approximately 88 percent of the population claims Hispanic origin with the majority (79 percent) of Mexican descent. With much of the workforce involved in agriculture, median household income is below State and County medians triggering the need for affordable workforce housing. Household incomes are in general among the lowest in Santa Barbara County and as a result, many Guadalupe residents fall in the income ranges that need affordable housing. Figure 1 displays the location of Guadalupe within the Santa Barbara County region. The City is located along Highway 1, which bisects it from north to south. Guadalupe's Sphere of Influence, which represents the City's ultimate anticipated growth boundary is congruent with City limits, thus precluding outward expansion. This could have been a constraint to meeting the City's housing needs except the updated 2042 General Plan has determined that Guadalupe already has enough land within its City limits to accommodate growth to 2042 and even beyond. Figure 2 displays the boundaries of the City of Guadalupe.

15 Figure 1: Location of Guadalupe within Santa Barbara County

1.10. Other Required Agency Approvals
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) will review the Housing Element to determine whether it complies with the requirements of the Housing Element Law for approval.

Besides HCD, no other agency is required to approve the Housing Element.

1.11. Native American Consultation
Consistent with regulations of the State of California (e.g., SB 18, AB 52, et al), the lead agency, the City, initiated consultation with Native American Tribes likely to be traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area as part of the environmental process for the General Plan. On November 2, 2021, the City sent an offer of tribal consultation letter to representatives of the Barbareno/Ventureno Band of Mission Indians, Chumash Council of Bakersfield, Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation, Northern Chumash Tribal Council, Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, San Luis Obispo County Chumash Council, and Yak Tityu Tityu Yak Tilhini – Northern Chumash Tribe. The City received one response from the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, who declined the offer of consultation. 16 Figure 2: Guadalupe City Limits and Sphere of Influence

1.12. Summary Of Environmental Factors Potentially Affected In accordance with Section 15125 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) on the 2042 Guadalupe General Plan analyzed the programmatic and cumulative environmental impacts that could result from the adoption of the 2042 Guadalupe General Plan, which includes the long-term vision, policies, and programs for housing. This section identifies the required topics of discussion.

Subsections of the next section summarize the respective impacts of the proposed Plan under these topics. Specific environmental conditions that relate to individual topics and detailed discussion of impacts are available in sections D.1 through D.21 of the MND. The topics include the following:
o Aesthetics
o Agricultural Resources
o Air Quality
o Biological Resources
o Cultural
o Geology and Soils
o Greenhouse Gas Emissions
o Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
o Hydrology and Water
Quality
o Land Use and Planning
o Mineral Resources
o Noise
o Population and Housing
o Public Facilities
o Recreation
o Transportation
o Utilities
o Energy
o Tribal Cultural Resources
o Wildfire
o Mandatory Findings of
Significance
17 2.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
This section presents a summary of the analyses on the potential environmental impacts that may result from the proposed project. For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist (Section 2) are stated and answers are provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis considers the project’s short-term impacts (construction-related), and its operational or day-to-day impacts. For each question, there are four possible responses, which are listed in increasing order of severity; they are:

1. No Impact. Future development arising from the project’s implementation will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment and no additional analysis is required.

2. Less than Significant Impact. The development associated with project implementation will have the potential to impact the environment; these impacts, however, will be less than the levels or thresholds that are considered significant and no additional analysis is required.

3. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The development will have the potential to generate impacts which may be considered as a significant effect on the environment, although mitigation measures or changes to the project’s physical or operational characteristics can reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant.

4. Potentially Significant Impact. Future implementation will have impacts that are considered significant, and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.

The summary tables that follow list the four possible responses in decreasing order of severity for each of the required topics of discussion.
(Remainder of page intentionally blank)
18 2.1 Aesthetics
Would the proposed plan: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista?
X

2. Substantially damage scenic
resources including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
X

3. In non-urbanized area,
substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of public views of the
site and its surroundings?
If the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing
scenic quality?
X

4. Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X
AE – 1: There are no officially designated scenic vistas or viewsheds in the City of Guadalupe. As a result, the 2023 to 2031 Housing Element (Project) will have no effect on scenic vistas.

AE – 2: There are no officially designated State scenic highways in the City of Guadalupe nor are there any National or California Historic Landmarks in the City. The Project will have no effect on any scenic highways or historic landmarks.

AE – 3: The proposed developments in the Project are centered around key growth areas, which intend to preserve the visual character of the City. Proposed new developments under the housing element (the Project) would occur within the urbanized area that is the city limits. Besides, additional housing development with the city would not conflict with regulations governing scenic quality since large, new developments are subject to the City’s design review process. The Project will have no negative effect on the visual character of the City.

AE – 4: Build-out of developments from the Project would create new, but minor sources of glare and light. Any new lighting installed under the Project would increase safety and security for residents and visitors and result in a less than significant impact.
19 2.2 Agricultural Resources
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
X

2. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract? X

3. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
X

4. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X

5. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X
AG – 1: Agricultural lands in Guadalupe are important in that they provide commodities that generate local jobs and income, contribute to the local character of the City, and create habitat for wildlife. While some designated urban land under temporary agricultural use will be converted to urban land uses under the 2023 to 2031 Housing Element (Project), overall agricultural land consumption is to be minimized resulting in a less than significant effect.

AG – 2: Guadalupe recognizes the economic and cultural importance of agriculture for the community and continues to actively preserve and protect farmland, particularly, Williamson Act Parcels. There are no records of Williamson Act contract lands within the city limits that are zoned for agricultural use.

Since housing development would occur within the city limits, the Project will have no impact on zoning and Williamson Act Parcels.

AG – 3: There is no forest land or timberland zoned for timberland production within the City of Guadalupe. The Project will have no impact on forest or timberland. 20 AG – 4: There is no forest land within the City of Guadalupe. The Project would have no impact on the loss of forest land to non-forest use.

AG – 5: The Project would allow development of vacant parcels already designated for urban use and in developed areas. The interaction between agricultural and urban activities are not anticipated to change fundamentally from historic circumstances. Therefore, other changes in the existing environment would have no impact on the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
(Remainder of page intentionally blank)
21 2.3 Air Quality
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Conflict or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? X

2. Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is
non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
X

3. Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X

4. Result in other emissions
(such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of
people?
X
AQ– 1: Guadalupe, like the rest of the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District is in attainment with the federal PM 10 standard, but not with the federal PM 2.5 standard, and the area is not in attainment with state PM 10 or PM 2.5 standards, making the area not in attainment with federal nor with state ozone standards. Features within the 2023 to 2031 Housing Element (Project) promote contiguous growth with intensification of development, thus increasing the use of such alternatives to the auto as walking, biking, and transit causing the overall impact to be less than significant.

AQ – 2: In addition to volatile organic compounds, there are six common and most widespread air pollutants of concern (termed “criteria pollutants”) in the SBCAPCD; these are ground-level ozone, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead. With the exception of PM10, the air district is in attainment or is unclassified with all criteria air pollutant standards. SBCAPCD recommends the inclusion of fugitive dust control measures into all discretionary construction activities that involve earthmoving activities irrespective of project size, duration, and whether or not there is anticipation for significant construction dust impacts. Projects in the City, such as subdivisions, will undergo project level CEQA review and are subject to the provisions of guidance from SBCAPCD.

Additionally, the anticipation is for proposals under the 2023-2031 Housing Element to result in reduced vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled with associated criteria emissions. Overall, the Project will have a less than significant impact.
22 AQ – 3: Sensitive receptors are commonly associated with such land uses as residential areas, elementary schools, retirement homes, and hospitals. Population groups that are most susceptible to adverse effects of air pollution include children, the elderly, and those that are chronically or acutely ill.

Sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) include agriculture, combustion of fuels, and commercial operations. Diesel exhaust is the dominant TAC in urban air and represents approximately two-thirds of the cancer risk from TACs. Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generate diesel exhaust and fugitive dust (PM2.5) that poses health risks to sensitive receptors. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has regulations for reducing emissions of diesel particulate matter in stationary and mobile sources. CARB recommends, for instance, that local planning agencies consider proximity of sensitive receptors to high-volume roadways, maintenance yards, gas stations, and dry cleaners. The Project includes several policies and actions that will help to mitigate future air pollutant emissions and protect sensitive residential receptors such as nursing homes. Overall, the Project will have a less than significant impact.

AQ– 4: The addition of industrial uses could expand the sources of nuisance odors. However, general plan policies discourage incompatible land uses, require the review of new non-residential projects for potential effects on sensitive receptors and use the City’s design review process to address potential air quality impacts on residential uses from industrial, agricultural, and mobile sources. Implementation of these policies with uniformly applied regulations of the air district, which could include preparation and implementation of odor abatement plans, would ensure that potential impacts from new substantial sources of odor would be less than significant.
(Remainder of page intentionally blank)

23 2.4 Biological Resources
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X

2. Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or
by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X

3. Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
X

4. Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede
the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
X

5. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
X

6. Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
X
BIO– 1: Guadalupe is home to a few species that have been historically protected under federal and state regulations. Species that have low to moderate potential to occur within the City include the 24 American badger (Taxidea taxus), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), Northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), two-striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii), western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), and western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii). Nesting birds are also likely to occur within city limits.

Several policies in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the general plan protect natural habitats and other open space areas to ensure the longevity of native species as the built environment develops and to preserve aesthetic and visual amenities. Furthermore, the 2023 to 2031 Housing Element (Project) does not propose development in existing wildlife or natural habitat areas. While infill development is prioritized, new development will avoid sensitive areas, and areas of the City that are environmentally sensitive are intended to be preserved resulting in a less than significant impact to protected species.

BIO – 2: Riparian and wetland habitats within city limits include areas of arroyo willow riparian scrub along the northern city limit boundary and adjacent to the Santa Maria River, riparian woodland along a tributary to the northwest, and wetlands and riparian woodland along the Ninth Street wetland complex. No parcels in these wetland areas are designated for development. Therefore, the project will have less than significant impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community in Guadalupe.

BIO – 3: Potential wetlands and waters of the U.S. within or adjacent to city limits include the Santa Maria River, a tributary to the northwest, the Ninth Street wetland complex, and agricultural ditches.

Policies in the Conservation and Open Space Element protect natural habitats and other open space areas. While there is a slight potential for interruption of the hydrological cycle with impervious surfaces that come with urban development, the impact will be less than significant.

BIO – 4: The Essential Habitat Connectivity Project of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife identifies an essential wildlife corridor along the Santa Maria River and the northern edge of the Guadalupe Planning Area. However, the proposed general plan would not result in development in the vicinity of the Santa Maria River. Therefore, development within city limits would not substantially interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The Project could result in some impact if new development would interfere with movement of species through corridors, migration patterns, or affect their ability to reach breeding locations, but any impact would be less than significant.

BIO – 5: The Project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.

BIO – 6: Designated critical habitat for the La Graciosa thistle in the Guadalupe Planning Area is primarily along the Santa Maria River corridor. Even unforeseen possibilities are adjudged less than significant. 25 2.5 Cultural: Archeological and Historical Resources Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact

1. Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of
a historical resource
pursuant to § 15064.5?
X

2. Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of
an archeological resource
pursuant to 15064.5?
X

3. Disturb any human remains,
including those interred
outside of formal
cemeteries?
X
CULT– 1: The search of an archival database through the Central Coast Information Center of the California Historical Resource Information Center revealed that there are historic and archaeological resources within the city limits. The 2042 General Plan and the 2023 to 2031 Housing Element (Project) seek to preserve historic resources by confining growth to key growth areas. Development of vacant parcels within the city limits would not directly impact historic structures identified in the City’s Register of Historical Resources, historic structures identified through the archival database search, or other structures which due to their age, may have potential to be adjudged historic. This leads to a conclusion of less than significant impact.

CULT – 2: There are no known tribal or archaeological sites within the city limits. Construction activities associated with buildout of the Project could potentially damage or disturb as yet undiscovered archaeological deposits. As such, the potential for encountering archeological resources could exist in some sections of the City, however, based on available knowledge, the Project overall would cause a less than significant impact.

CULT – 3: Historically, Native Americans inhabited the region, and historically significant sites were discovered elsewhere within the region. There exists the potential of significant impacts if there were unknown sites of human remains discovered during the build-out of the Project. There are no known such sites in key growth areas, resulting in a less than significant impact. If any were to be discovered, impacts would both be significant and unavoidable. In the event human remains are discovered during the build-out of the Project, construction must stop and a qualified coroner must be contacted to determine if the remains are of Native American origin. If the coroner makes this determination, the coroner should contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours.

26 2.6 Geology and Soils
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving
rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault?
X

2. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving
strong seismic ground shaking?
X

3. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving
seismic related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
X

4. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving
landslides?
X

5. Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil? X

6. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
X

7. Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or property?
X

8. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
X
27 9. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geological feature?
X
GEO– 1: The city is neither within an established State of California Earthquake Fault Zone for surface rupture nor within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. No active faults with the potential for surface fault rupture are known to pass directly beneath the city. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture is low and no impact is expected.

GEO – 2: The City of Guadalupe is within Seismic Zone 4, which is the highest potential status for earthquake activity in the state of California. Physically, however, no faults are mapped to have traversed the City. Nevertheless, seismic events caused by active and potentially active faults in the region, as with anywhere in California, could result in seismic ground shaking in the City. Therefore, seismic hazards are not completely avoidable. However, uniform application of the development standards in the California Building Code, which reflect in the City’s standards for earthquake resistant construction can minimize hazards from seismic ground shaking. Therefore, the Project would place few to no properties in danger of collapse or lives at risk due to ground shaking, causing a less than significant impact.

GEO – 3: Liquefaction is the conversion of soil into a fluid-like state. Guadalupe is within a liquefaction zone with approximately its western half mapped as laying within a zone of high liquefaction potential and its approximately eastern half mapped as laying within a zone of moderate liquefaction. When future development within the city complies with the California Building Code, including the standards for construction in areas prone to liquefaction, the potential impacts from liquefaction would become less than significant.

GEO– 4: Earthquake-induced landslide and slope failure occurs when steep slopes composed of weak materials fail because of ground shaking caused by an earthquake. Guadalupe is not in an area identified as having the potential for earthquake-induced landslide or slope failure. Therefore, the Project will create less than significant risk of landslides.

GEO – 5: Guadalupe’s largest economic sector is agriculture. As most agricultural operations take place outside the built-up area of Guadalupe, the Project would create less than significant loss of topsoil.

GEO – 6: Guadalupe is not in an area identified as having the potential for earthquake-induced landslide or slope failure but has the potential for liquefaction. Subsidence typically occurs due to the withdrawal of groundwater, oil, natural gas, or other resource extractive activities, which is not prevalent in the City.

The Project’s impact would therefore be less than significant.

GEO– 7: Soils susceptible to expansion are high in clay content as they are able to absorb and retain water leading to volume disparities between wet and dry states. Hazards related to expansive soils would be investigated as part of the geotechnical analyses for individual future projects with recommendations that are consistent with the California Building Code, which aims at avoiding or 28 minimizing such hazards. Therefore, the Project would create less than significant risk of loss of life or building damage due to location on expansive soils.

GEO – 8: The City of Guadalupe relies primarily on the collection and treatment of wastewater through a city-wide sewer system. Future developments would connect to the City’s wastewater collection and treatment system, allowing no septic systems. Implementing the general plan and housing element would have no impact.

GEO – 9: Guadalupe is not known to have paleontological resources. However, construction activities associated with buildout of the Project could result in unearthing yet unidentified paleontological resources. In anticipation of this slim eventuality, the City of Guadalupe has adopted the policy that “in the event that archeological or paleontological resource is unearthed or otherwise discovered during construction related activities associated with the Project, all work must be suspended until a qualified archeologist is consulted”. Based on available information, the Project would have a less than significant impact on paleontological resources.
(Remainder of page intentionally blank)

29 2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Generate GHG emissions,
either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
X

2. Conflict with an applicable
plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emission of
GHGs?
X
GHG – 1: New development typically generates additional GHG emissions from such sources as vehicle travel, some electricity production from fossil fuel powered generating plants, natural gas consumption, waste generation and disposal, and water use and treatment. The 2042 general plan and new housing element propose compact and mixed-use development which would lower per capita vehicle mile travel and energy consumption, promote recycling to reduce waste, and thereby support per capita reduction in GHGs. The 2023 to 2031 Housing Element (Project) proposes increases in housing density which can reduce greenhouse gas emissions resulting in a less than significant impact.

GHG – 2: The Project remains consistent with the 2042 General Plan and other relevant policies and plans related to the regulation of GHG emissions. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact.
(Remainder of page intentionally blank)

30 2.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X

2. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
X

3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
X

4. Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
X

5. For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area?
X

6. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X

7. Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland
fires?
X
HAZ– 1: The transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials are primarily associated with industry.

The 2023 to 2031 Housing Element (Project) focuses primarily on residential uses but the potential exists that household use of such materials as lubricants, solvents, gasoline, diesel, propane, and other types of fuel could accidentally release some hazardous materials into the environment, thereby causing risks to public health and safety. Additionally, projects are to undergo CEQA review and mitigation to ensure 31 less-than-significant impacts with hazardous materials. So, the impact of the Project would be less than significant.

HAZ – 2: Proposed industrial and commercial land uses have the potential to create a significant hazard in upset or accident conditions if they involve the use, production, or transport of hazardous materials; however, the Project focuses on residential uses resulting in a less than significant impact on the environment. Furthermore, all subsequent projects will require CEQA review and mitigation of impacts associated with hazardous materials. In the case that the release of hazardous materials occurs, the City should collaborate with the County, following protocol from the County’s Hazardous Materials Area Plan to carry out a study to evaluate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the potential threat to public health and/or the environment.

HAZ – 3: Most existing and proposed schools are located beyond the quarter-mile threshold from proposed industrial and commercial land uses. While the general plan allows for increased industrial development capacity within one-quarter mile of the existing Mary Buren Elementary school, the housing element (Project) focuses on residential uses which are further away from future industrial uses and likely to result in a less than significant impact.

HAZ– 4: According to State Water Resources Control Board’s Geotracker website , there are six open cases of hazardous material contamination sites within the city limits and one site outside the city limits.

These sites are all associated with existing businesses on sites with leaking underground storage tanks.

The Project will not change the existing land uses on the contamination sites without mitigation.

Besides, since new housing under the Project would be located on existing vacant sites within the city limits, or above existing commercial buildings, there is little potential for the housing to locate at sites with known hazardous materials. Additionally, there is a potential for some aerially deposited lead (ADL) soil contamination along highways although traffic volumes are relatively small. Projects associated with development along highways should include soil sampling to test for ADL. Subsequent developments under the Project will require CEQA review and mitigation of impacts associated with hazardous materials. Therefore, the Project will create less than significant hazard to the public or the environment.

HAZ – 5: The city is not within the boundaries of an airport land use zone. There is no private airstrip within the Project Area. Similarly, there are no training or other significant military flight paths that cross over Guadalupe. The Project will not impact people near an airport in terms of safety hazard or excessive noise.

HAZ – 6: The Project aligns with the General Plan which ensures collaboration with Santa Barbara County on the development and implementation of a Disaster and Emergency Preparedness Plan (ERP) as well as supports efforts outlined in the County’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Project does not impact implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

HAZ– 7: There are no fire hazard zones within the city limits although a high fire hazard severity zone is adjacent to the northern edge of the city. The proposed general plan and the Project direct new 32 development primarily to vacant lands that are within city limits and not adjacent to the fire hazard zone. Consequently, the project would not place new housing within the high fire hazard severity zone.

Therefore, the Project will expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly to a less than significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. (Remainder of page intentionally blank)
33 2.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?
X

2. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
X

3. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site?
X

4. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
X

5. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
X

6. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
X
34 impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would impede or redirect flood flows?

7. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
X

8. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan?
X
HY– 1: Future development associated with the buildout of the 2023 to 2031 Housing Element (Project) could negatively affect the quality of surface waters. Construction activities, which include grading, excavation, and other earthmoving activities, could expose soils, which can be eroded and deposited into nearby water sources. Increased sedimentation and turbidity from storm water runoff could lead to lower oxygen levels and increased algal growth, which could harm aquatic life. Post-construction impacts to water quality and waste discharge are due to an increase of impervious surfaces creating changes to storm water amount and quality. An increase of impervious surfaces also could lead to an increase of pollutants that enter storm water runoff. Urban runoff can potentially carry oil and grease, metals, sediment, pesticide, and chemical residues from roadways, parking lots, and rooftops, depositing them into nearby waterways. Development from the Project is required to comply with State and local water quality regulations that are designed to protect water quality during construction.

Complying with the standards and regulations will prevent the proposed Plan from violating any water quality standards related to waste discharge. Individual projects are also required to undergo CEQA analysis and mitigations. Therefore, the Project’s impact will be less than significant.

HY – 2: The future development proposed by the Project would result in an increase in impervious surfaces which may interfere with groundwater recharge. However, regulations for stormwater require various measures that aim to improve on-site retention and drainage improvements, resulting in a less than significant impact.

HY – 3: Development of the Project would involve vegetation removal, earth excavation and grading, and the construction of new structures. These activities could have an impact on the drainage pattern through an increase in erosion from construction activities and an increase in impervious surfaces.

However, erosion control measures are to be implemented and regulated for any proposed project greater than one acre resulting in a less than significant level. Individual projects are also to mitigate any on-site or off-site erosion impacts through project-level CEQA.

HY– 4: Build-out of the Project will increase the number of impervious surfaces within the City. Drainage patterns have the potential to be altered through an increase in the rate and volume of stormwater runoff due to the increase in impervious surfaces. Guadalupe requires implementation of storm control measures during review of new development applications. This would help to alleviate potential runoff from developments to a less than significant level.
35 HY – 5: An increase in impervious surfaces from the development of the Project could result in an increase in stormwater runoff and pollutants within the stormwater. The increased pollutants include oil and grease, metals, sediments, and pesticides from the increase in roadways, parking lots, rooftops, and other impervious surfaces. The design of new development must be consistent with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and post-construction water quality requirements, which have the objectives of protecting water. These requirements will minimize potential for soil erosion on individual development sites that could otherwise degrade water quality. These requirements and design features aid in offsetting the potential increase in stormwater from increase in impervious surfaces and degradation of water to a less than significant level.

HY – 6: An increase in development under the Project could result in alterations to water courses as retention walls, fences, and other structures are situated on land. However, site grading and design guidelines are meant to guard against unnecessary redirection of natural flow patterns, call for creation of retention basins, and preservation of streams and creeks, resulting in an overall less than significant impact. Furthermore, individual projects are to undergo project-level CEQA analysis to determine if they impede or redirect flood flows.

HY– 7: Guadalupe does not fall within tsunami or seiche zones and none of the areas within the city limits is within a flood hazard zone. Nevertheless, an unusual storm in January 2023 produced more than three inches of rain within 12 hours, which caused the Santa Maria River to breach an earthen berm and flooded a city neighborhood that is adjacent to the Santa Maria River flood plain (REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE, Agenda of May 9, 2023). Santa Barbara County has since then authorized funding to dredge and deepen the river channel as a temporary measure to avoid such flooding in the future (Hodgson, 2023). Besides, developments under the Project are for areas toward the east and south, further away from the river floodplain. Therefore, less than significant impact would occur regarding potential release of pollutants from new development during a flood, tsunami, or seiche event.

HY – 8: An increase in development under the Project could increase surface runoff, its pollution, and subsequent degradation of water supply sources. The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board controls the quality of surface waters and groundwater through the issuance and enforcement of waste discharge requirements to individuals, communities, or businesses whose waste discharges can affect water quality. The requirements include National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for discharges to surface water. The management of discharges results in the control and meeting of water quality objectives and the protection of beneficial uses. New development within the city will be required to comply with water quality control standards pursuant to the NPDES during construction and post-construction conditions. This will assure that the Project would have a less than significant impact in obstructing the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
36 2.10 Land Use and Planning
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Physically divide an
established community? X

2. Cause a significant
environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect?
X
LU – 1: The 2023 to 2031 Housing Element (Project) proposes development primarily on vacant infill parcels and adjoining lands within city limits. Future housing would have no impact on physically dividing the community.

LU – 2: The Project does not conflict with existing land use plans. The Project remains consistent with the 2042 General Plan and updated Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map. It would have no impact as it would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
(Remainder of page intentionally blank)
37 2.11 Mineral Resources
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Result in the loss of
availability of a known
mineral resource that would
be of value to the region
and the residents of the
state?
X

2. Result in the loss of
availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource
recovery site delineated on
a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use
plan?
X
MR – 1: Mineral extraction operations do not exist in the City of Guadalupe, but there are operations within Santa Barbara County. However, expansion in physical development would require extraction of stones, gravel, and sand, which might come from other parts of the region. Therefore, buildout of the 2023 to 2031 Housing Element (Project) could result in a less than significant loss of known mineral resources.

MR – 2: As referenced under MR-1, there are no existing mining operations in the City of Guadalupe.

However, the need for building stones, gravel, and sand during expansion in physical development could potentially deplete a local quarry although highly unlikely. Therefore, buildout of the Project could result in a less than significant loss of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site. (Remainder of page intentionally blank)

38 2.12 Noise
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of
standards established in the
local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other
agencies?
X

2. Result in exposure of
persons to or generation of
excessive ground-borne
vibration or ground-borne
noise levels?
X

3. For a project located within
the vicinity of a private
airstrip or an airport land
use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport,
would the project expose
people residing or working
in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
X
NOISE– 1: To accommodate future growth, the 2023 to 2031 Housing Element (Project) proposes the conversion of some vacant land to residential facility uses. Noise-sensitive land uses, including open space, public facilities, and residential land uses are proposed for areas that are at or below normally or clearly acceptable ranges of noise. Furthermore, the proposed land uses do not expose existing sensitive receptors to an unacceptable range of noise. However, with growth in population and activities, there is a chance that noise levels would increase. Yet the proposed compact mixed-use land uses would promote the use of alternative modes instead of the automobile. New growth would not exacerbate existing rail noise conditions since it would not contribute to increased use of the Union Pacific Railroad and growth would not exacerbate noise conditions at the stationary industrial uses because such growth would not directly cause increased production/operational activity at the existing uses. Additionally, subsequent projects under the Plan are to undergo CEQA review and mitigation of noise impacts. 39 Therefore, the Project could cause less than significant generation of noise levels in excess of the established standards.

NOISE – 2: Common sources of man‐made vibration include sonic booms, blasting, pile driving, pavement breaking, soil compaction, structure demolition, diesel locomotives, and rail‐car coupling.

None of these activities are anticipated to occur with construction or operation of the Project. However, increased activity under the Project could generate additional movement of heavy vehicles that could impact ground vibration. Nevertheless, the Project would less than significantly expose people to, or generate, excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. Furthermore, subsequent developments under the Project are to undergo CEQA review and mitigation of noise impacts NOISE – 3: There are no aircraft operations, including private airstrips, public airport, or public use airport in the City of Guadalupe. Therefore, no persons residing or working in the Planning Area would be exposed to excessive noise levels associated with a private airstrip, public airport, or public use airport, resulting in no impact.
(Remainder of page intentionally blank)

40 2.13 Population and Housing
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Induce substantial
unplanned population
growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension
of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X

2. Displace substantial
numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating
the construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
POP– 1: The 2023 to 2031 Housing Element (Project), consistent with the 2042 General Plan, used the cohort-component method of population projection according to State of California guidelines to calculate population growth and number of households. Under the Project, the City of Guadalupe could need to accommodate additional housing units to satisfy natural growth and the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) in the targeted key growth areas. Meanwhile, the Project has to meet its 6th cycle RHNA allocation of 431 units and can accommodate the additional housing units across a combination of vacant adjoining land, vacant infill land, mixed-use in existing commercial areas, and ADU development therefore causing a less than significant impact.

POP – 2: The Project can meet population growth and related housing needs through the reoccupation of existing vacant units, redevelopment of existing units in “bad” condition, and developing new units.

This Project does not necessitate the displacement of existing housing units, but rather encourages the conservation and improvement of the existing housing stock as well as constructing new units. However, redeveloping units in less than desirable conditions could displace some occupants even if temporarily.

Policies in the Project are to help assure that there would be no substantial displacement of people or existing housing units that would necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, resulting in a less than significant impact.

41 2.14 Public Facilities
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for the following:

1. Fire protection? X

2. Police protection? X

3. Schools? X

4. Parks? X

5. Other public facilities? X
PS – 1: Guadalupe does not lie in a high fire hazard severity zone. Since the general plan and the Project call for new development only within city limits, response times, which are adequate, should not normally increase relative to existing conditions. However, growth in population and activities have the potential to increase the risk of urban fires which could tax the ability of Fire Protection and Emergency Service personnel. There are programs outlined in the 2023 to 2031 Housing Element (Project) meant to reduce the risk of fire in houses in Guadalupe, resulting in a less than significant impact.

PS – 2: The general plan identifies a potential future need to construct a new public safety operations center to accommodate the joint functions of the police, fire, and emergency operations departments.

There is no timeframe or design for constructing the new facility, nor is there adequate funding for doing so. Funding would be generated, at least in part, by the City adopting and implementing a new public safety impact fee. Population growth has the potential to impact the ability of police services.

Currently, the City of Guadalupe meets the FBI target of one officer per 1,000 residents and with the addition of the project, the City can maintain the standard officer-to-resident ratio. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.

PS – 3: The Guadalupe Union School District operates an elementary school and a middle school within the city. High school students travel to Orcutt for classes. Both the elementary and middle schools are 42 over capacity. The Guadalupe Union School District is planning a new junior high school facility in the DJ Farms/Pasadera development, which would help alleviate overcrowded conditions when the district converts the old middle school to an elementary school. While the Project has the potential to increase student population, school expansion is not attributable to the Project per se. Therefore, it will have a less than significant effect on the need for additional school capacity.

PS – 4: The general plan identified that the City needed new park and recreation resources to improve the ratio of parkland to population ratio of four acres per thousand residents. Meanwhile, additional parks are to be implemented under the development agreement for the DJ Farms area rather than the 6th cycle housing element. The Project would therefore have a less than significant impact on the need to add to parks. Refer to the Recreation section (section 2.15) for more details.

PS – 5: The Project has the potential to increase population which would likely increase demand for library services in excess of existing capacity. However, the City of Guadalupe can coordinate with Santa Barbara County Library to address the specific needs of the community and funding sources required to expand library service holdings and hours to accommodate the need. With this road map, the Project would have a less than significant impact in meeting performance objectives of other facilities. (Remainder of page intentionally blank)

43 2.15 Recreation
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational
facilities such that
substantial physical
deterioration of the facility
would occur or be
accelerated?
X

2. Include recreational
facilities or require the
construction or expansion
of recreational facilities
which might have an
adverse physical effect on
the environment?
X
REC – 1: There are a combination of neighborhood and pocket parks as well as other open spaces amounting to approximately 58 acres in Guadalupe. While population growth would inevitably increase demand for park use, the additional proposed park lands in the General Plan and the maintenance of new and existing parks would preclude overuse of parks to an extent as to result in their deterioration.

Therefore, the implementation of the 2023 to 2031 Housing Element (Project) would have a less than significant impact.

REC – 2: The Project focuses on the development of housing and will not require additional recreational facilities beyond what is proposed in the General Plan and the DJ Farms Specific Plan. The increase in park space proposed in the plans is likely to improve the scenic beauty of the City rather than impose an adverse physical effect on the environment. Therefore, the Project will create a less than significant adverse physical impact.
(Remainder of page intentionally blank)

44 2.16 Transportation
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Conflict with a program,
plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation
system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?
X

2. Conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)? . . . . i.e., Is VMT
exceeding an applicable
threshold of significance?
X

3. Substantially increase
hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous
intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
X

4. Result in inadequate
emergency access? X
TRANS – 1: All development under the 2023 to 2031 Housing Element (Project) would be subject to policies, plans, and programs that ensure the performance and safety of users of multiple modal facilities including auto users, public transit riders, bicyclists, and pedestrians. For example, all development under the Project would have to comply with the Complete Streets Act of 2008 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The impact of the Project on adopted policies, plans, or programs would therefore be less than significant.

TRANS – 2: Potential growth and development as a result of the Project can increase total vehicle miles traveled (VMT). However, the Project’s focus on infill and compact density can encourage alternative, non-motorized travel, helping to reduce per capita VMT. The transportation study for the general plan revealed that the proposed general plan would have a less-than-significant VMT impact based both on VMT generated by residential uses and VMT generated by employment generating (non-residential) uses. This is possible because the General Plan includes certain improvements to transportation and land use settings, which are projected to result in lower per capita VMT than existing and other future alternatives including the no project alternative. Therefore, the Project will have a less than significant impact on Project-generated VMT.
45 TRANS – 3: All development under the Project would be subject to design and safety standards that are specified within the City of Guadalupe Municipal Code. The City of Guadalupe Municipal Code references, and is subject to, codes established by the State of California that ensure the safety of its citizens. As with current practice, all future roadways would be designed and reviewed in consultation with engineers to determine their compliance with these codes and regulations with regard to hazards and incompatible uses. Therefore, the Project will have no impact on hazards due to geometric design.

TRANS – 4: All development under the Project would be subject to design and safety standards, specified under the City of Guadalupe Municipal Code, which references the California Building Code and portions of the International Fire Code. As with current practice, all future roadways would be designed and reviewed in consultation with engineers to determine their compliance with these codes and regulations with regards to adequate emergency access. Therefore, the Project will have no impact on emergency access.
(Remainder of page intentionally blank)

46 2.17 Utilities
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Require or result in the
relocation or construction
of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment, or
storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas,
or telecommunications
facilities, the construction
or relocation of which could
cause significant
environmental effects?
X

2. Have sufficient water
supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably
foreseeable future
development during
normal, dry, and multiple
dry years?
X

3. Result in a determination by
the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or
may serve the project that it
has (in)adequate capacity to
serve the project’s
projected demand in
addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
X

4. Generate solid waste in
excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of
the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
X

5. Not comply with federal,
state, and local
management and reduction
statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
X
47 UTIL – 1: The 2023 to 2031 Housing Element (Project) will result in new growth and infrastructure development in key areas within the City of Guadalupe. This could result in new construction or expansion of storm water drainage facilities. Residential growth, land use changes, and commercial growth and expansion could possibly increase the use of pavement and parking areas. However, programs in the General Plan address infrastructure requirements in order to efficiently capture and divert storm water to reduce the risk of urban flooding for new development and growth of the Project.

Increased housing as a result of the Project would also likely require the extension of electric, water, and wastewater lines as well as telecommunication facilities. However, programs in the General Plan address increased demand for public services and proposed expansion when needed. Therefore, the Project will have a less than significant impact.

UTIL – 2: The area has sufficient water supply to serve existing entitlements and resources, but water supply can be a limiting factor in growth. Continuing to monitor water quality is important as the community continues to grow. The current water supply needs to be supplemented by additional sources and continuously monitored for quality to facilitate growth. Additionally, the City of Guadalupe needs to reduce its water demand regardless of these impacts. Executive Order B-37-16 and Senate Bill X7-7 mandate water demand reduction which can potentially help the City offset demand associated with projected growth. With water conservation policies in the General Plan, the increased water demand as a result of the Project will have a less than significant effect on water supply.

UTIL – 3: Projected increase in population and changes in land use would increase demand for the City of Guadalupe’s wastewater treatment facilities and therefore potentially exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, which mandates that all public sanitary sewer systems and treatment facilities comply with State Waste Discharge Order (WDR Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ). The City’s wastewater collection and treatment master plan includes a range of recommended wastewater collection, distribution and treatment plant improvements at the existing plant site. With the proposed expansions, the Project would have a less than significant effect on wastewater treatment facilities.

UTIL – 4: The Project will result in new growth and infrastructure development in key areas within the City of Guadalupe and this would increase the need for solid waste collection and disposal. According to California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, the City’s total solid waste tonnage has declined steadily since about 2014. Similarly, average disposal rates per day per capita and per day per employee have been declining over the same period. Solid waste is transported to the Santa Maria Transfer Station in Nipomo, California, and from there it is distributed to Chicago Grade Landfill, to the Santa Maria Regional Landfill, and other facilities, including the Kettleman Hills Landfill. There is no evidence to suggest that solid waste demand of new development within the city would trigger the need to develop additional landfill capacity. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

UTIL – 5: Projects in the City, such as subdivisions will undergo project level CEQA review and are subject to the policies in the General Plan to assure compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations and statutes regarding solid waste. Therefore, solid waste impacts from implementing the Project would be less than significant.
48 2.18 Energy
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Result in potentially
significant environmental
impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy
resources, during project
construction or operation?
X

2. Conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
X
ENE – 1: While the 2023 to 2031 Housing Element (Project) will result in new growth and infrastructure development in key areas within the City of Guadalupe, focus on compact infill development can help to prevent excessive consumption of energy. Additionally, the Plan’s efforts to reduce VMT will further reduce energy consumption from transportation related activities. As a result of these progressive actions to conserve energy, per capita use of electricity can decrease compared to the no project alternative, resulting in a less than significant impact.

ENE – 2: All development under the Project would be subject to applicable renewable energy and energy efficiency plans including federal, state and local regulations. The Project would also be subject to the General Plan policies and programs, which aim at helping Guadalupe meet energy conservation standards and goals set by state and local plans. Furthermore, subsequent developments under the Project will undergo City of Guadalupe Building Department and CEQA review to ensure they comply with energy conservation standards. Therefore, impact of the Project on adopted policies, plans, or programs would be less than significant.
(Remainder of page intentionally blank)

49 2.19 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources
Code Section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is listed or eligible for
listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in the local
Register of Historical Resources as
defined in Public Resources Code
Section 5020.1(k)?
X

2. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources
Code Section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is a resource determined
by the lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1?
X
TRIBE – 1: There are no historic sites, features, places, or cultural landscapes within the City that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Although a search of an archival database through the Central Coast Information Center of the California Historical Resource Information Center revealed that there are historic and archaeological resources within city limits, there are no known tribal cultural resources within city limits. It is unknown if subsurface tribal cultural resources exist on any vacant parcels or elsewhere within the City. Construction activities associated with buildout of the Project could potentially damage or disturb as yet undiscovered tribal sites. As such, the potential for encountering tribal cultural resources could exist in some sections of the City, however, based on 50 available knowledge, the Project overall would cause a less than significant impact in inducing adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource.

TRIBE – 2: Historically, Native Americans inhabited the region, and historically significant sites were discovered elsewhere within the region. There exists the potential of significant impacts if unknown sites of human remains were discovered during the build-out of the Project. There are no known such sites in key growth areas, resulting in a less than significant impact. If any were to be discovered, impacts would both be significant and unavoidable. In the event human remains are discovered during the build-out of the Project, construction must stop and a qualified coroner must be contacted to determine if the remains are of Native American origin. If the coroner makes this determination, the coroner should contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. (Remainder of page intentionally blank)

51 2.20 Wildfire
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Substantially impair an adopted Emergency
Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan? X

2. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X

3. Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines
or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk
or that may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
X

4. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding
or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire
slope instability, or drainage changes?
X
FIRE – 1: The 2023 to 2031 Housing Element (Project) is a part of the General Plan which includes policies to ensure collaboration with Santa Barbara County on the development and implementation of a Disaster and Emergency Preparedness Plan and supports efforts outlined in the Santa Barbara County 2017 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Proposed land uses do not interfere with any existing emergency response plans (ERPs). Therefore, the Project will have no impact.

FIRE – 2: Guadalupe does not lie within a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and is at a minimal risk from fire hazards. The Project, as a result, does not increase exposure of any Project occupants to wildfire spread or wildfire pollutants. While the City does not lie within a CAL FIRE recognized Fire Hazard Severity Zone, urban structure fires and pollutant exposure from nearby higher risk areas outside of Guadalupe remain a concern and steps to prepare for an emergency will benefit all residents. Policies in the General Plan help to mitigate that risk. Overall, the Project will have a less than significant impact.

FIRE – 3: Expansion of urban infrastructure will support new housing development but would not be the type required specifically to address fire hazard risk. While the infrastructure will support urban structure fires, the Project would not require the installation or maintenance of such infrastructure as fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities that could exacerbate fire risk or 52 that could result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Overall, the Project will have a less than significant impact.

FIRE – 4: The high fire hazard severity zone that is adjacent to the northern boundary of the City is an area of riparian vegetation along the Santa Maria River. The City is at an elevation that is slightly higher than this riparian area. Therefore, post-fire slope instability hazards are not expected. Furthermore, The city is not within the flood hazard zone along the Santa Maria River. The density of riparian vegetation is not substantial. Loss of that vegetation to fire would not result in a significant change in flood elevation to increase flood hazards within city limits. Thus, the Project would have no impact from exposing people to these wildfire related hazards.
(Remainder of page intentionally blank)

53 2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Would The Proposed Plan Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number, or
restrict the range, of a rare or endangered plant
or animal, or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X

2. Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects
of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects
of probable future projects.)
X

3. Have environmental effects which would cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
From the analyses in the foregoing sections, adoption of the 2023 to 2031 Guadalupe Housing Element (Project) would result in limited but mitigated cumulative environmental impacts as follows:

MFS-1: Overall, the Project would not reduce fish habitats, threaten to eliminate plant or animal communities, reduce or restrict rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. In the rare cases where such potential could occur, appropriate mitigation measures identified would reduce the cumulative impacts to less than significant.

MFS-2: The Project would contribute to a range of existing environmental effects of past and existing development and to foreseeable environmental effects from future development due largely to growth in population and employment. However, the policies and programs in the general plan and the requirement to conform with regulations and standards as well as the mitigation measures included in the environmental documentation for the general plan and this initial study would lessen individual Project impacts that could contribute to cumulative project impacts. [Refer to “Summary of Mitigated Negative Declaration for 2042 General Plan” at the beginning of this initial study]. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant. 54 MFS-3: The analyses in this Initial study revealed that the Project exhibited a minor potential to indirectly cause minor levels of adverse effects on human beings through exposure of sensitive receptors to air emissions, hazardous materials, and traffic noise. It could ultimately contribute also to climate change. However, the policies and programs in the general plan and the requirement to conform with regulations and standards as well as the mitigation measures included in the environmental documentation for the general plan and this initial study would lessen individual Project impacts that could contribute to cumulative project impacts. Therefore, the Project’s cumulative contribution to adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly would be less than significant.

While implementation of the policies and programs in the 6th Cycle 2023 to 2031 Guadalupe Housing Element are to accommodate development required to meet Guadalupe’s RHNA allocation, the Project per se does not identify, describe, promote, entitle, or permit specific residential development projects.

The policies do not change allowed density ranges even as they promote intensification of development toward the upper ranges of allowed density ranges in the City. Specific development projects will assess potential impacts in conformance with CEQA and adopt mitigation measures when deemed necessary. (Remainder of page intentionally blank)
55 3.0 Certification

3.1 Preparers
On behalf of the City of Guadalupe, De Lapide & Associates, Inc. prepared the Initial Study for this project

3.2 Determination
Guadalupe Planning Department based on the evaluation in this Initial Study and the MND for the 2042 Guadalupe General Plan
[X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or a “potentially significant unless mitigated impact” on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and nothing further is required.

3.3 De Minimis Fee Determination
Pursuant to Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990-AB 3158,
[X] It is hereby found that this project involves no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources and that a "Certificate of Fee Exemption" shall be prepared for this project pending approval of the No Effect Determination.

57 4.0 Public Participation.

4.1 Public Hearing Before Preparation of Housing Element (1/10/2023) 58 4.2 Public Hearing After Preparation of Draft Housing Element (6/22/2023) 59 60

4.3 Public Hearing at Regular Guadalupe City Council Meeting (7/11/2023) 61 4.4 Seven-Day Notice: Preparation of Revised Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element 62 4.5 Public Hearing at Regular Guadalupe City Council Meeting (3/25/2025) 63 64
References
California Office of Planning and Research, CEQA Technical Advice Series, December 2004 Edition.

Accessible at: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/MND_Publication_2004.pdf City of Guadalupe. (2022). Guadalupe 2042 General Plan.

City of Guadalupe. (2022). Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration: Guadalupe 2042 General Plan May 31, 2022
City of Guadalupe. (2023). Draft 6th Cycle 2023 to 2031 Guadalupe Housing Element.

City of Guadalupe. (2023). REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE. Agenda of May 9, 2023. Accessible at: https://ci.guadalupe.ca.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/7D.-Accept-the-April2023-Guadalupe-Pioneer-Street-Flooding-Incident-After-Action-Report.pdf Hodgson, Mike. (2023). Lompoc Record. Santa Barbara County supervisors OK spending $8M to fix flooding in Guadalupe. Sep 12, 2023 Updated Sep 16, 2023. Accessible at:
https://lompocrecord.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/santa-barbara-county-supervisors-okspending-8m-to-fix-flooding-in-guadalupe/article_b92a5c79-caaf-5b85-b3f1-9cfb318db410.html RESOLUTION NO. 2025-26

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUADALUPE, CALIFORNIA, TRANSMITTING THE FINAL 6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR ADOPTION
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65300, each city and county in California must adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan, including the Housing Element, addressing the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which in the agency’s judgment bears relation to its planning; and WHEREAS, the City of Guadalupe has prepared a 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element, conforming to all the requirements of HCD; and
WHEREAS, on January 11, 2023, and June 22, 2023, public forums were conducted to provide information to residents and interested agencies of the changes that were planned for the draft document; and
WHEREAS, the draft Housing Element was out for public review from May 30 to June 30, 2023; and
WHEREAS, after further revisions, the draft Housing Element was circulated for public review last summer and the City Council reviewed the draft on August 6, 2024, and thereafter, the City worked with HCD staff to continue to revise the draft based on various sets of HCD staff that were asked to review our document; and
WHEREAS, a letter from Paul McDougall, Senior Program Manager, dated March 7, 2025, stated that the draft Housing Element “meets the statutory requirements and will substantially comply with State Housing Element Law when it is adopted;” and WHEREAS, on March 25, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing on the draft Housing Element at which the Council directed City staff to circulate a Negative Declaration (ND) to address any impacts created by adoption of the Housing Element, and return to Council for adoption of the ND and adoption of the Final Housing Element; and WHEREAS, the 2023-2031 Final Housing Element includes updated Goals, Policies, and Programs reflecting the community’s vision of Guadalupe; and
WHEREAS, on April 11, 2025, the City published a legal advertisement in the Santa Maria Times, a newspaper of local circulation in order to increase public awareness about the 6th Cycle Housing Element even though not legally required pursuant to Government Code § 65353(a) and § 65090, in addition to posting the public hearing notice in three public places in the City of Guadalupe at least ten (10) days before said public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration circulated for a public review period of 21 days (April 12, 2025 through May 1, 2025) and no comments were received; and ATTACHMENT 4
WHEREAS, the notice of the City Council’s hearing on the 2023-2031 Final Housing Element was posted to the City’s website on May 23, 2025, at least 72-hours prior to the Council hearing as part of the City Council’s meeting agenda as required by the Brown Act.

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

SECTION 1. The 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element is hereby approved, and staff is directed to transmitted it to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for final adoption.

SECTION 2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance of the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the City Clerk shall consult with the City Administrator and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.

SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Guadalupe held this 27th day of May 2025 by the following vote:

MOTION:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

I, Judy Wilson, City Clerk of the City of Guadalupe DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 2025-26, has been duly signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of the City Council, held May 27, 2025 and that same was approved and adopted.

ATTEST:
_________________________________ _________________________________ Judy Wilson, City Clerk Ariston Julian Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
Philip F. Sinco, City Attorney