PC 2019-09-03_9a Vacation Rental Ordinance Status ReportMEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: TERESA McCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
BY: MATTHEW DOWNING, PLANNING MANAGER
ANDREW PEREZ, ASSISTANT PLANNER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A STATUS REPORT ON THE CITY’S SHORT
TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE
DATE: SEPTEMBER 3, 2019
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The Planning Commission will discuss aspects of the City’s short term rental ordinance
and make recommendations to the City Council.
IMPACT TO FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
Short term rentals generate approximately $44,000 annually in Transient Occupancy
Tax for the City’s General Fund. Depending on any future action taken by the Council to
modify the Ordinance, this figure could increase or decrease. Approximately fifteen (15)
hours of staff time were utilized to produce this report.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission discuss the short term rental
ordinance, provide feedback to staff, and make a recommendation to the City Council, if
determined necessary.
BACKGROUND:
On June 10, 2014, the City Council adopt ed Ordinance No. 663 (“Ordinance”),
establishing vacation rentals and homestays as permitted land uses in the City’s
residential zoning districts, subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permit -Plot Plan
Review (Attachment 1). The Ordinance defines a vacation rental as a structure being
rented for less than thirty (30) days without concurrently being occupied by the
owner/operator where the short-term lodging is provided for compensation, whereas a
homestay is an owner-occupied dwelling unit where a maximum of two (2) short term
lodging rooms are provided for compensation.
Due to concerns expressed by members of the public, both the Planning Commission
and City Council discussed potential issues arising from short term rentals related to
noise, parking, and other general nuisances during development of the Ordinance.
Item 9a - Page 1
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF A STATUS REPORT ON THE CITY’S SHORT TERM RENTAL
ORDINANCE
SEPTEMBER 3, 2019
PAGE 2
From those discussions, performance standards were created against which a short
term rental application is evaluated. Among these performance standards is a
requirement to provide a local contact entity within a fifteen (15) minute drive of
proposed vacation rentals to address noise and general disturbance issues that may
arise from the short term rental, as well as a 300-foot buffer between the same type of
rentals on the same street is to address the potential for oversaturation of short term
rentals in a neighborhood.
The City Council ultimately determined that these potential nuisances could be
addressed by compliance with the performance standards outlined in the Ordinance and
by operators abiding by conditions of approval. At the time the Ordinance was adopted,
it was determined that these issues were found to be consistent with instances when
long-term renters, homeowners, and even private guests of homeowners are the cause
of these types of nuisances. The Council also found that with a vacation rental having
the local contact available to address any complaints helps motivate property owners to
comply with the conditions of approval to avoid possible revocation of the permit. For
homestays, the owner resides on the property and was anticipated to personally desire
to minimize nuisance issues.
In the intervening five (5) years, a number of things have changed regarding
implementation of the Ordinance including permit volume, monitoring, rules for,
accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and rental housing stock. In the most recent years, a
steep increase in the number of vacation rental applications has been observed .
Noncompliant operators, those individuals not obtaining proper permitting either through
lack of information or outright defiance of the rules , have also been identified as an
issue as the popularity of the sharing economy has altered the market. Additionally, due
to increasing housing prices throughout California, the State has put in place rules for
ADUs that were not anticipated at the time the Ordinance was developed. Lastly and
similarly to the housing crisis in the State, concerns regarding impacts to our loca l rental
housing stock have been raised.
As a result, the Council requested an informational item be brought forward to provide
an update on the Ordinance and options for compliance enforcement. Prior to the item
being brought forward to the Council, and because the Planning Commission has
recently heard a number of vacation rental appeals, this item is being brought forward
as an opportunity for discussion and input prior to Council consideration and direction.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
Trends
When the Ordinance went into effect in 2014, it was a first of its kind in San Luis Obispo
County. While drawing on existing regulations implemented sporadically throughout the
County, the Ordinance was attempting to address the growing trend in home sharing by
regulating both vacation rentals and homestays. Since the Ordinance’s implementation,
the City has permitted thirty-nine (39) vacation rentals and twenty-five (25) homestays.
Item 9a - Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF A STATUS REPORT ON THE CITY’S SHORT TERM RENTAL
ORDINANCE
SEPTEMBER 3, 2019
PAGE 3
In the past twelve (12) months, seventeen (17) applications for vacation rentals were
submitted, while only two (2) applications for homestays have been received. The
number of vacation rental and homestay applications were somewhat even prior to that.
The graph below displays the total number of applications received for vacation rentals
and homestays since implementation of the Ordinance:
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Short Term Rentals Approved: 2014-2019
Homestays Vacation Rentals
Neighborhood Impacts
Since the adoption of the Ordinance, five (5) applications approved by the Community
Development Director for the establishment of a vacation rental have be en appealed to
the Planning Commission. Appellants generally cited the same reasons for their appeal,
typically including concerns regarding:
Noise;
Traffic;
Parking;
Strangers; and
Loss of property values.
In each case, the appeal has been denied by the Planning Commission and the
Community Development Director’s decision was upheld. The Planning Commission
has indicated in each of the appeals that although neighbors have concerns regarding
nearby rentals, the concerns they raise were either discussed during development of
the Ordinance, are addressed by the performance standards required for the vacation
rentals, or addressed by conditions of approval implemented for the project. There have
been very few, if any, complaints submitted against properties with permitted vacation
rentals since the Ordinance went into effect. This is attributed to the fact that either the
requirement for vacation rentals to have a local contact entity handle complaints has
Item 9a - Page 3
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF A STATUS REPORT ON THE CITY’S SHORT TERM RENTAL
ORDINANCE
SEPTEMBER 3, 2019
PAGE 4
worked and been beneficial, or that the permitted renta ls are operating within their
allowances and truly not impacting neighboring properties.
Housing Needs
The City’s General Plan is the blueprint for how development and activities are to occur
within City limits. Housing Element Policy B.6. states: “The City shall continue to
regulate the use of existing residences on residentially zoned properties for vacation
rentals.” Housing Element Program B.6-1 states: “The City shall monitor the loss of
permanent workforce housing from vacation rentals and consider modifying the
Development Code to adjust for this loss.” This is another reason that the increasing
number of vacation rentals is being brought forward for Planning Commission
discussion.
The most recent data available from the United States Census Bureau estimates that
there are 7,847 housing units in the City, and 2,169 of those are rental units
(Attachment 2). Analyzing the ownership information of properties where vacation
rentals are permitted indicate that a majority of the vacation rentals are rented on a part
time basis when owners are absent. The remaining properties appear to be full-time
rentals that do not have long term tenants of any kind. The current number of vacation
rentals totals approximately two percent (2%) of the City’s total rental housing market.
While this may not appear to be a significant impact on the City’s housing stock at this
time, analysis was completed utilizing the City’s Geographic Information System that
estimated a total of 716 vacation rentals could be permitted under the current
regulations. This constitutes thirty-three percent (33%) of the City’s rental housing stock.
There have been 29 building permits issued for the construction of accessory dwelling
units (ADU) since 2017. Six (6) applications have been submitted to establish a
homestay in a permitted ADU, while five (5) applications have been submitted to
establish a vacation rental in a permitted ADU. Ten (10) of those applications were
approved, and the lone application that was denied did not meet the development
standards for the zone because the two -car garage was converted to the ADU,
eliminating the enclosed parking for the single family residence. Th e garage conversion
was allowed to permit the ADU because the property qualified for a parking exemption
due to its proximity to public transit according to State law and AGMC Subsection
16.52.150.C.7.a.i. for ADUs. The requested conversion of the ADU to a vacation rental
did not qualify for the parking exemption; therefore, the proposed vacation rent al did not
conform to parking standards for the property and would not comply with the property
development standards of the Single Family zoning district.
Accessory dwelling units and the mandate by the State to ease permitting burdens in
order to provide more affordable housing stock were not taken into consideration when
the Ordinance was developed. If the Planning Commission is concerned with the
Ordinance as it relates to short term rentals and ADUs, corrective direction for future
implementation would be necessary. Previously approved short term rentals in ADUs
Item 9a - Page 4
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF A STATUS REPORT ON THE CITY’S SHORT TERM RENTAL
ORDINANCE
SEPTEMBER 3, 2019
PAGE 5
could then be determined to be legally nonconforming and allowed to continue, until
such time that the use is abandoned in accordance with the AGMC.
Financial Impact
Operators of vacation rentals and homestays are required to obtain a Business License
from the City every year, as well as remit Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). TOT is
assessed to any short term rental in the City whether it be a hotel, motel, bed and
breakfast, vacation rental, or homestay at a rate of 13% of fees charged for lodging. Ten
percent (10%) of this tax goes into the City’s General Fund, which is used for the
maintenance of City streets and services being used by the short term occupants of
these facilities. The remaining three percent (3%) goes to local and regional tourism
marketing efforts. In the 2018-2019 Fiscal Year that ended on June 30, 2019 the City
collected TOT in the amount of $17,270 from permitted homestays (approximately
$690/homestay/year) and $27,104 from permitted vacation rentals (approximately
$694/vacation rental/year), for a total of $44,374 (approximately $693/rental/year). By
comparison, the City’s hotels, motels, and bed and breakfasts remitted a total of
$970,032. It should be noted that a number of factors can affect these numbers,
including:
The frequency of rental activity;
The rental cost charged per night; and
The time between rental establishment and report preparation.
Ordinance Enforcement
One of the most difficult items associated with implementation of the Ordinance is
enforcement associated with non-permitted rentals. At any given time, searches can be
done on many of the popular rental sites that show rentals operating outside of City
regulations. However, efforts necessary to find, geo-locate, track, build a case of facts,
and attempt to rectify illegal rentals are time consuming. Staff will monitor and rectify
non-compliant rentals when there is a complaint, or when staff resources are available,
which is infrequent. There are companies that will utilize technology to do this work for
the City, the most prolific of which is Host Compliance. Host Compliance has recently
estimated that there are approximately fifty (50) unpermitted short term rentals
operating in the City. In addition to the benefits of collecting the unpaid taxes, Host
Compliance, or similar enforcement companies, could curb illegal short term rentals that
are not subject to the same scrutiny as permitted ones. Services are offered as a menu,
with each service being charged per rental within the City, per month. Specific estimates
on additional TOT anticipated from enforcement efforts cannot easily be completed, as
a number of assumptions would need to be made regarding the number of operators
that simply cease their rental, the fees charged for these rentals, etc. However, it is
anticipated that while a compliance monitoring service would cut into any additional
TOT generated, the City would receive more than it currently does.
Item 9a - Page 5
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF A STATUS REPORT ON THE CITY’S SHORT TERM RENTAL
ORDINANCE
SEPTEMBER 3, 2019
PAGE 6
A number of municipalities throughout the U.S. have turned to the hosting platforms to
address the issue of unpermitted rentals. The most notable is efforts cities have taken
with the popular rental site AirBnB to have the platform collect and remit TOT. However,
there are downsides associated with this option, including:
1.While TOT is being collected, it does not necessarily m ean that rentals will obtain
proper licensing from the City;
2.Operators who utilize multiple rental management platforms have been identified
as underreporting TOT when utilizing platforms other than AirBnB, as they
mistakenly assume the TOT is being collected no matter where the rental is
booked; and
3.Contract negotiations with AirBnB can be protracted.
Parking
The vast majority of the permitted vacation rentals and homestays are located on single
family lots. Generally, these properties are developed with a two -car garage along with
the single family dwelling. As previously stated, the majority of short term rentals are
located in homes that are the owner’s primary residence and are only rented on a part-
time basis. Often times these property owners leave their vehicles in the garage when
they vacation and short term renters are forced to park in the driveway or on the street.
The existing Ordinance does not include a specific performance standard that requires
parking of any kind on site, however a lack of parking on site has become a point of
contention for approvals that have been appealed.
Potential Ordinance Revisions
Rental Buffer
The existing performance standards require a 300-foot buffer between two short term
rentals on a given street. This standard allows for the possibility of rentals being back-
to-back or next door to each other when the properties are located on a corner and their
addresses are on different streets. This standard also only requires the 300-foot buffer
between any two homestay or vacation rentals, not simply between any two short term
rentals. As the Ordinance is currently written, a homestay and a vacation rental may be
permitted on adjacent properties. The combination of these aspects can result in an
overconcentration of short term rentals in a given area, despite compliance with the
existing standards.
Accessory Dwelling Units
On January 1, 2017, State law streamlined the process for property owners to add a
second unit on their property. The initiative has been quite successful and the City has
seen a number of ADUs built. The City’s vacation rental ordinance was developed prior
to that date and neither the City’s accessory dwelling unit ordinance nor vacation rental
ordinance clearly allows or prohibits short term rentals in ADUs. As the State’s intent
was to increase the supply of housing units that are traditionally viewed as more
affordable than a market rental, prohibiting short term rentals in ADUs would be a step
toward bringing the City’s regulations more in line with the State’s intentions.
Item 9a - Page 6
PLANNING COMMISSION
CONSIDERATION OF A STATUS REPORT ON THE CITY’S SHORT TERM RENTAL
ORDINANCE
SEPTEMBER 3, 2019
PAGE 7
Cap to Total Number of Short Term Rentals
The last potential revision identified is a cap to the total number of short term rentals in
the City. While a cap could result in an increase in illegal rentals, it can also be used as
a method of protecting the City’s housing supply as highlighted in the Housing Element.
A cap of vacation rentals specifically, since these have the greatest potential to be
located in an available rental unit, of five perc ent (5%) would result in a total of 108
vacation rentals in the City. The city of Grover Beach recently adopted their vacation
rental ordinance that caps the number of vacation rentals at one hundred (100). The
downside of a cap like this is that it could encourage residents in the City to obtain
proper permits without intending to rent the unit, simply to keep others from being able
to obtain the permits. While these instances may be limited due to the costs associated
with permitting, it could reduce future TOT generation.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Planning Commission’s consideration:
1.Provide feedback to staff regarding implementation of the existing Ordinance and
provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding any further
consideration of modifications to the existing Ordinance;
2.Provide other direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
Public discussion of short term rental policies provide an opportunity to evaluate what
impacts there may be to potential Ordinance modification such as impacts to TOT and
housing stock.
DISADVANTAGES:
No disadvantages are identified relating to having a public discussion about short term
rental policy.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQ A), it has been
determined that this project is exempt from CEQA review per Section 15061(b)(3) of the
CEQA Guidelines regarding the common sense exemption that CEQA applies to
projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted in at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with
Government Code Section 54954.2.
Attachments:
1.Ordinance No. 663
2.U.S. Census Bureau 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
3.Citywide Vacation Rental map
Item 9a - Page 7
ORDINANCE NO. 663
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE AMENDING TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE
MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING VACATION RENTALS AND
HOMESTAYS
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande ("City") currently does not regulate vacation
rentals or homestays; and
WHEREAS, the City does regulate similar transient uses with similar impacts such as
bed and breakfast inns; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that, unless properly regulated, vacation rentals and
homestays can result in adverse impacts to adjacent properties; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of these regulations is to ensure that vacation rentals and
homestays conform to the existing character of the neighborhood in which they are
located and do not create an adverse impact on adjacent properties; and
WHEREAS, the increasing popularity of vacation rentals and homestays in the City the
implementation of appropriate regulations to ensure that impacts are addressed and the
character of existing neighborhoods is maintained, while providing an expanded type of
lodging facility available within the City; and
WHEREAS, it is the purpose of this Ordinance to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare within the City by establishing rules and requirements for vacation rentals and
homestays; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of all testimony and all relevant evidence, the City
Council has determined that the following Development Code Amendment findings can
be made in an affirmative manner:
A. The proposed revisions to Title 16 are required to ensure consistency with the
objectives, policies and implementation measures of the General Plan,
particularly the Land Use Element, and is therefore desirable to implement the
provisions of the General Plan.
B. The proposed revisions to Title 16 will not adversely affect the public health,
safety, and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern.
C. The proposed revisions are consistent with the purpose and intent of Title 16 and
satisfy the intent of Chapter 16.08 of the Municipal Code and provide for internal
consistency.
D. The proposed revisions to Title 16 are exempt under per Sections 15061(b)( 3) and
15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
ATTACHMENT 1
Item 9a - Page 8
ORDINANCE NO. 663
PAGE 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande as follows:
SECTION 1: The above recitals and findings are true and correct and incorporated
herein by this reference.
SECTION 2: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.52.230 is hereby added as
follows:
SECTION 16.52.230 —VACATION RENTALS
A. Purpose and intent. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that vacation
rentals located in the city conform to the existing character of the neighborhood
in which they are located and do not create an adverse impact on adjacent
properties.
B. Applicability. Vacation rentals may be permitted only with approval of a minor use
permit. Vacation rentals shall comply with the property development standards
of the underlying district and the performance standards and special conditions
listed in Section 16.52.230.C.
C. Performance standards and conditions for vacation rentals.
1. Operators of vacation rentals are required to obtain a minor use permit-
plot plan review (Section 16.16.080) and a business license.
2. Any proposed vacation rental shall be compatible with the neighborhood in
which it is located in terms of landscaping, scale and architectural
character. The use shall be harmonious and compatible with the existing
uses with the neighborhood
3. All Building Code and Fire Code requirements for the level of occupancy
of the vacation rental shall be met.
4. All environmental health regulations shall be met.
5. The operator of the vacation rental shall, at all times while the property is
being used as a vacation rental, maintain a contact person/entity within a
fifteen (15) minute drive of the property. The contact person or entity must
be available via telephone twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a
week, to respond to complaints regarding the use of the vacation rental.
The contact person or entity shall respond, -either in person or by return
telephone call, with a proposed resolution to the complaint within three (3)
hours between 7:00 am and 9:00 pm, and within thirty (30) minutes
between 9:00 pm and 7:00 am.
Item 9a - Page 9
ORDINANCE NO. 663
PAGE 3
6. The operator of the vacation rental shall annually, at the time of renewal of
the business license, notify the Community Development Department of
the name, address and telephone number of the contact person required
in subsection 16.52.230.C.6.
7. A written notice shall be conspicuously posted inside each vacation rental
unit setting forth the name, address and telephone number of the contact
person required in subsection 16.52.230.C.6. The notice shall also set
forth the address of the vacation rental, the maximum number of
occupants permitted to stay overnight in the unit, the maximum number of
vehicles allowed to be parked on-site, and the day(s) established for
garbage collection. The notice shall also provide the non-emergency
number of the Arroyo Grande Police Department.
8. On-site advertising of the vacation rental is prohibited.
9. The number of overnight occupants shall be limited to two persons per
bedroom and two additional persons. A bedroom shall meet the minimum
size requirements as defined in the Building Code.
10. All refuse shall be stored in appropriate containers and placed at the curb
for collection every week.
11. The operator of the vacation rental shall pay Transient Occupancy Tax as
required by Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 3.24.030.
12. Establishment of a vacation rental within 300 feet of an existing vacation
rental on the same street shall not be permitted.
13. Violations — violation of these requirements shall constitute grounds for
revocation of the minor use permit pursuant to Section 16.16.220.
SECTION 3: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.52.240 is hereby added as
follows:
SECTION 16.52.240 — HOMESTAYS
A. Purpose and intent. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that
homestays located in the city conform to the existing character of the
neighborhood in which they are located and do not create an adverse impact on
adjacent properties.
B. Applicability. Homestays may be permitted only with approval of a minor use
permit. Homestays shall comply with the property development standards of the
Item 9a - Page 10
ORDINANCE NO. 663
PAGE 4
underlying district and the performance standards and special conditions listed in
Section 16.52.240.0.
C. Performance standards and conditions for homestays.
1. Operators of homestays are required to obtain a minor use permit-plot
plan review (Section 16. 16.080) and a business license.
2. Any proposed homestay shall be compatible with the neighborhood in
which it is located in terms of landscaping, scale and architectural
character. The use shall be harmonious and compatible with the existing
uses with the neighborhood
3. All Building Code and Fire Code requirements far the level of occupancy
of the homestay shall be met.
4. All environmental health regulations shall be met.
5. The operator shall reside on the premises.
6. Individual guest stays shall be limited to fourteen (14) days, with a seven-
day period between stays.
7. On-site advertising of the homestay is prohibited.
8. A bedroom shall meet the minimum size requirements as defined in the
L Building Code.
9. The operator of the homestay shall pay Transient Occupancy Tax as
required by Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 3.24.030.
10. Establishment of a homestay within 300 feet of an existing homestay on
the same street shall not be permitted.
11. Violations — violation of these requirements shall constitute grounds for
revocation of the minor use permit pursuant to Section 16.16.220.
SECTION 4: The following definitions in Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Subsection
16.04.070.C. are hereby amended or added as follows:
16.04.070.C. Definitions
Bed and breakfast inn" means an owner-occupied dwelling unit where three (3) or more
short-term lodging rooms and meals are provided for compensation or onsite signage is
desired.
r
Item 9a - Page 11
ORDINANCE NO. 663
PAGE 5
Homestay" means an owner-occupied dwelling unit where a maximum of two (2) short-
term lodging rooms are provided for compensation.
Vacation rental" means a structure being rented for less than thirty (30) days without
concurrently being occupied by the owner/operator where the short-term lodging is
provided for compensation.
SECTION 5: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.16.080 is hereby amended to
add Subsection B.10 and Subsection C.6 as follows:
16.16.080.B.10. Establishment of vacation rentals or homestays in applicable zoning
districts identified in Table 16.32.040-A and Table 16.36.030(A).
16.16.080.C.6. For plot plan reviews establishing the use of property for vacation rental
purposes, the decision of the community development director shall also be mailed to all
property owners of parcels within three hundred (300) feet of the property for which the
plot plan review has been requested, in addition to the requirements of Section
16.16.080.C.5. The notice shall indicate the appeal provisions of Section 16.12.150.
SECTION 6: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Table 16.32.040-A, entitled "Uses
Permitted Within Residential Districts", Section A. Residential Uses is hereby amended
to add Subsection A.17. as follows:
USE RE RH RR RS SF VR D-2.4 MF MFA MFVH MHP
A. Residential Uses
17.Vacation Rentals MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP NP NP
and Homestays
SECTION 7: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Table 16.36.030(A), entitled "Uses
Permitted Within Mixed Use and Commercial Districts", Section B. Services -General is
hereby amended to add the following use:
USE VCD VMU
HCO D-2.11
OMU1
TMU D- HCO D=Specific
IMU D-2.11 2.4 D-2.4 GMU FOMU HMU 2.20 RC2 Use Stds
B.Services -General
Vacation Rentals and NP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP NP 16.52.230
Homestays 16.52.240
SECTION 8: If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause of
this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason'held to be unlawful, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof.
The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection,
subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one
or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause be declared
unconstitutional.
Item 9a - Page 12
ORDINANCE NO. 663
PAGE 6
SECTION 9: Upon adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall file a Notice of
Exemption pursuant to 14 CCR § 15062.
SECTION 10: A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper
published and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days prior to the
City Council meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified
copy of the full text of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City
Clerk. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the Ordinance, the summary with the
names of those City Council Members voting for and against the Ordinance shall be
published again, and the City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such
adopted Ordinance.
SECTION 11: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from the date of
adoption.
On motion of Council Member Barneich, seconded by Council Member Brown, and on
the following roll call vote to wit:
AYES: Council Members Barneich, Brown, Costello, Guthrie, and Mayor Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this 10th day of June, 2014.
Item 9a - Page 13
ORDINANCE NO. (0493
PAGE 7
TONY F MAYOR
ATTEST:
Wgkitet'L--
KELLY ET j RE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
S E ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
7n/V-
TIMVIO111Y J. CARME"C, CITY ATTORNEY
1
Item 9a - Page 14
OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION
I, KELLY WETMORE, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San
Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that
the attached is a true, full, and correct copy of Ordinance No. 663 which was
introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on May 27, 2014; was passed
and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 10th day of June
2014; and was duly published in accordance with State law (G.C. 40806).
WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 12th
day of June 2014.
i 1 I
KELL WE/ ORE, CITY CLERK
Item 9a - Page 15
DP04 SELECTED HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Supporting documentation on code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing can be found on the American Community Survey
website in the Technical Documentation section.
Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community
Survey website in the Methodology section.
Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, it is the Census Bureau's Population
Estimates Program that produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns and
estimates of housing units for states and counties.
A processing error was found in the Year Structure Built estimates since data year 2008. For more information, please see the errata note #110.
Subject Arroyo Grande city, California
Estimate Margin of Error Percent Percent Margin of
Error
HOUSING OCCUPANCY
Total housing units 7,847 +/-262 7,847 (X)
Occupied housing units 7,192 +/-266 91.7%+/-2.6
Vacant housing units 655 +/-215 8.3%+/-2.6
Homeowner vacancy rate 0.5 +/-0.7 (X)(X)
Rental vacancy rate 0.0 +/-1.6 (X)(X)
UNITS IN STRUCTURE
Total housing units 7,847 +/-262 7,847 (X)
1-unit, detached 5,155 +/-298 65.7%+/-3.1
1-unit, attached 750 +/-177 9.6%+/-2.3
2 units 273 +/-122 3.5%+/-1.5
3 or 4 units 206 +/-132 2.6%+/-1.7
5 to 9 units 215 +/-121 2.7%+/-1.5
10 to 19 units 271 +/-154 3.5%+/-2.0
20 or more units 442 +/-128 5.6%+/-1.6
Mobile home 519 +/-147 6.6%+/-1.8
Boat, RV, van, etc.16 +/-25 0.2%+/-0.3
YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT
Total housing units 7,847 +/-262 7,847 (X)
Built 2014 or later 33 +/-27 0.4%+/-0.3
Built 2010 to 2013 61 +/-40 0.8%+/-0.5
Built 2000 to 2009 1,331 +/-196 17.0%+/-2.5
Built 1990 to 1999 623 +/-159 7.9%+/-1.9
Built 1980 to 1989 1,690 +/-272 21.5%+/-3.3
Built 1970 to 1979 1,607 +/-227 20.5%+/-2.9
Built 1960 to 1969 1,084 +/-214 13.8%+/-2.7
Built 1950 to 1959 781 +/-201 10.0%+/-2.6
Built 1940 to 1949 451 +/-171 5.7%+/-2.1
1 of 5 05/09/2019
ATTACHMENT 2
Item 9a - Page 16
Subject Arroyo Grande city, California
Estimate Margin of Error Percent Percent Margin of
Error
Built 1939 or earlier 186 +/-79 2.4%+/-1.0
ROOMS
Total housing units 7,847 +/-262 7,847 (X)
1 room 68 +/-61 0.9%+/-0.8
2 rooms 295 +/-169 3.8%+/-2.1
3 rooms 650 +/-209 8.3%+/-2.7
4 rooms 1,285 +/-282 16.4%+/-3.4
5 rooms 1,850 +/-327 23.6%+/-4.1
6 rooms 1,637 +/-252 20.9%+/-3.1
7 rooms 976 +/-172 12.4%+/-2.3
8 rooms 594 +/-134 7.6%+/-1.7
9 rooms or more 492 +/-131 6.3%+/-1.7
Median rooms 5.4 +/-0.2 (X)(X)
BEDROOMS
Total housing units 7,847 +/-262 7,847 (X)
No bedroom 79 +/-64 1.0%+/-0.8
1 bedroom 998 +/-239 12.7%+/-3.0
2 bedrooms 1,896 +/-269 24.2%+/-3.2
3 bedrooms 3,678 +/-385 46.9%+/-4.5
4 bedrooms 997 +/-196 12.7%+/-2.6
5 or more bedrooms 199 +/-93 2.5%+/-1.2
HOUSING TENURE
Occupied housing units 7,192 +/-266 7,192 (X)
Owner-occupied 5,023 +/-280 69.8%+/-4.0
Renter-occupied 2,169 +/-323 30.2%+/-4.0
Average household size of owner-occupied unit 2.54 +/-0.13 (X)(X)
Average household size of renter-occupied unit 2.29 +/-0.23 (X)(X)
YEAR HOUSEHOLDER MOVED INTO UNIT
Occupied housing units 7,192 +/-266 7,192 (X)
Moved in 2015 or later 767 +/-240 10.7%+/-3.3
Moved in 2010 to 2014 1,986 +/-297 27.6%+/-3.9
Moved in 2000 to 2009 2,142 +/-272 29.8%+/-3.7
Moved in 1990 to 1999 1,264 +/-203 17.6%+/-2.8
Moved in 1980 to 1989 565 +/-175 7.9%+/-2.4
Moved in 1979 and earlier 468 +/-147 6.5%+/-2.0
VEHICLES AVAILABLE
Occupied housing units 7,192 +/-266 7,192 (X)
No vehicles available 304 +/-114 4.2%+/-1.5
1 vehicle available 2,179 +/-300 30.3%+/-3.6
2 vehicles available 2,912 +/-276 40.5%+/-3.8
3 or more vehicles available 1,797 +/-248 25.0%+/-3.6
HOUSE HEATING FUEL
Occupied housing units 7,192 +/-266 7,192 (X)
Utility gas 5,594 +/-309 77.8%+/-3.0
Bottled, tank, or LP gas 144 +/-93 2.0%+/-1.3
Electricity 1,286 +/-207 17.9%+/-2.8
Fuel oil, kerosene, etc.0 +/-19 0.0%+/-0.5
Coal or coke 16 +/-27 0.2%+/-0.4
Wood 61 +/-45 0.8%+/-0.6
Solar energy 13 +/-22 0.2%+/-0.3
Other fuel 0 +/-19 0.0%+/-0.5
No fuel used 78 +/-69 1.1%+/-1.0
2 of 5 05/09/2019Item 9a - Page 17
Subject Arroyo Grande city, California
Estimate Margin of Error Percent Percent Margin of
Error
SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS
Occupied housing units 7,192 +/-266 7,192 (X)
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 12 +/-22 0.2%+/-0.3
Lacking complete kitchen facilities 23 +/-28 0.3%+/-0.4
No telephone service available 105 +/-74 1.5%+/-1.0
OCCUPANTS PER ROOM
Occupied housing units 7,192 +/-266 7,192 (X)
1.00 or less 6,972 +/-292 96.9%+/-1.4
1.01 to 1.50 139 +/-100 1.9%+/-1.4
1.51 or more 81 +/-76 1.1%+/-1.1
VALUE
Owner-occupied units 5,023 +/-280 5,023 (X)
Less than $50,000 210 +/-98 4.2%+/-1.9
$50,000 to $99,999 45 +/-27 0.9%+/-0.5
$100,000 to $149,999 15 +/-17 0.3%+/-0.3
$150,000 to $199,999 40 +/-45 0.8%+/-0.9
$200,000 to $299,999 337 +/-109 6.7%+/-2.1
$300,000 to $499,999 1,790 +/-207 35.6%+/-3.7
$500,000 to $999,999 2,388 +/-272 47.5%+/-4.4
$1,000,000 or more 198 +/-84 3.9%+/-1.7
Median (dollars)510,400 +/-27,106 (X)(X)
MORTGAGE STATUS
Owner-occupied units 5,023 +/-280 5,023 (X)
Housing units with a mortgage 3,414 +/-271 68.0%+/-4.0
Housing units without a mortgage 1,609 +/-226 32.0%+/-4.0
SELECTED MONTHLY OWNER COSTS (SMOC)
Housing units with a mortgage 3,414 +/-271 3,414 (X)
Less than $500 40 +/-37 1.2%+/-1.1
$500 to $999 212 +/-108 6.2%+/-3.0
$1,000 to $1,499 499 +/-155 14.6%+/-4.4
$1,500 to $1,999 684 +/-164 20.0%+/-4.6
$2,000 to $2,499 924 +/-191 27.1%+/-5.3
$2,500 to $2,999 494 +/-147 14.5%+/-4.1
$3,000 or more 561 +/-148 16.4%+/-4.3
Median (dollars)2,147 +/-97 (X)(X)
Housing units without a mortgage 1,609 +/-226 1,609 (X)
Less than $250 227 +/-89 14.1%+/-5.4
$250 to $399 368 +/-125 22.9%+/-7.0
$400 to $599 401 +/-112 24.9%+/-6.5
$600 to $799 422 +/-160 26.2%+/-8.4
$800 to $999 61 +/-51 3.8%+/-3.1
$1,000 or more 130 +/-70 8.1%+/-4.2
Median (dollars)505 +/-63 (X)(X)
SELECTED MONTHLY OWNER COSTS AS A
PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME (SMOCAPI)
Housing units with a mortgage (excluding units where
SMOCAPI cannot be computed)
3,414 +/-271 3,414 (X)
Less than 20.0 percent 1,403 +/-218 41.1%+/-5.3
20.0 to 24.9 percent 484 +/-133 14.2%+/-3.8
25.0 to 29.9 percent 401 +/-140 11.7%+/-3.8
30.0 to 34.9 percent 275 +/-114 8.1%+/-3.2
35.0 percent or more 851 +/-191 24.9%+/-5.7
3 of 5 05/09/2019Item 9a - Page 18
Subject Arroyo Grande city, California
Estimate Margin of Error Percent Percent Margin of
Error
Not computed 0 +/-19 (X)(X)
Housing unit without a mortgage (excluding units
where SMOCAPI cannot be computed)
1,585 +/-221 1,585 (X)
Less than 10.0 percent 741 +/-167 46.8%+/-7.4
10.0 to 14.9 percent 207 +/-86 13.1%+/-5.8
15.0 to 19.9 percent 220 +/-116 13.9%+/-6.7
20.0 to 24.9 percent 108 +/-70 6.8%+/-4.1
25.0 to 29.9 percent 89 +/-70 5.6%+/-4.3
30.0 to 34.9 percent 51 +/-45 3.2%+/-2.7
35.0 percent or more 169 +/-75 10.7%+/-4.8
Not computed 24 +/-30 (X)(X)
GROSS RENT
Occupied units paying rent 2,136 +/-326 2,136 (X)
Less than $500 180 +/-79 8.4%+/-3.8
$500 to $999 609 +/-205 28.5%+/-8.3
$1,000 to $1,499 642 +/-207 30.1%+/-8.3
$1,500 to $1,999 437 +/-142 20.5%+/-6.2
$2,000 to $2,499 144 +/-105 6.7%+/-4.6
$2,500 to $2,999 116 +/-69 5.4%+/-3.2
$3,000 or more 8 +/-16 0.4%+/-0.7
Median (dollars)1,169 +/-96 (X)(X)
No rent paid 33 +/-32 (X)(X)
GROSS RENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD
INCOME (GRAPI)
Occupied units paying rent (excluding units where
GRAPI cannot be computed)
2,136 +/-326 2,136 (X)
Less than 15.0 percent 228 +/-112 10.7%+/-5.1
15.0 to 19.9 percent 147 +/-71 6.9%+/-3.5
20.0 to 24.9 percent 236 +/-128 11.0%+/-6.1
25.0 to 29.9 percent 557 +/-186 26.1%+/-7.7
30.0 to 34.9 percent 144 +/-122 6.7%+/-5.5
35.0 percent or more 824 +/-255 38.6%+/-9.3
Not computed 33 +/-32 (X)(X)
Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is
represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted
roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of
error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to
nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these
tables.
Households not paying cash rent are excluded from the calculation of median gross rent.
Telephone service data are not available for certain geographic areas due to problems with data collection of this question that occurred in 2015 and
2016. Both ACS 1-year and ACS 5-year files were affected. It may take several years in the ACS 5-year files until the estimates are available for the
geographic areas affected.
While the 2013-2017 American Community Survey (ACS) data generally reflect the February 2013 Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
definitions of metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; in certain instances the names, codes, and boundaries of the principal cities shown in
ACS tables may differ from the OMB definitions due to differences in the effective dates of the geographic entities.
Estimates of urban and rural populations, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on Census 2010 data. As
a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization.
4 of 5 05/09/2019Item 9a - Page 19
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Explanation of Symbols:
1. An '**' entry in the margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to
compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.
2. An '-' entry in the estimate column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an
estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an
open-ended distribution.
3. An '-' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution.
4. An '+' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution.
5. An '***' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A
statistical test is not appropriate.
6. An '*****' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate.
7. An 'N' entry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates that data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of
sample cases is too small.
8. An '(X)' means that the estimate is not applicable or not available.
Item 9a - Page 20
ATTACHMENT 3
Item 9a - Page 21