King City City Council
September 9, 2025

AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING OF THE

CITY OF KING CITY COUNCIL
AND
Sitting as SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF

THE RDA FOR THE CITY OF KING
TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 9, 2025
6:00 P.M.

CITY HALL
212 S. VANDERHURST AVENUE
KING CITY, CALIFORNIA 93930
The City Council meeting will be conducted in hybrid in-person/virtual format.

To join the meeting virtually, please use the link below to join the Zoom meeting:
https://bit.ly/3e0zvaR
Meeting ID: 881 5287 9536
Or by telephone: 1-669-900-9128
Passcode: 052933
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting, Please contact the City Clerk's Office (831-386-5925) at least 48 hours prior to the Meeting to ensure that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting.
* Please submit all correspondence for City Council PRIOR to the meeting with a copy to the City Clerk.

CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL:

Council Members Oscar Avalos, Robert Cullen, Carlos Victoria, Mayor Pro Tem Carlos DeLeon, and Mayor Mike LeBarre

FLAG SALUTE

CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
Swearing In Of Christopher Langston, New Police Sergeant, Hector Gomez, New Police Officer, Anahi Gomez Zavala, New Records Technician, By Chief Robert Masterson Proclamation Honoring Jacob's Heart Declaring September 2025 Childhood Cancer Awareness Month
5(B) JACOBS HEART PROCLAMATION.PDF
Presentation Of Blue Zones Certification, Kendra Howell, Blue Zones Monterey County

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. A.

B.

Documents:

C.

Awareness Month
5(B) JACOBS HEART PROCLAMATION.PDF
Presentation Of Blue Zones Certification, Kendra Howell, Blue Zones Monterey County

PUBLIC COMMENT
Any member of the public may address the Council for a period not to exceed three minutes’ total on any item of interest within the jurisdiction of this Council that is not on the agenda. The Council will listen to all communications; however, in compliance with the Brown Act, the Council cannot act on items not on the agenda. Comments should be directed to the Council as a whole and not to any individual Council Member.

Slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Council Member, staff member or member of the audience is not permitted.

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS & COMMITTEE REPORTS
Individual Council Members may comment on Council business, his or her Council activities, City operations, projects or other items of community interest. Council Members may also request staff to report back at a subsequent meeting on any matter or take action to direct staff to prepare a staff report for a future agenda.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Comments presented by the City Manager, City Attorney or other staff on City business and/or announcements.

CONSENT AGENDA
The following items listed below are scheduled for consideration as a group. The recommendations for each item are noted. Members of the audience may speak on any item(s) listed on the Consent Agenda. Any Council Member, the City Manager, or the City Attorney may request that an item be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda to allow for full discussion. The Council may approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda on one motion. Items withdrawn from the Consent Agenda may be considered by separate motions at the conclusion of the discussion of each item.

Consideration: Meeting Minutes Of August 26, 2025
Recommendation: approve and file.
9(A) 08-26-2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES.PDF
Consideration: City Of King Check Register August 16-31, 2025 Recommendation: receive and file.
9(B) CITY OF KING CHECK REGISTER AUGUST 16-31, 2025.PDF Consideration: Purchase Of Fire Department Edraulic System Recommendation: 1) approve the purchase of eDraulics for the Fire Department; 2) approve the award of bid to Diamondback Fire & Rescue, Inc. in the amount of $42,923.63; and 3) authorize the City Manager to execute the purchase with contingency funds appropriated in the FY 2025-26 budget.

Documents:

C.

6. 7.

8. 9.

A.

Documents:

B.

Documents:

C.

Documents:

Recommendation: 1) approve the purchase of eDraulics for the Fire Department; 2) approve the award of bid to Diamondback Fire & Rescue, Inc. in the amount of $42,923.63; and 3) authorize the City Manager to execute the purchase with contingency funds appropriated in the FY 2025-26 budget. 9(C) PURCHASE OF FIRE DEPARTMENT EDRAULIC SYSTEM.PDF
Consideration: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.08 Of The King City Municipal Code Pertaining To City Manager
Recommendation: waive the second reading by title only and adopt Ordinance No. 2025-836 amending provisions of Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 of the King City Municipal Code pertaining to city manager residency requirements. 9(D) CITY MANAGER ORDINANCE.PDF
Consideration: Reformat Of The City Of King General Plan Consolidated Plan Recommendation: adopt the attached Resolution approving reformat of the King City General Plan Consolidated Plan Document.
9(E) REFORMATTING OF GENERAL PLAN.PDF
Consideration: FY 2025-26 RMRA Funding Allocation, Including Adoption Of Finding Of A Categorical Exemption, Pursuant To Section 15301 Of CEQA Guidelines Recommendation: 1) adopt a Resolution designating street projects for revenues from SB 1 - The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 for FY 2025-26; and 4) adopt a finding of a categorical exemption, pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. 9(F) FY 2025-26 RMRA FUNDING ALLOCATION.PDF
Consideration: An Agreement With Infosend For The Printing And Mailing Of The City Sewer Bills
Recommendation: 1) adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign an agreement with Infosend for the printing and mailing of the City sewer bills; and 2) appropriate $24,000 from the Sewer Fund for the increased cost. 9(G) UTILITY BILLING PRINTING AND MAILING.PDF
Consideration: Participation In The Secondary Manufacturers Opioid Settlement Recommendation: approve and authorize the City Manager to execute forms necessary to participate in the opioid settlement with eight opioid manufacturers, including Alvogen, Amneal, Apotex, Hikma, Indivior, Mylan, Sun, Zydus (the "Secondary Manufacturers").

Documents:

D.

Documents:

E.

Documents:

F.

Documents:

G.

Documents:

H.

Documents:

Recommendation: approve and authorize the City Manager to execute forms necessary to participate in the opioid settlement with eight opioid manufacturers, including Alvogen, Amneal, Apotex, Hikma, Indivior, Mylan, Sun, Zydus (the "Secondary Manufacturers").
9(H) OPIOID SETTLEMENT.PDF
Consideration: Appropriation For Emergency Operations Plan Update And Ciclovia Event Recommendation: 1) appropriate $30,000 for consultant services to prepare an update to the City’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) to be funded from an approved grant; 2) appropriate $7,500 for the Ciclovia event to be funded from approved sponsorships; and 3) appropriate additional funds for Ciclovia equal to any additional sponsorships received.
9(I) APPROPRIATIONS FOR CICLOVIA AND EOP.PDF
Consideration: Ecology Action Agreement To Relandscape The Broadway Circle Roundabout
Recommendation: 1) authorize the City Manager to execute an Agreement with Ecology Action for a relandscaping project at the Broadway Circle roundabout; and 2) approve the proposed design.
9(J) BROADWAY CIRCLE RELANDSCAPING.PDF

PUBLIC HEARINGS
Consideration: An Ordinance Amending Temporary Use Permit Requirements Recommendation: introduce to be read by title only an Ordinance amending Chapter

7.60 of Title 7 of the King City Municipal Code pertaining to Temporary Use Permit Requirements.
10(A) TEMPORARY USE PERMIT AMENDMENT.PDF

REGULAR BUSINESS
Consideration: City And CDA Successor Agency's Audited Financial Statements For The Fiscal Year 2023-2024
Recommendation: City Council and the Board of Directors of the King City CDA Successor Agency accept the City and CDA Successor Agency's Audited Financial Statements for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2024.
11(A) FY 2023-24 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.PDF

CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION
Announcement(s) of any reportable action(s) taken in Closed Session will be made in open session and repeated at the beginning of the next Regular City Council meeting Documents:

I.

Documents:

J.

Documents:

10. A.

Documents:

11. A.

Documents:

12. 11(A) FY 2023-24 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.PDF

CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION
Announcement(s) of any reportable action(s) taken in Closed Session will be made in open session and repeated at the beginning of the next Regular City Council meeting as this portion of the meeting is not recorded.

Conference With Legal Counsel - Pursuant To Government Code Section §54956.9(A), To Discuss Settlements Authority In The Matter Of Janelle Sanchez, Claim No.

MB230073
Conference With Labor Negotiators Pursuant To Government Code Section §54957 Agency Representative: Steven Adams Employee Organization: KCCEA, KCPSA, KCPOA
Public Employee Appointment Pursuant To Government Code Section §54957 Title: City Manager
Conference With Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation Significant Exposure To Litigation Pursuant To Government Code Section §54956.9(D): One (1) Case.

ADJOURNMENT
The City of King is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

12. A.

B.

C.

D.

13. '
!'
ng l·1 ;
� _:
,,.\
fl ri
I '
• 'l I\ )/\'
. l i 'tj ••
�! ,:
.. ;;�,d •' I ·' re',
Proc{amation
Jfonoring Jaco6 's Jfeart. CfiiUren 's Cancer Support. Services and (J)ecCaring Septem6er 2025 as CliiUfiood' Cancer Jlwareness <M.ontfi in tfie City of 1(ing tWJPE�, tfte cftaracter of our community is reveafed in ft.ow we treat our most vufnera6fe; and
tWJPE�JfS, eacli day, 19. 2 in 100,000 cliiftfren in our community wi({ 6e diagnosed witfi cancer; and
tWJPE�, cancer remains tfie feaifing cause of deatli 6y disease among cfiiftfren, more tfian astlima, dia6etes, cystic fi6rosis, congenita{ anomafies, and JI_I<DS com6ined; and
·';i � ' ' r,•i"
tr/ ·
,
i ·, J .,� � , , tWJPE�, Jaco6's J[eart Fi.as 6een f?.!epi.ng medica[Ey fragife cftiftfren and !t, ' �� ,., ') ;· 1\fami[ies fioused, fed and emotiona{[y supported 6y steaajastEy adhering to tlie fo{[owing '.· i�\<'r:YrJ · co"!'
mitment�
: 1) �arents of cfziftfren witfi cancer an� otfier s
�
riou� i{{nesses wi{[ �e
I ,.
-1.�1 y - ,, refteved of financia[ fears and 6e a6{e to focus attention to tlieir cfizftfren; 2) J{o cfizftf :=-
l r ·, undergoing intensive treatment in our community wi[{ 6e fiomefess; 3) Pami[ies of f : 1 seriousEy i{[ cliiftfren wi{[ not e:{perience food insecurity; 4) J{o cliiftf seriousEy i{[ in our I. community wi{{ ever miss a meifica{ appointment 6ecause of fack, of transportation; and ' f,
<�: li
) 'A 1!� · l;I l',
'I/ -� !) -:i
l! ,'JI
' t ) ;f . , ,
�i-:l, ,;•'
,, �
� �1 �- ,.,. ' I - a /1lft .... ,\ ,.. • ' -
� t • ·\
\ '
: !
l,!i,,.
r
I!{ ,1,1 ,
'., •\{ /;1
1 !: ' ') •, I :i. . I"\
1,��il 1,li!
,';
i J -� r tWJPE�, Jaco6's J[eart lioftfs tlie memories anti honors fegacies of liuntireds .�';/ ,, • 1 of cliiftfren from our foca[ community who liave 6een fost to cancer, ensuring that their • '. 1 emories wi[[ never 6e forgotten; and ·\\ .

I
/·
I
i.
·
\1
,,
. . tWJPE�, the oncofogy department at Lucife <Pacf.g,rd Cliiftfren's ¾ospita[ at anfora lias worf?.!d doseEy witli Jaco6's ¾eart for tlie past 27 years as a truste • \ ; ommunity partner in provuflng famiEy-centered care that addresses the emotional ·; ::
'f ractica[ and financia[ struggfes of fami{ies of chiftfren with cancer in 'l(j.ng City; and • ;,�
\ ! : _· ,
• tWJPE�,
I . , ,1 I�•/
it is important for a{{ 'l(j.ng City residents to recognize tlie impact -�:
\' · '�i-'i'1
) of pediatric cancer on fami{ies within our community and honor tlie chiftfren in our . • community wfiose fives fiave 6een cut sfiort 6y cancer. ;\" .
1·
'
,1, .. • ' � 'JJFE�'F�, I, :Mif?.! £e(J3arre, :Mayor of 'l(ing City, liere6y dedare • 1 );
. Septem6er 2025 as Cliiftffiood Cancer Jl_wareness :Montli in tlie City of 'l(j.ng, do liere6y. •• .,..�•••r•p
rl
lionor Jaco6's ¾eart Cliiftfren's Cancer Support Services for outstanding support to our .,, ,� 'f,, 1 i , community anti ack,nowfedge tlie organization's contri6utions to Cliiftfliood Cance • , ���..1. ; \ 1/ �;., ,. �0 wareness :Montli. . · •': 14 ;�ft'
.·, , : \_,''{J�f''
' '; --- ·.: _._.-\:�J 1/. ��--- fj
,t.il/ll,,......,.��
x , • <M.i�"
Le<Barre
.. .,,��� ! �J,�� Jnayor �
'
:;;7 ·- . ,.. - . \ _I .. -'.> , •" •' .
"' ' , ' , ,, '' �,..,..-.:o ••• -" ·..:r!.
5(B)

City Council Meeting
August 26, 2025

1.__CALL TO ORDER:

Regular Meeting called to order at 6:00pm by Mayor LeBarre.

2.__ROLL CALL:

City Council: Mayor Mike LeBarre, Mayor Pro Tem Carlos DeLeon, Council member Rob Cullen, Council member Carlos Victoria, Council members Oscar Avalos absent.

City Staff: City Manager Steven Adams, City Attorney Roy Santos; City Clerk Erica Sonne

3.__FLAG SALUTE:

The flag salute was led by Officer Bernabe Castro.

City Attorney Santos updated the council on Item 10(A) there is a typo it should be solid waste rate and it says wastewater rate. There are additional handouts on 10(A) the exhibit to the resolution and 11(A)

4. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS:

No reportable action.

5.__SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:

A. Swearing in of Bernabe Castro, New Police Officer, by Chief Robert Masterson and pinned by his sister. Mayor and Council members welcomed Officer Castro stating that he was a good fit for City of King. Officer Castro spoke and thanked everyone for giving him a chance.

6. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS:

None

7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:

Councilmember Cullen stated he had Solid Waste Authority had a strategic planning meeting. He further stated that Patrick Mathews is retiring. He will speak to Council member Avalos about attending the next Solid Waste Authority meeting as he will not be able to make it.

Councilmember Victoria thanked the City for the work on the Dia de Trajabador, he thanked Mayor for being there. He recognized Mayor Pro Tem DeLeon for his years of work at Rite Aid.

Mayor Pro Tem DeLeon stated he had nothing to report tonight.

Mayor LeBarre stated Dia de Trajabador was a success at the Downtown Plaza. He felt that the Plaza was a good location for this event. He also mentioned that the first meeting of the Phase II Comprehensive Plan to End Youth Violence was on the 18th.
9(A)

8. CITY STAFF REPORTS AND COMMENTS:

City Manager Adams feels that there is a really good group of people for the Phase II Comprehensive Plan to End Youth Violence. He stated that the meetings will be 1st and 3rd Mondays from 4:30-6:30p.m. The meeting this coming Monday will be cancelled due to the holiday.

City Attorney Santos stated there is coming legislative changes specifically for the Building Code and he will keep Council apprised of the changes.

9. CONSENT
A. Consideration: Meeting Minutes of August 12, 2025 Council Meeting B. Consideration: City of King Check Register August 1, through August 15, 2025 C. Consideration: City Manager Recruitment Brochure
D. Consideration: A Resolution for CalPERS Industrial Disability Retirement Action: Motion to approve consent agenda item A-D by Victoria seconded by DeLeon.

AYES: Council Members: LeBarre, DeLeon, Victoria, Cullen NOES: Council Members:

ABSENT: Council Members: Avalos
ABSTAIN: Council Members:

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

A. Consideration: Closeout of Community Development Block Grant Agreement 21-CDBG-30009 with the State of California
City Manager Adams introduced this item.

Patrick Mathews Salinas Valley Solid Waste further introduced this item.

Mayor LeBarre read the title of the document into the record. Mayor asked the City Clerk if there were any protests received, and Ms. Sonne stated no protest was received.

Mayor LeBarre opened the public hearing.

Hearing and seeing no one come forward, Mayor LeBarre closed the public hearing.

Action: Motion to approve the new Franchise Agreement with USA Waste of California (DBA Waste Management, hereinafter “WM”) establishing the annual rate setting methodology throughout the term of the Agreement; and adopt a Resolution approving the recommended rate schedule with a 13.07% rate adjustment effective October 1, 2025, by Cullen seconded by DeLeon.

AYES: Council Members: LeBarre, DeLeon, Victoria, Cullen NOES: Council Members:

ABSENT: Council Members: Avalos
ABSTAIN: Council Members:

B. Consideration: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.08 of the King City Municipal Code Pertaining to City Manager
City Manager Adams introduced this item.

Mayor LeBarre read the title of the ordinance into the record.

Mayor LeBarre opened the public hearing.

Hearing and seeing no one come forward, Mayor LeBarre closed the public hearing.

Action: Motion to introduce by title only an Ordinance amending provisions of Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 of the King City Municipal Code pertaining to city manager residency requirements, open the hearing, allow for public testimony, close the hearing, waive first reading of the Ordinance, and approve the introduction of the Ordinance by Victoria seconded by DeLeon.

AYES: Council Members: LeBarre, DeLeon, Victoria, Cullen NOES: Council Members:

ABSENT: Council Members: Avalos
ABSTAIN: Council Members:

11. REGULAR BUSINESS
A. Consideration: FEMA Golf Course Restoration Project Process Update City Manager Adams introduced this item.

Grady Joseph, Jake Joseph, and Colby Wright spoke about the process and the need for a specialist to be assigned to the project.

Action: Motion to direct staff to proceed with proposed steps for the Golf Course restoration improvements and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) reimbursement process by Cullen seconded by Victoria.

AYES: Council Members: LeBarre, DeLeon, Victoria, Cullen NOES: Council Members:

ABSENT: Council Members: Avalos
ABSTAIN: Council Members:

12. CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION
A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section §54956.9(d): one (1) case.

ADJOURNMENT:

Mayor LeBarre adjourned the meeting at 7:22p.m. to closed session. Mayor LeBarre adjourned the meeting at 8:47p.m.

Approved Signatures:

Mayor Mike LeBarre City Clerk, Erica Sonne
City of King City of King
Item No. 9(B)

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2025
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MIKE HOWARD, FINANCE DIRECTOR
RE: CONSIDERATION OF CITY OF KING CHECK REGISTER
AUGUST 16 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2025
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended City Council receive and file.

BACKGROUND:

At least once a month, the City Treasurer shall submit to the City Council, a copy of the invoices paid for the previous month.

DISCUSSION:

The purpose of this item is to provide the Council an opportunity to review and monitor ongoing expenditures. These documents are attached.

COST ANALYSIS:

There is no fiscal impact as a result of this action.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

No Environmental Review required for this item.

ALTERNATIVES:

The following alternatives are provided for Council consideration:

1. Receive and file the report; or

2. Provide other direction to staff regarding requests for additional information.

8/28/2025 8:06:02 PM Page 1 of 14
Check Report
King City, CA By Check Number
Date Range: 08/16/2025 - 08/31/2025
Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Date Payment Type Discount Amount Payment Amount Number Bank Code: POOL-WFB-POOL - WELLS FARGO BANK
Payment Type: EFT
EIKHOF EIKHOF DESIGN GROUP INC 08/20/2025 EFT 0.00 380.00 10324 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 2025-217 Invoice 08/19/2025 Grocery Outlet Inspections 0.00 380.00 120-0000-47400 Developer Deposits Grocery Outlet Inspections 380.00 JOLLEY-BRY BRYANT L JOLLEY 08/29/2025 EFT 0.00 41,500.00 10325 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 082725 Invoice 06/30/2025 FY 23-24 Financial Audit 0.00 41,500.00 100-1500-61590 Auditing Services FY 23-24 Financial Audit 19,000.00 310-0000-61590 Auditing Services FY 23-24 Financial Audit 13,000.00 410-0000-61590 Auditing Services FY 23-24 Financial Audit 5,000.00 475-0000-61590 Auditing Services FY 23-24 Financial Audit 4,500.00 TORO TORO PETROLEUM CORP 08/29/2025 EFT 0.00 1,411.72 10326 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount CL87910 Invoice 06/30/2025 Fuel 0.00 1,411.72
100-1400-61840 Fuel & Oil Fuel 324.17
100-2100-61840 Fuel & Oil Fuel 180.95
100-2400-61840 Fuel & Oil Fuel 194.93
310-0000-61840 Fuel & Oil Fuel 243.52
410-0000-61840 Fuel & Oil Fuel 264.45
410-0000-61840 Fuel & Oil Fuel 203.70
ADAMS ADAMS ASHBY GROUP LLC 08/29/2025 EFT 0.00 382.50 10327 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 7275 Invoice 08/29/2025 PLHA Grant Administration 0.00 382.50 121-0000-61500 Professional Services PLHA Grant Administration 382.50 A & W ALESHIRE & WYNDER LLP 08/29/2025 EFT 0.00 5,263.97 10328 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 97585 Invoice 08/29/2025 Legal Services HCD Litigation 0.00 5,263.28 100-1200-61510 Legal Services Legal Services HCD Litigation 5,263.28 97586 Invoice 08/29/2025 Legal Services 0.00 0.69
100-1200-61510 Legal Services Legal Services 0.69
ALVAREZ ALVAREZ TECHNOLOGY GROUP INC 08/29/2025 EFT 0.00 466.25 10329 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 77495 Invoice 08/29/2025 IT Support 0.00 371.25
100-1100-61712 Computer Maintenance IT Support 371.25
77496 Invoice 08/29/2025 Computer Services 0.00 95.00
100-1100-61712 Computer Maintenance Computer Services 95.00 AM SUPPLY AMERICAN SUPPLY CO 08/29/2025 EFT 0.00 1,065.48 10330 Check Report Date Range: 08/16/2025 - 08/31/2025
8/28/2025 8:06:02 PM Page 2 of 14
Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Date Payment Type Discount Amount Payment Amount Number Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 3066464 Invoice 08/29/2025 Janitorial Supplies 0.00 1,023.72 100-1600-61224 Janitorial Supplies Janitorial Supplies 102.37 100-1800-61224 Janitorial Supplies Janitorial Supplies 51.19 100-2100-61224 Janitorial Supplies Janitorial Supplies 51.19 100-2400-61224 Janitorial Supplies Janitorial Supplies 563.04 100-2500-61224 Janitorial Supplies Janitorial Supplies 102.37 100-2600-61224 Janitorial Supplies Janitorial Supplies 102.37 110-0000-61224 Janitorial Supplies Janitorial Supplies 51.19 3066466 Invoice 08/29/2025 Janitorial Supplies 0.00 41.76 100-1600-61224 Janitorial Supplies Janitorial Supplies 4.18 100-1800-61224 Janitorial Supplies Janitorial Supplies 2.09 100-2100-61224 Janitorial Supplies Janitorial Supplies 2.09 100-2400-61224 Janitorial Supplies Janitorial Supplies 22.95 100-2500-61224 Janitorial Supplies Janitorial Supplies 4.18 100-2600-61224 Janitorial Supplies Janitorial Supplies 4.18 110-0000-61224 Janitorial Supplies Janitorial Supplies 2.09 CSGCON CSG CONSULTANTS INC 08/29/2025 EFT 0.00 3,671.50 10332 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 62528 Invoice 08/29/2025 Mills Ranch Phase 4 Imp Review 0.00 3,671.50 120-0000-61500 Professional Services Mills Ranch Phase 4 Imp Review 3,671.50 EIKHOF EIKHOF DESIGN GROUP INC 08/29/2025 EFT 0.00 25,050.00 10333 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 2025-187 Invoice 08/29/2025 Sewer Main Replacement 0.00 12,937.50 310-0000-61500 Professional Services Sewer Main Replacement 12,937.50 2025-218 Invoice 08/29/2025 Sewer Main Replacement 0.00 12,112.50 310-0000-61500 Professional Services Sewer Main Replacement 12,112.50 LA HEARNE LA HEARNE COMPANY 08/29/2025 EFT 0.00 707.70 10334 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 1521713 Invoice 08/29/2025 Pool Chemicals 0.00 707.70
100-2500-61270 Chemicals Pool Chemicals 707.70
SPECTRUMT SPECTRUM ENTERPRISE Charter Communication 08/29/2025 EFT 0.00 320.00 10335 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 170002601080725 Invoice 08/29/2025 Internet 0.00 320.00 100-1800-64165 Internet Access Internet 320.00
SPCA THE SPCA FOR MONTEREY COUNTY 08/29/2025 EFT 0.00 5,460.00 10336 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 07-25 Invoice 08/29/2025 SPCA July 0.00 5,460.00
100-1600-61550 Animal Services SPCA July 5,460.00
TORO TORO PETROLEUM CORP 08/29/2025 EFT 0.00 6,276.02 10337 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount CL88189 Invoice 08/29/2025 Fuel 0.00 1,217.00
100-1400-61840 Fuel & Oil Fuel 185.88
100-2100-61840 Fuel & Oil Fuel 55.98
100-2400-61840 Fuel & Oil Fuel 358.82
310-0000-61840 Fuel & Oil Fuel 424.49
410-0000-61840 Fuel & Oil Fuel 191.83
Check Report Date Range: 08/16/2025 - 08/31/2025
8/28/2025 8:06:02 PM Page 3 of 14
Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Date Payment Type Discount Amount Payment Amount Number CL88590 Invoice 08/29/2025 Fuel 0.00 1,551.24
100-1800-61840 Fuel & Oil Fuel 51.39
100-2100-61840 Fuel & Oil Fuel 69.08
100-2400-61840 Fuel & Oil Fuel 381.50
310-0000-61840 Fuel & Oil Fuel 533.71
410-0000-61840 Fuel & Oil Fuel 355.18
410-0000-61840 Fuel & Oil Fuel 160.38
CL88909 Invoice 08/29/2025 Gas 0.00 2,649.31
100-1600-61840 Fuel & Oil Gas 2,649.31
CL89304 Invoice 08/29/2025 Fuel 0.00 858.47
100-2100-61840 Fuel & Oil Fuel 51.38
100-2400-61840 Fuel & Oil Fuel 125.44
310-0000-61840 Fuel & Oil Fuel 509.51
410-0000-61840 Fuel & Oil Fuel 172.14
TRI TRI-COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION INC 08/29/2025 EFT 0.00 60.00 10339 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 081525 Invoice 08/29/2025 Fire Extinguisher Inspection 0.00 60.00 110-0000-61500 Professional Services Fire Extinguisher Inspection 60.00 WM J CLAR WM J CLARK TRUCKING SVC INC 08/29/2025 EFT 0.00 1,413.75 10340 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 374444 Invoice 08/29/2025 Rock Catcher 0.00 1,413.75
310-0000-61800 Repairs & Maintenance Rock Catcher 1,413.75 Total EFT: 0.00 93,428.89
Check Report Date Range: 08/16/2025 - 08/31/2025
8/28/2025 8:06:02 PM Page 4 of 14
Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Date Payment Type Discount Amount Payment Amount Number Payment Type: Regular
AMAZON AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 08/19/2025 Regular 0.00 88.26 73171 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 1PQN-P37X-4YXM Invoice 08/19/2025 2026 Calendar 0.00 10.86 100-2600-61220 Operational Supplies 2026 Calendar 10.86 1VYM-G796-J93Y Invoice 08/19/2025 Office & Breakroom Supplies 0.00 25.79 100-1800-61210 Office Supplies Office & Breakroom Supplies 25.79 1W7C-RY7D-PQTQ Invoice 08/19/2025 Planning Supplies 0.00 51.61 100-1300-61210 Office Supplies Planning Supplies 51.61
AT & T-FIR AT & T MOBILITY 08/19/2025 Regular 0.00 217.30 73172 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 287321620527X… Invoice 08/19/2025 Cell Phone 0.00 217.30 100-1100-61710 Cellular Phones Cell Phone 86.92
100-1700-61710 Cellular Phones Cell Phone 43.46
100-2100-61710 Cellular Phones Cell Phone 86.92
CAL WATER CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO 08/19/2025 Regular 0.00 32,916.45 73173 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 073025 Invoice 08/19/2025 Water 0.00 32,916.45
100-1600-61730 Utilities - Water Water 323.84
100-1700-61730 Utilities - Water Water 176.43
100-1800-61730 Utilities - Water Water 1,230.18
100-2100-61730 Utilities - Water Water 266.75
100-2400-61730 Utilities - Water Water 24,660.71
100-2400-61730 Utilities - Water Water 932.10
100-2400-61730 Utilities - Water Water 3,052.92
100-2500-61730 Utilities - Water Water 1,585.03
100-2600-61730 Utilities - Water Water 330.53
110-0000-61730 Utilities - Water Water 84.60
410-0000-61730 Utilities - Water Water 273.36
ODP ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC 08/19/2025 Regular 0.00 177.86 73174 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 433820778001 Invoice 08/19/2025 Planning Supplies 0.00 177.86 100-1300-61210 Office Supplies Planning Supplies 177.86 PG&E PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 08/19/2025 Regular 0.00 527,178.62 73175 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 080425 Invoice 08/19/2025 Electricity 0.00 527,178.62
100-1600-61720 Utilities - Gas & Electricity Electricity 3,474.62 100-1700-61720 Utilities - Gas & Electricity Electricity 960.18 100-1800-61720 Utilities - Gas & Electricity Electricity 1,560.82 100-2100-61720 Utilities - Gas & Electricity Electricity 958.07 100-2400-61720 Utilities - Gas & Electricity Electricity 3,272.87 100-2500-61720 Utilities - Gas & Electricity Electricity 25,722.91 100-2600-61720 Utilities - Gas & Electricity Electricity 1,069.76 110-0000-61720 Utilities - Gas & Electricity Electricity 220.86 310-0000-61720 Utilities - Gas & Electricity Electricity 481,019.88 410-0000-61720 Utilities - Gas & Electricity Electricity 8,918.65 RAZZOLINK RAZZO LINK INC RAZZOLINK 08/19/2025 Regular 0.00 34.90 73176 Check Report Date Range: 08/16/2025 - 08/31/2025
8/28/2025 8:06:02 PM Page 5 of 14
Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Date Payment Type Discount Amount Payment Amount Number Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 435375 Invoice 08/19/2025 Website Maintenance 0.00 34.90 100-2000-61560 Maintenance Agreements Website Maintenance 34.90 U.S. BAN US BANK CORP PAYMENT SYSTEM 08/19/2025 Regular 0.00 815.61 73177 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 080625AW Invoice 08/19/2025 Credit Card Purchases 0.00 815.61 100-2500-61220 Operational Supplies Snack Bar Supplies 199.10 100-2500-61220 Operational Supplies Snack Bar Supplies 80.13 100-2500-61220 Operational Supplies Snack Bar Supplies 203.77 100-2500-61220 Operational Supplies Snack Bar Supplies 112.56 100-2600-61125 Advertising Banner 50.82
100-2600-61220 Operational Supplies Day Camp Supplies 27.96 100-2600-61220 Operational Supplies Day Camp Supplies 141.27 U.S. BANCO US BANK EQUIPMENT FINANCE 08/19/2025 Regular 0.00 321.56 73178 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 561696329 Invoice 08/19/2025 Copier Lease 0.00 321.56
100-1800-61560 Maintenance Agreements Copier Lease 321.56 CAL PERS R CAL PERS RETIREMENTSYSTEM 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 33,791.50 73179 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount INV0000993 Invoice 08/29/2025 PERS PEPRA MISC EMPLOYER 0.00 6,303.81 100-0000-21130 PERS Payable PERS PEPRA MISC EMPLOYER 4,848.78 120-0000-21130 PERS Payable PERS PEPRA MISC EMPLOYER 208.43 224-0000-21130 PERS Payable PERS PEPRA MISC EMPLOYER 305.86 310-0000-21130 PERS Payable PERS PEPRA MISC EMPLOYER 746.91 410-0000-21130 PERS Payable PERS PEPRA MISC EMPLOYER 193.83 INV0000994 Invoice 08/29/2025 PERS PEPRA MISC EMPLOYEE 0.00 6,137.49 100-0000-21131 PERS Payable - EE PERS PEPRA MISC EMPLOYEE 4,720.87 120-0000-21131 PERS Payable - EE PERS PEPRA MISC EMPLOYEE 202.93 224-0000-21131 PERS Payable - EE PERS PEPRA MISC EMPLOYEE 297.79 310-0000-21131 PERS Payable - EE PERS PEPRA MISC EMPLOYEE 727.20 410-0000-21131 PERS Payable - EE PERS PEPRA MISC EMPLOYEE 188.70 INV0000995 Invoice 08/29/2025 PERS PEPRA SAFETY EMPLOYER 0.00 4,546.44 100-0000-21130 PERS Payable PERS PEPRA SAFETY EMPLOYER 4,528.38 225-0000-21130 PERS Payable PERS PEPRA SAFETY EMPLOYER 18.06 INV0000996 Invoice 08/29/2025 PERS PEPRA SAFETY EMPLOYEE 0.00 4,468.46 100-0000-21131 PERS Payable - EE PERS PEPRA SAFETY EMPLOYEE 4,450.71 225-0000-21131 PERS Payable - EE PERS PEPRA SAFETY EMPLOYEE 17.75 INV0000997 Invoice 08/29/2025 PERS MISC CLASSIC EMPLOYER 0.00 1,530.04 100-0000-21130 PERS Payable PERS MISC CLASSIC EMPLOYER 933.28 310-0000-21130 PERS Payable PERS MISC CLASSIC EMPLOYER 247.34 410-0000-21130 PERS Payable PERS MISC CLASSIC EMPLOYER 349.42 INV0000998 Invoice 08/29/2025 PERS MISC CLASSIC EMPLOYEE 0.00 879.78 100-0000-21131 PERS Payable - EE PERS MISC CLASSIC EMPLOYEE 536.60 310-0000-21131 PERS Payable - EE PERS MISC CLASSIC EMPLOYEE 142.42 410-0000-21131 PERS Payable - EE PERS MISC CLASSIC EMPLOYEE 200.76 INV0000999 Invoice 08/29/2025 PERS SAFETY CLASSIC EMPLOYER 0.00 6,883.98 100-0000-21130 PERS Payable PERS SAFETY CLASSIC EMPLOYER 6,883.98 INV0001000 Invoice 08/29/2025 PERS SAFTEY CLASSIC EMPLOYEE 0.00 3,041.50 100-0000-21131 PERS Payable - EE PERS SAFTEY CLASSIC EMPLOYEE 3,041.50 CACHLDSUP CALIFORNIA STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 780.00 73180 Check Report Date Range: 08/16/2025 - 08/31/2025
8/28/2025 8:06:02 PM Page 6 of 14
Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Date Payment Type Discount Amount Payment Amount Number Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount INV0001001 Invoice 08/29/2025 M. DILLON CHILD SUPPORT 0.00 780.00 100-0000-21175 Wage Levys M. DILLON CHILD SUPPORT 780.00 ICMA RETIR MISSION SQUARE-302397 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 8,149.41 73181 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount INV0000987 Invoice 08/29/2025 EMPLOYER MATCH - ICMA DC 0.00 822.61 100-0000-21141 ICMA Deferred Compensa… EMPLOYER MATCH - ICMA DC 705.26 310-0000-21141 ICMA Deferred Compensa… EMPLOYER MATCH - ICMA DC 64.25 410-0000-21141 ICMA Deferred Compensa… EMPLOYER MATCH - ICMA DC 53.10 INV0000988 Invoice 08/29/2025 EMPLOYER MATCH - ICMA DC 0.00 655.25 100-0000-21141 ICMA Deferred Compensa… EMPLOYER MATCH - ICMA DC 330.58 120-0000-21141 ICMA Deferred Compensa… EMPLOYER MATCH - ICMA DC 89.09 224-0000-21141 ICMA Deferred Compensa… EMPLOYER MATCH - ICMA DC 153.70 310-0000-21141 ICMA Deferred Compensa… EMPLOYER MATCH - ICMA DC 81.88 INV0000989 Invoice 08/29/2025 EMPLOYER MATCH - ICMA DC 0.00 454.92 100-0000-21141 ICMA Deferred Compensa… EMPLOYER MATCH - ICMA DC 341.19 310-0000-21141 ICMA Deferred Compensa… EMPLOYER MATCH - ICMA DC 113.73 INV0000990 Invoice 08/29/2025 DEF COMP EMPLOYEE 0.00 4,344.24 100-0000-21141 ICMA Deferred Compensa… DEF COMP EMPLOYEE 2,710.98 120-0000-21141 ICMA Deferred Compensa… DEF COMP EMPLOYEE 392.00 224-0000-21141 ICMA Deferred Compensa… DEF COMP EMPLOYEE 689.67 310-0000-21141 ICMA Deferred Compensa… DEF COMP EMPLOYEE 521.60 410-0000-21141 ICMA Deferred Compensa… DEF COMP EMPLOYEE 29.99 INV0000991 Invoice 08/29/2025 DEF COMP EMPLOYEE 0.00 1,644.76 100-0000-21141 ICMA Deferred Compensa… DEF COMP EMPLOYEE 1,468.03 310-0000-21141 ICMA Deferred Compensa… DEF COMP EMPLOYEE 49.85 410-0000-21141 ICMA Deferred Compensa… DEF COMP EMPLOYEE 126.88 INV0000992 Invoice 08/29/2025 DEF COMP EMPLOYEE 0.00 227.63 100-0000-21141 ICMA Deferred Compensa… DEF COMP EMPLOYEE 217.01 310-0000-21141 ICMA Deferred Compensa… DEF COMP EMPLOYEE 10.62 AMAZON AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 2,596.57 73182 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 114K-46HJ-3WKR Invoice 06/30/2025 Pipe Fasteners For Street Signs 0.00 180.43 410-0000-61229 Supplies-Street Signs Pipe Fasteners For Street Signs 180.43 1CCH-3RCV-KT1V Invoice 06/30/2025 Paper Towels & Bags 0.00 222.33 100-1700-61220 Operational Supplies Paper Towels & Bags 222.33 1FNQ-WJ7P-9R61 Invoice 06/30/2025 Visitor Center Furniture 0.00 1,657.82 116-0000-68110 Capital - Improvements Visitor Center Furniture 1,657.82 1PM7-TV3V-XHQV Invoice 06/30/2025 Daycamp 0.00 9.67
100-2600-61220 Operational Supplies Daycamp 9.67
1PYD-YY4N-6H3N Invoice 06/30/2025 Blood Pressure Monitor 0.00 152.20 100-1700-61223 First Aid Supplies Blood Pressure Monitor 152.20 1Q4Y-JVG7-7K1P Invoice 06/30/2025 Fiberglass Sealer Pool Chairs 0.00 104.40 100-2500-61801 Equipment Repair & Main… Fiberglass Sealer Pool Chairs 104.40 1WD3-NPHQ-1FT3 Invoice 06/30/2025 Ambu Bag Adult 0.00 269.72 100-1700-61223 First Aid Supplies Ambu Bag Adult 269.72 C&NTRACTOR C & N ENTERPRISES 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 170.38 73183 Check Report Date Range: 08/16/2025 - 08/31/2025
8/28/2025 8:06:02 PM Page 7 of 14
Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Date Payment Type Discount Amount Payment Amount Number Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 111130 Invoice 06/30/2025 Diagnosis - Mower 0.00 170.38 100-2400-61898 Equipment Repair & Main… Diagnosis - Mower 170.38 CALSTATE CALSTATE SUPPLY, INC. 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 1,639.60 73184 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 9501760145 Invoice 06/30/2025 File Cabinets 0.00 1,639.60 116-0000-68110 Capital - Improvements File Cabinets 1,639.60 FLODUCA F LODUCA CO 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 76,074.29 73185 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 9 Invoice 06/30/2025 Progress Payment #9 Mar-Jul 0.00 76,074.29 226-0000-61500 Professional Services Progress Payment #9 Mar-Jul 76,074.29 KIMLEY-HOR KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 19,014.60 73186 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 32411395 Invoice 06/30/2025 EV Charging Lot 0.00 19,014.60 120-0000-61500 Professional Services EV Charging Lot 19,014.60 O'REILLY A O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE INC 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 7.60 73187 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 3133-169115 Invoice 06/30/2025 Fuse 0.00 7.60
100-1600-61830 Vehicle Repairs & Mainte… Fuse 7.60
KCTVHARD ALCANTAR HARDWARE INC 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 199.22 73188 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 582837 Invoice 08/29/2025 Irrigation Repair Plaza 0.00 14.33 100-2400-61227 Supplies-Landscaping Irrigation Repair Plaza 14.33 582847 Invoice 08/29/2025 Irrigation Repair 0.00 33.69
100-2400-61227 Supplies-Landscaping Irrigation Repair 33.69 583171 Invoice 08/29/2025 Paint & Roller 0.00 19.12
100-2400-61800 Repairs & Maintenance Paint & Roller 19.12 583346 Invoice 08/29/2025 Sink Repair 0.00 25.64
100-2400-61800 Repairs & Maintenance Sink Repair 25.64
583348 Credit Memo 08/29/2025 Cross Vise Return 0.00 -15.21 100-2400-61800 Repairs & Maintenance Cross Vise Return -15.21 583360 Invoice 08/29/2025 Epoxy 0.00 10.86
100-2400-61227 Supplies-Landscaping Epoxy 10.86
583410 Invoice 08/29/2025 Bird Deterrent 0.00 45.65
100-1700-61803 Fire Station Maintenance Bird Deterrent 45.65 583591 Invoice 08/29/2025 Drinking Water For Engines 0.00 65.14 100-1700-61220 Operational Supplies Drinking Water For Engines 65.14 TRUJILLOA ALICIA TRUJILLO 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 77.70 73189 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 080825 Invoice 08/29/2025 Travel 0.00 77.70
100-1100-62009 Travel, Meetings & Traini… Travel 77.70
ALLTE ALL-TEMP REFRIGERATION HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING, INC. 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 1,142.45 73190 Check Report Date Range: 08/16/2025 - 08/31/2025
8/28/2025 8:06:02 PM Page 8 of 14
Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Date Payment Type Discount Amount Payment Amount Number Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 30383 Invoice 06/30/2025 Heater Repair 0.00 1,142.45
100-2500-61800 Repairs & Maintenance Heater Repair 1,142.45 AMAZON AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 678.37 73191 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 169M-CGNH-XD… Invoice 08/29/2025 Street Sign Pole Caps 0.00 31.24 410-0000-61801 Equipment Repair & Main… Street Sign Pole Caps 31.24 1FRG-RRWG-19… Invoice 08/29/2025 Office Supplies 0.00 226.65 100-1600-61211 Copier Supplies Office Supplies 226.65
1G9F-K1Q1-JTPD Invoice 08/29/2025 Office Supplies 0.00 420.48 100-1600-61210 Office Supplies Office Supplies 420.48
CARMEL FIR ART BLACK 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 100.00 73192 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 125316 Invoice 08/29/2025 Fire Alarm System 0.00 100.00 100-1400-61500 Professional Services Fire Alarm System 100.00 AT & T-FIR AT & T MOBILITY 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 1,598.29 73193 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 287299743011X… Invoice 08/29/2025 AT&T 0.00 1,598.29
100-1600-61711 Mobile Network Connecti… AT&T 1,598.29
AXON AXON ENTERPRISE INC 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 3,348.00 73194 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount INUS370141 Invoice 08/29/2025 Axon Air 0.00 3,348.00
100-1600-61500 Professional Services Axon Air 3,348.00
MEDIA SYS BAY MEDIA, INC. MEDIA SYSTEMS GROUP 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 784.02 73195 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 995049 Invoice 08/29/2025 Microphones , Laptop, Camera Connectio… 0.00 784.02 100-1000-61300 Community Promotion Microphones, Laptop, Camera C… 784.02 BENITEZ SECURITY BENITEZ SECURITY SERVICES 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 5,952.00 73196 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 3047 Invoice 08/29/2025 Monarch Inn Temporary Shelter Security 0.00 2,688.00 121-0000-61500 Professional Services Monarch Inn Temporary Shelter … 2,688.00 3064 Invoice 08/29/2025 Monarch Inn Temporary Homeless Shelter… 0.00 3,264.00 121-0000-61500 Professional Services Monarch Inn Temporary Homele… 3,264.00 BURKEWILL BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 34,365.00 73197 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 347861 Invoice 08/29/2025 Legal Services General 0.00 24,530.00 100-1200-61510 Legal Services Legal Services General 24,530.00 347862 Invoice 08/29/2025 Legal Services Litigation 0.00 870.00 100-1200-61510 Legal Services Legal Services Litigation 870.00 347863 Invoice 08/29/2025 Legal Services - Code Enforcement 0.00 5,005.00 100-1200-61510 Legal Services Legal Services - Code Enforceme… 5,005.00 347864 Invoice 08/29/2025 Legal Services HCD Litigation 0.00 3,960.00 100-1200-61510 Legal Services Legal Services HCD Litigation 3,960.00 Check Report Date Range: 08/16/2025 - 08/31/2025
8/28/2025 8:06:02 PM Page 9 of 14
Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Date Payment Type Discount Amount Payment Amount Number CVT CENTRAL VALLEY TOXICOLOGY INC 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 95.00 73198 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 341863 Invoice 08/29/2025 Drug Testing 0.00 95.00
100-1600-64170 Lab Tests Drug Testing 95.00
COASTAL COASTAL TRACTOR 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 489.38 73199 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount UK02070 Invoice 08/29/2025 Airport Tractor Rental 0.00 489.38 110-0000-61500 Professional Services Airport Tractor Rental 489.38 DAVE'S REP DAVE'S REPAIR SERVICE David L Gambetta 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 100.00 73200 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 39092 Invoice 08/29/2025 Monthly Site Inspection 0.00 100.00 110-0000-61500 Professional Services Monthly Site Inspection 100.00 FED EXP FEDEX 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 168.35 73201
Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 8-955-89814 Invoice 08/29/2025 Mills Ranch Phase 4 signing of Mylans 0.00 168.35 120-0000-61500 Professional Services Mills Ranch Phase 4 signing of M… 168.35 VASQUEZG GERARDO JR VASQUEZ 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 375.00 73202 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 082525 Invoice 08/29/2025 Boots 0.00 375.00
100-2400-61340 Uniform Purchase Boots 375.00
GREGG BURK GREGG BURKMAN ELECTRIC 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 268.91 73203 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 334 Invoice 08/29/2025 Electrical Repairs - FD 0.00 268.91 100-1700-61803 Fire Station Maintenance Electrical Repairs - FD 268.91 SCOFIELD IRMA SCOFIELD SCOFIELD GRAPHICS 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 153.30 73204 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 3409 Invoice 08/29/2025 Business Cards 0.00 153.30
100-1100-61210 Office Supplies Business Cards 153.30
SANCHEZJ JANELLE SANCHEZ 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 12,985.95 73205 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 081925 Invoice 08/29/2025 ADPP Pay May-Aug 29 2025 0.00 12,985.95 100-0000-12010 Accounts Receivable - AD… ADPP Pay May-Aug 29 2025 12,985.95 TIRE KING JOSE RODRIGUEZ TIRE KING & AUTO EXPRESS 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 2,322.40 73206 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 92395 Invoice 08/29/2025 Maint/Repair 0.00 312.86
100-1600-61830 Vehicle Repairs & Mainte… Maint/Repair 312.86 92413 Invoice 08/29/2025 Maint/Repair 0.00 179.48
100-1600-61830 Vehicle Repairs & Mainte… Maint/Repair 179.48 92431 Invoice 08/29/2025 Maint/Repair 0.00 750.93
100-1600-61830 Vehicle Repairs & Mainte… Maint/Repair 750.93 92476 Invoice 08/29/2025 Maint/Repair 0.00 166.16
100-1600-61830 Vehicle Repairs & Mainte… Maint/Repair 166.16 Check Report Date Range: 08/16/2025 - 08/31/2025
8/28/2025 8:06:02 PM Page 10 of 14
Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Date Payment Type Discount Amount Payment Amount Number 92514 Invoice 08/29/2025 Maint/Repair 0.00 562.97
100-1600-61830 Vehicle Repairs & Mainte… Maint/Repair 562.97 92578 Invoice 08/29/2025 Maint/Repair 0.00 350.00
100-1600-61509 Auto Detail Service Maint/Repair 350.00
PARTIDAJ JOSHUE PARTIDA 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 301.00 73207 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 082625 Invoice 08/29/2025 FTO Supervisor School 0.00 301.00 100-1600-62001 Conference, Travel & Mea… FTO Supervisor School 301.00 KIMLEY-HOR KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 7,915.99 73208 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 32748675 Invoice 08/29/2025 EV Charging Lot 0.00 3,463.00 120-0000-61500 Professional Services EV Charging Lot 3,463.00 32796476 Invoice 08/29/2025 101 Broadway RAB PS&E 0.00 4,452.99 718-0000-68110 Capital - Improvements 101 Broadway RAB PS&E 4,452.99 LOCCMO LOCC-MONTEREY BAY DIVISION 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 50.00 73209 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 082625 Invoice 08/29/2025 League of California Cities Monterey Bay … 0.00 50.00 100-1000-62000 Travel, Meetings & Traini… League of California Cities Mont… 50.00 HERNANDEMA MARIA HERNANDEZ 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 374.00 73210 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 081725 Invoice 08/29/2025 Training 0.00 374.00
100-1600-62001 Conference, Travel & Mea… Training 374.00 DJMOI MOISES PEREZ 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 200.00 73211 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount INV0154 Invoice 08/29/2025 DJ - National Night Out 0.00 200.00 100-1000-61300 Community Promotion DJ - National Night Out 200.00 ODP ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 549.81 73212 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 435944125001 Invoice 08/29/2025 Office Supplies 0.00 26.67 100-1800-61210 Office Supplies Office Supplies 26.67
435944698001 Invoice 08/29/2025 Office Supplies 0.00 523.14 100-1300-61210 Office Supplies Office Supplies 236.09
100-1800-61210 Office Supplies Office Supplies 287.05
PAC PG&E 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 14,000.00 73213
Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 0008427387-9 Invoice 08/29/2025 EP EV 225 Broadway / EV Charging 0.00 3,500.00 120-0000-61500 Professional Services EP EV 225 Broadway / EV Chargi… 3,500.00 0008427519-7 Invoice 08/29/2025 EP EGI 424 Pearl Street / EV Charging 0.00 3,500.00 120-0000-61500 Professional Services EP EGI 424 Pearl Street / EV Cha… 3,500.00 0008427646-8 Invoice 08/29/2025 EP EV 613 S. Vanderhurst / EV Charging 0.00 3,500.00 120-0000-61500 Professional Services EP EV 613 S. Vanderhurst / EV C… 3,500.00 0008427648-4 Invoice 08/29/2025 EP EV 401 Division / EV Charging 0.00 3,500.00 120-0000-61500 Professional Services EP EV 401 Division / EV Charging 3,500.00 PURCHASE P PURCHASE POWER*PITNEY BOWES 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 790.29 73214 Check Report Date Range: 08/16/2025 - 08/31/2025
8/28/2025 8:06:02 PM Page 11 of 14
Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Date Payment Type Discount Amount Payment Amount Number Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 081125 Invoice 08/29/2025 Postage 0.00 790.29
100-1600-61200 Postage, Shipping & Freig… Postage 790.29 RAILPROS RAILPROS INC RAIL CONSULTING SERVICES 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 15,857.31 73215 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 1300912112 Invoice 08/29/2025 KC Temporary Platform 0.00 15,857.31 222-0000-61500 Professional Services KC Temporary Platform 15,857.31 SV FAIR SALINAS VALLEY FAIR 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 225.00 73216 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 59272 Invoice 08/29/2025 Building - Adult Basket Ball 0.00 225.00 100-2500-61500 Professional Services Building - Adult Basket Ball 225.00 SENTRY SENTRY ALARM SYSTEMS 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 405.00 73217 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 2292879 Invoice 08/29/2025 Alarm 0.00 90.00
100-2600-61500 Professional Services Alarm 90.00
2292880 Invoice 08/29/2025 Alarm 0.00 180.00
100-2600-61500 Professional Services Alarm 180.00
2292965 Invoice 08/29/2025 Security System 0.00 135.00
100-1700-61500 Professional Services Security System 135.00 SUNRUN SUN RUN INSTALLATIONS SERVICES 25015 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 186.91 73218 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 073025 Invoice 08/29/2025 Terminated Contract 0.00 93.48 100-0000-42135 Bldig Pmts Terminated Contract 93.48
073025B Invoice 08/29/2025 Terminated Contract 0.00 93.43 100-0000-42135 Bldig Pmts Terminated Contract 93.43
TEMP UNIF TEMPLETON UNIFORMS LLC 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 536.65 73219 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 15153 Invoice 08/29/2025 Langston Uniform 0.00 536.65
100-1600-61340 Uniform Purchase Langston Uniform 536.65 LEW THE LEW EDWARDS GROUP 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 5,750.00 73220 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 001 Invoice 08/29/2025 Sales Tax Consultant 0.00 5,750.00 100-1100-61502 Consultants Sales Tax Consultant 5,750.00 TOPES TOPE'S TREE SERVICE INC 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 21,600.00 73221 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 344230 Invoice 08/29/2025 Tree Trimming Payment 0.00 21,600.00 100-2300-61500 Professional Services Tree Trimming Payment 21,600.00 TYLER TECH TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 8,059.65 73222 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 025-524887 Invoice 08/29/2025 Maintenance 0.00 8,059.65 100-1500-61500 Professional Services Maintenance 5,641.75 310-0000-61500 Professional Services Maintenance 2,417.90 Check Report Date Range: 08/16/2025 - 08/31/2025
8/28/2025 8:06:02 PM Page 12 of 14
Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Date Payment Type Discount Amount Payment Amount Number U.S. BAN US BANK CORP PAYMENT SYSTEM 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 10,944.56 73223 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 080625MO Invoice 08/29/2025 Credit Card Purchases 0.00 1,290.43 100-1700-61810 Tools & Minor Equipment Various Wildland Supplies 1,290.43 080625SA Invoice 08/29/2025 Credit Card Purchases 0.00 8,121.70 100-1000-62001 Conference, Travel & Mea… BZ Prize - Gift Card 56.38 100-1000-62001 Conference, Travel & Mea… BZ Gift Cards 50.00 100-1000-62001 Conference, Travel & Mea… BZ Cups 4.08
100-1000-62001 Conference, Travel & Mea… BZ Water, Napkins, Fruit 4.19 100-1000-62001 Conference, Travel & Mea… BZ Food/Drinks & Gift Cards 117.09 100-1000-62001 Conference, Travel & Mea… BZ Prize - Plotted Planters 39.04 100-1000-62001 Conference, Travel & Mea… BZ Ice Chest -65.24 100-1000-62001 Conference, Travel & Mea… BZ Water, Napkins, Fruit 65.61 100-1000-62001 Conference, Travel & Mea… BZ Ice Chest -65.24 100-1000-62001 Conference, Travel & Mea… BZ Ice Chest 65.24 100-1000-62001 Conference, Travel & Mea… BZ Cups 19.08
100-1000-62001 Conference, Travel & Mea… BZ Ice Chest 65.24 100-1000-62001 Conference, Travel & Mea… BZ Waters 9.40 100-1100-61760 Budget Contingency Domain Protection + Privacy kin… 519.60 100-1100-61760 Budget Contingency Domain Protection + Privacy kin… 2,274.40 100-1100-61760 Budget Contingency Domain Protection + Privacy kin… 909.30 100-1100-61760 Budget Contingency Domain Protection + Privacy kin… 3,389.20 100-1300-61220 Operational Supplies Copies - 450 Jayne St 126.50 100-1800-64165 Internet Access Starlink - Backup Internet 130.00 100-2000-68130 Capital - Computer Adobe Monthly Subscription 407.83 080825OH Invoice 08/29/2025 Credit Card Purchases 0.00 1,532.43 100-2100-62001 Conference, Travel & Mea… Training/Conference 475.00 100-2300-61801 Equipment Repair & Main… Trees and Misc Planting 219.30 100-2300-61801 Equipment Repair & Main… Trees and Misc Planting 499.36 100-2400-61800 Repairs & Maintenance Trees and Misc Planting 338.77 VERIZON WI VERIZON WIRELESS 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 651.64 73224 Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 6120849978 Invoice 08/29/2025 Wireless Bill 0.00 651.64 100-1100-61710 Cellular Phones Wireless Bill 93.33
100-1300-61710 Cellular Phones Wireless Bill 82.72
100-1600-61710 Cellular Phones Wireless Bill 304.14
100-1800-61710 Cellular Phones Wireless Bill 41.36
100-2100-61710 Cellular Phones Wireless Bill 103.94
100-2600-61710 Cellular Phones Wireless Bill 26.15
PARKW WILL PARK 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 970.87 73225
Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 082225 Invoice 08/29/2025 Reimbursement 0.00 970.87
100-0000-42135 Bldig Pmts Reimbursement 970.87
TIRE KING JOSE RODRIGUEZ TIRE KING & AUTO EXPRESS 08/29/2025 Regular 0.00 340.07 73226 Check Report Date Range: 08/16/2025 - 08/31/2025
8/28/2025 8:06:02 PM Page 13 of 14
Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Date Payment Type Discount Amount Payment Amount Number Account Number Account Name Item Description Distribution Amount Payable # Payable Type Post Date Payable Description Discount Amount Payable Amount 92452 Invoice 08/29/2025 Maint/Repair 0.00 340.07
100-1600-61830 Vehicle Repairs & Mainte… Maint/Repair 340.07 Total Regular: 0.00 858,886.60
Regular Checks
Manual Checks
Voided Checks
Discount
Payment
Payment Type Count
Bank Code POOL-WFB Summary
Bank Drafts
EFT's
56 0
0 0
15 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
71 0.00
Payment
858,886.60

0.00 0.00

0.00 93,428.89
952,315.49
Payable
Count
104
0 0
0 22
126
Check Report Date Range: 08/16/2025 - 08/31/2025
8/28/2025 8:06:02 PM Page 14 of 14
All Bank Codes Check Summary
Payment Type Discount
Payment
Count Payment
Payable
Count
Regular Checks
Manual Checks
Voided Checks
Bank Drafts
EFT's
56 0
0 0
15 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
71 0.00
858,886.60

0.00 0.00

0.00 93,428.89
952,315.49
104
0 0
0 22
126
Fund Name Period Amount
Fund Summary
999 Pooled Cash Fund 8/2025 952,315.49
952,315.49
Item No. 9 (C)

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2025

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TOM NUCK, FIRE DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT RE: CONSIDERATION OF PURCHASE OF FIRE DEPARTMENT

EDRAULIC SYSTEM
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended the City Council: 1) approve the purchase of eDraulics for the Fire Department; 2) approve the award of bid to Diamondback Fire & Rescue, Inc. in the amount of $42,923.63; and 3) authorize the City Manager to execute the purchase with contingency funds appropriated in the FY 2025-26 budget.

BACKGROUND:

The current hydraulic forcible entry tools, commonly known as “jaws of life’, used by the Fire Department were purchased in 2002. The system is powered by a gas motor running a hydraulic pump, pumping hydraulic fluid threw long hoses to the cutter and spreader tools. Only one tool can be operated at a time. At the time of purchase, these tools were state of the art, but with the improvements in car manufacturing materials, the current tools are having difficulties performing their task.

DISCUSSION:

The need for an upgrade to modern forcible entry tools has become apparent to the Fire Department during recent training exercises. All other Fire agencies in the Salinas Valley have made the upgrade to the eDraulic systems, which are electric powered jaws of life. The eDraulic system tools are not limited by hose length and hydraulic pumps. As a result, both tools can be run simultaneously, and they are designed to handle all new car building materials. The jaws of life equipment is one of the most important tools used by the Fire Department staff.

The purchase of the eDraulic system will help the Fire Department perform lifesaving extractions in a timely manner.

CITY COUNCIL

CONSIDERATION OF PURCHASE OF FIRE DEPARTMENT EDRAULIC
SYSTEM
SEPTEMBER 9, 2025
PAGE 2 OF 3
The Fire Department staff have been submitting grant applications to obtain the funding needed for the purchase. However, the efforts have been unsuccessful thus far. Given the priority and importance of this equipment, it is now recommended to proceed with the purchase rather than continue to wait for potential grant funding. Other available funds have been identified in the budget.

The following two bids were received:

Diamondback Fire & Rescue, Inc. $42,923.63
Curtis Tools for Heroes $49,999.99
Staff recommend awarding the purchase to the low bidder. The City of Soledad purchased the same equipment from the same vendor. Staff contacted representatives from the Soledad Fire Department, who confirmed they were satisfied with the performance of the equipment.

COST ANALYSIS:

The cost of the purchase is $42,923.63. This item was not included in the FY 2025-26/ FY 2026-27 Biennial Budget. However, the approved FY 2025-26 budget included $287,000 in contingency funds for the City’s share of the permanent supportive housing project and temporary homeless shelter program.

Due to additional grants received and other funding sources identified, the projected revenues needed from the General Fund for this project have been reduced to $137,000. It is recommended to utilize a portion of this funding for the purchase of the eDraulics.

It is recommended that the remainder of the balance be preserved in the budget until the permanent supportive housing project is completed in case any additional unforeseen expenses occur. Any unexpended funds at the end of the year will reduce the amount of reserves projected to be expended this fiscal year.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The purchase of public safety equipment is not a “project” for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it does not have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change to the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. No further action is required under CEQA for City Council action.

EXHIBIT 1
Item No. 9 (D)

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2025
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: STEVEN ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
RE: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER

2.08 OF THE KING CITY MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO

CITY MANAGER
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended the City Council waive the second reading by title only and adopt Ordinance No. 2025-836 amending provisions of Chapter 2.08 of Title 2 of the King City Municipal Code pertaining to city manager residency requirements.

BACKGROUND:

The Municipal Code sets forth that the city manager shall be required to reside within the city. This code provision was last updated in 1996. Staff have identified that State law no longer allows the requirement for an employee to reside in the city, but it does allow requirements for employees to live within a reasonable distance. Therefore, an ordinance making a minor amendment to this Code section is recommended to help ensure the City remains compliant with State law.

At the August 26th meeting, staff presented, and the City Council introduced, the recommended ordinance.

DISCUSSION:

California Government Code Section 50083 states that “no local agency or district shall require that its employees be residents of such local agency or district.” California Constitution Article 11, Section 10 (b) also states that “a city or county, including any chartered city or chartered county, or public district, may not require that its employees be residents of such city, county , or district; except that such employees may be required to reside within a reasonable and specific distance of their place of employment or other designated location.”

Item No. 9(E)

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2025
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DOREEN LIBERTO, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
BY: MARICRUZ AGUILAR, PART-TIME PLANNER
RE: CONSIDERATION OF REFORMAT OF THE CITY OF KING

GENERAL PLAN CONSOLIDATED PLAN
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving reformat of the King City General Plan Consolidated Plan Document.

BACKGROUND:

The City’s first General Plan Land Use Element was adopted in 1973, along with the Circulation, Conservation, Open Space and Scenic Highways Elements. In 1975 the City adopted the Safety, Noise and Seismic Safety Elements. The first Housing Element was adopted in 1985. A Comprehensive Update to the Land Use Element and Circulation was adopted in 1988. As the city continued to grow, it was necessary to update the Land Use Element once again. The update began in 1995, and a Comprehensive Update was formally adopted by City Council on December 8, 1998.

The 1998 General Plan elements were written using the
two-column layout. Over time, as other elements were
updated, they were updated using single-column or
portrait orientation, which is the standard document
orientation. This resulted in a General Plan document
having various formatting styles and fronts.

CITY COUNCIL

CONSIDERATION OF REFORMAT OF THE CITY OF KING GENERAL PLAN

CONSOLIDATED PLAN
SEPTEMBER 9, 2025
PAGE 2 OF 3
DISCUSSION:

For consistency throughout the King City General Plan the following font, size and formatting are being proposed to be consistent with the recently adopted elements.
• Font Style: Calibri (Body)
• Font Size: 12 for body text, size 18 for Chapter Titles • Title Font Color: Blue, Accent 1, Darker 25%
Staff believe it will improve the readability and make it a more user-friendly document. There are no changes to the context of the King City General Plan Consolidated Document, only reformatting for consistency and readability. The Introduction Section, Circulation Element, and Noise Element were retyped to follow the proposed new formatting.

It is a standard in California that each element in the General Plan Consolidated Document is treated as an individual policy document where any element can be handed out separately and not necessarily treated as specific chapter of a book.

This allows the ability to rearrange the elements as one doesn’t have more priority than the other. The Table of Contents will then outline the different adopted elements and identify the specific chapters contained inside of each element.

COST ANALYSIS:

No financial impact has resulted in the reformatting of the document. Only a couple of staff hours from our part-time staff have been used to re-format the elements.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The document reformatting is not a “project” for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it does not have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. No further action is required under CEQA for City Council action.

EXHIBIT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-2058

A RESOLUTION OF CITY OF KING APPROVING THE REFORMATTING OF THE

KING CITY GENERAL CONSOLIDATED PLAN DOCUMENT
WHEREAS, the City of King maintains and periodically updates its General Plan to serve as the comprehensive, long-term blueprint for the city’s future development and conservation; and
WHEREAS, the King City General Plan Consolidated Plan Document was last comprehensively updated in 1998 through Resolution No. 3778; and WHEREAS, City staff have prepared a reformatted version of the General Plan to improve it’s readability, accessibility, and consistency; and WHEREAS, these changes consist solely of non-substantial, clerical, and formatting adjustments, including but not limited to:
• Standardize fonts, headings, page layouts.
• Updating Table of Contents.
• Correcting typographical errors.
• Reorganizing chapters to improve flow.

WHEREAS, no changes have been made to the context, goals, objectives, policies, or land use designations of the King City General Plan; and WHEREAS, under California Government Code Section §65358(b), corrections and non-substantial changes to a general plan do not constitute an amendment and may be approved by resolution of the legislative body; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the reformatted King City General Plan and finds it accurately reflects the previously adopted policies without any substantial changes; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of King as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council hereby approves the reformatted King City General Plan Consolidated Document, with the sole purpose of improving its layout and presentation.

SECTION 2. The City Manager and staff are directed to utilize and publish the newly formatted document as the official version of the King City General Plan Consolidated Document.

SECTION 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to make the final, reformatted General Plan available to the public for inspection in accordance with the provisions of the California Government Code.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of King this 9th day of September 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

ATTEST
________________________________
ERICA SONNE, City Clerk

CITY OF KING
By: __________________________
MIKE LEBARRE, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
ROY SANTOS, City Attorney
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
I, ______________________________, City Clerk of the City of King, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of the Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of King on the date and by the vote indicated herein.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN

C O N S O L I D AT E D P L A N D O C U M E N T
Land Use Element
Circulation Element
Housing Element
Noise Element
Economic Development Element
Conservation, Open Space, and Safety Element

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
212 S. VANDERHURST AVENUE, KING CITY, CA 93930
COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE ADOPTED DECEMBER 1998 & AMENDED THROUGH JULY 2025 EXHIBIT 2

AMENDMENTS
ADOPTED DATE/RESOLUTION NO./PLAN AMENDMENT NO.

ORIGINAL ELEMENTS
• 1973 LAND USE, CIRCULATION, CONSERVATION, OPEN SPACE, SCENIC HIGHWAY ELEMENTS • 1975 OPEN SPACE, SAFETY, CONSERVATION, SEISMIC ELEMENT • 1978 NOISE ELEMENT
• 1985 HOUSING ELEMENT
• 1988 COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO LAND USE ELEMENT
• 1988 COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO CIRCULATION ELEMENT
• 1993 HOUSING ELEMENT
DECEMBER 8, 1998 (COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE)/RESOLUTION NO. 3778 • REPLACED: LAND USE ELEMENT, CIRCULATION ELEMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT, NOISE ELEMENT • COMBINED: CONSERVATION, OPEN SPACE & SAFETY ELEMENT
• ADDED: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
• ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPROVED & CERTIFIED/MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM APPROVED (RESOLUTION NO. 3775)
AUGUST 28, 2001/RESOLUTION NO. 3886
• MEYER & MILLS GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT: MEYER & MILLS RANCH PARCELS TO

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT /EIR FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PRE-ZONING & ANNEXATION OF MEYER & MILLS RANCH (RESOLUTION 3884)
JULY 27, 2004/RESOLUTION NO. 4057
• CREEKBRIDGE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: SECTION 6.1.3; FIGURE LU-1; FIGURE COS-4; FIGURE COS-7; FIGURE ED-2; FIGURE GP-1; FIGURE GP-2; FIGURE GP-3; FIGURE H-2; FIGURE LU-4; FIGURE LU-2A; FIGURE LU-2B; FIGURE LU 3A; FIGURE LU 3B
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004/RESOLUTION NO. 4064
• ADOPTED: 2002-2007 HOUSING ELEMENT
AUGUST 30, 2005/RESOLUTION NO. 05-4126
• MILLS RANCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: GENERAL PLAN SECTION 6.1.3; FIGURE LU-1; FIGURE COS-4:

MONTEREY COUNTY AGRICULTURAL ZONING; FIGURE COS-7: FIGURE ED-2: FIGURE GP-1; FIGURE GP-2; FIGURE GP-3: MAJOR; FIGURE H-2; FIGURE LU-4; FIGURE LU-2A; FIGURE LU-2B; FIGURE LU-3A; LAND USE PLAN-PLANNING AREA; AND AMENDMENTS TO GENERAL PLAN FIGURE LU-3B.

JANUARY 24, 2006/RESOLUTION NO. 06-4135
• LAND USE ELEMENT & LAND USE MAP UPDATE: LUE §2.1.1, POLICY 2.1.1.4, GENERAL PLAN LUE §3, POLICY 3.1.1, PROGRAM 3.3.11 AND TABLE 6 DELETING THE FREEWAY COMMERCIAL ZONE JUNE 22, 2010/RESOLUTION NO. 2010-4328
• ADOPTED: 2007-2014 HOUSING ELEMENT
JUNE 22, 2010/RESOLUTION NO. 2010-4330/GPA2009-001
• LAND USE ELEMENT MAP UPDATE: 41 PARCELS ON MUSTANG COURT CHANGED FROM MEDIUM DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL (MDR) TO MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MHDR) MARCH 22, 2016/RESOLUTION NO. 2016-4506
• ADOPTED: 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT
• REPLACED LAND USE ELEMENT
• AMENDED CONSERVATION, OPEN SPACE & SAFETY ELEMENTS
NOVEMBER 22, 2016/RESOLUTION NO. 2016-4550
• ADOPTED REVISIONS TO 2015-2023
JUNE 12, 2018 /RESOLUTION NO. 2018-4642/GPA 2018-001
• AMENDED LAND USE ELEMENT GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES REGULATING SEASONAL EMPLOYEE

HOUSING
• ADDED A DUAL LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR SEASONAL EMPLOYEE HOUSING JANUARY 25, 2022/RESOLUTION NO. 2022-4852
• REPLACED: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT
DECEMBER 12, 2023/RESOLUTION NO. 2023-4975
• ADOPTED THE 2023-2031 INTERIM HOUSING ELEMENT (CYCLE 6) • ADOPTED FINAL REVISIONS FEBRUARY 11, 2025
JUNE 24, 2025/RESOLUTION NO. 2025-5051
• AMENDED: CONSERVATION, OPEN SPACE & SAFETY ELEMENTS
JULY 8, 2025/ORDINANCE NO. 2025-835
• AMENDED: LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC)

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN
December, 1998

FOREWORD AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This general plan has been prepared for King City, California, a community that lies at the hub of the South County region in Monterey County, California. The planning process was initiated in early 1995 by the late Don Bates, Director of Planning and Building. Mr. Bates passed away in 1996 after 19 years as the city's Planning Director. His legacy as a planner and as a citizen is written not only into this plan, but into the physical form of the community as it continues to evolve today.

This plan was prepared by a team of consultants under the direction of Perspective Planning of San Luis Obispo, including the following: John B. Ashbaugh, AICP, Principal of Perspective Planning; John Larson, Senior Environmental Scientist, PRA Group; Keith Higgins, Higgins and Associates, traffic consultants; and Walt Bremer and Geographic Information Systems Lab at the Department of Landscape Architecture at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.

King City staff that have assisted in preparing this plan, besides Mr. Bates, include the following:

Blaine Michaelis, City Manager; Harlan Butler, Public Works Director, Dave Van Etten, Planning and Building Director; Scott Galbraith, Economic Development Director; Robert Moreno, Finance Director; and Ed Foley, City Attorney. In addition, several elected or appointed officials have met with the consultants to review early drafts of various plan elements, including Chuck Krause, Joe Grebmeier, Joe Neely, Byron Lynn, Doug Brooks, and David Layous.

The General Plan is intended to be a living document that can assist the community in understanding its past, defining its goals, responding to changing circumstances, and shaping its future. The 1998 General Plan for King City represents a significant departure from the previous plan, adopted in 1988.

The individual elements of the general plan were considered in the sequence that they are presented in this document, through the period of April, 1996 through July, 1997. The full consolidated version of this plan was first considered and approved for purposes of environmental review at hearings in Octo􀓧r, 1997. The Environmental Impact Report was prepared and reviewed throughout most of 1998. The general plan was adopted, and the EIR was certified, at meetings by the Planning Commission and Council in December, 1998.

Members of the City Council: John L. Myers, Mayor
Richard Zechentmayer, Mayor Pro Tern
Robert Tamez
Byron Lynn
Joseph Grebmeier
Members of the Planning Commission:

Former Commissioners:

Chuck Krause, Chair Susan Kleber
Doug Brooks, Vice-Chair David Layous
Joe Soto Frank Lopez
Elton Sundahl Joe Neely

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION i

1. Organization of the King City General Plan i

2. Why Plan? iv

LAND USE ELEMENT LUE
Chapter 1: Introduction LUE-5
Chapter 2: Social and Economic Conditions LUE-16
Chapter 3: Environmental Setting LUE-24
Chapter 4: Public Services LUE-28
Chapter 5: Land Use Plan LUE-34
Chapter 6: Implementation Program LUE-54
Chapter 7: General Plan Land Use Designation Terms and Classifications LUE-57 Chapter 8: Relationship with Other General Plan Elements LUE-63 Chapter 9: Process of Adoption LUE-64

CIRCULATION ELEMENT CIR
Chapter 1: Purpose And Scope CIR-4
Chapter 2: Existing Traffic Conditions CIR-8
Chapter 3: Other Transportation and Circulation Issues CIR-15 Chapter 4: Circulation System Planning and the Land Use Element CIR-18 Chapter 5: Recommended Circulation Policies and Improvement Programs CIR-30

HOUSING ELEMENT HE
Chapter 1: Introduction HE-1
Chapter 2: Existing Conditions HE-13
Chapter 3: Special Housing Needs HE-51
Chapter 4: Fair Housing Needs HE-63
Chapter 5: Projected Housing Needs HE-116
Chapter 6: Site Inventory & Analysis HE-118
Chapter 7: Government Constraints HE-128
Chapter 8: Cycle 5 Program – Progress Toward Implementation HE-170 Chapter 9: Goals, Policies and Programs HE-183

NOISE ELEMENT NE
Chapter 1: Introduction NE-4
Chapter 2: Noise Level in the City NE-22
Chapter 3: Noise Control Goals and Policies NE-33
Chapter 4: References Cited NE-35

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT EDE
Chapter 1: Introduction EDE-3
Chapter 2: Authority for the Element EDE-4
Chapter 3: City Setting EDE-4
Chapter 4: Economic Climate EDE-5
Chapter 5: Ongoing Economic Development Efforts EDE-7
Chapter 6: Future Opportunities EDE-13
Chapter 7: Goals, Policies and Action Items EDE-15

CONSERVATION, OPEN SPACE, AND SAFETY ELEMENT COS
Chapter 1: Organization and Background COS-4
Chapter 2: Resources of the Area COS-11
Chapter 3: Conservation, Open Goals and Safety Element Goals and COS-42 Implementation Policies
Chapter 4: Open Space Element Goals and Implementation Policies COS-45 Chapter 5: Safety Element Goals and Implementation Policies COS-52 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR: MND-1

HOUSING ELEMENT/LAND USE/

CONSERVATION, OPEN SPACE & SAFETY
ELEMENT/2016 AMENDMENTS
SECTION ONE: FIGURES
GP-1 - Planning Area
GP-2 - King City Street System
GP-3 - Major King City Landmarks
LU-1 – 1998 Land Use Element
LU-2A – Existing Land Use/Planning Area
LU-2B – Existing Land Use/Downtown Area
LU-3A – Proposed Land Use/Planning Area
LU-3B – Proposed Land Use/Downtown Area
LU-4 – Hospital Special Planning Area
H-2 – Available Housing Sites
H-3 – Designated Urban Reserve/Agricultural Sites
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN i

INTRODUCTION

1. Organization of the King City General Plan
Under State law, cities are required to prepare and periodically update a "comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the city ... ", which is to be "an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies." The law requires that a general plan include seven "elements", each with specified content. These include the Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Noise, Conservation, Open Space, and Safety elements.

The State has also adopted General Plan Guidelines that spell out the manner in which a general plan is to be prepared and adopted. Basic requirements are that a general plan must consist of diagrams and text which establish the community's long-range goals and objectives regarding physical development. Both the statutes and the guidelines give broad flexibility to each community as to how these elements are to be organized, however.

Taken as a whole, the elements of the general plan are to function as a sort of "constitution" for the community. A general plan· sets forth the direction of future growth and development over a long-term time horizon, typically about 20 years.

The general plan has taken on substantial legal significance in recent years, with enforceable requirements that local actions on subdivisions, development permits, public works projects, and small-scale plans ("specific plans") be consistent with the general plan. Each element must also be consistent with the other elements -- in other words, the plan must be internally consistent.

The following is a brief description of each of the elements of this general plan, as they appear within this Consolidated Plan Document.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN ii

1.1 Land Use Element
The Land Use Element is considered by many to be the most important element, because it establishes the overall density and land use type for the several districts of the community. The Land Use Element defines the character of each of the city's residential, commercial, and industrial neighborhoods, and proposes the direction of future expansion of the City's boundaries. Iri a sense, the Land Use Element provides the physical "vision" of the community.

The Land Use Element was last adopted by King City in 1988, and much of the area set aside for development at that time has been absorbed into the community.

Thus, this new plan has been prepared to look ahead and to propose new directions for the community's growth in the future.

1.2 Circulation Element
The Circulation Element, according to the law, is to consider "the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the plan."
The Circulation Element is not simply a transportation plan; it deals with the most basic and fundamental infrastructure of a community: Streets, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, intersections, traffic signals, driveways and other access roads, and even the routing of certain drainage and utility rights of way. The Circulation Element can also address issues of noise and safety, neighborhood preservation, downtown vitality, transit needs, truck routes, and even wheelchair accessibility.

1.3 Housing Element
California state law requires that each city have a housing element in its general plan (Government Code Section 65000, et seq.). The housing element must consist of:
* An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints to meet these needs;
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN iii
* A statement of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing; and
* A program which sets forth a schedule of actions that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element.

This Housing Element is intended to conform to the requirements of State law, and to provide a positive statement as to the type of balanced housing stock that King City seeks.

1.4 Noise Element
We are reared in an environment where certain levels of sound are intuitively considered by the average human being to be normal. Increasingly, however, our environment contains sounds which to the average person can be called "unwanted." Such unwanted sound is known as noise.

The State of California requires that a Noise Element be included in the General Plan of every city and county, in recognition of a need to protect citizens against the encroachment of noise into their communities and places of residence.

The Noise Element for the City of King is concerned with present and potential noise levels and with specific recommendations that the city can follow to control the various sources of community noise which affect its quality of life. The Noise Element was originally prepared in 1975, and is being updated in 1997 to reflect changing conditions (traffic volumes and land use patterns) as well as changing practices in how planning and other regulations deal with the noise environment.

1.5 Conservation, Open Space and Safety Element
The Conservation, Open Space, and Safety Elements are often consolidated together, because they address similar subject matter: Natural and scenic areas; agricultural lands; water supply; and hazardous areas such as floodplains and areas of high fire hazard. The Open Space Element, in particular, has very detailed requirements set forth in State law and within the general plan guidelines.

Through the Conservation, Open Space, and Safety Elements, this general plan sets forth the community's goals and policies with respect to its natural resources and KING CITY GENERAL PLAN iv
how to protect them. This plan is also consistent with the community's goals in land use, circulation, housing, and overall urban growth. The goals and policies that are established in these three elements have been considered and respected when formulating the other elements of the general plan.

1.6 Economic Development Element
The law also permits--but does not require-the City to adopt any other "optional elements" of its general plan which "relate to the physical development of the ... city.” Upon adoption, an optional element becomes an integral part of the general plan, with the same force and effect as the other elements.

King City has elected to adopt the Economic Development Element of its general plan as an optional element. The Economic Development Element has been written so as to be consistent with each of the other elements of the City's general plan. In turn, all other mandatory general plan elements-as well as zoning, subdivisions, public works projects, and specific plans--must be consistent with the Economic Development Element since it is also a part of the general plan.

The Economic Development Element is intended to function as a a fundamental part of the general plan--as an "article” within the "constitution" for the community. The general plan as a whole is intended to set forth the direction of future growth and development over a long-term time horizon, at least 20 years.

The Economic Development Element provides the economic "vision" of the community, and will set forth specific policies, goals, strategies, and actions that are needed in order to make that vision a reality.

With an adopted Economic Development Element as part of this general plan, the City intends to send a clear message from its citizens, elected officials, municipal staff, and all organizations affiliated_ with the City as to the priority that it gives to sound and sustainable economic development.
2 Why Plan?
Good planning and a sound vision is a prerequisite for orderly development. In today's competitive world, a prosperous economy is possible only when a community is well planned.

Economic progress only -occurs when private entrepreneurs have confidence in City governance. A solid community planning process, with full participation by all those affected, is one of the best ways to obtain that confidence.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN v
This Consolidated Plan Document provides background information about the community. It contains basic data about the community with respect to the regional setting, historic development pattern, and the Planning Area utilized in the general plan. Also included is a listing of previous adopted general plan elements, and a brief statement as to the opportunities for public participation.

It should be noted that some of the information within this introductory section is also repeated within each of the separate Elements. This repetition is a result of the fact that each element was prepared separately during a 2-year process between June 1995 and December 1997. Each of the separate Elements has also been published and may be obtained separately as a "stand-alone" document.

2.1 Regional Setting
King City is located within southern Monterey County, surrounded by rich farmland along the Salinas Rivet. Monterey County, in tum, lies in the Central Coast of California, just south of the rapidly-growing nine-county San Francisco Bay Area.

Monterey County in relation to California
From the west, Pine Canyon Creek drains a large area of the Santa Lucia Mountains and the Los Padres National Forest. These mountains rise to elevations of over 5,000 feet, and provide a rugged barrier between the Salinas Valley and the Pacific Ocean. The Santa Lucias are composed largely of metamorphic rock, with oak and KING CITY GENERAL PLAN vi
pine woodlands and chaparral, giving way to grasslands in the foothills that shape the western edge of the Salinas
Valley.

To the east lie the Gabilan and Diablo Ranges, mostly privately owned with the singular exception of Pinnacles National Monument. These mountains are primarily rolling, grass-covered foothills interspersed with chaparral and occasional vineyards. The combination of deep soils and the mild climate of the Salinas Valley provides the basis for much of the economic base of Monterey County. Agriculture lies at the heart of the community's economic and cultural life in King City.

King City lies in the southern part of Monterey County

2.2 Historical Development
King City has benefitted from a compact physical layout dating from its origin in the nineteenth century. The city was originally incorporated in 1911, with 699 residents. Today, with over 10,000 residents, the community has retained much the same "small town" character that has historically provided a high quality of life.

In the late 1950’s, when Highway 101 was upgraded to freeway status, it was decided by the State Highway Commission to continue to route the highway through King City rather than leave the route on the west side of the Salinas River.

This key decision assured that the community would survive economically.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN vii
In recent years, visitor-serving and highway related development have added to the visibility of the community from Highway 101, shaped a new identity for the city, and provided an important contribution to the local economy. At the same time, the focus of commercial activity has shifted along Broadway Street from northeast to southwest, closer to the freeway. The community is just beginning to experience the significance of this shift in its business center.

In the unincorporated area surrounding King City, Monterey County land use policies have generally kept parcel sizes large in order to encourage continued agricultural uses. One area where residential use has been permitted in the unincorporated area is the Pine Canyon area to the southwest, across U.S. 101 and the Salinas River from the city.

2.3 Planning Area Definition
This General Plan addresses a Planning Area of 6,132.5 acres, which includes an area larger than the city limits. (See Figure GP- I in Section One of this Consolidated Plan Document). There are approximately 1,448.5 acres within the City's municipal boundary, which lies wholly inside of the Planning Area.

As noted in Figure GP-1, this general plan was developed using a data base of properties that included some parcels even outside of the Planning Area; the net area of all properties within the data base is 11,486 acres.

The Planning Area is restricted to areas east of the Salinas River. It does not take in areas that Monterey County has allowed to develop at suburban densities to the west of the river along Pine Canyon Road.

Beginning at the Highway 101 bridge over the Salinas River and continuing clockwise, the Planning Area takes in city-owned land to the north along the river which comprises the wastewater treatment plant and disposal areas. Going to the northeast toward the airport, the Planning Area takes in areas that had been designated in the previous General Plan as "Residential Reserve".

At the intersection of Metz Road and Airport Drive, • the Planning Area extends to the northeast to take in a small amount of privately-owned land adjoining and KING CITY GENERAL PLAN viii
north of the airport. Most of this property is currently located within the City limits.

South of Bitterwater Road, the Planning Area encompasses property that is primarily used for agriculture on both sides of San Lorenzo Creek. At Lonoak Road, the Planning Area cuts to the south to reach the intersection of First Street and Highway 101.

From that intersection, the Planning Area boundary takes in agricultural land within Monterey County's unincorporated area, and extends southwesterly to the Salinas River. At the river, the boundary follows the eastern edge of the river back to the Highway 101 bridge over the Salinas River.

It is important to note that the Planning Area boundary generally takes in land that is deemed to be related to, and impacted by, the planning within the City limits and "Sphere of Influence" of the City of King. The boundaries do not necessarily imply or suggest that the City considers the properties within them to be subject to annexation nor development.

Policies and action programs in each element of this general plan will address these issues of growth and boundary expansion. The most important task for this General Plan is to establish the appropriate direction of the city's development, and to select the best strategy for achieving this vision.

2.4 Previous Adopted General Plans
The first general plan Land Use Element for the City of King was adopted in 1973, along with the Circulation, Conservation, Open Space, and Scenic Highways Elements. Two years later, the Safety, Noise; and. Seismic Safety Elements were adopted. The Housing Element was first adopted in 1985, then updated in January, 1992.

Comprehensive updates to the Land Use Element and Circulation Element were adopted in 1988. (See Figure LU- I below, 1988 Land Use Element). Because much of the land area allocated for development by that Land Use Element has since been developed, and because King City continues to grow, a new update of the Land Use Element became necessary in 1995, and work was initiated in July of that year.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN ix

2.5 Public Participation
Copies of the draft General Plan were available for public review at city hall and at the library prior to each public hearing held in order to review the draft General Plan. A public hearing was noticed at city hall and in a newspaper of general circulation. Prior to approval of the General Plan, public comments were received .at several planning commission hearings and one city council hearing. The dates of the public hearings are listed below:
• King City Planning Commission: June 17, July 1, August 3, September 2, September 16, October 7, and October 21.
• King City City Council: October 28, 1997.

In addition, copies of the draft General Plan were distributed to local representatives of several community organizations for their review and comment.

The eight elements of the general plan are published and bound together in this document, along with a separate section (Section One, immediately following), which contains all of the figures and diagrams used in the general plan. Each Element may be obtained separately as well.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-1

KI N G CI T Y GE N E R A L PL A N

LAND USE ELEMENT
City Council Approval Date: May 22, 2016
Planning Commission Recommendations Date: May 15, 2016
City of King General Plan Land Use Element
November 1998 (original)
2016 LAND USE ELEMENT
AMENDED 2025
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-2

LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT
Table of Contents
Chapters
1 INTRODUCTION 5

1.1 Regional Setting. 6

1.2 Historical Development 8

1.3 Planning Area Definitions 9

1.4 Previously Adopted Land Use Elements 11

1.5 Public Participation 14
2 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 16

2.1 Population Trends and Projections 16

2.2 Employment and Economic Base 17

2.3 Commercial Uses 19

2.4 Housing and Neighborhood Composition 20

2.5 Transportation (Including Multimodal Transit Center) 23 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 24

3.1 Agriculture 24

3.2 Historical and Cultural Sites 24

3.3 Hazards and Development Constraints 25

3.4 Biological Resources 26
4 PUBLIC SERVICES 28

4.1 Local Government Administration 28

4.2 Police Protection 28

4.3 Fire Protection 29

4.4 Educational Facilities 29

4.5 Water Service 30

4.6 Sewer Service 30

4.7 Storm Drainage 30
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-3

4.8 Public Library 31

4.9 Parks and Recreation 31

4.10 Solid Waste Disposal Services 33

4.11 Health and Medical Services 33
5 LAND USE PLAN 34

5.1 Overall Goals and Policies 34

5.2 Residential Land Use Goals and Policies 36

5.3 Commercial Land Use Goals and Policies 38

5.4 Industrial Land Use Goals and Policies 40

5.5 Open Space And Agricultural Lands Goals and Policies 41

5.6 Planned Development Goals and Policies 43

5.7 Public Services and Facilities Goals and Policies 44

5.8 Transportation 51
6 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM 54

6.1 Zoning Ordinance 54

6.2 Annexation and Pre-Zoning 54

6.3 Specific Plan 54

6.4 Subdivision Regulations 55

6.5 Development Agreements 55

6.6 Capital Improvements 55

6.7 Special Policy Area Master Plan 55
7 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION TERMS AND CLASSIFICATIONS 57

7.1 Residential Designation 57

7.2 Commercial Designation 58

7.3 Industrial Designation 59
8 RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS 63
9 PROCESS OF ADOPTION 64

9.1 Hearing Body and Date of Adoption 64

LIST OF FIGURES
LUE-l - Monterey County in Relationship to California 6 KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-4
LUE-2 - Regional Setting 7
LUE-3 - City Boundary and Sphere of Influence 9
LUE-4 - General Plan Land Use Map 11
LUE-5 - Zoning Map
LUE-6 -Hospital Special Planning Area
12 LIST OF TABLES
1 - Population Growth Trends 15
2 - Population Forecast 15
3 - Employment Forecast 16
4 - Labor Force, Employment, Unemployment 17
5 - Composition of City of King Housing Stock Between 2000 and 2013 19 6 - Age of Housing Stock - Occupied Units 19
7 - Housing Units by Type 19
8 - Existing Land Use Acreage 23
9 - Standard for Density and Development Intensity 56
10 -General Plan Land Use Categories and Zoning District Consistency Matrix
58 KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-5
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Under State law, cities are required to prepare and. periodically update a "comprehensive, longterm general plan for the physical development of the city..." which is to be "an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies." The law requires a general plan include seven ''elements", each with specified content. The Land Use Element is one of these seven elements; the other six (6) are the circulation, housing, open space, conservation, noise, and safety elements.

The State has also adopted General Plan Guidelines that spell out the manner in which a general plan is to be prepared and adopted. Basic requirements are a general plan must consist of diagrams and text, which establish the community's long-range goals and objectives regarding physical development. Both the statutes and the guidelines give broad flexibility to each community as to how these elements are to be organized, however.

Taken as a whole, the seven (7) mandatory elements and one (1) optional element (Economic Development) of the general plan are to function as a sort of "constitution" for the community. A general plan sets forth the direction of future growth and development over a long-term time horizon, typically about twenty (20) years. The general plan has taken on substantial legal significance in recent years, with enforceable requirements that local actions on subdivisions, development permits, and small-scale plans ("Specific Plans") be consistent with the general plan.
* Note: A draft of each of these 6 elements is also being prepared at this time. These elements will be considered separately from the Land Use Element, and will be consolidated with it to form a comprehensive, internally consistent general plan.

This Land Use Element is considered by many to be the most important element, because it establishes the overall density and land use type for the several districts of the community. The Land Use Element defines the character of each of the city's residential, commercial, and industrial neighborhoods, and proposes the direction of future expansion of the City's boundaries. In a sense, the Land Use Element provides the physical "vision" of the community.

Good planning and a sound vision is a prerequisite for orderly development. In today's competitive world, a prosperous economy is possible only when a community is well planned.

Economic progress only occurs when private entrepreneurs have confidence in City governance. A solid community planning process, with full participation by all those affected, is one of the best ways to obtain that confidence.

The City of King is a member of the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments ("AMBAG").

AMBAG is governed by a twenty-four (24) member Board of Directors comprised of elected officials from each city and county within the region. The AMBAG region includes Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz counties. AMBAG serves as the federally designated Metropolitan Planning KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-6
Organization ("MPO") and Council of Governments ("COG"). AMBAG performs metropolitan level transportation planning on behalf of the region, and prepares regional housing, population and employment forecast.

In June 2011, AMBAG adopted A Blueprint for Sustainable Growth and Smart Infrastructure ("The Blueprint") and the Sustainable Communities Strategy ("SCS"). The Blueprint presents a vision for how the region might start to achieve the greenhouse gas targets issued by CARB through what is called the "Sustainable Growth Patterns" scenario. The Blueprint and SCS identify key characteristics of Sustainable Growth Patterns, which are:
• Coordinated regional plan for sustainable growth
• Medium to high residential and employment densities in Blueprint Priority Areas while maintaining existing average densities across the region • New development with mix of different land uses
• More access to affordable/workforce housing in cities with large employment bases • Multimodal focused transportation (streets for cars, buses, rail, bike and pedestrians) • Most employment growth takes places in existing employment clusters • Far less leapfrog development, mostly compact development • Fiscal variances are tempered by some tax base sharing Although not legally required to follow the Blueprint or the SCS, the 2015 Land Use Element amendment reflects many of these key characteristics and policies listed in The Blueprint and SCS.

The land use element is organized into two sections: The first section, the "Framework for Planning", provides background information needed to prepare the actual general plan proposals. It contains basic data about the community with respect to its population, economic base, neighborhoods, traffic patterns, environmental resources, and other physical characteristics.

The second section is where the City sets forth its goals, objectives, policies, and programs - specific actions by which the City intends to accomplish its vision of its future.

1.1 REGIONAL SETTING
The City of King is located within southern Monterey County, surrounded by rich farmland along the Salinas River. (Reference LUE 1 and LUE 2.) Monterey County, in turn, lies in the Central Coast of California, just south of the rapidly growing nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. From the west, Pine Canyon Creek drains a large area of the Santa Lucia Mountains and the Los Padres National Forest. These mountains rise to elevations of over five-thousand (5,000') feet, and provide a rugged barrier between the Salinas Valley and the Pacific Ocean. The Santa Lucias are composed largely of metamorphic rock, with oak and pine woodlands and chaparral, giving way KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-7
to grasslands in the foothills that shape the eastern edge of the Salinas Valley. To the east lie the Gabilan and Diablo Ranges, mostly privately owned with the singular exception of Pinnacles National Park. These mountains are primarily rolling, grass covered foothills interspersed with chaparral and occasional vineyards.

FIGURE LUE 1

MONTEREY COUNTY IN RELATIONSHIP TO CALIFORNIA
The combination of deep soils and the mild climate of the Salinas Valley provide the basis for much of the economic base of Monterey County. Agriculture lies at the heart of the community's economic and cultural life in the City of King.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-8
FIGURE LUE 2

REGIONAL SETTING

1.2 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
The City of King has benefited from a compact physical layout dating from its origin in the nineteenth century. The city was originally incorporated in 1911 with 699 residents. Today, with approximately 13,400 residents, the community has retained much the same "small town" character that has historically provided a high quality of life.

In the late 1950's, when Highway 101 was upgraded to freeway status, it was decided by the State Highway Commission to continue to route the highway through the City of King rather than leave the route on the west side of the Salinas River. This key decision assured that the community would survive economically.

In recent years, visitor-serving and highway related development have added to the visibility of the community from Highway 101, shaped a new identity for the city, and provided an important contribution to the local economy. At the same time, the focus of commercial activity has shifted along Broadway Street from northeast to southwest, closer to the freeway. The community is KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-9
just beginning to experience the significance of this shift in its business center; In the unincorporated area surrounding the City of King, Monterey County land use policies have generally kept parcel sizes large in order to encourage continued agricultural uses. One area where residential use has been permitted in the unincorporated area is the Pine Canyon area to the southwest, across U.S. 101 and the Salinas River from the city.

There are many beautiful historic buildings in the City. Within a few blocks of Downtown is one of the west's finest examples of Art Moderne architectural style, the King City High School Auditorium, also known as the Robert Stanton Theater. The theater was built in 1939 with financial assistance from Works Progress Administration funding. The building was designed by architect Robert Stanton of Carmel, California, in partnership with noted artist Joseph Jacinto Mora, who designed and executed the building's extensive sculptural elements. The theater was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on July 23, 1991. There are numerous other interesting historical buildings in and around the Downtown. Programs to protect and enhance these buildings are included in the Downtown Historic Corridor Revitalization Plan.

One of the first Europeans to see the Salinas Valley was Don Gaspar de Portolá who, on September 26, 1769, led a party of explorers down from Jolon into the Salinas Valley. On route, they encountered a village of more than two hundred native Americans. Portolá's party camped near the Salinas River at a site that would later become the City of King. The River was originally know variously as Rio Delfina (the Dolphin River) and Rio de Monterey (River of the King's Mountain), a name used by Juan Bautista de Anza in 1776 during his party's journey northward through the valley. The river was later renamed "Salinas." perhaps due to the salts near the mouth of the river north of Marina. Father Crespi, a chronicler for both the Portolá's exploration party and the de Anza party, recorded the first names used for the river and environs.

1.3 PLANNING AREA DEFINITION
This Land Use Element addresses a Planning Area, which encompasses the city limits and the area within the city SOI. Figure LUE 3 shows the city limits and SOI. This area include the Pine Canyon area and the property around the City's wastewater treatment plant KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-10
FIGURE LUE 3

CITY BOUNDARY AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
It is important to note that the Planning Area boundary generally takes in land that is deemed to be related to, and impacted by, the planning within the City limits and "Sphere of Influence" of the City of King. The boundaries do not necessarily imply or suggest that the City considers the properties within them to be subject to neither annexation nor development.

Land Use Element (2016)
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-11

1.4 PREVIOUS ADOPTED LAND USE ELEMENTS
The first general plan Land Use Element for the City of King was adopted in 1973, along with the Circulation, Conservation, Open Space, and Scenic Highways Elements. Two (2) years. later, the Safety, Noise, and Seismic Safety Elements were adopted. The Housing Element was first. adopted in 1985, and subsequently updated in January, 1992, November 1998, June 2010 and December 2015.

Comprehensive updates to the Land Use Element and Circulation Element were adopted in 1988 and 1998. General Plan Amendments to the Land Use Element occurred as part of the Downtown Addition project and approved by the City Council in 2011. Amendments are being made in the 2016 update. (Reference LUE-4 for the General Plan map and LUE-5 for the zoning map.) Land Use Element (2016)
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-12
FIGURE LUE 4

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
Land Use Element (2016)
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-13
FIGURE LUE 5
Land Use Element (2016)
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-14

1.5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
1998 Update
Copies of the draft 1998 Land Use Element were available for public review at city hall and at the library prior to each public hearing held in order to review the draft Land Use Element.

A public hearing was noticed at city hall and in a newspaper of general circulation. Prior to approval of the Land Use Element, public comments were received at two planning commission hearings and one city council hearing. The dates of the public hearings are listed below:
• City of King Planning Commission: June 17, July I, August), September 2, September 16, October 7, and October 21, 1997;
• City of King City Council: September 23 and October 28, 1997.

In addition, copies of the draft Land Use Element were distributed to local representatives of several community organizations for their review and comment. 2011 General Plan Amendment
There was a general plan amendment that was part of the Downtown Addition project (Project").

The Project area was primarily designated Planned Development (“PD”). The 2011 General Plan Amendment implemented several General Plan policies. To be consistent with the General Plan, the entire Project site was designated P-D. The provisions of the P-D designation specifically calls for the use of a Specific Plan to implement the Goals, Policies and Programs of the General Plan.

The Project went through several years of City Council and Planning Commission workshops and public hearings. Additionally, the developer conducted a charette to gain public input before the Project was finalized and submitted to the City for review. 2015 General Plan Amendment
The City Council authorized staff to update portions of the LUE and incorporate references to the Multimodal Transit Center and other current projects. The LUE was discussed as part of the Community Workshops conducted on the 2015-2023 Housing Element update. The Community Workshop was conducted on October 14, 2015 and a joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop was conducted on October 20, 2015.

Land Use Element (2016)
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-15
LUE-6
Hospital Special Planning Area
GP Land
Use
Designation
Change
from PD to
HC
Land Use Element (2016)
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-16
CHAPTER2: SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
As it grows, the characteristics of the City of King's population are changing. These changes reflect trends that are occurring within Monterey County as a whole, and within the State of California.

This section of the Land Use Element presents current population trends and projections, employment base, housing and neighborhood change; and basic transportation data. Most of the data presented below is from the U.S. 2000 and 2010 Census, State of California Department of Finance ("DoF") and AMBAG.

2.1 POPULATION TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS
Since the year 2000, the City and County have grown at approximately 1.4% per year. As of 2013, Monterey County had 425,756 citizens and the City of King had 13,116 citizens. By 2020, the County is expected to grow to approximately 446,258 citizens (CA DOF, Table P-1, 2014) (approximately 4.5%, 075% per year). Given this consistency with historical growth trends, it can be estimated that the City will also grow near historic trends, approximately 1.3% per year (7.8% by 2020) to a population of approximately 14,241.
(Reference Tables 1 and 2.)
TABLE 1

POPULATION GROWTH TRENDS
Place 2000* 2010* 2014** Average Annual
Change
City of King 11,094 12,874 13,211 151 1.3%
Monterey County 401,762 415,057 425,756 1,713 0.4%
Source: U.S.* 2000 and 2010 Census (SF 1, DP-1), **State of CA DoF E-5 Table Estimates, May 2014 The Regional Growth Forecast prepared by AMBAG shows 44.63% growth in the City of King's population between 2010 to 2035. During the same forecast period, the County of Monterey is projected to grow by 19.28%. (Reference Table 2.)
TABLE 2

POPULATION FORECAST
Jurisdiction 2010 2020 2025 2030 2035 Compound
Around
Growth
Rate
Change
Over
Forecast
Period
Land Use Element (2016)
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-17
City of King 12,874 14,568 16,398 17,759 18,620 1.49% 44.63% Monterey
County
415,057 447,516 463,884 479,487 495,086 0.71% 19.28%

2.2 EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC BASE
The economic base of the City of King is concentrated on agriculture and agriculture-related services, primarily food processing and packaging. Over the last fifteen (15) years, substantial growth has occurred in this sector. Currently, the City is home to several food-processing plants, including Rio Farms/Gill Onions, Rava Ranches, Monterey Winery, and Fresh Farms. San Bernabe Vineyard is in close proximity to the City.

AMBAG's Regional Growth Forecast, dated June 11, 2014, provides an employment forecast for the City of King until 2035. It is projected that the City of King's employment between 2010 and 2035 will increase by 32.64%, while the Monterey County's will increase by 22.05%. (Reference Table 3.)
TABLE 3

EMPLOYMENT FORECAST
Jurisdiction 2010 2020 2025 2030 2035 Compound
Annual
Growth
Rate
Change
Over
Forecast
Period
City of King 4,274 5,007 5,336 5,569 5669 1.14% 32.64%
Monterey
County
182,000 205,977 211,218 216,486 222,137 0.80% 22.05%
Source: AMBAG's Regional Growth Forecast, June 11, 2014 The Housing Element provides detail about population characteristics including family size, age, ethnicity, and other factors.

In addition, a co-generation power plant related to the city's major food processing plant has stimulated even more employment since its completion in 1990, These facilities are situated near the intersection of Metz Road and Airport Drive in the north of the City, and are highly visible from a distance of over two miles along Highway 101.

In addition to agriculture and tourism, a major local employer is the military, with two (2) large training facilities, Fort Hunter-Liggett (FHL") located west of King City and Camp Roberts located south of King City near San Miguel. King City provides both housing and commercial services for Fort Hunter-Leggett. There have been some changes in the composition of the economic base for Monterey County and for the City of King since the 1998 Land Use Element update. FHL has Land Use Element (2016)
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-18
substantially expanded. FHL is the largest U.S. Army Reserve Command post with over 165,000- acres. Established in October 2005, the U.S. Army Combat Support Training Center has a mission to provide world-class training for Combat Support and Combat Service Support units. According to FHL the base population can increase to upward of ten-thousand (10,000) when rotation of different military personnel come for training. FHL has expressed a desire to have their military staff travel to the City of King via Amtrak service from San Jose rather than continue their current US Department of Defense ("DOD") bus service from the FHL to San Jose, one-hundred and thirty (130) miles to the north. This service would reduce greenhouse gases ("GHG") and transportation costs for FHL. There is also an interest to use the rail line to load and unload military equipment, in a way that would be less expensive than using Camp Roberts to the south.

For most of the last decade , unemployment averaged less than fifteen (15%) percent. (Reference Table 4.) Toward the end of the decade, and continuing to the present, unemployment increased, peaking at approximately twenty-one (21%) percent in 2009 and 2010. Since that time unemployment has slowly decreased, currently averaging between seventeen (17%) percent and eighteen (18%) percent. During winter months (non-agricultural season) average unemployment is near twenty-one (21%) percent with prime agriculture season averaging approximately fourteen (14%) percent. Source: CA EDD
TABLE 4

LABOR FORCE, EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT
2000-2014
Year Labor Force Employment Unemployment Unemployment
Rate %
2000 4,763 4,057 706 14.9
2005 5500 4800 700 12.6
2006 5400 4700 600 12.0
2007 5500 4800 700 12.3
2008 5700 4900 800 14.4
2009 5900 4800 1100 19.5
2010 6100 4800 1300 21.0
2011 6100 4900 1200 20.8
2012 6200 5000 1200 19.0
2013 6000 5000 1000 17.1
2014 6300 5200 1100 17.8
Source: State of California Employment Development Department ("EDD"), 2015.

Land Use Element (2016)
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-19
Several of the County's industries have added jobs over the past twelve months: public education, construction, retail trade, non-durable wholesale trade, hotels and other lodging, and health care services. The State and national economies are currently in a slow but steady recovery, leading to hopes that Monterey County will also reduce its chronically high seasonal unemployment rate.

City of King is also making a strategic shift in its economic development plans for the future. The city has invested substantial sums in roads, bridges, and other infrastructure to improve access and services to its primary industrial area near the Airport, the East Ranch Business Park and.

With this investment, the City intends to diversify its economic base by attracting more permanent and stable industries. By this means, the City plans to alleviate high rates of seasonal unemployment.

As the City's tourism industry continues to grow, agriculture and food processing will likely remain, however, as the economic lifeblood of City of King and surrounding communities in southern Monterey County. Several policies and programs of this Land Use Element are designed to encourage new industries that will meet the community's high standards to locate within the City of King. These include such sectors as tourism, warehousing and distribution, "footloose" manufacturing, export-oriented firms, emerging technologies, and business services.

2.3 COMMERCIAL USES
The City of King has historically served as the retailing and service center for all of Southern Monterey County. Its strategic location along Highway 101 as well as its close proximity to Pinnacles National Park and Fort Hunter-Liggett assures that this role will continue.

It is also clear, however, that traffic patterns that dictate retail property values have shifted within the community over the last thirty (30) years. In the past, the central core of the community formerly was located at the upper, eastern end of Broadway Street. It now appears that more retail transactions take place at the lower, western end of this street. As developers create more retail centers on several large, vacant parcels near Highway 101 along Franciscan Way, this trend will accelerate.

Upper Broadway Street will probably continue as the more desirable location for specialty retailing, financial and insurance offices, and entertainment. Lower Broadway Street will probably expand in general retailing, freeway and visitor-oriented development, and medical offices and facilities related to Mee Memorial Hospital near the corner of Broadway Street and Canal Street.

Auto-oriented and service commercial development is found throughout many of the retail zones of the city, but particularly along First and Second Streets and in industrial areas east of the railroad tracks. Trucking facilities are located in proximity to the railroad and along Airport Drive and Bitterwater Road. The City is planning for a First Street Bypass for large vehicles using the industrial park. Right-of-way for a portion of the First Street Bypass was included in the Downtown Addition Specific Plan, which was approved in 2011. Additionally, as part of the Downtown Addition Specific Plan and the proposed Multi-modal Transit Center, Broadway Street Land Use Element (2016)
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-20
is proposed to be extended across the railroad tracks.

Policies and programs are provided in this plan that will guide and direct commercial growth in the future in a manner that respects the existing pattern of retail activity. A primary goal of these policies is to retain the city's role as the retail hub of the South County.

2.4 HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMPOSITION
As in most small towns in a rural setting, the City of King is mostly single-family in character. The City of King is also relatively compact with respect to its overall densities, with over 2000 housing units per square mile (considering only the developed part of the city, and excluding much vacant acreage involved in the airport area or Smith-Hobson property to the north of First Street or Bitterwater Road). (Reference Table 5.)This figure compares to about 2,400 dwellings per square mile for the other three communities in South Monterey County (Soledad, Gonzales and Greenfield).

TABLE 5

COMPOSITION OF CITY OF KING HOUSING STOCK
BETWEEN 2000 AND 2013
Units 2000 Units 2008 Units 2013
Single Family Units 1,856 65% 1,994 66% 2,149 67%
Multi-Family Units 707 25% 725 24% 820 25%
Mobile Homes 292 10% 290 10% 253 8%
Total 2,855* 3,009* 3,222**
Source: * 2007 – 2014 City of King Housing Element,** **CA DoF E-5 Population and Housing Estimates January 2011 – January 2014 Note: ACS Table B25004 indicates 2996 total units for 2013 .

The majority of housing in the City of King (over 66%) was built between 1970 and 2010.

Moreover, the period 1980 and the present saw more than one-half (51.7%) percent of all existing homes built. Nearly 850 homes (30.4%) were built prior to 1965, these exceed fifty (50) years in age. Approximately seventy (70%) percent of housing in the City is at least twenty-five (25) years of age.

TABLE 6

AGE OF HOUSING STOCK - OCCUPIED UNITS
Land Use Element (2016)
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-21
Year Number Percent
2010 or Later 7 0%
2000 to 2009 364 13.0%
1990 to 1999 461 16.5%
1980 to 1989 621 22.2%
1970 to 1979 401 14.4%
1960 to 1969 178 6.4%
1959 to 1959 189 6.8%
1940 to 1949 262 9.4%
1939 or earlier 309 11.1%
Total 2,792 99.8%
Source: ACS 2009 – 2013 Estimates, Table B25126. Note City of King Housing Element 2007-2014 identifies 2,855 existing units. These are total units. Table 25126 addresses Occupied Units. Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

TABLE 7

HOUSING UNITS BY TYPE
Unit Type Units 2000* Units 2008* Units 2013** Change
SF Detached 1,575 55% 1,712 57% 1,874 55% 299 19%
SF Attached 281 10% 282 9% 275 9% (-) 6 (-)3%
2 151 5% - 10% -
3 or 4 136 5% 304 298 9% 11 4%
5 to 9 150 5% - 14% -
10 to 19 165 6% - -
20 to 49 83 3% - -
50 or more 22 1% 421 522 16% 102 24%
Mobile Home 292 10% 290 10% 253 8% (-)39 (-)13%
Boat, RV, Van, 0 0% 0 0%
Total Housing 2,855 3,008 3,222 367 13%
Land Use Element (2016)
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-22
Source: * 2007 – 2014 City of King Housing Element, **CA DoF E-5 Population and Housing Estimates January 2011 – January 2014 Approved. Note: 2008 and 2013 Data combines 2 to 4 units and all structures over 5 units.

As seen in Table 7, multi-family attached housing (condominiums, townhomes, apartments) in projects larger than five (5) units increased at a faster rate than single-Family housing. Single - Family homes remained the primary form of housing (55%).

Some of the City's residential area, include:
• Historic Downtown Area: The "Old Town" area, or Historic downtown area surrounding Broadway Street is very mixed with several multiple units on small lots. This area was subdivided during the early part of the century, for the most part, with a gridded street system and rectangular blocks and lots. Numerous mature shade trees form the character of this neighborhood, although it is diminished in some blocks by the mix of densities. • Royal Coach Neighborhood Area: The Royal Coach Park neighborhood south of San Antonio is also a newly developing neighborhood with smaller lots in the R-1 portion and some areas of higher-density PD and R-3 zoning.
• First Street Corridor Area: The First Street Corridor area in the eastern part of the City, which is characterized by a large Housing Authority project northeast of First Street. In addition, there is a large complex of apartments on First Street southeast of San Lorenzo Creek, occupied primarily by farm laborers and their families. In 2013, the City adopted the First Street Corridor Study ("FSCS"), a planning study, which addressed the City's longrange vision for this area. First Street provides one of the major gateways to both East and West Pinnacles National Park. In 2015, zoning for the C-2 District was amended to include the uses allowed in the First Street Corridor ("FSC") district, accommodating mixed residential and tourist commercial uses.
• Arboleda and Mills Ranch Specific Plans Area: In 2004, the City approved the Arboleda Specific Plan, located off of San Antonio and Spreckles. The project allows 400-residential units on approximately 115-acres. There are a range of housing types, including townhomes, cottages, single-family homes, large lot single-family homes, courtyard apartments, carriage apartments and lane homes. The project also includes affordable housing units. There are 8.6-acres of parkland, including a soccer park, baseball park and buffer area. Chalone Peaks Middle School (22-acres) is located within the specific plan area.
• Mills Ranch Specific Plan Area: This specific plan was approved in 2005. It includes fourhundred (400) residential units and a small commercial area on approximately nine-two (92) acres. The project contains different housing types, including garden apartments, single-family homes, and cottage homes. The project also includes affordable housing units. There are 7.5-acres of parkland and 1.1-acres of open space. • Downtown Addition Specific Plan: The Downtown Addition Specific Plan project is a large-scale, long-term mixed-use development located east of and adjacent to the historic Land Use Element (2016)
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-23
downtown area. Development of the Project is critical to the City's efforts to reestablish train service to the City and Establishment of the multi-modal transit center. The Downtown Addition Specific Plan project was initially approved in 2011 and amended in 2014. It includes up to six hundred and fifty (650) dwelling units in various configurations of attached and detached forms, up to one hundred and ninety thousand and sixty (190,060) square feet of commercial space, approximately twenty-three (23) acres of open space and parks and associated public improvements, services and infrastructure.

The City's housing stock is discussed in more detail in the Housing Element. Within the Land Use Element, there are several policies designed to accommodate a diverse array of housing types consistent with the community's goals and policies for urban growth.

One other nearby residential neighborhood deserves note here: Pine Canyon. This enclave of five hundred and eighty-seven (587) single-family homes lies directly southwest of City of King, across the Salinas River. It is only accessible by the U.S. 101 bridge and this unincorporated community relies on its own fire protection, water, and wastewater systems. Residents of Pine Canyon have rejected several previous attempts to be annexed into the City of King, although this community continues to be a part of the city's Sphere of Influence ("SOI") according to the County Local Agency Formation Commission .

2.5 TRANSPORTATION (INCLUDING MULTIMODAL TRANSIT CENTER) The economic base of City of King lies in its strategic position to serve as a transportation hub for both rail and trucking of the agricultural products of the southern Salinas Valley, The City has grown generally along the former route of Highway 101, Front Street and the main commercial street, Broadway Street.

With the existing alignment of the freeway, however; the transportation grid of the City of King has shifted toward the south. Most of City of King's vacant industrial lands are located in the northern reaches of the City particularly in the East Ranch Business Park area close to the Airport along Metz Road arid Bitterwater Road. Linking this industrial land with Highway 101 is a major challenge for the City, since it is anticipated that most agricultural and industrial products will continue to be shipped by truck rather than by rail or air. Improvements to the accessibility of the City's industrial area are a key part of this general plan. The City has been planning for a First Street Bypass to accommodate the traffic from the industrial park area. The First Street Bypass would link to Highway 101 near Lonoak Road.

Additional discussion of the City of King street and transportation system is provided in the Circulation Element, also a part of this General Plan.

To summarize the existing land use pattern of the City of King, it may be characterized as a relatively compact and concentric in form. There are a few areas of vacant, developable acreage property, primarily in the perimeter of the city, in various land use categories.

Land Use Element (2016)
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-24
Multi-modal Transit Center
The City of King, California is developing a multimodal transportation center ("MMTC") to address the need to optimize transit connections for the transit dependent population, particularly for the low- income population in the King City area. Passenger and freight rail service was provided at the City of King railroad station for almost one hundred years. The MMTC concept includes reestablishing the historic 1886 passenger rail station “King’s Station” as part of the new Coast Daylight and Coast Starlight train service to the City of King, with connections to the local transit service provided by Monterey-Salinas Transit. The MMTC will reestablish the City's historical regional rail and bus connection with communities located north and south of the City, improving air quality, reducing energy use and provide an affordable transportation network serving the community and region.

The local military base, US Army’s Fort Hunter-Liggett, has also identified the Federal Necessity to be able to move a significant number of troops and their gear equipment from a re-established train station to their facility southwest of the City of King. As part of the US Army’s Energy and Environmental Sustainability efforts, there is a Federal Interest in replacing the numerous shuttle buses between the Fort and the San Jose airport with Amtrak train service between San Jose and King City, thus providing a significant passenger draw for a King City station, beyond just the two Monterey-Salinas Transit ("MST") routes that would serve the MMTC. The Circulation Element discusses the MMTC in more detail.

The Multimodal Transportation Center Development Strategy Report dated January 2013 prepared by Hatch Mott MacDonald, discusses:
• FHL utilizing the underutilized spur tracks near the City of King that could be used by the military to load and unload military equipment from flatbed railcars at a lower cost than using the spurs at Camp Roberts.
• Department of Defense funding as a potential source of funds. The Railroads and Highways for National Defense Act is addressed as a possible source of funds. • The proposed MMTC consists of the following components: A passenger platform, a passenger drop-off and loading zone, a small station building with restrooms and storage rooms, and four passenger shelter canopies.
• A parking lot for station patrons.
• A staging area for Fort Hunter Liggett. A bus stop accommodating Amtrak Thruway, Greyhound, and Monterey-Salinas Transit ("MST") bus service, Pinnacles National Park shuttle service, taxi service, and bicycle facilities. • Improvements to First Street between Division Street and Broadway Street, including the introduction of street trees, center medians, bike lanes, parallel parking, as well as curb extensions, crosswalks and traffic signals at the intersections with Broadway Land Use Element (2016)
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-25
Street, Bassett Street, and Pearl Street.
• The De Anza Trail extension south of Division Street to San Lorenzo Creek.

In February 2013, City Council approved the First Street Corridor Master Plan, which was funded through a Caltrans Environmental Justice Grant. The MMTC is part of this plan, as is a design concept plan called “City of King Station Design Concept”. The concept plan identifies a drop-off area for military shuttles to pick up troops arriving by rail.

The Railroad Corridor Safety Improvement Study prepared by RailPros for the City of King recommended a new station west of the tracks between the proposed relocated grade crossing at Broadway Street and San Lorenzo Creek. The proposed platform is projected to be a single platform which pursuant to Amtrak standards must be no less than one-thousand and twohundred (1,200’) foot platform in length to accommodate the existing Coast Starlight service in the corridor. The City contracted with RailPros to finalize the King Station site design and nearby circulation system.

Additional discussion of the City of King street and transportation system is provided in the Circulation Element.

To summarize the existing land use pattern of City of King, it may be characterized as relatively compact and concentric in form. There are few areas of vacant, developable areas remaining within the City's boundary.

Table 8 [on the following page provides a breakdown of the acreage in each of the various categories of the existing land uses within the community.

The next section will present various environmental factors important to the land use element and the general plan.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-24
TABLE 8

EXISTING LAND USE ACREAGE, CITY OF KING
·
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-24
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The natural resources and character of City of King's physical setting are the primary reason that the community has been growing more rapidly than other cities within Monterey County.

This section of the Land Use Element will discuss some of these resources, including agriculture, historic and cultural sites, areas of potentially hazardous conditions, and bio- logical sources within and near the community.

3.1 AGRICULTURE
City of King is situated in the upper half of one of the nation's richest agricultural areas, the Salinas Valley. Here, the soil, climate, and abundant groundwater supplies are ideal for row crop production as well as wine grapes. The City of King is the northern part of the Central Coast celebrated wine country.

Farmers in the valley and ranchers in the surrounding foothills ate very experienced and skilled in the production of a wide variety of crops and livestock products. These include lettuce, broccoli, grapes, cattle, tomatoes, onions, garlic, barley, beans, alfalfa hay, sugar beets, spinach, parsley, carrots, chili peppers, asparagus, and kohlrabi.

These agricultural pursuits are essential to the area's economic wellbeing; providing jobs and income to a large percentage of the city's labor force.

Protection of prime farmland in the Salinas Valley is a critical issue to be resolved within this general plan. The Land Use Element provides a framework for several policies that will address farmlands. Additional policies and programs may be found in the Conservation, Open Space, and Safety Elements, which are also a part of this general plan,

3.2 HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL SITES
As with its economy, the history of the City of King is largely bound to its role as an agricultural center for the southern Salinas Valley. Today, this heritage is best represented in the Monterey County Agricultural and Rural Life Museum in San Lorenzo Regional Park.

Here, the city's agricultural roots are revealed in a working blacksmith shop, the restored Speckles farm house (1897), and the one room La Gloria schoolhouse (1887). The 1886 Southern Pacific City of King Train Depot was also relocated to this park. The Depot Baggage Room is used now as a conference and meeting room.

Within the developed area of the city, there are a few outstanding examples of early 20th Century commercial architecture along Broadway Street. City Hall itself is a contribution of Depression era masonry and was financed (along with many public buildings in the area) by the Federal Works Progress Administration ("WPA"). Its pleasant, one-story aspect is situated within a wide expanse of lawn area that features several statues and memorials. Within a few blocks of Downtown is one of the west's finest examples of Art Moderne architectural style is the King City High School Auditorium, also known as the Robert Stanton Theater. The theater was built in 1939 with financial assistance from Works Progress Administration funding. The building was designed KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-25
by architect Robert Stanton of Carmel, California, in partnership with noted artist Joseph Jacinto Mora, who designed and executed the building's extensive sculptural elements. The theater was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on July 23, 1991.

3.3 HAZARDS AND DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS
Some of the issues that must be considered in siting new development are: Floodplains; noise exposure from such facilities as airports or railroads; areas of high fire hazards; seismic hazards; or areas subject to soil or geologic failure.

Compared to most other communities, City of King is situated in a relatively safe area with few hazards or constraints to urban development.

In City of King, the floodplain of San Lorenzo Creek and the Salinas River are the areas subject to the most significant hazard. The City and the County have regulated development within these floodplain areas for many years so as to prevent unsafe occupancy of the floodplain by residents or businesses. Accordingly, there. are very few buildings or homes within the floodplain today that would be endangered by a one-hundred (100) year flood. Policies are provided in this Land Use Element that would continue these regulations in the future. In addition, the issue of flood hazard is addressed in more detail in the Safety Element.

Noise exposure is another critical consideration in land use planning. The primary noise sources within City of King are U.S. 101 and the railroad. Light airport traffic at the City of King Airport also occasionally creates noise for surrounding uses. Industrial uses near the railroad and along First Street also create seasonal noise patterns that could be a disturbance to a few surrounding residences during the peak of the harvest.

City of King has a noise ordinance and has regulated land uses in relation to known noise exposure for many years. For the most part, there have been very few complaints except for outdoor amplified sound events at the Salinas Valley Fairgrounds. This land use element calls for continuation of noise regulations and policies so as to avoid future noise problems from incompatible land uses. Noise issues will be discussed in more detail in the Noise Element.

Wildland fire hazard is of very limited concern for City of King, given its location well removed from dense forests or chaparral vegetation. Industrial and commercial areas--particularly areas where new growth is likely to occur-- are well removed from residential areas. This separation of land uses is desirable with respect to control of urban fires. The issue of fire hazard, prevention, and mitigation is addressed in more detail in the Safety Element.

There are no areas known to be subject to seismic hazard or to soils or geologic failure within City of King. Liquefaction is a condition that may occur when areas of saturated soils are subject to seismic events, and can result in major damages to structural foundations. None of the soil types within City of King are known to be subject to liquefaction, with the exception of riverine soils along the Salinas River or in the primary floodplain of San Lorenzo Creek. These issues will also be addressed in the Safety Element.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-26

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Prior to its development as an urban area, the natural habitat of the City of King area was predominately grassland and oak savannah. Most of this original habitat has been replaced by urban or agricultural uses.

The City of King planning area is bisected by San Lorenzo Creek, and bordered on the south and west by the Salinas River. Together, these two areas harbor a natural riparian ecosystem with seasonal and year- round wetlands. The City's Municipal golf course along San Lorenzo Creek manages most of the vegetation within the playing area, and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency maintains the floodway of the creek -- still in a relatively natural condition. At the confluence of San Lorenzo Creek and the Salinas River, native willows and other riparian vegetation are generally undisturbed by the nearby urban development, recreational uses, and cropland practices.

The Salinas River provides an historical migration corridor for steelhead from the upper watershed tributaries. The River also provides habitat for other rare and endangered species and is one of the most critical natural habitats in the region. In the past, during normal rainfall years, the river system naturally cleared the central portion of the channel during winter high flows, although this natural function has been affected by large dams on the Salinas, Nacimiento and San Antonio Rivers, necessitating occasional mechanical river vegetation management under programs administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service ("NRCS") and Resource Conservation District ("RCD") of Monterey County, in cooperation with State Fish and Wildlife Department, Federal Fish and Wildlife Service, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, US Army Corps of Engineers and other agencies.

Along San Lorenzo Regional Park, the floodplain of the Salinas River is well preserved. The park receives high visitor use, particularly in the spring and fall, but few of these visitors venture onto the nearby levee to view the river; access is limited to streamside nature trails.

City of King also serves as the gateway to the Los Padres National Forest in the Santa Lucia Range to the west, and to the beautiful and popular Pinnacles National Park in the Gabilan Range to the east. These two areas provide substantial areas of mountain habitat and are quite popular for outdoor recreation such as camping, hunting, fishing, hiking and bird watching. Pinnacles National Park attracts many hundreds of thousands of visitors each year. The City is the primary gateway to both the West and East entrances to Pinnacles for visitors traveling from the south.

A public-private collaboration has begun to work towards improving the appearance and land uses along the primary gateway corridors, including First Street, Broadway, Bitterwater and Metz Road.

Bikeways and walkways, including trails and sidewalks, need to be developed around the City.

The First Street Master Plan, Historic Corridor Revitalization Plan, Downtown Addition Specific Plan, West Broadway Master Plan, Arboleda Specific Plan, East Ranch Business Park Specific Plan, Mills Ranch Plan and other plans for the City recommend pedestrian and bike lane improvements along major streets and as part of trail systems that skirt the edges of the City (such as in the Arboleda, and within the Downtown Addition planning areas). These bike and pedestrian facilities will connect the future Multi-Modal Transit Center proposed near First Street, providing KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-27
regional connections to areas north and south of the City.

This Land Use Element contains policies designed to protect and preserve the natural biological resources in and near the City of King. Additional detail is provided about these resources in the Conservation and Open Space Elements within this general plan.

The next section presents the conditions and status of the community's public services and infrastructure.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-28
CHAPTER 4: PUBLIC SERVICES
One of the most important factors to consider in land use planning is the community's "infrastructure" --the services of local government now available and those that are planned for the future, City of King has a sound municipal government that has maintained a positive cash flow and stable fiscal structure even over the lean years of the early 1990's. This section describes the services provided by the City and other units of government.

4.1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
City of King was incorporated in 1911 as a general law city, with a council/manager form of government. The city's administrative staff consists of the city manager, building official, recreation coordinator, police chief, volunteer fire chief, and related clerical and accounting personnel. The city contracts for the city engineer, community development director, finance director and city attorney.

Most of the City's functions are situated in the City Hall building on South Vanderhurst Avenue.

The Police Department and Fire Station are located nearby on Bassett Street between Russ and Vanderhurst Avenues. The City's corporation yard is located on Industrial Way.

City Hall has adequate space for both the existing and future staff levels, particularly after the City's library is relocated to its new building on Broadway Street, acquired by the former Community Development Agency in 1995.

4.2 POLICE PROTECTION
The City's Police Department provides primary public safety services within the city limits, and backup to the County Sheriff in nearby unincorporated areas. The City's police are headquartered in a 10,200 square foot facility that has capacity both for new and projected growth.

The Police Department is authorized for seventeen (17) sworn officers, and three (3) non-sworn personnel. The current authorized staffing includes the Chief of Police, Police Acting Commander (1), Police Sergeants (3), Part-time Investigator (1), Acting Captain (1) and Police Officers (10).

Additionally, the department is in the process of hiring a Community Services Officer.

The department services include various police patrol services, vehicle abatement program, live scan fingerprinting, School Resource services, and crime prevention through environmental design.

The County Sheriff serves the unincorporated area around the City of King from a headquarters facility located within the general County offices on Franciscan Way. The California Highway Patrol provides additional service, with headquarters on Broadway Circle. The CHP provides law enforcement on all unincorporated roadways and State highways.

The City's original impact mitigation ordinance (No. 490) has been amended and replaced by KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-29
Ordinances 622 and 632. (Reference KCMC Chapter 16.18 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MITIGATION FEES) Part of this funding is available for purchase of capital facilities required by the police department in order to accommodate future population.

4.3 FIRE PROTECTION
The City of King Fire Department is also situated in a relatively new building, centrally located to serve the entire community.

The City of King Fire Department has continued serving the community for thirty (30) years. The department is made up of approximately thirty (30) volunteer firefighters who train several times a month to learn skills pertinent to make sure they know their jobs to provide a professional service and return home safely to their family and loved ones. The Fire Department provides a wide array of services including, but not limited to: emergency medical services, fire protection and public services. King City Fire Department members take great pride in serving the community.

King City’s volunteer fire department is equipped with three type-1 engines and a type-1 reserve engine. United Underwriters has designated King City with an insurance classification number of four. The Fire Department meets the first three Tuesdays of the month. First meeting is for department business; the next two are for training. Outside of the city limits, fire protection is provided by CSA No. 61, which contracts with the California Department of Forestry ("CDF").

Their station is located on Canal Street.

4.4 EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES
King City Union School District has separate Elementary and High School Districts serve the City of King. The elementary schools serve both City of King and outlying unincorporated areas including Pine Canyon;
King City Union School District is a K-8 public school district with an enrollment of approximately 2600 students. Currently we have three K-5 elementary schools: Del Rey, Santa Lucia and King City Arts Magnet. Chalone Peaks is the middle school with grades 6-8th and the Phoenix Academy for grades 4th - 8th is our community day school.

Two (2) elementary schools are located on the north side of the community: Del Rey serves 860 K-6 grade students with a year-round curriculum. Santa Lucia School serves 540 K-5 students with a nine (9) month calendar. Chalone Peaks Middle School on Meyer Street serves over ninehundred (900) students in grades 6-8.

King City High School ("KCHS"), which opened in 1911, is one of two comprehensive high schools in the King City Joint Union High School District. KCHS serves the city of King and the surrounding rural areas of southern Monterey County-an attendance area of approximately 1875 square miles. The district also operates two continuation high schools, one adjacent to each of the KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-30
comprehensive campus. The second high school opened in 1999 in a community about ten (10) miles north of the City of King and halved the student population of KCHS which now educated approximately nine-hundred and fifty (950) students on a campus in the center of King City. The bond election, which raised the funds for the construction of the second high school, also included resources to refurbish the KCHS facility. The school had qualified for facilities modernization funds and is in considerable student accessible technology. Students of Latino heritage comprise seventy one (71%) percent of the population, twenty-six (26%) percent are identified as white with the remaining three (3%) percent divided among various other ethnicities. Limited English Proficient students comprise seven (7%) percent of the student population and about twenty-five (25%) percent students qualify for migrant education funding.

The King City community, business, and civic organization have consistently supported their school, its students, and programs.

4.5 WATER SERVICE
The City of King water supply system is owned and operated by California Water Services Company, a public utility regulated by the State Public Utilities Commission. This system relies upon six (6) wells that draw from the groundwater basin, which recharged by the Salinas River.

The Cal Water system has a maximum production capacity of three million (3,000,000) gallons per day; current daily usage is about 1.4 million gallons. A two-hundred and fifty (250,000) gallon storage tank with a two-thousand (2,000) gallon/minute pump provides ample water pressure throughout the city.

The City owns a well that irrigates the Municipal Golf Course and not connected to the Cal Water system.

The water system appears to be generally adequate for existing development. No significant deficiencies are known to exist with respect to water pressure, volume or quality. Cal Water will make improvements to the system on an incremental basis as needed.

4.6 SEWER SERVICE
City of King is served by a system of sewer lines throughout the community that provides collection, treatment and disposal of both domestic and industrial wastes. Separate systems are provided for domestic and most industrial uses. The City of King Wastewater Treatment Facility is situated northwest of the city, downstream along the Salinas River.

The domestic wastewater treatment and disposal facility has a capacity of approximately one million-two hundred thousand (1.2) million gallons/day (mgd) domestic flow. The current flow capacity is about 2.4 mgd during peak session (May 1 - November 30) ; 1.1 mgd during off session (December 1 - April 30).

4.7 STORM DRAINAGE
Storm drainage facilities have been developed within the City in order to minimize flooding. The KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-31
City's Master Drainage Plan provides a framework for both existing development and future growth areas.

Flooding problems that previously existed in the northeast, along Metz Road and First Street have been alleviated in recent years, with development of street and drainage improvements.

During the floods of early 1995, severe flood damage was inflicted upon the City's Municipal Golf Course by stormwaters that exceeded the San Lorenzo Creek floodway. Flooding in the area of San Lorenzo Regional Park near the newly developed Royal Coach Park community, was held in check by emergency crews. For the most part, structural flood damages from this severe onehundred (100) year storm were minimal.

The City's impact mitigation ordinance No. 490 collects funding from all development for purposes of infrastructure improvements. The issue of storm drainage impacts and mitigation is addressed in more detail in the Environmental Impact Report for this general plan.

4.8 PUBLIC LIBRARY
The City of King public library is part of the Monterey County Free Library system. The Library is located on the corner of Broadway and Vandenhurst Streets. Additional or enhanced services are provided through funding from the Foundation for the Monterey County Free Libraries. These enhanced services include adult literacy tutoring, after school homework assistance, enhanced library book and material purchasing, technology services for public use and public access to the internet, and youth services program support for library staff training and for direct public service.

Monterey County Free Libraries operates seventeen branch libraries, two (2) bookmobiles, a library by mail program, deposit collections in local schools, and a number of special programs, including a literacy program which operates a literacy outreach vehicle focused on family literacy and kindergarten readiness. Free library services are provided to all residents of Monterey County.

4.9 PARKS AND RECREATION
The City has parkland distributed throughout the community. The existing parks and facilities include:

City Park, Division Street and South Vanderhurst
• Little League Field
• Softball Field
• Two (2) Tot Lot Playgrounds with swings, slide and play apparatus • Covered Barbecue area with Pit
• Two (2) Horseshoe Pits
• Restrooms
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-32
Forden Park, Rio Vista Drive and Forden Drive
▪ Three acres
▪ Open Grass Area
San Antonio Park, corner of San Antonio Drive and Bedford Drive • Tot Lot Playground with swings, slide and play apparatus • Basketball Court
• Barbecue area
• Sand Volleyball Court
• Soccer Fields
• Softball/Baseball Field
• Restrooms
• Covered picnic shelter with electrical
• Skateboard Park
Creekbridge Baseball/Softball Park, corner of San Antonio Drive and Mildred Street • Four acres
• Baseball/Softball Park
• Restrooms
Creekbridge Soccer Park, Meyer Street and San Antonio Drive • Three (3) acres
• Restrooms
King Street Pocket Park, Corner of King and Beech Streets • Sport Court
• Playground
The City's nine (9) hole municipal golf course is popular and heavily used.

The community and region also benefit from the County's Salinas Valley Fairgrounds on Division Street near the Golf Course.

In addition, the County's San Lorenzo Regional Park, lies just southwest of the City limits, with two-hundred (200) acres. That park accommodates the Agricultural and Rural Life Museum, with a working blacksmith shop, 19th Century schoolhouse and a historic farmhouse. The park also includes a gazebo, volleyball courts, soccer fields, softball areas, picnic and play areas, camping sites, and group facilities. Trails from the park venture into the beautiful and biologically diverse Salinas River corridor.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-33
The City's recreation programs and facilities are open to non-residents for a fee. Currently, the facilities available to city appear to be adequate for the existing population. As additional growth occurs, new facilities will be needed in order to sustain current programs. Many of the existing facilities will also require renovation or modernization.

The City also has recreational opportunities at the nearby Pinnacles National Park as well as popular historical resources at San Antonio Mission, one of the most unique missions in California due to its location in an undeveloped area within Fort Hunter-Liggett. These sites as well as a burgeoning provide tourists and residents of the City with varied recreational opportunities helping to make the City a future heart for tourism on the Central Coast.

4.10 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICES
King City encourages our residents to get involved in recycling. Recycling programs for King City residents are provided by the City’s exclusive service provider for curbside services, King City Disposal and Salinas Valley Recycles.

Solid waste is hauled to the Jolon Road Sanitary Landfill site about five (5) miles to the south of the City of King. This four hundred and fifty (450) acre site is considered adequate for anticipated volumes of solid waste from City of King and· the surrounding area for many years into the future.

It is operated in full compliance with applicable State and Federal requirements, and appears to have sufficient site area for capacity expansion where necessary.

4.11 HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES
City of King is the home of George Mee Memorial Hospital which includes both outpatient and acute care facilities, emergency room, and ambulance services. The hospital provides full service primary care, a skilled nursing facility, as well as several in-house and visiting specialists. Clinica de Salud del Valle de Salinas, also located in City of King, provides family health care, dentistry, and other services with bilingual personnel.

These medical facilities, together with several private physicians and health professionals throughout the community, appear to provide adequate health and medical services to the community. The hospital will require, however, that the development of neighboring land uses be carefully managed to assure compatibility with the hospital. The next section of the Land Use Element will set forth proposed goals, objectives, policies, and programs for the plan.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-34
CHAPTER 5: LAND USE PLAN
This chapter of the Land Use Element, together with the proposed Land Use Element Map in Figure LU 3 in Section One, establishes the "vision" for the future of City of King. This section will set forth the goals, objectives, policies and programs to achieve that vision. 1 OVERALL GOALS AND POLICIES
OVERALL GOAL: TO PROVIDE FOR THE ORDERLY GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT; TO MAINTAIN A BALANCED COMMUNITY; TO ASSURE AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF SUITABLE LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND OTHER USES IN ORDER TO MEET PROJECTED DEMAND; TO MINIMIZE LAND CONFLICTS; LINK TO CHANNEL NEW DEVELOPMENT INTO THOSE AREAS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH CITY'S RESOURCE MANAGEMENT GOALS.

1.1 OBJECTIVE/BENEFICIAL LAND USES: PROMOTE BENEFICIAL LAND USES THROUGH EFFECTIVE PLANNING AND ZONING PRACTICES.

POLICIES:

1.1.1 The City shall maintain a land use map - Figures LUE 5 that distinguishes residential, commercial, industrial, and other land uses in order to minimize land use conflicts, provide sufficient land area to meet the demand for urban land, and discourage premature and scattered development.

1.1.2 The City shall use reasonable planning and zoning powers to manage the phasing, scale, siting, density, design, and construction of new development.

PROGRAMS:

1.1.2.1 The City shall continue its arrangement where Monterey County refers all applications for discretionary development within the Planning Area to the City for timely review and comment.

1.1.2.2 The City shall carefully review all annexation proposals to assure that future development will have no significant adverse fiscal impact on the community.

1.1.2.3 The City shall establish minimum property development standards in Industrial areas.

1.1.2.4 With respect to future residential neighborhoods, wherever possible, low-density residential districts shall be buffered from medium or high-density districts by public streets or other compatible land uses, such as schools, parks, or public facilities.

POLICIES:

1.1.3 The City shall act to reduce existing blight and incompatible land uses, and shall encourage public and private development to improve existing neighborhoods.

PROGRAMS:

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-35

1.1.3.1 The City shall continue to implement appropriate zoning mechanisms, including nonconforming use regulations to phase out incompatible land uses and signs.

1.1.3.2 The City shall review the enforcement procedures within its zoning ordinance to assure that reasonable means are available to abate nuisances, revoke permits, and take other actions as may be necessary and appropriate to assure that land uses are not established or continued contrary to the provisions of the City's general plan or zoning ordinance.

1.2 OBJECTIVE/ADEQUATE SERVICES: THE CITY SHALL ENCOURAGE ADEQUATE PUBLIC

SERVICES AND FACILITIES ARE AVAILABLE BOTH TO EXISTING AND NEW DEVELOPMENT AS THE COMMUNITY GROWS.

POLICIES:

1.2.2 New development shall assure that adequate services and facilities are or will be available for their projects.

PROGRAMS:

1.2.2.1 The City shall make findings in approving any discretionary project (e.g., annexation, general plan amendment, zoning, subdivision, or use permit approval) that adequate services exist or definitely will exist within a reasonable time to meet the projected demand from the new development.

1.2.2.2 The City will consider projected cumulative demand for public services in making such findings, and in programming and budgeting future expansion of municipal services.

1.2.2.3 As part of its annual budget process, City staff shall report on the existing capacity of its service systems, and identify any limitations and anticipated needs to accommodate new growth.

1.2.2.4 In order to promote orderly growth, the City shall evaluate proposed developments to determine if there are provisions for an adequate level of services and facilities, such as water, sewer, fire and police protection, transportation and schools. The City shall require mitigation to the extent prescribed by law.

1.2.2.5 The City shall consider such issues as noise, air quality, traffic, land use conflicts, agricultural lands, natural hazards, and biological resources in reviewing proposed developments.

1.2.2.6 Where a new discretionary development could create potentially significant environmental impacts on agricultural lands, riparian corridors, wetlands, or hazardous areas, the City shall solicit review and comment from appropriate state and federal natural resource agencies, in order to provide recommendations for effective means to mitigate such impacts.

1.3 OBJECTIVE/BALANCED LAND USES: TO DEVELOP A BALANCED RANGE OF LAND USES

WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S DESIRED CHARACTER AND ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND ECONOMIC GOALS.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-36
POLICIES:

1.3.1 The City shall assure that adequate sites are available for development of both marketrate housing and housing affordable to low-and moderate-income households, for the existing and projected population. Where appropriate, mixed-use developments may be considered in order to foster economic growth and tourism while providing affordable housing opportunities.

1.3.2 The City shall assure that adequate sites are available for both new and existing commercial land uses to provide space for retail uses, business services, offices, and visitor-serving uses.

1.3.3 The City shall promote industrial land uses, particularly within the East Ranch Industrial Park, to take advantage of both existing and potentially new economic trends of the Planning Area, in order to expand the city's economic base and provide jobs to its residents.
2 RESIDENTIAL LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE GOAL: TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE AREAS OF ALL NECESSARY TYPES OF

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING USES OF THE LAND, AND AT LOCATIONS AND DENSITIES APPROPRIATE TO THE CITY'S IDENTIFIED HOUSING NEEDS.

2.1 OBJECTIVE/ADEQUATE RESIDENTIAL LANDS: DESIGNATE ADEQUATE SITES FOR A VARIETY OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES AND UNIT TYPES.

POLICIES:

2.1.1 The city shall designate seven (7) land use categories for residential uses: Low-Density Residential; Medium Density Residential; Planned Development/Mobilehome Park; Medium High Residential; Medium High Residential/Mobilehome Park; High Density Residential; and P-D Planned Development. Within these categories, the City shall promote the availability of adequate sites for a variety of housing types and densities, consistent with Housing Element goals and environmental limitations. In addition, an overlay "MH" Mobilehome Park shall be considered in order to regulate uses within mobilehome parks.

2.1.2 The city shall preserve its stock of mobilehome and manufactured housing, upgrade the condition of those parks where blighted conditions occur, and encourage development of new mobilehome parks, particularly those suitable for seniors, and which meet the City's quality standards.

2.1.3 The City shall carefully manage the transition of developed residential neighborhoods to appropriate densities.

2.1.4 The City shall encourage active neighborhood centers where people can easily walk or bike from home to commercial centers, work, school, and parks.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-37

2.1.5 Neighborhood design should focus on walkable, bikeable streets and commercial and housing densities that support high quality transit services.

2.1.6 The City shall encourage mixed-use development and the inclusion of residential units in appropriate commercial zoning districts.

PROGRAMS:

2.1.1.1 City staff shall maintain an inventory of residential land available for development, and shall provide periodic reports to the Planning Commission and City Council on the availability of such housing sites to meet current demand.

2.1.1.2 The City shall utilize a mix of densities in zoning newly annexed property to allow a variety of housing types. When requested, density bonuses could be considered for developments that assist in meeting the city's housing goals.

2.1.1.3 Where possible and appropriate, the City shall integrate commercial uses in order to provide neighborhood services.

2.1.1.4 The City shall encourage the development of a "MH" Mobilehome and Manufactured Housing overlay zoning district specifically regulating mobile home parks as permitted uses. This zoning district shall, where appropriate, provide standards that will assure that new mobile- home parks adhere to high standards of quality and maintenance.

Such standards shall require sufficient resident and guest parking; establish maximum densities consistent with this general plan; require adequate landscaping, open space, and recreational amenities; and assure consistent property management.

2.1.1.5 In order to encourage lot consolidation and promote planned development, the City shall consider an amendment to its Zoning Ordinance to establish a minimum lot size of fifteen thousand (15,000') square feet for new developments of multi-family housing within the Historic downtown area.

2.2 OBJECTIVE/RESIDENTIAL COMPATIBILITY: ENSURE COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND SURROUNDING LAND USES.

POLICIES:

2.2.1 The City shall discourage new land use activities within and in close proximity to residential areas that generate undesirable impacts that cannot be mitigated.

2.2.2 The City shall encourage development that provides adequate yards and open space areas within and along the perimeter of residential areas in order to buffer them from busy streets and/or from adjacent non-residential land uses.

2.2.3 The City will work with residential and non-residential developers to encourage site planning and design that provides adequate open-space buffers between residential land uses and other uses.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-38
PROGRAM:

2.2.1.1 The City shall encourage development to take full advantage of flexible design standards within the zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance (e.g., specific plans) to create appropriate density transitions between zoning districts of varying densities. 3 COMMERCIAL LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES
COMMERCIAL LAND USE GOAL: To provide adequate area for commercial land uses to meet the service needs of residents, businesses and visitors and to encourage development of retail commercial, service commercial, and highway-related uses that are compatible with surrounding land uses.

3.1 OBJECTIVE/ADEQUATE COMMERCIAL SITES: PROVIDE FOR SUFFICIENT ACREAGE TO

PROMOTE A VARIETY OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES CONSISTENT WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL DEMAND.

POLICY:

3.1.1 The City shall designate four (4) types of commercial land use categories:

Neighborhood Commercial; General Commercial; Retail Commercial; and Highway Service Commercial. Within these land use categories, the City shall promote the availability of commercial sites to accommodate a mix of retailing, tourist related commercial and service uses, wholesaling, dining and entertainment, professional and business services, shopping center developments, and mixed uses (commercial and residential) consistent with the environmental, social, and economic goals of the City.

PROGRAMS:

3.1.1.1 The City shall encourage the local Chamber of Commerce and leaders in agriculture to distribute information promoting available commercial properties in the City of King..

3.1.1.2 The City shall work with the City of King Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture in distributing information to hotels and motels and to nearby county and regional park facilities regarding the City of King's commercial accommodations.

3.2 OBJECTIVE/COMPATIBLE COMMERCIAL USES: ENSURE COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND SURROUNDING LAND USES.

POLICIES:

3.2.1 Providing for the maximum flexibility in interpreting allowable uses under the zoning ordinance in order to encourage good retailing design and effective utilization of commercial property, and shall encourage a mix of residential and commercial uses where appropriate.

3.2.2 Existing residential land uses located adjacent to commercial property shall be KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-39
protected from noise, unsightliness, offending odors, and other nuisances.

3.2.3 Allowing a mix of residential and commercial development with the First Street Corridor and Historic downtown. Development Residential development shall not exceed twenty-four (24) dwelling units per acre.

3.2.4 To further the City’s prohousing approach, and addressing barriers to housing production, equitable zoning, sustainable land use, reduce development costs, and increase the availability of housing, residential development shall be permitted in certain commercial land use designations.

PROGRAMS:

3.2.2.I In reviewing proposed commercial development, identify potential impacts that commercial developments will have on any adjacent residential land uses. Require effective mitigation of such impacts prior to development approvals.

3.2.2.2 Energy conserving lighting of commercial areas shall be carefully planned and controlled to the extent necessary to provide security, safety, and identification without interfering with adjacent land uses. Lighting shall be directed away from adjacent residential land uses.

3.3 OBJECTIVE/COMMERCIAL CHARACTER: ENSURE THAT COMMERCIAL

DEVELOPMENTS MAINTAIN OR ENHANCE THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OF THE AREA, AND THE CITY'S EXISTING CHARACTER.

POLICIES:

3.3.1 Commercial developments shall be designed and screened in an attractive manner and thereafter maintained so as to visually integrate the entire development with the surrounding environment and land uses.

3.3.2 All signage shall be attractive and appropriately designed. In addition, attractive directional signs, wayfinding signs and informational kiosks should be provided in and around the City to provide visitors and residents with convenient methods to find businesses and important visitor destinations.

PROGRAMS:

3.3.I.I The City should consider preparing design standards for commercial development.

3.3.1.2 The City shall review all signs proposed for new developments to assure attractiveness and consistency with the architectural style of the building(s) and surrounding land uses.

3.3.1.3 The City's sign ordinance shall regulate sign placement, height, and area to be consistent with community design objectives. Sign regulations shall promote consistency in sign size and style for various commercial segments of the community.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-40

3.3.1.4 The City will work with local and regional organizations and agencies such as Pinnacles National Park to provide a comprehensive program of directional signage, informative maps, and information kiosks in and around the City. This program will include a combination of wayfinding signs, banners, kiosks and other well designed and attractive directional and informational programs to assist visitors and residents in locating and discovering the many natural, historical, social, cultural and pleasing treasures within and near the City.
4 INDUSTRIAL LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES
INDUSTRIAL LAND USE GOAL: TO PROVIDE AREAS FOR AND TO ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS ECONOMICALLY BENEFICIAL TO THE AREA AND COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES.

4.1 OBJECTIVE/ADEQUATE INDUSTRIAL SITES: PROVIDE ADEQUATE AND APPROPRIATE LAND

AREA, AS WELL AS IMPROVED, LEASABLE SPACE, WITHIN THE CITY FOR A SUITABLE MIX OF DESIRABLE INDUSTRIAL LAND USES.

POLICIES:

4.1.1 The City shall consider amending the East Ranch Business Park Specific Plan to include areas adjacent to the Mesa Del Rey Airport.

4.1.2 The City shall work with Monterey County to encourage the protection of prime agricultural land in order to assure the continued role of crop production and food packaging and processing in the City's economic base.

PROGRAMS:

4.1.1.1 The City shall encourage development of new businesses that will offer year-round employment, in order to reduce the seasonal unemployment that is characteristic of the current local economy.

4.1.1.2 The City shall encourage the Monterey County Economic Development Corporation, the local Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture, local Realtors and businesspersons, and State economic development agencies to distribute information regarding available industrial properties in the City of King Planning. The City shall also work with these entities to promote job development and local business expansion.

4.1.1.3 Businesses that support the local tourist industry, such as wine production facilities, will be encouraged.

4.1.1.4 The City shall actively promote both basic and visitor-oriented commercial and industrial development compatible with surrounding agricultural, uses and the skills of the resident labor pool.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-41

4.1.1.5 The City shall work with the Monterey County Water Resources Agency and local growers to assure the continued availability of an affordable water supply and good quality cropland, as well as other factors in agricultural production.

4.2 OBJECTIVE/INDUSTRIAL COMPATIBILITY: ENSURE THAT INDUSTRIAL areas are compatible with and do not adversely affect surrounding land uses.

POLICIES:

4.2.1 The City shall require buffers and landscaping in industrial developments to ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses.

4.2.2 Industrial uses shall not be located or established so as to increase traffic in surrounding residential areas.

4.2.3 The City shall encourage the development of industries that reclaim wastewater for reuse.

4.2.4 Industrial structures and all other site improvements shall be designed to blend with the physical surroundings.

PROGRAMS:

4.2.1.1 During the environmental and development review process, potential environmental impacts that industrial developments will have on other community land uses shall be considered. Mitigation measures to reduce impacts shall be included as part of project development approval.

4.2.1.2 Lighting of industrial areas shall be limited to that necessary to provide security, safety, and identification without interfering with adjacent land uses. Lighting shall be directed away from public rights-of-way and adjacent residential land uses.

4.2.1.3 Through the environmental review and project permit process, the City shall estimate the need for water and sewer services for proposed industrial developments.

4.2.1.4 Depending on the environmental analysis of each project and recommendation of the City Engineer, the City may require or encourage an alternative disposal method to direct discharge to the City's sewage treatment plant.

4.2.1.5 The City's "M-1" Light Industrial zoning district shall include regulations incorporating reasonable design standards to ensure attractive industrial development, similar to the City's East Ranch Industrial Park Specific Plan.
5 OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL: TO PROTECT AND PROVIDE OPEN SPACE LANDS TO SATISFY THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY; TO CONSERVE NATURAL RESOURCES FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS; AND TO PRESERVE VIABLE, PRIME KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-42

AGRICULTURAL LANDS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA WHICH ARE NOT DESIGNATED FOR FUTURE URBAN GROWTH.

5.1 OBJECTIVE/PROVIDE OPEN SPACE LANDS IN THE URBAN AREA: PROVIDE SUITABLE OPEN

SPACE AREAS AS A PART OF NEW RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS.

POLICIES:

3.2.1.2 The City shall designate viable agricultural and open space lands as either "O" Open Space or "A" Agricultural, as appropriate.

3.2.1.3 The City shall continue to require that new residential subdivisions dedicate parkland and/or park in-lieu fees that enable the purchase of park land, and/or to provide recreational facilities.

3.2.1.4 Where appropriate, the City shall encourage large new commercial and industrial developments to provide open space and recreational opportunities for their employees to minimize the demand for public open space and recreational facilities.

3.2.1.5 In reviewing proposed plans for new development proposed along major thoroughfares, particularly entrances to City of King, the City shall encourage appropriate site planning, design, building materials, landscaping, and signage to enhance the scenic quality of these thoroughfares.

PROGRAMS:

5.1.1.1 The Planning Commission shall evaluate site plans, elevations and landscaping plans of new development proposals visible from major thoroughfares, including Highway 101, Broadway Street, San Antonio Road, First Street, and Metz Road. This evaluation shall consider, but not be limited to, appropriate setbacks, open space buffers, landscaping, screening techniques, exterior colors and materials, street furniture, and other amenities. The City shall set an example of high-quality design and construction in its own public buildings and infrastructure, particularly in key entries to the City and in areas visible from Highway 101.

Development, when subject to the following plans, should be reviewed for consistency with local master planning documents such as the West Broadway Master Plan, Historical Corridor Revitalization Plan and the First Street Master Plan.

5.1.1.2 The City shall require design review by the City Planning Commission and/or an- other appointed body of the plans for any capital improvement project proposed by the City, including park facilities and signage. This review shall seek to protect scenic values and to project the City's rural character through consistently good municipal de- sign, and shall be exercised particularly for those new facilities that are visible from Highway 101, Broadway Street, Canal Street, River Road, San Antonio Road, or First Street. The City will initiate a Citywide wayfinding signage program incorporating directional signs, KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-43
banners, informational kiosks, maps and other measures to help residents and visitors discover the many local and regional resources.

5.1.1.3 The City shall seek to have input on the planning and design for State and County projects that are visible from Highway 101.

5.2 OBJECTIVE/PROTECT PRIME AGRICULTURAL LANDS: TO PROTECT PRIME

AGRICULTURAL LANDS, OUTSIDE OF THOSE AREAS DESIGNATED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT BY THE CITY, FROM CONVERSION AND ENCROACHMENT OF NONAGRICULTURAL USES.

POLICIES:

5.2.1 The City shall protect prime agricultural lands, outside of those areas designated for future development by the City, from premature conversion and encroachment on non-agricultural uses. The City shall designate such viable agricultural resource lands as "A" Agricultural, and shall regulate uses therein to assure that agriculture and agricultural related uses are permitted.

5.2.2 The City shall require that new, non-agricultural development proposals adjacent to agricultural operations incorporate buffer areas to minimize incompatibilities, and to mitigate against the effects of agricultural operations on adjacent land uses.

PROGRAMS:

5.2.1.1: Within its Industrial and Commercial districts, the City shall encourage agriculture as an industry by accommodating industries and service enterprises that help to package, process, transport, and market agricultural products.

5.2.1.2: To the extent authorized by law, as part of its review of zoning, subdivision, and use permit approvals, the City shall require that buffer areas be provided as part of any non-agricultural development located adjacent to agricultural land uses. These buffer areas shall be of sufficient size to protect the development from adverse effects of agricultural operations, including noise, dust and pesticide applications. The City shall consult with the Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner in the design and management of such buffer areas.

GOAL: TO PROVIDE AREAS WHERE URBAN GROWTH SHALL BE DIRECTED IN THE FUTURE,

CONSISTENT WITH OTHER GOALS AND POLICIES IN THIS GENERAL PLAN, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE HOUSING FOR THE GROWING POPULATION OF THE CITY OF KING.

5.3 OBJECTIVE/URBAN AGRICULTURE AREAS: PREVENT URBAN SPRAWL BY ASSURING

THAT AS NEW NEIGHBORHOODS DEVELOP ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF KING, THEY

ARE ANNEXED TO THE COMMUNITY AND DEVELOPED WITHIN AN ORDERLY

FRAMEWORK THAT REGULATES DENSITIES, PROPERLY INTEGRATES THEIR STREET

SYSTEMS AND UTILITIES, AND PROVIDES FOR ADEQUATE PROTECTION OF THE KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-44

ENVIRONMENT BOTH FOR EXISTING AS WELL AS FUTURE RESIDENTS AND FOR NEIGHBORING LAND USES.

POLICY:

5.3.1 The City shall review all pending developments proposed adjacent to the City and work with the County and LAFCO on potential annexation of property. 6 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT/SPECIFIC PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL: TO PROVIDE A SUITABLE DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTIES THAT REQUIRE CAREFUL

APPROACHES TO DENSITY AND MIX OF USES, RELATIONSHIP TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND

PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN AN APPROPRIATE BALANCE OF HOUSING TYPES, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND OPEN SPACE.

6.1 OBJECTIVE/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT/SPECIFIC PLAN: ASSURE THAT DEVELOPMENT

POLICIES AND REGULATIONS FOR LARGER PROPERTIES IN STRATEGIC LOCATIONS

WILL GENERATE LAND USES, SITE PLANS, AND BUILDING DESIGNS THAT REFLECT HIGH QUALITY AND STRONG URBAN DESIGN.

POLICY:

6.1.1 The City shall work with property owners and developers to submit specific plans on mixed-use development proposals and large lots.
7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL: TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE LAND AREAS FOR PUBLIC AND QUASI-PUBLIC LAND USES; TO PLAN

AND PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE AND EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT OFFICES AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE THE EXISTING AND FUTURE NEEDS OF THE CITY; TO PROVIDE POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES AT LEVELS ADEQUATE FOR THE PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PROPERTY; TO ENSURE AN EFFICIENT SYSTEM OF PUBLIC UTILITIES; TO IMPROVE THE AVAILABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY OF HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES TO ALL RESIDENTS OF THE PLANNING AREA; AND

TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES TO SERVE THE RECREATIONAL NEEDS OF THE CITY.

7.1 OBJECTIVE/GENERAL PUBLIC FACILITIES: PROVIDE COORDINATED, ONGOING PLANNING FOR PUBLIC AND QUASI-PUBLIC SERVICE FACILITIES.

POLICIES:

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-45

7.1.1 The City shall encourage the development of a "PQ" land use category for public facilities including public schools, city hall, library and other such facilities. This zone will designate areas for public and quasi-public facilities and accessory facilities commensurate with the requirements of public agencies and organizations. These facilities shall be conveniently located in or near the areas they are intended to serve.

7.1.2 All public facilities shall be designed so that their scale, character, and siting will be compatible with the surrounding land uses.

PROGRAMS:

7.1.1.1 The City shall develop an annual report on the status of public and quasi-public services and facilities within the City. The report shall identify the need for new City facilities based on existing and anticipated demand and set forth an acquisition and funding program. The City shall acquire private land as necessary to develop new facilities.

7.1.1.2 The City shall work with utility providers to identify future utility expansion needs, obtain easements from property owners to extend private utilities, and promote cooperation between utility providers and property owners for the purpose of acquiring easements or rights-of-way for utility expansions.

7.1.1.3 Through the design review process, condition new public and quasi-public service facilities to be visually compatible with the City's desired character and surrounding land uses:

7.2 OBJECTIVE/CITY HALL: ASSURE ADEQUATE FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY HALL.

POLICY:

7.2.1.1 Future expansion or remodeling of City Hall shall be designed so that the exterior of the building is generally consistent with the existing character and with its park like setting.

7.3 OBJECTIVE/POLICE PROTECTION SERVICES: SUPPORT MEASURES TO IMPROVE AND ENHANCE THE CAPABILITY OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

POLICIES:

7.3.1 The City shall maintain the police station and related facilities located adjacent to City Hall.

7.3.2 The City shall promote efforts to reduce crime through greater application of neighborhood, commercial, and industrial crime prevention techniques.

7.3.3 The City shall use the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design when reviewing development projects.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-46

7.3.4 The Community Development Department shall refer all new development proposals and/or changes in land use to the Police Department for law enforcement evaluation.

PROGRAMS:

7.3.1.1 The City should, through the Police Department, conduct residential, commercial, and industrial security surveys and public awareness programs.

7.3.1.2. As a part of standard permit processing, the Community Development Department shall refer discretionary projects to the Police Chief for review and comment prior to preparation of city staff planning reports.

7.4 OBJECTIVE/FIRE DEPARTMENT: SUPPORT MEASURES TO IMPROVE AND ENHANCE THE CAPABILITY OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

POLICIES:

7.4.1 The City shall encourage the funding of personnel, facilities, equipment, and training to the Fire Department at a level necessary to maintain its efficient functioning.

7.4.2 The City shall require that all new development proposals and/or changes in land use be referred to the Fire Department for safety evaluation.

PROGRAMS:

7.4.1.1 The City shall make it a top priority to utilize funds acquired through fire protection impact mitigation fees to purchase new engines and other needed fire suppression equipment.

7.4.1.2 As a part of standard permit processing, the Community Development Department shall refer discretionary projects to the Fire Department for review and comment prior to preparation of City staff planning reports.

7.5 OBJECTIVE/WATER SERVICE AND SUPPLY: WORK WITH CAL WATER AND WATER

PURVEYORS TO ENCOURAGE CONTINUED ADEQUATE WATER SERVICE FOR RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES IN THE CITY.

POLICY:

7.5.1 The City shall cooperate with the water purveyors that serve the Planning Area and with owners of private wells to assure continued efficient operation and management of the existing water supply system.

PROGRAMS:

7.5.1.1 The City shall incorporate long-range water conservation goals and methods developed by California Cities Water Company into the Conservation Element of the general plan.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-47

7.5.1.2 Water conservation should be an element of every new development, including the use of attractive native and/or drought tolerant planting, use of drip irrigation systems within landscape areas, and low water use fixtures within the building. Innovative measures to conserve water, such as use of cisterns for the collection of roof rainstorm runoff, bio-retention and detention basins to collect parking lot runoff and other similar measures, will be encouraged.

7.6 Objective/Wastewater Service: Provide for continued collection, treatment and disposal of wastewater in conformance with state and regional discharge standards.

POLICY:

7.6.1 The City shall expand its sewage treatment facilities and/or upgrade its infrastructure based on anticipated growth of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses within the city.

PROGRAMS:

7.6.1.1 City staff shall regularly report on the condition of the city's sewage treatment facilities, including remaining capacity at the treatment plant, condition of infrastructure, and needed improvements and recommended methods of implementation.

7.6.1.2 The City shall continue to require sewer system connection fees from new annexations, subdivisions, residential, commercial, and industrial development.

7.7 OBJECTIVE/DRAINAGE: PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE SURFACE DRAINAGE THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

POLICY:

7.7.1 Reduce the risks and damage associated with flooding within the City by developing and maintaining a comprehensive storm drainage system.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-48
PROGRAMS:

7.7.1.1 .Existing surface drainage problems shall be corrected as new development occurs, or as part of the city's capital improvement program.

7.7.1.2 Where legally appropriate, the City shall require partial storm drainage mitigation from new residential, commercial, and industrial development as a contribution toward resolving cumulative drainage problems.

7.7.1.3 Low-impact development ("LID") design elements and Best Management Practices ("BMPs") will be incorporated into project design to improve storm water percolation, reduce runoff and improve water quality.

7.8 OBJECTIVE/FLOODPLAIN REGULATION: REDUCE THE RISK FROM FLOODING TO AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL BY REGULATING DEVELOPMENT IN FLOOD-PRONE AREAS.

POLICY:

7.8.1 Proposed development in floodplain areas is discouraged and shall be approved only if adequate measures are provided to avoid or substantially reduce potential flood hazards.

PROGRAMS:

7.8.1.1 The City shall require conformance with the City's floodplain regulations as stated in the Zoning Ordinance for any project within the one-hundred (I00) year floodplain.

7.8.1.2 The City shall work with the County Water Resources Agency on management of new or existing flood control facilities to protect individual properties. Where the City is involved in development or expansion of any flood control facilities, such work shall not be permitted to increase significantly the flood or erosion hazards on other properties.

7.8.1.3 The City shall require a hydrological analysis to assess the potential impacts of new or improved flood control facilities on adjacent downstream properties and on the identified floodplain.

7.9 OBJECTIVE/SOLID WASTE: PROMOTE THE ORDERLY DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE IN

A MANNER THAT WILL PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT AND ENSURE THE CONTINUED HEALTH AND SAFETY OF RESIDENTS.

POLICIES:

7.9.1 The City shall work with the member agencies of the Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority to assure the continued availability of landfill disposal capacity.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-49

7.9.2 The City shall encourage public and private recycling programs to reduce the waste stream, and to lengthen the useful life of the sanitary landfill.

7.10 OBJECTIVE/PUBLIC UTILITIES: PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE AND SAFE PUBLIC UTILITIES.

POLICIES:

7.10.1 The City shall designate areas for utility sites and access corridors where compatible with surrounding land uses, and where visual impacts are minimized.

7.10.2 Promote aesthetically pleasing placement and design of communication towers and utility lines.

7.10.3 The City shall continue to require the extension of new power transmission lines, power distribution lines, and communication lines to be placed underground.

7.10.4 All utility installations shall be sited, designed, developed and landscaped so as to blend with the natural scenery of the area and conform to the goals, objectives and policies of the general plan.

PROGRAMS:

7.10.1.1 Where appropriate, the City shall designate properties owned by public utilities for public and quasi-public use.

7.10.1.2 Provide utility sites and access corridors, and to assure that disruptions due to construction or operation are minimized.

7.10.1.3 The City shall encourage the placement of existing power transmission lines, power distribution lines, and communication lines underground wherever feasible.

7.10.1.4 Where requested by residents or by the utility company, the City shall support the formation of utility assessment districts, or a municipal facilities district, to place existing overhead lines underground.

7.10.1.5 The City shall refer proposals for utility installations to an appropriate review committee, where necessary, for review and approval.

7.11 OBJECTIVE/EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES: ENCOURAGE COMMUNICATION AND

COOPERATION BETWEEN THE CITY AND APPROPRIATE EDUCATIONAL DISTRICTS AND

AGENCIES TO ENSURE THAT ADEQUATE, SAFE SCHOOL FACILITIES AND SERVICES ARE

PLANNED TO PROVIDE A QUALITY EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT FOR THE PLANNING AREA'S ANTICIPATED GROWTH.

POLICIES:

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-50

7.11.1 The City shall coordinate with appropriate school or college districts in planning future land uses adjoining school or college sites. The City shall regulate new land uses to provide reasonable mitigation of any significant impacts on existing schools ordesignated future school sites.·

7.11.2 The City shall encourage cooperative ventures. Between the school districts and developers to mitigate conflicts between land uses.

PROGRAMS:

7.11.1.1 The City shall work with school districts or developers of private schools in the siting and development of new schools, and in the implementation of school facility expansion or remodeling plans.

7.11.1.2 The City shall work with the school districts in campus siting and implementation as necessary and appropriate.

7.11.1.3 The City shall encourage the siting and development of educational facilities at locations which will result in minimum conflict with surrounding land uses.

7.11.1.4 The City shall encourage school administrations to continue to allow non-school- hour use of their facilities by the public.

7.11.1.5 The City shall work with school personnel and with neighborhood residents to assure that school children are provided safe pedestrian and bicycle travel ways to and from school.

7.11.1.6 Consistent with city established street requirements, the City shall require sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and passenger loading and unloading facilities when planning or considering roadway improvements near school sites.

7.11.1.7 The City shall require that any development under construction near or adjacent to school children's travel ways include special safety measures, such as fenced enclosures, construction traffic controls, and off-site improvements needed to mitigate hazardous conditions.

7.11.1.8 The City shall submit any General Plan amendments, rezonings, or project development proposals for properties adjacent to existing or future school sites to the appropriate school district for review and comment prior to preparation of City staff report.

7.12 OBJECTIVE/HEALTH AND MEDICAL FACILITIES: ASSIST IN EXPANSION OR

MODERNIZATION OF HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES AS NECESSARY TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE PLANNING AREA RESIDENTS.

POLICY:

7.12.1 The City shall encourage new public and private health care providers to locate their services in the city and existing facilities to expand and modernize their services KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-51
consistent with the needs of area residents.

PROGRAMS:

7.12.1.1 The City will encourage health-care providers to expand or locate in the City consistent with need.

7.12.1.2 Hospital Special Policy Area: As shown in Figure LUE 6, a "Hospital Special Policy Area" is bordered by Broadway Street, Canal Drive, and U.S. 101. Within this area, the City shall work with Mee Memorial Hospital and other property owners to prepare a Master Plan. This plan shall consider existing land use and circulation patterns, pro-posed hospital expansion and conversion plans, and potential commercial development. The primary objective of the Master Plan shall be to assure compatibility among existing and future uses; to enhance overall property values; to enhance the commercial development potential of the district; and to provide that ambient levels of traffic, noise, and air quality shall be consistent with reasonable requirements of the hospital. The West Broadway Master Plan shall be used as a guide when planning the hospital area.

7.12 OBJECTIVE/PUBLIC LIBRARY: EXPAND THE PUBLIC LIBRARY FACILITIES IN THE NEW

BROADWAY STREET SITE IN ORDER TO MEET THE EXISTING AND FUTURE NEEDS OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE PLANNING AREA.

POLICIES:

7.12.1 The City shall coordinate the remodeling of the new library site, in conjunction with Monterey County.

7.12.2 The City shall work with Monterey County to expand library collections and facilities as needed to accommodate new growth and demand within the city.

7.13 OBJECTIVE/PARKS AND RECREATION: CONTINUE TO DEVELOP AND ADEQUATELY

MAINTAIN A COORDINATED SYSTEM OF PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY.

POLICIES:

7.13.1 The City shall plan and maintain a park system that serves the residential, commercial, and industrial segments of the community.

7.13.2 The City shall encourage schools to make recreational areas and facilities available for use during non-school hours.

7.13.3 The City shall coordinate with local schools to determine when and under what conditions school facilities can be used by the public. This information shall be made available to the public as part of the city's park and recreation system.

7.13.4 Park and recreation areas shall be planned, developed, and used in a manner that is compatible with adjacent land uses.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-52

7.13.5 The City shall locate and design park and recreation areas to provide for ease of access to pedestrians and. Bicyclists by incorporating trails, paths, sidewalks, and/or bicycle lanes. This program should be incorporated into a master park and recreation plan.

7.13.6 Windbreaks shall be considered for new park and recreational projects in areas determined to be susceptible to prevailing wind. Design and siting of windbreaks shall be reviewed and approved during the development review process.

PROGRAMS:

7.13.1.1 Coordinate park development with population increases and areas of significant new growth within the city.

7.13.1.2 Work with the Parks and Recreation Department staff and volunteers to develop and maintain park and recreational programs.

7.13.1.3 The City shall encourage programs to assist in funding to maintain and enhance the best park system the City can afford. As per City ordinance, the City shall continue to require the dedication of land and/or payment of in-lieu fees from new subdivisions; and should reevaluate the ordinance to require fees from new discretionary developments where appropriate. The City may also address park development needs as an element in a development agreement for new construction.

7.13.1.4 The City shall solicit state open-space, park and recreation, and access grants to acquire parkland and/or to expand and develop the City's existing park facilities.

7.13.1.5 Volunteer efforts and private financial resources should be promoted and used in combination with public funds for enhancement; acquisitions, maintenance, and operation of park and recreational facilities. The Recreation Commission and/or Parks and Recreation staff should solicit volunteer efforts and private financial resources. 8 TRANSPORTATION

8.1 OBJECTIVE: BUILD AN EFFICIENT, MULTI-MODAL TRANSIT CENTER ("MMTC")

SURROUNDED BY MIX-USE DEVELOPMENTS TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE, SUPPORT ECONOMIC VITALITY AND REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

POLICY

8.1.1 The City shall collaborate with federal, state, and regional governments, Fort Hunter Liggett, Union Pacific, and other involved entities to locate funding for the design and construction of the MMTC.

PROGRAMS
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-53

8.1.1.1 Give priority to the funding of the MMTC, which benefits a variety of users. Evaluate new transportation projects to make the most efficient use of transportation resources and capacity.

8.1.1.2 The City shall pursue available revenues to fund the MMTC.

8.1.1.3 Support mixed-use development near the MMTC, including low-income and agricultural employee housing.

8.2 OBJECTIVE: CONSIDER ADOPTING A FUNDING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY NEAR THE MMTC.

POLICY:

8.1.1 The City shall consider adopting a transit district for property located adjacent to the MMTC.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-54
CHAPTER 6: IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
The City of King general plan, and particularly this Land Use Element, shall be implemented through a variety of measures. These include, but are not limited to, the use of the Zoning Ordinance, Annexation and Pre-Zoning, Specific Plans, Subdivision Regulations, Development Agreements, Capital Improvements, and the Williamson Act. Each of these measures is discussed briefly below:

6.1 ZONING ORDINANCE
The City's application of zoning regulations is the primary way in which the general plan is implemented. All property within the city limits, both public and private, is subject to zoning regulations. The Zoning Ordinance, Title 17 of the Municipal Code, contains two types of regulations: Those regulations applying citywide, and those applying to the various districts.

Citywide regulations include such matters as general use permit and height/bulk/setback regulations; architectural controls; parking regulations; signs; performance standards for noise and air quality; and procedural matters such as variances and zoning amendments. The district regulations establish permitted densities and intensity of land use and specify the types of uses that are permitted "as of right" or those which require use permits. Each zoning district has a corresponding general plan category in this land use category with which the district is consistent. The following table shows the consistency "matrix'' between the general plan land use categories and the zoning districts:

6.2 ANNEXATION AND PRE-ZONING
Any decision to annex property into the City will also require that: l) The property must lie with the "Sphere of Influence" of the city, according to LAFCO, and 2) The City must apply "prezoning" to the property. (Under this procedure, the City considers the general plan land use category established in this Land Use Element and adopts an ordinance amending its zoning map to apply a zoning district consistent with the general plan to property that is being considered for annexation. )

6.3 SPECIFIC PLANS
The four [see note below](4) Specific Plans that have been adopted by the City of King enabled the City to plan areas in more detail. In particular, unique designs, densities, open space, infrastructure and paying for long-term project maintenance were considered as part of the specific plans.

The approved Specific Plans are:

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-55
• Arboleda Specific Plan
• Mills Ranch Specific Plan
• Downtown Addition Specific Plan
• East Ranch Business Park Specific Plan

6.4 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
In addition to the zoning regulations, the City requires any subdivision of property, as defined by the State Subdivision Map Act, to conform to its general plan and zoning. A finding must be made as to consistency with the general plan when the tentative tract map or parcel map is approved'.

If the subdivision is, for any reason, found not to be consistent with the general plan, a subdivision must be denied. In making this finding the City must consider not just the basic densities established in the general plan and zoning, but also the policies established in this part of the plan.

6.5 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
The City is empowered under State law to enter into "development agreements" with property owners where both parties mutually agree that it is desirable to bind them into a contractual arrangement. Any such agreement must be found consistent with the general plan. While development agreements are seldom used except in very large projects, there are occasions where it is desirable on the part of both parties to fix in writing the obligations and commitments that will lead to the most effective development of the property.

6.6 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
State law requires that a city and county adopt an annual "Capital Improvement Program" or CIP in order to guide the development of "infrastructure" or large public outlays such as police or fire stations, municipal buildings, water or wastewater facilities, etc.

Development of new sewer lines, roads or bridges, or other capital facilities must also be consistent with the general plan. In many cases, decisions on these types of facilities will require consideration of the other elements of the general plan (particularly the Circulation Element).

6.7 SPECIAL POLICY AREA MASTER PLANNING
This Land Use Element includes a "Special Policy Area" in an area bordered by Broadway Street, Canal Street, and Highway 101. Within this area, there are currently a mix of retail commercial uses along Broadway Street and Franciscan Way, as well as public facilities such as Mee Memorial Hospital and the County Sheriff's facility. The City encourages the development of a specific plan KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-56
to adequately plan for existing and future uses, and to provide that ambient levels of traffic, noise, and air quality be consistent with the hospital's requirements.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-57
CHAPTER 7: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESTINATION TERMS

AND CLASSIFICATIONS
The General Plan Land Use Map uses color-coded designations to express the intended use of land within the City boundaries. Preparation of the Land Use Map is explicitly required by the California Government Code. The Map is part of the adopted General Plan and carries the same legal weight as the Plan document itself.

In most cases, the designation on the Land Use Map matches the existing use of land as of 2016.

In other cases, the designation may be different from what is on the ground today, indicating that the City expects the current use to change as the City of King grows. For example, a parcel that may have a single-family dwelling on it but designated for commercial use on the map would be expected to be developed with commercial and/or mixed commercial and residential uses.

The Land Use Map is largely implemented through the City’s zoning regulations. Each color-coded category on the map has a corresponding set of compatible zoning districts. Many of the Land Use Map categories have more than one corresponding zoning district, permitting a more fine grained interpretation of the map based on existing uses and local conditions. Whereas the Land Use Map categories are intentionally broad, the zoning designations are more prescriptive and address qualities such as building heights, setbacks, permitted and conditional uses, allowable lot coverage, and parking requirements.

While the Land Use Map guides zoning, it is not the same as the Zoning Map. By definition, the Land Use Map is intended to be general and does not necessarily follow parcel boundaries.

Moreover, the designation of an area with a particular Map category does not mean that the most intense zoning district consistent with that category is “automatically” permitted. This is particularly true in the residential areas, where a range of zoning densities applies within each category.

7.1 RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS
Seven (7) residential designations appear on the Map. Table 9 correlates the General Plan land use designations to the zoning districts. These designations are defined as follows:

1. Low Density Residential: The Low Density Residential designation corresponds to most of the city's single-family residential neighborhoods. These areas are generally characterized by detached homes. The land use density for this designation is < 7 du/gross acre.

2. Medium Density Residential: The Medium Density designation applies to a variety of housing, including single-family and apartments. These areas are multi-family in character, but retain some of the characteristics of single-family neighborhoods such as landscaped yards, off-street parking, and low building heights. Structures in these areas are generally two KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-58
(2) stories tall and have surface parking. Other compatible uses, such as churches, public and parochial schools, parks, playgrounds, public buildings, electrical substations, including microwave facilities incorporated as a part of a public utility installation, may be considered in this land use designation. The land use density for this designation is <12 du/gross acre.

3. Planned Development/Mobilehome Park-This designation encourages planned mobilehome parks that may include mixed-uses and adopted with a specific plan.

4. Medium Density Residential/Mobile Home Park: This designation allows residential mobile home parks.

5. Medium High Density Residential: This designation applies to a variety of residential units, including single family and multiple units, such as duplexes and triplexes. Other compatible uses, such as schools, religious facilities, parks, electrical substations, foster homes, residential care facilities. The land use density for this designation is <18 du/gross acre.

6. High Density Residential: The high-density residential designation applies to a mixture of uses. Residential uses range from single-family residential units to multiple-family dwellings, including boarding houses. Certain commercial uses are permitted, including professional offices, hotel services, convalescent hospitals, and child nurseries. The land use density for this designation is <24 du/gross acre.

7. Planned Development: The Planned Development district encourages planned communities that may be applicable to residential, commercial, or mixed-use projects.

Four (4) commercial designations and one mixed-use designation appear on the map. These designations are defined below. For mixed-use projects, allowable residential densities are expressed in units per gross acre.

7.2 COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIONS

1. Neighborhood Commercial: The Neighborhood Commercial designation encourages and promotes well-planned commercial, residential, and mixed-use developments. A safe, comfortable and attractive environment is desired for pedestrians, bicyclists, patrons and residents. This goal would also be enhanced with designs that locate land uses in close proximity to each other in order to promote a pedestrian focused environment.

2. General Commercial: The General Commercial designation applies to low-scale commercial, service, and office uses located along the City’s arterials and collector streets. Some of these areas were developed as auto-oriented “strip” shopping centers while others are freestanding offices, commercial uses, or clusters of businesses meeting the day-to-day needs of the city's residents. Multiple zoning designations apply within this category to distinguish their different physical characteristics and uses. Typical retail commercial uses might include supermarkets, drug stores, restaurants, and miscellaneous small local-serving stores and services. Typical office commercial uses might include banks, finance, real estate, medical and dental offices, and professional services. Typical service commercial uses might include hotels, gas stations, fast food restaurants, used car sales, and minor auto repair businesses. In some zones, mixed uses are allowed, along with agircultural employee housing and affordable housing.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-59

3. Retail Commercial: This land use designate promotes the orderly development of the business district as primarily a retail shopping facility to serve present and future needs of the community. Mixed uses are permitted based on criteria found in the Municipal Code.

4. Highway Service Commercial: Highway service commercial areas include large-scale commercial uses serving a citywide or regional market, typically on large sites along freeways or major arterials. Retail uses within this category usually have large floor areas and high sales volumes and may be considered shopping “destinations” by consumers from the city and other regional consumers. Uses such as furniture and electronic stores, auto related business, home improvement stores, department stores, and “big box” retailers are included. Smaller and more local-serving retail stores and personal services are also appropriate.

7.3 INDUSTRIAL DESIGNATIONS
Two (2) industrial designations appear on the map. Each designation is oriented toward the production, distribution, and repair of consumer and agricultural goods, although the character of development varies in each case. The industrial designations also promote uses that are compatible with the Mesa Del Rey Airport.

1. Light Industrial: This designation accommodates a variety of industrial uses that are generally oriented toward local businesses and residents. These include auto repair and servicing, machine shops, woodworking and carpentry shops, equipment rental and storage, small warehouse and delivery operations, self-storage facilities, printers, small wholesalers, and other small-scale industrial operations. Uses related to research and development, “clean and green” tech are also encouraged. The East Ranch Business Park Specific Plan is included in this land use designation.

2. General Industrial: This is the broadest of the two (2) industrial designations, accommodating such uses as heavy manufacturing, warehousing, recycling facilities, and corporation yards.

These areas have been mapped to recognize the greater potential of these uses to generate offsite impacts, including noise, odors, vibration, and truck traffic. General industrial uses may require extensive areas for outdoor storage. Buffering and screening may be required to enhance public rights-of-way and ensure land use compatibility. General Industrial areas support a wide range of quality jobs, generate a significant amount of revenue, and provide essential services that underpin the local and regional economies. Uses related to research and development, “clean and green” tech are also encouraged.

TABLE 9

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT CONSISTENCY MATRIX LUE Category LUE Category Name Compatible/Consistent Zoning (1)
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-60
Residential ²
LDR Low Density Residential (Up to
7du/ac)
R-1 Low Density Residential
MDR Medium Density Residential (Up
to 12 du/ac)
R-2 Medium Density (Duplex)
Residential
PD/MP Planned
Development/Mobilehome Park
A, H-S
MDR/MP Medium Density Residential/
Mobile Home Park (Up to 12
du/ac)
R-3 Medium High Density
(Multiple) Residential
MHDR Medium High Density
Residential (Up to 18 du/ac)
R-3 Medium High Density
(Multiple) Residential
HDR High Density Residential (Up to
24 du/ac)
R-4 Multiple Family Residential
MHP Mobilehome Park Overlay -
PD Planned Development P-D Planned Development
Commercial
HC Highway Commercial and High
Density Residential (Up to 24
du/ac)
H-S
RC Retail Commercial and High
Density Residential (Up to 24
du/ac)
Village Core
NC Neighborhood Commercial
(Up to 19 du/ac)
C-N Limited Neighborhood
Commercial (allows residential
development)
GC General Commercial and High
Density Residential (Up to 24
du/ac)
C-2 General Commercial, VC
Village Commercial, VB Village
Business, C-1 TD, RC-TD, FSC
First Street Corridor
Industrial
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-61
LI Light Industrial M-1 Light Industrial, East Ranch
Business Park Specific Plan
GI General Industrial M-2 General Industrial
M-3 Heavy Industrial*
Other
PQ Public/Quasi-Public³ PQ Public/Quasi-Public
Facilities
OS Open Space O Open Space
PQ Public/ Quasi-Public
Facilities
AG Agriculture A Agricultural
O Open Space
Notes:

1. Any zoning district may also be subject to one of the "Combining Districts" such as B/Lot Size, S-C Scenic Highway, A-P Airport, or -ID Transition District.

2. Note: The general plan incorporates recommended density limits/or each of the major residential land use categories. In addition, "MHP" zoning overlay district is recommended to accommodate mobilehome parks.

3. Note: A new "PQ" Public Facilities zoning districts recommended to correspond to the general plan Land Use Category of PQ Public/Quasi-Public. This district will encompass public buildings such as City Hall; County offices; public schools; parks and recreation facilities; the developed parts of the fairgrounds, rodeo grounds and golf course; and the airport.

4. Properties located outside the City limits are not subject to any City zoning. When an annexation is considered, a general plan amendment and pre-zoning and/or specific plan must be included within the application.

5. Municipal Code §17.54.030 stipulates that in the R-4 Zoning District no more than ten (10) mobile home or trailer court spaces shall be provided on each acre of gross area.

State law requires that the City's zoning regulations be consistent with its general plan, except for Charter Cities. In addition, when the Zoning Ordinance requires that a particular use receive a use permit from the City prior to its establishment within a zone, issuance of a use permit is also required to be consistent with the general plan.

Table 10
Standard For Density and Development Intensity
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-62
Land Use Density Residential Density
(units/gross acre)
Maximum Permitted
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Residential
LDR Up to 7 dwelling units per
acre
N/A
MDR Up to 12 dwelling units per
acre
N/A
MHDR Up to 18 dwelling units per
acre
N/A
HDR Up to 24 dwelling units per
acre
N/A
MHP Up to 24 du/ac N/A
PD Depending on underlining
zone
N/A
Commercial
Land Use Density Residential Density
(units/gross acre)
Maximum Permitted
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)

HC N/A N/A

RC N/A N/A
NC Up to 19 du/ac N/A
GC with C-2 zoning Up to 12 dwelling units per
acre
N/A
GC with FSC (and C-2)
zoning
Up to 24 du/ac N/A
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-63
CHAPTER 8: RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER GENERAL PLAN

ELEMENTS
As noted in the introduction to the Land Use Element, this general plan is comprised of seven required "elements", of which the Land Use Element is only one. The others are Circulation, Housing, Open Space, Conservation, Noise, and Safety. Each of these elements deals with a different set of issues, but all bear a certain relationship to the others: The following will briefly summarize the key issues of the other seven elements of the general plan, and their relationships to this Land Use Element.
• Circulation Element: Closely correlated with the land use element, identifies the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other local public transportation facilities and issues. Relies upon the Land Use Element in order to establish trip generation and needed road and intersection capacity.
• Housing Element: A comprehensive assessment of current and projected housing needs for all segments of the community and all economic groups. In addition, it embodies the City's policy for providing adequate and affordable housing and includes specific action programs for this purpose. Relies upon the Land Use Element for information on land availability and density.
• Conservation Element: Addresses the conservation, development, and use of natural resources including water, soils, rivers, and mineral deposits. Relies upon the Land Use Element to establish need for developing or conserving water resources, protection of prime agricultural lands, and specifying compatible uses for important resource areas. • Open Space Element: Details plans and measures for preserving important open space lands for natural resources, managed production of resources, outdoor recreation, public health and safety, and visual amenity. Clear relationship to Land Use Element with respect to agricultural lands, wetlands and riparian areas, etc. • Noise Element: Identifies and appraises noise problems within the community, and forms the basis for distribution and segregation of land uses based upon their noise compatibility.
• Safety Element: Establishes policies and programs to protect the community from risks associated with seismic, geologic, flood, and fire hazards. Requires information from the · Land Use Element as to floodplain policies, fire and police protection, and designation of hazardous areas.
• Economic Development Element: Presents a strategy for continued, sustainable growth of the economic base of the community through job development in key industrial and service sectors, and through positioning of the city with respect to regional employment trends. The Land Use Element provides the necessary allocation of "M" zoned property in order to assure that continued economic growth would not be constrained by inadequate KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: LAND USE ELEMENT
2016 AMENDMENT LUE-64
land area.

CHAPTER 9: PROCESS OF ADOPTION
This Land Use Element was considered by the following units of government within the City of King on the dates shown, and provisionally adopted as the project description for an Environmental Impact Report on the following dates:

Hearing Body Date of Recommendation/Adoption
Planning Commission March 15, 2016
City Council March 22, 2016

KI N G CI T Y GE N E R A L PL A N

CIRCULATION ELEMENT
November 1998
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-2

CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998
Table of Contents
Chapters
1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 4

1.1 Circulation Planning in King City’s Past and Future 4

1.2 King City Planning Area 5

1.3 Public Participation 6
2 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 8

2.1 Roadway Functional Classification 8

2.2 Existing Street Network 9

2.3 Existing Traffic Volumes 11

2.4 Existing Traffic Operating Conditions 11

2.5 Signal Warrant Evaluation 11
3 OTHER TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ISSUES 15

3.1 Parking 15

3.2 Transit, Rail, and Air Passenger Services 15

3.3 Freight Shipping Services 16

3.4 Non-Motorized Transportation 16
4 CIRCULATION SYSTEM PLANNING AND LAND USE ELEMENT 18

4.1 Buildout Traffic Conditions/Approach and Methodology 18

4.2 Land Use Classification 18

4.3 Land Use Data Analysis 19

4.4 Trip Generation Rates 19

4.5 Trip Generation 23

4.6 Trip Distribution 24

4.7 Trip Assignment 25

4.8 Buildout Traffic Volumes 26

4.9 Buildout Traffic Operations and Conditions 26

4.10 Signal Warrant Evaluation 26
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-3
5 RECOMMENDED CIRCULATION POLICIES AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 30

5.1 Circulation Goals and Policies 30

5.2 Circulation Improvement Programs 33

5.2.1 Roadway Widening and Extension Projects 35

5.2.2 Interchange Modification and Traffic Signals 35

5.2.3 First Street Bypass Alternatives 35
Lists of Figures
C-1 Regional Location
C-2 Existing Street Network With Roadway Functional Classifications C-3 King City Land Use and Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) Map
C-4 Recommended Circulation Improvements
List of Tables

1. Descriptions Of Roadway Functional Classification

2. Average Daily Traffic Volumes (ADT) & Level Of Service (LOS) Summary - Existing Conditions

3. Signal Warrant Summary Based On Average Daily Traffic Volumes (ADT)-Existing Conditions

4. Existing Land Use Inventory, General Plan Buildout Land Use Summary, and Summary Of Changes

5. Trip Generation Rates

6. Existing Daily Trip Generation Summary, General Plan Buildout Daily Trip Generation Summary, and Summary Of Changes In Daily Trip Generation

7. Average Daily Traffic Volumes (ADT) & Level Of Service (LOS) Summary - General Plan Buildout Without First Street Bypass

8. Signal Warrant Summary Based On Average Daily Traffic Volumes (ADT)-General Plan Buildout Without First Street Bypass

9. Status of lmprovements Proposed in 1988 Circulation Element List of Appendices
A. Level of Service Threshold Volumes for Various Roadway Types B. Maximum ADT's for Two-Lane Highways
C. Caltrans Traffic Signal Warrant Based on Average Daily Traffic Volume (ADT) KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-4
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND SCOPE
For almost 60 years, State law has required that each city and county in California adopt a general plan ( originally called "master plans" in the 1937 enabling legislation). The law was amended in 1955 to require land and circulation "elements" of a general plan. Although there are now seven required "elements", these two elements are usually considered to be the core of any general plan.

The Circulation Element, according to the law, is to consider "the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, termi-nals, and Other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the plan." The Circulation Element is not simply a transportation plan; it deals with the most basic and fundamental infrastructure of a community: Streets, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, intersections, traffic signals, driveways and other access roads, and even the routing of certain drainage and utility rights of way. As such, the community can use the Circulation Element to begin to address issues of noise and safety, neighborhood preservation, downtown vitality, transit needs, truck routes, and even wheelchair accessibility.

1.1 CIRCULATION PLANNING IN KING CITY’S PAST AND FUTURE The King City General Plan Circulation Element was last updated in January 1988. Since then, the City's planning area has experienced considerable growth in population, employment and vehicular traffic on City owned streets as well as County roadways and State Highway 101 in the general vicinity. In addition, many of the land use assumptions originally used in the 1988 General Plan have changed. It is, therefore, necessary to update the Circulation Element to account for these socio-economic changes, and to provide a solid basis upon which the City of King can make sound planning decisions.

This document provides a quantitative planning-level analysis of existing and General Plan buildout daily traffic volumes on City street segments as well as County roadways providing access to the City and State Highway 101. In addition, daily traffic volumes are used to evaluate signal warrants at intersections on major thoroughfares such as First Street and Broadway Street.

Traffic circulation is evaluated including alternatives for future streets such as the First Street Bypass. Alternative alignments of the proposed First Street Bypass are discussed.

Recommendations are developed for improvements to the future street network, including the First Street bridge widening.

Finally, this Circulation Element will set forth a series of policies and programs regarding the future of transportation and circulation in King City. These policies and programs mirror and complement other policies and programs in the general plan for land use, housing, noise, open space, and safety.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-5

1.2 KING CITY PLANNING AREA
King City is located in the southern portion of the Salinas Valley in Monterey County. The Gabilan mountain range borders the valley on the east and the Santa Lucia Mountain Range lies to the west. The two com-munities closest to King City are Greenfield (I0 miles northwest), and San Lucas (7 miles southeast).

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-6
Incorporated in 191 I with 699 residents, King City now has a population of over 10,000. Lands within the planning area of King City consist of approximately 6,042 acres (9.4 square miles).

Lands within the city limits consist of approximately 1,812 acres (or 2.8 square miles). See Figure C-2 on the following page.

1.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Copies of the draft Circulation Element were available for public review at city hall, and at the library prior to each public hearing held in order to review the drafts. A public hearing was noticed at city hall and in a newspaper of general circulation. Prior to approval of the Circulation Element, public comments were received at two planning commission hearings and one city council hearing.

In addition, copies of the draft Circulation Element were distributed to local offices of several State and County agencies for their review and comment.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-7
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-8
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This section of the Circulation Element will describe the existing transportation system, including roadways, intersection controls, and traffic volumes. The current system of City streets, highways, railroads, bikeways and trails within and leading to King City provides vital multi-modal transportation service to all land uses within the King City planning area. As future development and annexation take place, improvements to the existing transportation facilities and services are required to continue to adequately service increasing travel demand.

2.1 ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS
Roadway functional classification refers to the type of roadways, and includes a description of their intended use. Table 1 below provides a description of roadway function classifications.

Table 1:

Descriptions of Roadway Functional Classification
State Highway 101 is a Type I, limited-access freeway that is maintained by the State Department of Transportation (CalTrans). All other streets in the planning area are owned and maintained by King City, except for those streets outside city limits which are maintained by the County of Monterey.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-9
The five arterial streets in the planning area include:

1. Bitterwater Road

2. Broadway Street

3. First Street

4. Metz Street

5. San Antonio Road
There are thirteen collector streets m the planning area, including:

1. Canal Street

2. Division Street

3. Lonoak: Road

4. Mildred Avenue

5. Spreckels Road

6. Third Street

7. Airport Drive

8. Ellis Street

9. Vandenhurst Avenue

10. River Drive

11. Franciscan Way

12. Willow Street

13. King Street
The remaining City streets are classified as local streets and primarily serve abutting land uses, particularly residential use.

The existing street network with roadway functional classifications is shown in Figure C-2 on the following page. Daily vehicular carrying capacities on various roadways are provided in Appendices A and B.

2.2 EXISTING STREET NETWORK
Streets and highways within the King City planning area that are included in this study are listed in alphabetical order as follows:

Airport Drive is a two-lane collector street that serves the Airport and various industrial properties.

Bitterwater Road is a two lane east-west arterial street adjacent to the Airport.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-10
Broadway Circle is a two-lane local street south of the Highway 101/Broadway Street interchange.

The northern terminus of Broadway Circle is connected to Highway 101 southbound on and offramps at Broadway Street.

Broadway Street is a two lane east-west arterial street with left tum channelization. Broadway Street is the major thoroughfare from First Street in downtown to Highway 101 at its western terminus. Located at the northwest corner of Broadway Street and Mildred Street is King City High School.

Canal Street is a two lane north-south collector street that connects Broadway Street with Highway 101.

Division Street is a two lane east-west collector street parallel to Broadway Street and intersects with Canal Street, Mildred Street, Third Street and First Street. Division Street provides access for San Lorenzo Middle School and for the Monterey County Fairgrounds.

First Street is a two lane north-south arterial street with left turn channelization in the downtown area. First Street is the major thoroughfare from Ellis Street in downtown to Highway 101 at its southern terminus. It also provides truck access from the southern reach of Highway 101 to the Airport (East Ranch) Industrial Park. The First Street bridge is rather limited with respect to its paved width and right-of-way at the San Lorenzo Creek crossing south of Division Street. The Southern Pacific railroad track is adjacent to First Street and Metz Road.

Highway 101 is a four-lane freeway that provides regional access for King City and provides statewide and interstate access for the movements of people, goods and serv-ices. Highway 101 also carries a significant amount of inter-regional automobile and truck traffic. Full interchange access on Highway 101 is provided at Broadway Street, Canal Street and First Street.

Lonoak Road is a two lane east-west collec-tor street east of First Street. Outside the City limit, Lonoak Road functions as a two lane rural road.

Metz Road is a two lane arterial street with left tum channelization at San Antonio Road and Airport Drive. North of Airport Drive, however, Metz Road functions as a two lane rural road.

Mildred Avenue is a two lane north-south collector street which extends from San Antonio Road and the frontage road north of Highway 101. Mildred Avenue provides an access route for the Del Rey and Santa Lucia Elementary Schools.

River Drive is a two lane local street that provides access for the residential areas south of Highway 101 between the Broad-way Street-Broadway Circle and Canal Street interchanges.

San Antonio Road is a two lane arterial street with left turn channelization. It cur-rently forms part of a loop road that extends northerly from Broadway Street at the Highway 101 interchange to KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-11
Willow Street, then easterly to Mildred Avenue and Third Street and terminates at Metz Road.

Across Metz Road, East San Antonio Road leads through the East Ranch Industrial Park and loops through to Bitterwater Road.

Spreckels Road is a two lane north-south rural road north of the City limit. Its southern terminus is at San Antonio Road, but connects to Third Street continue into downtown King City.

Third Street is a two lane north-south col-lector street between San Antonio Road and Division Street. Third Street also crosses with Ellis Street and Broadway Street.

2.3 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Existing two-way total daily traffic volumes ( ADT) on the street network are estimated using the latest traffic count data from sev-eral sources including the 1988 Circulation Element, Monterey County, California State Department of Transportation (CaITrans), Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) and two traffic studies recently completed by Keith B. Higgins & Associates, Inc. In some in-sta.11ces where ADT counts are unavailable, ADT's are derived from peak hour volumes using a factor of 10. For consistency be-tween daily traffic count data collected in different years, an annual growth factor of 4 percent is applied to some of the count data to establish the existing ADT for 199 5/ 1996.

The construction of San Antonio Road between Broadway Street and Metz Road was recently completed. San Antonio Road functions as a loop road on the northwest side of the City and serves to divert traffic from Broadway Street and its cross streets. Additional traffic counts data collected at the San Antonio/Broadway Street intersection, subsequent to the completion of San Antonio Road, confirms the anticipated shift in the traffic circulation pattern.

Table 2 on the following page illustrates the ADT's on street segments and Highway 101 under pre-San Antonio and post-San Antonio Road Extension.

2.4 EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATING CONDITIONS
Existing traffic operating conditions on street segments and State Highway 101 are identified by level of service (LOS) using ADT's under the post-San Antonio Road Extension. As shown in Table 2, most street segments and State Highway 101 currently operate in free flow conditions (LOS A or B) with minimal vehicular delays. River Drive, which is a local street, operates at a stable condition (LOS C) when considered for neighborhood quality-of-life.

2.5 SIGNAL WARRANT EVALUATION
Intersections within the City planning area are controlled by traffic signals, STOP signs or YIELD signs. Currently, the only signalized intersection is located at San Antonio Road/Broadway Street.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-12
All other intersections are controlled by STOP or YIELD signs at the minor approaches. A total of nine unsignalized intersections are evaluated for daily signal warrants using ADT's estimated from count data on adjacent or nearby street segments. As shown in Table 3 below, ADT's on none of the nine intersections meet CalTrans daily signal warrant requirements. A sample CalTrans signal warrant worksheet is attached in Appendix C.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-13
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-14
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-15
CHAPTER 3: OTHER TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
ISSUES
The Circulation Element is required to address several issues besides vehicular traffic, although automobiles are the most dominant form of transportation. Issues to be addressed in this plan include parking; transit, rail and air passenger services; commercial freight shipping; and non-motorized transportation.

3.1 PARKING
Most parking demand is generated by retail businesses. The retail commercial areas of King City are concentrated along Broadway Street, particularly between First Street and Vanderhurst Avenue; and in the King City Center at Canal Street and Franciscan Way.

In the traditional "downtown" area along Broadway Street, most parking is provided on-street both on Broadway Street and its various side streets. A few large businesses such as major banks have developed private off-street parking on their premises, but most parcels and businesses are too small to accommodate off-street parking or loading areas. Shoppers park as close as possible to the front of the business they wish to patronize. Since the downtown is relatively small-scale with several vacant lots, parking is usually easy to find.

Between Third Street and First Street, parking is aligned diagonally from the curb rather than parallel. This arrangement maximizes the number of spaces and reduces traffic speeds. Parking is limited to two hours, but is unmetered and time limits are not strictly enforced.

Parking does not appear to be a substantial problem at the more newly-developed shopping areas, including the King City Center. The City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum number of off-street parking and loading spaces based upon various categories of commercial uses and the floor area of all proposed uses. These spaces are usually provided on-site, although the ordinance does permit off-site parking to be developed -- even within contiguous properties not zoned for commercial use.

3.2 TRANSIT, RAIL, AND AIR PASSENGER SERVICES
In King City, there are only three forms of public transit:
• Internal "dial-a-ride" trips are provided by King City Transportation Company under contract with the City. This system provides an average of 50 trips per day, and operates on an as-needed basis between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The system is supported by fares, and from the Monterey County Transportation Agency.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-16
• Regional bus service is provided by Greyhound Lines, Inc., with four daily buses in each direction arriving and departing from 316 First Street. • Finally, South County Transit provides commuter service three times daily on weekdays between King City and Salinas.

There is no scheduled rail or air service from King City. The nearest Amtrak station with a passenger depot is located in Salinas, approximately 50 miles north of King City. The nearest airport with commercial airline service is the Monterey Peninsula Airport, located on Highway 68 between Salinas and Monterey and about 60 miles from King City.

General aviation facilities are available at Mesa del Rey Airport within the King City municipal boundaries. This airport is owned and operated by the city with a contract to a fixed base operator. It consists of one runway approximately 4,500 feet in length. There is no control tower, so incoming and outgoing flights operate under visual flight rules. Terminal facilities include a service and maintenance hangar for the FBO, two storage hangars with a capacity for 18 aircraft, and uncovered tie-downs for an additional 58 aircraft.

Airports are also operated by the cities of Salinas and Paso Robles, both about 50 miles from King City. Both Salinas and Monterey Peninsula Airports have several aircraft charter and rental services for passenger or freight.

3.3 FREIGHT SHIPPING SERVICES
King City originally came into being when Southern Pacific Railroad Company estab-lished "Kings Station" in July, 1886. Since then, the community has served as a major processing, packing, and shipping point for the agricultural products of the southern Salinas Valley. Southern Pacific still provides freight service in King City, although most products are now shipped by truck.

The following firms are presently involved in trucking fresh or processed vegetables, grains, or other agricultural commodities from King City: Basic Vegetable, Cal Compack Foods; Creekside Fanns; Prudden Produce; L.A. Hearne Warehouse Company; J.T. Larson Co.; ·Meyer Tomatoes; and Pacific Valley Harvesting. In addition, the Wm. J. Clark Company is a major local trucking firm for sand and gravel products.

3.4 NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION
Besides the private automobile, King City residents also ·rely upon bicycles or walking for internal transportation. The compact size of the city, and its relatively flat topography, facilitate the use of these two alternate modes of transportation. Besides the benefits to personal health, bicycling and walking also help conserve fossil fuels, reduce air pollution, and save wear and tear on the road system.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-17
There are no striped or signed bicycle lanes within King City, nor are there any desig-nated hiking or horse trails within the community. Sidewalks do exist, however, along almost all of the streets throughout the city. This Circulation Element will serve to promote the use of alternate, nonmotorized transportation where appropriate.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-18
CHAPTER 4: CIRCULATION SYSTEM PLANNING AND LAND

USE ELEMENT
This section of the Circulation Element will provide a forecast of future traffic conditions under conditions of the projected buildout, as provided by the Land Use Element of the general plan.

The land use and circulation elements must be considered together as an integrated and mutually supportive set of goals. In order to assure this integration, consultants for the city have developed a traffic model that provides detailed estimates of future traffic volumes under reasonable assumptions of growth, including annexations and build-out of existing parcels.

4.1 BUILDOUT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS/APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY A traffic model was developed to provide planning-level forecasts of travel demand and level of service analysis of daily traffic volumes. The traffic model utilizes user defined parameters and formulae to calculate trip generation, distribution and assignment and to calibrate the existing model volumes to existing daily traffic counts. User defined parameters and formulae were designed based on existing traffic distribution patterns, traffic assignment data from the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC), and from regional and local circulation patterns.

The City planning area is divided into Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ's) to aggregate land use and better define vehicle trip origins· and destinations. Existing and buildout assessor parcel data are compiled by TAZ and land use. Daily trip generation is determined using land use quantities and daily trip rates. Existing trips generated are distributed and assigned to the street network. Trip distribution and assigned travel path assumptions are refined in calibrating existing model volumes. Future growth in traffic is distributed and assigned to the study street network and then added to the existing traffic counts to establish the buildout traffic volumes.

4.2 LAND USE CLASSIFICATION
King City land use is grouped under several classifications. The classification system is presented in Appendix D, and is further discussed in the Land Use Element of the general plan.

For the purpose of this Circulation Element, residential land use was calculated using either the average number of dwelling units per parcel or allowable density per net acre, not gross acreage.

Under any one category of residential use, the gross acreage on a parcel may vary widely. Low density or single family category is assumed to have one dwelling unit per parcel. Duplexes are assumed to have two dwelling units per parcel. Other rental apartments, condominium and group quarters have higher densities.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-19

4.3 LAND USE DATA ANALYSIS
The King City planning area was divided into 14 Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ's). The boundaries of many of these TAZ's are defined by the City limits, City arterial streets, State Highway 101, Southern Pacific Railroad, Salinas River and San Lorenzo Creek. These 14 TAZ's include both developed and undeveloped areas within the King City planning area. King City and use classification's and TAZ's are illustrated in Figure C-3 on the following page. The land use classifications indicate allowable uses. Many of the sites are currently undeveloped or underdeveloped.

Existing and buildout assessor parcel data obtained from the City was aggregated by TAZ, land use category and quantity. Land use quantities were measured in dwelling units for residential use, and gross acreage for non-residential use.

King City currently has approximately 2,700 dwelling units and 820 acres of land for non-residential urban uses. At buildout, King City is expected to have approximately 4, 160 dwelling units and 850 gross acres of land for non-residential urban uses.

For the purpose of trip generation, the King City land use categories include: single family, multiple family/mobile home park, office, retail/commercial, industrial, government/civic center/hospital, college/ school/church, airport/cemetery/park/golf course, agricultural and. vacant/ open space/ undevelopable. Summaries of existing' land use, buildout land use and changes in land use are shown in Table 4 following Figure C- 3 below.

4.4 TRIP GENERATION RATES
Daily trip generation rates for residential uses were obtained from data published by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Residential uses primarily produce home-basedwork, home-based-school, home-based-shop and home-based-social trips. Residential uses also attract some home-based-social trips, but homes primarily produce rather than attract trips.

Accordingly, the number of dwelling units is the key in determining citywide traffic generation, and estimating potential patron-age of shopping centers by local residents versus out-of-town visitors and Highway 101 passbys.

Daily trip generation rates for non-residential uses were also obtained from SANDAG, although some of these trip rates were adjusted to provide a. more realistic estimate given the City's geographic and socio-economic characteristics. Examples of non-residential uses are offices, clinics, boutique, restaurants, mills, banks, realtors, gas sta-tions, schools, airport and farms.

These uses attract home-based-work trips, home-based-shop trips and non-home based trips such as business trips and deliveries.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-20
Since SANDAG's gross trip rates include all trip purposes, adjustment factors are used to lower the gross trip rates to avoid double counting for those home-based trips with destinations where trips are primarily attracted to. Trips originating from homes are not discounted and have an adjustment factor of 1.00.

Daily trip rates are summarized in Table 5, which follows Figure C-3 and Table 4 below.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-21
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-22
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-23

4.5 TRIP GENERATION
Existing daily trip generation by TAZ is determined by multiplying the land use quantities in the 11Existing Land Use Inven-tory" from Table 4 above, with the net daily trip rates from Table 5 above. This results in a total of approximately 39,800 net existing daily vehicular trips.

Similarly, buildout daily trip generation by TAZ is determined by multiplying the land use quantities in the "General Plan Buildout Land Use Summary" from Table 4, with the net daily trip rates from Table 5. This process results in an estimate of approxi-mately 65,540 net daily vehicular trips. This represents an increase of 25,770 daily trips, or 1.64 times the existing trip generation.

Summaries of trip generation are shown in Table 6 on the following page.

Trip distribution and assignment are discussed below.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-24

4.6 TRIP DISTRIBUTION
A vehicle trip is characterized by its purpose, origin, destination and travel path. Trip components are used to describe regional and local travel patterns. Internal-internal (I-I) trips have both origins and destinations within the 14 internal zones in the King City planning area.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-25
Not all trips begin and/or end in King City. Internal-external (I-X) trips and external internal (X-1) trips have either their origin or destination outside the King City planning area. External-external (X-X) trips have both origin and destination outside of the King City planning area. Some X-X trips are expected to stop at service stations, restaurants and retail stores while driving through King City on Highway 101. Roadways which connect King City to other regions and communities are known as external gates.

Trip distribution defines the percentage of trips made by all trip components. On a daily basis, all trips are assumed to have a directional split of 50/50. The existing daily model is calibrated to closely match model volumes to existing counts as shown on columns [I] and [2] of Exhibit 10.

Trip generation rates, distribution and assigned travel paths are refined in the calibration process.

This results in daily trip distribution percentages of 52% I-I and 48% I-X plus X-I. The trip distribution percentages at the five external "gates" to King City are listed as follows:
30% Highway 101 (north of Broadway Street interchange)
12% Highway 101 (south of First Street interchange)
2% Spreckels Road (north of San Antonio Road)
2% Metz Road (north of Airport Dr.) 2% Bitterwater Road (east of Airport Drive) The existing model was then calibrated so that the final trip generation rates, trip dis-tribution percentages and assigned travel paths could be used for the buildout sce-nario. The calibrated model generally correlates with actual counts. The major dis-crepancies occur at access routes to the industrial area near the airport (i.e., Airport Drive, First Street, Bitterwater Road, and San Antonio Road) which are expected to carry heavier traffic than the actual counts. This is due to lower intensity development either in building square footage, employment densities or activity than typical. Another explanation is that there is signifi-cant variation in the agricultural industries associated with harvesting seasons. Calcu-lated volumes are slightly lower than actual volumes primarily on Broadway Circle, Broadway, and Canai Street. These differences are not large, however, that they affect the conclusions of the analysis.

Existing Highway 101 traffic assignments are significantly lower than actual counts because only traffic generated by King City is included in the assignment. Approximately 11,000 ADT is external through traffic which does not originate or terminate with the Planning Area.

4.7 TRIP ASSIGNMENT
All internal-internal trips were distributed from their origins to their destinations at all 14 TAZ's within the King City planning area. Trips were assigned one or more travel paths depending on roadway capacities and travel time on alternative routes between an origin destination pair. The KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-26
grid street system in King City allows motorists to choose from a large number of' possible routes with little perceived difference in travel time.

For the purpose of streamlining the trip as-signment process, however, not all local streets were used to assign traffic. Arterial streets such as Broadway and San Antonio Road are expected to carry the highest vol-ume of daily traffic. Daily traffic volumes assigned to City street segments, County roadways and State Highway 101. The re-sulting volumes are listed in Table 7 on the following page.

4.8 BUILDOUT TRAFFIC VOLUMES
On the basis of General Plan land use assumptions, buildout ADT's will grow mod-erately on many of the street segments listed in Table 7. At buildout, the sum of volumes on all street segment shown in Table 7 will be 259,740 daily vehicles or a 30% increase from the existing 199,300 daily vehicles.

Future growth in traffic includes growth resulting from developments within the City planning area as well as background growth of through traffic on State Highway 101. Future developments within the King City planning areas account for most of the traffic increase.

4.9 BUILDOUT TRAFFIC OPERATING CONDITIONS
Buildout traffic operating conditions on street segments and State Highway 101 are identified by level of service (LOS). As shown in Table 7, all street segments and State Highway 101 will operate at a stable condition (LOS C or better) with average delays.

4.10 SIGNAL WARRANT EVALUATION
A total of twelve unsignalized intersections were evaluated for signal warrants using buildout ADT's estimated from adjacent or nearby street segments. As shown in Table 8, the future ADT's at nine of the twelve intersections would appear to warrant traffic signals at general plan buildout.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-27
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-28
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-29
KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-30
CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDED CIRCULATION POLICIES AND

IMRPOVEMENT PROGRAMS

5.1 CIRCULATION GOALS AND POLICIES
This section consists of two major sections. The first presents the City's goals, objectives, and policies for its overall transportation system as related to the general plan's other elements. The second section will identify several improvements necessary to serve the future transportation needs of the community. These plans are based upon the data and modeling results in Sections 2 through 4 above, as well as the other elements of the general plan --particularly the Land Use Element.

GOAL #1: To Provide an Integrated Transportation System That Adequately Serves Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Recreational Uses, as well as Public Facilities and Agricultural Properties.

Policy 1.1: The City shall identify, within its annual budget, capital improvements and operating expenses necessary to provide safe and adequate streets, sidewalks, and other transportation infrastructure.

Policy 1.2: The City shall regularly monitor the progress and implementation of its identified capital improvements.

Policy 1.3: The City shall systematically pursue all available public and private funding sources for transportation infrastructure, including Federal, State, and regional transportation and congestion management funding, to the degree that funding is available, and wherever such sources are appropriate to the community's needs.

Policy 1.4: The City shall coordinate its transportation planning efforts with the Transportation Agency for Monterey County and with CalTrans. City staff shall attend TAMC technical meetings as needed, and shall maintain regular contact with state and regional transportation planning officials.

GOAL #2: To Assure That All Necessary Transportation Facilities and Street Improvements Are Provided to City Standards in Conjunction with New Development.

Policy 2.1: Through the administration of its zoning and subdivision regulations, the City shall require that each major development demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the appropriate review body, that traffic resulting from the projects will not reduce the level of service of existing City streets below a Level of Service "C". Where LOS is estimated to fall below LOS "C", the City shall require improvements to be in place prior to project KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-31
occupancy to maintain LOS "C" conditions. Where this is not possible or reasonable because of cumulative traffic, extended development phasing, or other factors, developers shall be required to post bonds or other guarantees in a proportionate amount to assure that sufficient funding for the necessary improvements will be available within five years.

Policy 2.2: The City shall maintain engineering standards to assure appropriate development of circulation facilities, including streets, pedestrian access, and bicycle routes. These standards shall regulate such matters as street width, pavement and base materials, curbs/gutters/sidewalks, handicapped access, turning radii, street tree placement, underground utility placements and other matters. Such standards shall seek to maintain an appropriate balance between facilitating vehicular traffic and assuring pedestrian amenity and neighborhood quality.

GOAL #3: To Provide a Public Street and Highway System that Accommodates Existing and Projected Traffic Volumes Within the Planning Area.

Policy 3.1: The City shall establish and maintain a street and highway system that serves the existing and planned land uses within the Planning Area efficiently.

Policy 3.2: The City shall maintain its basic gridded street system within the core area, providing easy pedestrian and vehicular access between residential neighborhoods, commercial shopping areas, and industrial districts.

Policy 3.3: Arterial streets such as San Antonio Road and the future alignment of the First Street bypass shall be designed primarily to serve through traffic, and shall provide limited access to abutting property.

Policy 3.4: Collector streets shall be designed to collect traffic generated by minor streets and transfer it to arterials, or between neighborhoods and nearby commercial areas. In areas where large amounts of truck traffic are expected, collector streets should typically be designed to accommodate the additional weight and turning requirements of commercial trucks.

Policy 3.5: Local streets shall be designed to provide direct access to abutting properties, to discourage through traffic, and to serve the internal needs of residential neighborhoods or small commercial or industrial districts.

Policy 3.6: As traffic patterns shift in accordance with the land use changes anticipated by the Land Use Element, the City shall consider appropriate methods to regulate traffic speeds or volumes to assure safety and to protect the quality of life of resi-dential neighborhoods or the pedestrian amenity of the downtown. Such methods may include KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-32
street trees, "bulb-outs", wider sidewalks, tighter turning radii at the curb corners, street furniture such as benches, special street lighting, or other rea-sonable measures.

Policy 3.7: The City shall seek opportunities to enhance the "gateway" areas of the city, and at key entry points for its neighborhoods. Where opportunities are presented, the City shall consider requiring developers to install identity signs, special paving for pedestrian crosswalks, light fixtures, or landscape features to identify the entry or gateway function.

GOAL #4: To Establish and Maintain Adequate On- and Off-Street Parking as Required by New Development and Existing Uses.

Policy 4.1: The City shall monitor parking conditions during peak-hour periods within its "downtown” area on a regular basis to assure that parking does not become over-crowded.

Policy 4.2: As new commercial or industrial development occurs within the community, the City shall continue to implement the parking and off-street loading requirements within the Zoning Ordinance. Where large trucking operations are anticipated, the City shall require that development plans provide for adequate road and driveway standards, proper design and number of loading bays, and sufficient turning radius and maneuvering areas to assure that public street rights-of-way are not obstructed.

GOAL #5: To Promote and Maintain Transit, Regional Ride-Sharing, and Dial-a-Ride Systems as Needed for the Planning Area.

Policy 5.1: The City shall continue to provide the local Dial-a-Ride service, and shall promote the use of its services among the public.

Policy 5.2: The City shall encourage large employers (e.g., over 100 employees) to offer assistance and incentives to their employees to utilize ride-sharing and alternate modes of transportation, where available.

GOAL #6: To Encourage the Use of Bicycles as a Viable Transportation Mode, and to Assure that Pedestrian Access Is Fully Accommodated in All New and Existing Devel-opment.

Policy 6.1: The City shall assure that large-scale new development accommodates and encourages the use of bicycles and walking through appropriate design of bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Policy 6.2: New arterial and collector streets shall provide for bike lanes wherever necessary, particularly First Street, Canal Street, and San Antonio Road. Sidewalks shall be provided in all street sections on both sides of the street right-of-way.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-33
Policy 6.3: Separate bicycle and pedestrian paths shall be provided· in parks, open space, or greenbelt areas where public access is to be encouraged.

Policy 6.4: Off-site street improvements, where required to provide access for any new residential development, shall provide adequate pedestrian as well as vehicular access to connect the new neighborhood with the community. These requirements shall include, at a minimum, concrete sidewalks on at least one side.

Policy 6.5: The City shall encourage King City High School District to continue the use of crossing guards to provide a safe pedestrian crossing at Broadway and Canal Streets.

GOAL #7: To Provide a System of Hiking and Equestrian Trails that Promote the Recreational Potential of the City's Parks and Open Space Areas.

Policy 7.1: The City shall designate hiking and equestrian trail routes within its open space and conservation elements of the general plan. Routes to be considered shall include San Lorenzo Creek as well as the Salinas River.

Policy 7.2: The City shall identify funding sources, including the use of volunteer organizations, to develop hiking and horse trails in designated routes.

5.2 CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
In 1995, the City has achieved completion of a major new arterial at the northern edge of the city: San Antonio Road. The completion of this new road facility marks the fulfillment of one of the major goals of the 1988 Circulation Element. In 1996, East San Antonio Road was also completed through the City's East Ranch Industrial Park between Metz Road and Bitterwater Road.

The 1988 Circulation Element also proposed various additional transportation and circulation system improvements. These earlier proposals are listed, and their current status is indicated, in Table 9 below:

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-34
Of the fourteen street system improvements set forth in the 1988 plan, six have been completed as planned. One other (Willow Street extension as an arterial) was also completed, though a smaller right-of-way was used to reflect the street's function as a collector rather than an arterial.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-35
The most ambitious of the 1988 Circulation Element proposals was the First Street Bypass, which had been estimated to cost $3.8 million in 1986. Three alternative alignments for this facility were proposed in the 1988 Circulation Element, but each would involve a bridge over the railroad tracks as well as a separate bridge over San Lorenzo Creek.

In order to accommodate the anticipated growth of the community and the projected 2015 horizon year buildout under the proposed Land Use Element, this 1998 Circulation Element proposes the following transportation and circulation improvements to facilitate traffic flow and provide an acceptable level of service. Their locations are illustrated in Figure C-4 below.

5.2.1 ROADWAY WIDENING AND EXTENSION PROJECTS
On the basis of findings presented in the buildout traffic operating conditions, the following roadway will need to be upgraded, extended, or widened:

1. First Street (north of Highway 101) -- Widen First Street to two travel lanes with left turn lane from the Highway 101 interchange to Division Street. This will include widening the San Lorenzo Creek bridge crossing to travel lanes, plus an 8' shoulder. In the future, widen and upgrade First Street between Division and Pearl Street; this portion should be developed not later than when the First Street Bypass is developed, as recommended in Alternative A, to intersect the existing First Street at Pearl Street (see 5.2.3 below). The First Street widening will require additional rightof-way.

2. First Street Intersection with Highway 101: This intersection may require some upgrading and/or re-configuration to accommodate future highway-oriented commercial development on the UR/AG property to the west of Highway 101 (Rio Farms), as well as the Bacciarini property (designated and zoned for PD uses). A frontage road is also anticipated to be needed, tying these properties together and providing reasonable access to this intersection.

5.2.2 INTERCHANGE MODIFICATIONS AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS
On the basis of findings presented in the signal warrant evaluation, no traffic signals will be required at any City intersections within the planning period. The Highway 101 interchanges also appear to be operating satisfactorily for the projected traffic growth over the planning period.

5.2.3 FIRST STREET BYPASS ALTERNATIVES
The 1988 Circulation Element recommended development of a "First Street Bypass." The bypass is intended to relieve First Street of the truck traffic destined for the industrial areas and trucking and shipping terminals north and east of the downtown area. The bypass was to run in an alignment connecting Bitterwater Road east of the railroad tracks with Highway 101 at its intersection with First Street, in the southeastern corner of the city.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-36
As stated in the 1986 Redevelopment Project Report, the First Street Bypass was intended to: 1) Alleviate congestion in the downtown/First Street environs, particularly from the most heavilyused portions of First Street near the easterly terminus of Broadway Street; 2) Redirect a significant portion of the heavy truck traffic away from local commercial and residential uses adjacent to the First Street corridor; 3) Provide direct vehicular access, unobstructed by local traffic or railroad operations, to the existing and proposed industrial uses in East Ranch; 4) Enhance the accessibility of local business enterprises; 5) Aid in reversing the declining business climate in the Project Area; and 6) Eliminate a constraint to the expansion of local employment opportunities for King City residents.

Several different alternatives are available for the route of the First Street Bypass, as indicated in Figure C-4. (Note: These alignments differ from those shown in the 1988 Circulation Element.) Two major alternative routes are established, Alternatives A (Chestnut Avenue) and B (Oak Avenue). In addition, there are four sub-options for Alternative B. All of these possible routes for the proposed First Street Bypass -- the two major alternatives (A and B), and the four sub-alternates for Alternative B -- would be situated within City limits. All routes would also cross vacant land known as the Smith-Hobson property, which is agricultural land. The five options are described below, along with a summary of their advantages and disadvantages:

Alternative A -- Chestnut Avenue - Pearl Street: This alignment would follow the undeveloped (but dedicated) right-of-way for "Chestnut Avenue", from its intersection with Bitterwater Road.

It would extend for five blocks generally along this route, and after reaching the undeveloped easterly extension of Pearl Street, it would tum west on Pearl to cross the railroad tracks at an existing crossing (which would require widening and upgrading). After crossing the tracks, it would join the existing alignment of First Street; this intersection would probably require a lefttum lane, and possibly a traffic signal at First Street and Pearl Street.

Advantages: Cost would be lower than for Alternative B since it would be considerably shorter, and would not require a new bridge over San Lorenzo Creek or the railroad. Also, approval would not be required from the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) for any new at-grade railroad crossing (as would be required for Sub-Alternates B-2 or B-3), since a crossing already exists at Pearl Street. This alternative would accomplish most of the objectives set forth for the original Bypass, by alleviating traffic in the commercial downtown area of Broadway Street and First Street. It would minimize impacts to the agricultural use on the Smith-Hobson property, noise impacts for the County Housing Authority's farm labor housing area on Jayne Street, and habitat impacts to San Lorenzo Creek, because there would be no need for a new bridge. Business frontage along the southern extension of First Street would not be adversely affected by any reduction in KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-37
existing traffic, to the degree that such traffic provides additional visibility and accessibility.

Disadvantages: This option would not reduce First Street traffic south of Pearl Street.

Moreover, it would still require truck traffic to or from the East Ranch Industrial Park to cross the railroad at an at-grade crossing, rather than a grade-separated bridge.

Alternative B - Oak Avenue: All four sub-options of Alternative B would begin at Bitterwater Road across from its intersection with the proposed new East San Antonio Road. They would proceed south by following a dedicated, unimproved right-of-way for "Oak Avenue" which lies on the easterly edge of the Smith-Hobson property and forms the eastern City limits at this point.

Sub-Alternate B-1 - Oak Avenue - Pearl Street: This route (and Sub-Alternatives B-2 through B-4) would begin at Bitterwater Road across from its intersection with East San Antonio Road, and proceed across the Smith-Hobson property south on "Oak Avenue11 as far as the undeveloped right-of-way for Pearl Street. Sub-Alternate B-1 would then tum west to rejoin First Street at the same point as Alternative A, following Pearl Street and crossing the tracks at the same upgraded crossing as for Alternative A.

Advantages: Cost would be lower than any of the other sub-options for Alternative B, although higher than Alternative A No new bridge would be required over San Lorenzo Creek or the railroad, thus avoiding that cost as well as adverse impacts to the habitat of San Lorenzo Creek. Approval would not be required from the PUC for an upgraded crossing at Pearl Street. Noise impacts for the County Housing Authority project on Jayne Street would be minimal, as for Alternative A. Business frontage along the southern extension of First Street would experience no losses due to the diversion of traffic.

Disadvantages: For all four sub-options of Alternative B, the impacts to agricultural use on the Smith-Hobson property would be substantial. Sub-Alternate B-1 would not reduce First Street traffic south of Pearl Street. It would still require crossing the railroad at an atgrade crossing, rather than a grade-separated bridge.

Sub-Alternate B-2 -- Oak Avenue - Division Street: This route would follow Alternate B-1 partway, but would not tum west to rejoin First Street until it reached the upper bank of San Lorenzo Creek, then proceed south to an extension of Division Street. Right-of-way would be required across or very close to the Housing Authority project on Jayne Street, as well as a new at-grade crossing over the tracks to form a four-way intersection with Division Street.

Advantages: Cost would be lower than either B-3 or B-4, although higher than Alternative A and slightly higher than Sub-Alternate B-1. No bridge over San Lorenzo Creek would be required. The chief advantage would be that this option (along with B-3 and B-4) would reduce First Street traffic south of Pearl Street. This would result in reduced noise for KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-38
several residences that front on Haven Street as well as 10-12 mobilehomes in the Grove Mobilehome Park.

Disadvantages: As with Alternative B generally, agricultural use on the Smith-Hobson property would be adversely affected. Also, truck traffic westbound on Division Street might tend to continue straight after crossing the tracks to continue on Division Street through the existing neighborhood, if they wish to go northbound on Highway IO 1 at Canal Street. This would increase truck traffic on Division Street, which fronts on a City park and recreational area with a swimming pool. Noise would be significantly increased to the resi-dents of the housing project on Jayne Street. PUC approval would be required for the new railroad crossing at Division Street. Substantial new right-of-way would be needed.

Sub-Alternate B-3 -- Oak Avenue - Lonoak Road: In this route, First Street Bypass would continue along an extension of Oak Avenue to cross San Lorenzo Creek to the Lonoak Road inter-section.

Lonoak: Road would be modified and realigned to form a "T" intersection with the First Street bypass. This alternative would require a moderate amount of roadway construction as well as a major new bridge over San Lorenzo Creek. It also requires an upgrade to the existing railroad crossing on Lonoak: road just east of First Street.

Advantages: Existing and future traffic on First Street north of Lonoak would be signifi-cantly reduced. Widening of the existing First Street bridge over San Lorenzo Creek would not be required. Noise impacts to the Jayne Street housing project would be minimized. No traffic would be diverted to Division Street. Upgrading the existing Lonoak grade crossing would be considered more favorably by the PUC than a new crossing at Division Street (Sub-Alternate B-2).

Disadvantages: This option would be a significantly higher cost than either options A or B 1 or B2, due to the bridge over San Lorenzo Creek and the additional right-of-way required to reach and intersect with Lonoak Road. Impacts to the habitat of San Lorenzo Creek would be higher, due to the new bridge. An at-grade crossing over the railroad tracks would still interrupt traffic on the bypass. Growth-inducing impacts could be significant in the Lonoak Road area, although these impacts may be considered to be positive, depending on long-term plans for the community's growth. As with Alternative B generally, agricultural use on the Smith-Hobson property would be adversely affected.

Sub-Alternate B-4 -- Oak Avenue - Highway 101: This alternate would follow the route of Sub-Alternate B-3, but would continue across Lonoak Road on top of the bluffs. The route would follow the bluftop in a route lying parallel to southern reach of First Street and the railroad tracks.

It would descend from the bluffs toward its southern end, but not completely: The intent would KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-39
be to maintain a sufficient elevation to achieve a grade separation over the railroad tracks. The south-ernmost end of the bypass would probably reach First Street approximately across from the existing service station, to be designed as a “T" intersection at a distance of about 100' from the Highway 10 I northbound ramps. This is the only alternative that is fully consistent with the alignment illustrated in the previous Circulation Element of the General Plan.

Advantages: The primary advantage of this alignment is the grade separation over the railroad tracks. In addition, traffic on the entire existing reach of First Street north of Highway 101 would be significantly reduced. Widening of the existing First Street bridge over San Lorenzo Creek would not be required. Noise impacts to the Jayne Street housing project would be minimized. No traffic would be diverted to Division Street.

Disadvantages: This alternative will require major interchange and roadway construction, resulting in significantly higher cost than any other option. The new bridge over San Lorenzo Creek would create significant impacts to the habitat of San Lorenzo Creek. Signal operation might be problematic at the new intersection with First Street, depending on how the "T" is designed and its proximity to the Highway 101 ramps. Growth-inducing impacts could be significant in the Lonoak Road area and in the bluff top area, although these impacts may be considered to be positive if this diverts the community's growth away from prime agricultural lands and toward these non-prime grazing lands.

The volume of traffic diverted to the First Street Bypass is not likely to differ significantly among any of the first four alternative alignments. Sub-Alternate B-4 would be expected to achieve a higher rate of traffic diversion due to the grade separation over the railroad tracks. The more sig-nificant factors, however, are cost of improvements including right-of-way acquisition cost, envi-ronmental impacts, considerations of roadway capacity, ability to obtain PUC approval, and cost effectiveness of the five alternatives compared to the "no project" alternative -- i.e., continued use of the existing First Street alignment.

On the basis of the above analysis, the recommended option for this Circulation Element is to conduct a separate traffic engineering and circulation study, in order to assess the engineering capacity of the upgraded First Street alignment prior to committing funds to either of the Bypass Alternative. It is recognized that long-'term traffic impacts will result from development of industrial, service commercial and residential uses on properties east of the railroad tracks and tributary to First Street. The engineering study to be conducted pursuant to this recommendation will determine whether and at what point these long-term traffic impacts would exceed the capacity of the upgraded First Street within its existing alignment.

KING CITY GENERAL PLAN: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
NOVEMBER 1998 CIR-40

THE CITY OF KING
2023 - 2031 H OUS I N G E L EME N T
Adoption Draft
December 2024
City Hall, 212 S. Vanderhurst Avenue, City of King, CA 93930

CITY OF KING
2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
Interim Element (adopted December 12, 2023)
Final Revisions (adopted February 11, 2025)
HCD finding the adopted Housing Element in
substantial conformance (letter February 19,
2025)
City of King
212 S. Vanderhurst Avenue
City of King, CA 93930

i City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 The City of King 2021-2031 Housing Element 1
SUMMARY OF APPROACH AND STATUS OF RHNA COMPLIANCE 2

1.3 Purpose and Content 2

1.4 Housing Element Update Process 3
STATE LAW AND LOCAL PLANNING 3

1.5 Consistency with State Law 3

1.6 General Plan Consistency 4

1.7 Relationship to Other Plans and Programs 6

1.8 Housing Element Organization 6

1.9 Data Sources 7
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 7

1.10 Public Participation 7

1.11 Community Surveys 8

1.12 Planning Commission and City Council Update and Discussion Sessions 9

1.13 Planning Commission and City Council Approval Sessions 12 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS 13

2.1 Introduction 13

2.2 Population 13

2.3 Households 14

2.4 Race / Ethnicity 19

2.5 Age 20

2.6 Gender 21

2.7 Employment And Income 22

2.8 Housing Characteristics 26

2.9 Housing Affordability 32

2.10 Overpayment 42

2.11 Assisted Housing Developments “At Risk” Of Conversion 47

2.12 Opportunities For Energy Conservation 50
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element ii
CHAPTER 3: SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS 51

3.1 Persons With Disabilities 51

3.2 Elderly 54

3.3 Large Households 56

3.4 Female Headed Households 57

3.5 Agricultural employees 58

3.6 People In Need Of Emergency Shelter 61
CHAPTER 4: FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT 63

4.1 Introduction 63

4.2 Zoning and Development Patterns 63

4.3 Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence 78

4.4 Disproportionate Housing Needs, including Displacement 88

4.5 Enforcement and Outreach Capacity 100

4.6 Identified Sites and Affirmatively furthering Fair Housing 104

4.7 Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues 114

4.8 Goals, Actions, Milestones, and Metrics 115
CHAPTER 5: PROJECTED HOUSING NEEDS 116

5.1 Regional Housing Needs 116
CHAPTER 6: SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS 118

6.1 Approved Projects and Housing Units To Meet the RHNA 119 Building Permits Issued 119

6.2 Approved Specific Plans and Projects 119

6.3 Realistic Development Potential 123

6.4 Accessory Dwelling Units 124

6.5 Meeting the RHNA 124

6.5 Future Opportunity Areas 126

6.6 Typical Densities Of Development 126

6.7 Infrastructure Capacity 126
CHAPTER 7: GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS 128

7.1 Land Use Government Constraints 128

7.2 General Plan 129

7.3 Zoning Ordinance 130

7.4 Development Standards: 136
iii City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element

7.5 City and Other Government Regulations 145

7.6 On And Offsite Improvement Standards 145

7.7 Building And Housing Codes 147

7.8 Housing Design For Persons With Disabilities 147

7.9 Permit Fees and Development Processing 150

7.10 Local Processing And Permit Procedures 153

7.11 Infrastructure Constraints 157

7.12 Non-Governmental Constraints 159

7.12 Environmental Constraints 162

7.13 Agricultural Land 167

7.14 Summary 168

7.15 Home Financing 168
CHAPTER 8: CYCLE 5 PROGRAMS – PROGRESS TOWARD IMPLEMENTATION 170

8.1 Summary of Progress 170
CHAPTER 9: GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS 183

9.1 Goals, Policies & Programs 183

9.2 Land use and zoning amendments and revisions 186

9.3 6th Cycle Programs 186

9.4 Quantified Objectives 210

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Community Outreach
APPENDIX B: Proposed Opportunity Zones
APPENDIX C: Sources
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element iv
TABLES
Table 2.2.1 Population Growth Trends 13
Table 2.3.1 Household Growth Trends (2010, 2018, 2015, 2021) 14 Table 2.3.2 Households Size Distribution 15
Table 2.3.3 Households by Tenure (2010, 2015, 2021) 15
Table 2.3.4 Tenure by Age of Householder 2018, 2021 16
Table 2.3.4.1 Tenure by Age of Householder 2000, 2013 16 Table 2.3.5 Household by Head 17
Table 2.3.5.1 Household by Head 18
Table 2.4.1 Race / Ethnicity 2015, 2018, 2021 20
Table 2.5.1 Age Distribution 21
Table 2.6.1 Gender Comparison 2015, 2018, 2021 21
Table 2.7.1 Employment by Industry 22
Table 2.7.2 Major Employers 23
Table 2.7.3 Historical Employment 2015 – 2021 24
Table 2.7.4 Median Household Income by Size 2021 25
Table 2.7.5 Median Household Income by Age 2021 25
Table 2.7.6 Median Household Income 2010, 2021 25
Table 2.8.1 Housing Inventory by Unit Type 26
Table 2.8.2 Housing Units by Building Type 26
Table 2.8.3 Age of Housing Stock – Occupied Units 27
Table 2.8.4 Condition of Housing Stock 27
Table 2.8.5 Occupancy Status 2015 and 2021 28
Table 2.8.5.1 Occupancy Status 2000 and 2013 29
Table 2.8.7 Vacancy Types 2015 and 2021 30
Table 2.8.8 Overcrowded Households: 2021 31
Table 2.8.9 Overcrowded Households: 2015 31
Table 2.8.10 Overcrowded Households: 2013 31
Table 2.8.11 Overcrowded Households: 2000 32
Table 2.9.1 Median Home Price / Gross Rent (2015 - 2021) 33 Table 2.9.1.1 Median Home Price / Gross Rent (2000 - 2013) 33 Table 2.9.2 Median Home Prices (2015 – 2021) 33
Table 2.9.2.1 Median Home Prices (2009 – 2013) 33
Table 2.9.3. Occupied Housing Units by Cost (2018 – 2021) 33 Table 2.9.3.1 Occupied Housing Units by Cost (2010 – 2013) 34 Table 2.9.4 Gross Rent as Percentage of Household Income (2015—2021) 35 Table 2.9.4.1 Gross Rent as Percentage of Household Income (2010 – 2013) 35 Table 2.9.5 Monthly Owner Costs as Percentage of Household Income (2015 – 2021) 35 Table 2.9.5.1 Monthly Owner Costs as Percentage of Household Income (2010 – 2013) 36 v City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table 2.9.6 Extremely Low- Income Households (2019 – 2022) 38 Table 2.9.6.1 Extremely Low-Income Households (2000 – 2012) 38 Table 2.9.7 Housing: Payment Limits per Monterey County Median (AMI) 39 Table 2.9.7 Housing: Payment Limits per Monterey County Median (AMI), Continued 40 Table 2.9.8 Housing: Payment Limits per City of King Median Income 41 Table 2.10.1 Housing Cost as a Percentage of Household Income, by Owners (2015 -2021) 42 Table 2.10.1.1 Housing Cost as a Percentage of Household Income, by Owners (2000 – 2013) 43 Table 2.10.2.1 Housing Cost as a Percentage of Household Income, by Renters (2015 – 2021) 44 Table 2.10.2.2 Housing Cost as a Percentage of Household Income, by Renters (2000 – 2013)44 Table 2.10.3 City of King: Overpayment by Income Category (Cycle 6) 46 Table 2.10.3.1 City of King: Overpayment by Income Category (Cycle 5) 46 Table 2.11.1 Inventory of HUD Assisted Housing 48
Table 2.11.2 Affordable Housing Subsidy Calculations 49 Table 3.1.1 Disabilities 2015 and 2021 52
Table 3.1.1.1 Disabilities 2000 and 2013 52
Table 3.2.1 Tenure by Age of Householder (2015-2021) 54 Table 3.2.1.1 Tenure by Age of Householder (2000-2013) 55 Table 3.2.2 Elderly Below Poverty Level 2015 and 2021 55 Table 3.2.2 Elderly Below Poverty Level 2000 and 2013 55 Table 3.3.1 Household Size by Tenure (2015 – 2021) 57
Table 3.3.1.1 Household Size by Tenure (2000—2013) 57
Table 3.4.1 Female Headed Households (2015 – 2021) 57
Table 3.4.1.1 Female Headed Households (2000 – 2013) 58 Table 3.5.1 Agricultural employees, Monterey County 2013 and 2017 61 Table 4.2.1: Population by Race/Ethnicity as a Percentage of the Total Population, 2021 65 Table 4.2.2: Population by Disability Type 68
Table 4.2.3: Population By Family Status 71
Table 4.2.4: Farmworker Housing in King City 73
Table 4.2.5: H-2A Housing with active Permits 73
Table 4.2.6: Median Income by Jurisdiction, 2020 75
Table 4.2.7: Poverty Rate, 2020 75
Table 4.3.1: School Performance 82
Table 4.3.2: AllTransit Scores 84
Table 4.4.1: Households Experiencing Housing Cost Burden 89 Table 4.4.2: Households Experiencing Overcrowding 93
Table 4.5.1: Compliance with Fair Housing Laws 102
Table 4.6.1: Residential Unit Capacity by Census Tract in King City 105 Table 4.6.2: Housing Units by Building Type 113
Table 4.6.3 Households by Tenure 113
Table 4.7.1: Factors Contributing to Fair Housing Issues 114 Table 4.8.1 Summary of Goals, Actions, Milestones, and Metrics to Meet Fair Housing 115 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element vi
Table 5.1.1 RHNA Allocation 2015-23 and 2023-31 116
Table 5.1.2 Income Limits Monterey County (2022) 117
Table 5.1.3 Income Limits Monterey County (2014) 117
Table 6.1.1 building permits Issued after June 30, 2023 119 Table 6.1.2 Specific Plan and Project Capacity 121
Table 6.2.1 Vacant Parcels/Site Capacity 122
Table 6.3.1 Realistic Capacity Project Examples, City of King 123 Table 6.5.1 Summary of Residential Capacity Compared to the 6th Cycle RHNA 124 Table 7.2.1 General Plan Land Use Designations 129
Table 7.3.1 Zoning Districts Permitting Residential Uses 134 Table 7.3.2 Residential Zoning District Development Standards – Residential Zoning 136 Table 7.3.3 Residential Zoning District Development Standards – Commercial and Industrial Zoning 138
Table 7.3.4 Cumulative Impacts Analysis, Multifamily Zones 139 Table 7.3.5 ADU Unit Standards 142
Table 7.4.1 Parking Requirement by Land Use 146
Table 7.6.1 Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities 148 Table 7.7.1 Permitting and Processing Fees, FY 2024 151 Table 7.7.2 Proportion of City Fee in Overall Construction Cost Residential Development 152 Table 7.8.1 Typical Development Timeline City of King 153 Table 7.8.2 Timelines for Permit Procedures 156
Table 7.11.1 Development Cost for Single Family Homes 161 Table 7.11.2 Development Cost for 4-6 Unit Apartment Complex 162 Table 8.1.1 Meeting the 5th Cycle RHNA 170
Table 8.1.2 Cycle 5 (previous) and Cycle 6 (Current) Programs 173 Table 8.1.3: Evaluation of Previous Housing Element (Cycle 5) Programs 175 Table 9.3.1: Cycle 6 Programs 186
Table 9.4.1 Summary of Quantified Objectives 211
vii City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figures
Figure 4.2.1: Predominant Population, Monterey County 66 Figure4.2 2: Rates of Disability, Monterey County 69
Figure 4.2.3: Percentage Of Children In Female-Headed Households, Monterey County 72 Figure 4.2.4: Median Income by Census Tract, Monterey County 76 Figure 4.2.5: Poverty Rate by Census Tract, Monterey County 77 Figure 4.3.1: TCAC Opportunity Areas, 2023, Monterey County 80 Figure 4.3.2: CalEnviroScreen Percentile, Monterey County 87 Figure 4.4.1: Rate of Homeowner Overpayment, Monterey County 90 Figure 4.4.2: Rate of Renter Overpayment, Monterey County 91 Figure 4.4.3: Households Experiencing Overcrowding, Monterey County 94 Figure 4.4.4: Risk of Displacement, Monterey County 97
Figure 4.4.5: Fire Hazard Areas, Monterey County 98
Figure 4.4.6: FEMA Flood Hazard Areas, Monterey County 99 Figure 4.6.1: Census Tracts in King City 107
Figure 5.4.1 Vacant Land Map 125
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element viii
This page intentionally left blank.

Chapter 1. Introduction
1 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION
California law recognizes the vital role local governments play in the supply and affordability of housing. Each local government in California is required to adopt a comprehensive, long- term General Plan for the physical development of the city or county. In compliance with Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 10.6, a Housing Element is to be adopted as one of the seven mandated elements of the General Plan. Housing Element law, first enacted in 1969, mandates that local governments adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. The State Legislature has found that “the availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every California family is a priority of the highest order.” (California Government Code §65580(a)). The Housing Element establishes goals, policies and programs to facilitate and encourage the provision of safe, adequate housing for its current and future residents of all income levels. California’s housing-element law acknowledges that, in order for the private market to adequately address the housing needs and demand of Californians, local governments must adopt plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for (and do not unduly constrain), housing development.

The Housing Element differs from other required elements in that the State mandates that it include specific information and analyze population and housing trends. Also, unlike other General Plan elements, the Housing Element must be submitted to the California State Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") for review and certification.

1.2 THE CITY OF KING 2021-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT
The greatest areas of existing housing need in the City of King continue to be the provision of apartments for renters and the provision of affordable townhomes and condominiums for young families and seniors, followed closely by more affordable housing for families. A large share of the population still earns lower incomes, as evidenced by significant levels of overcrowding and overpayment. It is anticipated that job growth will bring a need for more affordable/work force housing to accommodate the agricultural industry, wholesale/retail industry, and some business services. However, there will also be a need to continue to provide single-family housing opportunities for higher income earners.

1. The City of King faces several key housing issues: Providing housing affordable to all segments of the population, including agricultural employees and seniors.

2. Preserving the quality of the housing stock;
Chapter 1. Introduction
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 2

3. Providing adequate residential sites to accommodate the City’s future housing needs; and

4. Achieving a balance between employment and housing opportunities.

Pursuant to California Government Code §65588 (e)(c)(3) the planning period for this Housing Element extends from December 31, 2023 through December 31, 2031. This Element identifies strategies and programs that focus on:

1. Conserving and improving existing affordable housing;

2. Providing adequate housing sites;

3. Assisting in the development of affordable housing;

4. Minimizing governmental and other constraints to housing development;

5. Promoting equal housing opportunities; and

6. Encouraging efficient use of land and energy resources in relationship to residential development.

SUMMARY OF APPROACH AND STATUS OF RHNA COMPLIANCE
Through Cycle 5, King City has been diligent to move toward the provision of additional housing for lower income residents. Also, during Cycle 5, homes that were previously approved have been built, a previously approved Specific Plan moved toward construction and affordable, agricultural worker facilities were opened. Largely because of the consistent move toward approval and construction of these types of projects, King City is well able to meet the Cycle 6 RHNA requirement.

Also In Cycle 5, the concept for “intensification” in the Downtown Core was introduced, evaluated and discussed. As a result, three “Opportunity Zones” have been identified. The amendment to the Land Use Element has begun. It and accompanying amendments to the Development Regulations will be accomplished in early 2024. It should be noted that the units to be possible in the Opportunity Zones are NOT required to meet the Cycle 6 RHNA requirement.

This Housing Element provides insight into the housing and economic condition in the City, recaps some of the progress during Cycle 5 and looks forward to the progress and projects that will be accomplished in Cycle 6 – through the remainder of this decade.

1.3 PURPOSE AND CONTENT
The City of King Housing Element addresses housing opportunities for present and future residents through 2031 and provides the primary policy guidance for local decision-making as it relates to housing. The Housing Element has a shorter planning period than the other General Plan elements and is the only General Plan element that requires review and certification by the State of California.

Chapter 1. Introduction
3 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
The Housing Element provides a detailed analysis of the city’s demographic, economic, and housing characteristics as required by State Law. The Element also provides an evaluation of the City’s progress in implementing past policies and programs related to housing production, preservation, and conservation. Based on the community’s housing needs, available resources, constraints and opportunities for housing production and preservation, and its past performance, the Housing Element identifies goals, policies, and programs that address the housing needs of present and future residents. The goals, policies, and programs are included in the Housing Element Policy Document.

1.4 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE PROCESS
The housing goal for the State of California is for every Californian to have access to a decent home and suitable living environment. Recognizing the important role that local governments play in pursuit of this goal, the Legislature has mandated that all cities and counties prepare a Housing Element as part of their comprehensive General Plan (California Government Code §65302 (c)).

This Housing Element update covers the planning period from 2023-2031 (Cycle 6). State planning law mandates that jurisdictions within the Association of Monterey Area Governments ("AMBAG") region update and adopt their Housing Element by December 31, 2023. A grace period for HCD approval is allowed. It isintended that this Housing Element be reviewed annually and updated and modified not more than every eight (8) years in order to remain relevant and useful, to review past efforts and to reflect the community’s changing housing needs.

STATE LAW AND LOCAL PLANNING

1.5 CONSISTENCY WITH STATE LAW
The Housing Element is one of the required General Plan elements, as articulated in § 65580 to 65589.8 of the California Government Code. State Law requires that each jurisdiction’s housing element consists of, “an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, and programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing.” The Housing Element plans for the provision of housing for all economic segments of the population.

As required by State Law (California Government Code §65583 (a)) the assessment and inventory for this Element includes the following:
• Analysis of population and employment trends and projections, and a quantification of the City’s existing and projected housing needs for all income levels. This analysis of existing and projected needs includes the City of King’s share of the regional housing need.

Chapter 1. Introduction
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 4
• Analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay; housing characteristics, including overcrowding; and housing stock condition.
• An inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment; and an analysis of the relationship of zoning, public facilities, and services to these sites.
• Analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels and for persons with disabilities, including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures.
• Analysis of local efforts to remove governmental constraints. • Analysis of potential and actual non-governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, and the cost of construction. • Analysis of any special housing needs for the elderly; persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities; large families; agricultural employees; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. • Analysis of opportunities for residential energy conservation. • Analysis of “at-risk” assisted housing developments that are eligible to change from lowincome housing uses during the next 10 years. • Analysis of potential methods to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing, with support analysis.

1.6 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The California Government Code requires internal consistency among the various elements of the General Plan. §65300.5 of the California Government Code states that the General Plan’s various elements shall provide an integrated and internally consistent and compatible statement of policy. Upon adoption, this Housing Element will become part of the City’s General Plan. The City is currently (2023) in the process of updating the Housing and Land Use portions of the General Plan. City staff has reviewed the other elements of the 1998 General Plan (amended 2016) and has determined that the following changes should be made to the General Plan, pursuant to relevant State laws, as follows:

Chapter 1. Introduction
5 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element

1. The General Plan Use Element should be amended to expand the potential for housing for low- and moderate-income families, within the current City Limits. This effort should be concurrent with and complement the City’s “rebranding” of the Broadway Corridor, addressing the outdated vehicular related corridor from the 1940’s. Three Opportunity Zones should be included as part of this effort. The effort should address the area adjacent to the emerging Multi-Modal Transit Staton.

2. The Zoning Ordinance should be modified to address development standards in the Opportunity Zones. This should be accomplished through the use of a transition to “Development Regulations” with these Opportunity Zones providing the basis for the transition.

During Cycle 5:

1. On June 09, 2015 the General Plan Land Use Plan was amended to expand the potential for housing for low and moderate income families as well as for emergency shelters to house the homeless in the General Commercial (GC) designated area of King City. Most of the affected area is located close to the Downtown and is also close to the proposed Multi-Modal Transit Center near First Street. This amendment included the addition of apartments as well as emergency shelters to the General Plan Land Use Element.

2. On June 09, 2015 the Zoning Ordinance was modified to incorporate provisions that permit apartments as primary land uses as well as secondary uses (such as second floor apartments over commercial and professional office uses) in the General Commercial (C-2) zoning category in the City, including Farmworker Housing. This change has facilitated the ability of landowners to develop affordable rental housing in the C-2 Zoning District. The C-2 District comprises approximately twenty-one (21) acres which was about 20 percent is vacant with another 20% is comprised of older buildings and outdated land uses that could be converted to other residential or mixed use. In addition, the changes to the Zoning Ordinance changed another estimated eight (8) acres of residential land uses in the C-2 Zone from legal nonconforming to conforming land use, solidifying the area for long term affordable housing.

The change created the potential for an estimated 50 to 100 additional affordable units in the C-2 Zone as well as the potential to add one or more shelters for homeless citizens. Please See Sections 7.1 and 3.6.

Chapter 1. Introduction
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 6
As the General Plan is amended in the future, the City will ensure the Housing Element remains consistent with General Plan. New State law requires that the Safety Element be updated to address climate adaptation upon revisions of the Housing Element. The City will ensure compliance with this requirement.

1.7 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS AND PROGRAMS
The Housing Element identifies goals, objectives, policies, and programs for the next eight (8) years that directly address the housing needs of the City of King. There are numerous City plans and programs that work to implement the goals and policies of the Housing Element. These include the City’s Municipal Code, Specific Plans and the newly proposed Opportunity Zones. The City prepares Annual Action Plans each year to supplement the Consolidated Plan and prepares the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report ("CAPER") to report on the prior year’s programs and projects. The Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plans address many of the goals, policies, and programs of the General Plan Housing Element.

1.8 HOUSING ELEMENT ORGANIZATION
The City of King Housing Element is organized into the following sections:
• Introduction. Explains the purpose, process, and content of the Housing Element. • Existing Conditions: Provides a general overview of the City as it enters Cycle 6, some of the information includes Population, households, demographics, housing affordability and similar.
• Housing Needs Analysis. Describes the demographic, economic, and housing characteristics of City of King as well as the current and projected housing needs. • Resources Analysis. Analyzes the various land, financial, and administrative resources available to the City for meeting its housing needs.
• Constraints Analysis. Analyzes the actual and potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, preservation, conservation, and development of housing.
• Housing Policy Plan. Details specific policies and programs the City of King will carry out over the planning period to address the City’s housing goals.

Given the detail and lengthy analysis in developing the Housing Element, supporting background material is included in the following appendices:

Appendix A. Community Outreach
Appendix B. Proposed Opportunity Zones
Appendix C. Sources
Chapter 1. Introduction
7 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element

1.9 DATA SOURCES
Various information sources have been used to prepare the Housing Element, with the 2020 Census Data, American Community Survey Estimates and Cycle 5 Housing Element representing the primary sources. Other sources included:
• Population and demographic data from the State Department of Finance. • HUD Chas Data Book, 2016-2021.
• Housing market information, such as home sales, rents and vacancies. • Public and non-profit agencies for data on special needs groups, the services available to them and gaps in the system.
• Local construction and real estate professionals
• City Staff

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

1.10 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
As part of the Housing Element update process, the City implemented the State’s public participation requirements in Housing Element Law, set forth in California Government Code §65583(c)(8), that jurisdictions shall:
“Include a diligent effort by the local government to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort.”
The City of King values public input in the development of its community development goals and objectives, including the provision of decent and adequate housing.

During the preparation of the Housing Element the City of King is also preparing an update to the City’s Land Use Element, to be completed in early 2024. Two primary purposes of the Land Use Element Update are 1) to provide area for additional types and cost ranges of housing; and, 2) to create three Opportunity Zones at the City’s Downtown Core and at the First Street / US 101 interchange.

The Opportunity Zones along Broadway will focus on providing new opportunity in a traditional vehicle oriented “Main Street” including mixed use and area for higher density residential development.

The following section summarizes public outreach conducted by the City of King. The input provided at the workshops has helped shape the policies and programs included in the Housing Element and the Land Use Element.

Chapter 1. Introduction
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 8
The City will continue to incorporate feedback through the update process by providing noticing of the housing element to affordable housing developers and community-based organizations.

Future efforts for public participation are slated in the form of public hearings at the Planning Commission and City Council for the adoption of the Housing Element.

The City received a comment from the Monterey-Salinas Transit agency during the 7-day public review period in support of additional Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) in the City. This comment was incorporated as a policy in the Programs section. The City anticipates future public comments to be received as it prepares for housing element adoption and certification.

1.11 COMMUNITY SURVEYS
March 19, 2020
On March 19, 2020, Community Surveys (Surveys) were mailed to 4,881 homes in the King City Region (including areas outside of but adjacent to / in the proximity of the City Limits. The City received 441 responses, a response rate of about 9%. The Surveys were collected in three ways:
1) hard copy dropped off at City Hall; 2) hard copy mailed back to the City with a pre-paid envelope; and 3) responses using the ZOHO online survey interface. The Survey was provided to every household in both English and Spanish. It included a map showing “Opportunity Areas” and the boundaries of different King City neighborhoods. (The boundaries were created by staff to collect information on the geographic location of survey respondents.) The responses to this Survey (aimed at housing and land use) has been used, in large part as the basis for the preparation of this Housing Element. Respondents included a desire for affordable housing (more than 50%), jobs, retail shopping. Mixed use was generally supported.

More than 50% of residents supported increased height of structures, in selected areas, of three to four stories in height. Residents prefer single family residences, however, 42% indicated that apartments, townhomes, condominiums or manufactured homes were their home of choice.

More than 50% of residents supported increased density in existing residential neighborhoods.

To date, this has not been the City’s approach, however, after the Opportunity Zones and in place and developing, increased density in residential neighborhoods will quite possible be the last phase in approaching buildout.

Improvement of the Historic Downtown was seen by residents as a way to create interest, walkability and energy in the core. Public service and Transportation were noted as being key elements of progress toward a Smart City.

As noted above, this Survey and the work done / information provided by the Cal Poly students provided a key element of the base for the preparation of this document.

Chapter 1. Introduction
9 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
Cal Poly Planning Labs Winter 2022 and Spring 2023
The Cal Poly students were in King City, gathering information through several events and surveys during winter 2022 and spring 2023. To large extent , the students' findings tracked closely with the results of the survey performed by the City in 2020. They noted that the findings appeared consistent among and between white and Hispanic residents.

Of interest was the finding that a significant amount of working age residents (25-44) identified “improved housing” as primary need. While the definition of “improved” was not clarified, it appears that newer, more modern homes with more modern finishes and technology were a significant desire. As noted in Chapter 6, discussions with the Building Department indicate that the very large majority of structures and homes in the City are sound, healthy and safe.

The students suggested a number of approaches to achieve abundant, affordable fair housing.

These included: Partnering with Non-Profits to obtain State help; Reducing barriers to development; Incentivizing the development of the “target” housing types; Emphasizing affordability; Supporting fair-housing laws; Implementing adaptive re-use; Employing a regional approach; Sustaining current programs; Expanding ownership opportunities

1.12 PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL UPDATE AND DISCUSSION

SESSIONS
A number of Planning Commission and City Council Public Review Sessions have been held as part of the Housing Element update process, through which the City implemented the State’s public participation requirements
Planning Commission and City Council Workshops: August 04, 2020 and August 20, 2020
In these Workshops, Staff reviewed the findings of the Community Survey, providing demographics, trends in the City and provided a summary of citizens responses. Some of the primary comments from the survey included availability of affordable housing, availability of jobs and lack of retail stores. The respondents also indicated that a more vibrant downtown was desired. The meeting was publicly noticed in the Rustler and on the City’s website.

The Planning Commission and City Council received the results of the Survey and provided comment, indicating that Staff should focus on more opportunities for Housing and on the Downtown in the Housing and Land Use Element Updates. The meeting was publicly noticed in the Rustler and on the City’s website.

Chapter 1. Introduction
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 10
Planning Commission Workshop: April, 2021
Staff briefly reviewed the findings of the Community Survey, provided an update regarding the preparation of the Housing Element and Land Use Element, focusing on the draft mapping that had been prepared for the documents. The meeting was publicly noticed in the Rustler and on the City’s website.

Planning Commission Workshop: May 03, 2022
Staff briefly reviewed the previous meetings and highlighted the uses of and purpose for general plan and zoning documents. findings of the Community Survey, provided an update regarding the preparation of the Housing Element and Land Use Element, focusing on the draft mapping that had been prepared for the documents. Staff also presented and reviewed the concepts for Opportunity Zones 1, 2 and 3, focusing on additional housing and mixed- use opportunity. The meeting was publicly noticed in the Rustler and on the City’s website.

Planning Commission Workshop: January 17, 2023
Staff reviewed the three potential Opportunity Zones and presented an example project in Opportunity Zone 1, using it as a basis for a potential concept for density and intensity in the zone. The increase for intensity of use / amendment to development standards could result in additional mixed use development and higher residential density in accord with citizen’s requests for more retail opportunity downtown and more affordable housing. Staff presented potential amendment to the Land Use Element, update of the Housing Element and potential changes to the Development Regulations (Zoning Code). The Planning Commission expressed support for the concepts. The meeting was publicly noticed in the Rustler and on the City’s website.

City Council Workshop: January 24, 2023
Staff presented the Opportunity Zones and information as presented to the Planning Commission, including the Commission’s comments. Members of the community present at the workshop expressed support for greater lot coverage, height, uses, smaller unit sizes, pedestrian orientation and potential reductions in parking based on percentage of affordability. A possible concern with reduction in parking requirements was noted. The Council expressed support for the concepts and the Opportunity Zones and noted that parking should be explored. The meeting was publicly noticed in the Rustler and on the City’s website.

Planning Commission Workshop: September 05, 2023
On September 5, 2023 Staff provided the Planning Commission an Update on the Housing and Land Use Elements, focusing on how the two elements would work together to encourage additional housing and mixed use in the three Opportunity Zones. Staff also provided an update on the housing for Farmworkers, lower income residents and the homeless. The ongoing Chapter 1. Introduction
11 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
environmental analysis for the Land Use Element (focusing on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)) was discussed. Housing as discussed in the Housing Element will be implemented / allowed in the Land Use Element. The item was advertised in the Rustler and posted at City Hall as part of the Agenda Package. It was also noted in the City’s August newsletter. Notices were provided to all property owners within 300’ of the Opportunity Zone Boundaries. A Zoom link was provided.

The concept and approach were well received by the public. Comments included concern over reduction of parking and a desire to see good design review regarding this type of lot coverage and structures.

City Council Workshop: September 12, 2023
On September 12, 2023 Staff provided the City Council with a similar Update. Staff indicated that the Public Review Draft of the Housing Element was scheduled to be available on October 1. The Public review Draft of the Land Use Element (and environmental determination) would be available in mid-October. The item was advertised in the Rustler and posted at City Hall as part of the Agenda Package. It was also noted in the City’s August newsletter.

As with the Planning Commission, the concept and approach were well received by the public.

Comments included concern over reduction of parking and a desire to see good design review regarding this type of lot coverage and structures. The Council expressed desire to work with the owner of the existing Agricultural Worker Housing structure to find ways to create a permanent facility given that the current temporary approval expires in 2026.

Public Review Draft: November 1, 2023
On November 1, 2023 the Public Review Draft was placed on the City’s website with a copy at the Front Desk. Notice ran in the King City Rustler on October 18. The Notice also included the dates of the upcoming Planning Commission and City Council workshops. On November 8, 2023 additional information was placed on the City’s Facebook page.

Planning Commission Workshop: November 07,2023
On November 07, 2023 Staff provided the Commission with an Update, Highlighting the Public Review Draft release on November 1. Staff provided detail regarding the contents of the Housing Element, focusing on the City’s ability to meet Cycle 6 RHNA requirement, the inclusion of Opportunity Zones in Cycle 6 and the Programs contained in the document. Staff also gave a brief overview of Cycle 6 demographic information from Census Data and gave an overview of the anticipated schedule for Hearings and submission to HCD for first review.

Discussion from and with Commissioner’s included availability of infrastructure to serve the Cycle 6 units, additional discussion regarding the method of providing Cycle 6 units, the methods of Chapter 1. Introduction
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 12
providing public notice / information and the potential to translate the document into Spanish.

There was no comment from the public.

City Council Workshop: November 14, 2023
On November 14, 2023 Staff provided the City Council with an Update, highlighting the Public Review Draft release on November 1. Staff provided detail regarding the contents of the Housing Element, focusing on the City’s ability to meet Cycle 6 RHNA requirement, the inclusion of Opportunity Zones in Cycle 6 and the Programs contained in the document. Staff also gave a brief overview of Cycle 6 demographic information from Census Data.

The City Council provided brief comment on the status of the Opportunity Zones, focusing on density and parking. Question occurred regarding the potential for Google to provide translation of the PDF. There was no comment from the public.

1.13 PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL SESSIONS Planning Commission Hearing: December 05, 2023
On December 05, 2023 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing regarding the Interim Housing Element. At the Hearing the Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the Interim Element. Staff provided a recap of the process, an overview of the document and introduced public comments from the Public Review Period. There was no comment from the Public at the Hearing.

City Council Hearing: December 12, 2023
On December 12, 2023 the City Council held a duly noticed Public Hearing regarding the Interim Housing Element. At the Hearing the City Council voted to adopt the Interim Element, which would be transmitted to the California State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Staff provided a recap of the process, an overview of the document and introduced public comments from the Public Review Period. There was no comment from the Public at the Hearing.

Public Review Draft: November 1, 2023
On September 30, 2024, the Second Public Review Draft was placed on the City’s website with a copy at the Front Desk. In addition, on October 10, 2024, a link to the housing element was sent to interested parties and on October 17, 2024, the City received comments from the MontereySalinas Transit (MST) District clarifying the Route 23 schedule, as well as supporting additional residential development as transit-oriented development.

Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
13 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.1 INTRODUCTION
When preparing the Housing Element, each jurisdiction must evaluate both existing and future housing needs for all economic segments of the population. Chapter 2 presents and analyzes demographic, economic, and housing characteristics that influence the demand for and the availability of housing. The analyses form a foundation for the policies and programs that seek to address specific housing needs. Housing needs have been identified according to income, tenure, and special needs groups.

Primary data sources used in these analyses include the 2010 and 2020 U.S. Census, the Cycle 5 Housing Element, the 2021 - American Community Survey, as well as information from the California Department of Finance ("DOF"), and the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (“AMBAG”). These data sources are the most reliable for assessing existing conditions, provide consistent comparison with historical data, and serve as the basis for forecasts. NOTE: Data from these sources includes a margin of error. Census Data, Estimates from American Community Surveys and California Department of Finance information vary.

Data sets are typically not available from one source for all time periods.

2.2 POPULATION
Since the year 2010, the City and County have grown at 0.30% and 0.37% per year, respectively.

As of 2022, Monterey County was estimated to be home to 433,716 citizens and the City of King was estimated to be home to 13,331 citizens. Should these rates remain consistent, by 2030, the City and County are expected to grow to approximately 13,611 citizens and 444,949 persons.

It should be noted that growth during the previous 10 year period was approximately 1.4% per year for the City and 0.4% for the County.

TABLE 2.2.1 POPULATION GROWTH TRENDS
Place 2010* 2020* 2022** Average Annual
Change
City of King 12,874 13,332 13,331 0.30%
Monterey County 415,057 439,035 433,716 0.37%
Source:* U.S. 2010 and 2020 Census (P1|Race), **State of CA DoF E-5 Population and Housing Estimates Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 14

2.3 HOUSEHOLDS
Household Trends, 2000 – 2013
Table 2.3.1 illustrates household growth in the period between 2010 and 2021. This data shows consistent growth until approximately 2018 with a significant percentage decline since that time.

Since 2018, numerically, the number of households in the City dropped by 17. This may be due to a number of factors including COVID 19 and the availability of economical housing.

TABLE 2.3.1 HOUSEHOLD GROWTH TRENDS (2010, 2018, 2015, 2021) Year Households Numerical Change Percent Change
2010 2,784 N/A N/A
2015 2,976 192 6.9%
2018 3,235 259 8.7%
2021 3,218 -17 -0.5%
Source: 2010-2021 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Table S1101
Households by Size
As is shown in Table 2.3.2, in 2021 households of 4 or more persons made up a large percentage of both the owner (45%) and the renter (66%) occupied households. • By comparison, in 2010 and 2013 4+ person households made up 55% of owner-occupied households and 60% of renter-occupied households.
• 4 person households are the largest group for both owners and renters (29.4%) • During Cycle 5 the number of owner-occupied households for 1,2,3 and 4 persons increased while the number of households for 5, 6 and 7+ persons increased • During Cycle 5 the number of renter-occupied households for 1,2, and 3 persons decreased while the number of households for 4,5,6, and 7+ person increased • The number of renter-occupied households including 7 or more persons increased by more than 7% from 2018 to 2021
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
15 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
TABLE 2.3.2 HOUSEHOLDS SIZE DISTRIBUTION
City of King 2018 and 2021
Household
Size
Total Households Renter Households Owner Households
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
2018 2021 2018 2021 2018 2021 2018 2021 2018 2021 2018 2021 1 Person 316 330 9.8 10.3 182 137 9.7 7.3 134 193 9.9 14.3 2 Persons 487 486 15.1 15.1 243 143 12.9 7.6 244 343 18.1 25.4 3 Persons 517 556 16.0 17.3 389 350 20.6 18.7 128 206 9.5 15.3 4 Persons 996 945 30.8 29.4 481 549 25.5 29.4 515 396 38.1 29.4 5 Persons 512 397 15.8 12.3 382 332 20.3 17.8 130 65 9.6 4.8 6 Persons 269 269 8.3 8.4 116 135 6.2 7.2 153 134 11.3 9.9 7+ Persons 138 235 4.3 7.3 31 224 4.8 12.0 47 11 3.5 0.8 Total 3,235 3,218 100 100 1,884 1,870 100 100 1,351 1,348 100 100 Source: U.S. Census ACS 5-Year Estimates 2018 and 2021. Table B25009 Households by Tenure
The percentage of Owner-Occupied households has decreased by 8.2% since 2010 and the percentage of Renter-Occupied households has increased correspondingly. More than 58% of households in the City of King rent their housing.

TABLE 2.3.3 HOUSEHOLDS BY TENURE (2010, 2015, 2021)
2010
(#)
2010
(%)
2015
(#)
2015
(%)
2018
(#)
2018
(%)
2021
(#)
2021
(%)
Owner 1,394 50.1 1,275 42.8 1,351 41.8 1,348 41.9
Renter 1,390 49.9 1,701 57.2 1,884 58.2 1,870 58.1
Total 2,784 100 2,976 100 3,235 100 3,218 100
Source: U.S. Census ACS 5-Year Estimates 2010, 2015, 2018, 2021. Table B25009 Tenure by Age of Householder
Historically, the bulk of households in the City are headed by persons between 25 and 54 years of age (67.7% in 2000 and 72.5% in 2013). In 2021 approximately 62% of households were headed by persons in these age groups. Table 2.3.4 shows several items of note including a decrease in total households headed by persons 25 to 44 years and an increase in households headed by persons 45 to 59 years. This may be an indicator of aging. Households headed by persons 65 to 85 years have also increased.

Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 16
TABLE 2.3.4 TENURE BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER 2018, 2021
Age 2018 2021
Owner Renter Total Owner Renter Total
15 to 24 years 0 144 144 14 204 218
25 to 34 years 189 561 750 178 449 627
35 to 44 years 325 571 896 208 471 679
45 to 54 years 325 287 612 367 330 697
55 to 59 years 122 55 177 178 90 268
60 to 64 years 134 92 226 179 37 216
65 to 74 years 160 117 277 92 245 337
75 to 84 years 27 28 55 79 26 105
Over 85 years 39 29 68 53 18 71
Total 1,351 1,884 3,235 1,348 1,870 3,218
Source: U.S. Census ACS 5-Year Estimates 2018 and 2021. Table B25007 Historical Tenure
Table 2.3.4.1 has been included from the Cycle 5 Housing Element to provide some longer range perspective. General trends include a move from renting to and overall aging of household heads.

TABLE 2.3.4.1 TENURE BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER 2000, 2013
Age
2000 2013
Owner Renter Total Owner Renter Total
15 to 24 years 12 206 218 44 92 136
25 to 34 years 305 523 828 182 652 834
35 to 44 years 311 305 616 192 424 616
45 to 54 years 252 188 440 419 156 575
55 to 59 years 175 61 236 52 38 90
60 to 64 years 37 24 61 113 48 161
65 to 74 years 208 56 264 141 49 190
75 to 84 years 77 8 85 34 82 116
Over 85 years 27 8 35 40 34 74
Total 1,404 1,379 2,783 1,217 1,575 2,792
Source: ACS 2009 – 2013 Estimates Table B25007
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
17 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
TABLE 2.3.5 HOUSEHOLD BY HEAD
2018 2021
Renter Owner Total Renter Owner Total
Total 1,884 1,351 3,235 1,870 1,348 3,218
Family 1,537 1,201 2,738 1,687 1,146 2,833
Married couple 857 981 1,838 1,032 837 1,869
With children under 18 616 514 1,130 769 452 1,221
No children under 18 241 467 708 263 385 648
Male householder
without wife 244 99 343 308 101 409
With children under 18 91 45 136 162 51 213
No children under 18 153 54 207 146 50 196
Female householder
without husband 436 121 557 347 208 555
With children under 18 338 109 447 236 97 333
No children under 18 98 12 110 111 111 222
Non-family 347 150 497 183 202 385
Source: U.S. Census 5-Year Estimates 2018 and 2021. Table B25115 Household Composition in the period from 2018 to 2021 with some of the noticeable trends as follows.
• The number of married couples with children under 18 increased Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 18
• Single male heads of households increased. The percentage of these households that include children under 18 increased. Ownership in this group remained relatively constant.
• Female headed households remained relatively constant while those with children under 18 decreased. Ownership in this group increased.
• Non-family households increased.

Table 2.3.5.1 has been included from the Cycle 5 Housing Element to provide some longer range perspective. Specifically, note the Owner to Renter ratio in 2010, married couple ownership ratio and male householder without wife.

TABLE 2.3.5.1 HOUSEHOLD BY HEAD
2010 2013
Renter Owner Total Renter Owner Total
TOTAL 1,390 1,394 2,784 1,575 1,217 2,792
Family 1,107 1,194 2,301 1,333 1,065 2,398
Married Couple 600 979 1,579 801 823 1,624
With Children under 18 430 585 1,015 711 454 1,165
No Children under 18 170 394 564 90 369 459
Male Householder without wife 177 64 241 246 167 191
With Children under 18 114 29 143 199 83 282
No Children under 18 63 35 98 47 84 131
Female Householder without
Husband 330 151 481 286 75 361
With Children under 18 255 114 369 199 12 211
No Children under 18 75 37 112 79 63 142
Non-Family 200 283 483 152 242 394
Source: ACS 2009 – 2013 Estimates Table B25115
Household Composition changed in the period from 2010 to 2013 with some of the noticeable trends as follows.
• The total number of married couple households grew. Married couples in rental housing increased and married couples who owned homes decreased. • The number of married couples with children under 18 who lived in rental housing grew while those with children who owned homes decreased.

Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
19 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
• Male Householders and those with children under 18 increased while male householders with no children decreased in rentals and increased in owned homes. • Female Householders and those with children under 18 decreased while those without children under 18 increased in owned homes.
• Non-family households decreased.

2.4 RACE / ETHNICITY
In the Census, respondents choose the race or races with which they most closely identify. Ethnic grounds are determined by the respondents’ cultural heritage - separate from racial background.

King City is largely Hispanic and White in composition.

In 2021, the “Some Other Race” and “White” categories comprise 89.5% of the residents of the City. “Two or more races” comprises another 6.0%. Regarding Ethnicity, Hispanic or Latino “of any race” comprise 87.1% of the total residents.

While there appears to be some uncertainty on the part of respondents regarding “race” and “ethnicity” it is clear that it is clear that persons of some Latino / Hispanic origins are the very large majority.

By comparison, in 2000 the largest number of respondents selected White (42%) and Some Other Race (55.53%). In 2010 and 2013, the largest number of respondents selected White. In 2000, 2010 and 2013, more than 80% of respondents identified their Ethnicity as being Hispanic, increasing steadily from 80.4% to 89.1% through that time period.

Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 20
TABLE 2.4.1 RACE / ETHNICITY 2015, 2018, 2021
Race 2015 2018 2021
White 10,983 82.0% 7,213 52.1% 2,689 20.0%
Black or African American 44 0.3% 90 0.7% 23 0.2%
American Indian and
Alaska Native 67 0.5% 81 0.6% 44 0.3%
Asian 207 1.5% 251 1.8% 536 4.0%
Native Hawaiian and
Other Pacific Islander 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Some other race 1,730 12.9% 5,849 42.3% 9,320 69.5%
Two or more races 358 2.7% 350 2.5% 807 6.0%
Total Population (Race) 13,389 99.9% 13,834 100% 13,419 100% Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino
(of any race) 11,958 89.3% 12,377 89.5% 11,686 87.1%
Not Hispanic or Latino 1,431 10.7% 1,457 10.5% 1,733 12.9% Total Population
(Ethnicity) 13,389 100% 13,834 100% 13,419 100%
Source: U.S. Census 5-Year Estimates 2015, 2018, 2021. Table DP05. Percentage may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

2.5 AGE
In the period from 2015 to 2021 most age group characteristics remain rather constant. Items of note include:
• Decrease in the 25 to 34 age group by 4.1% and increased in the 35 to 44 age group by

4.6%. This may indicate maturing of the workforce.
• Decrease of the 10-14 age group by 3.9 % over 2015 and 2.7% over 2000. This is of interest because the children’s age groups older and younger than this have remained mostly consistent.
• The 65 to 74 age group has increased by 2.7% since 2015. It was mostly consistent from 2000 to 2015.

By comparison, between 2000 and 2013, significant decreases occurred in the younger and middle age groups and significant increases occurred in the 20 to 24 and over 55 age groups. The 5 and under and the over 85 groups increased from 2000 to 2010 and remained relatively stable between 2010 and 2013.

Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
21 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
TABLE 2.5.1 AGE DISTRIBUTION
Age
2015 2018 2021
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Under 5 1,177 8.8 1,352 9.8 1,501 11.2
5-9 1,304 9.7 1,399 10.1 1,572 11.7
10-14 1,410 10.5 978 7.1 887 6.6
15-19 1,276 9.5 1,343 9.7 1,445 10.8
20-24 1,137 8.5 1,080 7.8 718 5.4
25-34 2,200 16.4 2,332 16.9 1,903 14.2
35-44 1,976 14.8 2,175 15.7 2,161 16.1
45-54 1,320 9.9 1,466 10.6 1,368 10.2
55-59 359 2.7 480 3.5 428 3.2
60-64 261 1.9 374 2.7 375 2.8
65-74 500 3.7 648 4.7 780 5.8
75-84 141 1.1 68 0.5 174 1.3
85 and over 328 2.4 139 1.0 107 0.8
Total 13,389 100% 13,834 100 13,419 100%
Source: U.S. Census ACS 5-Year Estimates 2015, 2018, 2021. Table DP05

2.6 GENDER
The male / female make-up of the City has, since 2000, been 53% and 56% male. From 2010 to 2013 the number of males increasing significantly, from 52.2% to 56.5%. In 2021, the gender composition had changed rather significantly, readjusting to 48.2% male and 52.8% female.

Upon review, it appears that, since 2015, approximately 1,000 males are no longer residents of the City and approximately 1,000 females are now residents.

TABLE 2.6.1 GENDER COMPARISON 2015, 2018, 2021
2015 2018 2021
Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total
7,436 5,953 13,389 7,355 6,479 13,834 6,463 6,956 13,419 Source: U.S. Census ACS 5-Year Estimates 2015, 2018, 2021.Table DP05 Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 22

2.7 EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME
Employment by Industry
In 2021, the US Census American Community Service (ACS) Estimates indicate that the City of King had 4,910 employed persons with the largest industries identified as agriculture; education services and health care; art entertainment, retail and accommodation / food services; retail trade; and, professional, scientific, management, administrative and waste services. Agriculture employs 44% of the work force, down slightly from 2013 (45.9%). It remains the key element of the City’s economy.

According to the Monterey County Agricultural Commissioners’ Annual Crop Report, total farm production in the County for 2023 was $4.63 billion, a 13.1% increase from 2021. Vegetable crops remain the single largest production category by dollar value (67.6%). Fruits and nuts generate $1.23 billion (26.6%) Key crops includes strawberries (20.5% of the total sales), leaf lettuce and broccoli. Together, these two categories account for 91.6% of the county’s farm production values.

In 2010, total farm production for 2010 was $4.03 billion and vegetable crops were the single largest production category by dollar value (66%). Key crops included lettuce, broccoli, and celery. Fruit and nut crops (24%) represent the second largest category. Together, these two categories accounted for 90% of the county’s farm production values.

TABLE 2.7.1 EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY
Industry Estimated Jobs
2015
Estimated Jobs
2018
Estimated Jobs
2021
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and
hunting, and mining 2,315 47.1% 2,811 50.9% 2,145 44.0% Construction 171 3.5% 142 2.6% 222 4.6%
Manufacturing 221 4.5% 210 3.8% 130 2.7%
Wholesale trade 117 2.4% 42 0.8% 60 1.2%
Retail trade 613 12.5% 410 7.4% 341 7.0%
Transportation and warehousing,
and utilities 105 2.1% 165 3.0% 303 6.2%
Information 23 0.5% 84 1.5% 46 0.9%
Finance and insurance, and real
estate and rental and leasing 89 1.8% 118 2.1% 6 0.1%
Professional, scientific, and
management, and administrative
and waste management services
301 6.1% 443 8.0% 289 5.9%
Education services, and health
care and social assistance 447 9.1% 493 8.9% 547 11.2%
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
23 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
Industry Estimated Jobs
2015
Estimated Jobs
2018
Estimated Jobs
2021
Arts, entertainment, and
recreation, and accommodation
and food services
298 6.1% 443 8.0% 415 8.5%
Other services, except public
administration 120 2.4% 51 0.9% 188 3.9%
Public administration 90 1.8% 108 2.0% 183 3.8%
Total 4,910 100% 5,520 100% 4,875 100
Source: U.S. Census ACS 5-Year Estimates 2015, 2018, 2021. Table S2403 When evaluating types of Industry and Employment in the City it is important to note that, by education, the large majority of the City’s residents are best suited to labor and service jobs. US Census Data indicates that, for persons over 25 years, 49.1 % have received a High School Diploma and 8.8 % have an undergraduate degree or higher. Education and Employment are factors when making comparison to ability to afford housing.

TABLE 2.7.2 MAJOR EMPLOYERS
Company Name Industry Type Employees
2013*
Employees
2023*
Rio Farms/Gill Onions Vegetable Growers and
Shippers 50-1000 1000
Rava Ranches, Fresh Farms, Mesa
business Park, & So. Co. Packing Vegetables 525 545
Mee Memorial Hospital Health 250 -500 530
San Bernabe Vineyard Vineyard 500 500
King City Elementary School District Education 300 350
L.A. Hearne Co.

Grain, Bean Processing,
Seed, Fertilizers, Feed,
Trucking & Retail
100 150
Casey Printing Printing and Publishing 45 45
City of King Services/Government 45 45
Southern Monterey County Joint
Union High School District Education 41 51
Calpine Corp Cogeneration 20 30
Source: ** City of King Chamber of Commerce (webpage) 2023 Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 24
Unemployment
Since 2016, unemployment has dropped to less than 10%, reaching 2.2% in 2020. These numbers are affected somewhat by the seasonal nature of the ag industry. In 2023, unemployment has begun trending upward, currently being at approximately 3.7% as reported by the California Employment Development Department.

By comparison, for most of the 21st Century (2000 to 2015) unemployment ranged between 10% and 15% peaking from 2009 to 2012 at near 20% averaged less than 15%. Toward the end of that decade, and continuing to the present, unemployment increased, peaking at approximately 21% in 2009 and 2010. Since 2016, unemployment has dropped to less than 10%, reaching 2.2% in 2020. These numbers are affected somewhat by the seasonal nature of the ag industry.

TABLE 2.7.3 HISTORICAL EMPLOYMENT 2015 – 2021
Year Labor Force Employment Unemployment Unemployment
Rate (%)
2015 5,760 4,910 839 14.6
2016 5,694 5,198 484 8.5
2017 5,583 5,197 380 6.8
2018 5,694 5,520 167 2.9
2019 6,055 5,871 177 2.9
2020 5,534 5,411 123 2.2
2021 5,087 4,875 212 4.2
Source: U.S. Census ACS 5-Year Estimates 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021. Table DP03 Median Household Income
The Median Household Income in the City of King was $59,712, nearly$14,000 higher than during Cycle 5. ($45,905). The highest median income was for Householders between 45 and 64 years ($65,371) It should also be noted that Table 2.7.4 shows median income for all households in the City of King. This is to be differentiated from Median Income for a Family of Four in Monterey County (Area Median Income (AMI)) which is used as the basis for HUD Income Limits in Table

2.9.7. Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
25 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
TABLE 2.7.4 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY SIZE 2021
Household Size City of King Monterey County
Total Median Income $59,712 $82,163
1 Person $27,845 $42,390
2 Person $78,194 $87,861
3 Person $50,053 $92,030
4 Person $44,883 $93,099
5 Person $46,577 $89,710
6 Person $64,632 $105,812
7 Person $157,159 $119,689
Source: U.S. Census ACS 5-Year Estimates 2021. Table B19019 TABLE 2.7.5 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY AGE 2021
Householder 2015 2021
Under 25 years $63,563 $49,815
25 to 44 years $34,119 $57,243
45 to 64 years $48,462 $65,371
65 years and over $20,363 $43,835
Median $40,238 $59,712
Source: U.S. Census ACS 5-Year Estimates 2010 and 2021. Table B19049 Households by Income
Table 2.7.6 shows the distribution of income for the City of King and for Monterey County. The largest percentage of households (36%) earned between $45 and $99,000, down 11% from 2010.

However, it should also be noted that the number of households in the over $100,000 category increased by 13% and the number of households in the $0 to $24,999 category decreased by 6%.

Taken all together it appears that household income is on the rise in King City.

TABLE 2.7.6 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME 2010, 2021
Income City of King Monterey County
2010 2021 2010 2021
$0 to $24,999 539 19% 385 12% 23,054 18% 15,110 12%
$25,000 to
$44,999 620 22% 892 28% 23,587 19% 18,388 14%
$45,000 to
$99,999 1,305 47% 1,163 36% 46,734 37% 45,084 35%
$100,000 320 11% 778 24% 31,588 25% 51,395 40%
Total 2,784 100% 3,218 100% 124,963 100% 129,977 100%
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 26

2.8 HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Housing Inventory by Unit Type
According to the California Department of Finance, the current number of housing units in the City of King is 3,505, an increase of 222 over 2015 and an increase of 496 units over 2010 where the US Census Bureau identified 3,009 units. It is of interest to note that 41.9% of City of King Households occupy owned residences and 58.1% of Households occupy rented residences.

See Table 2.3.3. By comparison, Table 2.8.1 indicates that 67% of units are single family units and 25% are multi-family units.

TABLE 2.8.1 HOUSING INVENTORY BY UNIT TYPE
Units 2015 Units 2018 Units 2021
Single-Family Units 2,157 66% 2,226 66% 2,361 67%
Multi-Family Units 877 27% 877 26% 893 25%
Mobile Homes 249 8% 249 7% 251 7%
Total 3,283* 3,352* 3,505**
Source: *CA DoF E-5 Population and Housing Estimates January 1, 2011-2020. **CA DoF E-5 Population and Housing Estimates January 2020-2022
TABLE 2.8.2 HOUSING UNITS BY BUILDING TYPE
Unit Type Units 2015 Units 2018 Units 2021 Change
SF Detached 1,882 57% 1,950 58% 2,083 59% 201 11%
SF Attached 275 8% 276 8% 278 8% 3 (-)1%
2 to 4 323 10% 323 10% 327 9% 4 1%
5+ 554 17% 554 17% 566 16% 12 2%
Mobile Homes 249 8% 249 7% 251 7% 2 (-)1%
Total 3,283* 3,352* 3,505** 222
Source: *CA DoF E-5 Population and Housing Estimates January 1, 2011-2020. **CA DoF E-5 Population and Housing Estimates January 2020-2022
As seen in Table 2.8.2, Multi-family attached housing (condominiums, townhomes, apartments) comprise 34% of the units in King City. Attached single family housing (duplexes, triplexes) accounts for another 8% of total units. Single family homes remained the primary form of housing (59%).

Age of Housing Stock
Approximately 21.5% of King City’s housing stock was built from the year 2000 to the present.

44.4% was built between 1980 and 2000. 37.1% is more than 50 years of age.

Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
27 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
TABLE 2.8.3 AGE OF HOUSING STOCK – OCCUPIED UNITS
Year Number Percent
2020 or later 50 1.6%
2010 to 2019 283 8.8%
2000 to 2009 358 11.1%
1990 to 1999 733 22.8%
1980 to 1989 597 18.6%
1970 to 1979 439 13.6%
1960 to 1969 188 5.8%
1950 to 1959 274 8.5%
1940 to 1949 233 7.2%
1939 or earlier 63 2.0%
Total 3,218 100%
Source: U.S. Census ACS 5-Year Estimates 2021. Table B25126 Housing Conditions
The US Census provides a limited amount of information regarding the condition of housing units.

The large majority of homes in the City do not have a significant defect as defined by the Census.

TABLE 2.8.4 CONDITION OF HOUSING STOCK
Condition 2015
Estimate
2015
Percent
2021
Estimate
2021
Percent
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 22 0.7% 0 0.0%
Lacking complete kitchen facilities 7 0.2% 0 0.0%
No telephone service available 88 3.0% 47 1.5%
Occupied housing units 2,976 3,218
Source: U.S. Census ACS 5-Year Estimates 2015 and 2021. Table DP04 Housing Conditions: The King City Building and Fire Departments routinely inspect housing throughout the City, being diligent to monitor existing condition, and throughout the 5th cycle planning period housing conditions have improved. According to Table 2.8.3, 55.7% percent of the homes in King City were built in 1994 or earlier (30 years old), which suggests that they are at the age where they may need minor repairs up to major rehabilitation such as new roofs, siding repair, paint, replacing cracked or inoperable windows, or plumbing systems. However, based on a visual assessment of King City housing, the City estimates that 139 units (121 single-family residences, 12 apartment units, and 6 triplex units) in the city may be in need of rehabilitation, and that only one home is in need of replacement.

Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 28
Five categories are typically included in these observations: Foundation, Roofing, Siding, Windows and Electrical. Five levels of condition / needed repairs were included: Sound, Minor, Moderate, Substantial, Dilapidated.

The majority of multi -family units were built since the 1970’s and are in at least satisfactory condition.

As is to be expected, and as evidenced by the Cycle 5 Housing Element, deterioration occurs with age, to be seen with roofs, window frames and occurrence of dry rot. Exterior electrical wiring on homes at or beyond 50 years of age can also be an item for further consideration.

Two areas for future review include the Jayne Street area and the Queen’s Court mobile home park.

Occupancy Status
Tables 2.8.5 shows the number units identified as occupied and vacant per the US Census Bureau.

As of 2021, 91% of units in the City of King were identified as Occupied. Although the 2000 Census noted occupancy as 97%, data since that time indicates occupancy as being between 90% and 93%. in the 2013 data indicates that occupancy in the City of King is typically slightly higher than that of the County as a whole. It appears that population growth and home construction are “in balance”. The City is looking to broaden the types and price ranges of new housing.

TABLE 2.8.5 OCCUPANCY STATUS 2015 AND 2021
Status City of King Monterey County
2015 2021 2015 2021
Occupied 2,976 97% 3,218 93% 125,402 90% 129,977 91%
Vacant 79 3% 255 7% 14,392 10% 13,117 9%
Total 3,055 100% 3,473 100% 139,794 100% 143,094 100%
Source: U.S. Census ACS 5-Year Estimates 2015 and 2021. Table DP04 Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
29 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
TABLE 2.8.5.1 OCCUPANCY STATUS 2000 AND 2013
This table has been included to illustrate historical vacancy. As shown by the table, occupancy historically varies between 93% and 97% - very much in line with the 2015 to 2021 data.

Status City of King Monterey County
2000 2013 2000 2013
Occupied 2,783 97% 2,792 93% 121,236 92% 125,428 90%
Vacant 72 3% 204 7% 10,472 8% 13,898 10%
Total 2,855 100% 2,996* 100% 131,708 100% 139,326 100%
Source: ACS 2009 – 2013 estimates, Tables B25004 and DP04.*Note: CA DoF estimates 3,222 total units for 2013.

Vacancy Types
Table 2.8.6 depicts the types of vacant units. In the City of King the majority of vacant units (55.3%) are those identified “other”. Those for rent are shown as 11.8% while those for “seasonal, recreational or occasional use” are shown as 8.6% vacant. Those for rent and for sale are shown at 8.6%
The definitions of vacancy have been revised since 2015, at that time those units available for seasonal, recreational or occasional use were shown as 74.7% of the total. Those vacancy types have now been redefined / included into several other types. What remains constant is the total Occupancy Rate and the number of seasonal employees / vacancies remains about the same.

Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 30
TABLE 2.8.7 VACANCY TYPES 2015 AND 2021
Status City of King Monterey County
2015 2021 2015 2021
For rent 20 25.3% 30 11.8% 2,791 19.4% 2,092 16.0%
Rented, not occupied 0 0% 21 8.2% 742 5.2% 334 2.5%
For sale only 0 0% 21 8.2% 1,227 8.5% 617 4.7%
Sold, not occupied 0 0% 0 0% 502 3.5% 470 3.6%
For seasonal,
recreational, or
occasional use
59 74.7% 22 8.6% 6,136 42.6% 6,203 47.3%
For migrant workers 0 0% 20 7.8% 0 0% 68 0.5%
Other vacant 0 0% 141 55.3% 2,994 20.8% 3,333 25.4%
Total Vacant 79 100% 255 99.9% 14,392 100% 13,117 100%
Toal Occupied 2,976 3,218 125,402 129,977
Total Units 3,055 3,473 139,794 143,094
Source: U.S. Census ACS 5-Year Estimates 2015 and 2021. Table B25004 and Table B25002.

Overcrowding
The Census defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by more than 1.0 persons per room (excluding bathroom and kitchen). Units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered Severely Overcrowded. Overcrowding can occur where there are not enough adequately sized units in a community. Over time, overcrowding can impact the condition of the housing stock and stress infrastructure.

Overcrowding has been a significant issue in the City of King as illustrated by Tables 2.8.8, 2.8.9 and 2.8.9.10. In 2000, severe overcrowding in Owner-Occupied homes was approximately 16% and severe overcrowding in Renter-Occupied homes was approximately 33%. Since that time, progress has been made. In 2021, severe overcrowding in Owner-Occupied units has decreased to .5% and severe overcrowding in Renter-Occupied units has decreased to 15.5% Since 2000, the percentage of homes with 1.0 persons per room, or less, has dropped as follows:
• 60% in 2020
• 66.4 % in 2013
• 68% in 2015
• 80% in 2021
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
31 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
The following tables illustrate trends in overcrowding since 2000:

TABLE 2.8.8 OVERCROWDED HOUSEHOLDS: 2021
Persons per Room Households:

Owners
Households:

Renters
Households:

Total

0.50 or less 667 49.5% 208 11.1% 875 27.1%

0.51 to 1.00 601 44.6% 1,100 58.8% 1,701 52.9%
Overcrowded

1.01 to 1.50 73 5.4% 272 14.5% 345 10.7%
Severely Overcrowded

1.51 to 2.00 7 0.5% 240 12.8% 247 7.7%

2.01 or more 0 0% 50 2.7% 50 1.6%
Total 1,348 100% 1,870 99.9% 3,218 100%
Source: U.S. Census ACS 5-Year Estimates. Table B25014.

TABLE 2.8.9 OVERCROWDED HOUSEHOLDS: 2015
Persons per Room Households:

Owners
Households:

Renters
Households:

Total

0.50 or less 366 29% 282 16% 648 22%

0.51 to 1.00 626 49% 745 44% 1,371 46%
Overcrowded

1.01 to 1.50 161 12% 315 19% 476 16%
Severely Overcrowded

1.51 to 2.00 86 7% 125 7% 211 7%

2.01 or more 36 3% 234 14% 270 9%
Total 1,275 100% 1,701 100% 2,976 100%
Source: U.S. Census ACS 5-Year Estimates. Table B25014
TABLE 2.8.10 OVERCROWDED HOUSEHOLDS: 2013
Persons per Room Households:

Owners
Households:

Renters Households: Total

0.5> 418 34.3% 328 20.8% 815 30.0%

0.51 to 1.00 570 46.8% 477 30.3% 988 36.4%
Overcrowded

1.01 to 1.50 118 9.7% 327 20.8% 440 16.2%
Severely Overcrowded

1.51 to 2.00 67 5.7% 242 15.4% 314 11.6%

2.01 < 44 3.7% 201 12.8% 158 5.8%
Total 1,217 100.2% 1,575 100.1% 2,792 100%
Source: ACS 2008-2012 Estimates, Table B25014 Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 32
TABLE 2.8.11 OVERCROWDED HOUSEHOLDS: 2000
Persons per Room
Households:

Owners
Households:

Renters
Households:

Total

0.0 to 1.00 1,032 73.5% 644 46.7% 1,676 60%
Overcrowded

1.01 to 1.50 148 10.5% 283 20.2% 431 15%
Severely Overcrowded

1.51 to 2.00 224 16.0% 452 32.8% 676 24%
Total 1,404 100% 1,379 100% 2,783 100%
Source: City of King 2007 – 2014 Housing Element
As can be seen from the above, overcrowding in the City has been decreasing slowly overtime. It is anticipated that the Farmworker Housing and other lower cost housing projects that have gone to construction during the latter part of Cycle 5 will further address the overcrowding issue.

Please refer to Chapter 5 for additional information on projects begun in Cycle 5 and for those anticipated in Cycle 6.

2.9 HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
To meet the housing needs of various income groups, housing in the community must be affordable. Overall housing affordability can be estimated by comparing the cost of renting or owning a home to the average income levels of households.

In 2021, the average rent in the City was $1,502 per-month and the Median Home Value was $304,700. During the 2015 to 2021 time period, rent increased by approximately 50% and Median Home value by approximately the same amount. Monterey County rents increased by approximately 56% and Median Values increased by 36%.

In 2013, the average rent in the City was $973 per-month and the Median Home Price was $159,400. During the 2000 to 2013 time period rent increased by approximately 51% and Median Price by approximately 15%. Monterey County rents increased by approximately 56% and Median Values increased by 36%.

It is of interest to note that, as Tables 2.9.3 and 2.9.4 show, the dip in median value between 2009 and 2020 skews the analysis of rise in home value. Based on a 2009 home value of $300,500, the increase to 2021 prices ($304,700) is negligible. However, it is slightly more than 220% of the median value of the year 2000 ($138,700). In the same period of time, household median income has increased by 130%. The increase in home prices and rent appears to be outpacing income. According to Redfin data, the median home sale price in King City was $491,953 in June 2024. In addition, according to data from Zumper.com, the current median rent in King City was $2,500.

Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
33 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
TABLE 2.9.1 MEDIAN HOME PRICE / GROSS RENT (2015 - 2021) Place Median Gross
Rent 2015*
Median Gross
Rent 2021*
Median Home
Value 2015**
Median Home
Value 2021**
King City $997 $1,502 $198,900 $304,700
Monterey County $1,236 $1,718 $369,100 $596,400
Source: U.S. Census ACS 5-Year Estimates. Table B25064*. Table B25077** TABLE 2.9.1.1 MEDIAN HOME PRICE / GROSS RENT (2000 - 2013) Place Median Gross
Rent 2000
Median Gross
Rent 2013
Median Home
Value 2000
Median Home
Value 2013
King City $644 $973 $138,700 $159,400
Monterey County $776 $1,209 $265,800 $362,400
Source: ACS 2009 – 2013 Estimates, Table B25064
As these tables demonstrate, rent and home value increased moderately from 2000 to 2015 and significantly increased from 2015 to 2021.

TABLE 2.9.2 MEDIAN HOME PRICES (2015 – 2021)
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
City of King $198,900 $216,900 $230,800 $247,100 $252,500 $281,900 $304,700 Monterey
County $369,100 $393,300 $441,000 $477,200 $516,600 $559,400 $596,400 Source: U.S. Census ACS 5-Year Estimates. Table B25077
TABLE 2.9.2.1 MEDIAN HOME PRICES (2009 – 2013)
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
City of King $300,500 $237,000 $180,600 $166,500 $159,400 Monterey County $608,800 $566,300 $497,400 $390,400 $362,400 Source: ACS 2009 – 2013 Estimates, Table B25077
Table 2.9.3 provides information on the monthly cost of Housing in the City. Note that nearly 77% of units cost more than $1,000 per month in 2021. In 2013, 54.1% of units were rented at more than $1,000 per month.

TABLE 2.9.3. OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS BY COST (2018 – 2021) 2018 2021
Number Percent Number Percent
Less than $100 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
$100 to $199 0 0.0% 9 0.3%
$200 to $299 71 2.2% 32 1.0%
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 34
2018 2021
Number Percent Number Percent
$300 to $399 79 2.4% 64 2.0%
$400 to $499 175 5.4% 69 2.1%
$500 to $599 149 4.6% 96 3.0%
$600 to $699 131 4.0% 65 2.0%
$700 to $799 254 7.9% 149 4.6%
$800 to $899 220 6.8% 155 4.8%
$900 to $999 207 6.4% 49 1.5%
$1,000 to $1,499 1,115 34.5% 1,085 33.7%
$1,500 to $1,999 664 20.5% 804 25.0%
$2,000 to $2,499 150 4.6% 455 14.1%
$2,500 to $2,999 0 0.0% 92 2.9%
$3,000 or more 20 0.6% 31 1.0%
No case rent 0 0.0% 63 2.0%
Total 3,235 99.9% 3,218 100%
Source: U.S. Census ACS 5-Year Estimates. Table B25104. Percentage may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

TABLE 2.9.3.1 OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS BY COST (2010 – 2013) Cost
2010 2013
Number Percent Number Percent
0 -$100 34 1.2% 23 0.8%
$100 to $199 46 1.7% 70 2.5%
$200 to $299 112 4.0% 115 4.1%
$300 to $399 57 2.0% 84 3.0%
$400 to $499 79 2.8% 107 3.8%
$500 to $599 97 3.5% 128 4.5%
$600 to $699 229 8.2% 87 3.1%
$700 to $799 168 6.0% 217 7.8%
$800 to $899 232 8.3% 149 5.3%
$900 to $999 124 4.5% 277 9.9%
$1,000 to $1,499 648 23.2% 837 30.0%
$1,500 to $1,999 445 16.0% 432 15.5%
$2,000 or more 482 17.3% 239 8.6%
No Cash Rent 31 1.1% 27 1.0%
Total 2,784 2,792
Source: ACS 2009 – 2013 Estimates, Table B25104
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
35 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
Tables 2.9.4 (Renters) and 2.9.5 (Owners) compare rent and monthly ownership costs to Household Income. Note that the largest group of renters pays more than 35% of their income toward rent and nearly 70% of owners s pay less than 30% of the Household’s income toward home ownership. In 2010 29.6% of renters paid 35% of income or more, increasing to 48% in 2013; income to mortgage / rent payment increased through 2015 has been decreasing since.

TABLE 2.9.4 GROSS RENT AS PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME (2015—2021) Percent of Household Income 2015 2021
Less than 15 percent 172 10.5% 175 9.9%

15.0 to 19.9 percent 131 8.0% 168 9.5%

20.0 to 24.9 percent 113 6.9% 191 10.8%

25.0 to 29.9 percent 165 10.0% 155 8.7%

30.0 to 34.9 percent 186 11.3% 199 11.2%

35.0 percent or more 875 53.3% 885 49.9%
Not computed 59 (X) 97 (X)
Occupied units paying rent 1,642 100% 1,773 100%
Source: U.S. Census ACS 5-Year Estimates. Table DP04.

TABLE 2.9.4.1 GROSS RENT AS PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME (2010 – 2013) Percent of Household Income 2010 2013
Number Percent Number Percent
Less than 15 percent 179 12.8% 124 8.0%
15 to 19.9 percent 168 12.1% 147 9.6%
20 to 24.9 percent 173 12.4% 123 8.0%
25 to 29.9 percent 336 24.2% 225 14.6%
30 to 34.9 percent 92 6.6% 157 10.2%
35 or more 411 29.6% 741 48.0%
No rent paid 31 2.2% 27 1.8%
Total 1,390 99.9% 1,544 100.2%
Source: ACS 2009-2013 Estimates, Table DP04 Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

TABLE 2.9.5 MONTHLY OWNER COSTS AS PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME (2015 – 2021) Percent of Household Income 2015 2021
Number Percent Number Percent
Less than 20.0 percent 248 29.7% 341 35.7%

20.0 to 24.9 percent 153 18.3% 148 15.5%

25.0 to 29.9 percent 56 6.7% 176 18.4%

30.0 to 34.9 percent 63 7.6% 42 4.4%

35.0 percent or more 314 37.6% 247 25.9%
Not computed 0 (X) 7 (X)
Total 834 99.9% 954 99.9%
Source: U.S. Census ACS 5-Year Estimates. Table DP04. (Housing units with a mortgage). Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 36
TABLE 2.9.5.1 MONTHLY OWNER COSTS AS PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME (2010 – 2013)
Percent of Household
Income
2010 2013
Number Percent Number Percent
Less than 20 percent 157 11.4% 294 24.2%
20 to 24.9 percent 116 8.3% 172 14.1%
25 to 29.9 percent 165 11.9% 101 8.3%
30 to 34.9 percent 176 12.7% 90 7.4%
35 or more 410 29.7% 217 17.8%
Not computed 0 0% 0 0%
No Mortgage 358 25.9% 343 28.1%
Total 1,382 99.9% 1,217 99.9%
Source: ACS 2009-2013 Estimates, Table DP04 Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Moderate Income Households
Cycle 6 RHNA requirements are based on Annual Median Income (AMI) in Monterey County whole. Therefore, AMI data related to Monterey County has been presented. However, to provide an accurate picture regarding King City residentsinformation specific to King City has also been provided, that being Median Family Income (MFI). King City Median Income is $59,712 as contrasted with a County Median Income of $82,163. Median income for a family of four in King City is $44,883 as contrasted with a Monterey County Income of $93,099.

The Median Family Income for a household in the City of King ranges from $27,845 to $64,632 depending on family size (1 to 6 persons). MFI for 7 persons increases significantly to $157,159.

Median Income is $59,712. The Median Income for a family of four ($44,883) is used as the basis for which generalized calculations as to home affordability can be accomplished. Based on these income levels, the maximum affordable home price (30% of gross income) range from $224,830 to $372,450. Maximum affordable rents range between $696 and $3,929. As a result, moderate income households can afford a number of single family homes in the City of King and a number of rental units. Because the median home price is currently in the $250,000 range, these households can afford the median home. However, it should be noted that the median home price appears to be increasing.

Lower Income Households
Because HUD Income Limit categories are based on the County’s AMI, information has been provided based on those limits. In addition, to provide a potentially more accurate picture of King City residents’ payment abilities, calculations based on King City Median Family Income have also been included.

Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
37 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
Lower income households are defined as those that earn 80% or less of the County’s median income which translates to between $74,479 for low-income households and less for very low and extremely low income households. Based on their income, low-income households cannot typically afford to purchase a single family home but could afford a significant number of apartments available for rent in the City of King. With the exception of small apartments and mobile home rentals, very low-income households are unable to afford the cost of virtually all apartment rentals in the City without assuming a high cost burden. Again, it should be noted that these estimates are based on the County’s AMI which is significantly higher than the City’s median household income.

Extremely Low-Income Housing Needs
Extremely low-income (ELI) households are defined as those that earn 30% or less of median income. The median income in Monterey County for a family of four is $93,099 See Table 2.7.4.

This results in an income of $27,929 for a family of four in the low-income category. By comparison, City MFI for a family of four in this income category is $13,465. Of the 2,792 households in the City, 430 renters and 90 owners (about 18.6 percent of all households) have income less than 30% of AMI. As Table 2.9.6 illustrates these households have a higher percentage of housing problems and a greater cost burden than other households. Nearly all ELI households are expected to need aid, including housing cost subsidies and social services. In addition to the challenge of finding affordable housing, ELI households may also have members with mental or other disabilities and special needs, making it even harder to secure housing.

Members of ELI households may be unable to work full-time, or may be employed in low-wage positions. Many other ELI households are on fixed incomes from sources including disability benefits and social security.

As indicated in Table 2.9.6 below, the total number of ELI households is decreasing in the City.

However, ELI households still have higher rates of overpayment and housing problems than nonELI households in the City.

Assuming 50 percent of the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) for very low-income households (43 units) qualify as ELI households, the projected housing need for ELI is 22 units for the planning period. As noted in Tables 2.9.6 and 2.9.6.1 below, the number of extremely lowincome households has decreased. To address the current gap in need for ELI households, Program 4 has committed to prioritizing the development of affordable ELI units when affordable housing developments are proposed. In addition, several projects, including site capacity listed in the Specific Plans allocates units towards meeting the very-low income housing needs due to the inclusionary housing requirements.

Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 38
TABLE 2.9.6 EXTREMELY LOW- INCOME HOUSEHOLDS (2019 – 2022) Total
Renters
Total
Renters
Total
Owners
Total
Owners
Total
Households
Total
Households
2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020
Extremely low
income 485 430 160 90 645 520
Percent with
any housing
problems*

66.6% 73.8% 37.7% 31.2 53.7% 57.0
Percent with
housing cost
>30% of income

48.9% 42.0% 67.7% 72.8 57.3% 54.2%
Percent with
housing cost
>50% of income

18.2% 24.4% 13.8% 10.1 16.2% 18.8%
Source: 2015-2019 and HUD CHAS 2016-2020 Quick Query Tools. *The four housing problems include incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1 person per room and cost burden over 30% of income TABLE 2.9.6.1 EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS (2000 – 2012) Total Renters Total Owners Total Households
2000* 2012** 2000* 2012** 2000* 2012**
Extremely Low Income 344 295 82 75 426 370
Percent with Any
Housing Problems 94.2% 73.3% 65.9% 47.6% 88.7% 61.5%
Percent with Housing
Cost >30% of Income 85.5% 46.4% 65.9% 38.4% 81.7% 84.8% Percent with Housing
Cost >50% of Income 71.2% 22.0% 36.6% 20.7% 64.6% 42.7% Source: * 2007-2014 City of King HE **2008 – 2012 HUD CHAS Quick Query Tool. Varies from CHAS Data Set Table S10708 ACS 2006-2010 Note: Number of Total Households varies from ACS data Table 2.9.7 shows annual income limits for households by size of family and the maximum amount that these households could pay for housing. Estimates in this Table for Monterey County Area Median Income (AMI) are as estimated based on HUD (2023) estimates which is $100,950 for a family of four. The 2021 ACS Estimate for Monterey County was $93,099.

In comparison, the City of King Median Income is estimated at $59,712 with the median income for a family of four being $48,833. See Table 2.7.4 for City of King Median Income. This difference in income should be remembered when evaluating income / affordability in relationship to Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
39 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
housing. For example, the ability of a King City family to afford a median value King City home should be the focus. Comparing a Monterey County income to a King City home is not accurate for King City families. See Table 2.9.3 for Median Home Prices Table 2.9.8 Payment Limits Per City of King Median Income should also be compared to Income and Median Home Price. The data is based on the median income ($59,712) in the City of King.

This tables assumes:

1. That 30 percent of income is available for either: monthly rent, including utilities; or mortgage payment, taxes, mortgage insurance, and homeowners insurance.

2. A down payment of $10,000 with 1% of monthly income going to debt with a 6% interest rate over a 30 year period. Taxes, mortgage insurance, and homeowners’ insurance account for 26 percent of total monthly payments.

TABLE 2.9.7 HOUSING: PAYMENT LIMITS PER MONTEREY COUNTY MEDIAN (AMI) Ability to Pay based on HUD AMI ($100,950) (2023 HUD Estimate) Extremely Low-Income Households 30% of 2023 HUD Median Family Income ("MFI") Number of Persons 1 (.70) 2 (.80) 3 (.90) 4 (1.00) 5 (1.08) 6 (1.16) Income Level $21,200 $24,228 $27,257 $30,285 $32,708 $35,131 Max. Monthly
Gross Rent (1) $530 $606 $681 $757 $818 $878
Max. Purchase
Price (2) $65,616 $74,121 $84,497 $93,416 $100,007 $107,498 Very Low-Income Households at 50% of 2023 HUD Estimates MFI Number of Persons 1 2 3 4 5 6
Income Level $42,150 $48,200 $54,200 $60,200 $65,050 $69,850 Max. Monthly
Gross Rent (1) $1,054 $1,205 $1,355 $1,504 $1,636 $1,746 Max. Purchase
Price (2)* $108,484 $124,450 $140,220 $153,361 $168,540 $180,892 *Source: www.bankrate.com amortization calculator
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 40
TABLE 2.9.7 HOUSING: PAYMENT LIMITS PER MONTEREY COUNTY MEDIAN (AMI), CONTINUED Low-Income Households at 70% of MFI for Sale and 60% of 2023 MFI for Rental* Persons 1 2 3 4 5 6
Income for
Rental (60%
MFI)
$25,434
($42,390)
$52,717
($87,861)
$55,218
($92,030)
$55,800
($93,099)
$53,826
($89,710)
$63,487
($105,892)
Max. Monthly
Gross Rent (1) $636 $1,318 $1,380 $1,395 $1,346 $1,587
Income for
Sale (70% MFI) $29,673 $61,503 $64,421 $65,169 $62,797 $74,124 Max Monthly
Payment $742 $1,538 $1,611 $1,630 $1,570 $1,853
Max. Purchase
Price (2) $156,850 $179,300 $$201,750 $224,200 $243,140 $260,070 Median-Income Households at 100% of 2023MFI (ACS 2021 Estimates) Persons 1 2 3 4 5 6
Income Level $42,390 $87,861 $92,030 $93,099 $89,710 $105,812 Max. Monthly
Gross Rent /
Payments (1)
$1,060 $2,196 $2,301 $2,327 $2,242 $2,645
Max. Purchase
Price (2) $187,570 $214,230 $241,040 $267,860 $289,220 $310,740 Moderate-Income Households at 120% of 2023 MFI (ACS 2021 Estimates) Persons 1 2 3 4 5 6
Income Level $50,068 $105,433 $110,436 $111,719 $107,652 $126,974 Max. Monthly
Gross Rent /
Payments (1)
$1,251 $2,635 $2,761 $42,793 $2,691 $3,174
Max. Purchase
Price (2) $162,084 $342,769 $352,407 $358,041 $343,753 $407,435 *Source: www.bankrate.com amortization calculator
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
41 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
TABLE 2.9.8 HOUSING: PAYMENT LIMITS PER CITY OF KING MEDIAN INCOME Ability to Pay based on City of King Median Income
Extremely Low-Income Households at 30% of 2021 Median Family Income ("MFI") Number of Persons 1 (.70) 2 (.80) 3 (.90) 4 (1.00) 5 (1.08) 6 (1.16) Income Level $5,847 $18,766 $13,514 $13,450 $15,090 $20,941 Max. Monthly Gross Rent (1) $147 $469 $338 $336 $377 $524 Max. Purchase Price (2) $18,012 $60,987 $45,727 $45,406 $50,000 $67,482 Very Low-Income Households at 50% of 2021 MFI
Number of Persons 1 2 3 4 5 6
Income Level $13,922 $39,097 $25,027 $22,441 $23,289 $32,316 Max. Monthly Gross Rent (1) $348 $977 $626 $561 $582 $808 Max. Purchase Price (2) $47,057 $126,079 $81,276 $72,503 $75,808 $103,432 Low-Income Households at 70% of MFI For Sale and 60% of 2021 MFI for Rental Number of Persons 1 2 3 4 5 6
Income Level for Sale (70% MFI) $19,491 $54,735 $35,037 $31,418 $54,597 $45,242 Income Level for Rental (60%
MFI) $16,707 $46,916 $30,031 $26,900 $27,946 $38,780
Max. Monthly Gross Rent (1) $417 $1,172 $751 $673 $699 $970 Max. Purchase Price (2) $63,338 $176,890 $112,662 $100,616 $177,002 $146.458 Median-Income Households at 100% of 2021 MFI (ACS 2021 Estimates) Number of Persons 1 2 3 4 5 6
Income Level $27,485 $78,194 $50,053 $59,712 $44,833 $64,632 Max. Monthly Gross Rent (1) $687 $1,955 $1,251 $1,493 $1,200 $1,616 Max. Purchase Price (2) $89,468 $248,633 $162,215 $188,753 $144,577 $205,075 Moderate-Income Households at 120% of 2021 MFI (ACS 2021 Estimates) Number of Persons 1 2 3 4 5 6
Income Level $32,292 $93,832 $60,064 $71,654 $53,800 $77,558 Max. Monthly Gross
Rent/Payments (1) $807 $2,346 $1,502 $1,791 $1,345 $1,9390 Max. Purchase Price (2) $105,838 $298,366 $190,334 $222,631 $173,933 $245,999 Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 42

2.10 OVERPAYMENT
Overpayment is defined as paying more than 30% of household income on housing costs, including utilities. Severe Overpaying Overpayment occurs when 50% or more of gross income is paid for housing.

Currently in the City of King, approximately 48% of Owner-Occupied households and 67.9 % of Renter-Occupied Households are Overpaying. In the year 2015, approximately 46.1% of OwnerOccupied households and 67% of Renter-Occupied Households were Overpaying. By comparison, In 2010 approximately 34.9% of Owner-Occupied Households and 76.8 of Renter-Occupied Households were Overpaying. These figures show a consistent trend where a significant percentage of the City’s residents overpay for housing.

Tables 2.10.1 (Owners) and 2.10.2 (Renters) show the percentage of household income that is spent on housing, by number of households, comparing 2000 to 2013. It is of note that, as a general trend, household income grew between 2015 and 2021, particularly in the over $50,000 and over $75,000 categories. See also Table 2.7.6.

TABLE 2.10.1 HOUSING COST AS A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME, BY OWNERS (2015 -2021)
Income
Range
Total Households 0-20% of HH
Income
20-29% of HH
Income
30+% of HH
Income
2015 2021 2015 2021 2015 2021 2015 2021
Less than
$20,000 92 70 21 0 10 0 61 70
$20,000 to
$34,999 266 169 38 39 82 16 146 114
$35,000 to
$49,000 212 102 67 9 0 51 145 42
$50,000 to
$74,000 251 280 60 51 119 140 72 89
$75,000 or
more
447 720 329 532 90 160 28 28
Total 1,268 1,341 515 631 301 367 452 343
Source: U.S. Census ACS 5-Year Estimates. Table B25106.

Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
43 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
TABLE 2.10.1.1 HOUSING COST AS A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME, BY OWNERS (2000 – 2013)
Income Range
Total
Households
0-20% of HH
Income
20-29% of HH
Income
30-34% of
HH Income
35+% of HH
Income
2000 2013 2000 2013 2000 2013 2000 2013 2000 2013
$0-10,000 48 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 29 n/a
$10,001-19,999 173 81 39 22 36 34 32 n/a 66 25
$20,000-34,999 210 159 63 41 73 29 15 n/a 59 89
$35,000-49,999 203 229 53 98 63 25 22 n/a 65 106
$50,000+ 572 748 298 398 214 248 17 n/a 43 102
Subtotal 1,206 1,217 453 559 386 336 86 n/a 262 322
Source: ACS 2009-2013 Estimates, Table B25106 Note: Number of Total Households varies from HUD CHAS data .

Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 44
TABLE 2.10.2.1 HOUSING COST AS A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME, BY RENTERS (2015 – 2021)
Income
Range
Total Households 0-20% of HH
Income
20-29% of HH
Income
30+% of HH
Income
2015 2021 2015 2021 2015 2021 2015 2021
Less than
$20,000 448 141 0 0 0 20 448 121
$20,000 to
$34,999 520 313 0 0 72 0 448 313
$35,000 to
$49,000 169 546 23 26 41 100 105 420
$50,000 to
$74,000 311 349 139 5 112 114 60 230
$75,000 or
more
194 242 141 312 53 112 0 0
Total 1,642 1,591 303 343 278 346 1,061 1,084
Source: U.S. Census ACS 5-Year Estimates. Table B25106.

TABLE 2.10.2.2 HOUSING COST AS A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME, BY RENTERS (2000 – 2013)
Income Range
Total
Households
0-20% of HH
Income
20-29% of
HH Income
30-34% of
HH Income
35+% of HH
Income
2000 2013 2000 2013 2000 2013 2000 2013 2000 2013
$0-10,000 193 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 162 n/a
$10,001-19,999 323 462* 0 10* 69 7* 24 n/a 221 387*
$20,000-34,999 352 419 27 0 185 111 42 n/a 81 308*
$35,000-49,999 181 234 59 34 92 99 20 n/a 0 101*
$50,000+ 330 460 307 227 12 131 10 n/a 0 0*
Sub Total 1,379 1,575** 393 271 358 348 96 n/a 464 796
Source: ACS 2009-2013 Estimates, Table B25106. Note*: 2013 data combines at 0-$19,999 and 30 and above Note**: Number of Total Households varies from HUD CHAS data.

Tables 2.10.3 and 2.10.4 According to the US Dept of Housing and Urban Development, in 2019, approximately 50.8% of renter households spent 30% or more on housing while 32.3% of owners paid more than 30% of their annual income for housing.

By comparison, in 2012, 57% percent of renter households in City of King spent thirty (30%) percent or more of their household income on rent.

Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
45 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
Extremely low and very low-income households are limited in their ability to rent or own housing.

Combining the information from Tables 2.93 and 2.9.4, most City of King households in these income ranges would not be able to afford market-rate housing when less than 15% of the units have rents that are less than $500 per month.

The average rents for one-bedroom to three bedroom units in the City of King would be affordable to the low, moderate and above-moderate income groups.

By comparison, in 2013, 26% of owners’ households and 50.5% of renters’ households experienced payment of more than 35% of their income. Altogether, 1,118 households experienced payment of more than 35. This is 40 percent of the total households of the City.

Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 46
TABLE 2.10.3 CITY OF KING: OVERPAYMENT BY INCOME CATEGORY (CYCLE 6) Households Percentage of Income Spent on
Housing
Number Percent
Overpayment
(>30% income on
housing)
Severe
Overpayment
(>50% income on
housing)
Number Percent Number Percent
City of King Owner Households
Extremely Low (<30% AMI) 90 7% 55 4.3% 40 3.1%
Very Low (31-50% AMI) 285 22.2% 120 9.3% 80 6.2%
Low (51-80% AMI) 270 21.0% 150 11.7% 10 .8%
Moderate (>80% AMI) 70 5.5% 20 1.5% 0 0%
Above (100% + AMI) 560 43.6% 15 1.2% 0 0%
Total 1,285 99.3%* 360 28.0** 130 9.3%**
City of King Renter Households
Extremely Low (<30% AMI) 430 21.8% 390 19.8% 280 14.2%
Very Low (31-50% AMI) 755 38.4% 560 28.5% 200 10.2%
Low (51-80% AMI) 445 22.7% 185 9.4% 0 0%
Moderate (>80% AMI) 55 2.8% 0 0% 0 0%
Above (100%+ AMI) 275 14.0% 0 0% 0 0%
Total 1,965 99.7%* 1,135 57.7%** 480 24.4%**
Source: 2015-2020 HUD CHAS Quick Query Tool. * May not equal 100% due to rounding ** Of total TABLE 2.10.3.1 CITY OF KING: OVERPAYMENT BY INCOME CATEGORY (CYCLE 5) Households Percentage of Income Spent on Housing
Number Percent
Overpayment (>30%
income on housing)
Severe Overpayment
(>50% income on
housing)
Number Percent Number Percent
City of King Owner Households
Extremely Low
(<30% AMI) 75 7.2% 50 4.0 % 35 5.9%
Very Low
(31-50% AMI) 130 11.6% 60 4.8 % 45 3.6%
Low (51-80% AMI) 240 22.2% 140 11.2% 90 7.2%
Moderate and
above(>80% AMI) 810 58.9% 230 18.4% 50 4.0%
Total 1,250 99.9% 380 38.4% 220 20.7 %
Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
47 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
Households Percentage of Income Spent on Housing
Number Percent
Overpayment (>30%
income on housing)
Severe Overpayment
(>50% income on
housing)
Number Percent Number Percent
City of King Renter Households
Extremely Low
(<30% AMI) 295 20.3% 240 16.5% 195 13.4%
Very Low
(31-50% AMI) 305 21.0% 245 16.8% 125 8.6%
Low (51-80% AMI) 455 31.3% 180 12.4% 0 0%
Moderate and above
(>80% AMI) 400 27.5% 10 .7% 0 0%
Total 1,455 100.1% 675 46.4% 320 22.0%
Source: 2008 – 2012 HUD CHAS Quick Query Tool. Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Note**: Number of Total Households varies from ACS data. Varies from CHAS Data Set Table S10708 ACS 2006- 2010

2.11 ASSISTED HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS “AT RISK” OF CONVERSION This Section evaluates the City’s affordable housing that may be at risk of being converted to market rate units.

As Table 2.11.1 shows, the City of King has several projects that are publicly assisted under federal, state or local programs including tax credits, HUD, state / local bond programs, density bonuses and local redevelopment or direct assistance programs. These projects are secure as being affordable permanently.

Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
City of King Housing Element 2023-2031 48
TABLE 2.11.1 INVENTORY OF HUD ASSISTED HOUSING
Name Tenant
Type
Affordable
Units Year Built Funding Sources
Expiration of
Affordability
Size
(Acres) Density
Leo A. Meyer Plaza Senior 44 Low / Very Low 1988 Tax Credit. Local Owned by
Housing Authority
of the County of
Monterey

2.74 16 du/ac
Villa San Miguel Family units 50 1996 LIHTC, HCD
2049
Owned by
CHISPA

3.15 18 du/acre
Monterey County
Migrant Camp
(Jayne Street)
Migrant
Farmworker 76 Low / Very Low 1985 HACM Perpetuity 5.14 15 du/ac Mills Ranch Garden
Apartments
Low Income
Families 40 Low/Very Low Not yet built
Tax Credit
(Pending) Not yet built
5 Lots
(Range 0.35
to 0.40
acres)
Zoned PD;
part of
inclusionary
requirement
Creekbridge
Apartments
Low Income
Families 30 Low & 30 Mod 2008 Private funding August 2065 4 Lots
(Range 0.35
to 0.37
acres)
Zoned PD;
part of
inclusionary
requirement
King Station
Apartments
Low Income
Families/
Senior
56 units plus 1
manager unit 2014 LIHTC. HOME 2068 4.5
Zoned C-N;
allows 12
affordable
units per
acre
People Self Help
Housing Mustang
Court
Low Income
Families
7 homes
Affordable to Low
Income
2021
HUD (Self-Help
Homeownership
Opportunity
Program)
55 years
7 lots (range
from 0.07 to
.11 acres)
18 du/acre
La Buena
Esperanza
Farmworker
Families 40 Low / Very Low 1980’s HCD, FmH.AM, USDA 2024 232 ac 17 du/ac Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
49 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element

PRESERVATION AND REPLACEMENT OPTIONS
There are 84 units potentially at-risk of converting to non-low-income uses during the planning period (Leo Meyer Plaza and La Buena Esperanza), therefore, the City must conduct an analysis that demonstrates preservation and replacement options. Depending on the circumstances of the at-risk projects, different options could be used to preserve or replace the units. Preservation options generally include: transferring of the project to non-profit ownership, provision of rental assistance to tenants, or the purchasing of affordability covenants.

Transferring ownership of an at-risk project to a non-profit housing provider is generally one of the least costly ways to ensure that the at-risk units remain affordable for the long term.

Transferring property ownership to a non-profit organization would secure low income restrictions and the project would become potentially eligible for a greater range of governmental assistance. Given the nature of existing non-profit ownership of these two projects (owned by the Housing Authority and a co-operative), it is unlikely that the ownership transferal of these projects would yield any benefit.

Rental subsidies can be used to maintain the affordability of the 84 units potentially at-risk during the planning period. These rent subsidies could be structured similar to existing programs, such as Housing Choice Vouchers (formerly known as Section 8). Table 2.11.2 below the required subsidies needed to maintain affordability.

TABLE 2.11.2 AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBSIDY CALCULATIONS
Unit
Size
Total
Units
Fair
Market
Rent
Household
Size
Very
Low
Income
(50%
AMI)
Affordable
Cost
Monthly
Per Unit
Subsidy
Total Monthly
Subsidy
Studio $2,112.00 1 $46,350 $1,159.00
1-Bedroom 44 $2,194.00 2 $53,000 $1,325.00 $869.00 $38,236.00 2-Bedroom 15 $2,675.00 3 $59,600 $1,490.00 $1,185.00 $17,775.00 3-Bedroom 15 $3,790.00 4 $66,200 $1,655.00 $2,135.00 $32,025.00 4-Bedroom 10 $4,144.00 5 $71,500 $1,788.00 $2,356.00 $23,560.00 Total 84 $111,596.00
Another alternative to preserve the affordability of at-risk projects is to provide an incentive package for the owner to maintain the project as affordable housing. This could include reducing the interest rate on the remaining loan balance, providing a lump-sum payment, and/or supplementing the rents to market levels. The feasibility of this option is dependent upon how high the development is leveraged. By providing lump sum financial incentives or ongoing Chapter 2. Existing Conditions
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 50
subsides in rents or reduced mortgage interest rates to the owner, the City can ensure that some or all of the units remain affordable. Funding available for purchase of affordability covenants is also limited as, typically, HUD funds cannot be used for this purpose.

Replacing the at-risk units is also an option to replace the at-risk units. The cost of developing housing depends upon a variety of factors, including density, size of the units (i.e. square footage and number of bedrooms), location, land costs, and type of construction. Assuming an average construction cost of approximately $600,000 per unit, it would cost over $50 million (excluding land costs, to construct 84 new assisted units. This cost would only be higher when factoring the cost of land.

In considering which option makes the most financial sense, it is also important to factor in the age of the structures. Both projects were built in the 1980’s and with consistent maintenance, could be a viable option for long-term use. The annual cost of providing subsidies is just shy of $112,000, however, the long-term provision of rental subsidies for an additional 55 years would cost nearly $74 million, making the replacement option more economically viable in the longrun. In evaluating the various options, the City must consider the available funding sources and willingness of property owners, among other factors.

2.12 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION
Please refer to Chapter 8, Section 8.6, Programs 15 through 19.

Chapter 3. Special Housing Needs
51 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
CHAPTER 3: SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS
This Chapter identifies groups that may require special housing characteristics. These groups include persons with disabilities, the elderly, large families, female-headed households, agricultural employees, and families and persons in need of emergency shelters, transitional housing and / or transportation.

King City is served by four existing Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) bus routes. They include:
• Line 23 (Salinas – King City)
• Line 23X (Salinas – King City Express)
• Line 34 (King City)
• Line 84 (King City – Paso Robles)
MST provides special discount rates to residential developments that serve the elderly and individuals with disabilities.

3.1 PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Housing needs for those with disabilities vary depending on the severity of the disability. Many disabled persons live in their own home in an independent situation or with other family members. While figures provided by the Census give us useful information regarding the disabled population, not all disabled need accessible (based on Americans with Disability Act (ADA) standards) or low-income housing. According to ACS 5 year estimates, in 2021 there are 1,444 persons aged five and over in the City of King who have a disability. See Table 3.1.1. The disability categories are defined as follows:

Sensory: Blindness, deafness or a severe vision or hearing impairment.

Physical: A condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical activities such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting or carrying.

Mental: Difficulty learning, remembering, or concentrating.

Self-Care: Difficulty dressing, bathing, or getting around inside the home.

Going Outside Difficulty going outside the home alone to shop or visit a Doctor’s of Home: Office.

Developmental With onset prior to age 18, an impairment in three or more areas Disability: of major life activity, typically in areas of Intellectual Disability.

Employment Difficulty working at a job or business.

Disability:

Chapter 3. Special Housing Needs
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 52
Physically disabled persons may require modifications to housing such as wheelchair ramps, elevators or lifts, wide doorways, accessible cabinetry, modified fixtures and appliances, etc. If the disability prevents the person from operating a vehicle, then proximity to services and access to public transportation are also important. People with severe or mental disabilities may also require supportive housing, nursing facilities, or care facilities. If the physical disability prevents individuals from working or limits their income, then the cost of housing and the costs of modifications can increase. Many disabled persons rely solely on Social Security Income which is typically insufficient for market rate housing.

The State requires that those with disabilities receive reasonable accommodation for housing opportunities. An analysis of housing constraints for residents with disabilities is included under the constraints discussion in Chapter 6.6.1. It is of interest to note that the number of persons with the range of disabilities decreased by nearly 500 persons between 2015 and 2021.

TABLE 3.1.1 DISABILITIES 2015 AND 2021
Disability
Type
2015 2021
Under
18 18 to
64 65 and
over
Total Under
18 18 to
64 65+ Total
Hearing 21 82 198 301 0 0 85 85
Vision 15 110 90 215 29 46 40 115
Cognitive 150 49 151 350 124 166 66 356
Ambulatory 12 159 264 435 0 305 179 484
Self-Care 0 48 190 238 12 70 72 154
Independent
Living n/a 149 240 389 n/a 178 72 250
Total 198 597 1,133 1,928 165 765 514 1,444
Source: U.S. Census ACS 5-Year Estimates. Table S1810.

TABLE 3.1.1.1 DISABILITIES 2000 AND 2013
Disability Type 2000* 2013**
5-15 16-64 65+ Total 5-17 18-64 65+ Total
Sensory 40 105 33 178 57 125 316 498
Physical 30 273 240 543 12 77 231 320
Mental 72 173 112 357 219 56 127 402
Self-Care 11 127 63 201 33 26 181 642
Go-Outside-Home - 683 181 864 - 164 244 408
Employment - 1,097 - 1,097 - 265*** - -
Total 153 2,458 629 3,240 321 713 1,099 2,133
Source: * US Census 2000 Table P041; ** ACS 2009 -2013 Estimates, Table S1810 – ***ACS 2009 -2013 Estimates, Table C18120
Chapter 3. Special Housing Needs
53 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
Persons with Developmental Disabilities
The California Department of Developmental Services collects data on the number of individuals with developmental disabilities across the State. The 93930 zip code serves King City and surrounding areas including Jolon, Pine CAnyon, Bitterwater, Lonoak, and Elsa. In the 93930 zip code in 2020 there were a total of 135 individuals with a developmental disability. Of these 79 individuals were aged 0 -17 years and 56 individuals were aged 18 years and over. Additionally, 129 lived in the home of a parent/family/guardian, with the remaining in an independent/supported living facility.

Universal Design
A growing number of architects and developers integrate universal design principles into their projects to increase the accessibility of the built environment. The intent of universal design is to simplify design and construction by making products, communications, and the built environment more usable by as many people as possible without the need for adaptation or specialized design. By applying these principles, in addition to the regulations specified in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), new construction will increase the opportunities in housing and employment for everyone. The City of King worked toward the implementation of Universal Design in Cycle 5 and will continue to do so in Cycle 6. Please refer to Chapter 9, Program 11.

According to the US Census, the following are the seven principles of universal design as outlined by the Center for Universal Design.

Equitable Use: The design is useful and marketable to persons with diverse abilities.

Flexible in Use: The design accommodates a wide variety of individual preferences and abilities.

Simple and Intuitive: Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of the user’s experience, knowledge, language skills or current concentration level.

Perceptible: The design communicates necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user’s sensory abilities.

Error Tolerance: The design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental or unintended action.

Low Physical Effort: The design can be used efficiently and comfortably with minimum fatigue.

Size and Space for Appropriate size and space is provided for approach, reach, Approach and Use: manipulation, and use regardless of user’s body size, posture or mobility.

Chapter 3. Special Housing Needs
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 54

3.2 ELDERLY
Seniors households are included in those with special housing needs because they are more likely to have limited income, physical disabilities or higher health care costs. As Table 3.2.1 shows, the 2013 American Community Survey (ACS) Five Year Estimate indicates that there are 380 senior households in the City of King (215 owners and 165 renters). 92 elderly persons are indicated as living below the poverty level – 11 % of total seniors (836 persons per Table 2.5.1). As shown in Table 2.7.5 the median income of seniors (over 64 years) in the City of King was $23,462 as compared to the median for all households of $45,905 (51%). A large proportion of the senior population also experiences one or more types of disabilities.

TABLE 3.2.1 TENURE BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER (2015-2021)
Note that the age of householders has generally increased from 2015 to 2021.

Age 2015 2021
Owner Renter Total Percent Owner Renter Total Percent
15 to 24 years 28 125 153 5.1% 14 204 218 6.8%
25 to 34 years 137 448 585 19.7% 178 449 627 18.5%
35 to 44 years 303 570 873 29.3% 208 471 679 21.1%
45 to 54 years 377 237 614 20.6% 367 330 697 21.7%
55 to 59 years 113 49 162 5.4% 178 90 268 8.3%
60 to 64 years 69 93 162 5.4% 179 37 216 6.7%
65 to 74 years 155 99 254 8.5% 92 245 337 10.5%
75 to 84 years 46 40 86 2.9% 79 26 105 3.3%
Over 85 years 47 40 87 2.9% 53 18 71 2.2%
Total 1,275 1,701 2,976 99.8% 1,348 1,870 3,218 99.1%
Source: U.S. Census ACS 5-Year Estimates. Table B25007. Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: U.S. Census ACS 5-Year Estimates. Table S1810.

Chapter 3. Special Housing Needs
55 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
TABLE 3.2.1.1 TENURE BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER (2000-2013)
Age
2000* 2013**
Owner Renter Total Owner Renter Total Percent
15 to 24 years 12 206 218 44 92 136 4.9%
25 to 34 years 305 523 828 182 652 834 29.9%
35 to 44 years 311 305 616 192 424 616 22.1%
45 to 54 years 252 188 440 419 156 575 20.6%
55 to 59 years 175 61 236 52 38 90 3.2%
60 to 64 years 37 24 61 113 48 161 5.8%
65 to 74 years 208 56 264 141 49 190 6.8%
75 to 84 years 77 8 85 34 82 116 4.2%
Over 85 years 27 8 35 40 34 74 2.7%
Total 1,404 1,379 2,783 1,217 1,575 2,792 100.2%
Source: *City of King Housing Element 2007; **ACS 2009-2013 Estimates Table B25007 Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

TABLE 3.2.2 ELDERLY BELOW POVERTY LEVEL 2015 AND 2021
Number
City of King Monterey County
2015 2021 2015 2021
Elderly Below Poverty 191 16 4,750 5,254
Total Population 13,203 13,013 408,804 422,014
Source: U.S. Census ACS 5-Year Estimates. Table B17001.

TABLE 3.2.2 ELDERLY BELOW POVERTY LEVEL 2000 AND 2013
Number
City of King Monterey County
2000* 2013** 2000* 2013**
Elderly Below Poverty 114 92 2,657 3,936
Total Population 11,094 12,797* 382,680 401,700
Source: *City of King Housing Element 2007; **ACS 2009-2013 Estimates Table B17001 Note: ACS Estimates and US 2010 Census Table DP05 Table 2.5.1) data vary.

The special needs of seniors can be met by congregate care, rent subsidies, shared housing, and housing rehabilitation assistance. For the frail or disabled, elderly housing with architectural design features that accommodate disabilities can help extend the ability of seniors to live independently. In addition, seniors with mobility / self-care limitations benefit from transportation alternatives. Senior housing with supportive services can be provided to facilitate independent living. Leo Meyer Senior Plaza is a public housing apartment complex operated by Chapter 3. Special Housing Needs
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 56
the Housing Authority of Monterey County. There are 44 one-bedroom apartments. Given this property is owned by the Housing Authority of Monterey County, this project is not considered at-risk of converting to non-low-income uses.

A number of senior support services are available in the City of King with support ranging from nutrition programs to health care and social services. Some of those service providers are listed below.

Leo Meyer Senior Center
415 Queen Street,
King City, CA 93930
(831) 384-4562
MST RIDES ADA Paratransit Program
Door-to-door mini-bus transportation for disabled
and handicapped persons.
1 (888)-MST-BUS1
Monterey County Department of Social Services
Multipurpose Senior Services
(831) 647-7899, (805) 755-3403
George L. Mee Memorial Hospital (non-profit public hospital, accredited convalescent care) 300 Canal Street,
King City, CA
(831) -385-6000
A large offering of Senior Services is available in Monterey County. Refer to Monterey County Regional Guide and Search Engine, http://www.mtycounty.com/index.html

3.3 LARGE HOUSEHOLDS
Large households are defined as units that contain 5 or more individuals. The 2009 -2013 ACS Estimates indicate that there are 1,233 (44%) large households in the City of King, up from 36% in 2000. 57% of these large households are renter occupied, up from 50% in 2000. 20% of households are classified as large in Monterey County with 42% owner occupied and 58% renter occupied. In 2000, Monterey County large households were divided in an approximately 51% - 49% owner / renter split. See Table 2.7.4 to compare median incomes by size of household.

Chapter 3. Special Housing Needs
57 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
TABLE 3.3.1 HOUSEHOLD SIZE BY TENURE (2015 – 2021)
Place 2015 2021
Owner Renter Total Owner Renter Total
City of King
1 to 4 persons 1,021 1,295 2,316 1,138 1,179 2,317
5+ persons 330 589 919 210 691 901
Total 1,351 1,884 3,235 1,348 1,870 3,218
TABLE 3.3.1.1 HOUSEHOLD SIZE BY TENURE (2000—2013)
Place 2000* 2013**
Owner Renter Total Owner Renter Total
City of King
1 to 4 Persons 897 882 1,779 686 873 1,559
5+ Persons 507 497 1,004 531 702 1,233
Total 1,571 1,779 2,484 1,217 1,575 2,792
Monterey County
1 to 4 Persons 53,712 42,895 96,607 52,178 48,735 100,913 5+ Persons 12,554 12,075 24,629 10,220 14,295 24,515
Total 66,266 54,970 121,236 62,398 63,030 125,428
Source: *City of King Housing Element 2007; **ACS 2009-2013 Estimates Table B25009

3.4 FEMALE HEADED HOUSEHOLDS
Single-parent households headed by females may have special needs such as accessible day care, health care and other supportive services. Table 3.4.1 provides information about femaleheaded households and families. 2009 -2013 ACS estimates showed that 61% of female headed households lived in poverty. In 2021, 30.5 % of female headed households were reported as being below the poverty level. These families, especially female headed, larger families have limited housing options.

TABLE 3.4.1 FEMALE HEADED HOUSEHOLDS (2015 – 2021)
Householder Type City of King Monterey County
2015 2021 2015 2021
Total households 2,976 3,218 125,402 129,977
Total female-headed households 489 555 17,370 17,000
Female households with children under 18 339 333 9,862 8,950 Female households without children under 18 150 222 7,508 8,050 Total families under poverty level 699 444 18,152 13,751 Female headed households under poverty level 286 169 5,381 3,773 Chapter 3. Special Housing Needs
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 58
Source: U.S. Census ACS 5-Year Estimates. Table B25115, B17017 TABLE 3.4.1.1 FEMALE HEADED HOUSEHOLDS (2000 – 2013)
Householder Type Monterey County
2000 2013
Total Households 121,199 125,428
Total Female-Headed Households 13,436 16,370
Female Households with Children Under 18 7,663 9,649
Female Households without Children Under 18 171 6,721
Total Families Under Poverty Level 8,620 18,122
Female Headed Households Under Poverty Level 3,053 4,805 Source: *City of King Housing Element 2007; **ACS 2009-2013 Estimates Table B25115, B17017

3.5 AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES
Agricultural employees are a prominent special housing needs group in the City of King.

Agriculture is an important aspect of the City’s economy and seasonal and permanent agricultural employees make up a large percentage of those working in the agricultural sector. Housing affordability has historically been an issue for agricultural employees and continues to be today as was expressed at the Community Workshop. Some issues that contribute to this challenge include low incomes, large family sizes, and language barriers.

According to the Monterey County Farmworker Advisory Committee, there are an estimated 50,000 farmworkers who live and work in Monterey County for all or part of the year. Many of these workers seek housing in the City of King. The 2022 Annual Crop and Livestock Report for the County of Monterey reports a production gross value of $4,638,336,000, which is an increase of 13.1% from 2021. Overall, the Vegetable Crops category saw an increase in value of 21.8% to $3,129,167,000. Fruits and Nuts category had a decrease of 3.9% to $1,234,722,000 primarily due to unseasonable warm weather observed in mid to late summer that reduced production yields for wine grapes. Wine Grapes ranked 7th in production value in 2022. Seeds and Field Crops saw increases, and Livestock remained steady. The Salinas Valley, which includes King City, is one of the most productive agricultural regions in California. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics notes that the average hourly wage for farm workers in California is $22.70 and the average yearly pay is $47,210. However, because of the seasonal nature of the industry, many agricultural workers do not work full time.

Chapter 3. Special Housing Needs
59 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
The 2021 ACS Estimates indicate that there are 2,145 people working in agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting and mining in the City of King See Table 2.7.1. It is difficult to know the accuracy of this information, under-reporting is common, especially for those residing in the U.S. without documentation.

Further information obtained from the USDA Agricultural Census Data shows the County has roughly 30,000 employed farmworkers, with an overwhelming majority working on farms that employ 10 or more workers.

To better understand farmworker housing needs, Several farmworker-affiliated organizations across the Central Valley, the lower central coast, and the Napa/Sonoma area participated in a report published by the Community and Labor Center at the University of California (UC) Merced. According to a 2022 report titled “Farmworker Health in California” based on data from the Farmworker Health Study (FWHS survey), 92 percent of the participants rented and resided in single-family homes (55 percent) and about one-third of participants lived in apartments (31 percent). According to the FWHS survey, farmworkers generally experience living in substandard housing requiring repairs or in older homes, apartments, mobile homes, motels, garages, and other similar spaces with poor ventilation that puts them at higher risk for respiratory illnesses.

One out of three farmworkers experienced difficulty keeping their home cool or warm, and more than 10 percent of surveyed farmworkers encountered mold, water damage, and water leaks. In addition, 37 percent of those indicated that the water quality was low, which could pose health risks. Furthermore, farmworkers surveyed reported living in overcrowded households with onefourth of respondents (29 percent) reporting six or more persons per unit, and more than half (55 percent) reporting two persons (including themselves) slept in their room. As a result, substandard housing, affordability, and overcrowding are critical issues among this special-needs group. Additionally, a separate report form the same study, “Agricultural Worker Health and Health Disparities”, indicated that temperature conditions during the work day and exposure to pesticides are also significant occupational health hazards for farmworkers, as are mental health challenges related to persistent, chronic strain
Additional farmworker housing conditions specific to the Upper Central Coast region (which encompasses Monterey County) include a median household size of 5 persons, median household income of $30,000, and the lowest percentage of households who struggle to keep the house warm during winter.

A number of agricultural employees reside in sub-standard living conditions. To house workers, the City permits farmworker housing in the Agricultural Zone pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit. The Monterey County Housing Authority operates the 79 Unit City of King Migrant Camp on Jayne Street, currently housing 302 persons. Eligibility for a rental voucher is determined by HACM based on the total annual gross income and family size. It is limited to U.S. citizens and Chapter 3. Special Housing Needs
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 60
non-citizens who have eligible immigration status. Generally, family income may not exceed 50% of the median income for the county or metropolitan area in which the family chooses to live.

Agricultural employee housing in the City of King includes the 40 unit La Buena Esparanza project, constructed in 1982 through a cooperative effort of the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) and Community Housing Improvement Systems and Planning Associates (CHISPA). This project provides affordable housing exclusively for farm laborers and their families are resident-owned, and can only be lived in by current or former agricultural workers. This resident-ownership model ensures that the units remain affordable beyond the typical 55 year expiration date funding sources typically have, both for current residents and future residents who will live in this complex. Approximately 300 mobile homes are present in the City, many of which are at rent levels affordable to farm worker families. Please refer to Chapter 1 Section 1.6, Chapter 8, Programs and Chapter 5, Section 3 which describe affordable housing modifications to the Zoning Ordinance.

In June 2018, the City amended the General Plan and Zoning Code to provide additional opportunity for seasonal employee housing. The major focus of this effort was to create a Dual Land Use Designation for certain properties along First Street. This zone allows a property owner to develop under their primary zone, develop seasonal housing according to the standards of the Zoning Code, or develop a mixture of both. At the time of the amendment the following bed count for Agricultural Workers was provided:

Project Number of Beds
Collegeville Currently 310 beds, to expand to 500 beds
SHG (218 First Street) Currently 214 beds, approved to expand to 364 beds.

That expansion has been accomplished.

Crown Court Apartments
(220 First Street) Currently 100 beds
Total Current: 624 beds Future: 982 beds
As noted above, there are currently 982 beds available or planned for agricultural workers. This leaves roughly 1,163 agricultural workers in need of housing. Additionally, roughly 450 workers are housed in farmworker housing and 300 mobile homes currently exist in the City, which are rented at levels affordable to farmworkers. Assuming 2 persons per mobile home (below the City average), that leaves roughly 113 farmworkers in need of housing. Programs 2, 3, and 4 call for the City to assist in the development of 50 affordable housing units, conversion of 364 temporary farmworker beds to permanent housing, and assistance for additional farmworker housing units, respectively.

Chapter 3. Special Housing Needs
61 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
TABLE 3.5.1 AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES, MONTEREY COUNTY 2013 AND 2017 2013* 2017**
In Operations with less than 10 Employees 1,404 1,078
Permanent 722 683
Seasonal (less than 150 days) 682 440
In Operations with more than 10 Employees 31,468 25,851 Permanent 15,437 14,168
Seasonal 16,031 11,683
Total 32,872 26,929
Source: *USDA ag census us, Table 7

3.6 PEOPLE IN NEED OF EMERGENCY SHELTER
In 2022 there were 2,047 persons experiencing homelessness, sheltered and unsheltered, in Monterey County. This number has been relatively stable since 2009 (2,407) with a maximum in 2017 (2,837). Of this number, 66% percent were unsheltered and 33% were living in a shelter.

Traditionally, the City of King’s homeless population is significantly smaller with estimates by Applied Service Research and the City of King Police Department ranging between 18 and 20 persons. In the City, the homeless population is often seen residing under bridges, in parks or in the downtown area. A number of people reside outside the City Limits in the Salinas River Channel. This has been a safety concern from both flooding and wildfire. The Sun Street Community Recovery Center provides substance abuse services in the form of assessment and referral services as well as DUI night classes. Those needing treatment or housing services are referred to treatment centers in Salinas.

The Salvation Army has indicated that the homeless population in the City typically consists of single persons and / or those traveling through the City that suddenly run short of funds. While no shelters have been located within the City, the Salvation Army has provided food, motel and gas vouchers for those needing emergency assistance. Those needing long term shelter must travel to, or are provided assistance to, Salinas where shelter beds are located. On occasion several churches have provided food or money donations to the Salvation Army.

Although the number of truly homeless persons in the City of King issmall there are “at risk” lowincome families that are without a home but who stay with family or friends and are not visible.

Several long term motels are also used by those unable to afford the deposit on an apartment.

These motels tend to be relatively expensive in relation to other rental housing and house a large proportion of single mothers with families and agricultural employees. The motels are being evaluated as potential sites for other types of transitional housing.

Chapter 3. Special Housing Needs
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 62
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
On June 9, 2015, the City Council approved amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to allow Emergency Shelters as permitted uses within the C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning District, in conformance with CA Senate Bill 2. The changes to the Code allow the potential for low- and moderate-income housing in the C-2 Zone, and also facilitate the development of one or more Emergency Shelters in the C-2 Zoning District. The provisions of the revised C-2 Zone comply with the intent of California Health and Safety Code §50800, providing Emergency Shelter for homeless persons.

Development criteria were established for Emergency Shelters in Section 17.24.150 of the Zoning Ordinance. They include property development standards that frame ways to address the housing needs of a disadvantaged segment of the community such as:
• defining a maximum number of beds
• defining the requirements for laundry facilities
• providing for common facilities
• complying with health, safety and operational standards.

Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
63 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
CHAPTER 4: FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT

4.1 INTRODUCTION
Assembly Bill (AB) 686 requires that all housing elements due on or after January 1, 2021, contain an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent with the core elements of the analysis required by the federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Final Rule of July 16, 2015. Under California law, AFFH means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” California Government Code Section 65583 (10)(A)(ii) requires local jurisdictions to analyze racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk.

This section is organized by fair housing topics. For each topic, the regional and local assessments are addressed. Through discussions with housing service providers, fair housing advocates, and this assessment of fair housing issues, King City identified factors that contribute to fair housing issues. These contributing factors are in Table 4.7.1, Factors Contributing to Fair Housing Issues, with associated actions to meaningfully affirmatively further fair housing related to these factors.

Additional programs to affirmatively further fair housing are in Chapter 9.

This section also includes an analysis of the Housing Element’s sites inventory as compared with fair housing factors. The location of housing in relation to resources and opportunities is integral to addressing disparities in housing needs and opportunity and to fostering inclusive communities where all residents have access to opportunity. This is particularly important for lower-income households. AB 686 added a new requirement for housing elements to analyze the distribution of projected units by income category and access to high resource areas and other fair housing indicators compared to citywide patterns to understand how the projected locations of units will affirmatively further fair housing.

4.2 ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS
King City has a population of 13,419 with 3,473 housing units, 92.7 percent of which are occupied.

The City is compact, covering a land area of approximately 3.8 square miles (2,432 acres). The City is largely surrounded by land with PG40 or F40 zoning, Therefore, expansion through annexation would be difficult and is not contemplated at this time.

There are three Census Tracts in the City, the primary being the Downtown Core, which includes the bulk of the population and the bulk of the City’s housing units. Much of the commercial area is also located here. Other Census Tracts include the Industrial Area to the northeast, more recent Specific Plans / housing to the north west and development more adjacent to US 101 in the south.

Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 64
Segregation and Integration
This section analyzes integration and segregation, including patterns and trends, related to people with protected characteristics with an emphasis on race, disability, familial status, and income.

RACE
Understanding the racial makeup of a city and region is important for designing and implementing effective housing policies and programs. This understanding also helps in identifying the specific needs and challenges faced by different racial and ethnic communities.

These patterns are shaped by both market factors and government actions, such as exclusionary zoning, discriminatory lending practices, and displacement that has occurred over time and continues to impact communities of color today. Ultimately, a comprehensive understanding of race and ethnicity in relation to housing can help create more equitable and inclusive communities.

King City is largely populated by persons of color with 87.6 percent being of Hispanic or Latino descent as of the 2016-2020 American Community Survey (see Table 1). Given the high percentage of Latino residents, it is difficult to pinpoint areas of higher concentrations of minority residents. Instead, the data suggest a geographic dispersal of Latino residents citywide, with the southern portion of the City having a slightly larger White population. The next-largest racial or ethnic group in the community identifies as White, not Hispanic or Latino (8.8 percent), with just over 1 percent of the population identifying as Asian, not Hispanic or Latino, and 1 percent of residents identify as Black or African American, non Hispanic or Latino. This is similar to population trends in other nearby small cities in Monterey County. For example, 92.0 percent of residents in Greenfield and 92.1 percent of residents of Gonzales identify as Hispanic or Latino, and the next-largest group in the community are residents that identify as White, not Hispanic or Latino. However, this differs from unincorporated areas of the County and from the County as a whole, where the White, non Hispanic or Latino and Asian, non Hispanic or Latino populations make up larger shares of the population. As is shown in Figure 1, the central inland areas of the County (including King City) as well as the coastal areas around Salinas tend to be predominantly Hispanic or Latino, while central coastal and southern inland areas of the County tend to be majority White, not Hispanic or Latino.

As of the 2020 ACS, 61.7 percent of residents are citizens either by birth or naturalization, and the remainder are not citizens. Ethnic integration and close proximity of single family, multifamily and manufactured dwellings prevails. The Downtown Core is largely inhabited by persons of color, as reflected by the community as a whole.

Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
65 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
TABLE 4.2.1: POPULATION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL POPULATION, 2021
Race or Ethnicity King
City
Greenfiel
d
Gonzale
s
Unincorporated
Monterey
County
Montere
y County
White, Not Hispanic or Latino 8.8% 4.6% 5.0% 45.5% 29.5% Hispanic or Latino of Any
Race

87.6% 92.0% 92.1% 45.6% 59.0%
Black or African American,
Not Hispanic or Latino 1.0% 1.6% 0.5% 0.8% 2.4%
Native American or Alaska
Native, Not Hispanic or
Latino

0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific
Islander, Not Hispanic or
Latino

0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4%
Asian, Not Hispanic or Latino 1.2% 1.0% 1.6% 4.2% 5.5%
Other, Not Hispanic or Latino 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.2%
Two or More Races, Not
Hispanic or Latino 1.4% 0.6% 0.2% 3.1% 2.8%
Source: ACS 2020 5-Year Estimate, HCD Data Package
Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 66
FIGURE 4.2.1: PREDOMINANT POPULATION, MONTEREY COUNTY
Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
67 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element

DISABLED AND SENIOR RESIDENTS
Persons with disabilities typically have special housing needs due to physical or developmental capabilities, fixed or limited incomes, and higher health costs associated with disabilities.

Seniors typically experience disabilities at higher rates than the general population. Equitable Housing for those with disabilities can be challenging. Many older units are not typically ADA compliant and those with stairs may make it difficult for those who are mobility impaired.

As of the 2020 ACS, 10.6 percent of residents in King City have a disability, which is higher than the rate of disability in the nearby cities of Greenfield and Gonzales (with rates of 6.9 percent and 6.3 percent, respectively), but lower than rates in unincorporated areas of Monterey County (18.4 percent) and in Monterey County as a whole (15.1 percent) (see Table 2). In King City as in surrounding communities, ambulatory disabilities are the most common disability, with 56.7 percent of residents with a disability reporting this disability type.

As can be seen in Figure 2, the large majority of the City has rate of a persons with disabilities of less than 10 percent based on the 2021 ACS. Areas south of US 101 in the residential areas have a higher concentration of residents with disabilities, between 10 and 20 percent. This area includes the Rio Plaza Mobile Home Estates park. Regionally, many communities in the central areas of the county have rates of disability between 10 and 20 percent, while the majority of the county has rates of disability of 10 percent or below.

Future efforts will include the potential to provide housing choices that include principals of Universal Design Including ADA provisions) – important for those who are mentally and emotionally able to rent/ purchase and maintain their own personal housing space. The City is working with the development community to find ways to include an enhanced level of Universal Design in new housing development which is anticipated to occur in the Downtown Core and at the intersection of First Street and US 101. These areas are also anticipated to provide opportunity for smaller, more affordable units. See Chapter 9, Programs 14.

Several Senior care providers and resources are available in the City (See Chapter 3, Page 61).

The median age of householders has increased since 2015, with 16 percent of residents being 65 years of age or older as compared to 14.3 percent in 2015. There are 513 households in King City where the householder is over 65 years of age (15.9 percent of all households). The number of Seniors who are below poverty level in King City has decreased significantly since 2015 – from 191 (.014 percent) to 16 (.001 percent). Seniors in the city tend to stay in their homes for a longer period of time, therefore, there is some level of concentration in the Downtown Core where the majority of homes were built before 1970, many being built in the 1940s and 1950s. Several Senior care providers and resources are available in the City. See Chapter 3, Page 61.

Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 68
The location of sites used to meet the RHNA requirements of the 6th Cycle Housing element will focus future efforts to include the provision for additional seniors housing in the Downtown Core.

Redevelopment of parcels that currently contain aging motor hotels are a good example for areas of density increase and seniors’ projects, similar to those being explored currently with a potential for 50% seniors. See Chapter 9, Programs 4 and 5.

TABLE 4.2.2: POPULATION BY DISABILITY TYPE
Disability Type as
Percentage of Residents
Ages 18+ with a Disability
King City Greenfield Gonzales
Unincorporated
Monterey
County
Monterey
County
Percentage of Population
with a Disability 10.6% 6.9% 6.3% 18.4% 15.1%
- Hearing Difficulty 9.1% 15.1% 10.1% 32.7% 28.7%
- Vision Difficulty 17.3% 23.5% 20.4% 15.8% 17.8%
- Cognitive Difficulty 20.1% 38.3% 34.1% 27.9% 30.2%
- Ambulatory Difficulty 56.7% 69.4% 37.8% 50.5% 47.5%
- Self-care Difficulty 13.5% 25.6% 14.0% 20.3% 21.1%
- Independent Living 34.7% 37.5% 24.1% 38.7% 35.6%
Note: Persons can have more than one type of disability; percentages will not add to 100%.

Source: ACS 2020 5-Year Estimates, HCD Data Package
Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
69 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
FIGURE4.2 2: RATES OF DISABILITY, MONTEREY COUNTY
Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 70

FAMILIAL STATUS
Patterns of familial status present a potential indicator of fair housing issues, as it relates to availability of appropriately sized or priced housing when certain family types are concentrated.

As a protected characteristic, concentrations of family types may also occur as a result of discrimination by housing providers, such as against families with children or unmarried partners.

Furthermore, female-headed households with no spouse and children at home are considered to have a greater risk of experiencing poverty than single-parent, male-headed households due to factors including the gender wage gap and difficulty in securing higher-wage jobs.

As of 2020, just under 90 percent of households in King City are family households, which is similar to rates of family households in nearby Greenfield and Gonzales (see Table 4.2.3). This is higher than the county’s overall rate of family households, 72.6 percent. The average household size is 4.25 persons, which suggests a need for housing stock that can accommodate larger household sizes. The Historic Downtown tends to have older, smaller homes than areas where new development is occurring. There are 474 female-headed households in the city, or 14.5 percent of all households. Of all female-headed households, 301 were households with children in the household (63.5 percent of female-headed households).

As can be seen from Figure 4.2.3, children in female-headed households appear to be concentrated in the areas west and south of downtown. The concentration of residential housing in these areas is located between San Antonio Avenue and the western City Boundary. Regionally, King City’s rates of children in female-headed households are similar to neighboring cities but lower to than areas in the southern and central areas of the county, as well as the Sand City area.

There are three head start centers in the city, including two that have services focused on migrant families. Two are located on North Russ Street near Del Rey and Santa Lucia Elementary Schools, and the other is located near the corner of Lynn Street and North 3rd Street. The Kings City Early Education Center, a public preschool, is located within Santa Lucia Elementary School. Other private preschools and day care centers are also available on the north and east sides of the city, including one within the King City Migrant Center.

Future efforts in identifying sites and site developments will include an evaluation of housing types specific to the needs of this demographic. Specialized needs are anticipated to include proximity to recreation, access to safe non-vehicular modes of transportation, smaller unit size and affordability. In the future, housing in the Downtown Core and at the intersection of First Street and US 101 may be appropriate to serve this population. See Chapter 9, Programs 4, 5, 10, and 13.

Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
71 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
TABLE 4.2.3: POPULATION BY FAMILY STATUS
Familial Status by Household Type, as
a Percentage of All Households King City Greenfield Gonzales Monterey County Family Households 89.4% 89.1% 90.1% 72.6%
Non-family Households 10.6% 10.9% 9.9% 27.4%
Percent of all Households that are Single
Female-Headed Family Households with
Children

9.3% 12.2% 14.1% 6.4%
Source: ACS 2020 5-Year Estimates
Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 72
FIGURE 4.2.3: PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN IN FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS, MONTEREY COUNTY
Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
73 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element

FARMWORKERS
King City has been and will continue to be an agriculturally based community with housing for farmworkers being a priority. The majority of farmworker housing buildings are located on the southeast side of the city, with some also located north of the Downtown core. Housing developments for farmworkers are listed in Table 4.2.4, of which the largest is the SHG building at 218 North First Street. This facility houses 364 seasonal workers in a barracks-style environment. Farmworker housing may also provide additional services such as laundry facilities or, in the case of the King City Migrant Center, daycare services. The King City Migrant Center is open only to family households, and families may rent each unit for up to 180 days. Rent is paid on a daily rate of between $11.50 and $12.50 per day.

TABLE 4.2.4: FARMWORKER HOUSING IN KING CITY
Facility Name Address Workers or Units
SHG Building 218 North First Street 364 Workers (Seasonal) College Ville 48449 Lonoak Rd. 310 Workers
Crown Court Apartments Not Available 100 Workers
La Buena Esperanza 600 Bishop Street 40 Units
Rava Apartments Bitterwater Road 59 Worker Units, Up to 8 Residents in each King City Migrant Center 440 Jayne Street 80 Two-Bedroom Units (Seasonal) H-2A housing is also provided by employers through contracts with hotels or other residential buildings. Occupied H-2A employee housing facilities with active permits to operate are listed in Table 4.2.5. As with other farmworker housing, these tend to be concentrated on the east side of the city. One H-2A site is located near King City High School, and another is located on the city’s south side.

TABLE 4.2.5: H-2A HOUSING WITH ACTIVE PERMITS
Facility Name Address Workers Served
Crown Housing Center 220 S. 1st Street 191
Meyer’s Housing Project 218 N. 1st Street 365
Keefers Inn 615 Canal Street 29
Chestnut Ave. Apartments, Building 1 321 Chestnut Avenue 152 Chestnut Ave. Apartments, Building 2 319 Chestnut Avenue 160 Chestnut Ave. Apartments, Building 3 317 Chestnut Avenue 152 King City Facility (Inn at King City) 4 Broadway Circle 32 Silver Saddle Motel Alamo 705 Broadway Street 58
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, accessed September 2024 Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 74
As highlighted in the Farmworker Housing Study and Action Plan for Salinas Valley and Pajaro Valley conducted by the California Institute for Rural Studies, King City has been coordinating with local agencies, growers and farm labor contractors to identify opportunities to make housing available to H-2A farmworkers in the area1. Additionally, the study found that 89% of farmworkers were renters and around 40% and 30% lived in houses and apartments, respectively. Additionally, the study cited the need for additional affordable permanent yearround family housing; some housing for farmworkers is seasonal, meaning farmworkers and their families must move at the end of harvest. As shown in Table 4.2.5 above, there are currently 1,139 units in the City or adjacent to the City that are reserved for farmworkers. This number does not include projects such as La Buena Esperanza, which is a farmworker-owned residential cooperative where current or former farmworkers own their units, which allows them to be affordable in perpetuity. Future efforts to provide additional farmworker housing are anticipated, primarily being the expansion of the SHG Building. See Chapter 9, Program 8.

INCOME
As is shown in Table 4.2.6, King City has a lower median household income than other neighboring communities such as Greenfield and Gonzales, and a lower median household income than the County or State. This may be influenced by the number of agricultural laborers working in the area, as this industry tends to have lower incomes. The south side of the city is within the census tract with the highest income in the city, between $90,100 and $120,000, though this may be influenced by the incomes of neighboring unincorporated communities (Figure 4). The City’s Downtown area has the city’s lowest median income, below $55,000, while the other areas of the city fall in between those ranges. Regionally, much of King City has a similar income level to other areas of the inland and southern county. Northwest areas of the county tend to have higher incomes than the areas where King City is located.

As shown in Table 4.2.7, King City has a higher rate of residents with incomes below the poverty line than the nearby cities of Greenfield or Gonzales, and a higher rate of poverty than Monterey County as a whole. The highest rates of poverty are concentrated in the city’s Downtown core area (see Figure 5), with a poverty rate between 20 and 30 percent. Areas just to the southwest and southeast of the Downtown Core are slightly lower, between 10 and 20 percent, and the remainder of the city has a poverty rate below 10 percent. Subsidized housing is located on the city’s southwest west and north sides, as confirmed by HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer 2.0. 1 Wadsworth, G. et al. Farmworker Housing Study and Action Plan for Salinas Valley and Pajaro Valley.

California Institute for Rural Studies, 2018,
https://www.cityofsalinas.org/files/sharedassets/city/v/1/community-development/housingdocuments/regional-farm-worker-study_2018.pdf Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
75 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
TABLE 4.2.6: MEDIAN INCOME BY JURISDICTION, 2020
Geography Median Income
King City $50,174
Greenfield $64,879
Gonzales $69,136
Monterey County $76,943
State $78,672
Source: ACS 2020 5-Year Estimates
TABLE 4.2.7: POVERTY RATE, 2020
Geography Percent of Population
Below Poverty Level
King City 16.7%
Greenfield 14.3%
Gonzales 10.8%
Monterey County 12.0%
State 12.6%
Source: ACS 2020 5-Year Estimates
Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 76
FIGURE 4.2.4: MEDIAN INCOME BY CENSUS TRACT, MONTEREY COUNTY Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
77 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
FIGURE 4.2.5: POVERTY RATE BY CENSUS TRACT, MONTEREY COUNTY Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 78

4.3 CONCENTRATED AREAS OF POVERTY AND AFFLUENCE
Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) or areas of High Segregation and Poverty are areas that exhibit both high racial/ethnic concentrations and high poverty rates. HUD defines R/ECAPs as census tracts with a majority non-White population (50 percent or more) and a poverty rate that exceeds 40 percent or is three times the average poverty rate for the county, whichever is lower. HCD defines areas of High Segregation and Poverty (HS&P) as census tracts that have an overrepresentation of people of color compared to the county as a whole, and at least 30.0 percent of the population in these areas is below the federal poverty line ($30,000 annually for a family of four in 2023). R/ECAPs or areas of High Segregation and Poverty may indicate the presence of disadvantaged households facing housing insecurity and need. They identify areas whose residents may have faced historical discrimination and who continue to experience economic hardship, furthering entrenched inequities in these communities. There are no HS&P or R/ECAP areas within King City. Regionally, HS&P and R/ECAP areas are concentrated in the City of Salinas and in neighboring counties.

Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence
Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) are neighborhoods in which there are both high concentrations of Non-Hispanic White households and high household income rates. Based on research from the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs, RCAAs are defined as census tracts where 80 percent or more of the population is White, and the median household income is $125,000 or greater (which is slightly more than double the national median household income in 2016).

HCD further adjusted the RCAA methodology to track more closely with California’s higher levels of diversity by setting the White population threshold to 50 percent. There are no RCAAs in King City. Regionally, RCAAs are concentrated in the northwest side of the county, including in the areas south and southeast of Monterey and Seaside.

Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Since 2017, the Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) and California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) have developed annual maps of access to resources such as high‐paying job opportunities; proficient schools; safe and clean neighborhoods; and other healthy economic, social, and environmental indicators to provide evidence‐based research for policy recommendations. This effort has been dubbed “opportunity mapping” and is available to all jurisdictions to assess access to opportunities in their community.

Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
79 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps can help to identify areas in the community that provide strong access to opportunity for residents or, conversely, provide low access to opportunity. The information from the opportunity mapping can help to highlight the need for housing element policies and programs that would help to remediate conditions in low‐resource areas and areas of high segregation and poverty and to encourage better access for lower‐income households and communities of color to housing in high‐resource areas. TCAC/HCD categorized census tracts into high‐, moderate‐, or low‐resource areas based on a composite score of economic, educational, and environmental factors that can perpetuate poverty and segregation, such as school proficiency, median income, and median housing prices. The 2023 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps compares each tract to those in the council of governments (COG) region.

Areas designated as “highest resource” are the top 20.0 percent highest‐scoring census tracts in the region. It is expected that residents in these census tracts have access to the best outcomes in terms of health, economic opportunities, and educational attainment. Census tracts designated “high resource” score in the 21st to 40th percentile compared to the region.

Residents of these census tracts have access to highly positive outcomes for health, economic, and education attainment.
“Moderate resource” areas are in the top 30.0 percent of the remaining census tracts in the region, and those designated as “moderate resource (rapidly changing)” have experienced rapid increases in key indicators of opportunity, such as increasing median income, home values, and an increase in job opportunities. Residents in these census tracts have access to either somewhat positive outcomes in terms of health, economic attainment, and education, or positive outcomes in a certain area (e.g., score high for health, education) but not all areas (e.g., may score poorly for economic attainment).
“Low‐resource” areas score in the bottom 30.0 percent of census tracts and indicate a lack of access to positive outcomes and opportunities (Table 4.3.1). The final designation are those areas identified as having “high segregation and poverty;” these are census tracts that have an overrepresentation of people of color compared to the region as a whole, and at least 30.0 percent of the population in these areas is below the federal poverty line ($19,720 for a two‐ person household and $30,000 annually for a family of four in 2023). All of King City is considered a low-resource area according to the 2023 TCAC analysis. As discussed in previous sections of the analysis, the Downtown core of the city is the lowest-income, highest-poverty area of the city, and there are no known areas of racial segregation. This is typical for cities and unincorporated areas in the southeastern, inland parts of Monterey County. Northwestern coastal areas of the county are mostly moderate, high, or highest-resource areas.

Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 80
FIGURE 4.3.1: TCAC OPPORTUNITY AREAS, 2023, MONTEREY COUNTY Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
81 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
Education
King City is served by two elementary schools and one elementary arts magnet, one middle school, one high school, and two alternative high school programs. All schools in the city have high rates of students who are considered to be socio-economically disadvantaged and low percentages of foster youth. In the city’s elementary and middle schools, the majority of students are English language learners. Fewer than one quarter of students at King City High School are considered to be English language learners, which may indicate progress in English acquisition among younger students over time. With the exception of King City High School’s English Language Arts (ELA) scores, all of the schools that serve King City have standardized test scores that are below the State standard. While this indicates an opportunity to improve school outcomes, it does not suggest a disparity in access to quality schools between neighborhoods in the city. Tutoring is available through the schools.

In 2020, the King City Union School District went to the voters to approve two separate measures, Measures A and B, to authorize the district to issue bonds for safety and security improvements, replacing and repairing portable classrooms, restrooms, and playgrounds, and upgrading classroom technology. Both measures were approved by voters. In 2024, Measures K and L are also sought by the school district to continue improvements to schools in the district.

One post-secondary institution, Hartnell College, has a campus in King City. Hartnell College is a public community college based in Salinas. The school has a range of majors leading to associates degrees or certificates and offers transfer opportunities to four-year colleges. The college is in the process of expanding this campus, which will provide additional class opportunities in the city.

Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 82
TABLE 4.3.1: SCHOOL PERFORMANCE
School Name
ELA Score
(Points
Above or
Below
Standard)
Math Score
(Points
Above or
Below
Standard)
Chronic Absence
(Percent of
Students
Chronically
Absent)
Suspension
Rate (Percent
Suspended at
Least One
Day)
SocioEconomic
Disadvantage
(Percent of
Students)
English
Learners
(Percent of
Students)
Foster
Youth
(Percent of
Students)
Del Rey Elementary -61.5 -65.3 29.1% 1.0% 84.9% 63.5% 0.2% Santa Lucia
Elementary -67.8 -73.0 24.8% 1.1% 93.7% 74.6% 0.0%
Arts Magnet
Elementary -45.2 -59.8 35.2% 1.4% 90.3% 60.6% 0.0%
Chalone Peaks
Middle -66.1 -122.0 21.4% 15.6% 91.5% 53.0% 0.0%
King City High 1.9 -112.9 N/A 5.8% 83.9% 17.4% 0.1%
Pinnacle Coastal
Valley High (Charter,
Independent Study)
-92.5 -188.7 N/A 0.0% 97.7% 29.9% 1.1%
Portola-Butler High
(Continuation) -166.6 -232.6 N/A 2.2% 96.8% 22.2% 0.0%
Source: California School Dashboard, 2023
Note: Chronic absence is only reported for schools serving students in grades K-8.

Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
83 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
Economic
The TCAC Opportunity Analysis identifies geographic disparities in access to opportunities based on Economic Domain scores, which incorporate various indicators like poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home value. Scores below 0.2 signify less positive economic conditions, while scores exceeding 0.8 indicate more positive economic conditions.

According to the California Employment Development Department, of the County’s largest employers, two are located in King City: Mee Memorial Healthcare System and County-Monterey Behavioral. Many of the other major employers in the southern areas of the county are agricultural in nature, including harvesting and packing operations in Gonzales, Greenfield, and Soledad.

According to the US Census On The Map tool, as of 2021, 34.5 percent of workers work 50 or more miles from their home, while 32.2 percent of workers living in King City are located less than 10 miles from their workplace. Most workers that travel more than 10 miles travel to the northwest. Salinas is the largest single destination for work outside of King City, followed by Greenfield and San Jose.

Residents whose workplace is San Jose may be working remotely, or may be traveling to work.

The City has more recently also held conversations with developers to add mixed-use housing opportunities in the City, combining housing with retail and other potential commercial opportunities.

The City also has an active Economic Development assistance program, including façade and other signage improvements.

In addition to the job training programs provided by Hartnell College, the Monterey County Workforce Development Board also connects residents of the county with job training opportunities in a variety of fields. Moreover, the City is actively pursuing partnerships to connect junior high and high school students to career training and exposure opportunities through economic development activities.

Collaborations with entities, such as the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, could also provide economic opportunities for residents of King City and the County as a whole.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 established Opportunity Zones as a mechanism to provide tax incentives for investment in designated census tracts. Investments made by individuals through special funds in these zones would be allowed to defer or eliminate federal taxes on capital gains. The Census Track Number is 113.02 and the Tract Type is Low-Income Community. The future Multimodal Transit Center (MMTC), Downtown Addition Specific Plan, and the Historic Downtown area are included in the Opportunity Zone area.

Transportation
Being a compact city, King City is easily navigated by vehicle and is becoming more and more pedestrian friendly as the Downtown Core evolves and the trail system develops. The City is also served by Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST). Routes 23 and 23X connect King City with Salinas via Chualar (Route 23 only), Gonzales, Soledad, and Greenfield. Route 84 also connects King City with San Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 84
Lucas, San Ardo, San Miguel, and Paso Robles. The intersections around Mee Memorial Hospital acts as a hub for all three routes, while Route 23 also has stops at 1st Street and Pearl Street, at Broadway and 2nd Street, and at Canal and Division Streets. Route 23X runs four times per day in each direction on weekdays, twice in the morning and twice in the evening, while Route 23 runs hourly to Salinas from 5:41 AM to 6:55 PM on weekdays, and approximately hourly from 7:50 AM to 6:55 PM on Saturdays and Sundays. Route 84 runs twice per day in each direction. While residents traveling in the direction of Salinas may be able to use transit for regular trips, those relying on transit for southbound travel may find the infrequency of service in this direction challenging.

According to the 2023 Monterey County Bike Map published by Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC), there are currently three bike lanes or separated bike paths in King City. One bike lane travels along Spreckels Road and San Antonio Drive on the north side, and connects with a separated bike lane on Lewis Street. These bike routes are near several parks and connect to Chalone Peaks Middle School. Another separated bike path crosses the Salinas River and connects with San Lorenzo County Park. In 2023, the City conducted a participatory budgeting process with TAMC’s Safe Routes to School program. As part of this process, the City is eligible to receive up to $250,000 from TAMC to construct the top-voted proposal, as determined by King City residents. In May and June 2024, TAMC also implemented a pilot pedestrian safety project in front of Santa Lucia Elementary.

ALLTRANSIT
AllTransit is a transit and connectivity analytic tool developed by the Center for Neighborhood Technology for the advancement of equitable communities and urban sustainability. The tool analyzes the transit frequency, routes, and access to determine an overall transit score at the city, county, and regional levels. Scores are on a 10-point scale, with 10 points indicating the highest level of transit connectivity. As is shown in Table 9, while King City’s score is relatively low, it is comparable to scores in nearby communities. There are an estimated 6,448 jobs accessible within a 30-minute trip from King City, and 0.52 percent of King City commuters use transit.

TABLE 4.3.2: ALLTRANSIT SCORES
Jurisdiction AllTransit Score
King City 2.8
Greenfield 2.1
Gonzales 2.1
Environment
The California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) developed CalEnviroScreen 4.0 web-based mapping tool to help identify California communities that are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. CalEnviroScreen Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
85 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
uses 21 indicators of environmental, health, and socioeconomic conditions to help identify these communities. The scores are mapped so that different communities can be compared. An area with a high score is one that experiences a much higher pollution burden than areas with low scores.

CalEnviroScreen scores in King City indicate moderate to positive environmental health outcomes.

The south side of the City, which has the city’s most positive score, is in a census tract with a score in the 37th percentile. The downtown core has a score in the 49th percentile, and the remainder of the city has a score in the 58th percentile. Factors with scores that indicated the greatest areas of concern citywide were solid waste exposure, pesticide exposure, drinking water quality, impaired water, groundwater threats, and lead from housing. Pesticide exposure and threats to water quality are not uncommon for areas with high levels of agricultural activity. Risk of lead exposure from housing is typical in areas with older housing stock.

In addition to CalEnviroScreen 4.0, the Public Health Alliance of Southern California has created an evaluative tool known as the Healthy Places Index (HPI). This tool is designed to assess various social, economic, and neighborhood design elements that significantly influence health outcomes. Within this analysis, the City scored in the lowest quartile of communities in the state. However, the factors that contributed to the negative scores were predominantly socioeconomic rather than environmental. Tree canopy was a low-scoring environmental factor, while low rates of health insurance access and low rates of homeownership, preschool enrollment, and higher education were low-scoring socioeconomic factors.

Recently, the City has begun the Riverbed Wildfire Prevention Plan (RWPP) which prioritizes hazard reduction projects along portions of the Salinas River and San Lorenzo Creek. Amongst other actions, the RWPP aims to create a fire break to prevent a wildland fire from becoming an urban conflagration.

In addition, the City has invested in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities to provide additional capacity and additional agricultural and terrain irrigation water.

In addition, the City has addressed environmental resource management through several other actions. For instance, to protect cultural resources, the City has standard conditions of approval that include requiring the presence of archaeologist and culture source representatives from the Xolon Salinan Tribe and/or Salinan Tribe of San Luis Obispo and Monterey Counties under specific conditions. Cultural resource reports prepare by archaeologist, in consultation with Native American people are required for larger discretionary projects. Tribal consultation pursuant to SB 18 and AB 52 are conducted.

Moreover, the City has invested into climate change and air quality improvement projects including:
• Installing roundabouts and eliminating all traffic signals. • Planning for a multi-modal transit center (MMTC) to provide an alternative to passenger vehicles. This includes working with U.S. Army Garrison Fort Hunter Liggett (FHL) to provide a staging area for troops to be transported via rail rather than SOV. Anywhere from 50,000 to Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 86
70,000 troops per year use SOV to travel from the Bay Area to base for military training. The MMTC will significantly reduce GHG from FHL alone.
• Installing EV charging stations citywide to make it less costly for residents to own EV. The City adopted an ordinance for expedited electric vehicle charging station permitting process pursuant to Government Code Section 65850.7.
• Implementing a road diet citywide and by reducing the travel lanes and designating areas for bikes.
• Installing multiuse trails throughout the community.
• The City is collaborating with Lawrence Livermore National Labs (LLNL) on carbon capture and storage to reduce CO2 and create green jobs.
• Expedite process for solar permits. As of 2012 there have been over 450 rooftop solar systems installed (residential and commercial) including city facilities such as the Recreation Racquetball Building and a grid tied ground mounted solar PV system at the Waste Water Treatment Plant.

Parks are distributed throughout the city, particularly in the central, south, and northwest sides, but no parks are located on the northeast side of the city. However, the City is planning on increasing recreational spaces across the City by building a trail loop around the City, serving to connect residents and increase opportunities for recreation. As part of the Blue Zones Community, King City is committed to maintaining and creating walkable streets and neighborhoods and protecting the environment.

Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
87 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
FIGURE 4.3.2: CALENVIROSCREEN PERCENTILE, MONTEREY COUNTY Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 88

4.4 DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS, INCLUDING DISPLACEMENT A combination of factors can result in increased displacement risk, particularly for lower-income households, including some factors previously discussed. These factors include environmental hazards, overcrowding, housing cost burden, low vacancy rates, availability of a variety of housing options, and increasing housing prices compared to wage increases.

Overpayment
Housing represents a significant percentage of the total cost of living for many households in California. Households spending more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing costs are considered to be overpaying, or “cost burdened.” Overpayment is disproportionately experienced by renters in low-income households and low-resource areas. Extremely Low Income (ELI) households are defined as those that earn 30% or less of Median Family Income (MFI). This condition can be found over a large portion of the City, primarily focused in apartments and smaller single family homes. As is shown in Table 10, in 2020 92.0 percent of ELI households in the city paid between 30 and 50 percent of their income on housing costs. Severe housing cost burden is defined as the situation where a household spends more than 50 percent of their household income on housing costs. In 2020, 75.0 percent of ELI households in King City were severely housing cost burdened.

Regionally, these rates of cost burden among extremely low- income households are comparable to those in Greenfield but are higher than those in Gonzales and in Monterey County as a whole.

OVERPAYMENT BY HOMEOWNERS
According to Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) 2016-2020 data, 28 percent of homeowners in the city pay more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs (see Table 10). As is shown in Figure 8, this rate of overpayment is not concentrated in any area of the city. Regionally, King City’s rate of homeowner housing cost burden is typical when compared to the nearby cities of Greenfield and Gonzales as well as to the county as a whole. Unincorporated communities on the south side of the county and to the southwest of Soledad as well as coastal communities near Carmelby-the-Sea and Sand City experience higher rates of owner housing cost burden.

OVERPAYMENT BY RENTERS
More than half of renter households in King City overpay for housing (see Table 10). While this is typical for other nearby cities in the region, King City’s rate of renter overpayment is slightly higher than that of Greenfield and Gonzales (57.8 percent compared to 54.5 percent and 55.7 percent, respectively) and higher than the rate of renter cost burden for the county as a whole (50.9). As can be seen from Figure 9, overpayment among renters is also equally distributed throughout the City and surrounding region at a rate of 40 percent to 60 percent overpayment. Regionally, overpayment among renters is similar in Greenfield and areas of Salinas, while parts of Soledad, Gonzales, and Salinas experience overpayment among renters at a higher rate (60 percent to 80 percent).

Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
89 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
Future efforts in site identification and site development will include focusing areas where more affordable housing can be located. Redevelopment on aging motor hotel sites in the Downtown Core and new types of development at First Street and US 101 may provide opportunities to provide housing affordable to lower-income households, which can alleviate cost burden. Additional ADUs in the Downtown Core and intensification of development in existing residential neighborhoods (such as Opportunity Areas) are other future options. Broadly, increasing housing opportunities in the City will help alleviate the overpayment for renters and homeowners.

TABLE 4.4.1: HOUSEHOLDS EXPERIENCING HOUSING COST BURDEN Households Experiencing Cost Burden
(Paying >30% of Income Toward Housing
Costs)
King
City Greenfield Gonzales Monterey County
Percent of Owner Households Experiencing
Cost Burden or Severe Cost Burden 28.0% 30.6% 26.1% 28.6% Percent of Renter Households Experiencing
Cost Burden or Severe Cost Burden 57.8% 54.5% 55.7% 50.9% Percent of All Households Experiencing Cost
Burden 46.1% 42.9% 39.3% 39.4%
Percent of Extremely Low- Income Households
Experiencing Cost Burden 92.0% 98.0% 76.0% 79.0%
Percent of Extremely Low- Income Households
Experiencing Severe Cost Burden 75.0% 70.0% 59.0% 66.0% Source: CHAS 2016-2020, HCD Data Packet
Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 90
FIGURE 4.4.1: RATE OF HOMEOWNER OVERPAYMENT, MONTEREY COUNTY Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
91 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
FIGURE 4.4.2: RATE OF RENTER OVERPAYMENT, MONTEREY COUNTY Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 92
Overcrowding
Overcrowding occurs when the number of people living in a household is greater than the home was designed to hold. The U.S. Census Bureau considers a household overcrowded when there is more than one person per room, excluding bathrooms, hallways, and kitchens, and severely overcrowded when there are more than 1.5 occupants per room. A typical home might have a total of five rooms that qualify for habitation under this definition (three bedrooms, living room, and dining room). If more than five people were living in the home, it would be considered overcrowded. Overcrowding is strongly related to household size, particularly for large households, and the availability of suitably sized housing. A small percentage of overcrowded units is not uncommon, and often includes families with children who share rooms or multigenerational households. However, high rates of overcrowding may indicate a fair housing issue resulting from situations such as two families or households occupying one unit to reduce housing costs (sometimes referred to as “doubling up”).

Situations such as this may indicate a shortage of appropriately sized and affordable housing units as overcrowding is often related to the cost and availability of housing and can occur when demand in a jurisdiction or region is high.

According to the ACS 2016-2020, 13.3 percent of households in King City experience overcrowding of any level. Overcrowding between 1.01 and 1.5 persons per household is much more common among renter households than owner households, with 14.7 percent of renters and only 1.0 percent of owner households experiencing this level of overcrowding (see Table 4.4.2). Patterns of severe overcrowding are similar, with 18.3 percent of renter households and 0.4 percent of owner households experiencing this level of overcrowding. This condition can be found over a large portion of the City, primarily focused in apartments and smaller, older single family homes. Regionally, rates of overcrowding among renters are similar to those of renters in Greenfield and higher than those in Gonzales. Rates of overcrowding among owner households are lower in King City than in Greenfield and Gonzales, as well as in the County as a whole and in unincorporated County areas.

As can be seen from Figure 10, overcrowding appears to be concentrated in the Downtown Core at a rate of 15 percent to 20 percent. The northern portion of the City (which includes the newer Mills Ranch and Creekbridge Specific Plans) includes overcrowding of 15 percent to 20 percent and the southern and western areas of the City show overcrowding of 5 percent to 10 percent. It is of interest to note that family size in King City is approaching 4 persons per family. The “overcrowding” condition may be influenced by larger families being unable to find or afford larger size housing. Regionally, rates of overcrowding in King City are similar to those in the Salinas area, but higher than those in unincorporated areas on the south side of the county and lower than those in the western coastal areas of the county.

It is anticipated that the units identified in Cycle 6 RHNA will significantly address the overcrowding issue. Future efforts will include study of the reasons behind overcrowding, for example the lack of Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
93 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
affordable housing, leading to the need for roommates as compared to large families needing appropriate affordable housing. The Downtown Core and the area at First Street / US 101 have potential relieve a unit shortage while the ability to produce larger size and yet affordable housing may be more challenging. See Chapter 9, Program 5.

TABLE 4.4.2: HOUSEHOLDS EXPERIENCING OVERCROWDING
Households Experiencing
Overcrowding King City Greenfield Gonzales
Unincorporated
Monterey
County
Monterey
County
Percent of Owner
Households Experiencing
Overcrowding (1.01-1.5
Persons per Room)

1.0% 9.4% 2.2% 2.6% 2.8%
Percent of Owner
Households Experiencing
Severe Overcrowding (> 1.5
Persons per Room)

0.4% 2.3% 1.4% 0.8% 0.9%
Percent of Renter
Households Experiencing
Overcrowding (1.01-1.5
Persons per Room)

14.7% 16.1% 14.6% 11.5% 12.4%
Percent of Renter
Households Experiencing
Severe Overcrowding (> 1.5
Persons per Room)

18.3% 16.4% 7.8% 7.7% 8.1%
Percent of Renter or Owner
Households Experiencing
Any Level of Overcrowding
(> 1.01 Persons per Room)

13.3% 18.8% 9.3% 7.0% 9.2%
Source: ACS 2016-2020, HCD Data Package
Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 94
FIGURE 4.4.3: HOUSEHOLDS EXPERIENCING OVERCROWDING, MONTEREY COUNTY Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
95 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
Housing Conditions
A majority of the housing of King City was built prior to 2000 (78.5 percent of homes). Nearly 100 percent of units in King City are in habitable condition with the very large majority in good or very good condition. Newer housing is predominantly located outside the Downtown Core – including those previously constructed and proposed for the future. As previously noted (page 29) the City estimates 139 units of housing is in need of minor rehabilitation and one unit is in need of replacement. These units tend to be concentrated in areas that in, or near, the Downtown Core as this area includes where development in King City was primarily focused. Of those 139 units, 121 are single-family residences, 12 are apartment units, and 6 are triplex units. The lone unit in need of replacement is a single-family home. Program 7 describes actions such as the recent addition of a dedicated Code Enforcement officer and will provide targeted code enforcement activities to connect these property owners with vital residential rehabilitation resources.

Homelessness
As of the 2022 Point in Time (PIT) count of homeless community members, there were 18 unsheltered and 0 sheltered homeless persons in King City. This is a decrease from 2019, when there were a total of 27 sheltered or unsheltered homeless persons in the city. City counts from the 2024 PIT count have not been released as of September, 2024. Regionally, as of the 2022 PIT count, most unsheltered homeless residents of Monterey County were counted in the Salinas area. The City operates an Emergency Rental Assistance Program in partnership with Catholic Charities to provide temporary rental assistance for low-income eligible households.

Homeless individuals had traditionally congregated in the Salinas Riverbank just outside of the jurisdiction boundaries. However, a 2022 fire in the riverbed forced the unhoused individuals out of the riverbed and were moved into temporary housing. The City has partnered with the Monterey County Housing Authority and local religious institutions to provide interim housing solutions.

Displacement
The Urban Displacement Project, a joint research and action initiative of the University of California (UC) Berkeley and the University of Toronto, analyzes income patterns and housing availability to determine the gentrification displacement risk at the census-tract level. The UC Berkeley analysis identifies the following categories of displacement risk:
• Lower Displacement Risk: Estimates that the loss of low-income households is less than the gain in low-income households. However, some of these areas may have small pockets of displacement within their boundaries.
• At Risk of Displacement: Estimates there is potential displacement or risk of displacement of the given population in these tracts.

Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 96
• Elevated Displacement: Estimates there is a small amount of displacement (e.g., 10 percent) of the given population.
• High Displacement: Estimates there is a relatively high amount of displacement (e.g., 20 percent) of the given population.
• Extreme Displacement: Estimates there is an extreme level of displacement (e.g., greater than 20 percent) of the given population.
• Low Data Quality: The tract has less than 500 total households and/or the census margins of error were greater than 15 percent of the estimate.

A combination of factors can result in increased displacement risk, particularly for lower-income households. Displacement risk increases when a household is paying more for housing than their income can support, their housing condition is unstable or unsafe, and when the household is overcrowded. Each of these presents barriers to stable housing for the occupants.

As is shown in Figure 4.4.4, most of King City was evaluated to have some level of displacement or displacement. In the Downtown core area, households at the 0-50 percent of AMI and 50-80 percent of AMI level were considered to be experiencing some level of displacement. The area of the city south of highway 101 was determined to not be at risk of displacement, and the rest of the city was designated as being at risk of displacement, but not yet experiencing displacement. Regionally, the City of Salinas also has neighborhoods where both income levels are experiencing displacement, and areas to the northwest of Salinas have neighborhoods where at least one income level is experiencing displacement. The majority of the county was either designated as being at low risk of displacement or having some risk of displacement, but not yet experiencing it.

In addition, new programs should be initiated that identify, provide and implement support mechanisms and financing. See Chapter 9, Programs 4 and 17.

Displacement can also be caused by natural hazards, such as fire and flood. As is shown in Figure 4.4.5, no areas of King City area within Cal Fire’s high or very high fire hazard severity zones. As is shown in Figure 4.4.6, there are several areas of the city that have some level of flood hazard. Though much of the downtown area is within the 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard area, very little of the city is considered to be in the higher-risk, 1 percent annual chance flood hazard area. Parts of the city in this flood risk area are predominantly open space areas along the San Lorenzo Creek and the Salinas River. Flooding is not considered to be a major risk in this area.

Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
97 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
FIGURE 4.4.4: RISK OF DISPLACEMENT, MONTEREY COUNTY
Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 98
FIGURE 4.4.5: FIRE HAZARD AREAS, MONTEREY COUNTY
Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
99 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
FIGURE 4.4.6: FEMA FLOOD HAZARD AREAS, MONTEREY COUNTY
Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 100

4.5 ENFORCEMENT AND OUTREACH CAPACITY
In addition to assessing demographic characteristics as indicators of fair housing, jurisdictions must identify how they currently comply with fair housing laws or identify programs to become in compliance. The City of King enforces fair housing and complies with fair housing laws and regulations through a twofold process: review of local policies and codes for compliance with State law, and referral of fair housing complaints to appropriate agencies. The following identifies how the City complies with fair housing laws. Table 4.5.1 lists fair housing laws and the City’s compliance efforts.

Local Outreach and Fair Housing Issues
On April 9, 2024, the City Council Adopted Resolution No. 2024-4989 during a public meeting. The action supports the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and furthers Fair Housing. The Resolution was posted for public review and distributed to stakeholders. The following actions were adopted by the City Council as a follow up to Resolution No. 2024-4989:
• Promote awareness for fair housing to individuals and businesses by preparing a Fair Housing pamphlet and distributing it to stakeholders.
• Publicize fair housing information by conducting stakeholder meetings and distributing information on Fair Housing.
• Publicize information on organizations who provide fair housing assistance to potential victims of housing discrimination.
• The City has prepared and distributed a Fair Housing flyer, called “What is Fair Housing?” The City has also formed a relation with The Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO Housing) to assist residents with fair housing complaints and will meet with similar organizations as they become available. Organizations will be encouraged to be at City Hall ½ day per month to discuss. Flyers have been distributed to the public. • The City is currently preparing a Stakeholder Survey to obtain information regarding the goals, challenges and day-to-day realities of providing housing for less advantaged residents of the community
Fair Housing Outreach Capacity
In April 2024, the City adopted a Resolution in support of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and furthering fair housing. The Resolution urges all renters and those involved in real estate professions to be aware of their rights and responsibilities under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and other applicable Federal, State and local laws or ordinances. Additionally, Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) Housing provides has been providing housing counseling and other fair housing assistance in King City as well as other Monterey County Jurisdictions since 2017. These services Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
101 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
include tenant/landlord mediation and fair housing counseling. In fiscal years (FY) 22-23, 23-24, and 24 - present ECHO assisted in 11, 15, and 10 cases, respectively, for King City residents.

Fair Housing Enforcement
Between 2013 and 2022, 4 fair housing cases were submitted to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO). Of these, one was on the basis of sex, and no basis was given for the other three. During the same period, 2 fair housing inquiries were made with no basis given. As noted above, ECHO serves as the primary source for fair housing complaints and referring tenants and landlords to fair housing assistance providers. The City provides information on the City’s website, including a link to ECHO webpage.

Compliance with Fair Housing Laws
The City has not been party to any recent fair housing related lawsuits, settlements, consent decrees or other related legal matters. Table 4.5.1 describes how the City complies with fair housing laws.

Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 102
TABLE 4.5.1: COMPLIANCE WITH FAIR HOUSING LAWS
Title Statute Description Compliance Efforts
Density Bonus
Law
Government Code
Section 65915
The density bonus ordinance allows up to a 50.0
percent increase in project density depending on the
proportion of units that are dedicated as affordable,
and up to 80.0 percent for projects that are completely affordable, in compliance with State law.

No Net Loss Law Government Code
Section 65863
The City has identified a surplus of sites available to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation.

The City has identified a surplus
of sites to meet the RHNA.

Housing
Accountability
Act
Government Code
Section 65589.5
The City does not condition the approval of housing
development projects for very low-, low-, or moderateincome households, or emergency shelters unless specific written findings are made. Further, the City
currently allows emergency shelters by-right, without
limitations, in at least one zone that allows residential uses.

The City is in compliance.

Senate Bill 35 Government Code
Section 65913.4
The City has established a written policy or procedure, as well as other guidance as appropriate, to streamline the approval process and standards for eligible
projects.

The City will develop a
formalized procedure and
preliminary application for the
SB 35 streamlining approval
process and post materials on
the City’s website as part of
Program 2.

Senate Bill 330 Government Code
Section 65589.5
The City relies on regulations set forth in the law for processing preliminary applications for housing
development projects, conducting no more than five
hearings for housing projects that comply with
objective General Plan and development standards,
and making a decision on a residential project within 90 Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
103 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
Title Statute Description Compliance Efforts
days after certification of an environmental impact
report or 60 days after adoption of a mitigated negative declaration or an environmental report for an
affordable housing project.

California Fair
Employment and
Housing Act and
Federal Fair
Housing Act
Government Code
Sections 12900 -
12996
Title VIII of the
Federal Civil Rights
Act
The City provides protections to residents through
referrals to legal assistance organizations, such as
ECHO.

AntiDiscrimination in
Zoning and Land
Use
Government Code
Section 65008
The City reviews affordable development projects in
the same manner as market-rate developments, except
in cases where affordable housing projects are eligible for preferential treatment, including, but not limited to, on residential sites subject to AB 1397.

The City is in compliance.

Assembly Bill
686
Government Code
Section 8899.50
The City has completed this AFH analysis and has
identified programs to address identified fair housing
issues.

Completed.

Equal Access Government Code
Section 1195 et
seq.

The City offers translation services for all public
meetings and offers accessibility accommodations to
ensure equal access to all programs and activities
operated, administered, or funded with financial
assistance from the State, regardless of membership or
perceived membership in a protected class.

Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 104

4.6 IDENTIFIED SITES AND AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING The location of housing in relation to resources and opportunities is integral to addressing disparities in housing needs and opportunity and to fostering inclusive communities where all residents have access to opportunity. This is particularly important for lower-income households.

AB 686 added a new requirement for Housing Elements to analyze the location of lower-income sites in relation to areas of high opportunity. Table 4.6.1, Residential Unit Capacity by Census Tract, presents the RHNA capacity by Census Tract in the City, and the existing conditions of each tract as they relate to indicators of fair housing.

Chapter 5. Sites Inventory and Analysis
105 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
TABLE 4.6.1: RESIDENTIAL UNIT CAPACITY BY CENSUS TRACT IN KING CITY

Census
Tract
Existing
Households
RHNA Capacity
AFFH Indicators
Integration and Segregation Access to Opportunity Displacement Risk Low Mod. Above
Mod.

Median
Income
Poverty
Rate
Non-White
Population
Disability
Rate
Resource
Designation
CalEnviro
Screen
Percentile
Overcrowding
Rate
Renter
Overpayment
Rate
Homeowner
Overpayment
Rate
% Renter
Households
113.02 1,527 0 50 17 $46,280 23.70% 92.45% 7.20% Low 48.58 15.15% 59.20% 38.50% 80.80% 113.03 1,317 0 0 0 $94,386 8.00% 55.10% 14.30% Low 37.41 7.13% 42.20% 21.80% 16.56% 113.05 1,042 173 304 241 $63,893 9.30% 85.40% 4.30% Low 57.58 10.68% 59.20% 30.80% 43.42% 113.06 754 104 56 178 $66,534 15.50% 95.65% 6.40% Low 57.58 9.73% 47.10% 20.50% 56.84% Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment Adopted December 12, 2023 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 106
This page intentionally left blank.

Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
107 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
FIGURE 4.6.1: CENSUS TRACTS IN KING CITY
113.03
113.05
Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 108
As discussed in further detail in Chapter 5 (Sites Inventory and Analysis), the City employs a variety of strategies to meet and exceed the RHNA. Table 13 presents the RHNA capacity by census tracts in the city, and the existing conditions of each tract as they relate to indicators of fair housing. Figure 14 shows the location of each census tract within the City. Census Tract 113. 02 includes land within the northeastern portion of the City. Census Tract 113.03 includes land in the Southern portion of the City, however, also encompasses a significant portion of the unincorporated land in Monterey County. The unincorporated community of Pine Canyon is amongst the larger CDP within this tract. Census Tract 113.05 encompasses the Northern portions of the City, as well as a significant portion of the unincorporated land in Monterey County. Lastly, Census Tract 113.06 is located within the City. As shown, all Census Tracts but 113.03 include capacity to meet the RHNA. None of the Census Tracts meet either the definition of areas of high segregation and poverty or racially concentrated areas of affluence.

Census Tract 113.02 is located in the City’s core and is a mix of both residential and industrial uses, particularly in the eastern portion of the Census Tract. Although there are a considerable amount of existing households in the tract, little opportunity for residential development exists given the lang is primarily occupied with either residential or industrial uses, as evidenced by only 67 units of capacity in this census tract. That said, given the predominantly residential nature of this tract, it is possible for this area to develop ADUs with the existing residential uses creating housing mobility opportunities and alleviating elevated overcrowding and overpayment rates.

Census Tract 113.03 is located in the Southern portion of the City. While this area scores high in terms of median income and lower poverty rates, this is likely due to the tract extending beyond the City limits. This could also explain the near-double rate of disability in the tract compared to neighboring tracts, in addition to the presence of a mobile home park, which offers a more naturally affordable housing option for residents. Given this tract is disconnected from other areas of the City by Highway 101, the City did not identify any RHNA capacity in this tract, however, this area would also present an opportunity for the development of ADUs.

Census Tract 113.05 encompasses the Northern and Eastern portions of the City, particularly areas where the Arboleda, Mills Ranch, and Downtown Addition Specific Plans are located. The City identifies most of the RHNA capacity in this tract, spread across the income categories. Given the high rates of renter overpayment, allocating a higher proportion of the lower-income RHNA to this tract will help to reduce displacement risks for these households while simultaneously providing housing mobility options.

Census Tract 113.06 encompasses the Western and Central portions of the City. The RHNA capacity for this tract is primarily driven by the Ausonio 1 project, located adjacent to King City High School and across from San Antonio Park and King City Skate Park. This tract has a higher poverty rate that other tracts within the City, and the City intends to assist in the development Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
109 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
of 45 units of permanent supportive housing to address potential housing instability issues in the tract.

As previously discussed, King City is largely Hispanic in nature. Hispanic and Anglo residents are equitable integrated and represented through the majority of this compact community. Pockets of lower income residents do exist, primarily located central city and Historic Downtown.

In addition, the information specific to Census Tracts, the City also uses local data and knowledge on a neighborhood-level, as follows:

Downtown Core
The Downtown Core is centered around Broadway, which, was the primary route between Los Angeles and San Fransisco prior to the construction US 101. A number of motor-hotel sites from the 40’s and 50’s are still located along Broadway, as are a number of commercial and office buildings built early in the 1900’s. The majority of the housing units in the City are located in the core, most of them being built in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s. These units are primarily single family 2- and 3-bedroom units. A significant number of multi-family units are located in the northern portion of the Core with multifamily apartment buildings from the 40’s and 50’s disbursed throughout the City.

The King City Gov’t offices and the King City Library are located in the Downtown Core, the Mee Memorial Hospital and the High School are located immediately adjacent to it to the west.

Banking and local service and retail businesses populate most of the rest of the Broadway corridor.

Agricultural Worker Housing and the Downtown Addition Specific Plan are located at the eastern end of Broadway where it intersects with First Street. The former Meyers Tomato Plant currently provides space for 364 beds in a barrack style environment while the Specific Plan will provide a significant amount of smaller size, multi-family, moderate and low-cost housing, in a mixed use environment.

Also located in the Core is the emerging Multi-Modal Transit Center. This Station, located at First and Pearl Streets has been allocated $6 million in grant money from CalTrans. Platform Design is currently underway. This station is being developed to be a bus and train multi-modal station, ultimately providing residents of King City with access to regional buses and trains. It is located within ½ mile of a large portion of the Downtown Core.

North and Northeast
The area northeast of the Core, stretching to the northern City Limits boundary, includes the primary industrial area of the City. Uses in the East Ranch Business Park (ERBP) include irrigation work yards, plumbing, and home improvement business headquarters. Directly adjacent to the Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 110
Core and covering the area north to the ERBP are a number of single-family homes and a rather significant amount of multi-family dwellings. The distance from San Antonio Drive (the main thoroughfare in this area) and the Broadway Corridor is approximately 1 mile. The distance from the core of the 150-acre ERBP and the MMTC is approximately 1.1 miles.

North of San Antonio Drive are the City’s two most active Specific Plans, CreekBridge and Mills Ranch, primarily devoted to single and multi-family residential units. Lower income units in these Specific Plans are “guaranteed” through provisions and agreements within Specific Plans. These two Specific Plans provide a significant amount of the residential units used in meeting the Cycle 6 RHNA allocation. Directly abutting these Specific Plans on the north is an 0.57-acre linear park which provides recreational opportunity for residents of the Downtown Core as well as the Specific Plans. Distance from the Core to the Park is approximately 1.2 miles. The linear park is also an important piece of the expanding King City trail system which is intended to provide nonvehicular access and mobility around the community.

West
West of the Core, between it and San Antonio Drive is a mix of single family and multi-family residences. These units are typically newer than those in core and are more consistently threebedroom units rather than two. Across San Antonio Drive to the west is a significant area of single-family homes with multifamily units mixed in.

A significant site of future multifamily use is located between the Downtown Core and San Antonio Drive. This site is approximately 18.7 acres in size and is currently zoned for multi family development. All infrastructure is located at the property boundary. The City has received an application for 374 units, targeted at a variety of income ranges.

Immediately west of the western City Boundary (at the western end of Broadway) is the San Lorenze Regional Park and Campground. This Park is approximately 200 acres in size and is home to the historical society. This facility is located approximately 1.8 miles west of the MMTC.

Also located immediately west of the Downtown Core are the King City High School and the Mee Memorial Hospital. The western end of Broadway, the City’s primary commercial area, is also located here as is the western access to US 101. The distance from the hospital and the high school to the MMTC is approximately 1 mile.

South
South of the Downtown Core are single family residences, the Monterey County Fairgrounds, the King City Golf Course and US 101. A significant mobile home park is located just north of the golf course and south of the Core. South of the US 101 to the west is the visitor serving / fast food / overnight stay core. Larger single-family homes and a significant mobile home park are located south of Fairgrounds, south of the Core.

Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
111 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
In the Southeast corner of the City, at the US 101 / First Street intersection, is the largest contiguous parcel of open space available for development. This parcel, approximately 3.9 acres in size is anticipated to be developed for commercial use, higher density residential and mixed use. This additional residential capacity is not needed for the Cycle 6 allocation.

Summary of Disparities Across Neighborhoods
As noted above, development trends across neighborhoods has led to a small degree of disparity in the City. For example, the Downtown Core has some of the City’s oldest housing stock, including both single-family and apartment units. To the North and Northeast, the City has built some of its more recent housing units, including those in the CreekBridge and Mills Ranch Specific Plans. These units tend to be larger than those in the Downtown Core, as well as having newer infrastructure to support this recent development. However, investments have been dispersed equally throughout the community, such as improvements to the Downtown Plaza, Rail Station Platform, Downtown Streetscape in the Downtown Core as well as adding roundabouts throughout the City, expansion and continuous maintenance of the San Lorenzo Trail, and the City being designated as a Blue Zones Community.

In addition, the City reviewed and analyzed additional factors to determine the degree, if any, of disparities across communities. The entire city is a majority Hispanic/Latino according to the HCD AFFH 2.0 Data Viewer. While the southern portion of the City has ‘less’ of a majority Hispanic/Latino concentration (55%), this is primarily due to the Census Tract being predominantly outside of the City boundary which skews the data. These patterns are attributed in large part to the historical agricultural production surrounding the City. The Southern portion of the City is also the area that has the highest degree of persons with a disability (14%), however, the Census tract is largely outside the City boundary which could have the effect of disproportionately affecting this data. There are no concentrations of group homes or residential care facilities and the City did not received any reasonable accommodation requests during the 5th Cycle planning period. Additionally, the City has not received any requests to construct any ramps or any other accessibility modifications to homes, however, is committed to swiftly processing any requests that should be submitted.

Further, the AFFH 2.0 Data Viewer shows a slight discrepancy in familial status between the City’s neighborhoods in that the Western portion of the City has a slightly higher rate of single-parent households. Child care facilities, both in-home and childcare assistance programs such as Head Start, are dispersed throughout the City. The Head Start facility is located adjacent to the Santa Lucia Elementary School site.

Areas surrounding the King City golf course and the Western portions of the City register higher incomes than residents who live in the Downtown Core of the City. This might be drive, in part, by units outside of the Downtown Core being newer than those inside the Downtown Core. The Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 112
City does not have any concentrations of vouchers; the Downtown Core has 14 vouchers while the surrounding areas of the City account for 27 vouchers. Vouchers in these areas account for 1% and 4% of the total renter occupied housing units, respectively. Lastly, given the size of the City, subsidized projects are funded by outside funding sources and are dispersed throughout the community.

Given the small size of the City and school district, there is no variation in the quality of schools within the City nor is there any disparities in access to schools. GreatSchools rate all three elementary schools a 4, and the City only has one middle school and one high school. All schools have similar enrollment sizes indicating no significant difference in demand for one school over another.

While the area has been primarily dependent on agriculture as its main economic driver, recent economic development is attempting to diversify economic opportunities in the City. For instance, in August 2024, City Council received a presentation from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on potential collaboration on new technology to capture carbon dioxide.

This opportunity could lead to additional partnerships for the City.

As the City looks to future transportation options, the Multi Modal Transit Center is the largest project in the City to add transit options. The City is currently planning and has obtained partial funding for the transit center which will include a new Amtrak Station. Present-day transit options include a variety of bus routes operated by the Monterey-Salinas Transit District, which has stops throughout the City to connect to other locations within the network.

Unlike other jurisdictions in the region, the City has significantly better CalEnviroScreen scores, including with the City having average to above-average composite scores. The major sources of pollution in the City, as previously noted, are the agricultural activities surrounding the City, however, these do not have any impact on residential development or the ability to meet the RHNA. Existing Specific Plans in the City still have some residential capacity remaining.

As with other areas of the State, housing prices for rentals and sales prices for homes have increased. However, the City has not seen an increase in “doubling-up” or other methods intended to ease the burden of increasing housing costs. As noted other sections of the housing element, the City recently hired a dedicated Code Enforcement officer and will target code enforcement activities and resources in areas, such as the Downtown Core, to ensure these homes maintain safe levels for residents.

Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
113 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
Housing Units by Type
There are currently 3,218 units in the City. Of those, 21.6% were built since 2000. 44.4% were built between 1980 and 2000 and 37.1% are more than 50 years of age. As can be seen from Figure 16, the Downtown Core has a concentration of those units built between 1980 and 2000 (between 20 and 40 years of age).

Of the units in King City, approximately 58% are single family homes, 35% are attached units (10% in a 2 to 4 unit structure and 17% in a 5+ unit structure) and 7% are manufactured units.

New housing construction in Cycle 6 will be in the Specific Plan areas to the north and just east of downtown and on a previously zoned parcel just west of the Downtown Core. These units will be single and multi-family homes consistent with standard construction, sizing and parking requirements. In the future, new housing along the Broadway Corridor and to the south at the intersection of US 101 and First Street is anticipated to provide new types of housing of a variety of sizes and price ranges.

TABLE 4.6.2: HOUSING UNITS BY BUILDING TYPE
Unit Type Units 2015 Units 2018 Units 2021 Change
SF Detached 1,882 57% 1,950 58% 2,083 59% 201 11%
SF Attached 275 8% 276 8% 278 8% 3 (-)1%
2 to 4 323 10% 323 10% 327 9% 4 1%
5+ 554 17% 554 17% 566 16% 12 2%
Mobile Homes 249 8% 249 7% 251 7% 2 (-)1%
Total 3,283* 3,352* 3,505** 222
Households by Tenure
The number of residents who own their homes compared to those who rent their homes can help identify the level of housing insecurity (i.e., ability for individuals to stay in their homes) in a city and region. Generally, renters may be displaced more quickly if prices increase.

The older city included smaller single-family homes with some apartments included. More recent development has been, and will continue to be, a more complete mix of unit sizes and costs.

TABLE 4.6.3 HOUSEHOLDS BY TENURE
2010 (#) 2010
(%) 2015 (#) 2015 (%) 2018 (#) 2018 (%)
2021
(#)
2021
(%)
Owner 1,394 50.1 1,275 42.8 1,351 41.8 1,348 41.9
Renter 1,390 49.9 1,701 57.2 1,884 58.2 1,870 58.1
Total 2,784 100 2,976 100 3,235 100 3,218 100
Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 114

4.7 CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO FAIR HOUSING ISSUES
Through discussions with stakeholders, fair housing advocates, and this AFH, the City identified factors that contribute to fair housing issues, as shown in Table 16, Factors Contributing to Fair Housing Issues. While there are several strategies identified to address the fair housing issues, the most pressing issues are displacement risk due to substandard conditions and rising housing costs as well as barriers to homeownership. Prioritized contributing factors are bolded in Table 16 and associated actions to meaningfully affirmatively further fair housing related to these factors are bold and italicized.

TABLE 4.7.1: FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO FAIR HOUSING ISSUES Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors Priority Meaningful Actions Higher housing costs Lack of available
housing units High Program 2 (Provide Future Sites for Residential Growth) Higher displacement
risk Overpayment High Program 9 (Fair Housing Program)
Higher overcrowding
rates
Undersized units and
lack of larger units Medium Program 5 (Reduce Barriers to Creating Multi-Family Housing) Higher poverty rates Lower median income Medium Program 3 (Provide Future Housing Sites for Lower Income Residents)
Lower environmental
condition scores
Nearby agricultural and
industrial uses Low Program 1 (Emphasize Infill Development) Chapter 4. Fair Housing Assessment
115 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element

4.8 GOALS, ACTIONS, MILESTONES, AND METRICS
Programs to affirmatively further fair housing that are included in Chapter 9, Goals, Policies, and Programs, are summarized in Table 4.8.1, organized by the action area that the program seeks to address.

TABLE 4.8.1 SUMMARY OF GOALS, ACTIONS, MILESTONES, AND METRICS TO MEET FAIR HOUSING Action Area Programs Specific Commitment Timeline Geographic Targeting Metrics Housing Mobility
1 Continuously update pre-approved ADU
plans Ongoing CT 113.03 5 ADUs
2 Focus housing in the Downtown Corridor Ongoing City Core 50 affordable units 6 Promote Housing Choice Voucher Ongoing Citywide Assist 50 families New Opportunities
in Higher
Opportunity Areas
2 Assist in the development of larger
parcels
As projects are
submitted Census Tract 113.05 Develop half the remaining Specific Plan capacity 3 Amend Zoning Code provisions to
facilitate residential development Dec. 15, 2026 Downtown Core At least 364 employee housing units 4 Develop affordable housing in the
Downtown Corridor Ongoing Downtown Core 75 units
7 Allow mobile homes consistent with State
housing laws in single-family zones Dec. 15, 2026
Lower-density
neighborhoods 5 units
Place-Based
Strategies for
Community
Revitalization
1 Identify infill development opportunities Annually Downtown Core 39 units 8 Provide targeted code enforcement Ongoing
Older residential
neighborhoods 5 units
9 Connect residents with deferred loans for
maintenance Ongoing Older residential neighborhoods 10 units Displacement
12 Codify a variety of zoning code updates Dec. 15, 2026 Citywide 10 units conserved 13 Promote a variety of fair housing tools to
individuals, businesses, and landlords Ongoing Citywide Semi-annual updates to Planning Commission 18 Establish energy efficiency in older homes Ongoing
Older residential
neighborhoods 20 units retrofitted
Chapter 5. Projected Housing Needs
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 116
CHAPTER 5: PROJECTED HOUSING NEEDS
Chapter 4 presents and discusses the 2023 -2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) as identified for the City of King. This Chapter will focus on the units identified and not yet constructed from Cycle 5 – including previously zoned parcels and Specific Plans. From these, the remaining need or “gap” will be computed. Chapter 5 will focus on additional available sites potential, projects and proposed land use changes to satisfy RHNA determinations in the future.

5.1 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS
State Housing Element Law (California Government Code §65580 et. seq.) requires regional Councils of Government (COG) to identify for each city and county its “fair share allocation” of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), provided by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), the COG for the City of King Area, provided the RHNA numbers in October 2022, adopting them in December 2022. AMBAG took into account several factors in preparing the RHNA, including projected household formation, job growth and regional income distribution. In turn, each city and county must address their local share of regional housing needs in their Housing Elements. Table 5.1.1 identifies the allocations for the City of King.

RHNA Requirements
TABLE 5.1.1 RHNA ALLOCATION 2015-23 AND 2023-31
Income Range City of King Monterey County
2015-2023 2023-2031 2015-2023 2023-2031
Very low 43 97 1,781 4,412
Low 28 63 1,160 2,883
Moderate 33 178 1,346 4,028
Above moderate 76 364 3,099 8,972
Total 180 702 7,386 20,295
Source: AMBAG, RHNA 2015-2023 and 2023-2031
The projected RHNA housing requirements are broken down by income category based on limits for very low, low, moderate and above-moderate income households as established by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (California Health and Safety Code §50079.5.)
Chapter 5. Sites Inventory and Analysis
117 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
Definitions of Household Income
Very Low Income: Incomes between 31 and 50 percent of the Area Median Household Income (AMI)
Low Income Incomes between 51 and 80 percent of AMI
Moderate Income Incomes between 81 and 119 percent of AMI Source: AMBAG, RHNA 2022
Table 5.1.2 identifies maximum limits of income for Monterey County, grouped by type from Extremely Low to Moderate, based on Median Income for family of four. These limits are the basis for Table 5.1.3 which demonstrates the City of King’s potential to meet the RHNA requirements. Note that the RHNA Requirements group Extremely Low and Very Low incomes into one group, Very Low, anticipating that Very Low Category will be made up of 50% Extremely Low and 50% Very Low.

TABLE 5.1.2 INCOME LIMITS MONTEREY COUNTY (2022)
Income
Range
Persons per Household
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Acutely low 9,450 10,800 12,150 13,500 14,600 15,650 16,750 17,800 Extremely
low 23,900 27,300 30,700 34,100 36,850 39,600 42,300 46,630 Very low 39,800 45,500 51,200 56,850 61,400 65,950 70,500 75,050 Low 63,700 72,800 81,900 91,000 98,300 105,600 112,850 120,150 Median 63,050 72,100 81,100 90,100 97,300 104,500 111,700 118,950 Moderate 75,650 86,500 97,300 108,100 116,750 125,400 134,050 142,700 Source: State Income Limits Memo 5.18.2022
TABLE 5.1.3 INCOME LIMITS MONTEREY COUNTY (2014)
Income Range Monterey County
Persons Per Household
1 2 3 4 5
Extremely Low $15,100 $17,250 $19,400 $21,550 $23,000
Very Low $25,200 $28,800 $32,400 $35,950 $38,850
Low $40,250 $46,000 $51,750 $57,500 $62,100
Median $48,100 $54,950 $61,850 $68,700 $74,200
Moderate $57,700 $65,950 $71,200 $76,450 $81,750
* Source: State Income Limits Memo 2.28.14
Chapter 6. Sites Inventory and Analysis
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 118
CHAPTER 6: SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
State law governing the preparation of Housing Elements emphasizes the importance of an adequate land supply by requiring of each Housing Element that “….sites shall be identified… to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types for housing all income levels ….” (California Government Code §65583(c)(1)). If an adequate supply of new housing is to be provided, enough vacant land must be zoned to allow for the construction of a variety of housing types at densities that will satisfy the objectives of the Housing Element. The land must also have access to appropriate public services, such as water, sewage treatment, storm drainage and roads.

This Chapter will provide details of the:
• Building permits issues in the planning period
• Specific Plan Capacity
• Approved project capacity
• Vacant residential parcels
• Projected Accessory Dwelling Units
• The purpose for and concept of Opportunity Areas
As will be shown, the city has sufficient capacity to meet the 6th cycle RHNA.

Chapter 6. Sites Inventory and Analysis
119 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element

6.1 APPROVED PROJECTS AND HOUSING UNITS TO MEET THE RHNA Building Permits Issued
One way of meeting a portion of the RHNA is to look at approved, entitled, or built projects.

These units can be subtracted from the total allocation if they were available after the start of the projection period, after June 30, 2023. Table 5.1.1 lists the building permits that were issued after June 30, 2023, and provides the number of building permits that remain.

As noted in Table 6.1.1 the City can take credit for 13 units in the Arboleda project, and 31 units from the Mills Ranch project.

TABLE 6.1.1 BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED AFTER JUNE 30, 2023 BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED AFTER 6/30/23 Building
Permits
Remaining

EL VL L M AM
6th Cycle RHNA 49 48 63 178 364
Arboleda 4 13 13
Mills Ranch Specific Plan 31 157
Remaining RHNA 156 134 364

6.2 APPROVED SPECIFIC PLANS AND PROJECTS
As previously mentioned, the City can take credit for pending and approved projects to credit towards meeting the RHNA. The City currently (2024) has three approved Specific Plans:
• Arboleda (approved July 24, 2004)
• Mills Ranch (approved August 30, 2005)
• The Downtown Specific Plan (approved June 14, 2011)
Arboleda and Mills Ranch are currently under construction and the Downtown Addition is in the beginning phases of construction. Table 6.1.2 provides the unit breakdown for these Specific plans. Units allocated towards lower and moderate-income categories are based on the City’s inclusionary requirements.

The Downtown Addition Specific Plan (DASP), with an expiration date of 2049covers 107.03 acres and calls for a mix of commercial and residential uses. The maximum number of residential units allowed under the Plan is 650 which range from larger single family detached to smaller homes, townhomes, row houses, triplexes, quadplexes and live work buildings. In 2019, the DASP was updated to add an additional 60 units, bringing the total capacity to 710 units. The DASP describes the development standards needed for project approval and is currently zoned P-D (Planned Development) to allow the project developer flexibility in designing the project. However, it should be noted that a developer could propose a project meeting the DASP development Chapter 6. Sites Inventory and Analysis
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 120
standards and receive project approval; therefore, the P-D zoning designation does not add any additional constraints to receiving approval.

On January 28, 2014, the owner of the project entered an agreement with the City of King whereby 15% of the project would comply with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, being affordable to very-low-, low- and moderate-income households.

Due to the City’s inclusionary housing requirement, it is assumed that 35 units will be affordable to very low- income households, and 55 units will be affordable to lower-income households.

While the City believe there is potential for the Specific Plans to build out during the planning period, to ensure not to over project, the City is only assuming that 50 percent of the available specific plan units will develop within the 6th Cycle planning period.

The City also has three housing projects that have begun construction. The Rava employee housing project, the CHISPA project as a part of the Mills Specific Plan, and the Days Inn project.

The Rava Employee Housing project includes two phases for a total of 118 units. Phase 1 of the project included 60 units that were constructed in 2022 and available for occupancy in September 2023. The 60 units are rent restricted to very low-income households for H2A farmworkers and agricultural workers. Phase 2 of the project (Jayne Street) includes 58 units and construction is assumed to begin in the planning period. The City has assumed the affordability breakdown will be similar to Phase 1 which is reflected in Table 6.1.2.

As a part of the inclusionary housing unit obligation for the Mills Ranch Specific Plan the Community System Housing Improvement Association, Inc. (CHISPA) plans to build 40 multifamily units that will be affordable to lower income households. CHISPA is currently working to obtain grant funding and it is anticipated that construction will begin before the end of the 6th cycle planning period.

The Days Inn Motel Site is planned to be converted to permanent supportive housing. The City is planning to purchase the property and partner with the Monterey Housing Authority to develop an affordable project. While the City believes this project will provide affordable units within the planning period, since the project did expire in March 2024, the City is not crediting this towards meeting the RHNA but will be credited towards the RHNA once building permits are issued.

The City has a track record of building in the Specific Plan areas, as evidenced by the nearcomplete buildout of the Arboleda Specific Plan and the Mills Ranch Specific Plan surpassing the halfway mark for building permits pulled. While the City believe there is potential for the Specific Plans to build out during the planning period, to ensure not to over project, the City is only assuming that 50 percent of the available specific plan units will develop within the 6th Cycle planning period.

Chapter 6. Sites Inventory and Analysis
121 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
As shown in Table 6.1.2 the City is able to meet the lower (extremely low-, very low-, and low) income RHNA and the moderate income RHNA with building permits pulled after June 30, 2023 (Table 6.1.1), and the remaining capacity in Specific Plans and approved projects (Table 6.1.2). In addition, there is sufficient surplus capacity in the lower income and moderate-income categories to meet the remaining RHNA for above moderate. However, the City has identified additional strategies to plan for housing during the 6th Cycle to provide additional capacity.

TABLE 6.1.2 SPECIFIC PLAN AND PROJECT CAPACITY
Specific Plan/Project Remaining Capacity
EL VL L M AM Total Units
Remaining RHNA (From Table 5.1.1) 156 134 364 654
Arboleda 1 6 6 13
Mills Ranch SP 40 82 83 205
Downtown Addition SP 70 168 152 390
Rava Employee Housing 58 58
Remaining RHNA -13 -122 123 -12
Notes:
*Specific Plan capacity is assumed at 50 percent of the total remaining unit capacity. **Negative numbers show that the City has a surplus in that specific income category. 6.2 Vacant Site Inventory Table 6.2.1 shows vacant parcels in the City that are currently zoned for residential development.

As can be seen from the Table, these vacant but previously zoned parcels provide additional capacity for the moderate income RHNA and lower the needed number for above moderate income units.

Chapter 6. Sites Inventory and Analysis
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 122
TABLE 6.2.1 VACANT PARCELS/SITE CAPACITY
Vacant APN# Zoning
District
General
Plan
Designation
Acres
Allowable
Density
per acre
Total
Capacity
(100%)
Realistic
Capacity
(80%)
Lower Mod Abv.

Mod
C-2 (General Commercial)
Yes 026-242-002 C-2 GC 1.08 24 26 13 13
Yes 026-261-027 C-2 GC 0.35 24 8 4 4
Total C-2 Acres 1.43 34 17 0 0 17
C-N (Neighborhood Commercial)
Yes 026-561-001 C-N C-N 1.06 12 13 6 6
Yes 026-501-006 C-N NC 0.69 12 8 4 4
Total C-N Acres 1.75 21 10 0 10 0
R-1 (Single Family Residential)
Yes 026-071-077 R-1 LDR 0.25 7 2 1 1
Yes 026-071-078 R-1 LDR 0.25 7 2 1 1
Total R-1 Acres 0.5 4 2 0 0 2
R-3 (Medium High Density Residential)
Yes 026-071-070 R-3 MHDR 0.66 12 8 6 6
Total R-3 Acres 0.66 8 6 0 6 0
R-4 (High Density Residential)
Yes 026-301-005 R-4 PD 1.4 22 31 25 25
Yes 026-301-006 R-4 PD 0.82 22 18 14 14
Yes 026-301-003 R-4 PD 0.65 22 14 11 11
Yes 026-531-0191 R-4 PD 0.52 22 11 9 9
Yes 026-531-023 R-4 PD 5.4 22 119 95 95
Yes 026-531-025 R-4 PD 12.48 22 275 220 44 176
Total R-4 Acres 21.27 468 374 104 95 176
Total Capacity 30.57 535 410 104 111 195
Note: Sites zoned C-2 and C-N have a realistic capacity of 50 percent to account for the potential of non-residential uses. 1Reuse site Chapter 6. Sites Inventory and Analysis
123 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element

6.3 REALISTIC DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
In determining the realistic capacity for the City’s inventory of sites, the City considered land use controls and site improvements and assumed an 80 percent adjustment to reflect developable acreage due to on-site improvements, including sidewalks, utility easements, and infrastructure improvements (roadway access, water, sewer, and stormwater). All sites are served by or planned to be served by infrastructure, with no constraints identified that would reduce capacity beyond the 80 percent adjustment. To further determine an appropriate realistic capacity assumption, the City considered and evaluated the implementation of its current multifamily development standards (e.g., setbacks, building height, parking, density requirements, land use controls, water and wastewater access, and open space requirements), as well as project examples to determine approximate density and unit capacity so as to not over-project unit potential.

There are two recent examples of multifamily projects in the City. First, the Ausonio project, which currently is undergoing additional revisions with the developer, is a 17.5-acre project that would allow the construction of up to 377 multifamily residential units, resulting in a project density of 21.5 units per acre. Using the R-4 zone maximum of 22 dwelling units per acre, the Ausonio project would develop at 97 percent of the maximum allowable density. The second example was the Days Inn project which is seeking to establish 45 units on a 0.88- acre parcel.

While the Highway Services (H-S) zone lacks fixed developments standards, this project would yield a project density of 51 dwelling units per acre, far exceeding the highest density zone (R-4) in the City.

After considering the 80 percent adjustment factor, the pending buildout of the project examples shown in Table 6.3.1 the City decided to assume an 80 percent capacity on all sites in Table 6.2.1.

TABLE 6.3.1 REALISTIC CAPACITY PROJECT EXAMPLES, CITY OF KING Project
Name Affordability Acres Project Status
General
Plan /
Zoning
Total
Project
Units*
Max.

Allowable
Units
Realistic
Capacity
Ausonio Mixed 17.55 Pending
Review PD/R-4 377 386 97%
Days Inn PSH 0.88 Pending
Funding HSC/H-S 45 19 236%
Source: City of King.
*Projects do not include density bonus units.

Chapter 6. Sites Inventory and Analysis
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 124

6.4 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
California Government Code Section 65583.1(a) states that a town, city, or county may identify sites for accessory dwelling units (ADU) based on the number of ADUs developed in the prior Housing Element planning period, whether the units are permitted by right, the need for ADUs in the community, the resources or incentives available for their development, and any other relevant factors. Based on recent changes in state law reducing the time to review and approve ADU applications, requiring ADUs that meet requirements to be allowed by right, eliminating discretionary review for most ADUs, and removing other restrictions on ADUs, it is anticipated that the production of ADUs will increase in the 6th cycle Housing Element planning period.

The city has approved 29 accessory dwelling units from 2021 through 2023. Rounding up, this averages to 10 ADUs per year. To project out the number of potential ADUs over the planning period, the city has assumed 10 ADUs over the remaining planning period (7 years), equating to 70 ADUs. Since the AMBAG region has not conducted an analysis on ADU affordability, the City used the nearby Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) ADU affordability study to project affordability for the planning period. Based on the findings of the ABAG study, it is assumed that 60 percent of the ADUs constructed during the planning period will be affordable to low- and very low-income households, 30 percents will be affordable to moderate income households, and 10 percent will be affordable for above moderate- income households. The affordability breakdown is shown in Table 6.5.1.

6.5 MEETING THE RHNA
Table 6.5.1 compares the City’s RHNA to the available capacity identified in this site inventory analysis. As shown in the table, the City has sufficient capacity to meet the 6th cycle RHNA. This includes a surplus of 159 units to lower income, 254 for moderate income, and 79 for above moderate income, for a total surplus of 492 units.

TABLE 6.5.1 SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY COMPARED TO THE 6TH CYCLE RHNA Income
Category
6th Cycle
RHNA
Building
Permits Issued
(Table 5.1.1)
Specific Plan
& Project
Capacity
(Table 5.1.2)
Vacant Site
Capacity
(Table

5.2.1)
Projected
ADUs
Total
Capacity Surplus
EL 49
VL 48 4 169 104 42 319 159
L 63
M 178 44 256 111 21 432 254
AM 364 241 195 7 443 79
Total 702 48 666 410 70 1194 492
Chapter 6. Sites Inventory and Analysis
125 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
FIGURE 5.4.1 VACANT LAND MAP
Chapter 6. Sites Inventory and Analysis
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 126

6.5 FUTURE OPPORTUNITY AREAS
Upon adoption and certification of the 6th Cycle Housing Element, the Land Use Element will be revised to include three new “Opportunity Areas”. One will be located in the Downtown Corridor, one at the intersection of First Street and Broadway at the Multi-Modal Transit Center (MMTC) and one at the intersection of First Street and US 101. These Opportunity Areas are intended to allow additional density with revised Development Standards. Areas 1 and 2 are currently developed but underutilized, Area 3 is currently undeveloped. These areas are anticipated to provide a mix of residential and commercial uses, some of which might take the form of mixeduse development, while other options include a predominantly commercial development geared towards enhancing access to transit.

6.6 TYPICAL DENSITIES OF DEVELOPMENT
The City is a small city in Monterey County, bisected by Highway 101 in the Southern portion of the County. Single-family residential subdivisions are built at densities up to 10 units per acre and multifamily development ranges from 20 to 24 units per acre, based on recent projects. In the previous planning period, no sites identified to accommodate the lower-income Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) in the inventory were developed below the minimum allowable density of the zone in which the site is located, and the City did not receive any requests to develop below the assumed capacity in the sites inventory. In the event that a developer made this request, a map amendment would be required to develop below the minimum.

6.7 INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY
The proximity, availability, and capacity of infrastructure help to determine the suitability of residential land. Below is an evaluation of water and sewer capacity available to accommodate the housing needs during the planning period.

Wastewater Treatment
The City’s sanitary waste system provides collection, treatment and disposal of domestic and industrial wastes. The City of King Wastewater Treatment facility lies downstream along the Salinas River, northwest of the City. The domestic treatment and disposal facility has a capacity of 1.2 million gallons per day (mgd) of domestic flow. Current average flows are .85 mgd.

According to the General Plan EIR, buildout of the City of King was anticipated to increase wastewater flows to 2.4 mgd by 2015. The current flow is remains at approximately .85 mgd. The City’s existing treatment plant would be unable to accommodate that level of additional flow, therefor, additional development will eventually require expansion of the City’s wastewater system. During Cycle 5, the City contracted with a consultant to begin design for an upgraded Chapter 6. Sites Inventory and Analysis
127 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
wastewater treatment plan. The City will make improvements to the system on an incremental basis, as needed.

Water System
The City of King is served by a municipal water system owned and operated by the California Water Services Company. This system relies on six wells that draw from the groundwater basin that is recharged by the Salinas River. The Cal Water system has a maximum production capability of 3 million gallons per day, current daily usage is about 1.4 million gallons. A 250,000 gallon storage tank with a 2,000 gallon / minute pump provides ample water pressure throughout the City.

The water system appears to be generally adequate for existing development, but a new well site would appear to be needed as additional development occurs in the future under the General Plan.

No significant deficiencies are known to exist with respect to water pressure, volume or quality.

Improvements to the system will be made on an incremental basis by Cal Water.

The Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) is the State Agency responsible under State law for the management of water resources within the Salinas Valley. MCWRA has undertaken numerous studies of water resources and has identified an imbalance between current demands and available long term water supplies. Thus, additional net water represented by the General Plan is considered a significant impact but will not constrain the development of housing.

In summary, infrastructure needs present a number of constraints on development outside the City boundary. However, infrastructure needs for new residential construction will occur in areas where adequate infrastructure is in place or where public services and facilities are required pursuant to developer agreements. Therefore, the City has sufficient water, wastewater, and dry utilities capacity to meet the 6th Cycle RHNA requirement. In Cycle 5 the City completed a “Master Facilities Plan” and “Development Impact Fee Calculation Report” which provides for a plan to finance the construction, improvement, and replacement of needed infrastructure resulting from population growth.

Chapter 7. Governmental Constraints
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 128
CHAPTER 7: GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Governmental constraints are policies, standards, requirements, and actions imposed by the government that may have a negative impact on the development and provision of housing for a variety of income levels. These constraints may include building codes, land use controls, growth management measures, development fees, processing and permit procedures, and site improvement costs. State and Federal agencies play a role in the imposition of governmental constraints; however, these agencies are beyond the influence of local government and are therefore not addressed in this analysis.

State housing law requires the City to review both governmental and non-governmental constraints to construction of affordable housing in order to remove and/or mitigate potentially negative effects. The City of King communicates with the local development community to hear concerns about potential development constraints including processing procedures, fees, development standards, and other City policies and requirements. Potential constraints and opportunities for improvements are identified on an on-going basis through consultation with the development community and internal staff review and recommended changes are presented to the City Council for consideration.

Consistent with Government Code Section 65940.1(a)(1) related to transparency requirements, zoning and development standards for all parcels in the city and the City’s fees are available on the City’s website.

7.1 LAND USE GOVERNMENT CONSTRAINTS
Local policies and regulations can affect the quantity and type of residential development. Since governmental actions can constrain the development and the affordability of housing, State law requires the housing element to “address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing” (Government Code §65583(c)(3)).

The City of King’s primary policies and regulations that affect residential development and housing affordability include: the Zoning Ordinance, the Land Use Element of the General Plan, development processing procedures and fees, on and off-site improvement requirements, and the California Building and Housing Codes. In addition to a review of these policies and regulations, an analysis of governmental constraints on housing production for persons with disabilities is included in this section. Land use controls include General Plan policies, zoning regulations and standards, permit processing requirements, the California Building and Housing Codes, and development fees.

Chapter 7. Governmental Constraints
129 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
The City of King is a Charter City. The primary difference that affects planning projects relates to Zoning and Land Use.

A General Law City must have consistency between zoning ordinances and general plan (Government Code §65860). A Charter City’s zoning ordinances do not have to be consistent with the general plan unless a city has adopted a consistency requirement by charter or ordinance (Government Code §65803). Therefore, in several cases the City has made amendments to the Zoning Ordinance rather than the General Plan.

7.2 GENERAL PLAN
The City of King Comprehensive General Plan was adopted in 1998. (The Housing Element of the General Plan was adopted in 2010.) The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the following land use types: residential, commercial, industrial and other. Agricultural lands uses are included in the other category. The General Plan constitutes the highest-level policy document for the City of King. The Land Use Element of the General Plan identifies the location, distribution, and density/intensity of the land use within the city. Residential densities are measured in dwelling units per acre (du/ac) per gross acreage. The 1998 City of King General Plan identifies four (4) residential land use designations. Table 7.2.1 summarizes City of King’s four (4) residential, planned development, and one (1) commercial land use designations.

TABLE 7.2.1 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
Land Use Designation Corresponding
Zoning District
Maximum Residential
Density
LDR Low Density Residential R-1 Less than 7 units/acre
MDR Medium Density Residential R-2 Less than 12 units/acre MHDR Medium High Density Residential R-4 Less than 18 units/acre HDR High Density Residential R-4 Less than 24 units/acre RC Retail Commercial2 C-1 4.5 units/acre
PD Planned Development P-D
6-12 units/gross acre based on
the property and the location
Source: City of King General Plan Land Use Element (2016) 2 Mixed Use Residential/Commercial
Chapter 7. Governmental Constraints
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 130

7.3 ZONING ORDINANCE
The Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 17 of the City of King City Code) is the primary tool for implementing the General Plan. It is designed to protect and promote public health, safety, and welfare, as well as to promote quality design and quality of life. The City of King’s residential zoning designations control both the use and development standards of each residential parcel, thereby influencing the development of housing. The City has found that the maximum development limits established by the Zoning Ordinance do not pose a constraint to the development of housing.

Zoning Districts
The Zoning Ordinance includes an agricultural district, several residential districts, and three (3) commercial districts that allow residential development. The maximum residential density allowed is twenty-four (24) units per acre. Note that the Opportunity Zones which proposed for Cycle 6 may governed by Floor Area Ratio (FAR). In the Opportunity Zones, density may be allowed at a maximum of 52 units per acre, dependent upon affordability and / or seniors mix.

Residential development is generally permitted as a matter of right and in some cases by conditional use permit in these zoning districts. Each of these zones is outlined below.

Agricultural District (A):

The purpose of this District is primarily for agricultural production and processing. Residences for agricultural employees are allowed with a conditional use permit. The City complies with Health and Safety Code §17021.5 and §17021.6 which states that Health and Safety Code §17021.5 states that agricultural working housing for six (6) or fewer employees should be deemed a singlefamily residential use with a residential use designation and §17021.6 states that ”no conditional use permit, zoning variance or other zoning clearance that is not required of any other agricultural activity in the same zone shall be required of employee housing that consists of no more than 36 beds in a group quarters or 12 units or spaces designed for use by a single family or household.”` Residential Districts:
a) Single Family Residential District (R-1):

The R-1 Zoning District is applied to areas appropriate for single-family residential development with seven (7) units or less per acre. Second units are also permitted by right in this zone. Institutional uses such as churches and private parochial schools are also allowed in this zone. The R-1 Zoning District is consistent with and implements the Low Density Residential land use designation of the General Plan.

Chapter 7. Governmental Constraints
131 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
b) Residential-Industrial Mixed Use District (R-I):

The intent of this District is as a transitional zone between industrial, agricultural, and other uses to residential. Some industrial uses, agricultural uses, group and multi-family housing uses are allowed in this District. Workforce housing is encouraged in this Zone.

All uses in this District are subject to a conditional use permit. There is no General Plan designation for this District.
c) Medium Density Residential District (R-2):

This District allows for slightly higher density residential development than the R-1 District. One (1), two (2), and three (3) unit structures and second units are permitted by right. The intent of the District is to allow higher density while preserving a sufficient amount of privacy and open space. This District allows maximum densities of twelve (12) units per acre. Other uses such as institutional and some commercial uses are also permitted with a conditional use permit. The R-2 Zoning District is consistent with and implements the Medium Density Residential land use designation of the General Plan. d) Medium High Density Residential District (R-3):

The R-3 District allows higher density than the R-1 and R-2 Districts. This Zone allows a maximum density of eighteen (18) units per acre. Higher density is allowed with a conditional use permit. Other uses such as institutional, some commercial uses, and senior residential care homes are allowed with a conditional use permit. The R-3 Zoning District is consistent with and implements the Medium High Density Residential land use designation of the General Plan.
e) Multiple Family Residential and Professional Offices District (R-4):

The R-4 District allows single-family, secondary units, duplexes, multi-family, and some institutional residential uses by right. The maximum allowable density is twenty-two (22) units per acre without a CUP. The R-4 district implements the High Density Residential land use designation of the General Plan.
f) Planned Development District (P-D):

The P-D District can be applied to planned communities within the city at least three (3) acres or greater. A specific plan is required for planned developments. The Planning Commission must approve these plans.

In Cycle 6, a Mixed Use Residential District (MRD) is being proposed to encourage buildings and sites that include both residential and commercial elements in a taller structure.

Chapter 7. Governmental Constraints
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 132
Proposed: Mixed Use Residential District (MRD):

The MRD District will be located in Opportunity Zones 1, 2 and 3. Residential densities in this zone are governed by Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and are variable, dependent on the percentage of affordable and / or seniors’ housing in the proposed project. Maximum allowed density in this District is 52 units / acre.

Commercial Districts:
a) Retail Business District (C-1):

The C-1 District is primarily a commercial zone and allows residential uses only in mixeduse settings. The residential must be located on the second story of a two-story building with commercial on the first floor. The residential cannot have a greater floor area than the commercial. Mixed use is allowed with a conditional use permit. The C-1 District implements the Retail Commercial land use designation of the General Plan. b) General Commercial District (C-2):

The C-2 District is primarily a commercial zone. The June 2015 amendment expands the allowed residential uses from caretaker residences only to residential uses allowed on the second floor of structures. These by right- uses include Group Homes (both 6 residents and under, 7 residents and over), live/work units and the residential component of mixed use projects. Four-plexes or larger are permitted on the ground floor with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Maximum density is 24 units per acre. in association with uses allowed in this Zone. The C-2 District implements the General Commercial land use designation of the General Plan.
c) Neighborhood and Commercial Districts (C-N) (Historic Corridor and Downtown Addition Specific Plan):

The purpose of the C-N, NC, FSC, VC and VB Districts is to encourage and promote a wellplanned mixed-use environment with commercial, mixed-use, and residential components. A safe, comfortable and attractive environment is desired for pedestrians, bicyclists, patrons and residents. This goal would also be enhanced with designs that locate land uses in close proximity to each other in order to promote a pedestrian focused environment. The FSC and NC districts allow commercial on the first floor and residential on the second floor and affordable residential, affordable multiple-family dwellings, not to exceed twelve (12) dwelling units per acre. Affordable multi-family projects in the NC District require a CUP.

In Cycle 6, a Mixed Use Commercial District (MCD) is being proposed to encourage buildings and sites that include both residential and commercial elements in a taller structure.

Chapter 7. Governmental Constraints
133 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
Proposed: Mixed Use Commercial District (MCD):

The MCD District is proposed to be located in Opportunity Zones 1, 2 and 3. Its primary purpose will be to facilitate mixed use in the Downtown core and at the eastern gateway to King City – the US 101 / First Street intersection. It will focus on a commercial feel with residential components.

Table 7.3.1 outlines the Zoning Districts that Permit Residential Uses.

Chapter 7. Governmental Constraints
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 134
TABLE 7.3.1 ZONING DISTRICTS PERMITTING RESIDENTIAL USES Residential Uses A R-1 R-I R-2 R-3* R-4
** P-D FSC C-2 MRD1 MCD1 NC****
Single-family P P _ P P P P - - - - -
Apartment/
Multi-family _ — CUP** — P P** - P P P P P
Second Unit
Developments P CUP - - - P - - - - --
Duplexes/triplexes _ - P P P P - P _ - - -
Condominiums — CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP - _ - - -
Townhouses — — _ P P — - - _ - - -
Accessory Dwelling
Units

P P P P P P P P P P P P
Junior Accessory
Dwelling Unit P P P P P P _ — _ _ _
Mixed Use — — CUP _ _ CUP - P CUP P P P
Mobile Homes P — — — — — P1 P1 P1 P1 -
Residential Care
Facility (6 or fewer) P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 Residential Care
Facility (Seven or
More)
P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
Retirement or Rest
Homes — — CUP — — CUP P P**** P**** P P3 P/ CUP****
Agricultural
Employee Housing
CUP — — — — — CUP CUP CUP P/
CUP****
P/
CUP**** -
Chapter 7. Governmental Constraints
135 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
Residential Uses A R-1 R-I R-2 R-3* R-4
** P-D FSC C-2 MRD1 MCD1 NC****
Rooming or
Boarding House — — CUP — — P CUP CUP CUP P P3 -
Manager, Caretaker,
or Proprietor
Quarters
— — CUP — — — P P CUP P/
CUP****
P/
CUP****
P/
CUP****
Residential Hotel — — — — — CUP CUP P P P P3 -
Community Care
Facility — — — — — CUP CUP P — P P3 P/ CUP****
Emergency Shelter — — — — — — — P1 P1 P1 P1 -
Transitional Housing — — — — — — — P1 P1 P1 P1 -
Notes:

P: Permitted
P1: Supportive / Transitional Housing is permitted in a similar manner as similar dwellings in the same zone.

P2
: Upon implementation of Program 8.

CUP: Conditional Use Permitted
—: Use Not Permitted
* A CUP is required for apartment developments of more than one structure. ** A CUP is required for apartments/multi-family uses of more than 22 units per acre. *** Residential allowed on second floor only.
**** If the community development director, or designee, determines that all the following circumstances exist regarding a development proposal, a conditional use permit may not be required; for the uses listed under Municipal §17.20.030 of this chapter; however, the project shall be subject to either architectural review or business license clearance:
(a) The project will be occupying an existing building or will require an addition to an existing structure that will not result in an increase of more than twentyfive percent of the floor area of the structure before the addition, or five (500') hundred square feet, whichever is less; (b)The proposed use is the same or similar in character to the existing use, as determined by the community development director, or designee. Exceptions may be allowed if the community development director determines that the new use is less intensive than the existing use; and (c) The project is exempt from CEQA review and there is no possibility of a significant impact on the environment. (Ord. 698 § 6, 2011; Ord. 354 § 4.26.2, 1973) 1 These uses are part of the proposed Cycle 6 Opportunity Zones. Final uses will be reviewed and be approved through the public hearing process.

Chapter 7. Governmental Constraints
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 136

7.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:

Table 7.3.2 provides development standards for the residential districts. The development standards do not impede the City’s ability to achieve maximum allowable densities.

TABLE 7.3.2 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS – RESIDENTIAL ZONING A Agricultural
R-1 Single
Family
Residential
R-I ResidentialIndustrial MixedUseR-2 Medium
Density
Residential
R-3 Medium High
Density
Residential
District
R-4 Multi- Family
Residential and
Professional
Offices District
Maximum
Density
1 unit/20,000
sq. ft. or 10
trailers/acre
7 units/acre
22+ units/acre
w/CUP (R-4) or
Residential
Caretaker Units in
Conjunction with
use w/CUP (M-1)
14 units/acre
(2,500 sq. ft. of
gross area per unit
on each building
site. Min Building
Site 6,000)
22 units/acre
(2,000 sq. ft. of
gross area per
family unit on each
building site. Min
Building Site 6,000)
<22 du/ac by right
>22 du/ac w/CUP
Minimum Lot
Size
20,000 sq. ft. or
3 acres for Labor
Camps or Labor
Trailer Park
6,000 sq. ft.
43,560 sq. ft./ 1 acre
(M-1); 6,000 sq. ft.
interior lot and
7,000 sq. ft. corner
(R-4) or Mobile
Home Parks 5 acres
6,000 sq. ft.
interior lot or
7,000 sq. ft.
corner lots
6,000 sq. ft. interior
lot or 7,000 sq. ft.
corner lots
6,000 sq. ft.
interior lot or 7,000
sq. ft. corner lots or
Mobile Home Parks
5 acres
Setbacks
Front 30 ft. 20 ft. 40 ft. (M-1); 15 ft.
(R-4) 20 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft.

Side 10 ft. 6 ft. 20 ft. (M-1);
6 ft. (R-4) 6 ft. 6 ft. 6 ft.

Rear 20 ft. 10 ft. 20 ft. (M-1); 10 ft.
(R-4) 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft.

Chapter 7. Governmental Constraints
137 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
A Agricultural
R-1 Single
Family
Residential
R-I ResidentialIndustrial MixedUseR-2 Medium
Density
Residential
R-3 Medium High
Density
Residential
District
R-4 Multi- Family
Residential and
Professional
Offices District
Parking
Required per
Unit
2 spaces for
SFD or 1 space
per unit for
Trailer Courts
2 spaces 2 spaces
2 spaces SFD to

1.5 to 2 per unit
plus 1 guest
parking for each
5 units
2 spaces SFD to

1.5 to 2 per unit
plus 1 guest
parking for each 5
units

1.5 spaces to 2
per unit plus 1
guest parking for
each 5 units
Design
Restrictions Arch. Review Arch. Review Architectural Review Arch. Review Arch. Review Architectural Review Permitted Uses Agricultural
Accessory Single-Family Multi-Family Mixed-Use Single-Family Multi-Family Multi-Family Source: City of King Zoning Ordinance As Amended June, 2008, City of King General Plan Chapter 7. Governmental Constraints
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 138
TABLE 7.3.3 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS – COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING R-I Residential- Industrial Mixed-Use1 C-2 General Commercial 2 C-N Neighborhood Commercial3 Maximum
Density 22+ du/ac w/CUP (R-4) Residential allowed on upper floors only
Affordable residential 12 du/ac or
Mixed-use projects with
residential on second floor
Minimum Lot Size 43,560 sq. ft./ 1 acre (M-1); 6,000 sq. ft. interior lot or 7,000 sq. ft. corner (R-4)
5,000 sq. ft. corner and interior
lots None
Height Restriction 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft.

Setbacks
Front 40 ft. (M-1); 15 ft. (R-4) 0 unless contiguous to R district, then 15ft 20 ft
Side 20 ft. (M-1);
6 ft. (R-4)
0 unless contiguous to R district,
then 10ft
0 ft, if against R,
10 ft
Rear 20 ft. (M-1); 10 ft. (R-4) 0 unless contiguous to R district, then 10ft
0 ft, if against R,
15 ft
Parking Required
per Unit 2 spaces
Residential Uses 1/unit plus
Commercial Spaces determined by
ground floor area
Varies by unit size per Chapter

17.52 Design Restrictions Architectural Review
FSC District Historic Corridor
Revitalization Plan Development
Standards
Architectural Review
Permitted Uses Multi-Family Mixed-Use
Ag Employee Housing, MultiFamily-Fourplex or larger, Mixed Use. Group Home of 6, 7 or more,
Live Work 2nd floor
Architectural Review
Source: City of King Zoning Ordinance As Amended June, 20081, June 20152, 20113 City of King General Plan Chapter 7. Governmental Constraints
139 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
Cumulative Impact of Land Use Controls
As shown in Table 7.3.4, the City evaluated the cumulative impact of its land use controls that limit sites’ building envelope (setbacks, private open space, and parking) and lot coverage restrictions as potential constraints to development. The first step in the analysis was to determine the allowable building footprint given the site size and the maximum lot coverage permitted. The next step was to determine the maximum allowed developable space given the lot coverage and setback and parking requirements. Occupiable area on the second floor, and /or additional floors, was set equal to the first floor building footprint, based on the smaller of either the maximum lot coverage or the remaining lot area once setbacks and parking spaces were subtracted. The average unit size was calculated by dividing the total occupiable building area by the permitted number of units (site acreage * density). Density bonus units are not factored into the calculations.

Current development standards for zones allowing multifamily housing were analyzed hypothetical sites. Based on this evaluation, none of the land use controls in conventional residential zoning districts allowing multifamily housing would prevent an applicant from reaching the approximate maximum densities, or otherwise constrain housing development.

The cumulative impact of the land use controls in King, including zoning, fees, building codes, and development standards, do not pose a significant or unique constraint to housing production. By implementing the programs outlined in this document, the City will refine its requirements and procedures to meet the demand for affordable housing, such minimizing sites of parking spaces while also maintaining compliance with state regulations.

TABLE 7.3.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS, MULTIFAMILY ZONES Zone R-3/R-4
Site or Hypothetical Scenario Minimum Lot Size
Lot Area (square feet): 27,720
Length (feet): 130
Width (feet): 213
Lot coverage: 60%
Maximum building footprint based on lot coverage (square feet): 16,632 Total area required for parking (Assumes 182 sf per parking space) 1.5 Parking spaces per unit: 5,940
Guest parking space (1 for each 5 units) 900
Number of stories 2
Maximum occupiable building square footage: 14,289
Number of units: 22
Average unit square footage: 650
Achievable Density (units per acre): 22/du/ac 1 Assuming a 1-bedroom and 2-bath unit multifamily apartment development.

Chapter 7. Governmental Constraints
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 140
Other Requirements
Multi-family projects shall comply with the standards of §17.18.130 and §17.18.150 (Open Area – Density per Family Unit and Development Standards – Multi-family Residential and Professional Offices District) of the Zoning Ordinance, which require:
a) Open Area Density:

A minimum of two hundred (200) square feet of landscaped areas, walkways, and recreation areas shall be provided per unit, not including structures, driveways, or parking. A gross of 1,575 square feet of open area shall be provided per building site. b) Landscaping Plan:

The required open areas shall be landscaped and maintained based on a detailed landscaping plan.
c) Trash:

Trash receptacles for multi-family projects shall be surrounded by a five-foot screened wall on at least three sides so that they are not visually obtrusive from any off-site location. Access for collection vehicles shall be adequate. d) Off-Site Vehicular Access:

All points of vehicular access onto public rights-of-way shall be approved by the City Engineer.
e) Minimum Floor Areas:

The following minimum gross floor areas shall be required for apartments:
• Bachelor apartment or studio – 480 square feet
• One bedroom apartment – 650 square feet
• Two bedroom apartment – 800 square feet
• 100 additional square feet for every additional bedroom greater than two Chapter 7. Governmental Constraints
141 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
Second Units and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s)
Second units can be an important source of affordable housing since they are smaller than primary units and they do not have direct land costs. Second units can also provide supplemental income to the homeowner, thus allowing the elderly to remain in their homes or moderateincome families to afford houses.

In 2020 the state of California enacted legislation to encourage the construction of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s). The purposes for the ADU include the benefits of second units while introducing reduced development standards such as requirements for parking and setbacks. In August of 2020, the City of King adopted an ADU ordinance, replacing “Second Units”. The City also included Junior ADU’s, the difference being that an ADU would be a separate structure on the residential lot and the Junior ADU would be part of the existing structure. In King City, an ADU cannot be larger than 1,000 square feet and a Junior ADU cannot be larger than 500 square feet.

The City’s Ordinance allows for ministerial approval of an ADU application and prohibits Impact Fees for units under 750 square feet and on all lots zoned with a residential designation.

These measures are another method of providing smaller, newer units in a relatively short period of time. Use / construction of ADU’s has been growing in the City since 2020.

Table 7.3.5 sets out the primary standards for ADU’s in the City of King. These standards comply with State law governing second units. However, the City will submit the ADU Ordinance to HCD for review per Program 8.

Chapter 7. Governmental Constraints
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 142
TABLE 7.3.5 ADU UNIT STANDARDS
Chapter 7. Governmental Constraints
143 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
Residential Care Facilities
It is required in California Health and Safety Code §1566.3 that certain types of residential care facilities (6 persons or fewer) be permitted by right in residential zoning districts.

The fees, development standards, etc. must be no stricter than those for a single-family home in the same districts. Program 8, Chapter 9 is proposed to comply with State law.

Manufactured Housing and Mobile Homes
State law requires that manufactured homes be allowed on parcels zoned for conventional single-family units. These units cannot be regulated by any planning fees or review processes not applicable to conventional single-family dwellings. However, limited architectural design of manufactured or mobile homes can be regulated by the City consistent with Government Code Section §65852.3. See Program 6, Chapter 9.

Mobile Home Parks
The State Law governing mobile home parks is entitled the mobile home Parks Act ("MPA") and found in Division 13, Part 2.1 of the California Health and Safety Code, commencing with §18200.

The Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD")retains jurisdictions regarding mobile homes and manufactured homes within a mobile home park. HCD is the primary enforcement body for the MPA which is a preemptive body of laws and regulations regulating the construction, maintenance, occupancy, use, and design of mobile home parks and which includes the issuance of permits and performance of inspections to ensure compliance with the MPA of homes installed inside of a mobile home park.3
Emergency Shelter/Transitional Housing/Supportive Housing and Low Barrier Navigation Centers
An emergency shelter is a facility that houses homeless persons on a limited short-term basis.

Transitional housing is temporary (six months to two years) housing for an individual or family transitioning to permanent housing. State housing law (SB 2) Government Code §65583 requires that jurisdictions designate at least one zoning district that allows emergency shelters, transitional housing, and single-room occupancy (“SRO”) units as permitted uses by right. These uses may only be subject to fees and review processes applied to residential or commercial development in the zones where they are allowed. Under California Statutory law, the City may apply written objective standards to these types of uses (e.g. maximum number of beds, length of stay, and proximity to other emergency shelters). On June 9, 2015 the City Council approved amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to allow Emergency Shelters in the C-2 Zoning District. 3 Health and Safety Code §18250 and California Code of Regs., title 25, §1020.1 Chapter 7. Governmental Constraints
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 144
Permitted uses in the City, including emergency shelters in the C-2 Zoning District, are approved by the Community Development Director and do not involve any discretionary action or decisionmaking for permit issuance. Development standards in the C-2 zone are more permissive than those in the R-3 Zone (Medium High Density Residential District). The parking standards for emergency shelters in the C-2 zone “shall be the same as for other uses within that zone district”, meeting the requirement to not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone. However, there are a multitude of uses in the C-2 zone, each with a unique parking standard tied to the use. Therefore, the City added an action to Program 8 to amend the parking regulations to have parking standards consistent with State Law. In addition, Program 8 includes an action to amend the definition of emergency shelters for consistency with statutory requirements. Lastly, the City has identified 1.43 acres of vacant land in the C-2 zone, which is sufficient and suitable to meet the shelter need of the City’s homeless population. For example, one parcel (APN:262-242-002) is a 1.08-acre vacant lot located within a 1/2 mile from parks, San Lorenzo Middle School, City Hall, and the Multi-Modal Transit Center. Moreover, it is located within a ½ to the Amtrak stop as well as being minutes away from several bus stops. Additionally, there is a .35-acre site that is vacant to accommodate emergency shelters.

The City does not currently identify Low Barrier Navigation Centers (LBNC) in the Zoning Code.

Program 8 has been added to allow LBNC as a use by-right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses.

In addition, Program 8 will revise the City’s Zoning Code to allow transitional and supportive housing in all other zones that allow for residential uses, subject only to the restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. Moreover, Program 8 will also be amended to allow for by-right permanent supportive housing in zones where multifamily and mixed-uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65651.

Agricultural Employee Housing
The City is experiencing a serious shortage of housing of all types. This can be seen in extremely low vacancy rates and in the difficulties of finding housing for those that are displaced. Lowincome individuals are the most seriously impacted. The City is pursuing a comprehensive effort to address this problem at all levels. Agricultural Employee Housing was identified as part of the City’s special needs in the Cycle 5 adopted Housing Element. The City continues and will continue to meet with local farmers and the agricultural community regarding the need for agricultural employee housing. Many farmers are now using the Federal H-2A Guestworker Program. The Federal H-2A Guestworker Program allows agricultural employers to hire workers from other countries on a temporary or seasonal nature. To do this, employers must demonstrate that the Chapter 7. Governmental Constraints
145 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
job is of a temporary or seasonal nature; that there are not enough U.S. workers who are “able, willing, qualified and available to perform work at the place and time needed;” and that the wages and working conditions of workers in the United States will not be "adversely affected" by the importation of guest workers. To demonstrate the above factors, employers are required to recruit and hire US workers and to offer certain labor protections required by the program, such as minimum wage requirements, three (3) meals per day at cost or free centralized cooking facilities, free transportation, and free housing, among others. If the employer obtains a labor certification from the Department of Labor ("DOL"), the employer submits the labor certification along with a petition for a nonimmigrant worker to US Citizenship and Immigration services ("USCIS"). H-2A employers must provide housing for their workers at no cost to the worker. The housing must meet federal and state safety standards.

7.5 CITY AND OTHER GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS
The City's Zoning Ordinance has specific zones that allows farmworker housing. Following is a summary of some City and other government regulations.

The City included Program 10 in the 2015-2023 Housing Element and includes it as Program 8 in this 2023-2031 Element:

California health and Safety Code §17021.5 states that agricultural working housing for six (6) or fewer employees should be deemed a single-family structure with a residential use designation.
• Therefore, no conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required of agricultural working housing that is not required for single family housing. • California Health and Safety Code §17021.6 states that any agricultural working housing for no more than thirty six (36) beds in a group quarter or twelve (12) units or spaces designed for single family houses shall not require conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance that is not required of other agricultural activity in the same zone. be deemed a use that differs in any other way from another agricultural use.

7.6 ON AND OFFSITE IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS
On and Off Site Improvement Requirements
The City of King requires the installation of certain on-site and off-site improvements to ensure the safety and livability of its residential neighborhoods. On site improvements are regulated by the Subdivision Ordinance and through conditions and standards established during the site plan review process. On site improvements typically include required off-street parking, curbs, and utilities, as well as amenities such as landscaping, fencing, streetlights, and park facilities. Off-site improvements typically include the following (some are regulated by other agencies):

Chapter 7. Governmental Constraints
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 146
a) Road improvements, including construction of sections of roadways, medians, bridges, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and lighting.
b) Drainage improvements, including improvement to sections of channel, culverts, swales, and pond areas.
c) Wastewater collection and treatment.
d) Water systems improvements, including lines, storage tanks, and treatment plants. e) Public facilities for fire (the City of King Fire Department), schools (the City of King Union School District), and recreation.

At the subdivision level, street width for local residential areas has a 54-foot right-of-way with a 36-foot pavement area and a five-foot sidewalk and a 4 foot utility corridor on each side. In major residential areas, this is expanded to 84 feet of right-of-way with 64 feet of pavement area.

Generally, the developer passes on site and off site improvement costs to the homebuyer as part of the final cost of the home. To reduce housing costs, the City attempts to require only those improvements that are deemed necessary to maintain public health, safety, and welfare. As with neighboring communities near King City, the costs for on-/off-street improvements may ultimately be passed on to buyers in the form of higher home prices, however, the on- and offstreet improvements are standard and do not pose a constraint to residential development.

Furthermore, the City attempted to reach out to developers to solicit input on the cost impacts of on-/off-street improvements, however, was unsuccessful in gathering this information.

Program 5 commits the City to annual discussions with developers on zoning constraints, including the cost impacts of on-/off-street improvements, and addressing any identified constraints within six months.

Parking
TABLE 7.4.1 PARKING REQUIREMENT BY LAND USE
Land Use Type: Residential Uses Vehicle Spaces Required Single Family 2 spaces for each unit (Covered)
1 Bedroom Second Unit 1 space per unit
2 Bedroom Second Unit 2 spaces per unit
Senior Second Units 1 space per unit
0 Bedroom and Bachelor Apartments 1.5 spaces per unit
Off-street, disabled/handicapped parking is required in compliance with Title 24 of the California Administrative Code for all uses listed above.

Chapter 7. Governmental Constraints
147 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
As new housing development occurs, the City will consider the potential impacts of AB 2097 (Friedman) which has taken effect in 2023 and speaks to a City’s latitude regarding minimum parking requirements. This will be an item of consideration particularly in the areas of the Opportunity Zones.

7.7 BUILDING AND HOUSING CODES
While local regulations and fees may increase housing costs, some building and housing regulations and fees are mandated by State law to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community or to protect existing residents from financial or environmental impacts. In January 2023, the City adopted the 2022 International Building Code that was adopted as the California Building Code. These include the Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Fire, Energy and Cal Green Codes.

The California Building Code sets standards for residential and other structures. No local amendments have been made to the codes that would significantly increase housing costs. The City proactively enforces the building requirements.

7.8 HOUSING DESIGN FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
The U.S. Census Bureau defines persons with disabilities as those with a long-lasting physical, mental, or emotional condition. This condition can make it difficult for a person to do activities such as walking, climbing stairs, dressing, bathing, learning, or remembering. This condition can also impede a person from being able to go outside the home alone or to work at a job or business.

Reasonable Accommodation Procedures
Government Code §65583(a)(4) requires municipalities to analyze potential and actual constraints upon the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons with disabilities, and demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities. Cities are required to include programs that remove constraints and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for persons with disabilities. The Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (“Lanterman Act”) is an important piece of legislation that was passed in 1969.

This is the California law that provides people with developmental disabilities and their families the right to get the services and supports they need to live like people without disabilities.

To comply with the Lanterman Act, the City permits group care facilities, including foster care homes, serving six (6) or fewer persons in all residential zones.

Chapter 7. Governmental Constraints
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 148
Governmental Constraints On Housing Production For Persons With Disabilities
As part of the governmental constraints analysis, State law calls for the analysis of potential and actual constraints upon the development, maintenance and improvement of housing for persons with disabilities. In addition, State law requires the establishment of reasonable accommodation procedures by the City.

Table 7.6.1 reviews constraints on housing for persons with disabilities. Where necessary, the City proposes new policies or programs to remove constraints.

TABLE 7.6.1 CONSTRAINTS ON HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES Note: Please See Chapter 8 to review “Programs” referenced herein Issue Response
Does the City have a process
for persons with disabilities to
make requests for reasonable
accommodation?
The City of King has not adopted a reasonable
accommodation ordinance for persons with disabilities in the enforcement of building codes and issuance of building permits. However, no requests for reasonable
accommodation have been received by the City. The City’s Community Development Department is very small and
responsive to applications. The City adopted Program 22 as part of the 2007-2014 Housing Element and will include
Program 10 as part of the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Has the City made efforts to
remove constraints on housing
for persons with disabilities?
There are no special permits or requirements for homes or development for disabled persons. The City strictly
enforces all ADA requirements. As mentioned above, the
City adopted Program 13 (See Chapter 9) as part of the
2015-2023 Housing Element and will include Program 10 as part of the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

Does the City assist in meeting
identified needs? See comments above.

Zoning and Land Use
Has the City reviewed all its
zoning laws, policies and
practices for compliance with
fair housing law?
As part of the Housing Element Update the City has
reviewed the land use regulations and practices to ensure compliance with fair housing laws. Additionally, the City will readopt a Fair Housing Program (previously Program 21 and now Program 9) to ensure ongoing compliance with fair housing laws on an ongoing basis.

Chapter 7. Governmental Constraints
149 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
Issue Response
Are residential parking
standards for persons with
disabilities different from other
parking standards? Does the
City have a policy or program
for the reduction of parking
requirements for special needs
housing if a proponent can
demonstrate a reduced parking
need?
The City follows all ADA requirements. §17.52.060(c) of the City Zoning Ordinance (Handicapped spaces) mandates
that handicapped parking spaces shall be a minimum of
twelve feet in width and nineteen feet in length. However, parking requirements can be reduced at the discretion of the Planning Commission.

Does the locality restrict the
siting of group homes?
Group homes are most addressed in the City’s Zoning
Ordinance. Program 8 will be readopted to comply with
Health and Safety Code §1566.3.

What zones allow group homes
other than those allowed by
State law? Are group home
over six persons allowed?
Program 8 will be readopted to comply with Health and
Safety Code §1566.3. The City also proposes to allow group homes over six persons in some zoning districts with a
conditional use permit.

Does the City have occupancy
standards in the zoning code
that apply specifically to
unrelated adults and not to
families?
No
Does the land use element
regulate the siting of special
needs housing in relationship
to one another?
No. There is no minimum distance required between two
(2) or more special needs housing.

How does the City define a
“family”?
“Family” means one or more persons occupying a premises and living as a single housekeeping unit, as distinguished from a group occupying a hotel, club, fraternity or sorority house.

Permits and Processing
How does the City process a
request to retrofit homes for
accessibility?
The City has not had such a request. However, the
Community Development Department and Building and
Safety Department are small and very responsive to
applicants.

Chapter 7. Governmental Constraints
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 150
Issue Response
Does the City allow groups
homes with six or fewer
persons by right in single-family
zones?
Program 8 complies with Health and Safety Code §1566.3.

Does the City have a set of
particular conditions or use
restrictions for group homes
with greater than six persons?
Currently, the Zoning Ordinance does not address group
homes with greater than six persons. Program 8 (See
Chapter 9) proposes to allow these homes with a
Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit
provides the public with an opportunity to review the
project and express their concerns in a public hearing.

What kind of community input
does the City allow for the
approval of group homes?
See comments above.

Does the City have particular
conditions for group homes
that will be providing services
on site?
No, the City does not currently have special standards for group homes regarding location, design or operation.

Program 8 will be readopted as part of the updated
Housing Element
Building Codes
Has the locality adopted the
California Building Code?
Yes – In January 2013, the City adopted the 2012
International Building Code that was adopted as the
California Building Code. The City also adopted the 2011 Electrical Code, Mechanical Code and Plumbing Code. The City also enforces the 2013 Green Building Standards.

No amendments have been made that affect the ability to accommodate persons with disabilities.

7.9 PERMIT FEES AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING
Permit fees and various development are charged by the City and other agencies to cover administrative processing costs associated with development. These fees ensure quality development and the provision of adequate services.

Fees and Other Exactions
The City of King imposes various permitting fees for housing development, as indicated in Table

7.7.1. These fees are designed to cover the costs associated with processing, evaluating, and Chapter 7. Governmental Constraints
151 City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element
ensuring compliance with the relevant regulations. In accordance with Government Code Section 66020, the City is legally obligated to set permit and development fees at amounts that do not exceed the actual cost of providing the associated services. These fees are established at the time of imposition or project approval. It is important to note that some permit application fees are fixed, while others are initially charged as a deposit, subject to potential adjustments during the permit process.

TABLE 7.7.1 PERMITTING AND PROCESSING FEES, FY 2024
Fee Category Fee
Community Development Department Fees
Staff time Actual Cost Plus 5% Administrative Fee
Minimum Permit fee $105
Variance $750
Certificate of Occupancy $189
Conditional Use Permit- Minor $1,050
Conditional Use Permit- New
Construction Actual Cost with $3,000 Deposit
Conditional Use Permit- Temporary Use
Permit $330
General Plan Amendment Actual Cost with $2,000 Deposit
General Plan Consistency Review $4,725.00
Zoning Change Text & Map
New Actual Cost with $2,000 Deposit
Pre-Zoning Request Actual Cost with $600
Environmental Review
Categorical Exemption $158
Administrative Filing Fee $158
Environmental Impact Report Review Actual Cost with $3,000 Deposit.

Plus $250 per lot
Negative Declaration Actual Cost with $1,000 deposit
Mitigated Negative Declaration Actual $1,200 deposit
Subdivision
Lot Line Adjustment $3,465
Tentative Parcel Map Review Actual Cost with $2,000 deposit.

Plus $50.00 Per Lot
Final Parcel Map Actual Cost with $2,000 deposit.

Source: City of King, 2024
Chapter 7. Governmental Constraints
City of King 2023-2031 Housing Element 152
Development Impact Fees
Development impact fees add to the cost of residential development. However, they are seen as a more cost effective mechanism for financing the new infrastructure required to support new development. The fees allow for the consolidation of infrastructure projects when it is more costeffective to do so and, by law, must be linked to the actual impact of the specific project. The City believes that the system of planning infrastructure and financing it with development fees serves both the developer and the community by promoting orderly development and by fairly distributing the cost to all new development.

The City collects fees to help cover the costs of permit processing, inspections, and environmental review. Fees charged for building permits are based on the construction values prescribed by the California Building Code. The City also collects development impact fees in accordance with California Government Code §66000-66025 for the provision of services such as roads, signals, and storm drains. These fees are generally assessed on the number of units in a residential development and collected at the beginning of the approval process. Fees collected by the City do not exceed the City’s costs for providing these services.

Table 7.7.1 shows the estimated proportion of total fees to the development cost per unit.

TABLE 7.7.2 PROPORTION OF CITY FEE IN OVERALL CONSTRUCTION COST RESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT
Type Cost
Construction Cost for a Typical Unit Single-Family* Multi-Family** Total estimated fees per unit $12,750 $12,875
TAMC Impact Fees $5,065 $3,557
Total estimated cost of construction $108,000 $90,000
Estimated percentage of fees (City and TAMC) as a
portion of total cost of construction 14.1% 15.4%
Source: City of King, * 1,200 sf Single Family home on in-town parcel, utilities adjacent ** 1,200 sf home in 4–9 unit multi-family structure on in-town parcel, utilities adjacent Regional Development Impact Fees
As of 2006, the Transportation Agency for Monterey County ("TAMC"), implemented Regional Development Impact Fees. The program is designed to collect impact fees based on the number of vehicle trips generated by new residential developments. The fees will be used for transportation improvements. Fee distribution is separated according to districts within the County: North County, Greater Salinas, Peninsula/S. Coast, and South County.