Attachment 2 - Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element and Appendices — Salinas City Council, June 20, 2023 (part 2 of 2)

H-15. Fair Housing Through the annual planning process of the CDBG funds, evaluate and allocate funding
for fair housing services as a continued
priority.

Funding for fair housing services is a priority and funding is allocated through the annual planning process of HUD entitlement funds. The City continues to fund fair housing service providers like the Project Sentinel, ECHO, and Legal Services for Seniors. A regional multi-jurisdictional collaboration was funded to update the Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) and assess regional fair housing issues. A five-year Limited-Term Community Development Analyst was approved in order to expand services and resources to tenants and landlords.

The City advanced the implementing of a Rental Registration Program, and it was approved by City Council in April of 2023. The Rental Registration Program will become effective on July 1, 2023.

H-15. Fair Housing Coordinate with Salinas community-based non-profits to ensure City outreach materials
and programs reach linguistically isolated
populations.

City staff regularly coordinate with subrecipients, non-profits and other antipoverty agencies to ensure outreach material is made available to linguistically isolated individuals. Bilingual services are available for all community meetings, public hearings. Outreach material is offered in Spanish as outlined in the City’s Citizen Participation Plan. The City successfully partnered with Mujeres en Acción to reach Indigenous communities (Mixteco, Zapoteco, and Triqui) for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) Program. As a best practice, printed and social media content is translated in English and Spanish in order to reach a wider population.

H-15. Fair Housing Continue coordination and support of local Fair Housing Service providers, school
districts and collaborative partners to expand
fair housing education of tenants and
landlords.

Fair housing counseling, education, and landlord-tenant services are available through a partnership with ECHO, a nonprofit organization effective July 1, 2017. The City executed an MOU with HACM, County of Monterey, City of Monterey, and City of Seaside to collaborate on an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) and an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) for the 2019-2024 Con Plan. A Community Development Analyst position was also funded to expand fair housing services to city residents and to support tenants and landlords through housing processes and resource referrals.

The Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) completed intakes for applicants to assess housing needs and refer them to local agencies for additional fair housing services. Service referrals included the Housing Resource Center, Watsonville Law Center, ECHO, and CRLA. A new Rental Registration Program was approved in April 2023 by City Council and will become effective July 1, 2023. This program will promote and educate tenants/landlords on Fair Housing laws and best practices. As part of 2024-32 Appendix A 35
Housing Element Cycle, the City is working to develop the AFFH to affirmatively further fair housing in connection with the City's HUD Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan.

Table A: Housing Element Sites Inventory, Table Starts in Cell A2 For Napa County jurisdictions, please format the APNs as follows: 999-999-999-999 Jurisdiction Name Site Address/Intersection 5 Digit ZIP Code
Assessor Parcel
Number
Consolidated
Sites
General Plan Designation
(Current)
Zoning Designation
(Current)
Minimum
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Maximum
Density
Allowed
(units/acre)
Parcel Size
(Acres)
Existing
Use/Vacancy Infrastructure Publicly-Owned Site Status Identified in Last/Last Two Planning Cycle(s) Lower Income Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Total Capacity Optional Information1 Optional Information2 Optional Information3 SALINAS 1486 Constitution Boulevard 93905 153-621-013-000 Retail Commercial Retail (CR) 15 24 2.7 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 6 0 44 50 Replacing an existing gym and adding constructing multi-family units. Six units must be for Section 8.

SALINAS 1108 Parkside Street 93906 003-773-060-000 Residential High Density R-H-2.1 15 20 2.6 Residential YES - Current YES - County-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 79 0 1 80 Would replacing 40 existing affordable units with 79 new affordable units and 1 manager unit.

SALINAS 545 Work Street 93901 003-011-048-000 Retail Commercial Retail (CR) 15 24 2.9 Hotel/motel YES - Current YES - City-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 99 0 2 101 Homekey project converting hotel to permanent housing for homeless.

SALINAS 1030 Fairview Avenue 93905 003-474-002-000 Retail Commercial Thoroughfare 15 24 0.8 Hotel/motel YES - Current YES - City-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 42 0 1 43 Another Homekey project converting hotel to permanent housing for homeless.

SALINAS 11 Hill Circle 93905 004-601-066-000 Residential Low Density R-L-5.5 6 8 7.5 Vacant YES - Potential YES - City-Owned Pending Project Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 6 0 31 37 Single-family small-lot PUD. Six affordable units from Inclusionary SALINAS NEC John/Abbott Mixed Use PUD 93901 002-481-029-000 A Office Commercial Office (CO) 15 20 4.6 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 10 0 75 85 A - Mixed use PUD with 242 total units. 29 units must be for Section 8.

SALINAS NEC John/Abbott Mixed Use PUD 93901 002-481-028-000 A Office Commercial Office (CO) 15 20 2.5 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 6 0 44 50 A - Mixed use PUD with 242 total units. 29 units must be for Section 8.

SALINAS NEC John/Abbott Mixed Use PUD 93901 002-481-022-000 A Office Commercial Office (CO) 15 20 2.9 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 A - Mixed use PUD with 242 total units. 29 units must be for Section 8.

SALINAS NEC John/Abbott Mixed Use PUD 93901 002-481-026-000 A Office Commercial Office (CO) 15 20 1.7 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 A - Mixed use PUD with 242 total units. 29 units must be for Section 8.

SALINAS NEC John/Abbott Mixed Use PUD 93901 002-481-030-000 A Office Commercial Office (CO) 15 20 2.1 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 A - Mixed use PUD with 242 total units. 29 units must be for Section 8.

SALINAS NEC John/Abbott Mixed Use PUD 93901 002-481-027-000 A Office Commercial Office (CO) 15 20 2.3 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 10 0 70 80 A - Mixed use PUD with 242 total units. 29 units must be for Section 8.

SALINAS NEC John/Abbott Mixed Use PUD 93901 002-481-034-000 A Office Commercial Office (CO) 15 20 1.3 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 A - Mixed use PUD with 242 total units. 29 units must be for Section 8.

SALINAS NEC John/Abbott Mixed Use PUD 93901 002-481-025-000 A Office Commercial Office (CO) 15 20 2.1 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 3 0 24 27 A - Mixed use PUD with 242 total units. 29 units must be for Section 8.

SALINAS NEC John/Abbott Mixed Use PUD 93901 002-481-031-000 A Office Commercial Office (CO) 15 20 1.3 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 A - Mixed use PUD with 242 total units. 29 units must be for Section 8.

SALINAS NEC John/Abbott Mixed Use PUD 93901 002-481-032-000 A Office Commercial Office (CO) 15 20 1.1 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 A - Mixed use PUD with 242 total units. 29 units must be for Section 8.

SALINAS NEC John/Abbott Mixed Use PUD 93901 002-371-044-000 A Office Commercial Office (CO) 15 20 0.1 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 A - Mixed use PUD with 242 total units. 29 units must be for Section 8.

SALINAS NEC John/Abbott Mixed Use PUD 93901 002-371-039-000 A Office Commercial Office (CO) 15 20 0.2 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 A - Mixed use PUD with 242 total units. 29 units must be for Section 8.

SALINAS NEC John/Abbott Mixed Use PUD 93901 002-481-035-000 A Office Commercial Office (CO) 15 20 0.8 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 A - Mixed use PUD with 242 total units. 29 units must be for Section 8.

SALINAS NEC John/Abbott Mixed Use PUD 93901 002-481-033-000 A Office Commercial Office (CO) 15 20 0.3 Industrial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 0 0 A - Mixed use PUD with 242 total units. 29 units must be for Section 8.

SALINAS 467 E Market Street 93905 004-011-029-000 B Arterial Frontage Mixed Arterial Frontage (M 15 24 1.1 Commercial YES - Current YES - City-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 37 0 1 38 B - Affordable housing project with 1 manager unit SALINAS 469 E Market Street 93905 004-011-031-000 B Arterial Frontage Mixed Arterial Frontage (M 15 24 1.3 Vacant YES - Potential YES - City-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 37 0 0 37 B - Affordable housing project with 1 manager unit SALINAS 845 E Laurel Drive 93905 003-851-027-000 Public/Semipublic Public/Semi-Public (PS) 8 15 86.5 Public facilities YES - Current YES - County-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 132 0 0 132 Using vacant space around existing uses of a large County-owned parcel City-County partnership, Eden Housing the developer.

SALINAS 122 Lincoln Avenue 93901 002-245-008-000 C Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 80 0.2 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 6 6 0 12 Large surface parking lot owned by City, surplused and negotiating sale. Ass Proximity to ITC would allow up to 80 units/acre. Calculating cons SALINAS 128 Lincoln Avenue 93901 002-245-007-000 C Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 80 0.2 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 6 6 0 12 Large surface parking lot owned by City, surplused and negotiating sale. Ass Proximity to ITC would allow up to 80 units/acre. Calculating cons SALINAS 120 Lincoln Avenue 93901 002-245-006-000 C Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 80 0.2 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 6 6 0 12 Large surface parking lot owned by City, surplused and negotiating sale. Ass Proximity to ITC would allow up to 80 units/acre. Calculating cons SALINAS 118 Lincoln Avenue 93901 002-245-005-000 C Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 80 0.1 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 3 3 0 6 Large surface parking lot owned by City, surplused and negotiating sale. Ass Proximity to ITC would allow up to 80 units/acre. Calculating cons SALINAS 112 Lincoln Avenue 93901 002-245-004-000 C Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 80 0.1 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 3 3 0 6 Large surface parking lot owned by City, surplused and negotiating sale. Ass Proximity to ITC would allow up to 80 units/acre. Calculating cons SALINAS 108 Lincoln Avenue 93901 002-245-003-000 C Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 80 0.1 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Pending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 3 3 0 6 Large surface parking lot owned by City, surplused and negotiating sale. Ass Proximity to ITC would allow up to 80 units/acre. Calculating cons SALINAS 98 Kip Drive 93906 261-661-011-000 Public/Semipublic Public/Semi-Public (PS) 8 15 2.3 Educational/institutio YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedPending Project Not Used in Prior Housing Element 39 0 0 39 Senior housing development on vacant portion of a church property by CHISPA (non-profit developer) SALINAS 1182 E Alisal Street 93905 003-901-022-000 Residential High Density R-H-2.1 15 20 1.6 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 0 28 0 28 Vacant undeveloped parcel.

SALINAS 740 E Romie Lane 93901 002-721-033-000 Office Commercial Office (CO) 15 20 0.6 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 0 9 0 9 Vacant undeveloped parcel.

SALINAS 121 E Gabilan Street 93901 002-192-019-000 D Residential High Density R-H-1.8 15 24 0.6 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 6 0 6 Vacant undeveloped parcel.

SALINAS 139 E Gabilan Street 93901 002-192-018-000 D Residential High Density R-H-1.8 15 24 0.1 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 6 0 6 Vacant undeveloped parcel.

SALINAS 16 N Wood Street 93905 004-042-026-000 Retail Commercial Retail (CR) 15 24 0.4 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 0 7 0 7 Vacant undeveloped parcel.

SALINAS 303 Martella Street 93901 003-151-036-000 Residential Medium Density R-M-3.6 8 12 0.6 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 0 0 5 5 Vacant undeveloped parcel.

SALINAS 561 N Sanborn Road 93905 004-601-062-000 Office Commercial Office (CO) 15 20 2.8 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 0 39 0 39 Vacant undeveloped parcel.

SALINAS 35 Sun Street 93901 003-101-033-000 Residential High Density R-H-2.1 15 20 0.9 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 0 15 0 15 Vacant undeveloped parcel.

SALINAS 2217 N Main Street 93906 253-081-004-000 Retail Commercial Retail (CR) 15 24 0.6 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 0 11 0 11 Vacant undeveloped parcel.

SALINAS 2357 N Main Street 93906 253-012-066-000 Retail Commercial Retail (CR) 15 24 2 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 0 33 0 33 Vacant undeveloped parcel.

SALINAS 200 Casentini Street 93907 003-161-030-000 Residential High Density R-H-2.1 15 20 4.8 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 0 80 0 80 Vacant undeveloped parcel.

SALINAS 1970 N Davis Road 93907 253-332-035-000 Retail Commercial Retail (CR) 15 24 5.9 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 0 98 0 98 Vacant undeveloped parcel.

SALINAS 46 E Bernal Drive 93906 003-211-018-000 Residential Medium Density R-M-2.9 8 15 1.7 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 0 18 0 18 Vacant undeveloped parcel.

SALINAS 930 Circle Drive 93905 004-601-058-000 Office Commercial Office (CO) 15 20 0.3 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 0 4 0 4 Vacant undeveloped parcel.

SALINAS 1 Preston Street 93901 003-161-008-000 Residential High Density R-H-1.8 15 24 3 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 0 50 0 50 Vacant undeveloped parcel.

SALINAS 123 W Alisal Street 93901 002-335-005-000 Office Commercial Office/Reside 15 20 0.9 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 12 0 12 Vacant former home of Californian newspaper. Historic and great candidate for adaptive reuse.

SALINAS 101 W Alisal Street 93901 002-331-010-000 Public/Semipublic Public/Semi-Public (PS) 8 15 1.1 Public facilities YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 12 0 12 Only measuring large surface lot fronting Alisal, which has had temporary office and shelter uses in the past.

SALINAS Constitution Boulevard near Laurel D 93906 003-851-039-000 Public/Semipublic Public/Semi-Public (PS) 8 15 24.3 Parking YES - Current YES - County-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 254 0 254 Large County-owned parcel used for parking, across the street from 845 Laurel project parcel, could pursue similar partnership.

SALINAS 51 John Street 93901 002-352-014-000 Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 24 0.3 Vacant YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 0 5 0 5 Vacant undeveloped parcel.

SALINAS 195 Sherwood Drive 93901 003-211-022-000 Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 30 40 7.5 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 226 0 0 226 Vacant undeveloped parcel. Focus Growth Overlay (higher density for certain MX parcels) SALINAS 185 Sherwood Drive 93901 003-211-010-000 Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 30 40 5.4 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 163 0 0 163 Vacant undeveloped parcel. Focus Growth Overlay (higher density for certain MX parcels) SALINAS 923 E Market Street 93905 004-091-025-000 E Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 30 40 0.4 Vacant YES - Potential YES - City-Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 12 0 0 12 E - City-owned vacant land, known as Division Ave site Focus Growth Overlay (higher density for certain MX parcels) SALINAS 115 Division Street 93905 004-091-026-000 E Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 30 40 0.5 Vacant YES - Potential YES - City-Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 15 0 0 15 E - City-owned vacant land, known as Division Ave site Focus Growth Overlay (higher density for certain MX parcels) SALINAS 123 Division Street 93905 004-091-027-000 E Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 30 40 0.4 Vacant YES - Potential YES - City-Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 12 0 0 12 E - City-owned vacant land, known as Division Ave site Focus Growth Overlay (higher density for certain MX parcels) SALINAS 137 Division Street 93905 004-091-028-000 E Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 30 40 0.3 Vacant YES - Potential YES - City-Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 9 0 0 9 E - City-owned vacant land, known as Division Ave site Focus Growth Overlay (higher density for certain MX parcels) SALINAS 145 Division Street 93905 004-091-029-000 E Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 30 40 0.4 Vacant YES - Potential YES - City-Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 12 0 0 12 E - City-owned vacant land, known as Division Ave site Focus Growth Overlay (higher density for certain MX parcels) SALINAS 151 Division Street 93905 004-091-030-000 E Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 30 40 0.7 Vacant YES - Potential YES - City-Owned Available Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 21 0 0 21 E - City-owned vacant land, known as Division Ave site Focus Growth Overlay (higher density for certain MX parcels) SALINAS 4 Bridge Street 93901 002-194-024-000 F Arterial Frontage Mixed Arterial Frontage (M 15 24 0.6 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 0 9 0 9 F - Vacant undeveloped parcel.

SALINAS 2 Bridge Street 93901 002-194-027-000 F Arterial Frontage Mixed Arterial Frontage (M 15 24 0.4 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 0 6 0 6 F - Vacant undeveloped parcel.

SALINAS 2-A Bridge Street 93901 002-194-028-000 F Arterial Frontage Mixed Arterial Frontage (M 15 24 0.1 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 0 2 0 2 F - Vacant undeveloped parcel.

SALINAS 230 Martella Street 93901 003-142-018-000 Arterial Frontage Mixed Arterial Frontage (M 15 24 0.2 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 0 4 0 4 Vacant undeveloped parcel.

SALINAS 45 Casentini Street 93901 003-201-011-000 Arterial Frontage Mixed Arterial Frontage (M 15 24 1.2 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 0 20 0 20 Vacant undeveloped parcel.

SALINAS 206 E Alisal Street 93905 002-213-032-000 Retail Commercial Retail (CR) 15 24 0.2 Vacant YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements - Vacant 0 4 0 4 Vacant undeveloped parcel.

SALINAS 207 N Sanborn Road 93905 004-131-004-000 G Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 30 40 0.6 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 18 0 0 18 G -Owned by Teamsters. Open to devloping with Division Ave site. Focus Growth Overlay (higher density for certain MX parcels) SALINAS 130 Division Street 93905 004-131-001-000 G Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 30 40 0.8 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 24 0 0 24 G -Owned by Teamsters. Open to devloping with Division Ave site. Focus Growth Overlay (higher density for certain MX parcels) SALINAS 34 Soledad Street 93901 002-194-029-000 Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 24 0.5 Commercial YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 8 0 0 8 Recently purchased by City which is seeking other lots to consolidate for affordable development. Less than 200 feet from recent 90-unit affor SALINAS 108 E San Luis Street 93901 002-353-001-000 H Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 24 0.3 Parking YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 5 0 5 H- Separate surface parking lot downtown. Not in high-parking demand area.

SALINAS Pajaro Street near San Luis 93901 002-353-002-000 H Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 24 0.2 Parking YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 3 0 3 H- Separate surface parking lot downtown. Not in high-parking demand area. No address only APN SALINAS 415 Pajaro Street 93901 002-353-003-000 H Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 24 0.2 Parking YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 3 0 3 H- Separate surface parking lot downtown. Not in high-parking demand area.

SALINAS 40 E San Luis Street 93901 002-352-017-000 Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 24 0.5 Parking YES - Potential NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 0 8 0 8 Separate surface parking lot downtown. Not in high-demand parking area.

SALINAS 295 Main Street 93901 002-234-028-000 Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 80 0.6 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 32 0 0 32 Office tower directly across from two recent adaptive reuse projects, includin Proximity to ITC would allow up to 80 units/acre and adaptive reu SALINAS 1121 Baldwin Street 93906 003-272-005-000 Arterial Frontage Mixed Arterial Frontage (M 15 24 0.7 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 11 0 11 Current office space, owner has expressed interest in converting to housing.

SALINAS 30 W Romie Lane 93901 002-542-013-000 Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 30 40 5.2 Parking YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Used in Prior Housing Element - Non-Vacant 157 0 0 157 Extremely over-parked surface lot serving lower volume commercial. Focus Growth Overlay (higher density for certain MX parcels) SALINAS 1067 N Davis Road 93907 261-711-052-000 Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 24 5.4 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 90 0 90 Vacant former Orchard Hardware Supply store and large parking lot. Part of SB-2 rezones to Mixed Use to encourage development.

SALINAS 1044 N Davis Road 93907 261-711-024-000 Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 24 6.2 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 104 0 104 Parking lot of large commercial development with vacant anchor (former K-MaPart of SB-2 rezones to Mixed Use to encourage development.

SALINAS 1100 Northridge Mall 93906 253-201-540-000 Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 24 10.2 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 171 0 171 Vacant Sears and parking lot in Northridge Mall. Mall may be interested in red Part of SB-2 rezones to Mixed Use to encourage development.

SALINAS 1022 E Alisal Street 93905 003-891-015-000 Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 40 4.1 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 117 0 0 117 Large surface parking lot of FoodsCo grocery store on the highest ridership t Part of SB-2 rezones to Mixed Use to encourage development.

SALINAS 60 W Market Street 93901 002-171-013-000 I Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 80 0.3 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 5 0 12 17 I - Intermodal Transit Center parking lot. Site now owned by City. Opportunity Part of SB-2 rezones to Mixed Use to encourage development.

SALINAS 58 W Market Street 93901 002-171-012-000 I Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 80 0.3 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 5 0 12 17 I - Intermodal Transit Center parking lot. Site now owned by City. Opportunity Part of SB-2 rezones to Mixed Use to encourage development.

SALINAS 19 Station Place 1/2 93901 002-171-008-000 I Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 80 0.3 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 5 0 12 17 I - Intermodal Transit Center parking lot. Site now owned by City. Opportunity Part of SB-2 rezones to Mixed Use to encourage development.

SALINAS 17 Station Place 8 93901 002-171-007-000 I Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 80 0.3 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 5 0 12 17 I - Intermodal Transit Center parking lot. Site now owned by City. Opportunity Part of SB-2 rezones to Mixed Use to encourage development.

SALINAS 15 Station Place 93901 002-171-006-000 I Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 80 0.1 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 2 0 4 6 I - Intermodal Transit Center parking lot. Site now owned by City. Opportunity Part of SB-2 rezones to Mixed Use to encourage development.

SALINAS 54 W Market Street 93901 002-171-011-000 I Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 80 0.1 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 2 0 4 6 I - Intermodal Transit Center parking lot. Site now owned by City. Opportunity Part of SB-2 rezones to Mixed Use to encourage development.

SALINAS 50 W Market Street 93901 002-171-010-000 I Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 80 0.1 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 2 0 4 6 I - Intermodal Transit Center parking lot. Site now owned by City. Opportunity Part of SB-2 rezones to Mixed Use to encourage development.

SALINAS 42 W Market Street 93901 002-171-005-000 I Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 80 0.3 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 5 0 12 17 I - Intermodal Transit Center parking lot. Site now owned by City. Opportunity Part of SB-2 rezones to Mixed Use to encourage development.

SALINAS 18 Station Place 93901 002-171-023-000 I Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 80 0.3 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 5 0 12 17 I - Intermodal Transit Center parking lot. Site now owned by City. Opportunity Part of SB-2 rezones to Mixed Use to encourage development.

SALINAS 14 Station Place 93901 002-172-001-000 I Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 80 0.1 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 2 0 4 6 I - Intermodal Transit Center parking lot. Site now owned by City. Opportunity Part of SB-2 rezones to Mixed Use to encourage development.

SALINAS 26 W Market Street 93901 002-172-002-000 I Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 80 0.1 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 2 0 4 6 I - Intermodal Transit Center parking lot. Site now owned by City. Opportunity Part of SB-2 rezones to Mixed Use to encourage development.

SALINAS 20 W Market Street 93901 002-172-011-000 I Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 80 0.4 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 7 0 15 22 I - Intermodal Transit Center parking lot. Site now owned by City. Opportunity Part of SB-2 rezones to Mixed Use to encourage development.

SALINAS 10 W Market Street 93901 002-172-012-000 I Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 80 0.3 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 5 0 12 17 I - Intermodal Transit Center parking lot. Site now owned by City. Opportunity Part of SB-2 rezones to Mixed Use to encourage development.

SALINAS 300 Monterey Street 93901 002-233-023-000 Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 15 80 1.2 Parking YES - Current YES - City-Owned Available Not Used in Prior Housing Element 20 0 47 67 City--owned Parking Lot 5. Interested in sale and redevelopment with afforda Part of SB-2 rezones to Mixed Use to encourage development.

SALINAS 710 Abbott Street 93901 002-902-048-000 J Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 30 40 0.6 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 2 1 15 18 J - Owner wants to build multifamily. Focus Growth Overlay (higher density for certain MX parcels) SALINAS 718 Abbott Street 93901 002-902-047-000 J Mixed Use Mixed Use (MX) 30 40 2.3 Commercial YES - Current NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 8 2 59 69 J - Owner wants to build multifamily. Focus Growth Overlay (higher density for certain MX parcels) SALINAS CASP Boronda LLC, near Boronda a 93906 153-091-015-000 K Residential Low Density Neighborhood Edge A (NE 5 6 27.4 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 67 67 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 o Based on CASP Appendix G. Se SALINAS CASP Boronda LLC, near Boronda a 93906 153-091-015-000 K Residential Low Density Neighborhood Edge B (NE 7 8 14.5 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 102 102 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E for Sub Areas by zo SALINAS CASP Boronda LLC, near Boronda a 93906 153-091-015-000 K Residential Medium Density Neighborhood General A ( 8 9 8.3 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 67 67 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E for Sub Areas by zo SALINAS CASP Boronda LLC, near Boronda a 93906 153-091-015-000 K Residential Medium Density Neighborhood General B ( 9 10 19.1 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 172 172 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E for Sub Areas by zo SALINAS CASP Boronda LLC, near Boronda a 93906 153-091-015-000 K Residential Medium Density Neighborhood General C ( 14 16 9.7 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 135 135 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E for Sub Areas by zo SALINAS CASP Boronda LLC, near Boronda a 93906 153-091-015-000 K Mixed Use Village Center A (VC-A) - C 18 24 27.4 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 492 0 492 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites w Village Center mixed use buildings can achieve even higher dens SALINAS CASP Boronda LLC, near Boronda a 93906 153-091-015-000 K Mixed Use Village Center B (VC-B) - C 24 31 17.1 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 410 410 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites w Village Center mixed use buildings can achieve even higher dens SALINAS CASP Harrod Construction, near Bor 93906 153-091-001-000 L Residential Low Density Neighborhood Edge A (NE 5 6 9.6 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 57 57 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites w Parcels not disaggregated in available tables, split acreage and SALINAS CASP Harrod Construction, near Bor 93906 153-091-001-000 L Residential Low Density Neighborhood Edge B (NE 7 8 3.7 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 29 29 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites w Parcels not disaggregated in available tables, split acreage and SALINAS CASP Harrod Construction, near Bor 93906 153-091-001-000 L Residential Medium Density Neighborhood General A ( 8 9 14.7 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 132 132 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites w Parcels not disaggregated in available tables, split acreage and SALINAS CASP Harrod Construction, near Bor 93906 153-091-001-000 L Residential Medium Density Neighborhood General B ( 9 10 1.4 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 14 14 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites w Parcels not disaggregated in available tables, split acreage and SALINAS CASP Harrod Construction, near Bor 93906 153-091-001-000 L Residential Medium Density Neighborhood General C ( 14 16 9.2 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 147 147 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites w Parcels not disaggregated in available tables, split acreage and SALINAS CASP Harrod Construction, near Bor 93906 153-091-002-000 L Residential Low Density Neighborhood Edge A (NE 5 6 9.6 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 58 58 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites w Parcels not disaggregated in available tables, split acreage and SALINAS CASP Harrod Construction, near Bor 93906 153-091-002-000 L Residential Low Density Neighborhood Edge B (NE 7 8 3.7 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 30 30 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites w Parcels not disaggregated in available tables, split acreage and SALINAS CASP Harrod Construction, near Bor 93906 153-091-002-000 L Residential Medium Density Neighborhood General A ( 8 9 14.7 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 133 133 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites w Parcels not disaggregated in available tables, split acreage and SALINAS CASP Harrod Construction, near Bor 93906 153-091-002-000 L Residential Medium Density Neighborhood General B ( 9 10 1.4 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 15 15 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites w Parcels not disaggregated in available tables, split acreage and SALINAS CASP Harrod Construction, near Bor 93906 153-091-002-000 L Residential Medium Density Neighborhood General C ( 14 16 9.2 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 147 147 Part of entitled Central Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites w Parcels not disaggregated in available tables, split acreage and SALINAS WASP Rexford Title (formerly Cloverf 93906 211-231-062-000 M Residential Low Density Neighborhood Edge (NE) - 4.5 7 34.6 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 211 211 Part of entitled West Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Units based on projected units f SALINAS WASP Rexford Title (formerly Cloverf 93906 211-231-062-000 M Residential Medium Density Neighborhood General 1 ( 7 14 58 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 563 563 Part of entitled West Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Units based on projected units f SALINAS WASP Rexford Title (formerly Cloverf 93906 211-231-062-000 M Residential High Density Neighborhood General 2 ( 16 24 7.66 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 156 0 156 Part of entitled West Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Units based on projected units f SALINAS WASP Rexford Title (formerly Cloverf 93906 211-231-062-000 M Mixed Use Village Center (VC) - WAS 20 20 1.55 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 31 0 31 Part of entitled West Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites whe Village Center assumes 20 du/a Units based on projected units f SALINAS WASP Aaroe (formerly Kantro) 93906 211-011-003-000 N Residential Low Density Neighborhood Edge (NE) - 4.5 7 64.7 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 370 370 Part of entitled West Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Units based on projected units f SALINAS WASP Aaroe (formerly Kantro) 93906 211-011-003-000 N Residential Medium Density Neighborhood General 1 ( 7 14 15.1 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 134 134 Part of entitled West Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Units based on projected units f SALINAS WASP Aaroe (formerly Kantro) 93906 211-011-003-000 N Residential High Density Neighborhood General 2 ( 16 24 16.2 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 260 0 260 Part of entitled West Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Units based on projected units f SALINAS WASP Harrod Construction (formerly 93906 211-231-016-000 O Residential Low Density Neighborhood Edge (NE) - 4.5 7 25.3 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 154 154 Part of entitled West Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Units based on projected units f SALINAS WASP Harrod Construction (formerly 93906 211-231-016-000 O Residential Medium Density Neighborhood General 1 ( 7 14 6.9 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 57 57 Part of entitled West Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Units based on projected units f SALINAS WASP Harrod Construction (formerly 93906 211-231-016-000 O Residential High Density Neighborhood General 2 ( 16 24 8.57 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 158 0 158 Part of entitled West Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Units based on projected units f SALINAS WASP Harrod Construction (formerly 93906 211-231-016-000 O Mixed Use Village Center (VC) - WAS 20 20 3 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 60 0 60 Part of entitled West Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites whe Village Center assumes 20 du/a Units based on projected units f SALINAS WASP Bondesen 93906 211-231-012-000 P Residential Medium Density Neighborhood General 1 ( 7 14 22.6 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 265 265 Part of entitled West Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E for Sub Areas by zon SALINAS WASP Bondesen 93906 211-231-012-000 P Residential High Density Neighborhood General 2 ( 16 24 8.1 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 135 0 135 Part of entitled West Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E for Sub Areas by zon SALINAS WASP Bondesen 93906 211-231-013-000 P Residential Low Density Neighborhood Edge (NE) - 4.5 7 21.3 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 137 137 Part of entitled West Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E for Sub Areas by zon SALINAS WASP Bondesen 93906 211-231-013-000 P Residential Medium Density Neighborhood General 1 ( 7 14 7.23 Agricultural/open spa YES - Planned NO - Privately-OwnedAvailable Not Used in Prior Housing Element 0 0 62 62 Part of entitled West Area Specific Plan. Will be broken into smaller sites when subdivided. See Chapter 5 or Appendix E for Sub Areas by zon Appendix C 1
Appendix C: Summary of Community Participation
The City has conducted extensive community outreach following the adoption of the last housing element through various past planning efforts and the current General Plan Update process (Visión Salinas 2040).

Twenty-five (25) Community Workshops, exploring housing topics, have been held following the adoption of our last Housing Element. Furthermore, through the AVP and Visión Salinas 2040 engagement, a collective twelve (12) Housing Working Group and Built Environment Group meetings were held discussing housing goals, policies, and actions. Lastly, for the 2023-2024 budget cycle, four (4) citywide budget meetings were held three (3) in person and one (1) via Zoom and forty (40) popup activities to discuss budget priorities with housing being a main discussion topic.

This section summarizes engagement from past planning efforts and provides detailed data from Visión Salinas 2040 community engagement.

I. Alisal Vibrancy Plan (AVP)
Engagement Summary
Appendix C 2
From June 2017 to April 2019, the City in collaboration with community members and grassroots organizations from the greater Alisal neighborhood, engaged residents and community stakeholders to develop Plan content. Over 2,000 stakeholders participated in eight (8) community workshops, twenty-four (24) pop-ups, twenty (20) Steering Committee meetings, thirty-four (34) Working Group meetings, and twenty (20) community stakeholder meetings.

Figure 1: Through the AVP process, the City adopted the Spectrum of Community Engagement to Empower for Impact Matrix to help ensure inclusive engagement and transparency in the process.

Appendix C 3
Figure 2: Alisal Vibrancy Plan Collective Engagement
Table 1: AVP Housing Working Group Meetings
Topic Date and Time
Working Group Orientation September 21st, 2017, 6:00 PM Housing Working Group November 27th, 2017, 6:00 PM
Housing Working Group January 18th, 2018, 6:00 PM
Housing Working Group February 21st, 2019, 6:00 PM
Housing Working Group March 21st, 2018, 6:00 PM
Housing Working Group April 18th, 2018, 6:00 PM
Housing Working Group May 16th, 2018, 6:00 PM
Housing Working Group June 11th, 2018, 6:00 PM
Housing Working Group June 20th, 2018, 6:00 PM
Appendix C 4
II. Chinatown Revitalization Plan
Engagement Summary
Between January 2017 and May 2019, staff convened Working Groups comprised of non-technical stakeholders. During this same time period, a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) comprised of working professionals from the public, private, and nonprofit sectors met six times to evaluate the feasibility of Working Group and community recommendations and identify needs for further analysis based on technical studies and/or planning.

In addition to TAC and Working Group meetings, the City convened a total of nine (9) large community meetings, including two (2) implementation workshops and a final draft Plan Open House, and nine (9) pop-up events, all of which were open to all members of the public. Staff facilitated activities pertaining to the key themes of the Revitalization Plan at pop-up stations during community events. To collect the input of key interest groups and hard-to-reach populations, the City also participated in various meetings and events not explicitly tied to the Revitalization Plan.

Appendix C 5
Figure 3: Chinatown Revitalization Plan Collective Engagement III. Visión Salinas 2040
Engagement Summary
Visión Salinas 2040 engagement efforts began the summer of 2021. Over the last 2 years, City staff has supported and coordinated various community workshops, stakeholder meetings, pop-up activities and surveys.

Table 2: Visión 2040 Community Workshops Data Summary
Topic Date, Time & Location Number of
Participants
Land Use Workshop District 1 August 19th, 2021, Breadbox Recreation Center, 745 N Sanborn Rd, 6:00 PM
16 Land Use Workshop District 2 August 17th, 2021, Firehouse Recreation Center, 1330 E Alisal St, 6:00 PM
11 Land Use Workshop District 3 August 26th, 2021, Ivy Park, 1320 Padre Drive, 6:00 PM
18 Appendix C 6
Land Use Workshop District 4 September 1st, 2021, Haciendas Place, 245 Calle Cebu, 6:00 PM
9 Land Use Workshop District 5 October 7th, 2021, Sherwood Hall, 940 N Main St, 6:00 PM
5 Land Use Workshop District 6 September 9th, 2021, El Dorado Park, 1655 El Dorado Dr, 6:00 PM
18 Land Use Workshop Citywide October 13th, 2021, City Hall West Wing, 200 Lincoln Ave, 6:00 PM
19 Existing Conditions (Working
Group Kick-off)
Thursday, January 20th, 2022, online webinar via
Zoom, 6:00 PM
90 Built Environment Working
Group
February 16th, 2022, via Zoom, 6:00 PM 43
Built Environment Working
Group
March 23rd, 2022, via Zoom, 6:00 PM 25
Community Design Webinar June 29th, 2022, via Zoom, 6:00 PM 60 Environmental Justice#1
Workshop (English)
September 28th, 2022, Firehouse Recreation
Center, 1330 E Alisal St, 6:00 PM
18 Environmental Justice #2
Workshop (Spanish)
September 29th, 2022, Firehouse Recreation
Center, 1330 E Alisal St, 6:00 PM
15 Housing Element Webinar February 9th, 2023, via Zoom, 6:00 PM 12 Housing Element Workshop
#1
April 19th, 2023, Santa Rita Elementary, 6:00
PM
21 Housing Element Workshop
#2
April 26th, 2023, MLK Academy, 6:00 PM 35
Housing Element Workshop
#3
Housing Element Workshop #3: April 27th,
2023, City Hall West Wing, 6:00 PM
8 Total Participants 423
Land Use Workshops
Summary:

Visión Salinas 2040 engagement kicked-off with seven (7) Land Use Workshops, one for each City District and one for the City at large and had over seventy (70) participants. Workshops began with short presentation followed by breakout groups/mapping activity. Residents were asked two questions: 1. What do you like about your neighborhood? 2. What is missing in your district? Housing needs were highlighted in every district, especially for farmworkers and families. Community members also stressed the need for in-fill development and increased mixed-use developments along our prominent corridors.

Appendix C 7
Marketing Materials:

Appendix C 8
Examples of Meeting Materials:

Appendix C 9
Meeting Images:

Appendix C 10
Appendix C 11
Feedback Map:

Appendix C 12
Collective Feedback:

District Land Use Meeting Notes 2021
What do you like about your Neighborhood?
District 1:
- Parks, Landscape at the costa plaza, People playing soccer in the parks - Like two mid-shopping centers, soccer complex, high schools, elementary schools, and Creek-bridge shopping center
- Breadbox offers a lot of youth programs and a great place to come together District 2:
- Job opportunities and youth retention
- Cesar Chavez Library
- Natividad Creek Park
- Support night activity in the area in commercial areas - Encourage unique events like the Airshow, Hartnell Alisal campus, and Golf course in the area
District 3:
- Variety of restaurants
- Walkable/complete sidewalks
- Downtown improvements
- Bike lanes
- Pedestrian Crosswalks
District 4:
- That district 4 is the heart of Salinas/Very Cultural - New housing/ Redevelopment that is ongoing
- Diversity of the district
- The police department
District 5:
- It’s History and Culture
District 6:
- Amount of Open space(parks)
- Proximity to essential services/ Very walkable neighborhood - Safe and Walkable Neighborhood
City Wide Meeting:
- Walkways around creek bridge
- Rich History, Santa Rita cemetery & church
- Shopping centers, Restaurants located near Creekbridge Appendix C 13
- Neighbors
- Transitional housing/ Moongate Plaza mixed use development - Big, matured trees on sidewalks (Tree canopies)
- Diversity
- Rich Culture all around the city
- Affordable housing for low-income seniors
- Tatum Garden
- District 5 has a sense of every district
What is in missing in our districts?
District 1:
- Need more crosswalks that are accessible for all ages - Lots of potholes and unsafe sidewalks. Some of the sidewalks are destroyed in some neighborhoods. Cleaner streets in general and more trash receptacles in throughout District - Open more art spaces such as the breadbox that are accessible to all - Incentivize homeowners (building permits) to renovate their houses/apartments District 2:
- More entertainment tailored toward youth
- & connectivity to promote walkability (Bike lanes and Green connections) - Adding monuments in the Alisal (banners, public art, landmarks, Wayfinding signage) - Improve streetlight and crosswalk infrastructure
District 3:
- Affordable housing for agriculture workers/ Higher density apartments - Affordable Business incubators
- Improve community engagement between the city and residents. - Welcoming sign coming into Salinas
- Roundabouts (Memorial Hospital, San Carlos St. San Miguel) Add Fruit Trees in open green spaces that will serve the community (Community Gardens) - Joint use agreements with the local schools, this creates the opportunity for a youth council - Farmers markets and more downtown parking
District 4:
• Better entertainment (Music venues/open spaces/Nightlife/Plazas • Acknowledgement of rich history through Monuments and Signage. Designation of Cultural districts
• Representatives of railroad coordination (Union Pacific) District 5:
- Parks
Appendix C 14
- Parking
- Community Center for District 5
- More trees/Right type of trees
- Education about how to maintain those trees
- Cherokee St infrastructure
- Open spaces for children and families
- Sense of place in the city
District 6:
- Pedestrian crossing bridge
- Polices that prevent overcrowding + Traffic congestions o Wider sidewalks, 4- LANE Roads
• More entertainment and Community Spaces (Community Gardens, Live music venues) City Wide Meeting:
- Dog park
- Skate park in south Salinas
- Concert Venue for event
- Welcome sign coming into Salinas from King City
- Signage for neighborhoods
- Wayfinding Signage
- More public art
- More bike lanes that are clean and protected
- Street swept bike lanes
- Youth center for performing arts
- Safer Crosswalks (Flag system that palo alto uses)
- Better kept sidewalks
- Emt/Mental health professional response team that would aid police force to response to non-emergency calls
- Better public transportation routes that youth can access city amenities - Highlight art/history of each individual neighborhoods - Agtech education centers
- Economic development that pushes for job creation and brings other job industries into Salinas
- Expand into other industries other than agriculture; Businesses that can retain educated youth in Salinas
- Broadband infrastructure for small businesses
- Allow for short- term rentals in the city (Airbnb)
- Missing Middle Housing/ Creation of housing that is affordable for middle class - Supporting non-profits in the city that supports youth. Private-Public partnerships - Enticing Businesses with a work-home balance/ Focusing on Educating the young population
Appendix C 15
- Local preference policy for future housing developments - Solving the crime issue and poverty issue that are the root of all problems in Salinas - Water/Energy resources to sustain future businesses
- Updating park infrastructure on various parks throughout the city Workshop Main points:

District 1:
• Needs a crosswalk on North Sanborn and Paseo Grande
• Make a three-way stop at Rider Avenue and Casitas Drive • Along Natividad Creek there are safety concerns on the trails (shelter homes for homeless) • The stop light needs to be longer on North Sanborn and East Laurel Drive • Traffic calming on Towt Street
• Outdoor dancing stage/space
• Cultural Art Murals all over
• More multi-family housing
• Wayfinding Signage on East Alisal Street and Cesar Chavez Park • Fix potholes on Rider Avenue and Gee Street
• Re-paint crosswalks and bike lanes in the whole district • Add more vehicle lanes on East Boronda
• Crosswalk on Hemmington and Nantucket Blvd
• Infrastructure on Old Stage Road
District 2:
• Lighting on Williams Road
• Invest in Historic Neighborhoods
• Using the golf course as park space (golf course to have temporary events) • Connecting las casitas with Acosta Plaza to increase access to hospital • Neighborhood Multifamily, 9 LOCATIONS identified
• Midrise Multifamily, 5 LOCATIONS identified
• Neighborhood Center, 9 LOCATIONS identified
• Corridor Mixed Use, 8 LOCATIONS identified
• Institutional and Service Use, 6 LOCATIONS identified • Green Connections, 5 LOCATIONS identified
• 1 maker space LOCATION identified (Entertainment/ Industrial flex) District 3:
• More pocket parks in neighborhoods that can accommodate specific neighborhoods and steer away from bigger “central” parks as they are not being fully utilized.

Appendix C 16
• Planned out Bike/Running trails throughout the that loops around the city with proper signage. Potential to connect south to north and East to west parts of the city. • Gauge community interest with further planning through virtual engagement (Surveys, Polls) to gather the most community input
• Lack of public thought - # cars is increasing and need for more traffic management. Add parking throughout the city (Downtown needs more parking) • Focus on affordable housing and recreation used for all ages • Consider changing various brick and mortar that are outdated and not fully utilized. Move away from large retail locations such as Star shopping lot. • Repurpose the Californian building into (Hotel, Mixed-Use or Museum) • W. Market St. has the potential for GO Karting track or a trampoline Park. • Amphitheater on Hartnell park or Central Park could direct land to Alisal St. • Taller/Higher Density building  Be mindful of one-story single-family homes for privacy (Better communication w/ Neighbors)
• Add a dog park to Mission Park along Romie Lane.
• Redo fields in front of Harris rd. into Office park.
• Build commercial mixed-use for in front of Granite Construction on Work St/ Higher density housing
• Leave agriculture fields along E. Blanco Road. No need for big box Target. • Have a Trader Joes (Sprouts, Staff of Life in Santa Cruz) – attract a boutique but affordable grocery store
District 4:
• More Microbusiness incubators, Adult learning centers, Farmers Market, bike lanes and neighborhood
• Mixed-use and midrise multifamily spaces, More Multifamily Building Near Pelton PI • More housing in Chinatown, Higher Density. Light industrial zoning that would create work/Live space that is accessible
• Cesar Chavez park Potential for beautification
• Highlight he history of the area
• Opportunity to develop a facility to house relatives of Natividad hospital patients • Preston Street has an empty lot that would serve for multi-family housing such as tiny homes or duplexes
• Mixed-Use (Coffee shops + Cultural spaces + Living spaces) along E Market stree • Improve sidewalk accessibility along E laurel Drive/ Make sidewalks cleaner and safer throughout the City
• Improve proximity to services and jobs that don’t require travel across city of services • Use the empty field across Salinas Adult School for Mixed-use housing with a potential for small retail shops and grocery store. Improve the green connections to the Carr lake park • Reconsider industrial designation of parts of Rossi if it remains undeveloped Appendix C 17
District 5:
• Improving the number of parks in District 5/ safer parks and reducing the number of homeless
• Vibrancy in the Northridge mall to accommodate high density population/ K mart as well • On Main St. and E Curtis St. there is potential to create a fashion/ art district that could tap into all the art culture that Salinas has.
• Use the auto mall for concert venue with my utilization. • More lighting on N main St. and Santa Rita area (Street is very dark for high density traffic) • Pocket parks ion Northridge mall parking space and create mixed-use or residential • K area is over drafting (Growth area)
• Create walkable safe areas that connect to parks
• Investigate about open lots/ spaces on N Main St. (What are they being used for? Who owns them?)
• Community Center on Northridge mall parking spaces
• Green Corridors connecting parks and open spaces/green roof tops • Bring back bicycle committee
• City Contest (Garden, trees, etc.)
• Use open spaces as infill
District 6:
• Pathway from Safeway to Alvarez High school through Gavilan Creek • Multipurpose/ community rooms should be required in large residential developments • Make green connection along Gabilan creek that connects to Carr lake • Affordable housing in the West area specific plan
• Redevelop Jail into housing + Healthcare + Retail. Build Jail in Monterey • Create pedestrian friendly affordable housing in the new development area/ Focus on smaller pocket neighborhoods as opposed to bigger general city development • Set up bike share services that connect people to main areas such as new development to Northridge Shopping center or to Carr lake. Retail Express connectivity • Farmers markets in the Northridge shopping center (Currently a lot of underutilized parking) • Build more environmentally friendly developments that use quality materials to build. • More community spaces/ open spaces (Neighborhood centers) in new developments.(Park by Lassen Ave)
• Convert some parking lots into housing
• Build more libraries, health clinics, and child care facilities in new development • Give better maintenance to public trees
• Roots are disrupting sidewalks (Compton and Glendora) • Reduce speed limit on Natividad Rd.
• Use plastic barricades to prevent traffic lane violations, like crossing solid white lanes Appendix C 18
City Wide Meeting:
- Proximity and access to facilities where people can receive mental health services ex.

Transportation
- Drug use in Salinas
o Police Enforcement for drug dealers
o Support for drug users
- Getting people out of poverty, especially those who have been released from prison o Assistance from Non-Profits
- Chinatown has cars parked more than 3 days
o Enforcement of 3-day parking policy
- Creating a park in Chinatown/Opening the Chinatown history building - Creating Mental health facility in Chinatown
- Mix use building along main canal St.
- Traffic improvements on East Boronda Rd
- Youth center along E Laurel Dr. /Mixed-use and create a park with sports amenities - Insert mixed-use building along South Main St.
- Mixed-use opportunities at the Northridge shopping center, across the street from Northridge mall, and Kmart Shopping center (with multiple floors) - The city needs more bike lanes throughout and bike boulevards - Speed humps in residential areas to calm traffic speed. - Making pedestrian lanes without taking away parking
- Oldtown lack things(Outdoor Gym, Garden, Children activities) Concert venue - Mixed use development in the star market shopping center - Dog park in district 5 and a park in general
- Auto Mall has lots of under-utilized space that could serve for parking, Concert Venue, Gokart track centered around cars - Create Housing in the golf course that is under-utilized - Add lighting on Main streets particularly North Main St. - Expand bike at Carr Lake and add Signage
- Bike pass underneath the Dans St. Bridge
- Maintain and swept bike paths on a regular basis
- Miden Boronda can accommodate 4 lanes
- Kmart parking – Trader joes and reuse as a community center - More protected bike lanes
- Develop the intermodal Transportation center to include Economic development in the freight building farmer’s market.
- Firestone building/business across Harris Rd.
- Mixed use and industrial flex on Harkins St.
- Conference Center in the orchard supply center
- Carr lake with bike track
- Use airport for more activities that will bring in more money for the city Appendix C 19
- Have more joint use agreements with schools
- Improve roads + sidewalks all around the city (Highlight district 2 which has bad roads) - More spaces for special events
- Improved parks + maintain open spaces
- More restaurants open the evenings
- Aquatic center in the new development on E Boronda Rd. /Amphitheater + open space - Welcome sign coming in from King City
Existing Conditions
Summary:

Due to pandemic limitations, much of the Visión Salinas 2040 engagement was conducted via Zoom. The first large workshop for the GPU was the Existing Conditions Online webinar and had a significant turnout of over ninety (90) participants. 1st part included presentation reviewing existing conditions and breakdown of working group topics. 2nd part - meeting was split into 3 breakout groups (Built Environment, Socioeconomic Systems, Natural Systems), one for every working group. Participants had the opportunity to choose one group or to visit all three. Facilitators asked 3 questions- What stood out to you? What’s something you want to change? What other information would you want?
Built Environment recurring themes: affordable housing, need to reduce parking requirements, walkable communities, missing middle housing, support for unhoused population, and farmworker housing, etc.

Appendix C 20
Marketing Materials:

Appendix C 21
Collective Feedback:

Existing Conditions Discussion Notes
Main Group:

Discussion
What Improvements would you like to see in Salinas?
• I live on Soledad Street and would like to see improvements on the street pavement • Live in South Salinas, would like to see all streets and parks are treated the same across Salinas.
• Traffic calming, code enforcement to number of people per home. • More Trash cans to Reduce littering
• I live in The Alisal. I want to regulate parking and speed on our residential roads. • Santa Rita area would like to see more parks in our area and more affordable housing.

Sidewalks by the San Juan Road area
• I live in North Salinas. I'd like to see more affordable housing and nice parks and fountains. • I would like to see traffic lights and cameras for ticketing speeding vehicles. This occurs on a regular basis at the corner of San Juan Grade & Rogge Roads. There are 3-city schools on Rogge Road. The traffic is horrendous and sometimes I am unable to leave my home because of severe traffic.
• Grew up in the Eastside and I would like better sidewalks, streets to be safer and cleaner.

Affordable housing, better roads.
• Old Town. Would like to see more affordable housing development. Reduce parking requirements that are increasing the rent prices
• District 4 I want to see the city improve the parks that are completely neglected — there are some areas like the one by Walgreens on Sanborn or the creek area between Madeira and Circle Dr. that can be transformed for public recreational use • Would like to see better integration of Hartnell College with the surrounding neighborhood; better high-density housing in the downtown and improved commercial districts in the downtown and South Main.
• Natividad, Boronda, El Dorado improvements to the streets, sidewalks, and traffic control • Not all areas of the city get the same number of services or are as clean and new. I would like to see parks and schools get the same support, regardless of their location. • Walkable communities, neighborhood public transportation. Missing middle housing types. • A welcome sign off 101. Many years I was greeted by a Budweiser ad • Form based codes, passive house building codes.

Appendix C 22
• 93905 - clean updated parks, community gardens, kid-safe bike-riding spaces, sidewalk maintenance including trash cans
• Lighting throughout the city of Salinas
• More walkable areas in North Salinas. Also, would like to see areas of blight cleaned up and too many dead cars on the street.
• Recent improvements to the downtown- traffic and the train station are great- a long term solution to the homeless problem is still needed.
• A plan to include ADA play structures In all future park planned. • Housing opportunities for young teachers; housing support for our healthcare workers, teachers as many can't afford to get into a home and are forced to rent. • Fixing the multitude of buckled sidewalks where folks with AFN find it hard to use. • District 4, 93906, Natividad and thru the region…would like to sea (w) more accessible, green, communal spaces (for movement sharing via art, music, storytelling, etc. ; public transportation and support for people of all abilities and capacities (beyond doctoral and/or ‘professional’ lens) ; more ‘24/7’ centers weaving our communities • A rent control policy to protect renters
• Removing parking minimums for future projects
• More parks north Salinas, community center
• More bikeways
• Rebuild East Alisal and Williams Roads, More parks
• Higher density housing in the vicinity of the large shopping centers is needed - ie Westridge, Northridge, Harden Ranch
• Kmart and Sears are all great sites for housing redevelopment • Parks need maintenance in the Eastside, Natividad creek park really needs to bush trimming and maintenance.
• Climate resilient housing
• Build more childcare centers and support the building of Sanborn House recreation center in Acosta Plaza.
• Work with Salinas on supporting a comprehensive climate action plan • Community energy hubs using different forms of distributed energy resources such as micro grids
• Additional farm worker housing so that our agriculture workers • More solar requirements for businesses, homes
• Teams of paramedics and mental health professionals augment police calls. Saves lives and millions of dollars.
• Minimize ‘development’ on more land, (if anything) build up (aligning w climate impact, o.c.) AND ¡¡LAND BACK in practice — center indigenous perspectives + experience + guidance (across boarder lines—- including immigrants displaced from their native land) * Appendix C 23
transforming ‘vacant’ buildings into community centers, rinks, learning ~cultural-expression hubs where we may:
— SUPPORT mutual aid funds and efforts
— UPLIFTING community in sharing their expertise and offer compensation (no degrees or certifications needed)
Built Environment:
• How can we determine traffic improvement? Based on the number of complaints by residents? The number of traffic accidents? What gauges are in place or need to be put in place to measure the quality of traffic flow?
• best thing we can do is enact actions to take away the need for single occupancy vehicle trips through good urban design, efficient and accessible transit routes, and safe and intuitive bike routes.
• A bit outdated at this point, but one of our (MBEP) recommendations to making housing more affordable in our region is to reduce parking requirements. One parking spot in a new development typically costs $20,000 - which would be much better utilized towards building more homes.
• More senior housing near Alliance on Aging Senior Services HUB and meaningful partnerships made with orgs like ITN and other CBOs. Also look more into ride and homeshare programs to fill out areas where development might be lacking or slowed down.

Widespread collaboration and community education to democratize the whole process is also key.

What stood out to you? ¿Qué te llamó la atención?
• Historical data provides the framework.
• Maps that express existing conditions/future conditions • Monterey county has a large food insecurity problem
• Ties in to housing
• Annexation map
• Low density developments/Mixed use developments
• Higher density in downtown
• Limit co2 emissions by improving built environment
• Parking minimum requirement
• Lack of affordable housing/ housing over crowding
What's something you want to change? ¿Qué es algo que quieres cambiar? • Housing cost burden – Keeping it below 30%
• Agriculture industry to pay living wage
• Opportunities for entrepreneurs
• Diversify economy
• Higher density and smaller homes
Appendix C 24
• Developing a space for homeless community
• Short term/ long term solutions
• Safe and healthy housing/ quality housing
• Using vacant retail lots for small business/ small living spaces / youth center • Housing that is sustainable with air circulation
• Passive house, 1/10 of cost of house to maintain
• More upfront cost
• Mixed use development at sears building.

What other information would you want? ¿Qué otra información desea? • Provide a list of vacant lots in the city/ under-utilized land • Existing climate conditions in the city
• Information from a transit perspective
Socioeconomic System:

What stood out to you? ¿Qué te llamó la atención?
• Steve Carrigan – join to here from the people that have lived here all their lives and to learn and listen – anything that
• Alma Loredo – Spanish – she joins this session because education is fundamental for the future
• Cesar Lara – Economic development is important for jobs and helps the rest of the • Omar – longtime resident
• Chris S. - business owner/resident - taxes and job
• Patty – lived in Salinas for 30 years, retired economic development - inspired by the arts and culture of this pillar
• Laura – workforce development/economic development is the driver - • Samuel Klemek – deputy fire chief 25 plus years working for the City of Salinas • Employment and Industry:
• Omar – two things stood out – the average median income below county and state, City of Salinas is the biggest City in the county – wants to highlight how do we engage our residents to get involve in other industry, education and workforce and there for increase their income and improve their quality of life (Ag tech)
What is something we would like to change?
• Cesar – health care and construction are default industries - what can we do to introduce a new economy.
• Lisa – where does small business come into play in this economy • Cesar – small business is run by family and tend to hire own • Members
• Cesar – partnership between City and County – workforce development board • Omar – education and the skill sets/levels to have other industries interest into come into the city
• Chris – welcoming team (chamber, city, county) for industries • Safety, Education, and Jobs and how we use land use
Appendix C 25
What defines our future – health and safety
• Cesar - Public safety view in the built environment – Parks, Sidewalk, lights along street • Omar - preventative services – how to prevent crime, food insecurity, poverty • Alma – insecurity of housing – rent is to high, people need to work in order to make a living and during this pandemic, people with COVID had to go out and work because they need to make rent/mortgage.
• Laura – one challenge is the home prices/ mortgages are so expensive and the need to for multi family living in single family household – create density, creates congestion, which create problem after problem.
• Omar – Climate change and the effects on safety/health of our city – fires, flooding create.

Arts and Culture
• Arts and culture are a driver to the economy
• Chris – Sherwood gets it open again
• Steve – more murals (underpass) - connect with Caltrans; murals at the boxing gym at Closter park.
• Cesar – many of the murals were done by youth (workforce development board) • Omar - Entertainment centers to allow performance (large), live music (more employment, more revenue)
Natural Systems:
• Need more trees in the streets, more shades.
• Put greenery in our parking lots.
• Motivate the community to maintain clean, green yards that don't require much maintenance. Public education programs starting with the elementary school age kids helps to carry the message to the adults at home.
• More trash receptacles to prevent littering
• The blighted conditions surrounding homeless encampments is a health concern that needs more resources dedicated to addressing the problem, especially around waterways. • Programs that help with gathering rainwater and other ways to recycle ♻ water in homes, also composed in home yards. Keep needles out of park playgrounds.

What stood out to you? ¿Qué te llamó la atención?
• Open spaces and parks
• Green streets in the City
• Stormwater Pollution mitigation
• Rebuilding buildings, programs like vouchers/stipends to remodel and organize buildings to add green spaces on their property
• More trees are needed on streets more shades
Appendix C 26
What's something you want to change? ¿Qué es algo que quieres cambiar? • Hiring Maintenance personell, training for job duties • Put more green spaces in parking lots
• Including programs in K-12 schools to educate on green and natural systems • Motivate community to maintain clean, green yards with minimal maintenance requirements • Water systems and drains to allow for proper drainage • More trash receptacles to prevent littering
• More green spaces in developments
What other information would you want? ¿Qué otra información desea? • Programs for children and youth
• Improving housing conditions
• Blighted conditions surrounding homeless encampments around waterways and investing in more resources to address the issue
• Programs that help with gathering rainwater and other ways to recycle ♻ water in homes, also composed in home yards.
• Keep needles out of parks/playgrounds, have proper disposable bins • Master list of current developments happening
• Creating more exposure surrounding Volunteer programs opportunities in the community • Current water supply status for the City
• Big Sur Land Trust Projects
Built Environment Working Group
Working Group meetings began in late February 2022. With housing being such a popular topic, The Built Environment group quickly became the most popular group. The first and second Built Environment Working Group meetings focused on our current Housing goals, as well as a policy scan review and had close to seventy (70) participants. Breakout groups explored current housing priorities, policy changes, as well as missing topics. Both meetings were held over Zoom and breakout groups were designated by language preference.

Appendix C 27
Marketing Materials:

Collective Feedback:

Meeting #1
Group 1:

Challenges
• Recursos para vivienda asequible - especialmente para personas indocumentados o Hay una lista larga de vivienda asequible a veces esperan 4 años o solo no hay respuesta
• Querer revitalizar el este de Salinas, que las calles se vean mejor • Parques limpios - más recursos para los indigentes, porque no hay acceso de parque • Mantenimiento de parques - espacios desaprovechados
o Cesar Chavez
o Central Park
o Falta de dinero en las ciudades
o No ya supervisión para las personas que van a limpiar los parque no necesariamente los están limpiando, están sentados
• Mantener responsables a la ciudad para tener parque de calidad • Parques limpio e iluminados
• Más lugares abiertos para que los jóvenes tenga recreación, centros recreativos, • Centro de Sanborn, está el terreno pero no hay fondos para construir el centro en el este de Alisal donde hay tanta necesidad
Appendix C 28
• Cuando se den permisos para vivienda para los trabajadores tiene que ser para los que trabajan en la comunidad, que haya transparencia, se les dio el permiso a la compañía para traer trabajadores de fuera (Mexico). No son aprovechadas parte del ano - mejor comunicación para quien son realmente la vivienda
• Mas vivienda para familias agrícolas
• El sueldo que se gana ahora no es suficiente para la renta • Se necesita controlar la renta
• Hay consecuencias a que muchas personas estén viviendo en una casa • Se necesita construir casas para las personas que viven aquí, trabajan aquí - más reglamento o Que haya prioridad para comprar
• Cambiar ordenanza para subir el porcentaje de vivienda asequible para los espacios que se están desarrollando
• Usar ejemplos de Infonavit en México para que las familias puedan comprar la casa. Que sea para los trabajadores agrícola de 3 casas etc
• Más apoyo para que los indocumentados puedan comprar una casa - los hijos son nacidos aquí pero se hace difícil por dinero
• Política pública de anti-desplazamiento
o Una protección a personas de bajos ingresos
o Ejemplo en SF, Berkeley
o Con apoyo/fondos e infraestructura para regular
• Fondo social para la vivienda como Habitat for Humanity • Se necesitan más hogares mixtos asequibles
• Más trabajos cerca de la vivienda para no tener tanta necesidad de carros y tener problemas de estacionamiento
• Más seguimiento a las oportunidades del plan Alisal
• Más involucramiento comunitario para el mantenimiento de nuestros espacios • Hacer una junta con las agencias que están activas en la ciudad y hacer curriculum que manejaba la ciudad - la academia de liderazgo
o Diferentes organizaciones están encargados de limpieza y actividad de los parques • Parque de Carr Lake es una oportunidad para invertir fondos • Más eventos en los parque para activar los espacios
o Letreros y horas comunitarios para cuidar el parque
o Patrulla/ vigilancia de personas en los parques
• Los indigentes necesitan recursos porque se envejece después de limpiar • Mejoramiento de las calles y de la banquetas para promover la salud y conexión comunitaria • Más iluminación
• More greenery, planters - but with maintenance so it doesn’t look like a forest o Tal vez ver vegetación que requiere menos mantenimiento Preguntas:
• Cuál es el porcentaje de vivienda por población para una ciudad? Appendix C 29
• Entran los sitios del plan de Alisal en el plan general? Group 2:

What kind of housing is missing? (prompt)
• Missing middle
• Low income – affordable
• Community scale
• Zero carbon/emission housing
• Homes for farmworkers and the unhoused
o Need to bring ag companies that have built housing into conversation • General comment on mixed use – needs large housing component, or surrounding high density housing to work. Easy to get too much commercial • Transit-oriented development
• 2-4 plex buildings (single-family housing needs to go) Breakout and general group comments:
• Need more permit streamlining – costs and time.
o What bumps can we find and smooth?
o Megan did mention this is sometimes relative between communities, and the Permit Center has made improvements
o Did not get a chance to go into – all the state streamlining • Requiring housing with environmental benefits has higher upfront costs, but lower operating costs. Some (unsure of the example) have figured out a way to calculate the savings into the initial price, lowering the cost to buy.
• How can we build/get housing for those already living in Salinas? - Fair Housing law prohibits discrimination, which is good means this is hard to explicitly achieve. Inclusionary lotteries have weights for living/working in Salinas, and developers are supposed to work on a local marketing plan.
• How do we protect our poorer neighbors and address displacement fears? o What are the kinds of displacement? One commenter did not think there were many examples of buildings being bought for redevelopment with residents removed... o This kind of displacement is feared though. Example of CCA’s work around Carr Lake.
o Seniors also are facing displacement as they can’t keep up with the cost of housing.

Need help to age in place.
• Is there warehouse space we can turn into lofts or other housing? • Critical to still maintain a jobs/housing balance
• Need for education/job training components/pathways -> especially for low income Appendix C 30
What stood out to me (Jon)
• Need to identify and define the types of displacement (younger generations not being able to get into market, redevelopment displacement, rising rents/costs forcing to relocate, etc.) • Multiple people expressed concern over “too tall” buildings. Need to define this (maybe in workshops). What is too tall?
• Need to explain the tradeoffs with more housing – need more units to ease overcrowding and price crunch, but can’t discriminate and stop people from moving here (and brining their cars – need alternatives that are easy to use)
Group 3:
• Rational approach to the development of this City
• History piece annexation of the Alisal/historical piece • Think about annexation of additional land
• Rents are too high- native people need to move elsewhere • Learning from the past
• More density but with the right infrastructure
• Think about the environment
• Yes, built environment but how does it impact water ways, streams, aquifer, the importance of water protection and conversation, flooding, etc.
• LAFCO- 1960s- after WWII
o 1 in every county
o Duties to protect ag land and open space
o Expansion needs to go to LAFCO
o MOU with City as far as the direction of growth- North/East - to protect ag lands in and around Salinas
• What are the development conversations happening now? • City non-profit housing corporation- leverage State funds • Community land trust
• More mixed-use development
• Cars take up too much space/parking requirements
• More on new urbanism
• How many single family home since 2000- permits?
• How many units have been built with the new inclusionary housing ordinance? Meeting #2
Edge pieces of mixed use corridor could be made into housing – can be hard to fill commercial space if too much is required
Appendix C 31
What about road diet on Abbott
Walkable – very car centric now. More uber like transportation? On-call. Main lines – Laurel, Main st, Alisal, Market, Sanborn etc, supplemented by on-demand - MST is working on their network redesign, which includes more service on main roads. COA adopted 2/15.

Hard to tell if new urbanism concepts are working yet since we haven’t gotten to build any of FGA yet – but it exhibits a lot of what we’ve heard we want Obstacles include inflation and other factors that are rising home prices FGA will also include condos, townhomes, etc. Which will provide starter-ish options.

Where do we put all of the vehicles? Fieldworkers have to travel outside of Salinas. It’s the largest problem facing HOAs. How do we retrain people to use vehicles less.

Car problem is because we have a housing problem. MST can be challenging to use. Need to have convenient routes. Other alternatives to car ownership – bike share, car share.

Now in a megadrought – we have to have sustainability as part of the conversation – density and alternative transportation, mass transit, heat pumps, electrification etc FGA models a lot of these things, just hasn’t been built. Need to concentrate on what’s possible in existing city, infill.

Hopefully parking will mellow out with new housing if existing residents can get into the new housing
Investigate form based code options for Salinas
From main session:

When will FGA roads get built? Schools are causing a lot of traffic up there that could be alleviated through those.

How many homes have been built since mid-2000s? Pace is very behind in Salinas. How many homes have been built with inclusionary housing? Has it been tested yet? Will the new housing being built benefit the low income community and raise their quality of life? Community Design Webinar
Summary:

Webinar presentation focused on Community Design and its importance, the shift from traditional Land Use designations to Place Types as well as Street Types. The webinar included polling, a Q&A portion, and raffle Appendix C 32
prizes for 3 lucky participants. The meeting was held in English with Spanish translation and had over 60 registered participants.

Marketing Materials:

Appendix C 33
Collective Feedback and Poll Results:

Appendix C 34
Appendix C 35
Appendix C 36
Appendix C 37
Environmental Justice Workshops
This General Plan Updates includes a brand-new Environmental Justice (EJ) Element. Given the limited community engagement related to this specific topic, staff held two (2) community workshops, one in English, and one in Spanish and were attended by over thirty-five (35) Salinas residents. The first part of the workshop included a presentation exploring EJ history and themes and the second part was a facilitated discussion broken down into four categories: Natural Systems, Infrastructure, Health, and Housing. Each group explored each topic using the following questions:

What comes to mind when you hear this topic related to your community? How can we tackle these issues together? What actions/changes do you wish to see in Salinas by the year 2040? Appendix C 38
Marketing Materials:

Appendix C 39
Meeting Materials:

Appendix C 40
Meeting Images:

Appendix C 41
Collective Feedback:

Housing
• Very expensive
• Overcrowding
• People can’t afford to buy a home
o Poverty (anti-poverty program) needed for EJ support. Public Bank- income based loans, housing co-op.

Existing housing improvements:
• Maintenance- landlords keeping up w/ necessary improvements • Policies to keep landlords accountable
o Rent control/inspections
• Improvements to existing housing and anti-displacement policies • Look at developer fees
• Education about financial priorities in the community • Housing type diversity:
o Single family homes
o Apts/studios/condos
• Wages vs. Housing costs
• Where is the housing?
• Expensive/aging/dilapidated
• Many single family housing and not enough multi-family units • Housing inequity
• Inequity to access safe housing (linked to lead exposure) • Policies to mandate landlord to abatement. City program to support landlords • Water filtration systems
• Programs for affordable solar panels
• 2040- Affordable multi-family housing
• Substandard housing
• Homelessness (wide spectrum)
• Lack of housing
• Adaptive reuse (Sears, Orch). Build up higher diversity. • Build up!
• The missing middle housing- diversify housing stock
• ADU inspection program
• Rent control
• 2040- Passive housing
• 2040- New housing w/ green energies
• Issues- not affordable
Appendix C 42
• Overcrowding
• 3.5% vacancy
• Unsafe
• Expensive/high rental costs
• Rent control:
o % of rent increase
o Inspection for habitability standards
o Retaliation prevention
• City policies to safety report issues in rental units • Build housing for the existing community:
o Single home
o Multi-family
o Studios for young professionals
• Public transportation
• Size-up housing to free up existing affordable units
• Connection between housing & transit/parking
• Going vertical (mixed use)
• *Education on the idea of building up
• Housing developments incentivizing other way of transportation • 2040:
o Climate resilient homes
o Smaller footprint
o Green energy
o Annexation?
Vivienda
• Hace mucha falta vivienda
• Costos elevados
• Gente viviendo el la calle
• Falta de mantenimiento a unidades de renta
• Exposicion a humo de tabaco/marihuana
• Lotes vacios
• Control de renta
• Utilidades
• Muchas personas en un hogar
• Mas viviendas
• Menos requisitos para rentar
Appendix C 43
Soluciones:
• Vivienda adecuada para personas con discapacidades
• Control de rentas
• Mayor control de la ciudad para inspeccionar el mantenimiento de unidades de renta • Infracciones a arrendamientos que no hagan rearaciones • Mas informacion de los derechos de los inquilinos
• Añadir pisos arriba de los departamentos para vivienda • Educar personas sobre la materia
• Prioridad de vivienda para personas de Salinas
• Programas mas accesibles para personas que les gustaria comprar casa 2040
• Mas vivienda – departamentos/casas
• Programas de inspeccion a departamentos
• Facilitar el proceso de rentas
• Info sobre como residentes indocumentados pueden comprar una casa. Facilitar un programa de prestamos
• Rentas muy altas, departamentos sin espacio/pequeños y caros, viviendas de bajos ingresosno hay mucho, cosas viejas, casas/departamentos no mantenidos, mas estacionamiento, casas no adaptadas, no buena insulacion, no guardan el ruido, no espacios para niños y autos. • Protestar para que se hagan mas viviendas de bajos ingresos en toda la ciudad- incluyendo el centro
• Mas construccion de vivienda, mejores/facil precesos para aplicaciones/acceso a viviendas, vivienda para madres solteras, vivendas para los homeless, construir para arriba, mas ayuda economica, mejores sueldos para poer pagar una renta
• Muchos apartamentos y de bajos ingresos, facilidad de comprar casa, menos densidad en viviendas, mejor en todas las areas de salud, vivienda, infraestructura, y medio ambiente.

Housing Element Workshops
Summary:

City staff partnered with City Councilmembers to facilitate conversations around the Housing Element. Three (3) workshops were coordinated combining 2-3 Council Districts. Workshops were held in North Salinas, East Salinas and South Salinas. Two of the workshops were conducted in English with Spanish interpretation (one with Mixteco translation) and one in Spanish with English Appendix C 44
Translation. The first 30 min of the meeting, participants had the opportunity to visit 6 stations, one for each of the Housing Element goals, ask questions, and provide feedback. Each station was supported by bilingual staff. The second part of the meeting included a presentation and ended with a Q&A portion. Following the Q&A, participants had a second opportunity to visit the 6 stations and add additional feedback. Two of the stations had additional activities, one focusing on tenant services and the other on preferred building densities.

Marketing Materials:

Appendix C 45
Meeting Materials:

Appendix C 46
Appendix C 47
Appendix C 48
Appendix C 49
Meeting Images:

Appendix C 50
Appendix C 51
Appendix C 52
Collective Feedback:

Housing Element Workshops: Goals Activity
Meeting: Santa Rita Elementary (April 19)
Goal Housing 1
H 1.1 More changes needed to code:
• Reduce parking requirements
• Reduce open space requirements
• Eliminate bedroom mix requirements
Incentivize suggestions:

Appendix C 53
• Increased height
• Ministerial reviews
H 1.2
H 1.3
H 1.4
Other changes you would
like to see in Salinas: • Farmworker housing—this should be growers' responsibility
• Create new housing, beautification, extend permit fees, reduce impact fee
• More programs for tenants to help with rent
• Update zoning code to from based
• Prove loans
• Facilitate the application process for home sales
• Lower rent and home prices
• Agriculture can put FEMA trailers on 1 acre of their 1000 acres and have white Ag bus transportation the hardworking people to work sites. If you give good housing— they will come.
• Update zoning for more mixed-use development
• Promote homes for agricultural workers
(permanent/temporary)
• Update zoning to create more residential development. • Eliminate the barriers of financialization to build 3 story buildings
Goal Housing 2
H 2.1 • Mitigate displacement, help low-income tenants
• Rent stabilization
• Regulate the application fees
• Limit the number of applications per rental unit
H 2.2 • Redundant with state policy
• Legal assistance for undocumented folks, beyond tenant education
H 2.3 • Mediation services
Other changes you would
like to see in Salinas: • Rental units need maintenance and ensure the cost is not passed onto the tenant.
• Workshops/meetings for the community to understand
terms used by city/what are some decisions the City can make
• On going support for people transitioning into housing • Renter and homeowner education
• City guarantees on less-than-qualified tenants
Appendix C 54
• Financial coaching around general household budget and ADU financing strategy + math
Goal Housing 3
H 3.1 • When white Ag buses continually break the rules of “NO Ag buses in neighborhoods” --they have to let off workers at bus stop—City must fine ag buses. They City insists we full time residents follow the rules. So, why can’t the city make Ag people follow rules? Let’s work together to
HELP EVERYONE.

H 3.2
Other changes you would
like to see in Salinas: • Better conditions in rental apartments: stove, vent, rent reduction
• Mediation to resolve complaints or problems between
landlords and tenants
• Legal assistance from a lawyer to support tenants
• Clear guidelines for resources the City has and the point of contact
• Promote the homeowner rehab program
• Beyond tools: having a safety net for residents that may be evicted due to rental registry/code enforcement issues.

Have city fund to relocate or housing to support short- or long-term housing.
• In person meetings to inform about programs the City
offers
• Multi-language material
• Inspections are needed for safety
• Protect families against complaints that are unfair. Ex: a neighbor complains if there are a lot of people in one
home
• Partnerships with agencies that can spread the information on services. Door-to-door, TV Ads
Goal Housing 4
H 4.1 • Ensure landlords have enough incentive to keep their housing in the rental market—Allow increases to cover
costs such as property tax, insurance, repairs.
• Rent control ordinance
• Develop a rent control ordinance
H 4.2 • Update housing inclusionary ordinance every 3-5 years • Explore how to use funds to benefit the largest quantity of families. For instance, building new affordable units is very costly ($500k-750k/unit). Would it be more affective Appendix C 55
to purchase existing housing and deed-restrict? Purchase affordability covenants from private landlords?
• Increase density with open spaces and parks within
walking distance
• Develop greenbelts
• Encourage rooftop gardens and greenspace
• Create a list of available homes that can be converted to low-income housing.

H 4.3 • Help for farmworkers to buy homes/loans
• Develop funds for accessible or restricted homes
H 4.4 • Requirements for inclusionary zoning
• Preferences: for Salinas residents, for city residents under inclusionary ordinance
• Increase transportation from housing to services for
seniors.

H 4.5 • With new homes, let Salinas residents get first pick or more assistance.

H 4.6 • Incorporate/research ways to support undocumented residents using FEMA model for support--> anyone in
household with SSN.
• Identify a funding source(s) for undocumented residents • Where to get an application or assistance for affordable housing if I don’t have a social security number
• Inclusionary housing lotteries
• Assistance for undocumented residents
• Legal assistance for undocumented people
• Meetings and explanations for first time homebuyers, step by step.

Other changes you would
like to see in Salinas: • ADU for profit. Restriction on ADU-deed restriction. • Creating more ADU units --> ADU grant
• Qualify products: single family homes, ADUs
• More rent for fieldworkers and help like funds for housing • Focus housing projects on major roads
• Ensure data-driven decision making. Policies such as rent control and inclusionary ordinances sounds nice, but have been studied and not work as intended
• Homes for fieldworkers and have a limit on price for
those who do not earn as much as others.

Goal Housing 5
H 5.1 • More beautification for North Salinas
• Beautification, community engagement, investment in
disadvantaged neighborhoods
Appendix C 56
• Everything should happen
• Create funds for beautification, give paint, and prepare a newsletter with guidelines to apply
H 5.2 • Develop an informative flyer about the codes
• Assess the effects of enforcing the codes.
• Strict code enforcement can cause many families to be evicted
Other changes you would
like to see in Salinas: • Adding bin containers in neighborhoods • Collaborate with the health department on restrictions with smoke
• Replacement of landscaping and trees to be native species Appendix C 57
Table 1: Goal 2 Ensure Tenant Protection Pop-up Activity – Workshop #1 Which housing services/resources would you like to see? Votes Emergency Housing Relocation Fund 6
Tenant's Rights & Responsibilities Workshops 9
Legal Support 4
First-time Homebuyer Workshops 9
Housing Stabilization Fund (help with deposit, one month rent, etc.) 10 Down Payment Assistance 10
Table 2: Preferred Density Pop-up Activity Results – Workshop #1 What Kind of Buildings do you want to see in the future? Votes In the downtown/City Center
4 Stories 0
6 Stories 4
10 Stories 1
On major roads/business areas
2 Stories 2
4 Stories 1
6 Stories 2
In Residential Neighborhoods
1 Story 1
2 Stories 2
3 Stories 0
Appendix C 58
Table 3: Goal 2 Ensure Tenant Protection Pop-up Activity – Workshop #2 Which housing services/resources would you like to
see? Vote Community Comments:

Emergency Housing Relocation Fund
19 Yes!
Tenant's Rights & Responsibilities Workshops 17
Mediation & Conflict Resolution
10 First-time Homebuyer Workshops 27
Housing Stabilization Fund (help with deposit, one
month rent, etc.) 29
Tenant/Landlord Toolkit
11 Parking conflicts.

Disputes over parking
infractions.

Appendix C 59
Table 4: Preferred Density Pop-up Activity Results – Workshop #2 What Kind of Buildings do you want to see in the future? Vote In the downtown/City Center
4 Stories 16
6 Stories 8
10 Stories 5
On major roads/business areas
2 Stories 15
4 Stories 8
6 Stories 14
In Residential Neighborhoods
1 Story 19
2 Stories 16
3 Stories 17
Other ideas: Gated community, safer area.

Allow pets in apartments
Appendix C 60
IV. Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation Grant
Summary:

The City has augmented General Plan Update community engagement with the support of the Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation Grant. Part of this grant includes a contract for direct outreach with the support of a community-based organization. In the summer of 2022, the City entered a contract with the Center for Community Advocacy (CCA). CCA is tasked with leading direct outreach with Salinas stakeholders, focusing primarily on farmworkers and their families. This work is facilitated by eleven (11) General Plan Update Ambassadors. CCA staff and ambassadors began GPU engagement early June 2022 and have utilized a variety of strategies including large group presentations, community conversations(surveys), pop-up activities and house meetings (activities detailed below).

Presentations & Community Conversations:

The presentations and community conversations conducted by SALC Ambassadors have assisted with the collection of concerns and challenges around housing and other topics, raising awareness of the GPU and promotion of the various community workshops.

Figure 4: SALC Community Presentations
Location Date Number of Persons Reached
Sanborn House Food Bank June 2022 400
Field Visit June 2022 110
CCA Community Meeting June 2022 30
Field Visit July 2022 220
Field Visit August 2022 180
Sanborn House Food Bank January 2023 350
Total Reached 1,290
The presentations and community conversations conducted by SALC Ambassadors have assisted with the collection of concerns and challenges around housing and other topics, raising awareness of the GPU and promotion of the various community workshops.

Presentation Materials:

City staff has assisted CCA with the preparation of bilingual outreach materials. A GPU tool kit has been widely used to lead broad conversations and gather community input. The tool kit targets three priority areas- Housing, Public Safety and Environmental Justice.

Appendix C 61
Appendix C 62
Appendix C 63
Appendix C 64
Appendix C 65
Presentation Images:

Appendix C 66
Pop-up Activities:

SALC Ambassadors participated in four (4) pop-up activities over the summer of 2022. These efforts focused on environmental justice priorities and preferred building densities.

For the EJ pop-up, participants were asked to select their top 3 EJ priorities out of the 6 listed on the board. Participants received three sticker dots and were able to vote for 3 or add multiple votes to their top priority. Healthcare access and access to safe and healthy housing were the top two.

Appendix C 67
Figure 5: Environmental Justice Pop-up Totals
Which three issues do you think are the most important to ensure all neighborhoods have access to healthy living conditions and environments? (3 votes per participant) Air pollution caused by vehicles 73
Air or chemical pollution from industrial businesses and activities 120 Limited access to healthy food and grocery stores 200
Healthcare access 244
Problems with lack of city infrastructure and facilities that support physical activity, including sidewalks, bicycle lanes, parks, and recreation 191
Concerns about access to safe/healthy housing 217
Total Votes 1045
Total Participants 348
Appendix C 68
Pop-Up Materials:

Pop-up Images:

Appendix C 69

Appendix C 70
House Meetings:

House Meetings are a traditional community-organizing tactic to gather community input and share information on a particular campaign. Ambassadors began house meetings focused on the housing element early February 2023 and continued through April 2023. Collectively they’ve facilitated ninety-five (95) house meetings reaching over three hundred and forty (340) farmworkers and their families. SALC outreach efforts have primarily been conducted in Spanish, Mixteco and Triqui and aim to include resident voices who are often left out of the decision-making process.

House Meetings Images:

Appendix C 71
Appendix C 72
V. City Budget Engagement
Engagement Summary:

City staff held forty (40) pop-up activities across the city, which resulted in over (1,600) responses.

Residents were asked to choose (2) two priorities for each of our Vision Salinas 2040 Guiding Principles. The City also released a public survey using the same categories and priorities. The survey results included (2,711) responses and had Homeownership Promotion & Support as the top housing priority and Homeless Outreach & Support as the second.

Figure 6: Budget Meeting Outreach Results
Housing Priority Pop-up Activity Votes Budget Survey Votes Collective Total Tenant & Landlord
Education

18.03% 20.68% 19.69%
Homeless Outreach &
Support

31.83% 27.04% 28.82%
Homeownership
Promotion & Support

26.27% 31.50% 29.55%
Incentivize & Facilitate
Housing Production
(ADUs, Fee Deferrals,
etc.

23.86 20.76% 21.92%
Total Participants 4,311
Appendix C 73
Figure 7: Budget Housing Priorities Combined
Budget Outreach Images:

Appendix C 74

VI. Collective Housing Feedback Recurring Themes
Housing Community Feedback- Recurring/New Themes
Sources: Existing Conditions Workshop, Visión Website, Built Environment Working Group, Land Use Workshop, Community Design Workshop, EJ Element Workshop, Budget Survey 2022 & 2023
Current Housing Element Goals:

Goal H-1: Provide a range of housing types and a variety of affordability levels to address existing and projected housing construction needs in Salinas. • Housing diversity
• Mixed use development
o More green spaces in new development
o More multi-family housing
• Missing middle housing
• Tiny homes
• Home share programs, housing cooperatives
• Homes with smaller land footprint
• New developments should have community spaces
• Development on City owned land
• Convert parking lots into housing
• Promote adaptive reuse projects
• Pre-approved plans
• Permit streamlining
• High density housing
o Downtown
o Near large shopping centers
• Transit oriented development
• Connection between housing and transit
• Walkable communities
Appendix C 75
Goal H-2: Maintain and improve existing neighborhoods and housing units. • Code enforcement to mitigate overcrowding
o RV storage not used as living space
• Incentivize homeowners (loans) for home renovations
• Rehab projects, retrofitting current stock
• Housing education- City's role, tenants’ rights, landlord rights, homeownership, housing fraud
o Programs for landlords (financing) to make units ADA accessible, up to code, fix homes in poor conditions
o More homeowner relations/communication w/ City
• High density housing
• Climate resilient housing
o Solar
o Water conservation
• Redevelopment in underutilized sites
• Poor housing conditions
• Legal services for renters
GOAL H-3: Ensure that all segments of the community have access to safe and decent housing that meets their diverse needs.
• Housing for people with disabilities
• Homeless support
o Programs to reduce homelessness
o Housing for homeless
o Blight around homeless encampments
o Spaces for unhoused during winter
o Mental health support, rehab programs
o Public restrooms, mobile showers
o Outreach and support
o Donation stations, food banks, soup kitchens, more shelters • Policies to keep landlords accountable
• Collaborate with County, State and churches to provide housing services • Land trusts
• Create economic partnerships
• Work with districts to create housing for staff
• home share programs, housing cooperatives
• Housing for single moms and access to childcare
Topics missing from 2015-2023 Housing Element Goals and Policies • Resources for undocumented residents
• Overcrowding
Appendix C 76
o Address health and safety concerns
• Policies to keep landlords accountable
• Rental housing inspections
• Clean/remove toxic waste close to housing
• Anti-displacement policies
o Retaliation prevention
• Prevent gentrification
• Eviction protections
• No Smoking- policies in rental properties
• Recognize your neighbor program
• Local preference policy
o Inclusionary lottery
• Parking
o Reduced parking requirements
o Parking mitigation
• Rent control, rent stabilization
• Beautification programs
• Developer fees
• Farmworker housing
o More control/coordination with H2A/temp worker housing o Local preference for farmworkers
o Work with Ag companies to build housing
• First time home buyers
o Loans for first time home buyers
o Education, trainings
VII. Public Meetings and Hearings
In addition to the extensive outreach program, the City also conducted multiple public hearings to review the Draft Housing Element:

Noticing Period: May 12, 2023 through June 20, 2023.
• May 17, 2023: Planning Commission Update on Draft Housing Element • June 6, 2023: Housing and Land Use Subcommittee Update on Draft Housing Element • June 20, 2023: City Council Presentation of Draft Housing Element and Resolution Discussion of the Housing Element update also occurred during the presentations of the General Plan and Housing Element Annual Program Reports and at the Visión Salinas 2040 Steering Committee meetings.
• February 22, 202: Visión Salinas 2040 Steering Committee • March 1, 2023: Planning Commission
• March 21, 2023: City Council
• March 22, 2023: Visión Salinas 2040 Steering Committee Appendix C 77
Comments received on the Draft Housing Element to date, along with staff recommendations on changes to the Draft Element have been reviewed by the City Council’s Housing Subcommittee, Planning Commission, and City Council. Additional technical clarifications, housing policies, and program actions have been incorporated into the Housing Element.

VIII. Upcoming Public Meetings and Hearings
The City anticipates completing the 2023-2031 Housing Element by October 2023. The following is the anticipated schedule for public hearings and consideration of adoption:
• November 15, 2023: Planning Commission
• November 28, 2023: Housing and Land Use subcommittee
• December 5, 2023: City Council adoption

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 1
Appendix D: Affirmatively
Furthering Fair Housing
(AFFH)

1.1 Introduction and Overview of AB 686
Assembly Bill (AB) 686 passed in 2017 requires the inclusion in the Housing Element an analysis of barriers that restrict access to opportunity 1and a commitment to specific meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing 2. AB 686 mandates that local governments identify meaningful goals to address the impacts of systemic issues such as residential segregation, housing cost burden, and unequal educational or employment opportunities to the extent these issues create and/or perpetuate discrimination against protected classes 3. In addition, it:
• Requires the state, cities, counties, and public housing authorities to administer their programs and activities related to housing and community development in a way that affirmatively furthers fair housing
• Prohibits the state, cities, counties, and public housing authorities from taking actions materially inconsistent with their AFFH obligation
• Requires that the AFFH obligation be interpreted consistent with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) 2015 regulation, regardless of federal action regarding the regulation
• Adds an AFFH analysis to the Housing Element (an existing planning process that California cities and counties must complete) for plans that are due beginning in 2021 • Includes in the Housing Element’s AFFH analysis a required examination of issues such as segregation and resident displacement, as well as the required identification of fair housing goals
The bill added an assessment of fair housing to the Housing Element that includes the following components: a summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the Town’s fair housing enforcement 1 While Californian’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) do not provide a definition of opportunity, opportunity usually related to the access to resources and improve quality of life. HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) have created Opportunity Maps to visualize place-based characteristics linked to critical life outcomes, such as educational attainment, earnings from employment, and economic mobility 2 “Affirmatively furthering fair housing” is defined to mean taking meaningful actions that “overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity” for communities of color, persons with disabilities, and others protected by California law
3 A protected class is a group of people sharing a common trait who are legally protected from being discriminated against on the basis of that trait.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 2
and outreach capacity; an analysis of segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities; an assessment of contributing factors; and an identification of fair housing goals and actions.

1.2 Analysis Requirements
An assessment of fair housing must consider the elements and factors that cause, increase, contribute to, maintain, or perpetuate segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, significant disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs. 4 The analysis must address patterns at a regional and local level and trends in patterns over time. This analysis should compare the locality at a county level or even broader regional level such as a Council of Government, where appropriate, for the purposes of promoting more inclusive communities.

For the purposes of this AFFH, “Regional Trends” describe trends in Monterey County. “Local Trends” describe trends specific to the City of Salinas.

1.3 Assessment of Fair Housing Issues

1.1.1 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
(1) Regional Trends
As outlined in the 2019 Monterey County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (2019 AI), The federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 and Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S. Code §§ 3601-3619, 3631) are federal fair housing laws that prohibit discrimination in all aspects of housing, including the sale, rental, lease, or negotiation for real property. The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination based on the following protected classes:
• Race or color
• Religion
• Sex
• Familial Status
• National origin
• Disability (mental or physical)
Specifically, it is unlawful to:
• Refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin. • Discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin. 4 Gov. Code, §§ 65583, subds. (c)(10)(A), (c)(10)(B), 8899.50, subds. (a), (b), (c); see also AFFH Final Rule and Commentary (AFFH Rule), 80 Fed. Reg. 42271, 42274, 42282-42283, 42322, 42323, 42336, 42339, 42353-42360, esp. 42355-42356 (July 16, 2015). See also 24 C.F.R. §§ 5.150, 5.154(b)(2) (2016).

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 3
• Make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination. • Represent to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available.
• For profit, induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin.

Reasonable Accommodations and Accessibility: The Fair Housing Amendments Act requires owners of housing facilities to make “reasonable accommodations” (exceptions) in their rules, policies, and operations to give people with disabilities equal housing opportunities. For example, a landlord with a "no pets" policy may be required to grant an exception to this rule and allow an individual who is blind to keep a guide dog in the residence. The Fair Housing Act also requires landlords to allow tenants with disabilities to make reasonable access-related modifications to their private living space, as well as to common use spaces, at the tenant’s own expense. Finally, the Act requires that new multifamily housing with four or more units be designed and built to allow access for persons with disabilities. This includes accessible common use areas, doors that are wide enough for wheelchairs, kitchens and bathrooms that allow a person using a wheelchair to maneuver, and other adaptable features within the units.

HUD Final Rule on Equal Access to Housing in HUD Programs: On March 5, 2012, HUD published the Final Rule on “Equal Access to Housing in HUD Programs Regardless of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity.” It applies to all McKinney-Vento-funded housing programs, as well as to other housing assisted or insured by HUD. The rule creates a new regulatory provision that generally prohibits considering a person’s marital status, sexual orientation, or gender identity (a person’s internal sense of being male or female) in making housing assistance available.

The State Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) enforces California laws that provide protection and monetary relief to victims of unlawful housing practices. The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Government Code Section 12955 et seq.) prohibits discrimination and harassment in housing practices, including:
• Advertising
• Application and selection process
• Unlawful evictions
• Terms and conditions of tenancy
• Privileges of occupancy
• Mortgage loans and insurance
• Public and private land use practices (zoning)
• Unlawful restrictive covenants
The following categories are protected by FEHA:

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 4
• Race or color
• Ancestry or national origin
• Sex
• Marital status
• Source of income
• Sexual orientation
• Gender identity/expression
• Genetic information
• Familial status
• Religion
• Mental/physical disability
• Medical condition
• Age
In addition, the FEHA contains similar reasonable accommodations and accessibility provisions as the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act.

The Unruh Civil Rights Act provides protection from discrimination by all business establishments in California, including housing and accommodations, because of age, ancestry, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation. While the Unruh Civil Rights Act specifically lists “sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition” as protected classes, the California Supreme Court has held that protections under the Unruh Act are not necessarily restricted to these characteristics.

Furthermore, the Ralph Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code Section 51.7) forbids acts of violence or threats of violence because of a person’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation, or position in a labor dispute. Hate violence can be: verbal or written threats; physical assault or attempted assault; and graffiti, vandalism, or property damage.

The Bane Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code Section 52.1) provides another layer of protection for fair housing choice by protecting all people in California from interference by force or threat of force with an individual’s constitutional or statutory rights, including a right to equal access to housing.

The Bane Act also includes criminal penalties for hate crimes; however, convictions under the Act are not allowed for speech alone unless that speech itself threatened violence.

And, finally, California Civil Code Section 1940.3 prohibits landlords from questioning potential residents about their immigration or citizenship status. Landlords in most states are free to inquire about a potential tenant’s immigration status and to reject applicants who are in the United States illegally. In addition, this law forbids local jurisdictions from passing laws that direct landlords to make inquiries about a person’s citizenship or immigration status.

In addition to these acts, Government Code Sections 11135, 65008, and 65580-65589.8 prohibit discrimination in programs funded by the State and in any land use decisions. Specifically, recent changes to State law require local jurisdictions to address the provision of housing options for special needs groups, including:
• Housing for persons with disabilities
City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 5
• Housing for homeless persons, including emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing
• Housing for extremely low income households, including single-room occupancy units • Housing for persons with developmental disabilities
The Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO Housing) provides fair housing services to Monterey County residents, including Salinas, under contract with the County. ECHO’s current service programs include:
• Fair Housing Services serving urban and unincorporated Alameda, Contra Costa, and Monterey Counties, and the Cities of Alameda, Antioch, Concord, Hayward, Livermore, Monterey, Oakland, Pleasanton, Richmond, Salinas, San Leandro, Seaside, Union City, and Walnut Creek;
• Tenant/Landlord Services serving urban and unincorporated Alameda, Contra Costa, and Monterey Counties, and the Cities of Alameda, Hayward, Livermore, Monterey, Pleasanton, Richmond, Salinas, San Leandro, Seaside, Union City, and Walnut Creek; • Shared Housing Counseling Program serving the Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton; • Homeless Prevention Program serving the City of Livermore; • Rental Assistance Program and the Rent/Deposit Grant Program serving Alameda County; • First-Time Homebuyer Education for those living or working in the Cities of Livermore and Pleasanton; and
• Rent Review and Eviction Harassment Programs for the Cities of Albany, Concord, Emeryville, and Union City; and unincorporated Alameda County.

ECHO Housing began providing fair housing services to Monterey, Salinas, and Monterey Urban County residents in FY 2017. Based in the Bay Area, ECHO Housing has established offices in Salinas and Monterey. In one year, each jurisdiction had five clients filing fair housing complaints. The majority were White. Mental disabilities, followed by physical disabilities, were the most frequent alleged bases for discrimination. Among the 15 cases, however, only five allegations were sustained.

Three of those were resolved through conciliation but two were referred to other agencies such as the DFEH and HUD.

In 2011, HUD commissioned a nation-wide audit on discrimination against same-sex couples in the U.S. The report found that in 16% of the cases, same-sex male couples experienced less favorable treatment. ECHO also looked at same-sex discrimination in our audit. Our fair housing staff performed 211 audits. In one test the home seeker was a man and his husband looking for a rental. In the other test the home seeker was a straight man looking for a place for himself and his wife.

ECHO tested 211 properties in 17 jurisdictions. The testing was conducted from April 2022 to July 2022 and found that in 11% of the cases, the same-sex male couple experienced less favorable treatment.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 6
Fair housing inquiries may be filed through HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO). Inquiries are not official discrimination cases; however, they may be used to identify concerns that residents have about possible discrimination. Inquiries by City in the region for the 2013-2021 period are presented in Figure X-1. During this period, no inquiries were filed by Salinas residents. In comparison, 19 inquiries were filed in Marina, 8 in Seaside, 17 in Monterey, 6 in Pacific Grove, and 2 in Carmel-by-the-Sea. Another 4 inquiries were also filed in Gonzales and 2 in Soledad.

Figure X-1 also shows housing choice voucher recipients by tract in the region. Less than 15% of renters in most tracts along the 101 Freeway and in northern Monterey County cities receive HCVs.

There are a few tracts in Salinas, San Benito County, and Santa Cruz County where a larger population of renters receive HCVs.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 7
Figure D-1: Regional FHEO Inquiries by City and HCVs by Tract (2021) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (HUD 2021), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 8
(2) Local Trends
As discussed above, ECHO completed a fair housing audit in 2022, testing for differential treatment based on sexual orientation. The audit included 30 tests in Salinas, all of which concluded there was no differential treatment. Comparatively, of the 211 tests conducted, 11% (24 tests) were found to have discriminatory treatment.

The HCD AFFH Data Viewer includes Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) inquiries and cases filed between 2013 and 2022. While inquiries aren’t official cases, there is still value to identify concerns that residents have about possible discrimination. These inquiries may not have been pursued by the resident for any number of reasons. Inquires may have multiples basis of discrimination. During this period, the FHEO received a total of 53 inquiries from Salinas residents.

Inquiries were submitted on the following bases:
• Sex – 2 inquiries
• Race – 2 inquiries
• National origin – 4 inquiries
• Disability – 3 inquiries
• Familial status – 1 inquiry
• No basis given – 42 inquiries
During this period, 53 FHEO cases were also filed. The largest proportion of cases were filed on the basis of familial status (15 cases), followed by national origin (10 cases), sex (10 cases), disability (6 cases), race (5 cases), color (2 cases), religion (1 case), and retaliation (1 case).

1.1.2 Integration and Segregation
A. Race /Ethnicity
Ethnic and racial composition of a region is useful in analyzing housing demand and any related fair housing concerns, as it tends to demonstrate a relationship with other characteristics such as household size, locational preferences and mobility. For example, prior studies have identified socioeconomic status, generational care needs, and cultural preferences as factors associated with “doubling up”- households with extended family members and non-kin. 5 These factors have also been
associated with ethnicity and race. Other studies have also found minorities tend to congregate in metropolitan areas though their mobility trend predictions are complicated by economic status (minorities moving to the suburbs when they achieve middle class) or immigration status (recent immigrants tends to stay in metro areas/ports of entry). 6 5 Harvey, H., Duniforn, R., & Pilkauskas, N. (2021). Under Whose Roof? Understanding the living arrangements of children in doubled-up households. Duke University Press, 58 (3): 821–846. https://doi.org/10.1215/00703370-9101102 6 Sandefur, G.D., Martin, M., Eggerling-Boeck, J. , Mannon, S.E., & .Meier, A.M. (2001). An overview of racial and ethnic demographic trends. In N. J. Smelser, W.J. Wilson, & F. Mitchell (Eds.) America becoming: Racial trends and their consequences. (Vol I, pp. 40-102). National Academy Press Washington, D.C. .

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 9
To measure segregation in a given jurisdiction, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides racial or ethnic dissimilarity trends. Dissimilarity indices are used to measure the evenness with which two groups (frequently defined on racial or ethnic characteristics) are distributed across the geographic units, such as block groups within a community. The index ranges from 0 to 100, with 0 denoting no segregation and 100 indicating complete segregation between the two groups. The index score can be understood as the percentage of one of the two groups that would need to move to produce an even distribution of racial/ethnic groups within the specified area.

For example, if an index score above 60, 60% of people in the specified area would need to move to eliminate segregation. 7 The following shows how HUD views various levels of the index:
• <40: Low Segregation
• 40-54: Moderate Segregation
• >55: High Segregation
(1) Regional Trends
The Hispanic/Latino population represents the largest proportion of the population countywide (59.7%). The next largest racial/ethnic group in Monterey County is the non-Hispanic White population, making up 28.8% of the population, followed by Asian population (5.6%), and population of two or more races (2.8%) (Table D-1). Of the selected jurisdictions, Gonzales has the largest Hispanic/Latino population (90.6%), followed by Salinas (79.8%), and Soledad (76.4%). All other selected jurisdictions have Hispanic/Latino populations of 28% or below. Carmel-by-the-Sea has the smallest Hispanic/Latino population of only 1.6%. Carmel-by-the-Sea, Pacific Grove, and the City of Monterey have the largest non-Hispanic White populations compared to the County and other neighboring jurisdictions.
7 Massey, D.S. and N.A. Denton. (1993). American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 10
Table D-1: Racial/Ethnic Composition – County, Salinas, and Neighboring Cities (2021) Monterey
County Salinas Carmelby-the-Sea Gonzales Marina Monterey Pacific Grove Soledad White, non-Hispanic 28.8% 12.2% 91.8% 7.1% 38.4% 64.9% 75.5% 10.3% Black or African American, non-Hispanic 2.3% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 6.6% 3.6% 0.7% 9.3% American Indian and Alaska Native, nonHispanic 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.4% 0.4% Asian, non-Hispanic 5.6% 5.4% 0.5% 1.3% 15.5% 7.3% 7.4% 2.1% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander, non-Hispanic 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 2.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% Some other race, non-Hispanic 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% Two or more races, non-Hispanic 2.8% 1.3% 6.1% 0.3% 8.7% 4.8% 4.5% 1.1% Hispanic or Latino 59.7% 79.8% 1.6% 90.6% 28.3% 19.0% 11.4% 76.4% Total 438,953 163,004 3,296 8,628 22,246 30,014 15,169 25,102 Source: 2017-2021 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 11
As explained above, dissimilarity indices measure segregation, with higher indices signifying higher segregation. In Monterey County, all minority (non-White) residents combined are considered highly segregated from White residents, with an index score of 58.07 in 2020 (Table D-2). Since 1990, segregation between non-White (all non-white residents combined) and White residents has increased.

Dissimilarity indices between Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and White residents have also increased since 1990, indicating that Marin County has become increasingly racially segregated.

However, the dissimilarity index score for Black and White populations has decreased slightly during this period. Based on HUD’s definition of the index, Black and White residents and Hispanic and White are highly segregated, while Asian/Pacific Islander and White populations are considered moderately segregated.

Table D-2: Dissimilarity Indices – Monterey County (1990-2020) 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Current
Non-White/White 45.11 51.41 54.85 58.07
Black/White 57.83 53.81 51.63 56.25
Hispanic/White 56.64 58.69 60.91 62.48
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 35.26 38.29 37.28 41.70 Source: HUD AFFH-T Data, 2020.

Figure D-2 and Figure D-3 below compare the concentration of minority populations in the region by census block group in 2010 and 2018. Since 2010, concentrations of racial/ethnic minority groups have increased in most block groups regionwide. In Monterey County, non-White populations are most concentrated in jurisdictions along the 101 Freeway, from Castroville to King City, including Salinas. In many of these block groups, more than 81% of the population belongs to a racial or ethnic minority population. The City of Monterey, Pacific Grove, and Carmel are comprised of block groups with significantly smaller non-White populations compared to Marina, Salinas, and Gonzales.

Racial/ethnic minority populations in Salinas block groups are comparable to Gonzales south of the City, and areas north of the City including Castroville, and parts of San Benito and Santa Cruz counties.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 12
Figure D-2: Regional Racial/Ethnic Minority Population by Block Group (2010) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (ESRI 2010), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 13
Figure D-3: Regional Racial/Ethnic Minority Population by Block Group (2018) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (ESRI 2018), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 14
(2) Local Trends
Salinas has a larger non-White population compared to the County, accounting for 87.8% of the population compared to 71.2% countywide. Most of the population in Salinas is Hispanic or Latino (79.8%), followed by White (12.2%), and Asian (5.4%). As presented in Table D-3, the City’s White population decreased from 17% in 2010, while the Hispanic/Latino increased from 74.1% in 2010 to

79.8% in 2021. Since 2010, the Asian population has also decreased, currently comprising 6.3% of the population in 2010. All racial/ethnic groups other than the Hispanic/Latino population and population of two or more races decreased during this period.

Table D-3: Change in Racial/Ethnic Composition – Salinas (2010-2021) Race/Ethnicity 2010 2021
Persons Percent Persons Percent
White, non-Hispanic 24,951 17.0% 19,859 12.2%
Black or African American, non-Hispanic 2,165 1.5% 1,757 1.1% American Indian and Alaska Native, nonHispanic 251 0.2% 139 0.1% Asian, non-Hispanic 9,213 6.3% 8,863 5.4%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander,
non-Hispanic 157 0.1% 67 0.0%
Some other race, non-Hispanic 254 0.2% 224 0.1%
Two or more races, non-Hispanic 1,172 0.8% 2,069 1.3%
Hispanic or Latino 108,911 74.1% 130,026 79.8%
Total 147,074 100.0% 163,004 100.0%
Source: 2016-2010 and 2017-2021 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

HUD dissimilarity indices for the City of Salinas are presented in Table D-4. Dissimilarity indices for all racial/ethnic groups and the White population are lower in Salinas compared to the County, indicating that the City is less segregated. Based on HUD’s definition of the index and the most recent dissimilarity index scores, non-White and White populations in Salinas are moderately segregated.

Segregation between Black and Asian/Pacific Islander populations and White populations are considered low, while Hispanic and White populations are moderately segregated. Based on HUD dissimilarity indices since 1990, segregation between non-White and White communities has increased, most significantly between the Asian/Pacific Islander and White populations. During this period, segregation between the Hispanic and White populations has decreased slightly.

Table D-4: Dissimilarity Indices – Salinas (1990-2020)
1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Current
Non-White/White 42.49 37.78 38.30 44.13
Black/White 27.42 31.67 27.42 32.52
Hispanic/White 48.34 42.68 41.12 46.81
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 19.83 27.58 31.02 37.24 Source: HUD AFFH-T Data, 2020.

Racial/ethnic minority populations by block group are shown for Salinas in Figure D-4 (2010) and Figure D-5 (2018). Nearly all block groups have seen an increase in the non-White population during this period. Based on 2019 data, nearly all block groups in the City have non-White populations City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 15
exceeding 81%. This trend is generally consistent with the trend shown in Table D-3, where racial/ethnic minority groups represented 83% of the population in 2010 but 87.8% in 2021. Block groups in the southwestern corner of the City have smaller racial/ethnic minority populations compared to the remainder of the City, representing 41% to 60% of the block group populations. (3) Sites Inventory
As discussed previously, a large proportion of Salinas block groups have non-White populations exceeding 80%. Consistent with this trend, 58.9% of all RHNA units are in block groups with racial/ethnic minority populations exceeding 80%. A larger proportion of very low and low income RHNA units are located in block groups with non-White populations exceeding 80% (79.7% and

89.5%, respectively), compared to moderate and above moderate income units (66.9% and 40.8%, respectively).

Sites suitable for lower income units are generally located in the central and Downtown areas of Salinas. However, as shown in Figure D-5, sites selected to meet the lower income RHNA are not located in a single area of the City. Further, the City will implement actions outlined in this Housing Element, as well as the Chinatown and Alisal neighborhood revitalization plans, serving these areas of the City where some lower income units are allocated.

Table D-5: Distribution of RHNA Units by Racial/Ethnic Minority Population Racial/Ethnic
Minority Population
(Block Group)
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
Units Total Units Total Units Total Units Total Units Total <20% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
20-40% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
40-60% 3 0.3% 7 0.7% 3 0.1% 72 1.9% 85 1.0%
60-80% 191 20.0% 92 9.7% 809 33.0% 2,161 57.3% 3,253 40.0% >80% 763 79.7% 848 89.5% 1,640 66.9% 1,539 40.8% 4,790 58.9% Total 957 100.0% 947 100.0% 2,452 100.0% 3,772 100.0% 8,128 100.0% City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 16
Figure D-4: Racial/Ethnic Minority Population by Block Group (2010) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (ESRI 2010), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 17
Figure D-5: Racial/Ethnic Minority Population by Block Group and Sites Inventory (2019) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (ESRI 2019), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 18
B. Persons with Disabilities
Persons with disabilities have special housing needs because of the lack of accessible and affordable housing, and the higher health costs associated with their disability. In addition, many may be on fixed incomes that further limits their housing options. Persons with disabilities also tend to be more susceptible to housing discrimination due to their disability status and required accommodations associated with their disability.
(1) Regional Trends
According to the 2017-2021 ACS, 8.8% of the Monterey County population experiences a disability 8.

As presented in Table D-6, the Black or African American, non-Hispanic White, and American Indian and Alaska Native populations experience disabilities at the highest rates in the County (16.7%, 14%, and 13.9%, respectively). The Hispanic/Latino population and population of some other race have the lowest disability rate of 5.6% and 4.3%, respectively. Of the population aged 75 and older, 48% experience one or more disability. Ambulatory and independent living difficulties are the most common disability types countywide.

Table D-6: Population of Persons with Disabilities – Monterey County (2021) Total Population Percent with
Disability
Civilian non-institutionalized population 423,270 8.8%
Race/Ethnicity
Black or African American alone 8,136 16.7%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 2,976 13.9%
Asian alone 24,774 12.7%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 1,957 10.0% Some other race alone 166,588 4.3%
Two or more races 37,421 8.1%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 120,393 14.0%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 256,785 5.6%
Age
Under 5 years 30,213 0.4%
5 to 17 years 85,084 4.2%
18 to 34 years 97,015 4.3%
35 to 64 years 151,964 7.3%
65 to 74 years 35,570 19.6%
75 years and over 23,424 48.0%
Type
Hearing difficulty -- 2.6%
Vision difficulty -- 1.6%
8 The American Community Survey asks about six disability types: hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty. Respondents who report anyone of the six disability types are considered to have a disability. For more information visit:
https://www.census.gov/topics/health/disability/guidance/data-collectionacs.html#:~:text=Physical%20Disability%20Conditions%20that%20substantially,reaching%2C%20lifting%2C%20or%20carryin g.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 19
Cognitive difficulty -- 3.6%
Ambulatory difficulty -- 4.4%
Self-care difficulty -- 2.1%
Independent living difficulty -- 4.4%
Source: 2017-2021 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

Figure D-6 shows populations of persons with disabilities in the region surrounding Salinas by tract.

In nearly, all tracts in the region, less than 20% of the population experiences a disability. Tracts with populations of persons with disabilities exceeding 10% are not concentrated in a single area of the region. There is one tract in Marina and one tract east of Carmel, both west of Salinas, where more than 20% of the population experiences a disability. There are no areas in the region surrounding Salinas where populations of persons with disabilities are particularly concentrated.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 20
Figure D-6: Regional Population of Persons with Disabilities by Tract (2021) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (2017-2021 ACS), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 21
(2) Local Trends
Salinas has a slightly smaller population of persons with disabilities compared to the County (7.8% vs.

8.8%, respectively). Since the 2008-2012 ACS, the population of persons with disabilities in Salinas has increased slightly from 7.2%. The increase is likely due to the increase in elderly adults in the City.

Approximately 9.4% of the population during the 2017-2021 ACS is aged 65 or older compared to only 7.2% during the 2008-2012 ACS. Overall, Salinas has a smaller population of elderly people compared to the County (9.4% vs. 13.7%, respectively).

As presented in Table D-7, the non-Hispanic White population has the highest disability rate in Salinas (17.6%), followed by the American Indian and Alaska Native population (16.3%), and the Asian population (15.9%). Like the trend countywide, the Hispanic/Latino population and population of some other race have the lowest rate of disabilities compared to other racial/ethnic groups. A larger proportion of elderly adults in Salinas experience a disability compared to the County. More than 58% of the population aged 75 and older and 24.1% of the population aged 65 to 74 have a disability in Salinas compared to 48% and 19.6%, respectively, countywide. However, a smaller proportion of the population aged 5 to 64 experience a disability in Salinas compared to the same populations in Monterey County. Like the trend countywide, ambulatory and independent living difficulties are the most common disabilities types in Salinas, where 3.7% of the population experiences an ambulatory difficulty and 3.8% experiences an independent living difficulty.

Table D-7: Population of Persons with Disabilities – Salinas (2021) Total Population Percent with
Disability
Civilian non-institutionalized population 162,112 7.8%
Race/Ethnicity
Black or African American alone 2,156 11.3%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 1,439 16.3%
Asian alone 9,425 15.9%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 74 10.8% Some other race alone 90,524 4.5%
Two or more races 13,756 8.3%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 19,566 17.6%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 129,618 5.6%
Age
Under 5 years 13,248 0.6%
5 to 17 years 36,805 4.1%
18 to 34 years 40,834 4.1%
35 to 64 years 56,154 6.4%
65 to 74 years 8,725 24.1%
75 years and over 6,346 58.4%
Type
Hearing difficulty -- 1.8%
Vision difficulty -- 1.9%
Cognitive difficulty -- 3.2%
Ambulatory difficulty -- 3.7%
City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 22
Self-care difficulty -- 2.2%
Independent living difficulty -- 3.8%
Source: 2017-2021 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

Populations of persons with disabilities by tract in Salinas are presented in Figure D-7. Less than 10% of the population in most tracts experiences a disability. There are seven tracts where between 10% and 20% of the population is disabled, four in the northwest corner of the City and three in the southern section of the City. According to the HCD Data Viewer, between 10.2% and 17.3% of the population in these tracts experience a disability. Tracts 12 and 145 have the largest populations of persons with disabilities compared to other Salinas tracts, representing 16.1% and 17.3% of the tract population, respectively. Both tracts are located in the southernmost corner of Salinas. These tracts also have the largest elderly populations according to the 2017-2021 ACS. Tract 12 has an elderly population of 24.2% and tract 145 has an elderly population of 27.7%. In comparison, only 9.4% of the population in Salinas is aged 65 or older. As discussed above, persons aged 65 and older are significantly more likely to experience a disability compared to younger age groups. In general, populations of persons with disabilities are not concentrated in a single area of the City. (3) Sites Inventory
The distribution of RHNA units by population of persons with disabilities is presented in Figure D-7 and Table D-8. A larger proportion of RHNA units are located in block groups where less than 10% of the population experiences a disability. Specifically, 77.1% of very low income units, 91.7% of low income units, 65.7% of moderate income units, and 40.8% of above moderate income units are in tracts where fewer than 10% of the population experiences a disability. Sites selected to meet the RHNA are distributed throughout the City. Further, the RHNA strategy does not disproportionately place lower or moderate income units in areas where populations of persons with disabilities are heightened.

Table D-8: Distribution of RHNA Units by Population of Persons with Disabilities Population of
Persons with
Disabilities (Tract)
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
Units Total Units Total Units Total Units Total Units Total <10% 738 77.1% 868 91.7% 1,612 65.7% 1,538 40.8% 4756 58.5% 10-20% 219 22.9% 79 8.3% 840 34.3% 2,234 59.2% 3372 41.5% 20-40% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
>40% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Total 957 100.0% 947 100.0% 2,452 100.0% 3,772 100.0% 8,128 100.0% City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 23
Figure D-7: Population of Persons with Disabilities by Tract and Sites Inventory (2021) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (2017-2021 ACS), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 24
C. Familial Status
(1) Regional Trends
According to the 2017-2021 ACS, nearly 44% of households in Monterey County are households with children. Countywide, 23.4% of households are married couple households with children, 4.5% are cohabiting couple households with children, 1.2% are single-parent male-headed households, and

4.5% are single-parent female-headed households (Figure D-8). Of the selected jurisdictions shown in Figure D-8, Soledad has the largest proportion of households with children, followed by Salinas, and Gonzales. Salinas has the largest proportion of single-parent households (7.8%) compared to the County and nearby cities.

Figure D-8: Households with Children – Monterey County, Salinas, and Neighboring Cities (2021) Source: 2017-2021 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

Figure D-9 shows the distribution of children residing in single female headed households in the region. In the region surrounding Salinas, there are only a handful of tracts where more than 20% of children reside in single-parent female-headed households. These tracts are located in Marina, Gilroy, and in and adjacent to San Jose. Trends presented in Figure D-9 are consistent with the data shown in Figure D-8, where only 6% of households in Salinas and 4.5% of households in Monterey County are single-parent female-headed households. Figure D-10 shows the population of children residing in married couple households by tract. Fewer children reside in married couple households in tracts along the 101 Freeway compared to Monterey County coastal areas.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 25
Figure D-9: Regional Children in Female-Headed Households by Tract (2021) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (2017-2021 ACS), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 26
Figure D-10: Regional Children in Married Couple Households by Tract (2021) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (2017-2021 ACS), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 27
(2) Local Trends
Salinas has seen a slight decrease in the proportion of households with children in recent years (Table D-9). During the 2006-2010 ACS, there were 18,782 households with children representing 45.8% of all City households. The most recent 2017-2021 ACS estimates show there is now 18,107 households with children in Salinas representing only 42.1% of households citywide. While the total number of households citywide increased by 4.8% during this period, the number of households with children decreased by 3.6%. The population of single-parent male-headed households has decreased most dramatically (-70.6%), followed by single-parent female-headed households (-37.9%), and married couple households with children (-1.8%). It is relevant to note that the 2006-2010 ACS did not record cohabiting couples with children like the 2017-2021 ACS.

Table D-9: Change in Households with Children (2006-2021) Household Type 2006-2010 2017-2021
Households Percent Households Percent
Married-couple family with children 11,995 29.2% 11,774 27.4% Cohabiting couple with children -- -- 2,970 6.9%
Single-parent, male-headed 2,610 6.4% 767 1.8%
Single-parent, female-headed 4,177 10.2% 2,596 6.0%
Total Households with Children 18,782 45.8% 18,107 42.1% Total Households 41,009 100.0% 42,984 100.0%
Source: 2006-2010 and 2017-2021 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

As shown in Figure D-11, less than 20% of children reside in single-parent female-headed households citywide. Between 10% and 20% of children reside in single-parent female-headed households in a handful of tracts, generally located in the central and southern areas of the City. Tracts 5.02, 7.01, 7.02, and 106.07 are part of the Alisal neighborhood. The Alisal and Chinatown neighborhoods are described in the Community Profile of this Housing Element. While there are several tracts in the Alisal neighborhood with populations of children residing in female-headed households exceeding 10%, tracts where more than 10% of children reside in female-headed households are not restricted to this neighborhood alone. Figure D-12 shows populations of children residing in married couple households by tract. In general, tracts along the northern and western City boundaries have larger populations of children residing in married couple households compared to the central and southern areas, including the Alisal and Downtown/Chinatown neighborhoods. (3) Sites Inventory
The distribution of RHNA units by population of children residing in female-headed households and married couple households are shown in Table D-10 and Table D-11. Overall, 82.1% of RHNA units are in tracts where fewer than 20% of children reside in single-parent female-headed households. A slightly larger proportion of moderate and above moderate income units are in tracts where fewer than 20% of children reside in female-headed households compared to very low and low income units.

Similarly, approximately 60% of very low income units and 55% of low income units are in tracts where less than 60% of children reside in married couple households compared to 30.6% of moderate income units and 12.8% of above moderate income units. However, 8.2% of RHNA units allocated towards the very low income RHNA and 8.3% allocated towards the low income RHNA are also in tracts where more than 80% of children reside in married couple households. There are no moderate City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 28
or above moderate income units in tracts with populations of children in married couple households exceeding 80%. The City’s RHNA strategy ensures units, specifically lower income units, are distributed throughout the City, in areas where both single-parent female-headed households and married couple households with children are concentrated.

Table D-10: Distribution of RHNA Units by Children in Female-Headed Households Children in FemaleHeaded Households
(Tract)
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
Units Total Units Total Units Total Units Total Units Total <20% 597 62.4% 690 72.9% 2,008 81.9% 3,380 89.6% 6,675 82.1% 20-40% 360 37.6% 257 27.1% 444 18.1% 392 10.4% 1,453 17.9% 40-60% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
60-80% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
>80% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Total 957 100.0% 947 100.0% 2,452 100.0% 3,772 100.0% 8,128 100.0% Table D-11: Distribution of RHNA Units by Children in Married Couple Households Children in Married
Couple Households
(Tract)
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
Units Total Units Total Units Total Units Total Units Total <20% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
20-40% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
40-60% 574 60.0% 522 55.1% 751 30.6% 482 12.8% 2,329 28.7% 60-80% 305 31.9% 346 36.5% 1,701 69.4% 3,290 87.2% 5,642 69.4% >80% 78 8.2% 79 8.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 157 1.9%
Total 957 100.0% 947 100.0% 2,452 100.0% 3,772 100.0% 8,128 100.0% City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 29
Figure D-11: Children in Female-Headed Households by Tract and Sites Inventory (2021) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (2017-2021 ACS), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 30
Figure D-12: Children in Married Couple Households by Tract and Sites Inventory (2021) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (2017-2021 ACS), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 31
D. Income Level
Identifying low or moderate income (LMI) geographies and individuals is important to overcome patterns of segregation. HUD defines a LMI area as a Census tract or block group where over 51% of the population is LMI (based on HUD income definition of up to 80% of the Area Median Income). (1) Regional Trends
According to Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) 9 data based on the 2015-2019 ACS, 45.6% of Monterey County households are low or moderate income, earning 80% or less than the area median income (AMI) (Table D-12). A significantly larger proportion of renter households in Monterey County are LMI. Over 60% of renter households are considered LMI compared to only

31.3% of owner households. Figure D-13 shows that LMI populations are most concentrated in block groups along the 101 Freeway, including the cities of Salinas, Gonzales, and King City. Counties surrounding Salinas, including Santa Cruz County to the north and San Benito and Merced counties to the east, also have higher concentrations of block groups with LMI populations exceeding 50%.

Table D-12: Households by Income and Tenure – Monterey County (2022) Income Category Owner Renter Total
HHs Percent HHs Percent HHs Percent
0%-30% of AMI 4,150 6.4% 11,460 18.4% 15,610 12.3%
31%-50% of AMI 5,720 8.8% 11,665 18.7% 17,385 13.7%
51%-80% of AMI 10,455 16.1% 14,585 23.4% 25,040 19.7%
81%-100% of AMI 7,185 11.1% 6,715 10.8% 13,900 10.9%
Greater than 100% of AMI 37,385 57.6% 17,830 28.6% 55,215 43.4% Total 64,900 100.0% 62,255 100.0% 127,155 100.0%
Source: HUD CHAS Data (based on the 2015-2019 ACS), 2022. 9 Each year, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) receives custom tabulations of American Community Survey (ACS) data from the U.S. Census Bureau. These data, known as the "CHAS" data (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy), demonstrate the extent of housing problems and housing needs, particularly for low income households.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 32
Figure D-13: Regional LMI Households by Block Group (2015) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (HUD 2011-2015), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 33
(2) Local Trends
Salinas has a larger LMI household population compared to the County as a whole (55.2% vs. 45.6%, respectively). As presented in Table D-13, like the County, renter-occupied households in Salinas are more likely to have lower household incomes. Approximately 71% of renters in the City are LMI households compared to 35.9% of owners. Further, 50.5% of owners earn more than 100% of the AMI compared to only 18.6% of renters. Renters are also more likely to experience housing problems including cost burden. Disproportionate housing needs are further discussed in Section 1.1.5 of this Appendix. According to 2017-2021 ACS estimates, the median household income in Salinas is $75,747, lower than the County ($82,013) and neighboring cities of Monterey ($85,365) and Pacific Grove ($92,980), comparable to Marina ($78,795) and Gonzales ($73,906), and higher than Soledad ($67,366).

Table D-13: Households by Income and Tenure – Salinas (2022) Income Category Owner Renter Total
HHs Percent HHs Percent HHs Percent
0%-30% of AMI 1,370 7.5% 5,235 23.3% 6,605 16.2%
31%-50% of AMI 1,540 8.4% 4,675 20.8% 6,215 15.2%
51%-80% of AMI 3,650 20.0% 6,055 26.9% 9,705 23.8%
81%-100% of AMI 2,490 13.6% 2,360 10.5% 4,850 11.9%
Greater than 100% of AMI 9,235 50.5% 4,190 18.6% 13,425 32.9% Total 18,285 100.0% 22,515 100.0% 40,800 100.0%
Source: HUD CHAS Data (based on the 2015-2019 ACS), 2022.

As shown in Figure D-14, block groups with larger populations of low- and moderate-income households are most concentrated in the central areas of the City along 101 Freeway, including the Chinatown neighborhood, and the eastern side of the City, including the Alisal neighborhood. Tracts north of Laurel Drive and in the southwest corner of Salinas generally have smaller LMI household populations. As discussed above, these areas also tend to have smaller racial/ethnic minority populations and populations of children residing in single-parent female-headed households (see Figure D-5 and Figure D-11).
(3) Sites Inventory
As presented in Table D-14, most RHNA units (70.9%) are located in block groups that are not considered LMI areas, where less than 50% of households are low or moderate income. However,

67.7% of very low income units and 53% of low income units are in LMI areas compared to 33.4% of moderate income units and 10.4% of above moderate income units. Larger parcels that are more suitable for lower income units tend to be located in the central areas of the City where LMI households are more prevalent. It is relevant to note that an additional 32.3% of very low income units and 47% of low income units are in non-LMI areas, ensuring lower income RHNA units are not restricted to LMI areas alone.

Table D-14: Distribution of RHNA Units by LMI Household Population LMI Households
(Block Group)
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
Units Total Units Total Units Total Units Total Units Total <25% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 9 0.4% 762 20.2% 771 9.5%
City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 34
25-50% 309 32.3% 445 47.0% 1,623 66.2% 2,617 69.4% 4,994 61.4% 50-75% 81 8.5% 121 12.8% 604 24.6% 32 0.8% 838 10.3%
75-100% 567 59.2% 381 40.2% 216 8.8% 361 9.6% 1,525 18.8% Total 957 100.0% 947 100.0% 2,452 100.0% 3,772 100.0% 8,128 100.0% City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 35
Figure D-14: LMI Household Population by Block Group and Sites Inventory (2015) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (HUD 2011-2015), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 36
E. Housing Choice Vouchers
An analysis of the trends in Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) concentration can be useful in examining the success of the program in improving the living conditions and quality of life of its holders. The HCV program aims to encourage participants to avoid high-poverty neighborhoods and promote the recruitment of landlords with rental properties in low poverty neighborhoods. HCV programs are managed by Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), and the programs assessment structure (SEMAPS) includes an “expanding housing opportunities” indicator that shows whether the PHA has adopted and implemented a written policy to encourage participation by owners of units located outside areas of poverty or minority concentration.

A study prepared by HUD’s Development Office of Policy Development and Research found a positive association between the HCV share of occupied housing and neighborhood poverty concentration and a negative association between rent and neighborhood poverty 10. This means that HCV use was concentrated in areas of high poverty where rents tend to be lower. In areas where these patterns occur, the program has not succeeded in moving holders out of areas of poverty. (1) Regional Trends
According to the 2019 Regional AI, 3,077 Monterey County households received HCV assistance from the Housing Authority County of Monterey (HACM) as of 2017. The map in Figure D-15 shows that HCV use in the region surrounding Salinas is concentrated in tracts in incorporated cities throughout northern Monterey County and incorporated cities in adjacent counties, including Salinas, Watsonville, Santa Cruz, Gilroy, and San Jose. HCV use in tracts within other Monterey County cities such as Gonzales, Soledad, Marina, Seaside, and Monterey are generally comparable. In most tracts in northern Monterey County cities, less than 15% of renters receive HCVs, while Salinas contains tracts where 15% to 30% of renters receive HCVs. Areas where HCV recipients are more prevalent generally correlate with larger racial/ethnic minority populations and LMI household populations (see Figure D-3 and Figure D-13).
10 Devine, D.J., Gray, R.W., Rubin, L., & Taghavi, L.B. (2003). Housing choice voucher location patterns: Implications for participant and neighborhood welfare. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Division of Program Monitoring and Research.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 37
Figure D-15: Regional HCV Recipients by Tract (2021)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (HUD 2021), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 38
(2) Local Trends
To restrict access to tenant information, HCV locations are identified in public records by the owner, and not the tenant. Public data pertaining to the locations of HCV program participants are only available as U.S. Census Tract aggregations. Moreover, to protect the confidentiality of those receiving HCV Program assistance, tracts containing 10 or fewer voucher holders have been omitted from this service. As presented in Figure D-16, between 5% and 15% of renters receive HCVs in most Salinas tracts. In several tracts, between 15% and 30% of renters receive HCVs. Most of these tracts are located along the 101 Freeway and include the Chinatown/Downtown neighborhoods. An additional tract in the Alisal neighborhood also has an HCV recipient population of 23%.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 39
Figure D-16: HCV Recipients by Tract (2021)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (HUD 2021), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 40

1.1.3 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas
A. Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) In an effort to identify racially/ethnically-concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)/HCD has identified areas of high segregation and poverty through opportunity maps. TCAC opportunity maps are discussed in detail in Section 1.1.4, Access to Opportunities, of this Assessment of Fair Housing Issues.

The TCAC/HCD opportunity maps identify areas of high segregation and poverty based on a two stage approach:

1. Concentrated Poverty: First, the filter identifies tracts and rural block groups where at least 30% of the population is living below the poverty line. Research has found that the impact of area poverty rates in producing negative outcomes for individuals--including crime, school leaving, and duration of poverty spells--begin to appear after an area exceeds approximately 20% poverty, whereupon the externality effects grow rapidly until the neighborhood reaches approximately 40% poverty. To prevent college towns from distorting the filter’s concentrated poverty measure, college and graduate students are removed from the poverty calculation in the filter in tracts where they comprise at least 25% of the population. An internal analysis found that without this adjustment, some tracts with high proportions of college students— many of which have high domain scores—are shown as having poverty rates exceeding 30%, likely due to the Census classifying many unemployed and partially employed students living off-campus up as poor.

2. Racial Segregation: Second, the filter relies on a measure of racial segregation to capture which tracts and rural block groups have a disproportionate share of households of color.

Setting an absolute threshold (as the federal RECAP metric does) does not account for substantial variation in the racial and ethnic population across California’s counties. To properly account for the features of inequality operating on individuals at the neighborhood level, a relative segregation measure is more appropriate to reflect the experience of residents.

The filter thus relies on the location quotient of residential racial segregation (LQ), which is increasingly being used in studies that seek to assess the impact of racial segregation on individual and community outcomes. The LQ is a small-area measure of relative segregation calculated at the residential census tract level that represents how much more segregated an area (e.g., a census tract or block group) is relative to the larger area (in this case, the county).

For the filter, tracts that have a LQ higher than 1.25 for Black, Hispanic, Asian, or all people of color are flagged as being racially segregated in comparison to the county. Census tracts and rural block groups that have both a poverty rate of over 30% and that are designated as being racially segregated are filtered into the “High Segregation & Poverty” category. Due to data unreliability at the block group level in the poverty indicator, the “High Poverty and Segregation” category is designated at the tract level in rural areas. (1) Regional Trends
Few tracts in the region surrounding Salinas have been identified as areas of high segregation and poverty. As presented in Figure D-17, two tracts in Salinas are considers areas of high segregation and poverty. However, no other tracts in northern Monterey County have the same designation.

Additional areas of high segregation and poverty have been identified in Fresno, Merced, and Santa City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 41
Clara counties. As discussed above, approximately 71% of the Monterey County population belongs to a racial or ethnic minority group. The Hispanic/Latino population represents the largest proportion of the population (59.7%). Salinas, where two areas of high segregation and poverty have been identified, generally has larger racial/ethnic minority populations compared to other northern Monterey County cities. Salinas also has a lower median household income compared to the county household median.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 42
Figure D-17: Regional TCAC Areas of High Segregation and Poverty (2023) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (TCAC/HCD 2023), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 43
(2) Local Trends
There are two TCAC high segregation and poverty tracts that have been identified in Salinas. One area of high segregation and poverty is on the northern end of the Alisal neighborhood and the other encompasses the Downtown area, south of the Chinatown neighborhood (Figure D-18). Both tracts contain block groups with racial/ethnic minority populations exceeding 81% and LMI household populations exceeding 75% (see Figure D-5 and Figure D-14).

As presented in Table D-15, Salinas has a larger population below the poverty level compared to the County (14.3% vs. 12.2%, respectively). Countywide, the population of some other race has the largest proportion of persons below the poverty level (17.4%), followed by the Hispanic/Latino population (15%), American Indian and Alaska Native population (13.9%), and Black/African American population (13.5%). All other racial/ethnic groups countywide have populations below the poverty level that do not exceed the countywide average of 12.2%. Similarly, the population of some other race in Salinas has the highest poverty rate (17.6%), followed by the Hispanic/Latino population (15.6%). All other racial/ethnic groups in Salinas have poverty rates below 14.3%. The Black/African American population, American Indian and Alaska Native population, population of two or more races, and non-Hispanic White population in Salinas have lower poverty rates compared to the respective populations countywide.

Table D-15: Poverty Status by Race/Ethnicity (2021)
Race/Ethnicity
Salinas Monterey County
Total
Population
Percent Below
Poverty Level
Total
Population
Percent Below
Poverty Level
Black or African American alone 2,161 9.9% 8,071 13.5%
American Indian and Alaska Native
alone 1,439 8.6% 2,981 13.9%
Asian alone 9,381 10.9% 24,608 9.5%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander alone 74 10.8% 1,952 4.4%
Some other race alone 90,215 17.6% 165,588 17.4%
Two or more races 13,665 9.6% 37,101 10.4%
Hispanic or Latino origin (of any
race) 129,157 15.6% 254,891 15.0%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 19,537 8.4% 121,382 6.6% Population for whom poverty
status is determined 161,522 14.3% 422,014 12.2%
Source: 2017-2021 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 44
Figure D-18: TCAC Areas of High Segregation and Poverty (2022) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (TCAC 2022), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 45
B. Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs)
While racially concentrated areas of poverty and segregation (R/ECAPs) have long been the focus of fair housing policies, racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) must also be analyzed to ensure housing is integrated, a key to fair housing choice. According to a policy paper published by HUD, RCAAs are defined as communities with a large proportion of affluent and non-Hispanic White residents. According to HUD's policy paper, non-Hispanic Whites are the most racially segregated group in the United States. In the same way neighborhood disadvantage is associated with concentrated poverty and high concentrations of people of color, conversely, distinct advantages are associated with residence in affluent, White communities.

HCD has created a new version of the RCAA metric to better reflect California’s relative diversity and regional conditions, and to aid local jurisdictions in their analysis of racially concentrated areas of poverty and affluence pursuant to AB 686 and AB 1304. To determine the RCAAs, census tracts with a location quotient (LQ) of more than 1.25 and a median income 1.5 times higher than the COG AMI (or 1.5x the State AMI, whichever is lower) were assigned a numeric score of 1 (Is a RCAA). Census tracts that did not meet this criterion were assigned a score of 0 (Not a RCAA).11 The LQ represents the percentage of total white population (White Alone, Not Hispanic or Latino) for each census tract compared to the average percentage of total white population for all census tracts in a given COG region. For example, a census tract with a LQ of 1.5 has a percentage of total white population that is

1.5 times higher than the average percentage of total white population in the given COG region. COG AMI was determined by averaging the 2019 ACS established AMI's for each county within the given COG region.
(1) Regional Trends
There are significantly more tracts that have been identified as RCAAs compared to TCAC areas of high segregation and poverty in the region surrounding Salinas. As shown in Figure D-19, there are several RCAAs in the northern Monterey County area, stretching from the unincorporated Carmel Valley areas south of Salinas to the areas in and adjacent to the City of Monterey. There are no other areas in Monterey County with tracts that have been identified as RCAAs. RCAAs have also been identified in the counties of San Benito, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz. RCAAs are significantly more common in the coastal counties north of Monterey County compared to Monterey County and the inland counties of Merced, Fresno, and San Benito.

Median income by tract for the region is presented in Figure D-20. In general, tracts with higher median incomes are prevalent in areas where RCAAs are present. In northern Monterey County, tracts in the Carmel Valley area and through the cities of Monterey, Pacific Grove, and Carmel-by-the-Sea have higher median incomes than Salinas, Marina, Gonzales, and Soledad. Counties north of Monterey County also have higher median incomes compared to counties east of Monterey. 11 HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 – Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence. Description and Methodology. https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=8e44e811fc474df293cdd33060f3b90f&sublayer=4. Accessed April 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 46
Figure D-19: Regional RCAA Tracts (2019)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (HCD 2019), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 47
Figure D-20: Regional Median Income by Tract (2021)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (2017-2021 ACS), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 48
(2) Local Trends
There are no RCAAs that have been identified in Salinas. As presented previously, non-White populations represent 87.8% of the population in Salinas and more than 81% of the population in most Salinas tracts (see Figure D-5). There are no block groups in Salinas where then non-White population represents less than 20% of the block group population. Median income by tract is shown for Salinas in Figure D-21. There is only one tract in the City where the median income exceeds $120,000, located in the northwestern section of the City. The northeastern area of Salinas also generally has higher median incomes compared to the remainder of the City. The central areas of Salinas, including parts of the Alisal neighborhood and the Downtown area south of Chinatown have the lowest median incomes below $55,000. This area of Salinas also has large racial/ethnic minority and LMI household populations (see Figure D-5 and Figure D-14). Two tracts in these neighborhoods have also been identified as TCAC areas of high segregation and poverty (see Figure D-18).

Median household income by race/ethnicity in Salinas and Monterey County is shown in Table D-16.

The Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander population in the City are too small to accurately estimate median household income. In the County, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander households have the highest median income of $102,500. Countywide, the median income among households of a race not listed (some other race) is the lowest ($63,316), followed by the Hispanic/Latino household median of $68,058. The median household income in Monterey County is $82,013, significantly than $75,747 in Salinas. Like the County, the population of some other race and Hispanic/Latino population have the lowest median household incomes in Salinas compared to other racial/ethnic groups. As discussed previously, the population of some other race and Hispanic/Latino population also have the highest poverty rates in the City.

Table D-16: Median Household Income by Race/Ethnicity (2021) Race/Ethnicity
Salinas Monterey County
Percent
Distribution
Median
Income
Percent
Distribution
Median
Income
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 20.6% $88,998 42.0% $100,483 Hispanic or Latino origin (of any
race) 69.3% $70,358 46.1% $68,058
Black or African American 1.8% $82,465 2.3% $77,740
American Indian and Alaska Native 1.0% $86,493 0.7% $77,207 Asian 7.1% $91,304 6.4% $90,313
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander 0.0% - 0.5% $102,500
Some other race 47.2% $65,464 29.0% $63,316
Two or more races 7.8% $93,268 7.7% $89,017
Total 100.0% $75,747 100.0% $82,013
Source: 2017-2021 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 49
Figure D-21: Median Income by Tract (2021)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (2017-2021 ACS), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 50

1.1.4 Access to Opportunities
Significant disparities in access to opportunity are defined by the AFFH Final Rule as “substantial and measurable differences in access to educational, transportation, economic, and other opportunities in a community based on protected class related to housing.” The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) convened the California Fair Housing Task force to “provide research, evidence-based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/ departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by HCD).” The Task Force has created Opportunity Maps to identify resources levels across the state “to accompany new policies aimed at increasing access to high opportunity areas for families with children in housing financed with nine percent Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs)”. These opportunity maps are made from composite scores of three different domains made up of a set of indicators. Table D17 shows the full list of indicators. The opportunity maps include a measure or “filter” to identify areas with poverty and racial segregation. To identify these areas, census tracts were first filtered by poverty and then by a measure of racial segregation. The criteria for these filters were:
• Poverty: Tracts with at least 30 percent of population under federal poverty line; and • Racial Segregation: Tracts with location quotient higher than 1.25 for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or all people of color in comparison to the County Table D-17: Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic
Poverty
Adult education
Employment
Job proximity
Median home value
Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution Indicators and values Education
Math proficiency
Reading proficiency
High School graduation rates
Student poverty rates
Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2020.

TCAC/HCD assigns “scores” for each of the domain by census tracts as well as computing “composite” scores that are a combination of the three domains (Table D-17). Scores from each individual domain range from 0-1, where higher scores indicate higher “access” to the domain or higher “outcomes.” Composite scores do not have a numerical value but rather rank census tracts by the level of resources (low, moderate, high, highest, and high poverty and segregation).

The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps offer a tool to visualize areas of highest resource, high resource, moderate resource, moderate resource (rapidly changing), low resource, and high segregation and poverty. The opportunity maps can help to identify areas within the community that provide good access to opportunity for residents or, conversely, provide low access to opportunity. They can also help to highlight areas where there are high levels of segregation and poverty.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 51
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 low and moderate income and black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) households to housing in high resource areas.

While the Federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rule has been repealed, the data and mapping developed by HUD for the purpose of preparing the Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) can still be useful in informing communities about segregation in their jurisdiction and region, as well as disparities in access to opportunity. This section presents the HUD-developed index scores based on nationally available data sources to assess County and City residents’ access to key opportunity assets. HUD opportunity indices are provided for entitlement jurisdictions only. Opportunity indicators are not available for the Town of Tiburon. Table D-19 provides index scores or values (the values range from 0 to 100) for the following opportunity indicator indices:
• School Proficiency Index: The school proficiency index uses school-level data on the performance of 4th grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have high-performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing elementary schools. The higher the index value, the higher the school system quality is in a neighborhood.
• Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the index value, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood. • Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region (i.e., the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA). The higher the transit trips index value, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit.
• Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the index value, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood. • Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a region/CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. • Environmental Health Index: The environmental health index summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the index value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block-group.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 52
(1) Regional Trends
As explained earlier, TCAC composite scores categorize the level of resources in each census tract.

Categorization is based on percentile rankings for census tracts within the region. Counties in the region all have a mix of resource levels. In general, coastal areas tend to have higher opportunity scores including high and highest resource tracts (Figure D-22). In Monterey County, Monterey, Pacific Grove, and the coastal areas south are comprised of high and highest resource tracts while inland cities, including Salinas, Gonzales, and Soledad are made up of moderate and low resource tracts.

Santa Clara County and Santa Cruz County have a higher concentration of high and highest resource tracts compared to Monterey County and counties to the east. As discussed previously, Santa Clara County and Santa Cruz County also tend to have more tracts that have been identified as RCAAs (see Figure D-19).

HUD Opportunity Index scores for Monterey County are shown in Table D-18 and are further discussed in the following subsections.

Table D-18: Opportunity Indices by Race/Ethnicity – Monterey County School
Prof.

Labor
Market
Transit
Trip
Low
Transp.

Cost
Jobs Prox. Env.

Health
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 48.99 55.97 68.46 53.98 57.98 62.20 Black, Non-Hispanic 28.25 33.15 74.02 57.78 30.12 49.94 Hispanic 15.55 29.36 73.15 56.24 34.23 38.25
Asian or Pacific Islander,
Non-Hispanic 30.59 46.51 71.04 57.01 40.05 52.51
Native American, NonHispanic 29.01 38.66 71.11 55.41 41.7 48.76 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 42.66 52.59 68.85 57.44 55.85 60.53 Black, Non-Hispanic 25.61 43.5 74.45 61.47 36.08 53.76
Hispanic 13.96 28.32 76.08 58.82 34.65 36.38
Asian or Pacific Islander,
Non-Hispanic 35.32 48.32 75.6 62.28 48.42 52.89
Native American, NonHispanic 11.18 21.3 61.81 51.99 38.47 43.02 Source: AFFHT Data Table 12; Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; NATA City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 53
Figure D-22: Regional TCAC Opportunity Area Scores by Tract (2023) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (HCD 2023), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 54
(2) Local Trends
Table D-19 shows the 2021 Opportunity Map scores for the census tracts in the City. Categorization is based on percentile rankings for census tracts within the Monterey County region. High composite scores mean higher resources. As presented in Table D-19 and Figure D-23, most Salinas tracts are low or moderate resource areas. It is relevant to note that the scores in Table D-19 are from 2021 and scores in Figure D-23 are from 2023; therefore, scores may differ. There are only two high resource tracts in Salinas, both located in the southwestern corner of the City. As discussed previously, there are also two areas of high segregation and poverty: one in the Downtown area and one in the Alisal neighborhood. These areas tend to have larger LMI household populations (see Figure D-14).

HUD Opportunity Index scores for Salinas are shown in Table D-20 and are further discussed in the following subsections.

Table D-19: HCD/TCAC Opportunity Area Scores by Tract (2021) Tract Economic
Domain Score
Environmental
Domain Score
Education
Domain Score
Composite
Index Final Category

1.01 0.194 0.368 0.36 -0.393 Low Resource

1.03 0.11 0.829 0.14 -0.489 Low Resource

1.04 0.388 0.404 0.362 -0.223 Moderate Resource
2 0.202 0.77 0.219 -0.383 Low Resource
3 0.154 0.705 0.23 -0.43 Low Resource
4 0.124 0.385 0.264 -0.507 Low Resource

5.01 0.011 0.753 0.093 -0.76 Low Resource

5.02 0.084 0.32 0.138 -0.655 Low Resource
6 0.028 0.671 0.126 -0.7 Low Resource

7.01 0.014 0.862 0.244 -0.602 Low Resource

7.02 0.056 0.843 0.183 -0.516 Low Resource
8 0.076 0.503 0.216 -0.575 Low Resource
9 0.067 0.298 0.093 #N/A High Segregation &
Poverty
12 0.362 0.461 0.236 -0.313 Moderate Resource
13 0.031 0.278 0.39 #N/A High Segregation &
Poverty
14 0.511 0.438 0.39 -0.079 Moderate Resource
15 0.463 0.326 0.385 -0.156 Moderate Resource
16 0.522 0.34 0.275 -0.218 Moderate Resource
17 0.065 0.346 0.275 -0.592 Low Resource

18.01 0.197 0.121 0.312 -0.54 Low Resource

18.02 0.146 0.211 0.247 -0.576 Low Resource
105.04 0.23 0.256 0.132 -0.555 Low Resource
105.05 0.115 0.48 0.143 -0.567 Low Resource
105.06 0.129 0.287 0.143 -0.613 Low Resource
106.03 0.601 0.812 0.323 -0.022 Moderate Resource
106.04 0.365 0.916 0.135 -0.251 Moderate Resource
106.05 0.213 0.697 0.152 -0.426 Low Resource
City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 55
106.06 0.292 0.065 0.233 -0.606 Low Resource
106.07 0.022 0.89 0.067 -0.667 Low Resource
106.08 0.121 0.719 0.076 -0.566 Low Resource
145 0.331 0.104 0.32 -0.441 Low Resource
Note: These scores were compiled in 2021 and may not match the updated 2023 scores shown in Figure X-23.

Source: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Scores, Final 2021.

Table D-20: Opportunity Indices by Race/Ethnicity – Salinas School
Prof.

Labor
Market
Transit
Trip
Low
Transp.

Cost
Jobs Prox. Env.

Health
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 14.79 38.88 79.52 61.83 44.79 28.68 Black, Non-Hispanic 13.43 34.66 79.43 62.03 31.38 30.38 Hispanic 11.95 29.31 82.84 62.38 28.10 29.98
Asian or Pacific Islander,
Non-Hispanic 13.82 38.43 76.79 58.72 26.49 32.22
Native American, NonHispanic 13.82 35.32 80.67 61.93 32.09 30.75 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 12.59 35.71 81.14 65.45 44.28 28.37 Black, Non-Hispanic 13.20 35.96 77.66 61.38 30.46 31.12 Hispanic 12.50 27.33 85.80 64.11 28.85 29.26
Asian or Pacific Islander,
Non-Hispanic 7.67 29.04 78.66 64.72 37.12 27.64
Native American, NonHispanic 22.00 40.91 84.18 66.64 32.86 26.85 Source: AFFHT Data Table 12; Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; NATA (3) Sites Inventory
Sites selected to meet the RHNA by TCAC opportunity area categorizations are shown in Figure D23 and Table D-21. As mentioned above, most tracts in Salinas are considered moderate and low resource areas. Consistent with the citywide trend, 51.4% of RHNA units are in moderate resource tracts and 41% are in low resource tracts. Approximately 60% of very low income units and 74% of low income units are in low resource tracts compared to 58% of moderate income units and 17% of above moderate income units. An additional 88 very low income units, 122 low income units, 94 moderate income units, and 151 above moderate income units are in areas of high segregation and poverty. However, 8.2% units allocated towards the very low income RHNA and 8.3% of the units allocated towards the low income RHNA are also in the high resource tracts in the southwest corner of the City. Given the spread of opportunity categories citywide, the RHNA is distributed amongst tracts of various opportunity area scores to the greatest extent possible. Further, AFFH actions outlined in this Housing Element will promote increased opportunities in low resource areas and areas of high segregation and poverty, specifically in the Downtown, Chinatown, and Alisal neighborhoods.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 56
Table D-21: Distribution of RHNA Units by TCAC Opportunity Area Category TCAC Opportunity
Category
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
Units Total Units Total Units Total Units Total Units Total High Resource 78 8.2% 79 8.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 157 1.9%
Moderate Resource 213 22.3% 41 4.3% 931 38.0% 2,996 79.4% 4,181 51.4% Low Resource 578 60.4% 705 74.4% 1427 58.2% 625 16.6% 3335 41.0% High Segregation
and Poverty 88 9.2% 122 12.9% 94 3.8% 151 4.0% 455 5.6% Total 957 100.0% 947 100.0% 2,452 100.0% 3,772 100.0% 8,128 100.0% City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 57
Figure D-23: TCAC Opportunity Area Scores by Tract and Sites Inventory (2023) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (HCD 2023), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 58
A. Educational
(1) Regional Trends
The school proficiency index is an indicator of school system quality, with higher index scores indicating access to higher school quality. In Monterey County, Hispanic residents have access to lower quality schools (lowest index value of 16) compared all other residents. For all other races, index values ranged from 29 for the Native American community to 49 for the White community. For residents living below the federal poverty line, index values are lower for all races except the Asian or Pacific Islander population. Values drop most significantly for the Native American population, from 29 for the total population to 11 for the population below the federal poverty line. White residents have the highest index values, indicating a greater access to high quality schools, regardless of poverty status.

Monterey County is comprised of 25 school districts with an enrollment of 77,387 students during the 2019-2020 school year. The largest districts include Salinas Union High School District, with an enrollment of 16,257, Monterey Peninsula Unified School District, with an enrollment of 10,526, Alisal Union School District, with an enrollment of 8,750, and Salinas City Elementary School District, with an enrollment of 8,566. Countywide, there are 126 public schools, 8 charter schools, 22 private schools, and 3,966 full-time public school teachers. According to the Monterey County Office of Education, 34.3% of students in the County are English learners, compared to 18.6% in the State,

9.9% are homeless, compared to 3.2% in the State, 3.7% are migrant students, compared to 0.8% in the State, and 75.1% are socioeconomically disadvantaged, compared to 60.7% in the State.

Table D-22 and Table D-23 show graduation rates and college-going rates by race for Monterey County. Monterey County has a higher graduation rate and college-going rate compared to the Statewide average. The Hispanic/Latino population has the highest graduation rate, while the Asian population has the highest graduation rate. While American Indian/Alaska Native population has one of the highest graduation rates, it also has the lowest college-going rate. The Asian population also has the highest college-going rate compared to other racial/ethnic groups.

Table D-22: 2021-22 Four-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate – Monterey County Race/Ethnicity Cohort Student Cohort Graduation
Rate
African American 82 91.5%
American Indian or Alaska Native 29 96.6%
Asian 97 97.9%
Filipino 135 95.6%
Hispanic or Latino 4,618 87.4%
Pacific Islander 33 93.9%
White 640 91.7%
Two or More Races 86 93.0%
Not Reported 17 88.2%
Monterey County Total 5,737 88.5%
Statewide Total 497,884 87.0%
Source: California Department of Education, DataQuest, 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 59
Table D-23: 2019-20 College-Going Rate for High School Students – Monterey County Race/Ethnicity High School
Completers College-Going Rate
African American 72 66.7%
American Indian or Alaska Native 16 56.3%
Asian 106 80.2%
Filipino 144 67.4%
Hispanic or Latino 3,861 64.6%
Pacific Islander 22 63.6%
White 652 69.2%
Two or More Races 63 66.7%
Not Reported 12 75.0%
Monterey County Total 4,948 65.7%
Statewide Total 437,375 62.7%
Source: California Department of Education, DataQuest, 2023. (2) Local Trends
Like the countywide trend, the Hispanic population in Salinas also received the lowest school proficiency index of 12 (Table D-20). The White population scored the highest for school proficiency (14.8). School proficiency indicators for all racial/ethnic groups in Salinas are lower compared to respective populations countywide. Amongst the population below the federal poverty line, the school proficiency index for Asian and Pacific Islander residents drops most dramatically from 13.8 for the total population to 7.7 for the population below the poverty line. School proficiency indicator scores for the Hispanic and Native American populations increase for the populations below the federal poverty line. White residents have the highest index values for the total population, indicating a greater access to high quality schools.

Salinas is served by the following school districts:
• Alisal Union – 8,750 students
• Graves Union – 42 students
• Salinas City – 8,566 students
• Salinas Union High – 16,257 students
• Santa Rita Union – 3,588 students.

School districts serving Salinas are shown in Figure D-24. Salinas Union High District has a lower graduation rate and college going rate compared to the County (Table D-24 and Table D-25). The Hispanic/Latino student population represents the largest proportion of students but has the lowest graduation rate and college-going rate compared to other racial/ethnic groups. According to 2022- 2023 enrollment data, 21.3% of students in the Salina Union High District are English learners. A smaller proportion than Monterey County (36.1%) but larger than the State (19%). Additionally, City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 60

65.5% of students in the Alisal Union district and 49.2% of students in the Salinas City Elementary District are English learners.

Table D-24: 2021-22 Four-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate – Salinas Union High Race/Ethnicity Cohort Student Cohort Grad Rate
African American 20 90.0%
American Indian or Alaska Native -- --
Asian 28 96.4%
Filipino 65 96.9%
Hispanic or Latino 2,472 87.0%
Pacific Islander -- --
White 147 90.5%
Two or More Races 43 88.4%
Not Reported -- --
Salinas Union High 2,794 87.5%
Monterey County Total 5,580 88.9%
Statewide Total 427,386 90.4%
Source: California Department of Education, DataQuest, 2023.

Table D-25: 2019-20 College-Going Rate for High School Students – Salinas Union High Race/Ethnicity High School
Completers College-Going Rate
African American 13 76.9%
American Indian or Alaska Native -- --
Asian 24 87.5%
Filipino 72 76.4%
Hispanic or Latino 1,990 68.3%
Pacific Islander -- --
White 174 69.0%
Two or More Races 19 68.4%
Not Reported -- --
Monterey County Total 2,298 68.9%
Statewide Total 4,774 66.9%
Source: California Department of Education, DataQuest, 2023.

Residents should have the opportunity to live a healthy life and live in healthy communities. The Healthy Places Index (HPI) is a new tool that allows local officials to diagnose and change community conditions that affect health outcomes and the wellbeing of residents. The HPI tool was developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California to assist in comparing community conditions across the state and combined 25 community characteristics such as housing, education, economic, and social factors into a single indexed HPI Percentile Score, where lower percentiles indicate lower conditions. The HPI also includes individual variables to analyze specific indicators such as education.

Bachelor’s degree attainment, high school enrollment, and preschool enrollment by tract are shown in Figure D-25, Figure D-26, and Figure D-27.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 61
Almost all Salinas tracts scored in the lowest quartile for bachelor’s degree attainment. Tracts on the southern side of the City have larger populations of adults with bachelor’s degrees compared to the remainder of Salinas. More than 30% of the population aged 25 and older in these tracts have a bachelor’s degree. The southern tracts, along with tracts in the northwestern corner of the City, also have higher high school enrollment compared to the central and northeastern tracts. All high school aged youths residing in the tracts in green are enrolled in high school, while only 72% to 99% of high school aged students are enrolled in high school in the blue tracts. In nearly all Salinas tracts, less than 50% of children aged 3 and 4 are enrolled in preschool. As discussed previously, the southwest corner and northern area of Salinas tends to have smaller LMI household and non-White populations compared to the central areas, such as the Downtown, Alisal, and Chinatown neighborhoods (see Figure D-14 and Figure D-5).

Greatschools.org is a non-profit organization that rates schools across the States. The Great Schools Summary Rating calculation is based on four ratings: the Student Progress Rating or Academic Progress Rating, College Readiness Rating, Equity Rating, and Test Score Rating. Ratings at the lower end of the scale (1-4) signal that the school is “below average”, 5-6 indicate “average”, and 7-10 are “above average.” Figure D-28 shows that most schools in Salinas received scores of four or five. There is not a single area of the City where schools rank higher or lower.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 62
Figure D-24: Salinas School Districts
City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 63
Figure D-25: Received Bachelor’s Education or Higher by Tract (2019) Source: Healthy Places Index – HPI Indicators, 2023.

Figure D-26: High School Enrollment by Tract (2019)
Source: Healthy Places Index – HPI Indicators, 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 64
Figure D-27: Preschool Enrollment by Tract (2019)
Source: Healthy Places Index – HPI Indicators, 2023.

Figure D-28: Great Schools Ratings
Source: Greatschools.org, GreatSchools Rating – Salinas, Accessed 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 65
B. Transportation
(1) Regional Trends
HUD’s opportunity indicators can provide a picture of transit use and access in Monterey County through the transit index 12 and low transportation cost. 13 Index values can range from zero to 100
and are reported per race so that differences in access to transportation can be evaluated based on race. In the County, transit index values range from 68 to 74, with White residents scoring lower and Black residents scoring highest. Given that higher the transit trips index, the more likely residents utilize public transit, Black residents are more likely to use public transit. For residents living below the poverty line, the index values increase for all racial/ethnic groups except the Native American population. Transit trips index values range from 61 to 76 for populations below the poverty line.

Regardless of income, White residents have lower index values- and thus a lower likelihood of using transit, while Black, Hispanic, and Asian residents are most likely to use transit.

Low transportation cost index values have a range of 54 to 58 with the White population scoring the lowest and Black population scoring the highest. Low transportation cost indices were higher for all racial/ethnic groups below the federal poverty line except the Native American population. Black and Asian residents have the highest low transportation cost index values, regardless of poverty status.

Considering a higher “low transportation cost” index value indicates a lower cost of transportation; public transit is less costly for the Black and Asian populations than other groups in the County.

Areas within a half mile from high quality transit areas are shown for the region in Figure D-29. High quality transit areas are most accessible in incorporated Monterey County cities, including Salinas, Seaside, Monterey, and Pacific Grove, and along the 101 and 1 Highways, north of the City. The Housing and transportation index shown in Figure D-30 shows the costs of housing and transportation as a percent of household income at the block group level. In most block groups in the region, households spend between 30% and 75% of their income on housing and transportation.

There is a stretch of Monterey County, from Carmel to the Carmel Valley, where households spend more than 75% of their income on housing and transportation costs. The Carmel Valley area has no access to high quality transit areas.
12 Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a 3- person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region (i.e. the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA). The higher the transit trips index, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit. 13 Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the index, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 66
Figure D-29: Half Mile from High Quality Transit Area
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0, 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 67
Figure D-30: Regional Housing and Transportation Index by Block Group (2022) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (CNT, 2022), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 68
(2) Local Trends
Salinas populations, regardless of race or income, have higher transit trips index scores than populations countywide, indicating Salinas residents are more likely to use public transit (see Table D20). Transit trips index values range from 76.8 for the Asian population to 82.8 for the Hispanic population in Salinas. Transit trip index values increase for all racial/ethnic groups below the federal poverty line other than for the Black population. Low transportation cost index scores are also higher for Salinas populations compared to the County, indicating Salinas residents tend to spend less on transportation. Low transportation costs range from 58.7 for Asian or Pacific Islander residents to

62.4 for Hispanic residents. Amongst the populations below the poverty line, the White and Native American populations have the highest low transportation cost index scores.

High quality transit stops and areas within a half mile of those stops are presented in Figure D-31.

The Downtown and Chinatown neighborhoods, south of the 101 Freeway, have the highest density of high quality transit stops in the City. Additional high quality transit areas in Salinas are located between Sherwood Drive and Constitution Boulevard and in the northwestern corner of the City along E. Boronda Road and Main Street.

In most block groups, households tend to allocate between 30% and 50% of their income to housing and transportation costs. Areas closer to high quality transit areas tend to spend less on housing and transit. Households in block groups in the northern areas of the City tend to spend more on housing and transportation, allocating 50% to 75% of their income to cover these costs.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 69
Figure D-31: High Quality Transit Stops and Areas
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (CalTrans, 2022), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 70
Figure D-32: Housing and Transportation Index by Block Group (2022) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (CNT, 2022), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 71
C. Economic
(1) Regional Trends
HUD’s opportunity indicators provide values for labor market index 14 and jobs proximity index 15 that can be measures for economic development in Monterey County. Like the other HUD opportunity indicators, scores range from 0 to 100 and are published by race and poverty level to identify differences in the relevant “opportunity” (in this case economic opportunity). The labor market index value is based on the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract- a higher score means higher labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood. Monterey County’s labor market index values have a significant range from 29 to 56, with Hispanic residents scoring lowest and White residents scoring highest. Scores for Monterey County residents living below the poverty line drop notably for Native American residents (from 39 to 21) but increase for Black residents (from 33 to 44) and Asian or Pacific Islander residents (from 47 to 48). These values indicate that Native American and Hispanic residents living in poverty have the lowest labor force participation and human capital in the County.

HUD’s jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a neighborhood to jobs in the region. Index values can range from 0 to 100 and a higher index value indicate better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. County jobs proximity index values range from 30 to 58 and are highest for White residents. The Black and Hispanic populations have the lowest jobs proximity scores of 30 and 34, respectively. Jobs proximity index scores increase for the Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander populations below the federal poverty line but decrease for the White and Native American populations.

TCAC/HCD economic scores by tract are shown for the region in Figure D-33. Economic Scores are a composite of jobs proximity index values as well as poverty, adult education, employment, and median home value characteristics. TCAC economic scores range from 0 to 1, where higher values indicate more positive economic outcomes. The areas in and around the City of Monterey, Carmel, and Pacific Grove, and the unincorporated County area along the Monterey Salinas Highway, south of Salinas, have the highest economic scores. Economic scores are also higher in the Santa Cruz County area near the City of Santa Cruz and Capitola. Tracts with lower economic scores are most concentrated in Monterey County along the 101 Freeway through Gonzales and Soledad and in southern Santa Clara County east of Gilroy.

Figure D-34 shows the number of jobs located within a 45 minute transit ride at the block group level.

Jobs are most accessible to populations residing in block groups within incorporated cities.

Employment opportunities are most accessible by transit in northern Monterey County cities, including Salinas, Marina, Seaside, and the City of Monterey, and in Santa Cruz County around the cities of Santa Cruz and Capitola.
14 Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the score, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood.
15 Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a region/CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 72
Figure D-33: Regional TCAC/HCD Economic Scores by Tract (2023) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (HCD, 2023), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 73
Figure D-34: Regional Jobs Within 45 Minute Transit Ride by Block Group (2018) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (Smart Locations Database, 2018), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 74
(2) Local Trends
Labor market index values are lower for most Salinas racial/ethnic groups compared to the respective populations countywide. Labor market indices in Salinas range from 29 for the Hispanic population to 39 for the White population. Labor market index scores increase for the Black and Native American populations below the federal poverty line. Jobs proximity index scores for Salinas racial/ethnic groups, with the exception of the Black population, are also lower than the respective populations countywide. Jobs proximity index values in Salinas range from 27 for the Asian/Pacific Islander population to 45 for the White population. Labor market and jobs proximity index scores indicate the White population in Salinas has the highest labor market participation and access to employment opportunities.

TCAC/HCD economic scores are lowest in the Alisal and Downtown neighborhoods (Figure D-35).

Three tracts in the southwestern corner of the City and one in the northeastern section of the City scored the highest amongst Salinas tracts. As discussed previously, the southwest corner of the City is also a high resource area. The central areas of Salinas, where economic scores are the lowest, also have larger non-White and LMI household populations compared to the remainder of the City (see Figure D-5 and Figure D-14).

Jobs are highly accessible by transit in Salinas compared to other areas of the County (Figure D-36).

The Downtown/Chinatown neighborhoods and other areas south of the 101 Freeway have access to the highest number of jobs within a 45-minute transit commute. Employment opportunities tend to be slightly less accessible by transit in tracts along the perimeter of the City. However, transit and employment opportunities are highly accessible by transit citywide.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 75
Figure D-35: TCAC/HCD Economic Scores by Tract (2023)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (HCD, 2023), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 76
Figure D-36: Jobs Within 45 Minute Transit Ride by Block Group (2018) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (Smart Locations Database, 2018), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 77
D. Environmental
(1) Regional Trends
HUD’s opportunity index for “environmental health” summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. Index values range from 0 to 100 and the higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block-group. In Monterey County, environmental health index values range from 38 for Hispanic residents to 62 for White residents. The range is similar for the population living below the federal poverty line, with Hispanic residents living in poverty still scoring lowest (36) and White residents in poverty scoring the highest (61).

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has released updated scored in February 2020 (CalEnviroscreen 4.0). The CalEnviroscreen 4.0 scores in Figure D-37 are based on percentiles; the lower the score the better the environmental conditions. Based on CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores, environmental conditions are best in Monterey County, south of Salinas, through Pacific Grove, Carmel, Carmel Valley, and Big Sur. A large proportion of Santa Cruz County also has superior environmental conditions. Tracts from south Santa Cruz County through Salinas and inland tend to be lower.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 78
Figure D-37: Regional CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores by Tract (2021) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (OEHHA, 2021), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 79
(2) Local Trends
Based on HUD’s environmental health index, Asian/Pacific Islander residents in Salinas tend to live in areas with better environmental conditions. Environmental health index values are lowest for the White and Hispanic populations. Amongst the populations below the federal poverty line, environmental index scores were highest for the Black population and lowest for the Asian/Pacific Islander and Native American populations. Environmental health indices are lower for all Salinas residents compared to Monterey County residents as a whole.

According to the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 percentile scores shown in Figure D-38, the central areas of Salinas along the 101 Freeway have better environmental conditions compared to the northeastern and southwestern corners of the City. The Downtown, Chinatown, and southern Alisal neighborhood areas specifically have superior environmental conditions. These areas also have larger non-White populations and LMI household populations (see Figure D-5 and Figure D-14). (3) Sites Inventory
The distribution of RHNA units by CalEnviroScreen 4.0 percentile scores are presented in Figure D38 and Table D-26. The largest proportion of RHNA units (45%) are in tracts scoring within the 40th percentile (best scores). However, most of these units are allocated to the above moderate income RHNA. Only 8.2% of very low and 8.3% of low income units are in tracts scoring within the 40th percentile. The largest proportion of very low and low income units are in tracts scoring between the 61st and 70th percentile. There is also a larger proportion of very low and low income units in tracts scoring in the 81st percentile or higher compared to moderate and above moderate income units.

Table D-26: Distribution of RHNA Units by CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score CalEnviroScreen 4.0
Percentile Score
(Tract)
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
Units Total Units Total Units Total Units Total Units Total 31-40% 78 8.2% 79 8.3% 800 32.6% 2,715 72.0% 3,672 45.2% 41-50% 224 23.4% 225 23.8% 492 20.1% 543 14.4% 1,484 18.3% 51-60% 3 0.3% 7 0.7% 3 0.1% 72 1.9% 85 1.0%
61-70% 461 48.2% 455 48.0% 766 31.2% 290 7.7% 1,972 24.3% 71-80% 88 9.2% 122 12.9% 363 14.8% 151 4.0% 724 8.9%
81-90% 103 10.8% 59 6.2% 28 1.1% 1 0.0% 191 2.3%
Total 957 100.0% 947 100.0% 2,452 100.0% 3,772 100.0% 8,128 100.0% City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 80
Figure D-38: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores by Tract and Sites Inventory (2021) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (OEHHA, 2021), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 81

1.1.5 Disproportionate Housing Needs
The AFFH Rule Guidebook defines disproportionate housing needs as a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing needs when compared to the proportion of a member of any other relevant groups or the total population experiencing the category of housing need in the applicable geographic area (24 C.F.R. § 5.152). The analysis is completed by assessing cost burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing.

The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) developed by the Census for HUD provides detailed information on housing needs by income level for different types of households in Marin County. Housing problems considered by CHAS include:
• Housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 30% of gross income; • Severe housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 50% of gross income; • Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room); and • Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom).

According to CHAS data based on the 2015-2019 ACS, approximately 49% of Monterey County households experience housing problems, compared to 54% of households in Salinas. In both the County and City, renters are more likely to be affected by housing problems than owners. According to the 2017-2021 ACS, Salinas is a renter-dominant City, where 53% of occupied households are renters, higher than 48.3% countywide.

A. Cost Burden
(1) Regional Trends
As presented in Table D-27, in Monterey County, approximately 40% of households experience cost burden. Renters experience cost burdens at higher rates than owners (50.7% compared to 30.3%), regardless of race. Among renters, Black, Pacific Islander, and Hispanic households experience the highest rates of cost burden (49.6%, 46.3%, and 45.7%, respectively). Geographically, cost burdened renter households are concentrated in census tracts along the coast from Carmel to southern Santa Cruz County (Figure D-40). In these tracts, more than 60% of renter households experience cost burdens. Among owner-occupied households, Pacific Islander, Black, and Hispanic households experience cost burdened at a rate exceeding the countywide average. Tracts with larger populations of cost burdened owners are in and around Marina, Salinas, south of Carmel, and Watsonville in Santa Cruz County.

Table D-27: Housing Problems and Cost Burden by Race/Ethnicity – Monterey County (2022) White Black Asian Am. Ind. Pac. Isl. Hispanic All
With Housing Problem
Owner-Occupied 30.2% 25.1% 33.2% 34.0% 60.6% 44.4% 35.6% Renter-Occupied 51.2% 58.4% 47.2% 57.6% 73.1% 71.2% 62.0% All Households 38.4% 51.4% 38.6% 44.9% 66.0% 60.3% 48.5% With Cost Burden
City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 82
Owner-Occupied 28.8% 34.7% 30.1% 15.0% 49.3% 32.7% 30.3% Renter-Occupied 47.1% 56.2% 35.0% 58.8% 42.3% 54.6% 50.7% All Households 35.9% 49.6% 32.0% 35.1% 46.3% 45.7% 40.3% Source: HUD CHAS Data (based on 2015-2019 ACS), 2022.

Housing problems and cost burdens can also affect special needs populations disproportionately.

Table D-28 shows that elderly and large households experience housing problems and cost burdens at higher rates than renters and owners countywide.

Table D-28: Housing Problems by Household Type – Monterey County (2022) Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied All HH Elderly Large HH All Owner Elderly Large HH All Renter Any housing problem 32.0% 54.6% 35.6% 56.9% 84.6% 62.0% 48.5% Cost burden >30% 32.3% 27.0% 30.3% 50.9% 51.2% 50.7% 40.3% Source: HUD CHAS Data (based on 2015-2019 ACS), 2022.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 83
Figure D-39: Regional Cost Burdened Owner-Occupied Households by Tract (2021) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (2017-2021 ACS), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 84
Figure D-40: Regional Cost Burdened Renter-Occupied Households by Tract (2021) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (2017-2021 ACS), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 85
(2) Local Trends
Cost burden is more common among Salinas households compared to the County; 43.9% of households in Salinas are cost burdened compared to 40.3% countywide (Table D-29). Salinas has a larger proportion of cost burdened renters (54%) than Monterey County (50.7%). Cost burden is also slightly more common for owner-occupied households in Salinas than owners countywide (31.4% versus 30.3%).

As mentioned above, Salinas has a larger proportion of renters than the County. Typically, renters are more likely than owners to be cost burdened. In Salinas, 31.4% of owners are cost burdened compared to 54% of renters. As shown in Figure D-41, cost burdened owner-occupied households are most prevalent in the southwest and northeast corners of the City, including the Downtown neighborhood.

According to the HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 91.5% of households in tract 13, encompassing the Downtown neighborhood, are cost burdened. Tract 13 is comprised of mostly renters (Figure D-43).

Over 93% of households residing in this tract are renters. Tracts with larger populations of cost burdened renters are more common in the central and northwestern areas of the City (Figure D-42).

Pacific Islander and American Indian households are most likely to experience housing problems and cost burden. White, Black, and Asian households experience housing problems and cost burden at rates below the citywide average. American Indian renters, Pacific Islander owners, and Hispanic renters are cost burdened at the highest rate compared to other racial/ethnic groups.

Table D-29: Housing Problems and Cost Burden by Race/Ethnicity – Salinas (2022) White Black Asian Am. Ind. Pac. Isl. Hispanic All
With Housing Problem
Owner-Occupied 28.8% 28.1% 28.8% 50.0% 75.0% 45.6% 39.1% Renter-Occupied 51.2% 52.1% 47.2% 96.7% -- 70.9% 66.3%
All Households 37.3% 44.8% 35.4% 73.3% 75.0% 61.3% 54.1% With Cost Burden
Owner-Occupied 26.8% 28.6% 26.3% 50.0% 75.0% 33.9% 31.4% Renter-Occupied 47.9% 49.0% 35.8% 83.3% -- 56.5% 54.0%
All Households 34.8% 42.8% 29.7% 66.7% 75.0% 47.9% 43.9% Source: HUD CHAS Data (based on 2015-2019 ACS), 2022.

As discussed previously, housing problems and cost burden often affect special needs populations disproportionately. Rates of housing problems and cost burden for elderly and large households in the City are presented in Table D-30. Among owner-occupied households, elderly households are slightly more likely to experience cost burden compared to owners citywide. Large renter households are significantly more likely to experience housing problems. Large households often face housing problems related to overcrowding.

Table D-30: Housing Problems by Household Type – Salinas (2022) Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied All HH Elderly Large HH All Owner Elderly Large HH All Renter Any housing problem 32.0% 52.2% 38.5% 55.2% 87.6% 65.9% 52.9% Cost burden >30% 31.8% 25.0% 31.4% 47.0% 52.7% 53.5% 43.1% Source: HUD CHAS Data (based on 2015-2019 ACS), 2022.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 86
(3) Sites Inventory
Consistent with the citywide trend, where most tracts have cost burdened owner populations ranging from 40% to 60%, 64% of RHNA units are located in tracts with populations of overpaying owners in this range. Another 30% of units are in tracts where only 20% to 40% of owners are cost burdened.

The remaining 5.6% of units are in the tract where more than 80% of owners are cost burdened. A larger proportion of very low and low income units are in this tract compared to moderate and above moderate income units. However, the number of units in this tract overall, 88 very low, 122 low, 94 moderate, and 151 above moderate, are generally evenly distributed.

Half of RHNA units are in tracts where 40% to 60% of renters are cost burdened, including 81% of very low and 84% of low income units (Table D-32). A larger proportion of moderate and above moderate income units are in tracts where more than 60% of renters overpay for housing compared to lower income units. The RHNA strategy does not disproportionately place lower income units in areas where cost burden is more prevalent.

Table D-31: Distribution of RHNA Units by Cost Burdened Owners Cost Burdened
Owners (Tract)
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
Units Total Units Total Units Total Units Total Units Total 20-40% 586 61.2% 541 57.1% 969 39.5% 363 9.6% 2,459 30.3% 40-60% 283 29.6% 284 30.0% 1,389 56.6% 3,258 86.4% 5,214 64.1% 60-80% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
>80% 88 9.2% 122 12.9% 94 3.8% 151 4.0% 455 5.6%
Total 957 100.0% 947 100.0% 2,452 100.0% 3,772 100.0% 8,128 100.0% Table D-32: Distribution of RHNA Units by Cost Burdened Renters Cost Burdened
Renters (Tract)
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
Units Total Units Total Units Total Units Total Units Total <20% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 33 1.3% 0 0.0% 33 0.4%
20-40% 3 0.3% 7 0.7% 3 0.1% 834 22.1% 847 10.4%
40-60% 776 81.1% 798 84.3% 1537 62.7% 952 25.2% 4063 50.0% 60-80% 178 18.6% 142 15.0% 879 35.8% 1986 52.7% 3,185 39.2% Total 957 100.0% 947 100.0% 2,452 100.0% 3,772 100.0% 8,128 100.0% City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 87
Figure D-41: Cost Burdened Owner-Occupied Households by Tract and Sites Inventory (2021) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (2017-2021 ACS), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 88
Figure D-42: Cost Burdened Renter-Occupied Households by Tract and Sites Inventory (2021) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (2017-2021 ACS), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 89
Figure D-43: Renter Occupied Households by Tract (2021) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (2017-2021 ACS), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 90
B. Overcrowding
(1) Regional Trends
Overcrowding is defined as housing units with more than one person per room (including dining and living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen). According to the 2021 five-year ACS estimates,

14.2% of households in Monterey County are overcrowded and 4.5% are severely overcrowded (Table D-33). Renters are significantly more likely to be overcrowded compared to owners. Over 21% of renter-occupied households are overcrowded compared to only 7.5% of owners. Renters are also more likely to experience housing problems including cost burden (see Table D-27). Large households specifically have high rates of housing problems in the County (see Table D-28) Regionally overcrowding is most common in tracts between Castroville and Watsonville, in Salinas, and in the coastal area south of Carmel. The area between Salinas and Watsonville also has higher rates of cost burdened renter households (see Figure D-40) Table D-33: Overcrowded Households by Tenure – Monterey County (2021) Overcrowded
(>1 person per room)
Severely Overcrowded
(>1.5 persons per room)
Owner-Occupied 7.5% 1.7%
Renter-Occupied 21.3% 7.6%
Total 14.2% 4.5%
Source: 2017-2021 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 91
Figure D-44: Regional Overcrowded Households by Tract (2021) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (2017-2021 ACS), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 92
(2) Local Trends
Overcrowding is more prevalent in the City compared to Monterey County. As shown in Table D-34, more than 21% of households citywide are in overcrowded conditions. Overcrowding is more common among renters; 29.4% of renter-occupied households are overcrowded including 7.8% that are severely overcrowded. Only 12% of all Salinas owner-occupied households experience overcrowding. However, the rate of overcrowding for both owners and renters exceed the rates countywide
Tracts with the highest overcrowding rates are most concentrated in the Alisal neighborhood (Figure D-45). More than 20% of households in many of these tracts are overcrowded. Consistent with the trends shown in Table D-34, where significantly more renters are overcrowded, the Alisal neighborhood is made up of primarily renter occupied households (see Figure D-43). The Alisal neighborhood has several overlapping fair housing issues, discussed throughout this Assessment of Fair Housing, including larger non-White populations, LMI household populations, and cost burdened renter households (see Figure D-5, Figure D-14, and Figure D-42). There are very few tracts in the City where less than 5% of households are overcrowded.

Table D-34: Overcrowded Households by Tenure – Salinas (2021) Overcrowded
(>1 person per room)
Severely Overcrowded
(>1.5 persons per room)
Owner-Occupied 12.0% 3.0%
Renter-Occupied 29.4% 7.8%
Total 21.2% 5.5%
Source: 2017-2021 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
(3) Sites Inventory
As discussed above, overcrowded households are prevalent in Salinas; therefore, the placement of RHNA sites in areas with overcrowded conditions is unavoidable. Table D-35 shows that the largest proportion of RHNA units, 45%, are in tracts where 5% to 10% of households are overcrowded.

However, most of these units are allocated towards the above moderate income RHNA. More than half of very low, low, and moderate income units are in tracts where 10% to 15% of households are overcrowded. While 8.3% of RHNA units are allocated in tracts where more than 20% of households are overcrowded, this is unavoidable as a significant proportion of tracts in the City have overcrowded household populations in this range. As shown above, 21.2% of households citywide are in overcrowded conditions. However, an additional 12.1% of very low, 2.1% of low, 0.5% of moderate, and 7.4% of above moderate units are in tracts where fewer than 5% of households are overcrowded, despite the small number of tracts with this percentage of overcrowded households citywide. The RHNA strategy distributes units throughout tracts with variable populations of overcrowded households to the greatest extent possible.

Table D-35: Distribution of RHNA Units by Overcrowded Households Overcrowded
Households (Tract)
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
Units Total Units Total Units Total Units Total Units Total <5% 116 12.1% 20 2.1% 12 0.5% 280 7.4% 428 5.3%
5-10% 78 8.2% 79 8.3% 800 32.6% 2,715 72.0% 3,672 45.2% 10-15% 556 58.1% 514 54.3% 1264 51.5% 700 18.6% 3034 37.3% City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 93
15-20% 100 10.4% 141 14.9% 43 1.8% 32 0.8% 316 3.9%
>20% 107 11.2% 193 20.4% 333 13.6% 45 1.2% 678 8.3%
Total 957 100.0% 947 100.0% 2,452 100.0% 3,772 100.0% 8,128 100.0% City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 94
Figure D-45: Overcrowded Households by Tract and Sites Inventory (2021) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (2017-2021 ACS), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 95
C. Substandard Housing Conditions
(1) Regional Trends
Incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities can be used to measure substandard housing conditions.

Incomplete facilities and housing age are estimated using the 2017-2021 ACS. In general, residential structures over 30 years of age require minor repairs and modernization improvements, while units over 50 years of age are likely to require major rehabilitation such as roofing, plumbing, and electrical system repairs.

According to 2017-2021 ACS estimates, shown in Table D-36, very few households in Monterey County lack complete plumbing or kitchen facilities. Only 0.3% of household lack complete plumbing facilities and 0.5% lack complete kitchen facilities. Renter-occupied households are slightly more likely to lack complete kitchen facilities (0.6%) compared to owners (0.4%). There are very few tracts in the region with populations of households lacking complete plumbing facilities exceeding 2% (Figure D46). Tracts with populations of households lacking complete plumbing facilities exceeding 2% are more common in unincorporated areas. Most tracts in the region also have fewer than 2% of households lacking complete kitchen facilities. There are a handful of tracts, mostly in the coastal Monterey and Santa Cruz County areas, where populations of households lacking complete kitchen facilities exceed 2%.

Housing age can also be used as an indicator for substandard housing and rehabilitation needs. As stated above, structures over 30 years of age require minor repairs and modernization improvements, while units over 50 years of age are likely to require major rehabilitation. In the County, 75% of the housing stock was built prior to 1990, including 42% built prior to 1970 (Table D-39). Figure D-48 shows the percent of housing units built prior to 1990 by tract. Tracts with large proportions of housing units built prior to 1990 are not concentrated in a single area in the region. However, tracts with proportions of households built prior to 1990 are generally more prevalent in coastal areas throughout Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties compared to inland communities.

Table D-36: Substandard Housing Conditions – Monterey County (2021) Lacking Complete
Plumbing Facilities
Lacking Complete
Kitchen Facilities
Owner-Occupied 0.3% 0.4%
Renter-Occupied 0.3% 0.6%
Total 0.3% 0.5%
Source: 2017-2021 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 96
Figure D-46: Regional Units Lacking Complete Plumbing by Tract (2021) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (2017-2021 ACS), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 97
Figure D-47: Regional Units Lacking Complete Kitchen by Tract (2021) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (2017-2021 ACS), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 98
Figure D-48: Regional Age of Housing Structures by Tract (2021) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (2017-2021 ACS), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 99
(2) Local Trends
Like the County, there are very small proportions of households lacking complete facilities in Salinas (Table D-37). Only 0.1% of households lack complete plumbing facilities and 0.6% lack complete kitchen facilities. Renters are slightly more likely to lack complete plumbing facilities, while owners are more likely to lack complete kitchen facilities. There are no tracts in Salinas where more than 2% of households lack complete plumbing facilities. Households lacking complete kitchen facilities, shown in Figure D-50, comprise more than 2% of the population in only two tracts. Approximately 6% of households lack complete kitchen facilities in tract 6.03 in the northern section of the City, and 4.3% of households lack complete kitchen facilities in tract 13 in the Downtown neighborhood. As discussed previously, this neighborhood is primarily renters with larger populations of cost burdened owners and LMI households (see Figure D-14, Figure D-41, and Figure D-43) According to the City’s code enforcement analyst, substandard housing units are more commonly seen in the 93905 zip code which encompasses the Alisal neighborhood. Code enforcement cases by zip code are presented in Table D-38. The 93901 and 93906 have similar code enforcement case rates.

However, these three zip codes comprise nearly all the area in Salinas. Zip code areas are included as Figure D-49.

Table D-37: Substandard Housing Conditions – Salinas (2021) Lacking Complete
Plumbing Facilities
Lacking Complete
Kitchen Facilities
Owner-Occupied 0.1% 0.9%
Renter-Occupied 0.2% 0.4%
Total 0.1% 0.6%
Source: 2017-2021 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

Table D-38: Substandard Housing Cases by Zip Code (2020-2023) Zip Code Cases
93901 64
93902 1
93905 78
93906 71
93907 10
Source: City of Salinas Code Enforcement, 2023
As mentioned above, housing age can also be used to estimate substandard housing conditions.

Housing age by tract and jurisdiction is shown in Table D-39 and percentages of housing units built prior to 1990 at the tract-level are shown in Figure D-51. Salinas has a slightly younger housing stock compared to the County. Only 71.9% of units were built prior to 1990, including 40.5% built prior to 1970. In general, the southern tracts have larger proportions of units built prior to 1990 compared to the northern tracts. More than 90% of units in the following tracts were built prior to 1990: 2, 5.01,

5.02, 8, 9, 12, 14, 16, 17, 105.05, and 145. Most of these tracts are in the southern section of the City; however, a handful are located in the northwestern corner of Salinas.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 100
Table D-39: Year Housing Units by Built (2021)
Tract/Jurisdiction 1969 or earlier
(50+ years)
1970-1989 (30-50
years)
1990 or later (<30
years)
Census Tract 1.01 74.1% 13.2% 12.7%
Census Tract 1.03 0.0% 17.7% 82.3%
Census Tract 1.04 37.0% 25.2% 37.8%
Census Tract 1.05 13.3% 20.2% 66.5%
Census Tract 1.06 18.4% 23.2% 58.4%
Census Tract 2 68.2% 28.4% 3.4%
Census Tract 3 60.4% 27.6% 12.0%
Census Tract 4 42.1% 35.1% 22.7%
Census Tract 5.01 61.7% 32.8% 5.5%
Census Tract 5.02 13.4% 79.3% 7.3%
Census Tract 6 72.2% 14.6% 13.2%
Census Tract 7.01 53.8% 35.9% 10.2%
Census Tract 7.02 45.4% 29.3% 25.3%
Census Tract 8 74.1% 21.1% 4.8%
Census Tract 9 77.7% 17.4% 4.8%
Census Tract 12 85.7% 9.1% 5.2%
Census Tract 13 69.6% 5.8% 24.6%
Census Tract 14 71.6% 26.6% 1.7%
Census Tract 15 47.3% 36.5% 16.3%
Census Tract 16 63.7% 32.4% 3.9%
Census Tract 17 72.2% 19.6% 8.2%
Census Tract 18.01 16.8% 64.5% 18.7%
Census Tract 18.02 9.0% 45.8% 45.2%
Census Tract 105.04 22.7% 57.7% 19.6%
Census Tract 105.05 12.1% 77.9% 10.0%
Census Tract 105.06 26.8% 58.7% 14.4%
Census Tract 106.03 1.1% 15.6% 83.2%
Census Tract 106.04 1.0% 13.1% 85.9%
Census Tract 106.05 4.6% 6.0% 89.4%
Census Tract 106.06 20.8% 31.3% 47.9%
Census Tract 106.07 13.1% 67.0% 19.9%
Census Tract 106.08 7.6% 23.4% 69.0%
Census Tract 145 80.7% 13.0% 6.2%
Census Tract 9800 -- -- --
Salinas 40.5% 31.5% 28.1%
Monterey County 42.4% 32.3% 25.3%
City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 101
Figure D-49: Salinas Zip Codes
City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 102
Figure D-50: Units Lacking Complete Kitchen Facilities by Tract (2021) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (2017-2021 ACS), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 103
Figure D-51: Age of Housing Units by Tract (2021)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (2017-2021 ACS), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 104
D. Displacement Risk
(1) Regional Trends
UC Berkley’s Urban Displacement project defines residential displacement as “the process by which a household is forced to move from its residence - or is prevented from moving into a neighborhood that was previously accessible to them because of conditions beyond their control.” As part of this project, the research has identified populations vulnerable to displacement (named “sensitive communities”) in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. They defined vulnerability based on the share of low income residents per tract and other criteria including:
share of renters is above 40%, share of people of color is more than 50%, share of low income households severely rent burdened, and proximity to displacement pressures. Displacement pressures were defined based on median rent increases and rent gaps. Using this methodology, sensitive communities in the region were identified in the communities of Salinas, Monterey (city), Seaside, Marina, Gonzales, Watsonville, Hollister, and Santa Cruz (city) (Figure D-52). Sensitive communities are generally more concentrated in incorporated cities, however some have been identified in unincorporated Monterey, south of Salinas.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 105
Figure D-52: Regional Sensitive Communities At Risk of Displacement (2022) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (UCB), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 106
(2) Local Trends
Sensitive communities are prevalent in Salinas. Most tracts, excluding the tracts along the northern and eastern boundaries and southwest corner, are considered at risk of displacement. Sensitive communities include the Downtown, Chinatown, and Alisal neighborhoods, where several other fair housing issues have been identified, including larger non-White, LMI household, and cost burdened populations (see Figure D-5, Figure D-14, and Figure D-42). These neighborhoods are also primarily low resource area and areas of high segregation and poverty (see Figure D-23).

As discussed previously, vulnerability is measured based on several variables including: share of renters exceeding 40%, share of people of color exceeding 50%, share of low income households severely rent burdened, and proximity to displacement pressures. Displacement pressures were defined based on median rent increases and rent gaps. Tiburon is a predominately renter-occupied household community (53%) with a relatively small White population (12.2%). Over the last decade, Salinas has seen an increase in the non-White population. As presented in Figure D-53, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic White, and Asian householders are most likely to own their homes. The population of some other race, Black/African American population, and Hispanic/Latino population have the lowest homeownership rates.

Figure D-53: Tenure by Race of Householder (2021)
Source: 2017-2021 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

Figure D-54 shows the median contract rent in Salinas and Monterey County from 2010 to 2021.

Contract rent increases are nearly identical between Monterey County and Salinas. During this period, median contract rent increased 54% in the County and 59.9% in Salinas. As presented above, increasing rental prices in the City are more likely to disproportionately affect people of color.

59.1%

37.3%

51.6%

64.6%
100.0%

34.1%

56.7%

39.3%

66.8%

40.9%

62.7%

48.4%

35.4%

65.9%

43.3%

60.7%

33.2%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0%
White
Black or African American
American Indian and Alaska Native
Asian
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
Some other race
Two or more races
Hispanic or Latino origin
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino
Owner Renter
City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 107
Figure D-54: Median Contract Rent (2010-2021)
Source: 2006-2010 to 2017-2021 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
(3) Sites Inventory
As discussed above, more than half of Salinas tracts have been identified as sensitive communities at risk of displacement. Despite the concentration of at-risk tracts, 63.4% of RHNA units are in tracts that are not sensitive communities (Table D-40). However, most of these units are allocated to the above moderate income RHNA. Approximately 68% of very low and low income units are in sensitive communities compared to 47.3% of moderate income units and 13.6% of above moderate income units. Sites that can accommodate lower income units are generally more common in the central areas of the City, where sensitive communities are more prevalent. However, sites accommodating mixed and lower income units are not concentrated in a single area of the City and are instead distributed throughout various parts of Salinas (Figure D-55). Actions outlined in this Housing Element aim to serve these communities, specifically the Downtown, Chinatown, and Alisal neighborhoods where this Assessment of Fair Housing has identified overlapping fair housing issues, and reduce displacement risk for current and future residents residing in these communities.

Table D-40: Distribution of RHNA Units by Sensitive Communities At Risk of Displacement At Risk of
Displacement (Tract)
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
Units Total Units Total Units Total Units Total Units Total Sensitive
Community 655 68.4% 643 67.9% 1,160 47.3% 514 13.6% 2,972 36.6% Not a Sensitive
Community 302 31.6% 304 32.1% 1,292 52.7% 3,258 86.4% 5,156 63.4% Total 957 100.0% 947 100.0% 2,452 100.0% 3,772 100.0% 8,128 100.0% City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 108
Figure D-55: Sensitive Communities At Risk of Displacement and Sites Inventory (2022) Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (UCB), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 109
E. Homelessness
(1) Regional Trends
According to the 2022 Monterey County Homeless Count and Survey, there are 2,047 persons experiencing homelessness countywide, 690 of whom are sheltered (33.7%) (Table D-41). Since 2009, the homeless population has decreased 15% from 2,407 persons. Approximately half of the homeless population was Hispanic or Latino and 59% were White. The White population includes both nonHispanic and Hispanic White persons. The Black/African American population and American Indian populations are the most overrepresented racial/ethnic groups in the homeless population. Both represent 13% and 7% of the homeless population, but only 2.3% and 0.2% of the population countywide, respectively, according to 2017-2021 ACS estimates. Most individuals (62%) lived in the outdoors, streets, parks, or encampments and another 17% resided in a vehicle. More than half of the population surveyed experienced depression, 45% experienced drug or alcohol abuse, 43% had PTSD, and 30% had chronic health problems. Northern tracts, specifically tracts in Salinas, tended to have larger populations of persons experiencing homelessness (Figure D-56).

Monterey County has an emergency shelter capacity of 544 beds, 76% of which were utilized in 2022, a transitional housing capacity of 410 beds (68% utilized), and a rapid re-housing capacity of 74 beds (100% utilized). Emergency shelters are shown in Figure D-57. All emergency shelters serving Monterey County are located in the northern area of the County in the cities of Monterey, Seaside, Salinas, and Marina.

Table D-41: Characteristics of Persons Experiencing Homelessness – Monterey County (2022) Homeless Population
Total 2,047
Sheltered 690
Unsheltered 1,357
Race/Ethnicity
Hispanic/Latino 50%
White 59%
Black/African American 13%
American Indian or Alaska Native 7%
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander 4%
Asian 3%
Living Arrangements
Outdoors/Streets/Parks/Encampments 62%
Emergency, Transitional, or Other Shelter 6%
Vehicle (Car/Van/RV/Camper) 17%
A structure or indoor area not normally used for sleeping 7% Motel/Hotel 9%
Health Conditions
Depression 57%
Drug or Alcohol Abuse 45%
PTSD 43%
Chronic Health Problems 30%
City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 110
Other Psychiatric or Emotional Conditions 28%
Physical Disability 27%
Chronic Infection with Hepatitis B or C 12%
Traumatic Brain Injury 10%
Source: 2022 Monterey County Homeless Count and Survey: Comprehensive Report.

Figure D-56: 2022 Point in Time Count by Tract – Monterey County Source: The Coalition of Homeless Services Providers, Monterey County, 2022.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 111
Figure D-57: 2022 Emergency Shelter Housing (2021)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (HUD, 2021), 2023.
(2) Local Trends
There are 1,065 persons experiencing homelessness in Salinas representing 0.7% of the total population, based on the 2017-2021 ACS, and 52% of the homeless population countywide (Table D42). Salinas also has a smaller population of sheltered individuals compared to the County (27% versus

33.7%, respectively). Since 2017, the population of persons experiencing homelessness in Salinas has decreased by 21.7% and the population of sheltered individuals has increased 9.1% or by 24 persons.

Figure D-58 shows PIT homeless counts by tract in Salinas. Tracts with larger populations of persons experiencing homelessness are generally more concentrated in central and southeastern tracts, including the Chinatown and Downtown neighborhoods, and part of the Alisal neighborhood. Table D-43 shows the tracts with larger populations of persons experiencing homelessness. Many of the tracts with large homeless populations are in or adjacent to the Chinatown, Downtown, and Alisal neighborhoods. As shown in Figure D-57, many of the emergency shelters in Salinas are located in the Downtown and Chinatown neighborhoods.

Table D-42: Persons Experiencing Homelessness – Salinas (2017-2022) 2017 2019 2022
Total 1,361 1,182 1,065
Sheltered 264 206 288
Unsheltered 1,097 976 777
Source: 2022 Monterey County Homeless Count and Survey: Comprehensive Report.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 112
Table D-43: Homeless Population by Tract (2022)
Tract Persons Experiencing
Homelessness Neighborhood

1.01 12 Northern

5.01 13 Alisal

5.02 54 Alisal
9 17 Alisal
13 59 Downtown

18.01 119 Alisal/Downtown/Chinatown adjacent

18.02 86 Chinatown
105.01 12 Northeast
106.08 156 Alisal
145 109 Alisal (small western portion)
Note: Only includes tracts with homeless populations exceeding 10 persons.

Source: 2022 Monterey County Homeless Count and Survey: Comprehensive Report.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 113
Figure D-58: 2022 Point in Time Count by Tract – Salinas Source: The Coalition of Homeless Services Providers, Monterey County, 2022.

1.1.6 Local Knowledge and Other Relevant Factors
A. History of Salinas
By 1930 the Salinas population reached 10,263 and would continue to grow given the area’s many advantages. Fine weather, an expanding agricultural industry, and later the government assisted building programs and projects drew refugees from the harsh reality of the Depression and the conditions of the Dust Bowl in other parts of the county. During this period, dust bowl migrants migrated to the Alisal area east of Salinas and worked in the agricultural industry alongside the existing laborer communities, including a large Filipino population. Existing residents were concerned about the arrival of these laborers, who lived in camps and trailers in the Alisal area. In an effort to eliminate the roadside camps, Monterey County Supervisors drew up an ordinance giving the government power to regulate sanitary conditions in private camps and to oversee labor camps. Wage disputes and strikes began in the agricultural community, leading to the Salinas Lettuce Strike in 1936, when 3,200 City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 114
members of the Fruit and Vegetable Workers Union walked out of the Salinas - Watsonville lettuce sheds. Violence erupted on September 15, 1936 at Main and Gabilan Streets and then spread, ultimately leading to the passing of an anti-picketing ordinance by the Monterey County Board of Supervisors.

In 1940, Secretary of War Henry Simpson notified the city that the Army would immediately develop the new Salinas Airport as an Army Air Corps defense base due to “military necessity.” After leasing the airport, the government began work on the Salinas Army Air Base. Four two - story barracks plus a control tower, an administration building, a mess hall, and classrooms were ready in 1941. Japanese internment would affect Salinas residents. According to the City’s historical record, 46 Salinas High School seniors were unable to attend their own commencement ceremonies in 1942 due to the internment of Japanese residents. After World War II, Japanese-American families returned to Salinas and by 1948, 10% to 15% of the original Japanese population had returned to the area. Discharged soldiers also returned to town and with the help of the G.I. bill many veterans attended Hartnell College. Returning veterans also sparked a building boom in the greater Salinas area.

In August of 1942 the United States and Mexico entered an agreement setting forth conditions for recruitment of Mexican labor for wartime employment in agriculture. Workers were paid transportation and subsistence en route; they were provided with better camps than in 1918, as well as given medical care, accident insurance, and minimum earnings. Ten percent of a worker’s earnings was deducted by the government and transmitted to Mexico City for deposit in an account for that worker. The FSA was in charge of the program through July 1, 1943, and the agency scrupulously followed all terms of the agreement.

Throughout the 1950s the council began a long series of annexations that brought 43 separate additions to the city, doubling the area. Development and business boomed during this period and led to the completion of the Salinas Valley Memorial Hospital and Nacimiento Reservoir, and an uptake in industrial development and jobs. Between 1954 and 1958 a number of businesses opened providing jobs for residents, The St. Regis Paper Company and Cochran Equipment opened in Salinas in 1954.

Kuhlman Electric opened in 1955. Universal Match Corporation in Prunedale and Wilder Manufacturing both opened in 1957. Streater Industries, Growers Frozen Food and J.M. Smucker all opened in 1958.

In 1963, the Alisal District voted to become East Salinas, nearly doubling the City population.

Construction continued to boom throughout the 1960s. Between 1960 and 1966, North Salinas High School, Notre Dame, Alisal High School, the Salinas Public Library, the El Gabilan Library, and the new City Hall were completed.

Though the Monterey County crops brought in a record $212,732,800 in 1969, signs of labor related problems increased in the sixties. A tragic event on September 17, 1963 focused attention on the safety of the Bracero field worker. On the afternoon of September 17, 1963, a 71-car Southern Pacific freight train sheared through a light-bodied labor bus killing 28 of the 57 Mexican national field workers.

Eventually the death toll reached 32. In 1964, United States Public Law 78 authorizing the 1951 Bracero Program expired and production fell due to an inadequate labor supply. In 1965 the National Farm Workers Association, led by Cesar Chavez, joined the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee (AWOC) and called strikes against selected grape growers in the San Joaquin Valley. Their success caused great concern among California growers and would have implications for Central Coast agriculture in the following decade.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 115
In 1970, the Salinas population was 61,978. Revitalization of the downtown area of Salinas continued to be a hot topic in the local paper and with the business community. Merchants approved the central city revitalization study even though businesses were slated to pay a surcharge for the consultant. In 1973 the city’s Center City Authority decided to focus on the development of a shopping and tourist oriented “Oldtown” that would reflect the community’ s rodeo and western heritage. The planning commission approved the plan in November of 1973. Meanwhile in East Salinas, residents and community leaders voiced concerns about their own area. The Salinas Community Development Advisory Committee responded in 1975, giving priority to Hebbron Heights to build a community center, to clear out and replace substandard housing, and to initiate a communitywide improvement program. On the agricultural front, unionization dominated the news during the first part of the decade. After efforts to organize grape workers in Delano, Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee (UFWOC) began organizing activities in the Salinas Valley.

Concerned about the events in Delano, some local growers had signed backroom contracts with the Teamsters Union for their workers, without the workers’ knowledge. Protesting this failure to involve workers in the negotiations, Cesar Chavez held a rally at a teen center “on the Mexican side” of Salinas in July of 1970. A temporary UFWOC headquarters was set up inside the Salinas Office of the Mexican - American Political Association. Early in August more than three thousand farm workers gathered on the Hartnell College’s football field showing support for his efforts. By late August the UFWOC called for strikes against many local firms. Eventually InterHarvest, Fresh Pict and Pic N Pac signed with the UFWOC.

The seventies also brought the rise of several organizations working for the betterment of the Latino Community, MEChA and LULAC among them. A chapter of Movimiento Estudantil Chicano de Aztlan, or MEChA, formed at Hartnell College in the spring of 1970. In June, Hartnell College trustees approved the appointment of a special student services officer, Paul Nava, as a first step toward meeting the requests of MEChA to address the needs of Mexican American students. In January of 1973, the local chapter of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) was formed. Over time LULAC would challenge practices on many fronts. Both organizations still exist in 2009 as a strong presence for Latinos in Salinas. The Swinging Door, a day facility for the homeless primarily intended to get the transient population, and the Home for the Homeless, assisting homeless women and families, also opened in the 1970s.

In the early eighties, Salinas suffered closure of major industrial plants: Firestone (1,800 jobs) closed in 1980; Spreckels Sugar, an area mainstay since just before the turn of the century, (400 jobs) closed in 1981; and Peter Paul (165 jobs) closed in 1981. At closure the Firestone manufacturing plant occupied 43 of its 256 acres located at 340 El Camino Real South, an area that is now an industrial park surrounded by agricultural land. During Firestone’s stay south of Salinas, chlorinated solvents and other chemicals were released into the soil and groundwater from its site. Firestone conducted interim cleanup measures and was removed from the Superfund list in 2005.

B. Home Loans
Home loan activity in the Salinas MSA, or Monterey County, during 2021 is available through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). Table D44 shows the total number of applications by loan type as well as the approval and denial rates. Of the 27,574 loan applications in 2021, 13,576 (49%) were for refinance loans, 7,043 (25.5%) were for cashout refinance loans, 5,341 (19.4%) were for home purchase loans, and 797 (3%) were for home improvement loans. Overall, the approval rate in the County was 61%. Refinancing and home City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 116
purchase loans were approved at the highest rate, while only 44.8% of home improvement loans were approved.

Table D-44: Disposition of Home Loan Applications – Salinas MSA (Monterey County) (2021) Loan Type Approved Denied Purchased Other Total
Home purchase 62.8% 8.2% 12.4% 16.5% 5,341
Home improvement 44.8% 37.0% 1.0% 17.2% 797
Other purpose 48.9% 31.3% 1.6% 18.2% 763
Not applicable 7.4% 0.0% 90.7% 1.9% 54
Refinancing 61.1% 10.1% 7.5% 21.3% 13,576
Cash-out refinancing 62.8% 10.4% 6.8% 20.1% 7,043
Grand Total 61.0% 11.2% 8.1% 19.8% 27,574
Note: Approved loans = originated and application approved not accepted.

Other = withdrawn by applicant or closed for incompleteness Preapproved loans excluded from dataset. There were 15 preapproval requests in 2021.

Source: 2021 Home Mortgage Disclosure Data: https://ffiec.cfpb.gov Home loan applications and outcomes by race and ethnicity of applicant are presented in Table D-45.

More than 56% of applicants were White. White applicants may be Hispanic or non-Hispanic; however, the White population generally appears to be overrepresented as only 28.8% of the County population is non-Hispanic White. Further, only 27% of applicants were Hispanic or Latino, despite the Hispanic/Latino population representing nearly 60% of the countywide population. Loans submitted by Native American/Alaska Native applicants were denied at the highest rate (21.1%), followed by Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino applicants (13.9% for both groups), and Asian and Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander applicants (12.8% for both groups). Loans submitted by applicants of two or more minority races were also denied at a rate exceeding the County average of 11.2%. Joint race applicants and White applicants were denied at the lowest rates of 9% and 10.8%, respectively. As shown in Figure D-53 previously, a larger proportion of Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino householders are renters compared to other racial/ethnic groups in Salinas. Given the denial rates for mortgage applications, Black/African American, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native households may face challenges in ownership opportunities in Salinas.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 117
Table D-45: Home Loan Applications by Race/Ethnicity – Salinas MSA (Monterey County) (2021) Race/Ethnicity Approved Denied Purchased Other Total
2 or more minority races 64.6% 12.3% 0.0% 23.1% 65
American Indian or Alaska
Native 55.0% 21.1% 0.5% 23.4% 218
Asian 63.0% 12.8% 1.4% 22.8% 1,701
Black or African American 58.8% 13.9% 1.9% 25.4% 323
Joint 71.2% 9.0% 1.7% 18.2% 787
Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander 68.0% 12.8% 1.6% 17.6% 125
Race Not Available 47.6% 11.3% 21.4% 19.7% 8,861
White 68.0% 10.8% 1.8% 19.5% 15,486
Hispanic or Latino 64.4% 13.9% 1.2% 20.5% 7,486
Not Hispanic or Latino 66.9% 10.5% 2.1% 20.6% 11,795
Grand Total 61.0% 11.2% 8.1% 19.8% 27,574
Note: Approved loans = originated and application approved not accepted.

Other = withdrawn by applicant or closed for incompleteness Preapproved loans excluded from dataset. There were 15 preapproval requests in 2021.

Source: 2021 Home Mortgage Disclosure Data: https://ffiec.cfpb.gov C. Zoning and Revitalization Plans
The City’s Zoning Map is included as Figure D-59. Salinas has a variety of zoning districts, including the Central City Overlay Districts, Flood Overlay District, Airport Overlay District, Gateway Overlay Districts, and Focused Growth Overlay Districts. Salinas also has several Specific Plan Overlay Districts as well as the East Romie Lane Corridor Overlay District and Downtown Core Area. Low density residential zoning districts are prominent throughout the City, specifically in the areas north of Highway 101 and in the southwest corner.

In general, medium and high density residential districts are most prevalent north and south of Highway 101 area in and around the Downtown and Chinatown neighborhoods, along Main Street, and along Sanborn Road. The central/Downtown and Alisal neighborhoods tend to have larger medium and high density residential districts. While medium and high density residential zones are not restricted to these neighborhoods alone, the central (Downtown/Chinatown) and Alisal neighborhoods have larger renter and LMI household populations compared to other areas of Salinas (see Figure D-14 and Figure D-43). A larger proportion of households in these neighborhoods also tend to be cost burdened or overcrowded (see Figure D-42 and Figure D-45). There are two tracts in the City that have been identified as areas of high segregation and poverty. The first, tract 7.01 is located in the northeastern Alisal neighborhood and the second, tract 13, encompasses the Downtown neighborhood. Tract 7.01 is primarily zoned for low and medium density residential uses and tract 13 is primarily zoned for mixed use and medium density residential uses.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 118
Figure D-59: Salinas Zoning Map
City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 119
(1) Downtown Vibrancy Plan
On May 26, 2015, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intention (Resolution No. 577) to form the Salinas Downtown Community Benefit District (the “District” or “CBD”). This action included adoption of a District Management Plan and Engineer’s Assessment Report and direction to the City Clerk to mail ballot packets and notice of the public hearing to be held on July 21, 2015 to the proposed district property owners. At the July meeting, City Council tabulated ballots received and approved Resolution No. 2080 forming the CBD for a term of fifteen (15) years, until December 1, 2030.

As a CBD, parcels within the District boundary derive special benefit from programs and activities funded by assessments levied against the identified properties. The benefits are special and unique only to parcels within the District because programs and services (i.e., sidewalk operations/beautification; district identity; program management; and, contingency/reserve) are only provided directly for the benefit of the identified parcels. The Downtown CBD is shown in Figure D60.

The City approved the Downtown Vibrancy Plan in 2015 and it is currently under implementation.

The plan proposes bicycle and pedestrian facilities, on-street parking, transit stops, and intersection control and aims to stimulate investment in new development, specifically office/residential, mixeduse, and retail developments, as well as a new City Hall, intermodal transportation center (ITC), and Taylor Farms headquarters. On August 8, 2017, the County of Monterey celebrated the grand opening of the renovated East-West Wing of the former Monterey County Courthouse. In addition to restoring a beautiful old building, the County has liberated property occupied by modular offices for future development. This building - along with the Taylor Building opened in 2015 - will serve as catalysts for Downtown Vibrancy. The City has plans for other Downtown development projects including, but not limited to, the conversion of the Rabobank Building to residential housing, the installation of fiber optic network infrastructure under the streets of Downtown Salinas, Bruhn Building renovation, the Salinas Californian Building, Old Monterey County Jail reuse, and El Rey Theater rehabilitation.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 120
Figure D-60: Downtown Salinas Community Benefit District (2) Alisal Vibrancy Plan
The Alisal Vibrancy Plan Area follows the boundaries of the federal government’s Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Alisal Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (ANRSA) and the previously proposed Alisal Market Place redevelopment area. Since 1993, HUD has recognized Alisal as a Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (NRSA). The boundaries of the NRSA were updated in the City’s FY 2015 - FY 2019 Consolidated Plan. This special NRSA designation allows the City of Salinas to have more flexibility in funding for revitalization activities related to economic development, housing, and public service in the area through its Community Development Block Grant program. The Alisal Plan Area, with the Marketplace, is approximately 1,763 acres or 2.75 square miles in size. The Plan Area is generally bounded by Highway 101 to the southwest, Madeira Avenue and St. Augustine Drive to the northwest, John Street to the southeast, and Freedom Parkway to the northeast (Figure D-61).

The final Alisal Vibrancy Plan was approved in 2020 with the following guiding principles: Economic Prosperity, Equity, and Diversity; Housing Opportunities for All; Healthy and Safe Community; Youth are the Future; Collaborative, Inclusive, and Engaged Decision-Making; Livable and Sustainable Community; Connectivity, Access and Mobility; A Community to Celebrate. The plan identifies opportunity sites, proposes strategies to incentivize and support the production of new City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 121
housing units, fosters economic development and access to resources and services, promotes safety, beautification, and community engagement, and aims to improve transportation routes and infrastructure.

Figure D-61: Alisal Vibrancy Plan Area
(3) Chinatown Revitalization Plan
The Chinatown Revitalization Plan is not the first community planning effort undertaken to stimulate Chinatown's revitalization. The 2007 and 2010 community planning efforts also sought to address identified opportunities and challenges and implement proposed solutions to revitalize Chinatown and restore its unique historical and cultural identity. Many of the recommendations of these past plans have been re-incorporated into the 2019 plan. However, since the plans were developed, the primary plan implementor, the Salinas Redevelopment Agency was eliminated, necessitating the development of a new plan. This new plan supports the social, environmental and economic health of Salinas' historic Chinatown district and adjacent neighborhood to the north east of Chinatown, across from Sherwood Drive. The strategies, recommendations, and concepts developed through this planning process will guide both future private, public, and social investment. Short and long-term strategies will help identify priorities that will support City staff and partners in proactively managing neighborhood land and resources. As with all Salinas planning efforts, public input is critical and participation in vitally needed from business, service providers and the public.

The Chinatown Planning area is shown in Figure D-62. Chinatown is centrally located within Salinas and proximate to several key destinations, amenities, and institutions. It lies immediately north of the City’s Downtown, immediately east of the Salinas Intermodal Transportation Center (ITC), and within City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 122
approximately three miles of the emerging Future Growth Area to the north east of the City. The City’s Alisal Vibrancy Plan and the Carr Lake Project by Big Sur Land Trust are two other recent planning projects and are located within two miles from the Chinatown planning area, which is 104 acres and an area of 17 square blocks. The Chinatown Revitalization Plan follows the same guiding principles outlined for the Alisal Vibrancy Plan. Chinatown’s planning area has seventeen (17) vacant and underutilized parcels where new mixed-use buildings, housing projects, live-work units, businesses and compact urban open spaces could be developed. Development priority sites along Soledad Street aim to transform the corridor with culturally relevant shops and restaurants, neighborhood services, and residential units.

Figure D-62: Chinatown Planning Area
D. Housing Types
(1) Affordable Housing
As outlined in the Community Profile of this Housing Element, there are 44 affordable housing projects Salinas totaling 3,045 affordable units. Affordable housing properties are mapped in Figure D-63. Of the 3,045 affordable units, 325 are at risk of converting to market-rate. Affordable housing projects are most concentrated in the central City areas, just north and south of El Camino Real/101 Highway. Additional affordable housing projects are scattered throughout the City, specifically in the Alisal neighborhood and along or adjacent to N. Main Street. As mentioned thoughout this Assessment of Fair Housing, The central (Chinatown/Downtown) and Alisal neighborhoods tend to have overlapping of populations of interest, including LMI households, racial/ethnic minority City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 123
populations, areas of high segregation and poverty and low resource tracts, overcrowded households, cost burdened renters, and communities at risk of displacement.

Figure D-63: Affordable Housing Properties (2020)
Source: California Housing Partnership (CHPC) Affordable Housing Map and Benefits Calculator – Salinas (city), accessed April 2023. (2) Mobile Home Parks
There are several mobile home parks in Salinas. Mobile home parks typically serve lower to moderate income households. The largest mobile home parks in the City include Sherwood Lake MHP (151 units), Rancho Salinas Mobile Park (137 units), Lamplighter Salinas (250 units), La Canada Mobile Estates (113 units), and CA Hawaiian Mobile Estates (127 units). Sherwood Lake and Rancho Salinas are located in the center of the City along El Camino Real and the Lamplighter, La Canada, and CA Hawaiian are in the northwestern corner of the City. Additional mobile home parks include Pearl Street TP (12 units), located in the Alisal neighborhood, William Road MHP (4 units), Alisal neighborhood, Plaza Apartments/TP (13 units), Alisal neighborhood, Garner Avenue TP (16 units), Alisal neighborhood, Georgia Properties LLC MHP (2 units), northwestern corner, Cypress MHP (9 units), northwestern corner, Twin Palms Trailer CT (8 units), northwestern corner, and One O One TP (44 units), northwestern corner. The central, Alisal, and northwestern areas of Salinas all have larger LMI household populations, renter populations, and overcrowded household populations.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 124
Figure D-64: Mobile Home Parks (2022)
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 (HIFLD, 2022), 2023.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 125

1.4 Sites Inventory
AB 686 requires a jurisdiction’s site inventory “…shall be used to identify sites throughout the community, consistent with…” its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. The number of units, location and assumed affordability of identified sites throughout the community (i.e., lower, moderate, and above moderate income RHNA) relative to all components of the assessment of fair housing was integrated throughout the discussion in the fair housing assessment section. The City’s sites inventory is presented in Figure D-65 and shown by neighborhood, tract, and AFFH variable in Table D-46.

For the purposes of this analysis, Salinas is divided into the following neighborhoods: Northeast, Northwest, Alisal, Central City, and South. It is relevant to note that these neighborhood designations are based on tract area and may not represent the exact neighborhoods outlined in the City’s Alisal Vibrancy Plan, for example. Further, some tracts extend outside of the Salinas City limits and are not reflective of Salinas residents alone.

Overall, the City’s RHNA strategy ensures units that can accommodate households of all income levels are distributed throughout all areas of Salinas. Sites that can accommodate the lower income RHNA specifically, are not concentrated in a single section of the City but are allocated throughout all neighborhoods described below. The RHNA strategy, along with the AFFH actions outlined in this Housing Element, promotes mixed income communities and housing mobility and ensures existing fair housing issues are not exacerbated.

1.1.7 Northeast Salinas
Tracts 1.04, 106.06, and 106.08 contain RHNA sites in the Northeast Neighborhood. For the purposes of this analysis, the area east of Natividad Road and north of Laurel Drive, excluding the Alisal Neighborhood, is considered Northeast Salinas. Northeast Salinas tracts and populations are shown in Figure D-65. Tract 106.06 encompasses a large section of the unincorporated County area north, east, and south of Salinas as well as the northeastern corner of Salinas. Demographics data for tract 106.06 are not representative of Salinas residents alone. It is also important to note that a portion of tract 106.08 is in the Alisal neighborhood, discussed in detail below. Northeast Salinas This area is primarily zoned for low and medium density residential uses with smaller areas zoned for high density residential and commercial retail. A total of 2,643 RHNA units have been allocated in this section of Salinas, including 209 very low income units (7.9%), 339 low income units (12.8%), 746 moderate income units (28.2%), and 1,349 above moderate income units (51%).

The northern areas of the City, including Northeast Salinas, generally have fewer fair housing issues compared to the Central City and Alisal neighborhoods. Tracts 106.06 and 106.08 are low resource areas and tract 1.04 is a moderate resource area. As discussed in this Assessment of Fair Housing Issues, Salinas is predominantly made up of moderate and low resource tracts. Consistent with the citywide trend, where 88% of the population belongs to a racial or ethnic minority group, tracts 1.04, 106.06, and 106.08 have non-White populations ranging from 86.8% to 93.9%. None of the block groups containing RHNA units in Northeast Salinas are considered LMI areas where more than 50% of households are low or moderate income. Like in many Salinas tracts, tracts 1.04, 106.06, and 106.08 have larger proportions of overcrowded households.

Of the tracts containing RHNA units in Northeast Salinas, tract 106.08 generally has more fair housing issues compared to tracts 1.04 and 106.06. Overcrowded households in tract 106.08 represent 43.9% of households residing in this tract, significantly more than in tract 1.04 (5.1%) and tract 106.06 City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 126
(11.8%). Tract 106.08 is also considered a sensitive community at risk of displacement. There are 436 RHNA units allocated in this tract. However, only 31.7% of units located in tract 106.08 are allocated towards the lower income RHNA. The remaining 68.3% of units in this tract are moderate or above moderate income units. The City’s RHNA strategy ensures lower income units are not concentrated in this tract alone. Further, more lower income units in Northeast Salinas are in tract 106.06 where fair housing issues are less prevalent. The City’s RHNA strategy in Northeast Salinas ensures existing populations in need are served while promoting new housing opportunities in areas with fewer fair housing issues.

1.1.8 Northwest Salinas
Northwest Salinas tracts are shown in Figure D-65 and is generally the area north of El Camino Real/101 Highway and west of Natividad Road. Tracts containing RHNA sites in Northwest Salinas include tracts 1.01, 2, 4, 105.04, and 105.06. Like tract 106.06 discussed above, tracts 1.01 and 105.04 extend into the unincorporated County areas north and west of the City. Therefore, demographics data presented for these tracts are not representative of Salinas residents alone. Northwest Salinas is primarily zoned for low density residential uses. It is also characterized by larger areas zoned for high density residential and commercial retail uses compared to other areas of Salinas. Northwest Salinas also contains medium density residential, industrial, and office zoning designations. A total of 3,214 RHNA units are located in Northwest Salinas tracts, including 97 very low income units (3%), 21 low income units (0.7%), 1,142 moderate income units (35.5%), and 1,954 above moderate income units (60.8%). All but one of the units allocated to the above moderate income RHNA are in tract 1.01.

Tracts 1.01, 2, and 4 are considered moderate resource areas while tracts 105.04 and 105.06 are low resource areas. Tracts 105.04 and 105.06 have also been identified as sensitive communities at risk of displacement. Tracts 4, 105.04, and 105.06 contain LMI area block groups where more than 50% of households earn low or moderate incomes. In general, tract 1.01 has fewer fair housing issues compared to other tracts in Northwest Salinas. In tract 1.01, only 71.4% of the population belongs to a racial/ethnic minority group, compared to 85.3% to 92.1% of the population in other Northwest tracts with RHNA sites. Tract 1.01 also has the smallest population of overcrowded households. As mentioned above, 1,953 above moderate income units and 800 moderate income units are allocated in tract 1.01. There are no sites accommodating the lower income RHNA in tract 1.01. The 118 lower income units in Northwest Salinas are in tracts 2 and 4. Both are moderate resource areas and neither are sensitive communities at risk of displacement. There are no lower income units in the sensitive communities or low resource areas in Northwest Salinas. While above moderate income units in Northwest Salinas are concentrated in tract 1.01, the City’s RHNA strategy in this section of Salinas ensures lower income units are in moderate resource areas that are not sensitive to displacement. As discussed previously, there are only two high resource areas in the City, both in the southwest corner of Salinas.

1.1.9 Alisal Neighborhood
The Alisal Neighborhood, shown in Figure D-61 above, is located in the central eastern area of Salinas.

Tracts considered to be part of the Alisal Neighborhood for the purposes of this analysis are included as Figure D-65. In the Alisal Neighborhood, RHNA sites are in tracts 5.01, 5.02, and 9. While predominantly zoned for low density residential, the Alisal area also has larger areas zoned for medium and high density residential uses. Parts of this neighborhood are also zoned for commercial, mixed City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 127
use, and office uses. There are 475 RHNA units in the Alisal area, 76.6% of which (364 units) are allocated to the lower income RHNA.

Historically, the Alisal neighborhood was home to a large population of agricultural laborers, including Mexican, Chicano, Bracero, and Filipino populations as well as White Dust Bowl migrants (see subsection A, History of Salinas).16 The Alisal area continues to be characterized by a large racial/ethnic minority population and concentration of lower income households. Tracts containing RHNA sites in the Alisal Neighborhood have non-White populations ranging from 90.7% to 98.3% and LMI household populations ranging from 52% to 88%. All three tracts with RHNA sites are low resource areas and sensitive communities at risk of displacement. Tract 5.01, specifically, has the largest nonWhite, LMI household, and overcrowded household populations compared to tracts 5.02 and 9.

However, only 7 moderate income units are located in tract 5.01.

While a larger proportion of RHNA units in the Alisal Neighborhood are allocated to the lower income RHNA, sites accommodating lower income units are not concentrated in this area alone.

Another 548 lower income units are in Northeast Salinas, 118 are in Northwest Salinas, 707 are in the Central City Neighborhood, and 167 are in South Salinas. AFFH actions outlined in this Housing Element also aim to serve the Alisal area specifically, promoting increased opportunities, facilities, and resources and reducing exiting disproportionate housing needs.

1.1.10 Central City Neighborhood
This analysis considers the Central City Neighborhood to be tracts 13, 18.01, 18.02, and 145 along the south side of the 101 Highway (Figure D-65). All four tracts contain sites selected to meet the RHNA.

It is important to note that tract 145 encompasses the entire southeast corner of Salinas, including areas that may not be considered the City center. The Central City area includes the Downtown and Chinatown neighborhoods discussed throughout this Assessment of Fair Housing Issues. Chinatown is in tract 18.02 and the Downtown area is in tract 13. This area of Salinas is zoned for a mix of low, medium, and high density residential and mixed use uses. Industrial zoning designations are also prominent in this area, especially throughout tract 145 on the east side. There are 1,554 RHNA units in Central City tracts.

RHNA units in the Central City area are generally evenly distributed between the very low, low, moderate, and above moderate income RHNA. There are 386 very low, 321 low, 483 moderate, and 364 above moderate income units allocated in this section of the City. Of the lower income RHNA units in this area, 210 are in tract 13, 371 are in tract 18.02, and 126 are in tract 145. There are no lower income units in tract 18.01. Tracts 18.01 and 145 are moderate resource areas, tract 18.02 is a low resource area, and tract 13, encompassing Downtown Salinas, is an area of high segregation and poverty. All four tracts have also been identified as sensitive communities at risk of displacement.

More than half of tracts citywide have been identified as sensitive communities. Therefore, the placement of RHNA sites in communities at risk of displacement is unavoidable. Central City tracts have non-White populations ranging from 66.5% to 94.2% and LMI household populations ranging from 46% to 92%. Overcrowding is generally less of an issue in the Central City tracts. Only 3.8% to

12.9% of households in these tracts are overcrowded, compared to 21.2% of households citywide. 16 Ponce, Cristian. The Californian. “Migration, annexation and a look to the future: A brief history of the Alisal.” April 9, 2018. https://www.thecalifornian.com/story/life/2018/04/09/alisal-history-migration-annexation-look-futurefounders-day-salinas/487467002/.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 128
These tracts also have smaller populations of cost burdened renters ranging from 43.9% to 51.7%, compared to 54.0% of renters citywide.

While there are 210 lower income units in the area of high segregation and poverty, the City’s RHNA strategy ensures sites that can accommodate affordable housing are distributed throughout tracts of various resource levels to the greatest extent possible in the Central City neighborhood. As mentioned above, another 371 lower income units are in tract 18.02, low resource area, and 126 are in tract 145, moderate resource area. Further, sites accommodating the lower income RHNA are distributed throughout all Salinas neighborhoods outlined in this section, Northeast Salinas, Northwest Salinas, Alisal, Central City, and South Salinas, and are not allocated in a single area alone. AFFH actions outlined in this Housing Element also aim to serve this section of the City, specifically the Chinatown and Downtown neighborhoods located in tracts 18.02 and 13, respectively. These actions promote new housing, facilities, and resources to increase opportunities and serve existing households with disproportionate housing needs.

1.1.11 South Salinas
Tracts 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 are considered South Salinas for the purposes of this analysis. South Salinas tracts and tract populations are presented in Figure D-65 and is generally the area south of Abbott Street, John Street, and Market Street. RHNA sites have been identified in tracts 12 and 15.

These tracts are mostly zoned for low density residential uses as well as smaller areas zoned for medium and high density residential uses. Two sites have been identified in these tracts, one in tract 12 and one in tract 15, with the capacity to accommodate 242 units (81 very low, 86 low, 3 moderate, and 72 above moderate).

The South Salinas area generally has fewer fair housing issues compared to other Salinas neighborhoods. Tract 12 is a moderate resource area and tract 15 is a high resource area. Both have racial/ethnic minority populations below 65%, compared to 88% citywide, and LMI household populations of 34% and 30%, respectively. Both tracts also have smaller proportions of cost burdened renters and overcrowded households compared to the citywide averages of 54% (cost burdened renters) and 21% (overcrowded households). Tract 12 has been identified as a community vulnerable to displacement. Of the 167 units identified to accommodate the lower income RHNA, 157 are in the high resource tract. The City’s RHNA strategy in South Salinas, as well as the strategy citywide, ensures RHNA units are not concentrated in a single area of the City. Further, sites in South Salinas promote new affordable housing units in high resource areas.

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 129
Table D-46: Distribution of RHNA Units by Neighborhood, Tract, and AFFH Variables Area/Tract # HHs in
Tract
Total
Capacity
(Units
Income Distribution % NonWhite
% LMI
HHs* TCAC Opp. Cat.
%
Overpay
Renter
% Overcrowded Sensitive
Very Low Low Moderate Comm.? Above
Moderate
Northeast Salinas

1.04 936 762 0 0 0 762 86.80% 22.00% Moderate
Resource 36.50% 5.10% No
106.06 1,599 1,445 205 205 492 543 88.40% 28.00% Low Resource 47.90% 11.80% No 106.08 608 436 4 134 254 44 93.90% 27.00% Low Resource 46% 43.90% Yes Northwest Salinas

1.01 621 2,753 0 0 800 1,953 71.40% 43.00% Moderate
Resource 60.90% 6.40% No
2 2,075 39 19 20 0 0 88% 43% Moderate
Resource 69.60% 19.10% No
4 2,357 109 78 1 29 1 85.30% 63% - 81% Moderate
Resource 64.80% 14.70% No
105.04 1,549 269 0 0 269 0 88.00% 59.00% Low Resource 51.20% 13.40% Yes 105.06 1,382 44 0 0 44 0 92.10% 85.00% Low Resource 52.00% 20.70% Yes Alisal Neighborhood

5.01 1,128 7 0 0 7 0 98.30% 88% Low Resource 68.20% 32.20% Yes

5.02 1,172 277 81 121 43 32 90.70% 52% - 54% Low Resource 76.20% 19.80% Yes 9 1,339 191 103 59 28 1 97.10% 77% Low Resource 58% 23.80% Yes Central City Neighborhood
13 891 455 88 122 94 151 94.20% 92% High Segregation
& Poverty 49.50% 12.90% Yes

18.01 1,192 90 0 0 90 0 83.90% 68% Moderate
Resource 43.90% 11.40% Yes

18.02 1,576 666 185 186 290 5 90.20% 46% - 83% Low Resource 50.70% 11.80% Yes 145 1,829 343 113 13 9 208 66.50% 86% Moderate
Resource 51.70% 3.80% Yes
South Salinas
12 1,235 85 3 7 3 72 46.10% 34.00% Moderate
Resource 37.70% 3.20% Yes
15 2,523 157 78 79 0 0 64.30% 30.00% High Resource 47.80% 6% No City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 130
Figure D-65: Sites Inventory
City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 131
Figure D-66: Northeast Salinas Tracts and Population (2021) Source: 2017-2021 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

Figure D-67: Northwest Salinas Tracts and Population (2021) Source: 2017-2021 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 132
Figure D-68: Alisal Neighborhood Tracts and Population (2021) Source: 2017-2021 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

Figure D-69: Central City Neighborhood Tracts and Population (2021) Source: 2017-2021 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 133
Figure D-70: South Salinas Tracts and Population (2021) Source: 2017-2021 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

1.5 Contributing Factors

1.1.12 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
As outlined in the 2019 Monterey County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, many housing professionals, housing providers, and home seekers alike, are unaware of their rights and responsibilities, as well as resources available. Fair housing services and laws are currently not available on the City website. Salinas also does not currently have a method of disseminating fair housing information, which is especially important in lower income and cost burdened communities. The concentrations of renters receiving Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) do not always correlate with LMI household populations. In many Alisal neighborhood tracts, less than 5% of renters receive HCVs but more than 50% are low or moderate income. Several tracts in the Alisal neighborhood also have higher rates of cost burdened renters compared to other areas of the City. This may indicate that households residing in this area are unaware of affordable housing opportunities and fair housing services, including HCVs.

A. Contributing Factors
• Lack of monitoring
• Lack of targeted outreach

1.1.13 Concentrations of Special Needs Populations
The Chinatown, Downtown, and Alisal neighborhoods have concentrations of several communities of interest including racial/ethnic minority populations, children living in single-parent female-headed households, LMI households, and renter-occupied households. Low resource areas, areas of high City of Salinas
2023-2031 Housing Element Appendix D 134
segregation and poverty, and sensitive communities at risk of displacement are also concentrated in these areas. Tracts in these neighborhoods also have larger proportions of overcrowded households.

Parts of the Alisal neighborhood also has more cost burdened renters compared to other areas of Salinas.

A. Contributing Factors
• Historical trends
• Lack of private investment

1.1.14 Displacement Risk of Low Income Residents Due to Economic Pressures
More than half of the City is considered a sensitive community at-risk of displacement. Approximately 54% of renters experience cost burden in Salinas compared to only 51% countywide. In Salinas, American Indian and Hispanic households have the highest rates of cost burdened compared to other racial/ethnic groups. The Hispanic/Latino population, Black/African American population, and population of some other race (race not listed in ACS) are significantly less likely to be homeowners in Salinas compared to the Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic White, and Asian populations. Median rental prices have increased nearly 60% in Salinas between 2010 and 2021 compared to only 54% countywide. Increasing rental prices are more likely to affect racial/ethnic minority populations with low homeownership rates. Monterey County HMDA data also indicates that the Hispanic/Latino population is underrepresented in the home loan application pool. American Indian/Alaska Native, Black/African American, and Hispanic/Latino home loan applicants were also denied at the highest rates compared to other racial/ethnic groups.

A. Contributing Factors
• Unaffordable rents
• Concentrations of poverty/LMI households
• Availability of affordable housing
Appendix E: Future Growth
Area Documents
• Links to the Specific Plans:
o West Area Specific Plan (WASP)
o Central Area Specific Plan (CASP)
• WASP Table 2-1: Residential Development Program
• WASP Ownership Map
• WASP Zoning Map
• WASP Development Agreement
• CASP Appendix G Land Use/Density Summary
• CASP Ownership Map
• CASP Zoning Map
• CASP Development Agreement
36 City of Salinas | West Area Specific Plan, December 2019 Neighborhood by Ownership Framework
Acres
Planning Area
Density
Projected Target Residential Units Total
NE VC NG-1 NG-2
Neighborhood 1
Cloverfield
Planning Area 1.1 (1) 16.63 5.9 98 98
Planning Area 1.2 (1) 17.96 6.3 113 113
Planning Area 1.3 12.34 9.7 120 120
Planning Area 1.4 (1) 14.45 10.0 144 144
Planning Area 1.5 9.95 8.5 85 85
Planning Area 1.6 (1)(3) 7.66 20.4 156 156
Planning Area 1.7 (3) 21.23 10.1 214 214
Village Center (portion) (2)(3) 1.55 20.0 31 31
Total Neighborhood 1 101.77 9.4 211 31 563 156 961
Neighborhood 2
Sbrana
Planning Area 2.1 7.64 5.4 41 41
Planning Area 2.2 12.75 8.1 103 103
Planning Area 2.3 (1) 10.40 9.5 99 99
Planning Area 2.4 7.95 16.6 132 132
Planning Area 2.5 7.08 11.2 79 79
Planning Area 2.7 (portion) (1) 3.05 16.4 50 50
Planning Area 2.8 (portion) (1) 9.63 6.2 60 60
Subtotal: 58.50 9.6 101 0 281 182 564
Kantro
Planning Area 2.6 7.25 8.1 59 59
Planning Area 2.7 (portion) (1) 4.91 16.3 80 80
Planning Area 2.8 (portion) (1) 4.02 6.2 25 25
Planning Area 2.9 26.14 5.8 151 151
Planning Area 2.10 34.50 5.6 194 194
Planning Area 2.11 7.82 9.6 75 75
Planning Area 2.12 11.25 16.0 180 180
Subtotal: 95.89 7.9 370 134 260 764
Total Neighborhood 2 154.39 8.5 471 0 415 442 1,328
Neighborhood 3
Harden
Planning Area 3.1 (1)(3) 8.57 18.7 158 158
Planning Area 3.2 (1) 6.93 8.2 57 57
Planning Area 3.3 10.89 5.7 62 62
Planning Area 3.4 (portion) 14.45 6.8 92 92
Village Center (portion) (2)(3) 3.00 20.0 60 60
Subtotal: 43.84 9.8 154 60 57 158 429
Table 2-1:West Area Specific Plan Residential Development Program Land Use
37 Table 2-1: West Area Specific Plan Residential Development Program (Continued) Neighborhood by Ownership Framework
Acres
Planning Area
Density
Projected Target Residential Units Total
NE VC NG-1 NG-2
Bondesen
Planning Area 3.4 (portion) (1) 7.12 6.5 46 46
Planning Area 3.5 (1)(3) 8.07 16.7 135 135
Planning Area 3.6 22.55 11.8 265 265
Planning Area 3.7 14.22 6.6 91 91
Planning Area 3.8 (portion) (1) 7.23 8.6 62 62
Subtotal: 59.19 10.1 137 327 135 599
Mandolora
Planning Area 3.8 (portion) (1) 7.02 7.7 54 54
Planning Area 3.9 18.40 5.9 109 109
Planning Area 3.10 8.50 8.9 76 76
Planning Area 3.11 7.90 11.0 87 87
Planning Area 3.12 6.24 24.0 150 150
Subtotal: 48.06 9.5 109 217 150 476
Total Neighborhood 3 151.09 9.9 400 60 601 443 1,504
Neighborhood 4
Madolora
Planning Area 4.1 18.82 6.3 118 118
Planning Area 4.2 8.37 9.3 78 78
Subtotal: 27.19 7.2 118 78 0 196
Mortensen
Planning Area 4.3 (NG-1) 3.50 8.0 28 28
Planning Area 4.3 (NG-2) 2.14 20.6 44 44
Planning Area 4.4 11.69 6.4 75 75
Planning Area 4.5 13.17 9.0 118 118
Planning Area 4.6 14.61 5.4 79 79
Subtotal: 45.11 7.6 154 146 44 344
Total Neighborhood 4 72.30 7.5 272 224 44 540
OTHERS 1.00 7.0 7 7
TOTAL WEST AREA 480.55 9.0 1,361 91 1,803 1,085 4,340
Total West GP Target 1,671 97 1,519-1,953 651-1,085 4,340 General Plan % Range N/A N/A 35%-45% 15%-25%
GP % Density Ranges (du/ac) 4.5 to 7 10 min. 9-15 16-24

4.5 to 7 10 min. 7 to 14 16 to 24
(1) Assumes boundary adjustments between property owners in some areas to make each Planning Area a single ownership or the proportion of units projected for ownerships that remain in two ownerships. (2) Assumes density of 20 du/nra for the General Plan allocation of units for the Village Center (minimum density 10 du/nra). The conversion of commercial floor area to dwelling units may be applied within the Village Center in accordance with Section 3.9.3.
(3) The provision for the conversion of commercial floor area to dwelling units may be applied to the Village Center and subareas that abut the Village Center (Subareas 1.6, eastern five- acre portion of 1.7,

3.1, and 3.5) (see Section 3.9.3). These areas may be built at a minimum density of 30 du/nra to a maximum of 40 du/nra as long as the General Plan required density mix is met.

NOTE: See Table 3-6 for refined density calculations.

27 City of Salinas | West Area Specific Plan, December 2019 Introduction Figure 1-9: Zoning Map Upon
Adoption of Specific Plan

2.14 3.26 AC.

2.38 AC.
of Speci
Upon Adoption
Zoning Map
c Plan
FIGURE 1-9

PUBLIC/SEMIPUBLIC (PS)

PARKS (P)

VILLAGE CENTER (VC)
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (NG-2)
NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL 2/
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (NG-1)
NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL 1/

LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (NE)

NEIGHBORHOOD EDGE/
FIGURE 1-9

NEIGHBORHOOD

LOW DENSITY RE

NEIGHBORHOOD

MEDIUM DENSIT

NEIGHBORHOOD

HIGH DENSITY R

VILLAGE CENTER

PARKS (P)

PUBLIC/SEMIPUB

OPEN SPACE

Central Area Specific Plan, June 2020 Introduction
18 Figure 1-4 Existing Conditions
APN
ARCIA
211-013-00'Z
(NOT

ANNEXED
APN 211-013-011

SETTRINI (NO'F

ANNEXED)
APN 211-013-012

NATIVIDAD ROAD,
APN 211-013-010

IGAZRANCH
(NOT ANNEXED)

APN - -
APN 153-091-00

CHRISTENSEN
I�
IPN 211-013-003

SETTRINI (NOT
ANNEXE
· BORON AD RD
APN 153-091-003
----MANNING,

LARRYNOON

CENTRAL AREA ZONING CENTRAL AREA ZONING

DISTRICT PLAN LEGEND DISTRICT PLAN LEGEND

MAP MAP

COLOR ZONING DISTRICT COLOR ZONING DISTRICT
■ VILLAGE CENTER -B □

NEIGHBORHOOD
(24-31 UNITS/AC)
(7-8
EDGE-B

UNITS/AC)
□ VILLAGE CENTER -A □

NEIGHBORHOOD
(18-24 UNITS/AC)
(5-6
EDGE-A

UNITS/AC)
■

NEIGHBORHOOD

PUBLIC, QUASI PUBLIC
(14-16

GENERAL-C

UNITS/AC)

RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY
□
NEIGHBORHOOD ■ GENERAL-B PARKS
(9-10 UNITS/AC)
□

NEIGHBORHOOD
□ GENERAL-A OPEN SPACE
(8-9 UNITS/AC)
---- PEDESTRIAN PATHS
SALINAS, LLC APN 153-091-017

HARTNELL COLLE

SSELLROAD FOUNDATION
-� � � �
APN 153-091-01

PROBERT&
r
---

CODIROLI
APN 153-071-034

SCAGLIOTTI, PURA
APN 153-071-035

SCAGLIOTTI, PURA
APN 153-071-03

SCAGLIOTTI,
APN
PURA
153-071-011

SCAGLIOTTI, PURA
APN 153-091-008

HARTNELL COLLEGE

FOUNDATION
o{o
e1:
'1c;,� lil
,,
0-10
APN 153-091-009

HARTNELL

COLLEGE

FOUNDATION
APN 153-091-010

HARTNELL COLLEGE

FOUNDATION

APPENDIXG

LAND USE PLAN
I 1T1T1T1i1T r

SCALE BAR

Salinas City CouncilJune 20, 2023

Salinas City Council
June 20, 2023